Northern Australia Irrigation Futures: Origin, Evolution and Future ...

Northern Australia Irrigation Futures: Origin, Evolution and Future Directions for the Development of a Sustainability Framework Jeff K. Camkin, Bart M. Kellett and Keith L. Bristow

CRC for Irrigation Futures Technical Report No. 11/07 CSIRO Land and Water Science Report 73/07 November 2007

Copyright and Disclaimer © 2007 CSIRO, LWA, NPSI, CRC IF, Australian Government, Queensland Government, Northern Territory Government and Government of Western Australia. This work is copyright. Photographs, cover artwork and logos are not to be reproduced, copied or stored by any process without the written permission of the copyright holders or owners. All commercial rights are reserved and no part of this publication covered by copyright may be reproduced, copied or stored in any form or by any means for the purpose of acquiring profit or generating monies through commercially exploiting (including but not limited to sales) any part of or the whole of this publication except with the written permission of the copyright holders. However, the copyright holders permit any person to reproduce or copy the text and other graphics in this publication or any part of it for the purposes or research, scientific advancement, academic discussion, record-keeping, free distribution, educational use or for any other public use or benefit provided that any such reproduction or copy (in part or in whole) acknowledges the permission of the copyright holders and its source (the name and authors of this publication is clearly acknowledged. Important Disclaimer: CSIRO Land and Water advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO Land and Water (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it. The contents of this publication do not purport to represent the position of the Project Partners1 in any way and are presented for the purpose of informing and stimulating discussion for improved decision making regarding irrigation in northern Australia. ISSN: 1834-6618

1

The Project Partners are: CSIRO, Land and Water Australia, National Program for Sustainable Irrigation, CRC for Irrigation Futures, and the Governments of Australia, Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia.

Northern Australia Irrigation Futures: Origin, Evolution and Future Directions for the Development of a Sustainability Framework Jeff K. Camkin1, Bart M. Kellett2 and Keith L. Bristow3 1

CSIRO Land and Water / CRC for Irrigation Futures, Private Bag 5, Wembley WA 6913 2 CSIRO Land and Water / CRC for Irrigation Futures / University of Melbourne, PMB Aitkenvale, Townsville QLD 4814 3 CSIRO Land and Water / CRC for Irrigation Futures, PMB Aitkenvale, Townsville QLD 4814

CRC for Irrigation Futures Technical Report No. 11/07 CSIRO Land and Water Science Report 73/07 November 2007

Origin, Evolution and Future Directions of the NAIF Sustainability Framework

3-of-48

Acknowledgements This work has been carried out as part of a suite of activities being undertaken by the Northern Australia Irrigation Futures (NAIF) project. The NAIF project is funded by a number of private and public investors including the National Program for Sustainable Irrigation, the Cooperative Research Centre for Irrigation Futures, the Australian Government and the Governments of the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia, and their support is gratefully acknowledged. We also thank Tim Stubbs and Joan Meecham for comments on earlier drafts of this report.


4-of-48

Executive Summary Northern Australia holds an iconic status for many Australians. The interplay between the landscapes, rivers and strongly monsoonal weather patterns has resulted in unique and diverse ecological systems that will need special care to retain their integrity. At the same time, with some 60-70 per cent of Australia’s fresh water discharging from tropical rivers, there are pressures from various quarters to extract some of the water, including for irrigated agriculture. There is a unique and historic opportunity to ensure that management of Australia’s northern water resources takes place within a strategic, ecologically, culturally and economically sustainable framework. There is widespread awareness of the opportunity to learn from previous decisions that have resulted in irrigation systems that are degraded or degrading. There is also increasing recognition of the need to view and manage northern Australia through a ‘northern lens’ which takes account of the national and international context. Deciding on whether to expand irrigation in northern Australia, and if so what irrigation should look like, where it should be located, and how it should be managed, requires improved understanding of river and catchment attributes and the risks and benefits associated with irrigation. Various studies are underway to improve that understanding and ensure decisions are made with the best information available about the long term implications for tropical catchments. The NAIF project is a collaborative arrangement between the Australian, Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australian governments, the Cooperative Research Centre for Irrigation Futures, Land and Water Australia, the National Program for Sustainable Irrigation and CSIRO. The project, which is delivered through CSIRO, aims to develop new knowledge, tools and processes, including an overarching framework, to support debate and decision making regarding irrigation in northern Australia. Initially NAIF aimed to “…deliver a framework based on sustainability indicators and management criteria at a range of scales (field, farm, district, scheme, and catchment) to support planning, development, implementation and management of new schemes, and if necessary, modification of existing schemes across northern Australia.” While much of the initial aim remains, thinking about the framework has shifted considerably as the research has progressed. As issues of resilience, complexity, uncertainty, managing risk and adaptive management emerged through the research, the focus shifted away from developing a sustainability framework based on a set of biophysical indicators. As the social process of irrigation decision-making became more prominent, the focus shifted towards a framework or suite of simple tools and processes that could support communities and decision-makers deal with complexity and uncertainty in a comprehensive, transparent and inclusive way that addresses the important environmental, social, economic and external issues relevant to a particular location or irrigation decision. We also examined the use of new and emerging web-based environments to enhance the ability to manage irrigation within a catchment context. This report summarises the findings of the research to date on the sustainability framework. Relevant international and national commitments and changes to water resource governance structures are briefly outlined as these provide important context. Early research followed a prescriptive path when it was thought that a set or framework of biophysical indicators with guidelines on how they should be used would be a useful product. Ongoing research and discussions with stakeholders indicated that such an approach would not sufficiently capture social and economic issues and, therefore,


5-of-48

would not address the complex, subjective and site-specific nature of irrigation and water resources decision-making. The research focus shifted to a more detailed analysis of decision-making processes and the natural and human context in which such decisions are made. From this research we identified the potential for using emerging on-line technology to support debate and decision-making by accessing through central framework knowledge, tools and processes needed to support irrigation and water resource decision-making, together with knowledge, tools and processes that support understanding of the complex systems (catchments) that irrigation is, or could, take place within. The findings of research into decision-making processes and the use of web-based frameworks to support sustainability are documented in this report. As the research evolved, six versions of a conceptual sustainability framework were developed. The evolution of the conceptual sustainability framework is described in this report with the latest version explained in detail. Based on this research, which has been strongly influenced by activities to address similar challenges in Australia and internationally, a web-based sustainability framework to support irrigation and water resources planning and decision-making by improving access to knowledge, tools and processes relevant to northern Australia is proposed. The conceptual sustainability framework is an on-line tool, comprising of three linked components, which could be applied at the whole of northern Australia and, progressively, catchment and sub-catchment scales. The three components are: •

Component 1 - generation, compilation and synthesis of new and existing knowledge, tools and processes to support integrated decision making and management relevant to irrigation in northern Australia

•

Component 2 - generation, compilation and synthesis of new and existing knowledge, tools and processes to support understanding of the complex social ecological systems (catchments) that irrigation takes place or could take place within

•

Component 3 - a record of project activities and outputs, including published reports, presentations etc.

Users of the framework would use one or more of the three components to access further information and understanding at increasing levels of detail. It is envisaged that the sustainability framework could be applied at a range of scales and could be adapted to issues other than irrigation and locations other than northern Australia. This report documents the research to date and suggests future directions for further research and development of the sustainability framework based on feedback from a wide range of stakeholders and the NAIF Steering Committee up to and including its meeting on 21 November 2006. Research and development after that time will be documented in subsequent reports.


6-of-48

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary...................................................................................................... 5 Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... 7 1 Introduction and Purpose of this Report ............................................................ 8 2 Background............................................................................................................ 9 2.1 2.2

3

Key Research Areas............................................................................................ 12 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5

4

Version 1 ..................................................................................................................... 28 Version 2 ..................................................................................................................... 29 Version 3 ..................................................................................................................... 29 Version 4 ..................................................................................................................... 30 Version 5 ..................................................................................................................... 31 Version 6 ..................................................................................................................... 32

Version 6 of the Sustainability Framework in Detail ........................................ 34 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4

6 7 8 9

Visioning ...................................................................................................................... 13 Planning and Assessment........................................................................................... 14 Monitoring and Reporting ............................................................................................ 15 Control Structures........................................................................................................ 16 A Selection of Existing Framework Approaches ......................................................... 17

Evolution of the Sustainability Framework Concept ....................................... 28 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6

5

International and National Context ................................................................................ 9 The Northern Australia Irrigation Futures Project........................................................ 10

Overview...................................................................................................................... 34 Component 1: Integrated Decision-Making and Management.................................... 36 Component 2: Understanding Complex Social-Ecological Systems........................... 37 Component 3: Project Activities and Outputs.............................................................. 40

Summary of Key Findings about the Sustainability Framework Concept ..... 42 Assessment against Objectives......................................................................... 43 Future Research Directions................................................................................ 44 References ........................................................................................................... 46


7-of-48

1 Introduction and Purpose of this Report This report summarises the findings to date of research into the development of a sustainability framework. There is a body of research that has run in parallel with, and therefore, contributed to the evolution of the sustainability framework. We provide context for the research, summarise the research and describe its influence on the thinking and development of the sustainability framework. The NAIF research is developing a sustainability framework that aims to: •

Capture the necessary information for supporting debate and transparent decision-making regarding irrigation in northern Australia.

•

Be used by policy makers, regulators, community organisations, managers, and investors to make better decisions on if and where to irrigate in northern Australia, what northern irrigation systems could look like, and how they should be managed to meet social, cultural, environmental and economic sustainability objectives.

•

Allow assessment of the performance of existing irrigation areas to help determine if and what changes may be necessary to make them more sustainable.

