Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray-Darling Basin AWP Knowledge Framework • Australian Water Partnership, & World Bank. (2022). The Australian Water Partnership (AWP) is committed to Valuing water: The Australian perspective. Cultural values of enhancing sharing of knowledge and tools for sustainable water in the Murray-Darling Basin. Australian Water Partnership, water management to improve water planning, allocation & World Bank. and governance by governments, industries and civil society. Prepared by Phil Duncan, Lyndsay Charlton, Bill Moulden and This knowledge product supports the AWP Knowledge Strategy Lisa Walpole (Alluvium Consulting). and contributes to the Australian Perspective Series under the Australian Bookcase. The other tiers within this bookcase are the Australian Journey Series and Guide Series. For more information, visit waterpartnership.org.au Acknowledgements GWSP This report is the result of a collaborative effort between the This publication received support from the Global Water Security World Bank and the Australian Government Department of & Sanitation Partnership (GWSP). GWSP is a multidonor trust Foreign Affairs and Trade, with financial support from the Australian fund administered by the World Bank’s Water Global Practice Water Partnership, to promote more equitable, transparent and and supported by the Australian Government Department of effective management of water resources development. Foreign Affairs and Trade, Austria’s Federal Ministry of Finance, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Denmark’s Ministry of The World Bank team was led by Marcus Wishart (Lead Water Foreign Affairs, the Netherlands’ Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Resource Specialist, SEAW1), Xiawei Liao (Water Resource the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Specialist, SEAW1), David Kaczan (Economist, SEAE1) and Switzerland’s State Secretariat for Economic Affairs, the Swiss Si Gou (Water Resources Management Specialist, SEAW1). Agency for Development and Cooperation, and the United States Guidance was provided by an advisory panel of peer reviewers Agency for International Development. within the World Bank, including Eileen Burke (Senior Water Resource Specialist and Global Lead for Water Resources), About the Authors Shelley McMillan (Senior Water Resource Specialist and Task This report is a synthesis of three case study reports under Team Leader for the Mekong Vision 3.0), Halla Qaddumi the valuing water: The Australian Perspective Project: (Senior Water Economist) and William Young (Lead Water • Australian Water Partnership, & World Bank. (2022). Resource Specialist). Additional technical review and guidance Valuing water: The Australian perspective. Lessons from were provided to the case study on values of water under the Murray-Darling Basin. Australian Water Partnership, scarcity by Giovanni Ruta (Senior Environmental Economist), & World Bank. to the case study on environmental values by Hisham Osman Prepared by: Will Fargher, Ryan Gormly, Sarah Leck, and Huw (Environmental Engineer), and to the case study on cultural Pohlner with Aither, and support from Lin Crase, University of values by Caroline Sage (Senior Social Development Specialist), South Australia. and the World Bank Water Global Practice Social Inclusion Team led by Sarah Keener (Senior Social Development Specialist), including German Freire (Senior Social Development Specialist) and Kamila Galeza (Social Development Specialist). The report was prepared under the guidance of Jennifer Sara (Global Director • Australian Water Partnership, & World Bank. (2022). of Water Global Practice), Benoît Bosquet (Regional Director, Valuing water: The Australian perspective. Economic values of Sustainable Development, East Asia and the Pacific) and Sudipto water under scarcity in the Murray-Darling Basin. Australian Sarkar (Practice Manager, Water Global Practice, East Asia and the Water Partnership, & World Bank. Pacific Region). Prepared by Aither, with support from Lin Crase (University of South Australia). Contributions from the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade were led by John Dore (Lead Water Specialist, Climate Change and Sustainability Division), with guidance from James Morschel (Water Section, Climate Change and Sustainability Division). • Australian Water Partnership, & World Bank. (2022). Valuing water: The Australian perspective. Environmental Australian Water Partnership contributions were by Rory Hunter values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. Australian Water (Program Lead), Katharine Cross (Mekong Coordinator) and Partnership, & World Bank. Veitania Lepani (GEDSI and Program Officer). Prepared by Rod Marsh (marsh.eco); Amanda Wealands, Simon Tilleard, Barry Hart and Ross Hardie (Alluvium Consulting); and Garry Smith (DG Consulting). First Nations acknowledgment of Country Citation Yaama ngin-daayuu Phil Duncan Niwarra n-gaya Gomeroi, Australian Water Partnership and World Bank. (2022). Kamilaroi, Gamilaroi mari n-gaya. Dhawun nhalay (many nations of Valuing water: The Australian perspective. Lessons from the the Murray-Darling Basin): Barkindji (Paakintji), Barunggam, Bidjara, Murray-Darling Basin. Australian Water Partnership, Canberra, Bigambul, Budjiti, Barapa Barapa, Barkindji, Dhudhuroa, Dja Dja and World Bank, Washington, DC. Wurrung,Euahlayi, Gamilaroi, Githabul, Gunggari, Gwamu (Kooma), Jarowair, Kambuwal, Kunja, Kwiambul, Latji Latji, Maljangapa, ©2022 eWater Ltd and The World Bank (published 09 13 2022) Mandandanji, Mardigan, Murrawarri, Maraura, Mutti Mutti, Nari International Bank for Reconstruction and Development Nari, Ngarrindjeri, Ngemba, Ngiyampaa, Ngintait, Ngunnawal, The World Bank Group Nyeri Nyeri, Tatti Tatti, Taungurung, Wadi Wadi, Wailwan, Wakka 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433 USA Wakka, Wamba Wamba, Waywurru, Wegi Wegi, Wergaia,Wiradjuri, Cover photo: The Murray River in the Murray-Darling Basin Wolgalu, Wotjobaluk, Yaitmathang, Yita Yita and Yorta Yorta. (Credit: Ben Goode). N-gaya winangaylanha. Way yaama wunun-gay ngiani ganu. Printed on FSC®-certified and recycled paper. Garri-y yiiy garaydhalibaa. Ngurrgun mayrraa warranggal dhuwi. ISBN 978-1-921543-94-4 (Online) Milyagin gilguba-rri wulul yiiliyanbaa. Maalaa baburr dhama-li ISBN 978-1-921543-93-7 (Print) dhuwuu / dhawun. Dharramalan maran burrulaa Univers. Disclaimer Gunimaa. Gurugun. Gama-li wulbuldaan dhaadhaa naa-y This publication has been funded by the Australian Government warruwi winanga-li ngarraga-li mudhu. Dhiirra-y guuma-li through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The views ngiyaninya walaaybaa warranggal. Baluwaal muurr gi-gi nguuma expressed in this publication are the authors’ alone and are not ayla-y mayabuu naa-y bariyan ngama. Gunii dhawun bunbul. necessarily the views of the Australian Government. Ngalingu gurrumayaa. This work is also a product of the staff of the World Bank Gaba nginda and of the Global Water Security & Sanitation Partnership, Yanaay with external contributions. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee Hello and Welcome. My name is Phil Duncan, Niwarra is my the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, Country name. I am a very proud Gomeroi, Kamilaroi, Gamilaroi colours, denominations and other information shown on any man. I acknowledge the many nations within the Murray-Darling map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the Basin: Barkindji (Paakintji), Barunggam, Bidjara, Bigambul, World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the Budjiti, Barapa Barapa, Barkindji, Dhudhuroa, Dja Dja Wurrung, endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Nothing herein Euahlayi, Gamilaroi, Githabul, Gunggari, Gwamu (Kooma), shall constitute or be considered to be a limitation upon or waiver Jarowair, Kambuwal, Kunja, Kwiambul, Latji Latji, Maljangapa, of the privileges and immunities of the World Bank, all of which Mandandanji, Mardigan, Murrawarri, Maraura, Mutti Mutti, Nari are specifically reserved. In the case of any discrepancies between Nari, Ngarrindjeri, Ngemba, Ngiyampaa, Ngintait, Ngunnawal, Nyeri this English version and any subsequent translations, the English Nyeri, Tatti Tatti, Taungurung, Wadi Wadi, Wailwan, Wakka Wakka, version prevails. The report reflects information available up to Wamba Wamba, Waywurru, Wegi Wegi, Wergaia, Wiradjuri, 20 December 2020. Wolgalu, Wotjobaluk, Yaitmathang, Yita Yita and Yorta Yorta. Rights and Permissions We respect the Elders, all of them. The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because the World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work Remember to stop and listen to the silence. The voice of the wind may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for non-commercial will always give you strength but will always beat loudest in your purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. soul. Your spirit will always feel energy from those who have walked before us and block out the noise of the world. So, find a tree and Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, allow your feet to touch the dirt/ground/earth. Our spirit ancestors should be addressed to: created the balance of the Universe. The centre is Mother Earth. Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Our peace has and always will be a oneness with everything, one’s Washington, DC 20433, USA centre is with oneself. Break a branch like my grandfather always E: pubrights@worldbank.org did and walk, allow your pathway to see everything, hear and feel F: 202-522-2625. within. Know who you are to see all that we are connected to and know that we belong. Cultural faith is our supreme power. Never UC Innovation Centre (Bldg 22), University Drive South forget those before us continue to walk among the stars. Mother Canberra ACT 2617 AUSTRALIA Earth has us in her keeping. Our holy Country. T: +61 2 6206 8320 E: contact@waterpartnership.org.au Will Go waterpartnership.org.au Phil Duncan, Traditional Owner—Gomeroi/Kamilaroi/Gamilaroi/ Gamilaraay Nation Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray-Darling Basin Contents Executive summary 1 Lessons for water managers 2 Going forward in the Murray-Darling Basin 5 1 About this report 6 1.1 The global imperative 6 1.2 An Australian case study 8 1.3 Report structure 8 2 About the Murray-Darling Basin 10 2.1 Basin snapshot 10 2.2 The river system 12 2.2.1 Terrain and climate 12 2.2.2 Streamflow  12 2.2.3 Groundwater 14 2.3 Population and employment 14 2.4 Major agricultural industries 16 2.5 Ecological assets 17 2.6 Sites of First Nations cultural significance 19 3 Governance of the Murray-Darling Basin 20 3.1 Transboundary governance 20 3.2 Evolution of water management 21 3.2.1 ‘First Nations management’ phase (65,000+ years) 22 3.2.2 ‘Settler establishment’ phase (1800s – early 1900s) 22 3.2.3 ‘Development expansion’ phase (early 1900s – 1950s) 22 3.2.4 ‘Emerging costs’ phase (1960s–1970s) 23 3.2.5 ‘Major water reforms’ phase (1980s–1990s) 23 3.2.6 ‘Acceleration’ phase (2000s–2020) 24 4 Synthesis of case studies 25 4.1 Enablers 25 4.1.1 Government commitment and cooperation 25 4.1.2 Strong institutional and regulatory arrangements 25 4.1.3 Intersection of land and in-stream salinity with sociopolitical changes 26 4.1.4 Legislated limits on consumptive use 28 4.1.5 Best available science 28 Valuing water: The Australian perspective iv Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 4.1.6 Significant environmental allocations 28 4.1.7 Effective policy instruments 29 4.1.8 Increasingly sophisticated trading mechanisms 29 4.1.9 Long-term monitoring systems 30 4.2 Challenges 30 4.2.1 Legacy lock-in effects 30 4.2.2 Dominant interests and biases 31 4.2.3 Limited First Nations inclusion 31 4.2.4 Politicisation of the water reform process 31 4.2.5 Tensions among Basin actors 32 4.2.6 Noncompliance 33 4.2.7 Integrated planning and management 33 4.2.8 Complexity 33 4.2.9 Ongoing reform adjustment  34 4.2.10 Institutional stability and functionality 35 4.2.11 Water market effectiveness 35 4.2.12 Water delivery 35 4.2.13 Climate change 36 4.2.14 Scientific uncertainty 36 4.2.15 Accounting for water resources 37 4.3 Future opportunities 37 4.3.1 Leveraging policy windows 37 4.3.2 Optimising existing legal and regulatory instruments 37 4.3.3 Supporting adjustment 39 4.3.4 Reinvigorating nested planning and action 40 4.3.5 Strengthening cross-disciplinary collaborations 40 4.3.6 Bolstering stakeholder engagement 40 4.3.7 Scaling up existing successful programs 41 4.3.8 Establishing co-management arrangements 41 5 Conclusions 42 5.1 Water development trajectories 42 5.2 Synthesis insights 43 5.3 Generalisable lessons 46 5.4 What next? 49 References50 Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin v Appendix A. Case study synopsis: Multiple values of water under scarcity in the Murray-Darling Basin 56 A.1 Summary 56 A.2 Why manage water for its multiple values? 56 A.3 Economic concepts of valuing water 57 A.3.1 Total economic value framework 57 A.3.2 Cost-reflective pricing 58 A.3.3 Pollution pricing  58 A.3.4 Water markets 58 A.4 An economics lens on water policy development  59 A.4.1 ‘Development expansion’ phase (early 1900s – 1950s) 59 A.4.2 ‘Emerging costs’ phase (1960s–1970s) 60 A.4.3 ‘Major water reforms’ phase (1980s–1990s) 61 A.4.4 ‘Acceleration’ phase (2000s–2020) 64 A.5 Lessons from Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin experience 66 A.5.1 Effect of water values on management objectives and policy 66 A.5.2 Drivers of change for water values 67 A.5.3 Effective policy instruments  67 A.5.4 Major challenges in the Murray-Darling Basin  69 A.6 Conclusions 70 A.7 References 71 Appendix B. Case study synopsis: Environmental values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 72 B.1 Summary 72 B.2 Why manage water for its environmental values? 72 B.3 Environmental concepts of valuing water 73 B.3.1 Environmental flows 73 B.3.2 Environmental water 73 B.3.3 Sustainable diversion limits 73 B.3.4 Environmentally sustainable level of take 73 B.4 An environmental values lens on water policy development 74 B.5 Approaches to securing the environmental values of water 75 B.5.1 Recognition and acceptance of environmental values 76 B.5.2 Assessment of environmental values 76 B.5.3 Realisation of environmental values 76 Valuing water: The Australian perspective vi Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin B.6 Lessons from Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin experience 79 B.6.1 Recognition and acceptance of environmental values 79 B.6.2 Identifying environmental water policy options 80 B.6.3 Implementing environmental water policy 81 B.7 Conclusions 82 B.8 References 82 Appendix C. Case study synopsis: Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 84 C.1 Summary 84 C.2 Why manage water for its cultural values? 