Basin Plan is Historic But Let’s Not Lose the Whole Story

by Professor Lin Crase, Professor of Applied Economics at La Trobe University, The Conversation: http://theconversation.edu.au

A panorama of the junction of the Murray and Darling Rivers at Wentworth, New South Wales. The Darling River is on the left of the photo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Reaching agreement on a Murray-Darling Basin Plan is undoubtedly a significant political accomplishment.

The water resources of the Murray-Darling have been the basis of disagreement between states, industries and communities for the best part of a century, and having a national plan is seen by many as a step forward.

The fact that the Opposition has now agreed to support the Plan assures its acceptance by Parliament, even if implementation remains a challenge for future governments and the states.

But before we become too exuberant about the political achievements embodied in a basin plan, it might be helpful to draw lessons from the entire episode. This is especially important as Environment Minister Tony Burke presents Australia’s water planning processes as a panacea to other nations dealing with water scarcity.

The Basin Plan was the latest attempt to rein in the proclivity of governments to treat water resources like a magic pudding. While water resources are renewable, they are also finite.

In addition, off-the-cuff decisions to allocate water perceived as “going to waste” is a sure recipe for creating problems for future generations. I can personally recall statements by former water bureaucrats describing water exiting the Murray Mouth as “waste”.

In an effort to avoid repeating mistakes of the past, we should treat cautiously recent proclamations by NSW Governor, Marie Bashir and mining entrepreneur, Gina Rinehart, on turning around river flows.

History suggests that a poor appreciation of the benefits conferred by water in different places and the role it plays in supporting a range of environmental processes can prove costly.

To read further, go to: http://theconversation.edu.au/basin-plan-is-historic-but-lets-not-lose-the-whole-story-11045?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+30+November+2012&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+30+November+2012+CID_af3392ce42db1da2544b42dcae8ee508&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Basin%20Plan%20is%20historic%20but%20lets%20not%20lose%20the%20whole%20story

Saving Australian Endangered Species: A Policy Gap and Political Opportunity

by Professor Stephen Garnett, Professor of Biodiversity and Sustainability at Charles Darwin University, The Conversation: http://theconversation.edu.au

Map shows biodiversity "hotspots" as defined by Conservation International, with color coding indicating number of Critically Endangered, Endangered, and Threatened bird species occurring in these areas. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Tim Flannery, in his Quarterly Essay After the Future, is right to deplore the sudden abrogation of responsibility for threatened species by state and federal governments.

The tragedy is that neglecting endangered species is the wrong thing to do on so many counts. It does not reflect the popular will of the people. And it is counter to what is happening elsewhere in the world.

To take the last point first. In Hyderabad recently the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity - which includes representatives of nearly all world governments - agreed to double the funding for the Global Environment Fund (GEF) to $10 billion a year.

Although still less than required for improving the status of all threatened species and for protecting critical habitats, this was still a big step forward.

Significantly, India and several African countries also agreed to contribute to the GEF. The world is taking a serious interest in saving species. And with good reason - there is increasing evidence that biodiversity loss has an influence on ecosystem service provision on a par with drought, ozone loss, acidification and climate warming. Species conservation is an investment in natural capital that provides enormous returns.

So why are Australian governments turning off threatened species? While Australia did contribute $23 million to the GEF through AusAid in 2011-12, here at home there is no coordinated national pool of funds for threatened species. The carbon fund and Caring for Country are lotteries in which winning tickets are too often captured by local agendas unrelated to the risk of species loss.

And the states and territories have always been poor cousins. While they have long employed threatened species managers - often deeply committed individuals who have devoted decades to retaining species for future generations - the operating money has usually had to be gleaned from a reluctant Commonwealth.

Since 2009 that money has been ever harder to obtain. That was when Peter Garrett got up at the INTECOL conference in Brisbane and said that funding would be given to protecting landscapes not species. I wonder if it weighs on his conscience, and those of his advisers, that this statement led directly to extinction of the Christmas Island Pipistrelle, the first mammal extinction in a generation.

To read further, go to: http://theconversation.edu.au/saving-australian-endangered-species-a-policy-gap-and-political-opportunity-10914?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+23+November+2012&utm_content=Latest+from+The+Conversation+for+23+November+2012+CID_d6666b914a0ccedc039ba38b9124eeef&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Saving%20Australian%20endangered%20species%20-%20a%20policy%20gap%20and%20political%20opportunity