Versions of the conceptual sustainability framework are presented and we discuss the thinking behind the evolution of the constituent concepts and components. Using this background work and discussions with stakeholders, we reflect on how well the sustainability framework meets its objectives, which were set at the beginning of the project. Lastly, we give a detailed account of what we think the sustainability framework should look like and do, and propose future work for its development. The purpose of this report is, therefore, to describe where we have come from, where we are now, and where we propose to go with regard to the development, testing and application of the NAIF sustainability framework. A draft of this report was prepared to obtain feedback from the NAIF Steering Committee and other interested parties. Feedback from the Steering Committee confirmed the research direction as appropriate and the development of a sustainability framework prototype was requested in order to demonstrate the concept further. This paper documents the research to date and suggests future directions for research and development of the sustainability framework prototype based on feedback from the NAIF Steering Committee up to and including its meeting on 21 November 2006.


8-of-48

2 Background 2.1 International and National Context This research project takes place within the context of several very significant milestones in environment, water and irrigation over the last two decades. This section provides an overview of those milestones. The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) published the report “Our Common Future” , which became known as the Brundtland Report, in 1987 (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1997). That report established some of the guiding principles for sustainable development and called for a strategy that united development and the environment. It defined sustainable development as: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Australia’s response to the Brundtland Report was the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (NSESD), adopted by all tiers of Government in Australia at the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting in December 1992. The NSESD defined ecologically sustainable development (ESD) as: “Using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased” (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992). The NSESD has five key principles of ESD, repeated here because of their direct relevance to this research: 1. Integrating economic and environmental goals in policies and activities 2. Ensuring that environmental assets are properly valued 3. Providing for equity within and between generations 4. Dealing cautiously with risk and irreversibility 5. Recognising the global dimension. In 1994 COAG adopted a national policy for the efficient and sustainable reform of Australia’s rural and urban water sectors, known as the COAG Water Reform Framework. The framework was formulated in response to concern about the state of many of Australia’s river systems and a recognition that an important part of the solution lay in significant policy and institutional change. The 1994 Water Reform Framework was updated by COAG through the National Water Initiative (NWI). The NWI Inter-Governmental Agreement was signed by the Australian Government and most Australian States and Territories in 2004, with Tasmania (2005) and Western Australia (2006) signing later. The overall objective of the NWI is to achieve a nationally compatible market, regulatory and planning based system of managing surface and groundwater resources for rural and urban use that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes. Changes to governance arrangements in Australia since 2004, at both the state/territory and national level, reflect widespread recognition of the growing


9-of-48

importance of water resource management. In 2004 the National Water Commission (NWC) was established under the National Water Commission Act 2004 as an independent statutory body in the Prime Minister’s portfolio. The role of the NWC is to drive the national water reform agenda and to provide advice to COAG and the Australian Government on national water issues. The NWC administers $1.8bn of the $2bn Australian Government Water Fund, established to invest in water infrastructure, improved water management and better practices in the stewardship of Australia’s scarce water resources. In September 2006 the Federal Government announced the establishment of a new Office of Water Resources within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The Office coordinated policy advice on water, reporting to the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister with Special Responsibility for Water. On 25th January 2007 the Prime Minister announced a $10bn, 10 point National Strategy for Water Security to improve water efficiency and address over-allocation of water in rural Australia. The Strategy also includes the establishment of a Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce and to examine the potential for further land and water development in Northern Australia, with particular emphasis on the identification of the capacity of the north to play a role in future agricultural development. The Taskforce will take into account work by a Northern Australia Land and Water Futures Assessment and will provide a final report by March 2009. In 2007 the Australian Government also established the Department of the Environment and Water Resources (DEWR), formerly the Department of Environment and Heritage, to develop and implement national policy, programs and legislation to protect and conserve Australia’s natural environment and cultural heritage. Since 2004 the institutional structures for water resource management have also been modified in each of the northern jurisdictions of WA, NT and QLD. WA established a new Department of Water in 2005, QLD created a Department of Natural Resources and Water and the NT has internally restructured the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and The Arts to provide more focus on water resources.

2.2 The Northern Australia Irrigation Futures Project Northern Australia holds an iconic status for many Australians. The interplay between the landscapes, rivers and strongly monsoonal weather patterns has resulted in unique and diverse ecological systems that will need special care to retain their integrity. At the same time, with some 60-70 per cent of Australia’s fresh water discharging from tropical rivers, there are pressures from various quarters to extract some of the water, including for irrigated agriculture. A unique and historic opportunity exists to ensure that management of Australia’s northern water resources takes place within a strategic, ecologically, culturally and economically sustainable framework. There is widespread awareness of the opportunity to learn from previous decisions that have resulted in degraded or degrading irrigation systems elsewhere and increasing recognition of the need to view and manage through a ‘northern lens’. Deciding on whether to irrigate in northern Australia, and if so what irrigation should look like, where it should be located, and how it should be managed, requires improved understanding of river and catchment attributes and the risks and benefits associated with irrigation. The NAIF project was established in 2003 to provide new knowledge, tools and processes to support debate and decision making about irrigation in northern Australia. NAIF draws on past experience of irrigation and the development of new


10-of-48

knowledge of groundwater systems and irrigation mosaics to help build the necessary understanding. The objectives of NAIF are: 1. To delineate key landscape attributes (including soil & water resources, climate, vegetation, rivers, near shore marine environments, & where appropriate links to people, industries, markets) relevant to ecologically sustainable irrigation across northern Australia 2. To use key landscape attributes to develop sustainability indicators and associated management criteria covering a range of scales (field, farm, district, irrigation scheme, catchment) for northern Australia 3. To develop an overall framework that, through their involvement, is embraced by policy makers, regulators, investors and managers, to help ensure any irrigation is managed in a consistent, ecologically sustainable manner in northern Australia 4. To use a number of linked case studies and stakeholder input to support and inform development and testing of the framework 5. Through provision of a robust framework, contribute tools and knowledge to support considered debate, decision making and long term strategic planning for northern Australia & Australia as a whole. NAIF focuses on the catchment of northern Australia (above the Tropic of Capricorn) and takes a long-term, strategic view with an outlook of 50 years plus. Not a traditional research project, the NAIF was established as a journey of discovery in which important processes and products would be developed as the project evolves, with new activities are added and others completed over time.


11-of-48

3 Key Research Areas Several approaches could be taken to developing a conceptual sustainability framework. One is a prescriptive or deductive approach, involving using experience and knowledge to consciously design an end-product, the concept which guides much of the traditional approach to research. Another is the emergent or inductive approach, which involves using case examples that reveal lessons, ideas and/or information for the emergent design and development of a product. Reflection on how the NAIF sustainability framework has evolved indicates we have used a combination of these approaches. Initially NAIF aimed to “…deliver a framework based on sustainability indicators and management criteria at a range of scales (field, farm, district, scheme, and catchment) to support planning, development, implementation and management of new schemes, and if necessary, modification of existing schemes across northern Australia.” While much of the initial aim remains, thinking about the framework has shifted considerably as the research has progressed. Preliminary research followed the prescriptive path and we thought that a set or framework of biophysical indicators with guidelines on how they should be used would be a useful product. Ongoing research and discussions with stakeholders indicated that such an approach would not sufficiently capture social and economic issues and therefore would not address the complex, subjective and sitespecific nature of irrigation and water resources decision-making. As issues of resilience, complexity, uncertainty, managing risk and adaptive management emerged through the research, the focus shifted away from developing a sustainability framework based on a set of biophysical indicators. As the social process of irrigation decision-making became more prominent, the focus shifted towards a framework or suite of simple tools that could support communities and decision-makers deal with complexity and uncertainty in a comprehensive, transparent and inclusive way that addresses the important environmental, social, economic and external issues relevant to a particular location or irrigation decision. The research focus then shifted to a more detailed analysis of decision-making processes and the natural and human context in which such decisions are made. Our attention turned to the irrigation development process, and stages in the process that represent the different areas of irrigation planning and management, including visioning, planning and assessment, and monitoring and reporting. Research on visioning included a review of visioning and scenario planning processes (Kellett 2005). Research on planning and assessment included the evaluation of Ecological Risk Assessment workshops (Kellett et al. 2005a and Kellett et al. 2007) and the development of a Bayesian network model (Kellett 2008). Research on monitoring and reporting included a comparative review of indicator frameworks (Kellett et al. 2005b) and implementation of Triple Bottom Line reporting processes (Christen et al. 2006). Research on control structures included a review of legislation, policy, organisations and initiatives relevant to the management of water and irrigation in northern Australia (Hegarty et al. 2007). With a feel for the direction this research was taking us, we then began researching approaches taken in other areas and fields to address similar complex challenges. As case studies, we used decision-making tools (e.g. models) and processes (e.g. decision-making processes) to investigating how decision making can be improved in each area. We also examined the use of new and emerging web-based environments to enhance the ability to manage irrigation within a catchment context. Findings from these research activities are set out in the next sections.


12-of-48

3.1 Visioning Context for Visioning A development idea may arise from a range of sources, including an investor, the government, a farmer, or a water service provider and the idea can be small such as the installation of a groundwater pump or large, such as the establishment of a new irrigation scheme. The idea needs to be discussed with the relevant authorities and checked with the relevant natural resource management and development plans to determine consistency with existing regulations and community aspirations. For development that is large scale or uses valuable resources, such as an irrigation scheme, direct community consultation is often required by law. For example, the WA Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 requires large water licence applications to be advertised for public comment. Decisions on whether irrigation has a future in a particular region or location are often difficult as there are usually strong pro and con stances taken. This stems from awareness that early influence is often the strongest. If irrigation is to have a future in a particular region, community aspirations may or may not be applied to shape the development idea. These aspirations can be developed through visioning exercises, where a broad range of community members come together to articulate their values in terms of options for the future. Key Findings from the Review of Visioning and Scenario Planning Research on visioning and scenario planning are presented in Kellett (2005) and Kellett et al. (2008). Key findings are: •

To develop outputs useful to, and supported by community and planners, visioning must be undertaken as part of existing processes, and not as an activity isolated from regional / catchment planning

•

Visions can be high level and aspirational – these usually find wide acceptance as individuals and groups can find room in these visions for their activities and agendas

•

Translating high level visions to development options for the future is where competing interests arise

•

Visioning that involves the development of alternative future scenarios can help communities prepare for change in two ways: (1) it can result in the development of plans that set out responses to possible futures, and (2) it can build community capacity by strengthening social networks, trust, cooperative relationships, and knowledge integration

•

There are opportunities for the development of computerised visualisation tools to support the development of visions and development scenarios – these tools (eg VENSIM, AMOEBA) could aid in discussions on the consequences of different scenarios

•

Indicator frameworks and modelling frameworks can also be used to facilitate discussions on the consequences of different scenarios.