84 C.3 First Nations concepts of cultural values 85 C.3.1 Connection to Country 85 C.3.2 Sites of significance 87 C.3.3 The ‘original water industry’ 87 C.4 A cultural values lens on water policy 88 C.4.1 Shaping of water policy  88 C.4.2 Main actors in the ‘cultural values of water’ arena 89 C.5 Approaches to securing the cultural values of water  89 C.5.1 Recognition and acceptance of cultural values 90 C.5.2 Assessment of cultural values 92 C.5.3 Realisation of cultural values 93 C.6 Lessons from Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin experience 95 C.7 Conclusions 95 C.8 References 96 Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin vii Tables Table 1 Report structure 9 Table 2 Summary of water values according to the main phases of water development in the Murray-Darling Basin 43 Table 3 Summary of case study synthesis 44 Table A.1 Overview of approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising water values during the ‘development expansion’ phase in the Murray-Darling Basin (early 1900s – 1950s) 60 Table A.2 Overview of approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising water values during the ‘emerging costs’ phase in the Murray-Darling Basin (1960s–1970s) 61 Table A.3 Overview of approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising water values during the ‘major water reforms’ phase in the Murray-Darling Basin (1980s–1990s) 62 Table A.4 Overview of approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising water values during the ‘acceleration’ phase in the Murray-Darling Basin (2000s–2020) 64 Table B.1 Overview of approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising the environmental values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 75 Table B.2 Tools used to recover water for the environment in the Murray-Darling Basin and their effects  77 Table C.1 Overview of approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising the cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin 90 Valuing water: The Australian perspective viii Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Figures Figure 1 Principles for valuing water articulated by the High-Level Panel on Water 7 Figure 2 Murray-Darling Basin, and its rivers and major towns 10 Figure 3 Snapshot of the Murray-Darling Basin 11 Figure 4 (a) Comparison of characteristics of Murray-Darling (M–D), Ganges, Indus, Mekong and Yellow River basins. (b) Seasonal distribution of rainfall and potential evapotranspiration across the six river basins 13 Figure 5 First Nations of the Murray-Darling Basin 14 Figure 6 Employment in agriculture, Australia, 1911–2016 15 Figure 7 Economy, employment and standard of living in Murray-Darling Basin local government areas 16 Figure 8 Crops and dairy produced in the Murray-Darling Basin 17 Figure 9 The Murray River 18 Figure 10 Six phases of water resources management in the Murray-Darling Basin 21 Figure 11 Dam development and irrigation diversions in the Murray-Darling Basin from pre-1901 to 1990 24 Figure 12 Key elements of the 2012 Basin Plan 26 Figure 13 Daily salinity in the Murray River measured at Morgan 27 Figure 14 Commonwealth environmental water holdings, 31 August 2021 29 Figure 15 Overview of river operations in the Murray-Darling Basin 30 Figure 16 Men burning copies of an early Basin Plan draft outside a Murray-Darling Basin Authority meeting in Griffith, NSW, 13 October 2010 32 Figure 17 Cartoon by R. Tandberg commenting on the response of politicians to the continued decline of the Murray-Darling river system (Source: NMA, 2008) 34 Figure 18 Menindee lakes mass fish deaths 36 Figure 19 Basin Plan timeline towards the 2026 review 38 Figure 20 A stakeholder who gave evidence to the Commonwealth senate inquiry into the multi-jurisdictional management and execution of the Basin Plan 39 Figure 21 Murray-Darling Basin Indigenous River Rangers Program 41 Figure 22 Cartoon illustrating general discontent across a broad range of stakeholder groups with the draft Basin Plan (Source: Moir, 2011) 45 Figure A.1 An example of the total economic value framework applied to waterways and other water resources 57 Figure A.2 Four phases of water resources management in the Murray-Darling Basin 59 Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin ix Acronyms Acronym Full term BoM Bureau of Meteorology CEWH Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder COAG Council of Australian Governments GL gigalitre HLPW High-Level Panel on Water IPA Indigenous Protected Area LTWP long-term environmental watering plan mcm million cubic metres MDBA Murray-Darling Basin Authority ML megalitre MLDRIN Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations NAILSMA North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance NBAN Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations NGO non-government organisation NRM natural resource management NSW New South Wales NWC National Water Commission SDL sustainable diversion limit WRP water resource plan Valuing water: The Australian perspective x Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Executive summary Water is a precious resource. Knowing the value of water is essential for its sustainable use. But the value of water is not fixed—it fluctuates over time and between different uses, users and locations. The costs of its provision, or prices paid for it, often do not reflect water’s total value. Notions of value change over time and can lead to disputes when not shared by all users, particularly in times of scarcity. They reflect patterns and history of water use, cultural perceptions, changes in climate and population, and how others around us use and value water. Accurately valuing water helps us reveal the costs and benefits of different actions—or lack of action— and how these costs and benefits are distributed across users, uses, time and space. Understanding value leads to more informed decision making, from the household level to governments that make decisions that affect industries, communities and the environment. This is increasingly important around the globe in the face of growing scarcity of water resources due to climate change and population growth. More accurately valuing water also helps us more effectively assess management options. This includes how we allocate water so we achieve a better balance between different needs and uses for all. In this report, water values in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin (the Basin) are examined through the lenses of the economy, the environment and Australia’s First Nations1 cultures to elicit insights and generalisable lessons that will help policy makers and other strategic-level interests to improve water-related outcomes in other country contexts. It is part of a package published by the Australian Water Partnership in partnership with the World Bank under the umbrella of the valuing water: The Australian Perspective Project. The Basin is vast, at more than 1 million square kilometres—a seventh of the Australian continental mainland, and around 20 percent larger than the drainage area of the Mekong River—but is sparsely populated, with around 2.2 million people. Around 120,000 Aboriginal people from more than 40 First Nations communities live in the Basin and have done so for more than 65,000 years. The Basin produces around 40 percent of Australia’s total agricultural production and nearly half its irrigated agricultural production by value. Its food and fibre production is valued at AU$24 billion per year. More than 95 percent of all water diversions are used for agriculture, which represents more than 80 percent of the Basin’s land use. Water in the Basin is highly contested as competing demands (consumptive use, environmental flows, cultural use and recreational use) vie for a limited resource. The unfolding story of water management in the Basin provides an informative case study from which other countries may glean some valuable lessons. Significant and sometimes world-leading advances in water management have been made, but there have also been many setbacks. Despite the advanced water markets and institutional design of the Basin, deep and ongoing challenges remain, particularly climate change and development pressures. This report presents insights drawn from across case studies in the Basin on the multiple values of water under scarcity (AWP & World Bank, 2022a), environmental values of water (AWP & World Bank, 2022b) and Australia’s First Nations cultural values of water (AWP & World Bank, 2022c). The Basin-focused insights are followed by generalisable lessons for managing water for multiple values in other country contexts. These lessons are provided not as a roadmap for direct transfer elsewhere, but rather as framing and guidance that should be viewed through the lens of the hydrological, ecological, socioeconomic and political context of a specific basin or country. See Appendix C for information on use of the term ‘First Nations’. 1  Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 1 Lessons for water managers Generalisable lessons have been clustered according to (i) considering the context, (ii) leveraging existing systems and instruments, (iii) embedding governance arrangements, (iv) shaping markets and pricing, and (v) managing for sustainable outcomes. Some overlap necessarily exists between these categories. Considering the context: • Context matters—Appreciate that the historical, sociopolitical, hydrological, geographical and ecological contexts matter for the design of water policy and its successful implementation, and that lessons cannot be simply transplanted from one basin to another. • More than a technical issue—Acknowledge that water reforms (and institutional transformation) for realising environmental and cultural values are inherently political; this may help avoid policy deadlock and barriers to effective policy reform or implementation. • Sociopolitical support—Garner broad social, political and interagency support for enduring reform; otherwise, managing the politics of change and gaining the time required to show benefit is difficult. • Engineered lock-ins—Do not underestimate the challenges of managing water for benefits in systems engineered for irrigation or hydropower purposes; system constraints and rules developed for these uses may prevent delivery of specific outcomes or require changes in approach. At the same time, engineering may have created new sources of social value, such as recreational dams, that should be recognised and, in some cases, enhanced. • Stakeholder engagement—Ensure ongoing communication and engagement with stakeholders and communities, including First Nations people; negotiations over values, risk tolerance, trade-offs and desired outcomes will continue during implementation of environmental and cultural water policy. • First Nations inclusion—Ensure ongoing inclusion of Indigenous knowledge, values and voices in water management decisions and implementation. • Policy windows—Be prepared for, and take advantage of, policy windows such as electoral cycles, droughts or floods to advance water reforms by having a strong standing base of technical work, investment in policy research and development, and continuous consultation processes that engage all stakeholders. Leveraging existing systems and instruments: • Existing platforms—Build on successful approaches, such as existing systems for managing in-stream salinity or water quality, as a potential means of more effectively progressing water reforms. • Catchment management systems—Understand and acknowledge existing systems for catchment and water management, and build water policy with these in mind. Successful water management outcomes require integration with waterway and catchment management, and broader policy domains—for example, regional development, agricultural policy, environmental policy and urban planning. • Existing networks—Engage with and leverage existing stakeholder networks, including supporting their knowledge development, and strategic planning and implementation capabilities. • Existing instruments—Consider the scope for fast-tracking implementation by amending existing legal and regulatory instruments for managing and enforcing environmental and cultural water allocations and compliance. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 2 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Embedding governance arrangements: • Sustained commitment—Recognise that water reform is a continuous process that requires constant review, adaptation and improvement; it is a long-term ‘project’ that requires persistence by governments, including significant public investment. • Robust institutions and regulations—Design and delivery of an effective water reform agenda needs tailored institutional and regulatory arrangements, and effective engagement across multiple policy domains—for example, agricultural, regional development, environmental, First Nations, social services and health, and energy (where hydropower is a major part of river basin development). • Dedicated institutions—Establish dedicated institutions for water management with enough power and resources that they are independent of arbitrary change (e.g. swings in the political cycle). • Transboundary institutions and engagement—Establish institutions that allow policy coordination and transboundary governance where river basins span more than one jurisdiction (international or national). • Appropriate scale—Build institutions and nested planning processes that allow environmental and cultural water issues to be managed at the most appropriate scale; nested planning ensures consistency with basin-scale objectives while allowing area- and site-specific values to contribute to decision making. • Legal recognition—Establish environmental and cultural values formally as legitimate water uses and users (e.g. incorporate these values in legislation). • First Nations programs—Create mechanisms for First Nations people to combine traditional knowledge with training to protect and manage environmental and cultural water values for conservation, economic development and land management outcomes. • Voluntary agreements—Consider the scope for voluntary agreements as a mechanism for community engagement, including engagement with First Nations people, in protecting and managing environmental and cultural water values; these may be nonbinding (e.g. memorandums of understanding) or more formal (e.g. legally binding contracts). Shaping markets and pricing: • Intended benefits—Put in place sound regulation, monitoring and periodic evaluation of market-based mechanisms for distributing water to realise the intended benefits. • Embedding value—Use full cost accounting to inform the appropriate mix of policies and instruments to ensure that water management is sustainable and delivers value to the broader community. • Economic instruments—Consider using ‘cap-and-trade’ mechanisms and cost-reflective charges for infrastructure and services to reveal the value of water and drive efficiency. • Limiting use—Consider applying limits for specific uses, users or areas to help signal the scarcity of resources. • Water market scale—Ensure that governance, regulatory and operational frameworks supporting water trading can accommodate the scale of the market. • Transparency and accountability—Ensure confidence in the integrity of policy settings through fair and transparent decision making by governments, and mechanisms that enable the community to hold governments to account. • Exclusion and dispossession—Be aware of the potential for water markets to entrench histories of exclusion and dispossession by creating property rights and prioritising claims to assets that can limit options to redress historical exclusion and dispossession. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 3 • Cultural perspectives—Recognise that the separation of water from land and the creation of new property rights in water can clash with cultural understandings of water’s value. Managing for sustainable outcomes: • Multiple outcomes—Identify the multiple potential outcomes arising from different water policy options in the context of an overall framework for sustainable development, and communicate options and trade-offs to stakeholders. • Early action—Act early to integrate environmental and cultural water policy into river basin development, because restraining water use and recovering water for environmental and cultural values are very difficult and costly once a river system has become overallocated. • Science informed—Apply the principle of using the best available science to inform water resources planning and management. Among other things, this requires establishing and investing in programs of research; building knowledge partnerships (e.g. with academia, government science agencies and non-government organisations); and conducting systematic reviews, audits and technical consultations. • Cross-disciplinarity—Build cross-disciplinary professional groups (e.g. ecologists, engineers, lawyers, political scientists, economists, engagement specialists) at all scales in the design and implementation of water policy. • Uncertainty—Accept that decisions will usually need to be made under considerable uncertainty. Avoid unwarranted certainty, and help decision makers and stakeholders understand evidence quality. Maintain transparency about levels and sources of uncertainty with all stakeholders. • Continuous improvement—Improve the ways in which values (quantifiable and nonquantifiable) are incorporated into water management (e.g. through pricing mechanism design, accounting rules, acknowledgment in decision making, monitoring and evaluation criteria) to help ensure that the appropriate policies and levers are used, noting that choices that incorporate values will often need to be made in the absence of full quantification. • Variable conditions—Consider the extent to which policy options will work well across the range of geographies and conditions that occur in highly variable or highly seasonal systems. Note that policy options that work well in one system might not work in another; for example, policies for a highly regulated, interconnected system with substantial amounts of public storage might not transfer well to a groundwater-dependent system with little public storage and few surface water interconnections. • Scenario testing—Test water management proposals against a wide range of plausible future scenarios, noting that historical data on system hydrology may not be a valid guide to future behaviour. • MERI—Design monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) systems into policy implementation processes; as competition for available water increases, monitoring and measurement of take, and enforcing compliance by all users (consumptive and environmental/cultural) become more important. The case of the Murray-Darling Basin has shown that the process of water reform in practice is complex, nonlinear and ongoing—it is a work in progress. This means that there will always be setbacks and failures, and further issues to resolve. Because making decisions about water use and control is inherently social, cultural, economic and political, any water reform agenda must do more than undertake comprehensive scientific and technical analyses, and formulate effective and efficient policy responses. For water reforms to prove resilient, close attention must also be paid to identifying and engaging with stakeholders. Although engaging with stakeholders in a meaningful process of co-design and co-implementation might slow the rate of progress and even increase costs in the short term, it is much less likely that significant setbacks will arise from sociopolitical pushback, and much more likely that the trajectory of reforms will trend upwards in the long term. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 4 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Going forward in the Murray-Darling Basin The next phase of water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin faces a series of challenges that demonstrate the importance of a multifaceted understanding of water’s value. The ‘acceleration’ phase (2000s–2020) saw important gains in development of policy responses to issues of ownership, pricing, allocation, market design and establishing the environment as a legitimate water user. Economics provided the dominant frame for most of these reforms. However, this approach to valuing water has not been sufficient. Governments now need to grapple more directly with the social, political and institutional dimensions of valuing water in progressing with the next phase of water reform. Critical issues for further policy reform in the Basin include: • effective and just responses to Indigenous calls for making cultural values and economic development of First Nations people a key element of water reform and management • comprehensive reform of water markets to ensure effective operation, appropriate governance, and rebuilding of user trust in markets and regulatory institutions • a strong focus on climate adaptation, which will require – improved links between water policy and other relevant policy domains, including regional development, agricultural policy, land management, urban planning and broader environmental policy – improved interjurisdictional cooperation across these policy domains • improvements to monitoring and evaluation of social, economic and environmental outcomes to maximise learning and continuous improvement across domains as diverse as environmental watering, human health, flood risk mitigation, industry development and structural adjustment. Attention to coalition building and deliberative dialogues could help defuse tensions and rebuild trust between levels of government, and between governments and communities. To this end, there may be space for third parties—coalitions of non-government organisations, think tanks and/or the network of regional natural resource management bodies (with their local-level Landcare groups)—to act as policy brokers and bridges to facilitate the reform process and increase the likelihood of successful and enduring change. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 5 1 About this report 1.1 The global imperative Estimates suggest that global freshwater use has increased by a factor of 6 during the past 100 years, although the exact magnitude of the increase is uncertain (UNESCO, 2021). The World Economic Forum included ‘water crises’ among the top five global risks by impact in 9 of the 10 years between 2011 and 2020 (WEF, 2020). More than 2 billion people live in countries experiencing water stress (essentially measured as water use as a function of available supply). Water stress is most often experienced as a seasonal rather than an annual phenomenon. Severe physical water scarcity for at least 1 month per year is estimated to affect 4 billion people. For about 1.6 billion people, water may be physically available, but they do not have the infrastructure needed to access it (‘economic’ water scarcity). Chronic water scarcity, hydrological uncertainty and extreme weather events, such as floods and droughts, are seen as the biggest threats to global prosperity and stability. A balance must be struck between addressing human development and water security needs, on the one hand, and managing the risks to ecosystem services, critical habitat and biodiversity—which provide livelihoods, particularly for many of the world’s lowest-income people—on the other. Land-use change, water developments (e.g. dam building for hydropower) and overwithdrawals can have adverse economic outcomes, constrain the function of ecosystem services, and affect cultural and social values associated with water, particularly among historically underserved local communities. These impacts are likely to be accelerated and intensified by climate change, which has wide-ranging implications for the water cycle. In response to the increasing pressures on the world’s water resources, the United Nations (UN) and the World Bank convened the High-Level Panel on Water (HLPW) in April 2016 to provide a ‘New Agenda for Water Action’. The HLPW comprised 11 sitting heads of state and government, and one special adviser, and included the Australian Prime Minister as a member. The resulting report, Making every drop count: an agenda for water action, urged a new approach to understanding, valuing and managing water (HLPW, 2018). The UN World Water Development Report, valuing water, noted that ‘the overall importance of this vital resource is not appropriately reflected in political attention and financial investment in many parts of the world’ and that the ‘divergent perspectives on water value and the best ways to calculate and express it, coupled with limited knowledge of the actual resource, present a challenging landscape for rapid improvements in valuing water’ (UNESCO, 2021). The Australian Water Partnership commissioned a framing paper on valuing water for the HLPW. The paper identified the state of global practice and described how valuation has been integrated into water management to achieve more efficient, equitable and sustainable outcomes. It provided options to spark global action within the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goal time frame to improve water management by making more effective use of valuation (Pohlner et al., 2016). In support of the water-related goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the HLPW described: • a foundation for action • leading an integrated agenda at the local, country and regional levels • catalysing change, building partnerships and international cooperation at the global level. Specific recommendations of the HLPW are shown in Figure 1. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 6 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 5 Principles for Valuing Water Recognize and Embrace Water’s Multiple Values Identify and take into account the multiple There are deep interconnections between human and diverse values of water to different needs, social and economic well-being, spiritual beliefs, and the visibility of ecosystems that need to groups and interests in all decisions affecting water. be considered. Reconcile Values and Build Trust Conduct all processes to reconcile values Trade-offs will be inevitable, especially when water is scarce, and these call for sharing benefits amongst all in ways that are equitable, transparent, and those affected. Inaction may also have costs that inclusive. involve steeper trade-offs. These processes need to be adaptive in the face of local and global changes. Protect the Sources Value, manage, and protect all sources of There is growing urgency to protect sources, control and prevent pollution, and address other pressures water, including watersheds, rivers, aquifers, associated ecosystems, and used water flows across multiple scales. for current and future generations. Educate to Empower Promote education and public awareness This will enable broader participation, water-wise decisions and sustainable practices in areas such as about the intrinsic value of water and its spatial planning, development of infrastructure, city essential role in all aspects of life. management, industrial development, farming, protection of ecosystems, and domestic use. Invest and Innovate Ensure adequate investment in This requires concerted action and institutional coherence. It should harness new ideas, tools, and institutions, infrastructure, information, and innovation to realize the many different solutions while drawing on existing and indigenous knowledge and practices in ways that nurture the benefits derived from water and reduce risks. innovative leaders of tomorrow. Figure 1. Principles for valuing water articulated by the High-Level Panel on Water (Source: HLPW, 2018). The United Nations World Water Development Report (UNESCO, 2021) examined valuation methodologies and approaches according to five interrelated perspectives: • valuing water sources, in situ water resources and ecosystems • valuing water infrastructure for water storage, use, reuse or augmentation of supply • valuing water services, mainly drinking water, sanitation and related human health aspects • valuing water as an input to production and socioeconomic activity, such as food and agriculture, energy and industry, and business and employment • other sociocultural values of water, including recreational, cultural and spiritual attributes. The report also reflected on different global and regional experiences; more integrated and holistic approaches to governance for reconciling the multiple values of water; approaches to financing; and methods to address knowledge, research and capacity needs. The report noted that it remains ‘extremely difficult to determine water’s “true” value’; as a consequence, water management decisions often do not fully reflect water’s multifaceted values (UNESCO, 2021). Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 7 Ensuring a water-secure world for all, meeting global demands, sustaining economic growth and ensuring sustainability of ecosystem services will require societies to sustainably, efficiently and inclusively value, allocate and manage water resources. Australia’s experience in managing the development of water resources—with its unique and diverse ecosystems, longstanding cultural traditions, and management systems developed in response to extreme climatic conditions—provides important insights for the global community. 1.2 An Australian case study Australia’s major water reforms have centred on the Murray-Darling Basin (the Basin) and the challenges arising from the extensive development of its water resources over more than 100 years in a highly variable climate subject to persistent, long dry periods, as well as large floods. Water resources have been developed in the Basin primarily for agricultural and rural development, but also to supply towns and cities in the Basin and adjacent regions. Water reforms that have played out in the Basin have often been applied elsewhere in Australia, and have also attracted international interest. This report examines how the diverse values placed on water have shaped the development and management of water resources in the Basin. It is part of a package published by the Australian Water Partnership in partnership with the World Bank under the umbrella of the valuing water: The Australian Perspective Project. The report synthesises and elicits generalisable lessons from three case studies that tell the story of valuing water in the Basin through the primary lenses of economics (AWP & World Bank, 2022a), environment (AWP & World Bank, 2022b) and Australia’s First Nations2 cultures (AWP & World Bank, 2022c). Acknowledging that it is ‘futile to attempt to quantitatively compare the value of water for domestic use, the human right to water, customary or religious beliefs, and the value of maintaining flows to preserve biodiversity’, these three reports on value respond to the fundamental challenge of ‘the need for better means to recognize, maintain and accommodate different values’ (UNESCO, 2021). The insights and generalisable lessons presented in this report are primarily intended for policy makers, practitioners, water managers, water engineers, civil society organisations and academics to inform and improve water management in other country contexts. 1.3 Report structure The report’s structure is shown in Table 1. First, the Murray-Darling Basin is introduced (Chapter 2), through a snapshot overview followed by brief descriptions of its hydrological system, population and employment, major agricultural industries, ecological assets, and sites of First Nations cultural significance. Next, governance arrangements for water management in the Basin are described, together with the evolution of water management organised according to six phases (Chapter 3). This is intended to inform the trajectory of water resources management in other contexts by showing how water management in the Basin has evolved over time, including key milestone events. Collective insights from the case studies are synthesised according to enablers, challenges and future opportunities (Chapter 4). The report concludes with generalisable lessons for policy makers and others with strategic interests operating in other basin contexts (Chapter 5). Readers are encouraged to dive more deeply into the individual case study reports or review the summary versions in the appendixes—the multiple values of water under scarcity (Appendix A), the environmental values of water (Appendix B) and Australia’s First Nations cultural values of water (Appendix C). See Appendix C for information on use of the term ‘First Nations’. 2  Valuing water: The Australian perspective 8 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Table 1. Report structure Chapter Title Summary 1 About this report Explains the purpose of the report, the target audience and the report’s structure. 2 About the Introduces the Basin and describes its hydrological system, Murray-Darling Basin population and employment, major agricultural industries, ecological assets and sites of cultural significance. 3 Governance of the Murray- Outlines the Basin’s governance arrangements and maps out Darling Basin six phases in the evolution of its water management. 4 Synthesis of case studies Draws across the three case studies to identify insights for guiding the management of water resources. 5 Conclusions Summarises the main components of the report, and elicits generalisable lessons applicable to other basin contexts. 6 References Lists sources identified in the body of the report; separate reference lists are provided for each case study in the appendices. Appendix A Case study synopsis: Case study 1: Summarises how the value of water has affected Multiple values of water the management of scarce water resources in the Basin under scarcity in the (AWP & World Bank, 2022a) Murray-Darling Basin B Case study synopsis: Case study 2: Summarises Australia’s environmental water Environmental values reforms and provides a detailed account of the current of water in the management regime for environmental water in the Basin Murray-Darling Basin (AWP & World Bank, 2022b) C Case study synopsis: Case study 3: Summarises how Australia’s First Nations people Cultural values of water in and their cultural values are included in the management of the Murray-Darling Basin water in the Basin (AWP & World Bank, 2022c) Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 9 2 About the Murray-Darling Basin This chapter sets the scene for understanding water management in the Murray-Darling Basin. It starts with an overview of the Basin, and then briefly explains its hydrological system, population and employment, major agricultural industries, ecological assets and sites of First Nations cultural significance. 2.1 Basin snapshot The Murray-Darling Basin is one of Australia’s largest catchments (Figure 2). It is also Australia’s most significant agricultural region, and the river basin with the most extensive water use and greatest environmental challenges. By area, the Basin is around one and a quarter times the size of the Mekong River Basin or the Yellow River Basin. It ranks among the 20 largest river basins in the world measured by river length and catchment area. Figure 2. Murray-Darling Basin, and its rivers and major towns (Source: MDBA, 2020a) Valuing water: The Australian perspective 10 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin The Basin drains roughly a seventh of the Australian continental mainland (a little over 1 million square kilometres). Rivers from 23 major catchments feed the Murray and the Darling—the Basin’s two major rivers. The Darling River runs south from Queensland and through New South Wales (NSW). The Murray River rises in both NSW and Victoria, and runs west along the border of the two states. The rivers meet in Wentworth before continuing to the coast in South Australia, where the Murray River flows into the Southern Ocean. The Basin is sparsely populated, with around 2.2 million inhabitants, representing less than 10% of the national population (Figure 3). Around 120,000 Aboriginal people from more than 40 First Nations live in the Basin and have done so for more than 65,000 years (Dwyer & Cheesman, 2019; Pollino et al., 2020). The Basin produces around 40 percent of Australia’s total agricultural production. Its food and fibre production is valued at AU$24 billion per year (MDBA, no date-b). More than 80 percent of the Basin’s land is used for agricultural production, of which around 1–2 percent is irrigated, depending on the year (ABS, 2012, 2020). In 2017–18, total gross value of irrigated agricultural production in Australia was AU$17.7 billion, of which the Basin accounted for AU$8.6 billion (ABS, 2019). Livestock grazing is the predominant land use, and provides the highest value of agricultural production in the Basin. In most years, cotton, fruits and nuts provide the highest-value irrigated agricultural production in the Basin. Agriculture is the major water user in the Basin (ABS, 2019), representing more than 95 percent of all water diversions. Total water use in the Basin comprises more than two-thirds of agricultural water use nationally, and more than half of all water use in Australia (BoM, 2019; MDBA, 2017). The Basin’s rivers provide domestic and municipal water supplies for more than 3 million people, including supplying Adelaide, a city of more than 1 million located outside the Basin. Figure 3. Snapshot of the Murray-Darling Basin (Source: MDBA, no date-a) Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 11 2.2 The river system The Murray-Darling Basin is unlike many other large river–catchment–estuarine–coastal systems. The system combines a large catchment with a relatively small coastal lagoon system and low coastal discharge (Hart et al., 2020). Here, a brief description is given of the Basin’s terrain and climate, streamflow and connectivity, and groundwater. 2.2.1 Terrain and climate Most of the Basin is less than 200 m above sea level, and 90 percent is arid or semi-arid (Maheshwari et al., 1995). Although dominated by low-gradient arid to semi-arid plains, it exhibits a diversity of geographical features and climates—from the Great Dividing Range, which rises more than 2,000 m above sea level in the east and south, to the wide plains of the west (Geoscience Australia, 2012). Extensive land clearing during the past 200 years has removed more than 60 percent of the original tree cover, altering the relationship between surface water and groundwater systems, and changing the Basin’s hydroclimate (Murphy & Timbal, 2008; Walker et al., 1993). The climate of the Basin ranges from subtropical in the north to semi-arid in the west and temperate in the south. There is a corresponding variation in ecosystems, from subtropical grasslands and rainforest in the northeast, temperate broadleaf forest and montane shrublands in the southeast, alpine heaths on the higher mountains, and temperate grasslands and Mediterranean shrublands in the west (DAWE, 2020; Walker et al., 1993). 2.2.2 Streamflow Although the Basin’s long-term average annual streamflow is the lowest of all major river systems on Earth (State of the Environment Advisory Council, 1996), the Basin also has the highest variability and unpredictability in interannual flows (McMahon et al., 1992) (Figure 4). Total annual streamflow in modern records ranges from 6,740 million cubic metres (mcm) (in 2006) to 117,907 mcm (in 1956) (MDBA, 2010). Multiyear low-rainfall, low-flow and cease-to-flow periods are a regular feature of the Basin’s hydrology, visible in both the modern and paleoclimatic records (Freund et al., 2017; McMahon & Finlayson, 2003). Only one-fifth of the Basin’s total river length is classified as having permanent flows (Bond et al., 2020). Hydrological connectivity between the Basin’s rivers is consequently highly variable, with a number of rivers terminating in floodplain wetlands and only contributing flows to the wider system during very large floods (CSIRO, 2008). The Basin’s highly variable interannual rainfall patterns are strongly influenced by the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), with particular variation in winter, spring and summer rainfall. ENSO effects further magnify fluctuations in streamflow volume (Chiew et al., 1998; Gallant et al., 2012). The Indian Ocean Dipole, other Indian Ocean sea surface temperature anomalies, and variations in the Southern Annular Mode also influence the Basin’s hydroclimate (Gallant et al., 2012). The Basin exhibits significant regional variation across annual and seasonal streamflow patterns. Streamflows in the north tend to be lower than in the south. Driven by summer monsoonal rainfall, the streamflows in the northern Basin vary between 0.01 and 10 times the long-run average. Flows in the south vary between 0.3 and 3 times the long-run average, and are dominated by late-winter and spring rainfall (Gawne et al., 2020). There are also marked east–west variations. Average annual rainfall in some eastern Basin catchments is 5 times that of catchments in the arid and semi-arid west. Evaporation averaged across the Basin is approximately 4 times annual average rainfall; regional variation in evaporation ranges from slightly below average annual rainfall in the southeast to 8 times average annual rainfall in the west (Gallant et al., 2012). Valuing water: The Australian perspective 12 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Area (105 km2) Variability (CV) Diversions (105 mcm yr-1) Indus M-D Indus M-D Yellow Ganges Ganges Mekong Mekong Yellow Ganges Yellow Mekong Indus M-D 0 3 6 9 0 0.2 0.4 0 1 2 Diversions/Inflows Inflows (mcm km yr ) -2 -1 Inflows (mcm person-1) Indus Mekong M-D Yellow Ganges Mekong M-D Indus Ganges Ganges Yellow Indus Mekong M-D Yellow 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.003 0.006 0.009 Inflows (105 mcm yr-1) Population (108) Diversions (mcm person-1) 2012-2020 1980-2006 Ganges Ganges M-D Mekong Indus Indus Indus Yellow Mekong Yellow Mekong Ganges M-D M-D Yellow 0 2 4 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 0.002 0.004 Ganges Indus Mekong 300 mm 200 100 0 Northern M-D Southern M-D Yellow 300 mm 200 100 0 ay ay ay ar v ar v ar v g g g c c c p p p b b b r r r t t t n n n n n n l l l Ap Ap Ap Oc Oc Oc No No No De De De Au Au Au Ju Ju Ju Se Se Se Fe Fe Fe Ju Ju Ju Ja Ja Ja M M M M M M Potential evapotranspiration Rainfall Note: These basin-level comparisons hide considerable regional variation and should be interpreted with caution. Variability is the coefficient of variation (CV) for total basin annual inflows. Figure 4. (a) Comparison of characteristics of Murray-Darling (M–D), Ganges, Indus, Mekong and Yellow River basins. (b) Seasonal distribution of rainfall and potential evapotranspiration across the six river basins (Sources: Data for Ganges, Indus, Mekong and Yellow River basins - Eastham et al, 2014. Data for Murray-Darling Basin - MDBA, 2016a, 2016b, 2020b; BoM, 2018, 2019. Figure by R. Marsh) Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 13 2.2.3 Groundwater The Basin has extensive groundwater systems. The northern Basin sits over the southern part of the Great Artesian Basin, Australia’s largest groundwater basin, which is managed through a separate interstate agreement from the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. The remainder of the Basin consists of fractured rock aquifers in the highlands, major alluvial systems in river valleys and riverine plains, and largely saline limestone aquifers in the west. Groundwater is an important water resource for Basin agriculture and communities, particularly in the northern Basin (Stewardson et al., 2020). Around one-quarter of the water used in the Basin in 2018–2019 was from groundwater systems (BoM, 2020). 