Influence of these Findings AMOEBA and Bayesian Belief Networks were found to be potentially useful tools for inclusion in an irrigation decision-making toolkit or sustainability framework.


13-of-48

3.2 Planning and Assessment Context for Planning and Assessment In the planning and assessment stage, the proponent turns a development idea into a plan. For large scale development, this is typically an exercise involving engineering design and consultation with government and community reference groups. For smaller works, this may involve an irrigator designing an on-farm irrigation system or a consultant offering advice about the right layout, infrastructure and operational rules for the job. Organisations and individuals planning irrigation may use assessment criteria to guide them through the task. For large scale development these criteria are administered by government agencies and cover infrastructure requirements, environmental impacts, and socio-economic considerations. Some irrigation planning and assessment decisions are intuitive and based substantially on the experience of the decision makers, where planners and assessors make judgements on how to ‘manage environmental impacts to acceptable levels’ and ‘design ecologically sustainable irrigation.’ Key Findings from the Development of a Bayesian Network Model Research on integrating modelling with catchment and irrigation management is ongoing. Key findings are (Kellett 2008): •

Models can be viewed as tools for advising, educating, or mutual learning

•

For advising, models are used to integrate data for optimising management decisions, where calculations and processes in the development of the models are not explicitly discussed

•

For education, the background calculations and processes represented in models are more widely discussed; system understanding is translated into forms usable in models, and models are used to educate managers about the system.

•

For mutual learning, models have a role in helping both scientists and managers (e.g. irrigators) learn, negotiate and rethink system understanding, facilitate the development of best management practices, and help managers identify issues associated with their management practices

•

Modelling with existing communities of practice (a group of people who come together for the purpose of learning e.g. grower groups) with a mutual learning approach, can build trust and cooperation, which facilitates the integration and adaptation of management practices.

Key Findings from the Evaluation of an Ecological Risk Assessment Workshop Research on the application of Ecological Risk Assessment is presented in Kellett et al. (2005a) and Kellett et al. (2007). Key findings are: •

ERA requires extensive stakeholder and practitioner discussions and negotiations in the planning stage

•

The definition of decision problems for ERA requires constant triangulation from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders who will be involved in the process – this can help to avoid problems associated with blame and defensiveness

•

ERA can appear to prioritise ecological over social and economic objectives, which can reduce some stakeholders’ support for the process – therefore ERA needs to be better communicated to stakeholders as an overall strategic contribution to catchment management, whereby outputs of ERA are combined with outputs of processes that investigate social and economic issues


14-of-48

•

Practitioners must be open and willing to negotiate the decision problems on which ERA is based both during workshop planning and during the workshops – this helps to ensure that the process is widely accepted

•

Debate is an important part of decision making and ERA, but if participants are unable to negotiate the focus and approach to be adopted for the ERA, then it indicates a process that is neither equitable nor transparent

•

If stakeholders’ provide expert opinion or information that is translated into risk models, it should also be transcribed and reported alongside model outputs to qualify conclusions.

Influence of these Findings This work highlighted the importance of early stakeholder involvement in irrigation decision-making processes and that ecological risk assessment was another useful tool for inclusion in an irrigation decision-making toolkit or sustainability framework.

3.3 Monitoring and Reporting Context for Monitoring and Reporting After plans are implemented, development is monitored and reported on to provide information for adapting irrigation systems to meet performance objectives. Monitoring activities associated with irrigation are diverse: irrigators monitor farm production, water quality, and soil; processing plants monitor production at larger scales; water service providers monitor water delivery and drainage networks; government agencies monitor natural resources; and community groups monitor particular environments such as wetlands and biota such as frogs. Similarly, there is large diversity in irrigation-related reporting, ranging from compulsory financial reporting for water and irrigation organisations to periodic water quality reporting by government agencies to newspapers reporting on particular events such as fish kills. Due to the diversity of requirements and the procedural standards often required to obtain useful results, comprehensive monitoring can be both difficult and expensive. An emerging technology platform which will provide an Australia-wide network of water information systems delivering dynamic, timely reporting and forecasting of Australia’s water resources that has the potential to be highly relevant to monitoring and reporting on irrigation is the Water Resource Observation Network (WRON; see http://wron.net.au/). The Initiative aims to develop next generation sensor networks to measure parameters such as water quality, levels, volume, velocity and flow to provide an order of magnitude improvement in scale, resolution and frequency of water data sampling. It aims to improve data integrity and management, and improve access to water data and information through new on-line technology. Key Findings from a Review of Indicator Frameworks Research on indicator frameworks is presented in Kellett et al. (2005b). Key findings are: •

Like models, indicator frameworks can be applied in different ways: for advising; for educating; and for mutual learning

•

Measuring sustainability with indicator frameworks implies that what constitutes sustainability (i.e. which indicators) is known – getting to this stage in a transparent and equitable way requires a systems approach

•

A systems approach ensures the following: relationships are not separated from system components; a full range of stakeholders’ perspectives are accepted


15-of-48

and used to negotiate understanding; observers (e.g. users of indicator frameworks) are part of the system; scientific understanding is important, but so too is traditional knowledge and experiences and learning’s of local people •

Some individuals and organisations prefer to measure ‘condition and trends’ or ‘performance’ rather than sustainability. For example, local natural resource management bodies or catchment management authorities report on natural resource condition and their trends and water service providers report on performance in triple bottom line reports. In these situations indicator frameworks can be used to facilitate the following: (i) determine what is important, i.e. values; (ii) develop system understanding; (iii) identify what should be measured for monitoring and reporting purposes, i.e. select indicators according to an understanding of values and system understanding; (iv) set benchmarks for performance, i.e. set thresholds where applicable.

Key Findings from the Implementation of Triple Bottom Line Reporting The CRC for Irrigation Futures Sustainability Challenge Project investigated the use of Triple Bottom Line Reporting (TBL) processes with several irrigation water service organisations. This research is presented in Christen et al. (2006). Findings that are relevant to the development of the NAIF sustainability framework are: •

The Sustainability Challenge Project developed an Irrigation Sustainability Assessment Framework (ISAF). Applying this framework involves organisations, such as water service providers, adapting the framework in a unique way for their conditions and requirements. This process is an important part of the learning cycle for those working towards sustainability.

•

The Sustainability Challenge Project developed recommendations on developing and undertaking a TBL reporting process that makes use of the Irrigation Sustainability Assessment Framework described above. These recommendations are practical ideas based on the experiences of project members collaborating with case study organisations.

Influence of these Findings This research strongly influenced the research direction. While indicators were found to play an important role, the initial intention of developing a simple sustainability framework consisting of a set of biophysical indicators suitable for application across northern Australia was found likely to be insufficient. Methodologies used in TBL were incorporated into later research on the use of ESD component trees.

3.4 Control Structures Context for Control Structures Decisions about irrigation and subsequent management practices do not take place in a vacuum - they are influenced by a wide range of legislative, policy, institutional, customary and other social structures in operation at the time. These influences, which we refer to as control structures, operate at the international, national, state/territory, local government and other levels to constrain and control what can be done and place requirements as to what must be done. Control structures are not static - they are influenced by a range of visioning, planning and assessment, implementation, and monitoring and reporting activities.


16-of-48

Key Findings from a Review of Control Structures Research on control structures is presented in Hegarty et al. (2007) where a range of current international, national and state/territory control structures relevant to northern Australia are presented. Recognising that control structures are constantly changing, Hegarty et al (2007b) presents a prototype of a tool which can be used to identify the control structures which exist for a given jurisdiction at a particular point in time. Key findings from the review of control structures are: •

An understanding of the control structures relevant to a particular location is important to those proposing irrigation developments, to stakeholders with an interest in the proposals and to decision-makers

•

Control structures are not static, they change frequently. Any attempt to comprehensively document the full complement of control structures is likely to be challenging and products will be out of date very quickly

•

Control structures differ widely between state/territory jurisdictions

•

Mechanisms to support proponent, stakeholder and community understanding of the contemporary control structures relevant to their area of interest are an important part of the sustainability framework.

Influence of these Findings The importance of having the right control structures in place, raising awareness and building understanding of them was highlighted, strongly influencing all but very early conceptual thinking on the sustainability framework.

3.5 A Selection of Existing Framework Approaches Accepting for the time being that our research was taking us towards a web-based sustainability framework, we began researching methodologies used in other places and other sectors. The research identified the following examples for consideration: •

Lower Burdekin Knowledge Platform - Queensland, Australia

•

Oregon Coastal Atlas - Oregon, USA

•

Signposts for Australian Agriculture - Bureau of Rural Sciences, Australia

•

Georgia Basin Futures - British Columbia, Canada

•

KT Studios - Western Australia, Australia.

This section documents key findings from this area of research. More detail is provided here than for previous sections as this research has not yet been reported elsewhere. Lower Burdekin Knowledge Platform The Lower Burdekin Knowledge Platform (LBKP, Figure 1) was developed through the Lower Burdekin Initiative, a collaboration involving a broad range of partners and stakeholders with interests in the lower Burdekin. The LBKP is a simple document control system and electronic representation of the synthesis of the most current understanding of water and other biophysical processes in the Lower Burdekin, north Queensland. The LBKP aims to identify knowledge gaps, conflict and uncertainties in relation to those processes, thereby supporting resource managers seeking to improve water resources and water resource management in the Lower Burdekin.


17-of-48

Lower Burdekin Knowledge Platform (LBKP): Main page

Figure 1. The Lower Burdekin Knowledge Platform Main Page

The LBKP is intended to be a web-based knowledge platform that: •

Collates and synthesises the current understanding of technical knowledge of soil-water systems and interactions in the lower Burdekin

•

Articulates the implications of this understanding in terms of floodplain function, water management practices on the floodplain, and water quantity and quality monitoring

•

Presents an overview of major work undertaken in the lower Burdekin, showing how science can make practical improvements in irrigation operations, land and water management

•

Articulates what science, in the form of research, is needed to support improved water management

•

Provides a framework on which to continue further collaborative work between community groups, scientists, industries and government agencies.

The content of the LBKP draws on completed and in-progress works, as well as discussions with stakeholder groups to form a synthesis of biophysical process information for the region. The synthesised knowledge is collated in groupings developed specifically for the Lower Burdekin. Users of the LBKP can click on individual topics for a synthesis of current knowledge on that topic and are referred to source documents for more detailed further information.


18-of-48

The LBKP is currently hosted by CSIRO and is not yet available on the web. A review of the LBKP in 2005 to guide further development provides useful guidance for the sustainability framework. Key points were: • There was strong support for the LBKP concept (“People have been asking for this for several years”) •

The bullet format and ‘drill down’ capability work well

•

The LBKP was not yet a sufficient platform for identifying challenging and controversial water resource management issues

•

A section on major management concerns and the impediments that need to be overcome is required

•

Commitment to the provision of data is critical but problematic if not releasing data is seen to equate to more control or other advantages

•

The target audience needs to be identified and the platform reviewed to ensure language and terminology is suitable for the audience(s)

•

The Platform needs to have a balance of citations of work from contributing individuals and organisations, not be dominated by one.

Oregon Coastal Atlas The Oregon Coastal Atlas (Figure 2) is an interactive map, data, and metadata portal for coastal resources managers and scientists, with additional outreach sections for the general public. The portal enables users to obtain data, but also to understand its original context, and to use it for solving a spatial problem via online tools (Haddad et al, 2005). The genesis of the Oregon Coastal Atlas bares similarities to that of the NAIF project and research on the sustainability framework in particular. The following discussion on the development of the Oregon Coastal Atlas provides an interesting analogy for decisions about irrigation in northern Australia and elsewhere. “The design of the atlas draws from the reality that resource decision-making applications require much more than simple access to data. Resource managers commonly make decisions that involve modelling risk, assessing cumulative impacts and weighing proposed alternatives to ecosystem functions and values. These decisions involve pulling together knowledge from disparate disciplines such as biology, geology, oceanography, hydrology, chemistry and engineering. Practitioners within each one of these disciplines are often vested in the technologies that dominate the market within their particular field. This presents significant data integration difficulties for investigators involved in management decisions that are inherently interdisciplinary.” “The data difficulties experienced by local level decision-makers are commonly a result of combinations of limited time, access to data sources, technology platforms, physical media or training. The common outcome is that resource decisions are often made with whatever information is readily at hand, regardless of whether it represents a full and accurate picture of relevant status. Staff time at the local level is often in such short supply that it is highly unrealistic that significant “data mining” and conversion be expected to occur to alleviate this problem.” (Haddad et al, 2005).


19-of-48

Figure 2. Oregon Coastal Atlas Home Page

“The Oregon Coastal Atlas is a “portal” to interactive maps, and data and metadata collected by local, state, and federal agencies, and researchers. Users of the Web site can search a wide variety of data, which can be viewed in their original context or manipulated to solve spatial problems using on-line tools.” “The problem, he (Paul Klarin) says, was that data were being collected in a variety of incompatible formats, scales, and projections by state, local, and federal agencies, and university researchers. Once completed, projects often sat on a shelf or were forgotten as staff moved on to new projects or positions. The data essentially was in the hands of those project people and wasn’t available for distribution. I wanted to find a way to keep it and distribute it, and make it useful for everybody. “We’re never looking towards finishing the project and putting it in a box. Technology is not like that and the user community is not like that.” (http://www.csc.noaa.gov). The goal of the Oregon Coastal Atlas is “...to address these problems by incorporating a variety of geospatial data and tools within a common framework.” (http://www.coastalatlas.net). The Oregon Coastal Atlas went live in December 2002 and in 2005 had over 2.5 million hits (Oregon Coastal Atlas Traffic Reports & User Feedback - see www.coastalatlas.net/traffic.asp). Of particular interest for the development of the NAIF sustainability framework is the Marine Visioning Tool (Figure 3). The Marine Visioning Tool is an electronic document control system that provides information about key aspects of the marine landscape,


20-of-48

categorised into time scales, fluids, physical, plankton, benthos, nekton and human. Each of these categories contains two to five subjects. Similar to the LBKP, the Marine Visioning Tool has been designed to allow the user to learn about a category or subject by accessing synthesised information (eg climate variability on the Oregon Coast). The Marine Visioning Tool has the additional functionality of allowing users to read synthesised information about the interconnectedness of two subjects (eg relationship between climate variability and commercial fisheries). Also similar to the LBKP, users access key information, such as a synthesis of current knowledge, selected references, suggestions for further reading, and important hotlinks.

Figure 3. Oregon Coastal Atlas Marine Visioning Tool Main Page

The objective of incorporating data and tools within a common framework is consistent with conceptual thinking on the NAIF sustainability framework where the objective is to incorporate and provide access to knowledge, tools and processes on decision-making and knowledge, tools and processes on complex social-ecological systems in a single framework. Signposts for Australian Agriculture The Signposts for Australian Agriculture project was established in 2004 to look at the role of agriculture in natural resource management, economic growth and community life. The Signposts project has three major aims and stages: •

“Stage 1 of the project developed a draft framework and associated outcome statements and indicators for measuring the contribution of agricultural


21-of-48

industries to ecologically sustainable development, together with initial profiles of selected agricultural land users (Chesson and Whitworth, 2005) •

Stage 2 of the project uses the results of the initial pilot to form the basis for consultation and refinement of the framework with a broader range of industries and the states, culminating in the publication of a robust and agreed framework suitable for reporting

•

Stages 3 and 4 of the project will seek to use the agreed framework to underpin a 'Signposts for Australian Agriculture' report identifying agriculture’s contributions to ecologically sustainable development in Australia.” (Chesson et al, 2005).

The Signposts framework has been designed to address the key question: How does an agricultural industry contribute to ecologically sustainable development? Where ecologically sustainable development (ESD) is defined as: “Using conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased (National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, Commonwealth of Australia, 1992).” The Stage 2a Final Report of Signposts provides important guidance for the NAIF sustainability framework. The Signposts key question was selected because it was the most inclusive question that can be asked of an industry and directly addresses a policy that has been adopted by all Australian governments. The question provides a unifying link between a fundamental high level policy (ecologically sustainable development) and individual policies and management actions at all levels. Signposts recognises that economic systems are imbedded within social systems which are in turn imbedded within bio-physical systems (Figure 4).

Bio-physical systems

Human systems

Natural capital

Economic systems

Human capital Produced capital Social capital

$

Figure 4. Economic systems, social systems and bio-physical systems with their associated capital assets (Chesson et al, 2005).


22-of-48

Rather than aggregate to a single summary measurement, the aim of Signposts is to unpack the components of sustainable development to the point at which they connect with particular policy and management decisions. The Signposts framework recognises that an industry ‘owns’ some capital assets as well as adding to and subtracting from the capital assets ‘owned’ by others. The contributions of an industry to sustainable development can be measured in terms of the value of the industry’s assets (stocks) plus the value of the contributions it makes to assets held by others (flows). Signposts recognises that any industry makes contributions to economic, social and bio-physical systems. These contributions are in the form of positive and negative impacts on the assets held within those systems by the industry and on the assets within those systems that are beyond the industry. Working with key stakeholders, Signposts then developed a generic structure which broke down each of the components into sub-components (Figure 5). For example, wealth is an economic asset held by the industry but income is a contribution beyond the industry through exports and domestic sales. Individuals (human capital) are an asset held by the industry but employing workers contributes to local and regional communities that are beyond the industry. The capacity of land to produce food and fibre, and other ecosystem services, is an asset held by the industry but the effects through removal of resources from other systems (eg energy, feed and land) is a contribution beyond the industry. The sub-components equate to the groupings of issues to assist understanding of the complex social-ecological systems that irrigation takes place within, shown in Version 5 of the NAIF sustainability framework. Version 6 of the sustainability framework draws from the Signposts project representation of economic activity being imbedded within social and ecological systems. This provides a convenient method of rolling up the subcomponents into the three parts of sustainability that are easily identified. Further information on the Signposts for Australian Agriculture project is available at http://www.nlwra.gov.au/topics.asp?section=56. The Grains Research Development Corporation (GRDC) is applying the Signposts framework to the Australian grains industry. Further information is available at http://www.signposts4ag.com/signpostsgrains.


23-of-48

Contributions of the ABC Industry to ESD

Contributions of the industry to economic systems

Economic assets held by the industry

Wealth

Contributions to economic systems beyond the industry

Income Exports Domestic sales Productivity

Contributions of the industry to social systems

Human assets held by the industry (value of human and social capital) Individuals (human capital) demography health education Industry institutions and organisations (social capital)

Contributions of the industry to bio-physical systems

Contributions to human systems extending beyond the industry

Bio-physical assets held by the industry (value of natural capital)

Individuals

Capacity of land to produce food and fibre

Self identify Health Other lifestyle benefits Local and regional communities

Climate (rainfall, temperature) Soil Biota Agricultural species

Employment Community networks Community heritage National community Public health National identity

Genetic diversity/integrity Animal welfare Pests, weeds and diseases Capacity of land to provide other ecosystem services Biodiversity conservation Carbon sequestration Cultural (non-material) services

Figure 5. Modified Signposts component tree showing both components and sub-components (Chesson et al, 2005)


24-of-48

Contributions to biophysical systems beyond the industry

Effects of the industry on the water cycle Water balance Water quality Effects of the industry on atmosphere and climate Effects of the industry on 'other' bio-physical systems Through removal of resources from other systems (energy, feed, land) Through releases to other systems (pests, land)

Georgia Basin Futures Project The Georgia Basin Futures Project was a five year research project that combined expert knowledge and considered public opinion to explore pathways to sustainability. The project explored how the citizens of the Georgia Basin region on the west coast of British Columbia, Canada, could learn to live within the limits of natural ecosystems, while improving human well being. The project aimed to increase the level of understanding of how complex ecological, social and economic systems interact and to discover new ways of achieving a sustainable future. The project, which consists of several parts, aimed to leave a legacy of: •

Relevant policies and technologies for a sustainable future in the Georgia Basin

•

A better informed and more engaged public

•

The most sophisticated databank ever assembled of public preferences and opinions about the future of the Georgia Basin

•

Initiatives that will build on the work of the project for years to come and

•

A future we can all live with (www.basinfutures.net).