2.3 Population and employment The Murray-Darling Basin’s original custodians belong to more than 40 First Nations (Figure 5), who have inhabited the Basin for more than 65,000 years. It has been more than 230 years since European colonisation, and 120 years since the federation of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. Currently, around 120,000 Indigenous people reside in the Basin (Dwyer & Cheesman, 2019; Pollino et al., 2020). Figure 5. First Nations of the Murray-Darling Basin (within surface water planning areas) (Source: MDBA, 2018) Valuing water: The Australian perspective 14 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin productivity estimates for the industry indicate that two thirds of industries experienced productivity growth18 in nearly all five year periods between 1989-90 and 2014-15. The economy-wide average rate of productivity growth was 0.9 per cent, but the agriculture, forestry and fishing industry had the highest growth (2.6 per cent) (PC 2016b, pp. 9–10). The total population of the Basin is around 2.2 million, ranging from 0.1 to 3.5 people per square result of As akilometre these for the vastproductivity majority of the improvements area outside urban(and the Canberra, centres. associated the reduction in demand for nation’s capital, agricultural workers) is the largest city in theand growth Basin, of less than in in employment with a population the services 500,000. sector, Half the Basin’s employment population live in agriculture has fallen from 6.1 per cent of Australian workers in 1984 to 2.6 per cent in 2016. in 19 regional centres (more than 20,000 people), 25 percent live in towns (5,000–20,000 people), Thisand the remainder reflects a much live in small towns or on farms. longer term decline in the agricultural workforce from the 1930s (figure 3.13). Between For 2001 and 2016,regions those populationthat have growth washistorically than foron much slower relied theagriculture, the reduction in rest of Australia (increasing by about 2 percent, compared with about 20 percent employment in agriculture has resulted in ongoing adjustment. Fewer jobs in the for the rest of Australia over period).can a region The population is considerably older than in the rest of Australia, and the Basin experiences out-migration haveof number ayounger of simultaneous effects, including out-migration, growth in other industries, people (aged 18–40) to major coastal cities. and unemployment. Off-farm income has also become increasingly important for The economy of the Basin is quite diverse. The economic contribution of tourism and recreation is agricultural workers (PC 2005, pp. 110–113). currently similar to that of irrigated agriculture. During the past 15 years, employment growth has been strongest in the services and construction sectors, while it has declined in agriculture (Figure 6) and manufacturing. One of the contributors to the change in agricultural employment over this period Figure 3.13 has been Employment farm consolidation, which in agriculture mirrors has a broader trend declined across over a Australia (Pollino etlong period al., 2020). 600 30 500 25 Per cent of workforce Persons ('000s) 400 20 300 15 200 10 100 5 0 0 1911 1926 1941 1956 1971 1986 2001 2016 Agricultural employment (left axis) Per cent of workforce (right axis) Figure 6. Employment in agriculture, Australia, 1911–2016 (Source: Productivity Commission, 2017) Sources: ABS (Labour Force, Australia, Detailed, Quarterly, Feb 2017, Cat. no. 6291.0.55.003) and Commission estimates A report examining using Withers, socioeconomic Endres change inand Perry Basin (1985). (Schirmer & Mylek, 2020) found that communities Basin areas typically had poorer conditions than those outside the Basin for four of the six indicators used to measure ‘economy, employment and standard of living’ (Figure 7). Compared with other Australians, Basin residents were slightly less likely to experience financial distress events unless they lived in remote areas, and were slightly more positive for ‘change in labour force participation 2006–2016’. 18 Measured as multifactor productivity. PERFORMANCE OF REGIONS 111 Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 15 there were sometimes large differences between LGAs. In inner regional areas, no Basin LGAs had better than average conditions for economy employment and standard of living, while several had poorer than average conditions, particularly Berrigan, Barossa, South Burnett, Mid Murray, Lithgow, Federation, Cowra, Southern Downs, Armidale Regional, and Benalla. Notes: Six indicators were used: unemployment rate 2016; labour force participation rate 2016; change in unemployment 2006–2016; change in labour force participation 2006–2016; local businesses in this region are doing pretty well at the moment; % who experienced one or more Figure 4 Economy, employment and standard of living in Murray-Darling Basin LGAs financial distress events in last 12 months. 26 Figure 7. Economy, employment and standard of living in Murray-Darling Basin local government areas (LGAs) (Source: Schirmer & Mylek, 2020) 2.4 Major agricultural industries Australia has a diverse agricultural, fisheries and forestry sector. The gross value of the sector has increased by 8 percent in the past 20 years, from approximately AU$62 billion in 2000–01 to AU$67 billion in 2019–20. The Basin produces around 40 percent of Australia’s total agricultural production and nearly half its irrigated agricultural production by value (Figure 8). Its food and fibre production is valued at AU$24 billion per year (MDBA, no date-b) (Figure 3). There are around 35,000 agricultural businesses in the Basin, of which around one-quarter used irrigation in 2018–19 (ABS, 2020). Dryland agriculture constitutes the vast majority of the agricultural area and around 60 percent of gross value of agricultural production in the Basin. Dryland systems in the Basin contribute almost half of Australia’s gross value from cereals (other than rice), slightly less than a third from all beef production and almost half from sheep and other livestock. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 16 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Irrigated production in the Basin generated almost all of Australia’s gross value from rice, around 90 percent from cotton, 75 percent from grapes and 40 percent from fruit and nuts. Slightly less than a third of the gross value of dairy production in Australia is generated in the Basin, and around 80 percent of this is from irrigated dairy farms (ABS, 2019). Almost all rice production, the majority of the irrigated horticulture and most of the dairy production occurs in the more developed southern part of the Basin, where water for irrigation is more secure and reliable. Cotton is the major irrigated crop in the northern Basin, where opportunistic planting can adapt to the higher variability of the northern hydrological regime. Figure 8. Crops and dairy produced in the Murray-Darling Basin (Source: MDBA, no date-b) 2.5 Ecological assets Regional differences in climate, geography and flow regimes host a wide variety of aquatic, riparian and terrestrial ecosystems, which support numerous internationally and nationally significant species (Bond et al., 2020). Although many important wetland and aquatic ecological assets have been retained, major alterations to the Basin’s hydrology from land clearing, grazing, mining and water resources development have adversely impacted their health and condition over the past 200 years. The ecosystems of the Basin’s 23 river valleys are well attuned to its highly variable flow regime, requiring intermittent flooding and dry periods to flourish (Kingsford, 2000; Leblanc et al., 2010). Large flood events in the Basin’s wetlands support large-scale breeding events, especially of colonial nesting species. Sixteen wetlands are listed under the 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Leblanc et al., 2010). The most comprehensive assessment of the Basin’s river and wetland assets was the 2010 Sustainable Rivers Audit, which assessed only one of the Basin’s 23 river valleys as being in ‘good’ health. Of the remainder, 1 was rated ‘moderate’, 15 ‘poor’, and 6 ‘very poor’ (MDBA, 2012). River health at this time was adversely affected by the millennium drought (1997–2009) (BoM, 2015). Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 17 The strongest influences on the health of these systems are the overall reduction in river flows and changes to flow regimes caused by water extractions and river regulation, as well as catchment disturbance (Gawne et al., 2020; McMahon & Finlayson, 2003). The scale of these changes is likely to have been faster and larger than the projected impacts of climate change for the 21st century (T. A. McMahon & B. L. Finlayson, University of Melbourne, personal communication, 8 January 2021; McMahon & Finlayson, 2003). A key objective of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is to ‘protect and restore’ the Basin’s water-dependent ecosystems. However, the profound changes to the landscapes and ecology of the Basin over the past 200 years challenge simple definitions of a restoration reference state (Gann et al., 2019). The impacts of climate change will further challenge the definition of restoration and protection objectives. Consequently, future approaches to environmental water policy in the Basin will require science and technical studies, alongside extensive engagement with communities and stakeholders to agree on desired states for restoration and protection. This suggests that future restoration and rehabilitation will likely be best understood as requiring the design of ‘ecosystem solutions’ (Palmer et al., 2004) that sustain ‘robust, persistent and socially valued ecological characteristics in a flexible and adaptive management framework’ (Poff, 2018). Figure 9. The Murray River (Source: Tsivbrav / Dreamstime) Valuing water: The Australian perspective 18 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 2.6 Sites of First Nations cultural significance A brief outline of the Basin’s sites of First Nations cultural significance (sacred sites and Indigenous historical places) is provided here. Refer to the case study on Australia’s First Nations cultural values (full report of the case study or the summary in Appendix C) for more detailed information, including the key concepts of ‘connection to Country’ and the ‘original water industry’. In the First Nations world view, people and Country (including lands, waterways and seas) are interdependent entities that are intrinsically linked in the landscape through cultural and spiritual significance. Over millennia, First Nations people have sustainably managed the lands, waters and natural resources for the health of their Countries and their communities. An Australian Indigenous sacred site is a place deemed significant and meaningful by First Nations people based on their cultural and spiritual beliefs and customs. It may include any feature in the landscape, and in coastal areas, which may lie under water. The site’s status is derived from an association with some aspect of social and cultural tradition, which is related to spiritual ancestral beings, collectively known as the Dreaming, who created both physical and social aspects of the world. The site may have its access restricted based on gender, clan or other Indigenous grouping, or other factors. Sites of significance— rivers, banks, cultural sites (birthing, men’s, women’s), campgrounds, middens, rock engravings, scar trees—provide the cultural foundation for an intrinsic connection for past, present and future First Nations people. An Indigenous historical place could be the site of ancestral life, a colonial era massacre or another significant historical event. It may have associations with an important person or be an example of wider political, social, spiritual, economic or historical events or trends. An Indigenous historical place could have a physical artefact (tangible heritage), such as a rock marking, a shell midden, foundations, a burial site or a building. The significance may be in the intangible heritage of ceremony, story or song of a place. The historical place may have both tangible and intangible heritage (Moggridge et al., 2019). Indigenous historical places are identified through collaborative research, in partnership with First Nations people, that may include oral histories, archival sources, historical records and archaeological investigations. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 19 3 Governance of the Murray-Darling Basin This chapter presents an overview of the Basin’s governance arrangements for water management, followed by a characterisation of its development according to six phases. 