Development of GB-QUEST GB-QUEST is an interactive model/game/visioning tool that illustrates the connections between choices across multiple sectors over 40 years, allowing players to develop “what if?” scenarios for the future of the Georgia Basin region. The game uses a ‘back casting’ approach that identifies the most desirable future and explores the trade-offs involved in achieving it. Issues of importance to citizens of Georgia Basin were identified through community engagement. Mathematical equations were used to represent the important ways that these issues interact in nature and society. An interface was developed that people could use and relate to easily, including innovative ways to view relevant information, the ability to ‘zoom’ spatially and to easily compare maps and other results from different scenarios. GB QUEST is available at http://www.basinfutures.net/play_gb_quest.cfm. Policy Analysis This component refined the conceptual framework of the project and undertook sectorspecific analysis of sustainability strategies for the Georgia Basin to 2040. The conceptual framework proposed a definition of sustainability as the simultaneous reconciliation of three imperatives: •

The ecological imperative to remain within Earth’s carrying capacity

•

The economic imperative to ensure adequate material standards of living and

•

The social imperative to create and maintain societies which satisfy individual and community aspirations.

Community Engagement This component investigated the tools and processes necessary for community capacity building, involving the development of criteria for individuals and communities to evaluate various pathways towards a desirable future. Interactive processes to incorporate stakeholder and public views into the research. Strategies This component explored strategies for the implementation of preferred futures, represented by GB-QUEST scenarios, and considered dimensions of social change including policy objectives and instruments, institutional reform, as well as public acceptability and feasibility. The strategies were explored through workshops with project partners and other organisations in the Georgia Basin.


25-of-48

Scenarios In the scenario component, users of GB-QUEST used the software to learn about the trade-offs and consequences involved in various policy and behavioural choices that can be made over the 40-year time horizon of the scenarios. Analysis of the decisions players made elicited values, preferences and beliefs about the strategies and policies required to achieve the preferred scenarios. It was possible to analyse the data for consistent messages about preferred futures, acceptable and unacceptable choices and how views differed according to demographics. Much of what was learned through the Georgia Basin Futures Project will form an important part of further research, development and application of various modelling, simulation and visualisation tools and processes for community engagement through a new Centre for Interactive Research, at the University of British Columbia. The aim of the centre is to create new knowledge and new solutions to urban sustainability faster by collaborating between disciplines, among academic institutions and among public, private and non-profit sectors. The Georgia Basin Future Project demonstrates that the field of web-based tools and processes is developing at a rapid pace and that contemporary, industry specific knowledge needs to be sought. Technology to Support Emerging Understanding of Personal Learning Models Knowledge Technology Studio (KT Studio) is an applied research group established five years ago by the Western Australian Government to better understand the Knowledge Economy and its impacts on WA. Formerly part of the WA Department of Premier and Cabinet, KT Studios’ brief is to explore the use of emerging technologies in the resolution of complex issues facing society. This work includes the development of web-based technologies that help establish and support community networks and partnerships, including through open-source social networking. The important role of the community in irrigation decision-making is widely documented. Developing an understanding of personal learning models (including the different ways individuals learn and share their information and knowledge) and the creation of technological environments to support those models could make a significant contribution to sustainability. Key Findings from the Review of a Selection of Existing Framework Approaches Research to date through the NAIF project supports investigation of web-based options as a key research direction for the sustainability framework. Key findings from the review are: •

A range of web-based tools already exist to improve irrigation decision-making

•

The LBKP demonstrates strong support at the sub-catchment scale for a webbased instrument that better bring together disparate information. The LBKP highlights key challenges as: willingness of parties to provide data, willingness to address and document potentially challenging and controversial management, policy and political issues, resourcing, and reaching agreement on synthesis of knowledge

•

The Oregon Coastal Atlas demonstrates direct parallels with the challenges and opportunities that gave rise to the NAIF project and the sustainability framework idea. The idea of making relevant knowledge and tools more accessible by incorporating them into a single framework is a feature of both.

•

Both the LBKP and the Oregon Coastal Atlas Marine Visioning Tool are relatively simple document control systems focused on making synthesised information more readily available. The major cost of these tools is undertaking


26-of-48

and maintaining the synthesis of knowledge. The LBKP and Oregon Coastal Atlas Marine Visioning Tool both rely on logical groupings of information that match the way the audience is likely to seek information. The ability to access synthesised information about the relationship between components within the Marine Visioning Tool is an important additional feature •

The Signposts for Australian Agriculture project reinforces the notion that economic activities take place within and are part of social systems that in turn take place within and are part of ecological systems. Signposts provides a method of unpacking the performance of an industry to examine the way in which it contributes to ESD

•

The Georgia Basin Futures Project (GBFP) is an example of the use of modern web-based tools to support the development of agreed long term (40 year) visions and to back cast the policies and strategies that need to be implemented to achieve it. The GBFP highlighted the importance of including stakeholders and the community in the development of tools and analysis of application of those tools to building and ownership and understanding

•

There is rapid growth in the development of new approaches to learning, sustainable management and supporting communities of practice in the resolution of complex issues that could be applied to the sustainability framework. There is potential to make better use of internet technologies, rich media, open source tools and open standards for access and interchange that go well beyond the simple but limited functions of the LBKP and Oregon Coastal Atlas

•

The development of these tools requires ongoing and good collaboration between a wide range of experts and stakeholders based on trust, and strong and ongoing commitment at senior levels.

Influence of these Findings This research strongly influenced the direction for research and development of the NAIF sustainability framework. Improvement in the accessibility and use of existing data, information, knowledge and wisdom emerged through testing with stakeholders and the NAIF Steering Committee as an important direction to head.


27-of-48

4 Evolution of the Sustainability Framework Concept Research to date has developed and modified a conceptual sustainability framework. This section describes each version of the framework and how it has helped inform subsequent thinking and later versions.

4.1 Version 1 The earliest version (represented by Figure 6) focussed on sustainability indicators as a means of translating understandings of biophysical system functioning into objectives for management of water and irrigation across a range of spatial scales. As such, we viewed indicators as the key link between biophysical systems and management systems. The impetus in these early stages centred on information to indicate the states and trends in biophysical systems. We considered that a comprehensive understanding of these systems was the most essential element in making decisions on irrigation and water management. Hence, the workings of the framework focused on the biophysical aspects linked with ‘surrounding’ social and economic issues. Discussions with stakeholders at NAIF Project meetings highlighted that social and economic issues are not on the periphery of decision making, but central, and that if the sustainability framework does not recognise this, then its use would most likely be marginal.

SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK LANDSCAPE FUNCTION - CATCHMENT To capture key understanding of how north Australian landscapes function; the key features of sustainability

INDICATORS - INDICATORS OF SUSTAINABILITY To indicate the state and direction of ecosystem health; need to include implications of risk and uncertainty and potential impacts of climate change

MANAGEMENT - SITE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES To provide links between higher level framework indicators and farm practices; a ‘licence to farm’, involving auditable farming system practices linked to water licences

(V1) Figure 6. Version 1 of the sustainability framework


28-of-48

4.2 Version 2 The concept of the irrigation development process was used to guide the development of the second version of the sustainability framework (Figure 7). We thought that different phases (investigation, planning, assessment, monitoring and reporting) in the irrigation development process represent different sets of decision making opportunities and that the sustainability framework could consist of tools or processes to meet some of these decision making opportunities. As such the second version of the sustainability framework incorporated a Vision Tool, a Planning and Assessment Tool, and a Monitoring and Reporting Tool. Each Tool in this version of the sustainability framework would deliver a particular product. For example, a Vision Tool was proposed to deliver a ‘coherent set of criteria for facilitating the investigation of irrigation.’ Further research and discussions with stakeholders suggested that the tools proposed already exist in one form or another and effort should focus on the development of a framework that improves decision making through better integration of existing knowledge and processes.

SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK Visioning Tool • Knowledge of factors that control the future of irrigation • Process to develop and implement knowledge

identify what is at risk

identify most risky elements of irrigation

Planning and Assessment Tool • Risk model • Process to develop and implement model

shape development idea

data to improve risk model

Monitoring and Reporting Tool • Methods for monitoring and reporting • Process to develop and implement methods

quantify irrigation risks

design Idea

guide selection of indicators

evaluate scheme performance

implement

Proposal and Operating Plan

Scheme

KEY Interactions between tools of the Sustainability Framework Applications of the Sustainability Framework Flow of irrigation development process

(V2)

Figure 7. Version 2 of the sustainability framework

4.3 Version 3 The project team felt that the visioning – planning and assessment – monitoring and reporting framework was still relevant as it captures the practices and decisions associated with irrigation and water management and places these within a strategic perspective. As a result the third version of the sustainability framework (Figure 8) emphasises a diversity of tools and methods.


29-of-48

Feedback identified that legislation, policy, organisations and other social structures govern irrigation management practices and that this needs to be captured in the sustainability framework. These are grouped together as ‘control structures’ in the third version.

SUSTAINABILITY FRAMEWORK Visioning • Knowledge of factors that control the future of irrigation • Process to develop and implement knowledge

identify most risky elements of irrigation

guide selection of indicators

Planning and Assessment

identify what is at risk

• Risk models • Process to develop and implement models

data to improve risk models

resolve irrigation risks

improve ideas

design

• Methods for monitoring and reporting • Process to develop and implement methods

fine tune performance

implement Proposal / Operating Plan

Idea

Monitoring and Reporting

Complex social-ecological systems with or without irrigation

evaluate and modify (adaptive management / precautionary principle)

Interactions between tools of the Framework

Applications of the Sustainability Framework

Flow of irrigation development process

Control structures: policy / legislation / trading rules…

(V3)


4.4 Version 4 The fourth version of the sustainability framework (Figure 9) tries to address the nonlinearity and non-sequential nature of irrigation decision making as well as the complexity of the associated social-ecological systems. In this figure we are also draw attention to the interdependency of different irrigation management practices. For example, water development plans will be shaped by society’s demands and visions for the future, which also influence the performance criteria which guide monitoring and reporting activities.