3.1 Transboundary governance Australia is a federation of six states and two self-governing territories. Under the Australian constitution, powers are distributed between the national government and the governments of each state and territory. The Basin is a transboundary system in which responsibility for water resource policy, planning and management is shared between the Australian Government and the governments of the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria. State and territory governments have primary responsibility for managing natural resources, including water, within their jurisdictional geographic boundaries, and each has its own water laws and regulations. Indeed, Australian states retain plenary legislative power to make law for natural resources management, and the Australian constitution explicitly limits the Australian Government’s powers with regard to water resources. As a consequence, the Australian Government has historically sought to exercise influence in the Basin through encouraging cooperation among the Basin states. This has included deploying the Australian Government’s financial resources through strategic investment decisions, relying on the states to legislate in a way that is consistent with agreed policy, and working with the states to agree to enact parallel legislation (Gardner et al., 2018). The Murray-Darling Basin Agreement is one of Australia’s longest-standing interstate compacts, originally agreed in 1914 as the River Murray Waters Agreement, and has relied on such cooperation (Guest, 2017). A major shift occurred in 2008, when the Basin states referred some of their powers to the Australian Government to ensure that it had the legal authority to define environmental and economic limits for management of the Basin’s waters in the national interest under the Water Act 2007 (Gardner et al., 2018). Management of the Basin’s water resources is now shared between the Australian and state governments; states maintain responsibility for most land and water management in the context of a higher-order, Basin-scale framework agreed with the Australian Government and other states (Gardner et al., 2018). Debate continues about the effectiveness of these arrangements (Productivity Commission, 2020; Walker, 2019). The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) and the Inspector-General of Water Compliance are responsible for preparing, implementing, reviewing, monitoring and enforcing plans that ensure that the water resources of the Basin are managed in an integrated and sustainable manner, in conjunction with other Australian Government, Basin state government and local agencies; industry groups; and scientists and research organisations. The MDBA is the agency responsible for policy development, implementation, review and monitoring, while the Inspector-General of Water Compliance is the regulator responsible for compliance and enforcement. Both report to the Australian Government Minister for Water. In a global context, the Basin has evolved into a relatively sophisticated water resources management system. The current water governance and management framework is a complex and sometimes unwieldy mix of state-administered and nationally administered collaborative planning, market-based instruments and direct regulation (Alexandra, 2019; Doolan, 2016). Water for irrigation and water for the environment are managed by state and Australian government institutions within a framework structured around quantified property rights framed as a share of available water (not an absolute amount), volumetric accounting for water use, definitive registers of rights ownership, and water trading within highly developed markets (relative to other markets) (Hanemann & Young, 2020). Valuing water: The Australian perspective 20 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 3.2 Evolution of water management A brief outline of the six phases of water resources management in the Murray-Darling Basin from 65,000+ years of First Nations management to the present is shown in Figure 10. These phases are 65,000+ years, 1800s – early 1900s, early 1900s – 1950s, 1960s–1970s, 1980s–1990s and 2000s–2020); some overlap necessarily exists between them. Phase Environmental conditions Storage Development (65,000+ years) Pre-1800s Indigenous First Nations Law management First Nations management of land and The ‘Original Water Industry’ including the operation and management of water freshwater fisheries 1788 British colonisation and Indigenous dispossession Mining, land clearing, 1860 1860s First limited water rights created in goldfields legislation (1800s–early 1900s) overstocking and dam c. 0.3mcm (NSW, VIC) establishment building impacts on instream 1880 1886 VIC vests rights to surface water “in the Crown” (the equivalent Settler and catchment health c. 30mcm of the state) and establishes a water licencing scheme; common-law 1895–1902 Federation riparian water rights limited; followed by NSW (1896), VIC amendments 1900 Drought (1905), QLD (1910), SA (1919) c. 180mcm 1901 Federation of the Commonwealth of Australia 1914–15 Drought 1920 1914 River Murray Agreement – first transboundary agreement between 1900s–1950s) Development expansion c. 600mcm Basin states (early 1937–45 WWII Drought 1940 1917 River Murray Commission c. 4,500mcm 1917 & 1947 Soldier settlement schemes 1965–68 Drought 1960 1968 Water diversion limits introduced (SA) (1960s –1970s) c. 14,500mcm Emerging 1968 High salinity affects 1971 Australia ratifies Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International costs environment, irrigated Importance crops and Adelaide’s water supply 1981 Murray mouth closed 1980 1983 (SA, NSW), 1987 (VIC) Initial allocation and entitlement trading for first time in c. 28,500mcm between private diverters recorded history 1987-88 Murray–Darling Basin Agreement; Murray–Darling Basin 1982–83 Drought Commission established 1991 Toxic algal bloom 1989 Basin Salinity and Drainage Strategy Major water reforms affects > 1,000km 1991 First inter-valley water trading (NSW); inter-district entitlement (1980s – 1990s) of Barwon–Darling trading allowed, but did not begin until 1994 (VIC) system 1992 National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development; 1997 Millennium Drought National Water Quality Management Strategy begins 1993 Australia ratifies Convention on Biological Diversity 1993 Native Title Act (Cth) 1994 COAG Water Reform Framework – recommends ‘unbundling’ of water licences from land ownership, full cost recovery for infrastructure and establishment of water markets 1995 Interim Basin ‘cap’ on diversions introduced 2006 Lowest Basin inflows 2000 2001 Basin Salinity Management Strategy continues response to salinity on record c. 30,000mcm 2002 Living Murray Program recovers water for environment 2009 Millennium drought 2004 National Water Initiative continues water reform (2000s – 2020) ends 2007 Water Act (Cth) expands Basin-wide water governance and Cth Acceleration 2017–19 Severe drought involvement; Echuca Declaration on Indigenous water rights 2018–19 Three mass fish 2008 Murray–Darling Basin Authority established death events 2011 Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program (Cth) 2012 Basin Plan; Aboriginal Water Initiative (NSW) 2016 National Groundwater Strategic Framework; Aboriginal Water Program (VIC) Notes: COAG–Council of Australian Governments; Cth–Commonwealth; mcm–million cubic metres; NSW–New South Wales; QLD–Queensland; SA–South Australia; VIC–Victoria. Figure 10. Six phases of water resources management in the Murray-Darling Basin. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 21 3.2.1 ‘First Nations management’ phase (65,000+ years) Australia’s First Nations people used, modified and managed the Basin’s landscapes and freshwater systems for tens of thousands of years (Humphries, 2007). First Nations people engaged in integrated land and water management practices that shaped terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems based around ‘an established body of laws that allocated rights and interests among particular people’ (Bird et al., 2008; Gammage, 2011; Gardner et al., 2018). The ‘original water industry’ is a term used to denote the functioning water industry managed by First Nations people throughout Australia before the arrival of Europeans. The nature of the original water industry reflected the culture, practice and knowledge of First Nations people. Its broad reach included the operation and management of fisheries, which sustained Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations (Frangos et al., 2020). 3.2.2 ‘Settler establishment’ phase (1800s – early 1900s) The arrival of European settlers in the Basin in the first half of the 19th century led to the violent dispossession, displacement and depopulation of First Nations people from their lands and waters (Hunter, 2014; Weir, 2011). The replacement of Indigenous land and water management practices with settler approaches to re-engineering the landscape began a process of profound alteration to the hydrology and ecology of the Basin’s land and water systems (Gammage, 2011; Humphries, 2007). Large parts of the Basin were extensively cleared for settler livestock grazing and cropping. Rapid expansion of livestock grazing in the rangelands of the western Basin from the 1860s led to overstocking, which combined with invasive species (primarily rabbits) to cause substantial environmental degradation to the lands and waters of this region. A NSW Government inquiry begun in 1900 led to the passing of the Western Lands Act 1901, notable for its early focus on land management and conservation (Quinn, 1997). Settlers built dams and weirs for domestic and stock supply, irrigation and flood control; more than 100 mcm of storage was built before 1900. At least half the water storage capacity in Australia built before 1900 was likely built in the Basin (Geoscience Australia, 2004). Important precursors of future approaches to water governance in the Basin occurred during this phase. The first allocation of water rights occurred in NSW and Victoria in the mid-1800s to regulate access to water on the goldfields (O’Gorman, 2012). English common law riparian rights were inherited with British settlement; however, state legislation in Victoria (1886, 1905), NSW (1896) and South Australia (1919) limited riparian rights and vested rights to the use, flow and control of water in state governments, which would then issue and regulate licences for consumptive use. This ‘nationalisation of the waters’ distinguishes Australia from other Anglo-American approaches to water access rights and provided an essential basis for future water reforms (Gardner et al., 2018). 3.2.3 ‘Development expansion’ phase (early 1900s – 1950s) Looking back more than a century to the early 1900s, the ‘development expansion’ phase focused on managing water in the Basin for economic development. The expansion of irrigation was accompanied by efforts to improve the navigation of streams in the Basin, with paddleboats employed to transport agricultural produce to downstream ports to satisfy domestic and export demands. The expansion of irrigation and settlement drove further demand for water. Fluctuating water availability with alternating droughts and floods meant that management was needed to secure the water supply and navigation routes. During this period, water was mainly valued for consumptive use and was seen as abundant. Policy focused on supporting water use for agriculture and development, and securing supply. The costs were mainly borne by government, reflecting the strong desire to populate Australia’s vast interior and support regional development. This led to substantial investment in infrastructure, and continued but steady expansion of areas under irrigation. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 22 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Environmental degradation, as it is understood today, was seldom valued in decision making or seen as being as important as food production and regional development. Cultural values were not reflected in the management of water resources during this period. 3.2.4 ‘Emerging costs’ phase (1960s–1970s) The ‘emerging costs’ phase saw the states of the Basin begin to respond to the environmental costs of water abstraction from the 1960s. By that time, the water economy had begun to mature, and relatively low-cost sites for constructing dams and other infrastructure were largely exhausted. The costs of water capture and use, including infrastructure and service provision costs, became increasingly visible. Salinity was affecting agricultural land, and adverse environmental effects were beginning to emerge. Through the 1960s and 1970s, individual states tried to mitigate some of the environmental damage. They introduced volume-based licences to replace area-based water rights, and limits on new water diversions to prevent further deterioration of the environment. Volume-based licences also protected the rights of existing extractive licence holders. Nevertheless, investment in large-scale water supply infrastructure continued—in particular, to support development of irrigated agriculture. 3.2.5 ‘Major water reforms’ phase (1980s–1990s) The ‘major water reforms’ phase spanned the 1980s and 1990s. During this period, water management began to account for both the wider costs and the benefits of water use. The 1980s saw further decreases in water supply options and continued increases in demand for water, bringing greater focus on economic efficiency and environmental degradation. In response, Australia’s water resources management began to shift from developing new water resources and investing in infrastructure to managing limited water resources more efficiently and sustainably. The need for this transition was underscored by the 1982–83 drought across eastern Australia—possibly the worst drought of the 20th century (Figure 11). New policy instruments were developed throughout the 1980s and 1990s in the quest to maximise the economically efficient use of water while limiting environmental costs and impacts. Of particular note were the separation of water rights from land titles (a key reform that extended into the 2000s); government commitments to capping total water consumption and allocating water for the environment, enabling water trading; and application of full cost recovery and consumption-based pricing principles. The increasing complexity of policy instruments during this phase was justified by increasing demands and scarcity, and the need to address legacy decisions and related lock-in effects (e.g. modified waterways, longstanding legal structures) that did not reflect contemporary values. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 23 Figure 11. Dam development and irrigation diversions in the Murray-Darling Basin from pre-1901 to 1990 (Sources: Data from Geoscience Australia, 2004; McMahon & Petheram, 2020; MDBA, 2020b; Vivès et al, 2005. Figure by R. Marsh) 3.2.6 ‘Acceleration’ phase (2000s–2020) The millennium drought, which started in 1997 and peaked from 2001 to 2009 (BoM, 2015), prompted a series of major water reforms from the early 2000s. The ‘acceleration’ phase focused on managing competing values under increasing water scarcity. The escalation in reforms was a response to challenges in achieving commitments articulated in government strategies, amplified by the ongoing drought. With growing public awareness of the diverse values of the environment, culture and agriculture, this phase emphasised better understanding and managing potential tensions and trade-offs between the multiple values of water (environmental, economic, social and cultural). The approach to water management includes Basin-scale management; more water recovery for the environment; and laws for managing environmental, social and cultural outcomes. In addition to the unbundling of land and water rights, more sophisticated trading mechanisms have been established, including the use of markets to purchase water for the environment. With the establishment of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH), substantial water holdings have been recovered throughout this phase. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 24 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 4 Synthesis of case studies This chapter consolidates the case studies to elicit high-level insights arising from the Australian experience of valuing water, with potential application in other basin contexts. These insights are organised as: • enablers—factors that enable the identification and incorporation of values in water decision making • challenges—factors that make identification and incorporation of values difficult • future opportunities—ways to better incorporate excluded values or improve the understanding, identification and incorporation of values in the future. 4.1 Enablers 4.1.1 Government commitment and cooperation Because the Murray-Darling Basin is a transboundary catchment, its water resources are managed by the Australian Government and state and territory governments, whose interests and commitments to water reforms have varied over time. In the earlier phases of water development (Figure 10), government commitments were mostly driven by positive narratives associated with agricultural production and rural development, and direct investments in on- and off-farm infrastructure and subsidies featured strongly. More recently, governments have had to increasingly respond to environmental degradation, the adverse impacts of drought and dryland and irrigation salinity, and competing claims to water. Individually and collectively, they have mostly stepped up to these challenges through substantial investments in existing and new institutions, legislative agreements, strategic planning, research, monitoring systems, stakeholder engagement and more. At the national level, Basin reforms have largely had bipartisan political support. Government commitments have been relatively resilient to the cycle of changing political parties in government at national and state levels, and can potentially provide the foundations for realising further gains. 4.1.2 Strong institutional and regulatory arrangements Australia has developed strong institutional and regulatory arrangements to manage water for its economic and environmental values in the Basin, but this is not the case for cultural values. Two cornerstones of these arrangements are the Commonwealth Water Act 2007 and the Murray-Darling Basin Plan (2012) (Figure 12), which give legal recognition to the environment as a legitimate water user in the Basin. The majority of the water entitlements held for the environment in the Basin are managed by the CEWH, an independent, national institution. The CEWH has helped ensure parity and legitimacy for environmental water management, alongside management for consumptive water users in the Basin. Individual Basin state governments also hold environmental water entitlements through joint governmental agreements. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 25 Figure 12. Key elements of the 2012 Basin Plan (Source: MDBA, 2020c) 4.1.3 Intersection of land and in-stream salinity with sociopolitical changes A considerable proportion of Basin landscapes and groundwater are naturally saline. Extensive land clearing from the 1800s, combined with irrigation, mobilised salt to the land’s surface and into river systems. The challenges of increasing salinity levels in the landscape and rivers were known from the 1960s, although it was not until the 1980s that a series of effective joint, interjurisdictional actions began, including policy innovations and new funding mechanisms. These were the interjurisdictional Salinity and Drainage Strategy (1988–2000), a major audit of salinity (MDBC, 1999), the Basin Salinity Management Strategy (2001–2015) and the current Basin Salinity Management 2030 Strategy (Figure 13). Although ongoing salinity management will be required as landscapes continue to mobilise salt, these strategies have successfully reduced salinity in the Basin’s landscapes and rivers (Hart et al., 2020). The experience of tackling salinity demonstrated that the Australian and state governments could work together and effectively engage with stakeholders to achieve intended outcomes. This involved interjurisdictional cooperation (including joint investment in the most cost-effective measures, regardless of location), engineering works, innovative market-based instruments, and community and stakeholder engagement. The environmental impacts of water resources development and the need for preservation of environmental assets in the Basin, including the need to address rising salinity levels, had been noted as public policy issues by the 1970s. The Australian Government’s 1973 National Approach to Water Resources Management emphasised the need to assess water resources projects against economic, social, regional development and environmental outcomes. It acknowledged the ecological impacts of water resources development and the importance of: 1. understanding the ‘interdependence of the elements of the whole environment’ in water management decisions 2. maintaining ‘an adequate sample of undisturbed aquatic environments ... and the preservation of wetlands for the benefit of native wildlife’ (Parliament of Australia, 1973). Valuing water: The Australian perspective 26 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin The 1975 Australian National Water Resources Assessment reiterated these policy goals and highlighted a change from simply managing water resources for consumptive use towards an approach that balanced social, economic and environmental values, as well as intergenerational equity (AWRC, 1975). These developments occurred at the same time as the emergence of a mass environmental movement in Australia, which began in the 1960s (Hutton & Connors, 1999). However, major policy change to directly address the broader environmental impacts of Basin water resources development were not implemented until the mid-1990s. In the 1970s, the environmental impacts of development were not yet as severe as they would become—the last major dam in the Basin, Dartmouth Dam, was not completed until 1979, and irrigation diversions in the late 1960s were around 60 percent of what they would be in the mid-1990s. 1,600 S&DS BSMS BSM2030 1,200 Salinity at Morgan ( µμS/cm) 800 400 0 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Notes: The chart shows when Murray River salinity exceeded the target of 800 μS/cm (electrical conductivity units) (red) and when salinity was less than 800 μS/cm (green). Note the linear regression plot (blue line), which shows the increase in salinity to around 1988 and then a decrease due to the introduction of salinity management actions and more recently a drier climate. The shaded blocks show the three major salinity reduction policy programs: Salinity and Drainage Strategy (1988–2000) (S&DS); Basin Salinity Management Strategy (2001–2015) (BSMS) and Basin Salinity Management 2030 Strategy (BSM2030). Figure 13. Daily salinity in the Murray River measured at Morgan. (Source: Hart et al., 2020. Figure by R. Marsh). Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 27 4.1.4 Legislated limits on consumptive use At the centre of the Basin Plan is the concept introduced by the Water Act 2007 of ‘environmentally sustainable level of take’—a level of water extraction that, if exceeded, would compromise ecosystem functions, environmental assets or environmental objectives. The Basin Plan enacts a series of sustainable diversion limits (SDLs), which limit consumptive take from both groundwater and surface water. These are delivered through state-based water resource plans accredited by the Australian Government. SDLs came into effect in 2019 for 29 surface water and 80 groundwater areas of the Basin. They define how much water can be taken from rivers and groundwater for urban water supply, irrigation and other economic activities, and household use (consumptive uses). The water that remains after consumptive take, up to the SDL, is dedicated to the environment to achieve the environmental outcomes outlined in the Basin Plan. The SDLs for each catchment place upper limits on extraction based on long-term averages; however, the amount of water that is permitted to be taken from rivers varies within this limit each year in response to storage levels and weather conditions. Setting SDLs under the Basin Plan requires identification of ‘assets’ and ‘ecosystem functions’ and a determination of their water needs. For water values, the assets comprise the rivers, lakes, billabongs, wetlands, groundwater systems, floodplains and their flood-dependent forests, and the estuary of the Basin. Ecosystem functions are the fundamental physical, chemical and biological processes that support the Basin’s environmental assets (e.g. transport of nutrients, organic matter and sediment in rivers; wetting and drying cycles). Establishing legislated limits on consumptive take was a significant achievement in a basin where water resources development had previously focused on increasing water use for agricultural development. 4.1.5 Best available science A key principle of the Basin Plan is to use and apply the ‘best available knowledge and science’ in the identification and development of water-sharing arrangements. According to Colloff & Pittock (2019), ‘best’ implies ‘scientific quality and objectivity that engenders trust by being transparent about risks and consequences’, and ‘available’ means that it is made publicly available, ‘not just to decision-makers’ (p. 88). From the identification of assets and functions through to the determination of environmental water requirements, all approaches must have regard to the latest knowledge and approaches. In practice, this necessitates ongoing investment in knowledge generation, and processes that embed continuous learning and adaptive management. 4.1.6 Significant environmental allocations During the past decade, Australia has established the environment as a legitimate water user and transferred around one-fifth of previous consumptive flows in the Murray-Darling Basin to environmental use. The majority of water for the environment has been recovered through direct purchase of water entitlements and is managed by the CEWH. However, not all water for the environment is in ‘held’ environmental entitlements. Environmental entitlements make up a relatively small volume of the total water available or reserved for environmental use in the Basin. Figure 14 (at 31 August 2021) shows a total 2,876 gigalitres (GL) of registered Commonwealth entitlements, with a long-term average annual yield of 1,990 GL/yr. In addition to Commonwealth holdings, significant volumes of environmental water are managed by state governments through the rules in water resource plans (referred to as ‘planned’ environmental water). Each state uses different mechanisms to set aside, use and protect this water. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 28 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Figure 14. Commonwealth environmental water holdings, 31 August 2021 (Source: Commonwealth Environmental Water Office data. Figure by A. Wealands) 4.1.7 Effective policy instruments ‘Cap-and-trade’ mechanisms, and cost-reflective charges for infrastructure and services are key policy instruments that have supported more economically efficient use of water under scarcity. Cap-and-trade mechanisms have been used to create a market for surface water, and groundwater in some cases, allowing water to be reallocated to higher-value uses, including productive, environmental and cultural uses. They involve an administrative (usually government) decision to establish a cap on total water use and allow water users (licence holders) to trade water with each other based on their own needs and preferences. Market fluctuations reveal the marginal value of water for various uses at different times and under different conditions of scarcity. Limiting water use for specific uses, users or areas, while not as effective as a Basin-wide cap-and-trade system, was helpful in signalling the scarcity of resources and as a precursor to establishing markets. Cost-reflective charges have been used to identify appropriate levels of investment in infrastructure and service provision, which has enabled high levels of services with very low water losses in Australia compared with other countries. 4.1.8 Increasingly sophisticated trading mechanisms Effective market-based trade is enabled by entitlements with clear characteristics, comprehensive registers, fast trade processing times, and interstate trade, among other elements. These elements have supported Australia’s increasingly sophisticated water-trading mechanisms, and increasing diversity in the ownership and trade of water in the Basin. As a result, water market participants now include investors, intermediaries such as brokers, and environmental water holders, as well as irrigators, agribusinesses and infrastructure operators (ACCC, 2021). Purchase of water for the environment by environmental water holders has supported economically efficient environmental water recovery, driving improved outcomes for the environment. This has been enabled by the development of environmental water entitlements with the same characteristics as consumptive entitlements and subject to the same rules. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 29 4.1.9 Long-term monitoring systems Monitoring water use across a large river system such as the Murray-Darling Basin requires a range of different approaches—from site monitoring to remote surveillance. Monitoring of, and accounting for, environmental water use are challenging. Approaches to accounting for returned water to the river system from environmental assets are complex and highly contested. Environmental watering plans, priorities and delivery have been adapted based on the findings of long-term monitoring programs in the Basin. Monitoring programs in the Basin are being deployed over a long period, linked to addressing management questions and challenges, and have resulted in strong partnerships between government agencies and science research. These programs need adequate funding for ongoing success. 4.2 Challenges 4.2.1 Legacy lock-in effects Development of water policy in the Murray-Darling Basin, as in any other context, has been shaped and constrained by a history of past decisions and actions, particularly water resources development and the overallocation of water to irrigated agriculture. Systems engineered for irrigation or hydropower purposes (Figure 15) can present significant challenges in managing water for environmental or cultural values. Legacy lock-in effects, such as modified waterways and longstanding legal structures, can limit options for incorporating additional values in water management decisions. Indeed, some future options may be precluded by past decisions. It is also important to understand that decoupling land and water rights does not match the way First Nations people engage with cultural landscapes in a holistic way, so there is a complicated relationship between cultural values and the water-trading system. Figure 15. Overview of river operations in the Murray-Darling Basin (Source: MDBA, no date-c) Valuing water: The Australian perspective 30 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 4.2.2 Dominant interests and biases Social and political contests over the use and control of water resources have shaped the way water policies have been portrayed and understood (Stone, 2012). These contests have determined who has participated and what forms of knowledge were deemed legitimate (Blomquist, 2012, 2020). The dominant framing of water policy in the Murray-Darling Basin from the late 19th century has been economic and national development (e.g. agricultural production and rural development). Although environmental perspectives have increasingly gained sway, trade-offs have tended to favour economic values. Recent reviews of some state water management agencies in the Basin have shown a systematic cultural and operational bias towards established consumptive water users, which makes effective implementation of new environmental and cultural water policy difficult. Water policies have also been framed through the lens of non-Indigenous perspectives and knowledges. Recognising Indigenous cultural values is in its infancy, and these values are unlikely to establish an equal footing in Basin water policy with economic or environmental values in the near term. Strong advocacy will be needed to legitimise First Nations forms of understanding and knowledge, and to shift power and resource sharing from existing interests. 