30-of-48

Sustainability Framework Proposals Operating Plans

Ideas


Visioning

Control structures

Dynamic and complex social-ecological systems

• Risk models • Process to develop and implement models

Control structures

• Knowledge of factors that control the future of irrigation • Process to develop and implement knowledge

Monitoring and Reporting • Methods for monitoring and reporting • Process to develop and implement methods

Data Information / Reports

(V4)


4.5 Version 5 The fifth version of the sustainability framework (Figure 10) arose from further consideration about the type of product(s) that could be developed to ensure the framework has practical application. There are three fundamental changes relative to Version 4. Firstly, the concept is broadened from representing the sustainability framework in a single diagram to representing it as several components, each of which contributes to improved decision-making. In this case, we have represented it as: (i) a compilation of new and existing knowledge, tools and processes about integrated decision-making and management2 relevant to irrigation in northern Australia; (ii) generation and compilation of knowledge, tools and processes to support understanding of the complex social-ecological systems (catchments) in which irrigation is or may take place; and (iii) a warehouse of information on project activities and outputs. Secondly, there is a deliberate separation of knowledge, tools and processes relating to integrated decision-making and management from knowledge, tools and processes relating to understanding the complex systems in which irrigation could or is taking place. Thirdly, it was always envisaged that detailed information would sit behind the diagrammatical representation of the sustainability framework. Version 5 begins to describe what information might be compiled through the sustainability framework and how it might be managed.

2

“Integrated decision-making and management” involves understanding interactions between irrigation and other catchment activities, stakeholders coordinating and collaborating at multiple levels, and using science alongside practical and cultural knowledge. Origin, Evolution and Future Directions of the NAIF Sustainability Framework

31-of-48

At this point it started to become clear that research on the sustainability framework was taking us towards a Web based depot, document management system and access point for new and existing knowledge, tools and processes important to informed debate and decision-making about irrigation in northern Australia.

S ustainability F ram ew ork (S /F) C o m p o n en t 1

C o m p o n en t 2

Integrated decision m aking and m anagem ent

U nderstanding com plex social-ecological system s

C o m p o n en t 3 N A IF activities and outputs

D arwin

• • •

K now led ge T ools P roc es s es

S ocialecological s ystem s

• • •

Kn ow ledg e T ools Pr oc ess es

W ater s ys tem s

Control structures

Control structures

D A LY P lanning and A s se ss m ent

V is io ning

E conom y

ORD

E colog y

Landsc ape s

P eople

LOW E R B U R D E K IN

etc

B risbane P erth

M o nito ring and R e po rting • • •

C anb erra

Kn ow led g e T ools Proc ess es

L in k to co m po n en t 1

L in k to c o m po n en t 2

L in k to co m po n en t 3

(V 5)


4.6 Version 6 The sixth version of the sustainability framework (Figure 11) is a modification on Version 5 with no major shift in direction, only a change in the way Component 2 is represented. Rather than grouping information into yet to be defined categories, Version 6 acknowledges that “the environment is not a minor factor of production but rather is an envelope containing, provisioning, and sustaining the entire economy.” (Hawken, Lovins and Lovins, 1999). Component 2 is an adaptation of a figure which represented “the decision making model needed for an ecologically sustainable future for Australia” first published in the 1996 Australia: State of the Environment Report (State of the Environment Advisory Council, 1996) and adapted from Lowe (1994). Importantly, the blue ‘economic’ area does not represent any particular location, simply the ‘position’ of economic activity relative to social and ecological systems.


32-of-48

Sustainability Framework Knowledge tools & processes to support integrated decision making and management

NAIF activities and outputs

Knowledge, tools & processes to support understanding of complex social ecological systems Ecological

Darwin

Control structures

• • •

Knowledge Tools Processes

Socialecological systems

• • •


Control structures


Visioning

DALY

Social

ORD

Economic

Brisbane

Monitoring and Reporting • • •

Perth


Link to component 1

LOWER BURDEKIN

Canberra

Link to component 2

Link to component 3

(V6)


Version 6 of the sustainability framework is described in further detail below.


33-of-48

5 Version 6 of the Sustainability Framework in Detail 5.1 Overview The current and sixth version of the conceptual sustainability framework is represented in Figure 11. This section describes current thinking about the framework. The conceptual framework recognises that irrigation and water resource decisionmaking requires much more than simply access to data. Such decisions involve modelling risk, assessing cumulative impacts and weighting proposed alterations to ecosystem functions and values, and require knowledge from disparate disciplines such as biology, geology, hydrology, chemistry, engineering, sociology etc. It recognises that practitioners within each discipline are often more cognisant of the technologies that dominate the market within their particular field, and local level decision-makers are often restricted by limited time, access to data, technology platforms, physical media or training. A common outcome is that resource decisions are often made with whatever information and tools are readily at hand (Haddad et al, 2005). An interactive web-based framework would help address build government, industry and community capacity and participation in water resource management in northern Australia. It would do this by incorporating a variety of data and analysis tools relevant to irrigation and water resources in northern Australia within a common framework. The framework would draw on existing and new knowledge, tools and processes developed through this project and many others, including the Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge initiative (TRACK) and those undertaken by northern governments. The framework would: •

provide a synthesis of information on key issues of relevance to irrigation and water resource planning and decision making at both the northern Australia level and, progressively, at catchment level

•

provide access to tools that are or could be used in irrigation and water resources planning and decision making in northern Australia, together with a synthesis of information about the use of those tools, benefits, examples etc

•

be a point of consolidation of knowledge, tools and processes necessary for integrated irrigation and water resource management, greatly improving accessibility for Governments and the community.

The framework would use new and emerging online technologies, rich media, open source tools and standards for access and interchange of knowledge, maximising the re-use and access to information and reduce ongoing expense in educating communities that are affected by various issues. These technology environments could support learning, innovation, knowledge leverage and expertise. It is envisaged that the framework could be applied at a range of scales, initially at a catchment/sub-catchment scale. At the whole of northern Australia level the information would invariably be fairly coarse, but would provide the user with an overview and guidance on where to obtain more detailed information. At the catchment/subcatchment level, the user would be able to obtain more detailed and site specific information, including referral to specific reports, databases, web-links etc. It is also envisaged that it would be possible to replicate the framework model for areas other than northern Australia.


34-of-48

The conceptual framework would be an on-line tool, comprising of three linked components, which can be applied at the whole of northern Australia and, progressively, catchment and sub-catchment scales. The three components are: •

Component 1 - generation, compilation and synthesis of new and existing knowledge, tools and processes to support integrated decision making and management relevant to irrigation in northern Australia

•

Component 2 - generation, compilation and synthesis of new and existing knowledge, tools and processes to support understanding of the complex social ecological systems (catchments) that irrigation takes place or could take place within

•

Component 3 - a record of project activities and outputs, including published reports, presentations etc.

The framework would be the access point for the detailed information that sits behind each of the three components, with Figure 11 representing the entry point or home page. Users of the framework would then follow one of the three components to access further information and understanding at increasing levels of detail. At any time users could shift to other Components of the framework by using the Link to Component facility. It is envisaged that the sustainability framework would be used by: •

•

•

•

•

Governments: -

as a source of knowledge, tools and processes relevant to managing northern water resources and irrigation

-

as a mechanism to deliver information to the community

-

to test how well development proponents have addressed issues relevant to their proposal.

Development proponents: -

as a source of knowledge, tools and processes relevant to irrigation developments

-


-

as a tool to demonstrate to governments and the community how well they have addressed issues relevant to their proposal

Stakeholder groups: -

to promote their views on particular issues

-

to understand alternative points of view

-

to access and improve their understanding of knowledge, tools and processes used in water resource and/or irrigation planning and decision making

Individuals and groups within the community: -

to access and improve their understanding of knowledge, tools and processes used in water resource and/or irrigation planning and decision making

-

to understand alternative points of view on particular issues

Water and catchment management advisory committees: -

as a major source of knowledge, tools and processes to assist their role in advising governments on the management of particular catchments


35-of-48

•


All of the above: -

to develop comprehensive catchment-based knowledge platforms to support debate and decision-making about the future of particular catchments.

The following sections provide a more detailed explanation of each of the components.

5.2 Component 1: Integrated Decision-Making and Management Component 1 of the conceptual sustainability framework is the generation, compilation and synthesis of new and existing knowledge, tools and processes to support integrated decision-making and management relevant to irrigation in northern Australia (Figure 12).

Sustainability Framework - Component 1 Knowledge, tools and processes to support integrated decision making and management

Control structures

• Knowledge • Tools • Processes

Complex social ecological systems

Control structures

Planning and Assessment • Knowledge • Tools • Processes

Visioning

Monitoring and Reporting • Knowledge • Tools • Processes To S/F home

Figure 12. Sustainability Framework Component 1: Knowledge, tools and processes to support integrated decision making and management

At its simplest, the methodology could be similar to the Oregon Coastal Atlas Marine Visioning Tool. By clicking on the Visioning, Planning and Assessment or Monitoring and Reporting boxes in Figure 12 the user would access information that provides guidance on the knowledge, tools and processes available in relation to the area of decision-making they have chosen. Similarly, by clicking on Control Structures the user would access information on the legislation, policy, organisations and other social structures that control or influence irrigation decision making. By clicking on the Monitoring and Reporting box, for example, the user would access a second screen that provides an overview of monitoring and reporting for irrigation in Origin, Evolution and Future Directions of the NAIF Sustainability Framework

36-of-48

northern Australia. The user would be provided with a synthesis of information on the subject, together with guidance (including examples, web-links and references) on the key tools and processes used. Similar information would be available for Visioning, Monitoring and Reporting, and Control Structures. Examples of the sort of knowledge, tools and processes that could be incorporated into Component 1 of the sustainability framework are provided in Figure 13. Recognising that the components of irrigation decision making and management are not necessarily linear, nor static, it is envisaged that the user would also be able to obtain information about the relationship between, for example, Visioning and Monitoring and Reporting by clicking on the arrows between them. Darwin

Northern Australia Irrigation Futures (NAIF)

Great Barrier Reef Katherine Broome

Kununurra Northern Territory

Karratha

Sustainability Framework Component 1

Carnarvon

Townsville Queensland Tropic of Capricorn

Western Australia

Brisbane South Australia

New South Wales

Perth Adelaide

Practicing INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT AND DECISION MAKING involves understanding interactions between irrigation and other catchment activities, stakeholders coordinating and collaborating at multiple levels, and using science alongside practical and cultural knowledge

KNOWLEDGE Visioning that is locally driven may facilitate negotiations with government and industry bodies on equitable options for the future

TOOLS AMOEBA (Figure 1) and VENSIM can help stakeholders map out visions and explore the costs and benefits of these Number of bores with high nitrate

Ecological condition of waterways

Planning and Assessment - knowledge - tools - processes

Visioning - knowledge - tools - processes

Sustainability circle

Return on capital investment ($)

TOOLS Ecological Risk Assessment and Bayesian networks (Figure 2) can help managers, scientists and other stakeholders work together to understand and negotiate risks for better irrigation planning.

Fig. 1. AMOEBA showing the sustainability of a scenario

PROCESSES • Lower Burdekin Water Futures Group • Kimberley Appropriate Economies Roundtable • Aboriginal Reference Group – Daly Region For more information contact: Bart M. Kellett, CSIRO Townsville (07-4753 8608) Keith L. Bristow, CSIRO Townsville (07-4753 8596) Jeff K. Camkin, CSIRO Perth ( 08-9333 6398) (October 2006)

Yes No

Reservoir 0 100

Flooding Yes 68.9 No 31.1

Monitoring and Reporting - knowledge - tools - processes KNOWLEDGE Monitoring and reporting that is designed to help stakeholders learn promotes quick and effective responses to change. TOOLS Triple Bottom Line Reporting offers water service providers a way to learn about their own performance and negotiate expected performance with Fig. 3. Reporting session involving community and government (Figure 3) stakeholders, managers, scientists

Tasmania

KNOWLEDGE Including monitoring information, practical and cultural knowledge and science may help ensure that irrigation is more rigorously planned and assessed into the future.

Rainfall Enough 70.0 Not Enough 30.0

Employment rate (%)

Sydney

Victoria

Melbourne

Barramundi Population 26.2 Small Medium 30.8 43.0 Large

Rainfall Enough 70.0 Not Enough 30.0

Yes No

Reservoir 100 0

Flooding Yes 11.1 No 88.9

Barramundi Population 63.8 Small Medium 28.4 7.77 Large

Fig. 2. Bayesian networks showing the risk of building a reservoir

PROCESSES • Ecological Risk Assessment – Lower Burdekin and Daly River Regions • Modeling Nitrate Leaching – Lower Burdekin • Land and Water Management Planning – Ord • Water Planning – Burdekin Catchment • Community Reference Group – Daly Region PROCESSES • Triple Bottom Line Reporting – North and South Burdekin Water Boards • Water for Life Program – Daly River Region

Figure 13. Sustainability framework Component: Examples of knowledge, tools and processes which could be captured in the sustainability framework

5.3 Component 2: Understanding Complex Social-Ecological Systems Component 2 (Figure 14) is the generation and compilation of knowledge, tools and processes that support understanding of the complex social-ecological systems (catchments) in which irrigation is or may take place in northern Australia. This component would draw from information that is already available and from further research through NAIF and other programs. Figure 14 shows that economic activity, in this case irrigation, takes place within and is part of the social system, which in turn takes place within and is part of the ecological system. Importantly, the blue ‘economic systems’ area does not represent any particular location, simply the position of economic activity relative to social and ecological systems. At its simplest, the mechanism for delivering this component could be a computer file based document control system, such as the LBKP. However, emerging technology and approaches to learning would be examined to identify the preferred way of delivering access to the information and shared learning to support communities in building their capacity to contribute to the management of their catchments. Two main Origin, Evolution and Future Directions of the NAIF Sustainability Framework

37-of-48

options for Component 2 have emerged through the research: (1) Knowledge Platforms approach and (2) Signposts approach. These options, which are not mutually exclusive, are detailed below.

Sustainability Framework - Component 2 Knowledge, tools and processes to support understanding of complex social ecological systems Ecological systems

Social systems

Economic systems

To S/F home

Figure 14. Sustainability Framework Component 2: Understanding complex social-ecological systems

Option 1 – Knowledge Platforms approach The Knowledge Platforms approach (Figure 15) is based on establishing logical patterns and groupings of information. The identification and presentation of key information in a way that is logical for users will improve its availability for debate and decision making. The Lower Burdekin Knowledge Platform and Oregon Coastal Atlas Marine Visioning Tool are examples of this approach and this option for Component 2 includes characteristics of both. The functionality of both of these examples is rudimentary by comparison with some of the emerging on-line technology. Further research is proposed in this area. Taking Component 2 beyond the LBKP concept by providing for the incorporation of not only knowledge about biophysical processes but also knowledge, tools and processes that relate to ecological, social and economic parameters would be a more comprehensive approach. Incorporating current understanding of the interrelationships between various parameters, a strong feature of the Oregon Coastal Atlas Marine Visioning Tool, could also be incorporated. Users would access information at two levels. By choosing ecological systems, social systems or economic systems (Figure 15) users would access a second level of detail containing logical groupings or sub-components of synthesised knowledge, tools and processes relating to particular topics at the whole of northern Australia scale. This would also include guidance on where to obtain further information, including reports, databases, tools and hotlinks. Note that the sub-components shown in Figure 15 (eg Origin, Evolution and Future Directions of the NAIF Sustainability Framework

38-of-48

water systems, cultural values and income) are for demonstration purposes only further research will identify the most appropriate sub-components.

Sustainability Framework - Component 2 Knowledge, tools and processes to support understanding of complex social ecological systems

Landscapes

Ecological Water systems systems Ecology

Climate

Soils

Recreation

Social systems

Cultural values Income

Economic systems

Demography etc

Wealth

Figure 15. Option 1 for Sustainability Framework Component 2 in detail – Knowledge Platforms approach

Alternatively, for more detailed, more localised information users would choose a particular catchment/sub-catchment in which the sustainability framework had been applied, represented by the red and black dots in Figure 15. This would take the user to similar information as above, but at the catchment/sub-catchment scale and, therefore, more localised. It is envisaged that this could include the Lower Burdekin, Daly and Ord River in the first instance and more could be added as the sustainability framework is applied over time. The Lower Burdekin Knowledge Platform and Oregon Coastal Atlas Marine Visioning Tool provide examples of the sort of information that could be provided. Option 2 – Signposts approach The Signposts approach (Figure 16) is based on the Signposts for Australian Agriculture research. This approach asks the key question “What does the industry (in this case irrigation) contribute, positively and negatively, to ecologically sustainable development?” The Signposts approach recognises that an industry (or individual development) has the potential to make positive and negative contributions towards ecologically sustainable development. It also recognises that the contributions can be both within the industry (eg capacity of land to produce food) and beyond the industry itself (eg contributions to community networks and heritage). This approach to Component 2 would support irrigation decision making by making more accessible new and existing knowledge, tools and processes relevant to Origin, Evolution and Future Directions of the NAIF Sustainability Framework

39-of-48

consideration of what contribution is made at a range of scales, including whole of industry, industry within a catchment and individual developments or proposals.

Component 2 – Understanding complex social ecological systems Direct contributions of an activity or industry

Contributions beyond the activity or industry Ecological

Capacity of land to provide other ecosystem services: biodiversity, carbon sequestration, cultural services Capacity of Individuals land to (human capital): produce demography, food and health, fibre: education climate, Industry soil, institutions & biota organisations (social capital) Wealth

Other biophysical systems systems: removal of resources, releases to other systems Individuals: self identity, health, other lifestyle benefits

Others? Income: - exports - domestic sales Productivity

Atmosphere & climate

Local & regional Water communities: cycle: employment, community quantity networks, community quality heritage National community: public health, national identity

Others?

Social systems

Others?

To S/F home

Economic systems

Figure 16. Option 2 for Sustainability Framework Component 2 in detail – Signposts approach

A preferred option will be determined after further research.

5.4 Component 3: Project Activities and Outputs Component 3 (Figure 17) would be a web-based warehouse of information on NAIF and other project activities and outputs. This component will provide a useful receptacle for research outputs such as meeting summaries, interview summaries, reports, external research reviews, newsletters and other communication products etc. These activities and outputs relate to northern Australia generally, and to specific locations through the NAIF case study work, initially the Ord, Daly and Lower Burdekin (represented in red in Figure 17), extending to other areas as the sustainability framework is applied to more catchments. The current NAIF project website is shown in Figure 18. The website, which provides details on the project goal and objectives, methodology, outputs and outcomes, is an example of how project activities and outputs could be stored to provide easy access.


40-of-48

Sustainability Framework - Component 3 NAIF activities and outputs

Darwin

DALY ORD

LOWER BURDEKIN

Brisbane

Perth Canberra

To S/F home

Figure 17. Component 3 of the sustainability framework: Project Activities and Outputs

Component 3 – NAIF activities and outputs

Figure 18. Component 3 of the sustainability framework in detail


41-of-48

6 Summary of Key Findings about the Sustainability Framework Concept Work on development of the sustainability framework has evolved to capture lessons from the application of modelling and other decision making processes, and from the development of web-based approaches to addressing similar challenges in other locations and sectors. The following points provide a synthesis of thinking about the framework at this stage: •

It should aim to improve access to new and existing knowledge, tools and processes to assist debate and decision making

•

It should provide a synthesise of knowledge on important issues relating to economic, social and ecological systems, and improve access to tools and guidance on their application

•

It should improve understanding of decision-making processes by addressing the decision making processes themselves and the matters taken into account in those decisions

•

It should be web-based but utilise emerging on-line technology and understanding of how communities and individuals learn so that it is much more than just a web-site

•

It should be developed in a way that it can be applied by a range of people including proponents, stakeholder groups, community groups, industry groups and governments

•

It should be aspirational, taking a long term strategic view (50+ years), but should not aim to be ‘perfect’ before it is applied. It should be allowed to continue to evolve through application and testing in partnership with governments and other stakeholders

•

It should not be a calculator, nor just a set of biophysical indicators that attempts to reflect a one size fits all view of ‘sustainable irrigation’

•

It should not try to be the solution to the question of life, the universe and everything. Criteria, based on the project objectives and the needs of users, should be used to determine what is and what is not included to ensure it is manageable and fit for purpose

•

It will need collaboration with stakeholders and experts on a wide range of issues to be successful, including strong and ongoing commitment at senior levels for the provision of data and resources.


42-of-48

7 Assessment against Objectives To assess the performance of the conceptual sustainability framework and identify areas that require further attention, we discuss the work to date in terms of the framework objectives. 1. Capture the necessary information for supporting irrigation decision making and debate. The conceptual sustainability framework (Figure 11) consists of three components which, if sufficiently supported by relevant agencies and stakeholders, will combine to provide improved access to information relating to integrated irrigation decision making and management, and improved understanding of complex social-ecological systems (catchments) in which irrigation takes place. The level of active support for this approach to the sustainability framework needs to be determined as the value of the sustainability framework will to a large extend be determined by the support and information that is made available. 2. To be used by policy makers, regulators, community organisations, managers, and investors to make better decisions on if and where to irrigate in tropical Australia, what tropical irrigation systems could look like, and how they should be managed to meet social, cultural, environmental and economic sustainability objectives. The conceptual sustainability framework is not an integrated product or package at this stage and therefore it is not possible to evaluate it is terms of its contribution to ‘better decisions’. Feedback from the NAIF Steering Committee, Stakeholder Reference Group, Case Study stakeholders and others will be important in determining whether the suggested approach to the sustainability framework is supported and likely to be used. A communiqué from the NAIF Steering Committee sub-committee prepared after considering Version 5 included: “The NAIF Sub-Committee, consisting of representatives from WA, NT and QLD, see substantial benefits in the sustainability framework concept. A key value of the sustainability framework is that it will improve accessibility to synthesised information and tools necessary for integrated water resource management in northern Australia. The sustainability framework would be a powerful tool to support the roll out of water allocation planning in northern Australia. It has the potential to be adapted for use beyond irrigation and beyond northern Australia.” 3. Allow assessment of the performance of existing irrigation areas to help determine if and what changes may be necessary to make them more sustainable. Rather than ‘allow’ assessment of performance, the framework would facilitate improved access to information relevant to irrigation decision-making. How well the framework achieves this objective will be strongly influenced by the quality and robustness of the information that is made available to it. Therefore, the level of active support for this approach to the sustainability framework needs to be determined through discussions with the Steering Committee and other stakeholders.


43-of-48

8 Future Research Directions The NAIF project includes research specific to the development of a sustainability framework itself, and research that can contribute to the body of information on irrigation decision-making and on the complex social-ecological systems that irrigation takes place within for incorporation into a sustainability framework. This section deals only with future directions for the NAIF research associated with the development of the sustainability framework. The NAIF Steering Committee was provided a draft of this report at its meeting on 18 October 2006. At that time, it was clear that the sustainability framework concept was moving towards a system for improving the availability and use of new and existing knowledge, tools and processes relevant to irrigation in northern Australia. It would focus on bringing together in a single framework the knowledge, tools and processes available to support decision making with the knowledge, tools and processes available to support understanding of the complex social-ecological systems (catchments) in which irrigation takes place. Further work would investigate the research into different ways people search for information and the emerging technology that identifies and responds to those preferences. There was general agreement that the application of the sustainability framework should be focussed at the catchment/sub-catchment level and the Steering Committee requested the development of a ‘prototype’ to help demonstrate the concept further. The Steering Committee requested the Sub-Committee, consisting of the representatives from the WA, NT and QLD governments, to determine the most appropriate catchment for the development of the prototype. The NAIF Steering Committee met again on 21 November 2006 to consider the sustainability framework. Further clarification was provided on what was meant by a prototype - a model or cut-down version of a sustainability framework to demonstrate what it might look like and how it might function when fully developed. It would be a limited demonstration model that would have a limited regional focus, populated with regional information. The Lower Burdekin was subsequently chosen by the SubCommittee as the focus site for development of the prototype. Matters for consideration in future research: Approaches taken in other industries to develop sustainability frameworks Examination of the approaches taken to sustainability in other locations and sectors will continue to inform the NAIF sustainability framework. Assessment of the practicality and benefits of the proposed approach Feedback to date suggests that the proposed direction for development of the sustainability framework is appropriate. The proposed direction will be further tested on an ongoing basis through review of subsequent reports, feedback from the Steering Committee, Stakeholder Reference Group and NAIF stakeholder network, and further consideration by the NAIF project team. Refinement of the sustainability framework The sustainability framework will undergo refinement in response to feedback received. This work will also include resolution of the approach to Component 2, including examination of the most appropriate sub-components at the catchment and whole of northern Australia scales. Options for identifying and synthesising information for inclusion in the various elements will also be examined.


44-of-48

Technical options and issues Relevant industry expertise will be sought to assist the identification of functionality options and key soft and hardware development issues for the proposed sustainability framework. Management options and issues It is expected that the sustainability framework will continue to develop and evolve. Critical issues such as ongoing ownership of the framework, ongoing management responsibility, processes for decisions on the addition and removal of elements and data will be examined and recommendations developed. Cost and funding options and issues Costs of establishment and ongoing operation of the proposed sustainability framework will be examined, together with funding options. Links with other research There is extensive research activity in northern Australia related to the sustainability framework including, but not limited to, the Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge (TRACK) initiative. Tools and processes developed through TRACK (and other programs and projects) could feed into and enhance the sustainability framework and the framework could provide an important pathway to adoption for the outputs of TRACK and other projects. The outcomes of further research into the development of a sustainability framework following the Steering Committee’s meeting of 21 November 2006 will be documented in a subsequent report.


45-of-48

9 References Chesson, J. and Whitworth, B. 2005. Options for Developing Indicator Frameworks for Agriculture and Rangelands. Internal Report to Natural Resources Management Business Unit, Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. November. 62 pp. Chesson, J. Whitworth, B. Stewart, J and Yapp, G. 2005. Signposts for Australian Agriculture, Stage 2a: Refinement of preliminary framework and industry profiles to include pathways to ESD. Final report to the National Land and Water Resources Audit, September 2005. Christen, E., Shepheard, M., Jayawardane, N., Davidson, P., Mitchell, M., Maheshwari, B., Atkins, D., Fairweather, H., Wolfenden, J. and Simmons, B. 2006. The Sustainability Challenge: A Guide to Using Triple Bottom Line Reporting as a Framework to Promote the Sustainability of Rural and Urban Irrigation in Australia. CRC for Irrigation Futures, Technical Report No. 03-1/ 06. Commonwealth of Australia. 1992. National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. 128 pp. Hawken, P., Lovins, A. & Lovins, H. 1999. Natural Capitalism: The Next Industrial Revolution. Earthscan Publications: London. Haddad, T., Wright, D., Dailey, M., Klarin, P., Marra, J., Dana, R., and Revell, D. 2005. The tools of the Oregon Coastal Atlas. In: Wright, D.J. and Scholz, A.J. (eds.), Place Matters: Geospatial tools for Marine Science, Conservation and Management in the Pacific Northwest, Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, 134-151. Hegarty et al. 2007a. A guide to institutional, legislative and policy frameworks relevant to irrigation and water management in northern Australia. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report 2007, CRC for Irrigation Futures Technical Report No. 05/07 Hegarty et al. 2007b. A hotlink directory to Northern Australia’s irrigation and water management. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report 2007, CRC for Irrigation Futures Technical Report No. 06/07 Kellett, B.M. 2008. Institutional arrangements and practices for learning and socialecological resilience in irrigation and water management systems. PhD Thesis, University of Melbourne (Draft). Kellett, B.M. 2005. PhD Confirmation Report: A Sustainability Framework to Guide Irrigation Development in Northern Australia. Report for the University of Melbourne. Kellett, B.M., Walshe, T. & K.L. Bristow. 2005a. Ecological Risk Assessment for the Wetlands of the Lower Burdekin. CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report No. 26/05. 30 pp. Kellett, B., Bristow, K.L. & P.B. Charlesworth. 2005b. Indicator Frameworks for Assessing Irrigation Sustainability. CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report No. 01/05


46-of-48

Kellett, B.M., Beilin, R., Bristow, K.L., Moore, G. & F. H. S. Chiew. 2007. Reflecting on stakeholders’ perceptions in an ecological risk assessment workshop: Lessons for practitioners. The Environmentalist 27:109–117. Kellett, B.M., Beilin, R., Bristow, K.L, Camkin, J.K. & G. Moore. 2008. Designs for democratic planning: building capacity for facilitating transformations in water and irrigation management in northern Australia. Ecology and Society (Submitted). Lowe, I. 1994. Performance Measurement. Proceedings of the Fenner Conference on the Environment. November 1994. State of the Environment Advisory Council. 1996. Australia: State of the Environment Report. CSIRO Collingwood. World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press.


47-of-48

END-OF-REPORT


48-of-48

PARTNER ORGANISATIONS

> BETTER IRRIGATION > BETTER ENVIRONMENT > BETTER FUTURE COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE FOR IRRIGATION FUTURES PO Box 56, Darling Heights Qld 4350 Ph: 07 4631 2046 | Fax: 07 4631 1870 Email: [email protected] www.irrigationfutures.org.au