4.2.3 Limited First Nations inclusion The inclusion of First Nations values and perspectives in water management across the Murray-Darling Basin is in its infancy. Hartwig et al. (2018) described the legal position of First Nations people in Australia’s water governance frameworks as ‘weak’, noting that, as at 2012, First Nations people held less than 0.01% of Australia’s water diversions. In the southeast, where much of the country’s irrigated agriculture is located, ‘policy and legal frameworks fail to address their rights and interests, which are seen as outside of, or irrelevant to, the formal economy’ (Hartwig et al., 2018, p. 2). Since the 2000s, engagement of First Nations people has occurred through statutory mechanisms, tailored engagement processes and community engagement activities; however, ‘recent government efforts to improve Aboriginal water access have had negligible effect on increasing Aboriginal-held water allocations’ (Hartwig et al., 2018, p. 2). Although First Nations values and uses are required to be considered in the Basin Plan, and the environmental water framework within it, implementation of the Basin Plan has not always included First Nations people’s inputs. More recent initiatives, such as a permanent First Nations position on the Board of the MDBA and the establishment of the Committee on Aboriginal Water Interests, are moves in the right direction, but First Nations inclusion in the water reform process remains inadequate. 4.2.4 Politicisation of the water reform process The political and negotiated nature of the water reform process in the Basin has led to ongoing tensions and concerns between jurisdictions and among stakeholders about the legitimacy of some investments and outcomes. Conscious acknowledgment of the politics of water reform and the multiple, often contested, values of water can help manage political deadlock, which can otherwise block effective policy implementation. Robust governance arrangements that allow effective community and stakeholder engagement can help achieve socially and politically acceptable balance in the face of disputes over water’s values. However, communication, engagement and capacity building in relevant stakeholder communities is critical for success. A well-developed understanding of water resource availability; current use of water; and potential environmental, social and economic impacts is required foundational knowledge for stakeholders’ participation in decision making. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 31 4.2.5 Tensions among Basin actors Prospects for negotiation, innovation and advances in water reform are constrained when tensions among actors are high. All case studies reported tensions among Basin actors, including between government jurisdictions, throughout the history of water policy development and implementation. These tensions are characterised in the environmental values case study (see Appendix B and the full report of the case study) as embedded in specific histories and geographies, in processes of problem perception and definition, in shifts in elite and public opinion, and in definitions of valid knowledge and evidence. They include tensions over areas of government and community power and control, and struggles over institutional and policy change (Sabatier, 1988). Such tensions are not unique to the Murray-Darling Basin or Australia, but can exist in all countries. Tensions between water users and between government jurisdictions in the Basin escalated in 2010 in response to work to legislate the limits on consumptive take and to the reallocation of significant quantities of water to the environment (e.g. Figure 16). These tensions have tended to be highest during periods of water scarcity. Relationship building has been an essential element to de-escalate such tensions. Figure 16. Men burning copies of an early Basin Plan draft outside a Murray-Darling Basin Authority meeting in Griffith, NSW, 13 October 2010 (Source: Dunlevy, 2016) Valuing water: The Australian perspective 32 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 4.2.6 Noncompliance The effectiveness of Australia’s environmental water framework depends on compliance with, and enforcement of, the Basin Plan and approved water resource plans. A significant point of tension is the potential for consumptive users, particularly irrigators, to extract water in excess of their allocation, leaving less water for environmental and cultural uses. Alleged large-scale water theft and meter tampering were the focus of media attention in early 2017, mostly around the Barwon–Darling catchment in the northern Basin (ABC, 2017). Under pressure, the New South Wales Government required, among other things, larger water users to install approved meters (or confirm that existing meters meet the standard) by the end of 2019, and smaller users by 2023. In August 2019, the Australian Government announced plans to establish an independent Inspector-General of Murray-Darling Basin Water Resources with responsibilities for overseeing Basin Plan implementation, and improving transparency, accountability and community confidence across the whole Basin (Murdoch, 2020). An Interim Inspector-General was installed in October 2019 pending legislative changes to establish the role as a statutory appointment. A Bill to establish an Inspector-General of Water Compliance, supported by the Office of Water Compliance, was tabled in the Australian Parliament on 26 May 2021 and passed with bipartisan support on 24 June 2021 (Pitt, 2021a, 2021b). The Inspector-General of Water Compliance is charged with improving trust and transparency in implementing the Australian Government’s Basin water reform agenda, delivering greater consistency and harmonisation of water regulation across the Basin, and strengthening compliance with, and enforcement of, the Basin Plan. 4.2.7 Integrated planning and management More integrated water planning and management are needed in the Basin that better account for broader catchment management, regional development, agricultural transitions and climate change adaptation. Institutions at different scales— from local to Basin-wide—have differing roles, responsibilities and capacities in addressing this ongoing challenge for governance and coordination. A more integrated water and catchment focus would enable consideration of mechanisms to avoid flows that should not be provided, manage riparian zones, remove fish barriers, manage pest species, manage land use that affects supply and quality of water, and improve linkages to the coastal zone. These important integrated catchment management considerations should be given greater recognition in the Basin Plan and associated environmental water frameworks. The draft report on national water reform advised that the ‘management of environmental water should be integrated with complementary waterway management at the local level by ensuring that consistent management objectives govern both the use of environmental water and complementary waterway management activities’ (Productivity Commission, 2021b). 4.2.8 Complexity The inherent complexity of the Basin’s transboundary and decentralised system of water governance poses difficulties for water policy initiatives to fully succeed. Mechanisms such as the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement (as an interstate compact), and subsequently the MDBA, the Water Act 2007 and the Basin Plan, have been pivotal in navigating this complexity, and achieving more universal progress across the Basin. Despite the Basin-wide applicability of many reforms, outcomes at sub-Basin scales are influenced by local factors such as data availability, human resources, stakeholder interests, access to technology, remoteness and funding arrangements. Therefore, the same policy can prove highly successful in one location but much less so in another. Water planning is a good example. Substantial progress has been made in science-based and Basin-centred water planning; however, state- and catchment-level water plans vary in their comprehensiveness and effectiveness. Likewise, Basin water markets, including the integrated market in the connected southern system, have led to a wide variety of outcomes for water users, partially depending on local factors such as leadership, entrepreneurship, demographics and access to capital. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 33 4.2.9 Ongoing reform adjustment Some previously effective policies and frameworks (e.g. water market frameworks) now require further reform to take into account ongoing changes, and to ensure that they continue to deliver the desired outcomes. Some new reforms are also needed in line with best available science and contemporary thinking (e.g. relating to climate change). Pursuing an agenda of further progressive reforms beyond those already in train will require the commitment of governments at national or state levels across the political spectrum—reaching consensus between the jurisdictions can be time-consuming, as the past has sometimes shown (e.g. Figure 17). Well-designed approaches to structural adjustment and support for other policy domains (e.g. regional development) will be needed to ensure community and stakeholder support, address the negative impacts of reform and avoid reform fatigue. Figure 17. Cartoon by R. Tandberg commenting on the response of politicians to the continued decline of the Murray-Darling river system (Source: NMA, 2008) Valuing water: The Australian perspective 34 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 4.2.10 Institutional stability and functionality A series of institutional changes since 2012 have eroded confidence in national water reform, particularly among some stakeholder groups. In 2013, the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council abolished the Sustainable Rivers Audit, a program that was established to measure the condition of the river systems in the Basin. In 2014, the Australian Government abolished the National Water Commission. Stakeholders, independent reviews and state government inquiries have raised concerns about governance and implementation of the Basin Plan, management of water allocations, metering and measurement of water take across the Basin, water market architecture and regulation, and the transparency with which scientific research has informed some decision making (ACCC, 2021; Productivity Commission, 2018; Walker, 2019). A large irrigators group has begun legal action against the MDBA, claiming that negligent water management has caused them severe financial losses (King, 2019). Since 2019, there have been significant efforts to improve regulatory oversight and confidence in the MDBA. An inquiry into the impact of changing inflows to the southern Murray-Darling Basin and their effect on the water-sharing arrangements set out in the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement found that the agreement’s interstate water-sharing arrangements were being implemented as intended (IIGMDBWR, 2020). The report highlighted the challenge of equitably and efficiently sharing scarce water supplies, and the importance of having a robust and transparent framework for doing so. 4.2.11 Water market effectiveness Although water trading in Australia has brought substantial benefits to many water users (ACCC, 2021), the effective use of markets continues to be a key challenge, particularly where multiple values need to be taken into account in the management of water. Although water markets are an attractive tool, they are difficult to implement successfully, even in a wealthy country such as Australia with strong legal and regulatory systems. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission identified that, despite the benefits of water trading, a range of deficiencies remain in the governance, regulatory and operational frameworks supporting Basin water markets, which undermine market efficiency and the confidence of market participants (ACCC, 2021). 4.2.12 Water delivery Water can only be delivered to water users if sufficient capacity is available in the water delivery infrastructure, which can be natural (e.g. rivers) or human-made (e.g. canals, pumps). Effective coordination of delivery of water for both environmental and consumptive uses is important to balance water demands and realise broader outcomes. In addition to coordination arrangements, constraints need to be eased on the delivery of water to meet the needs of both consumptive and environmental users. A ‘constraint’ is anything that reduces the ability to deliver water—for example, low-lying bridges, river rules and operating practices. Significant time may be needed to address constraints. Removing or relaxing constraints is particularly important to the delivery of overbank flows and flows near floodplains, which are critical for achieving a number of environmental outcomes in the Basin. The use of water allocations alone will not achieve the desired outcomes without addressing system constraints. The current constraints program has been slow to progress (MDBA, 2020c; Productivity Commission, 2018). The independent panel of the First Review of the Water for the Environment Special Account found that the implementation time frame for the constraints program ‘will need to extend beyond 30 June 2024 to ensure successful implementation’ (Australian Government, 2020, p. 3). Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 35 4.2.13 Climate change Water is becoming more scarce, and scarcity is increasing as a result of climate change and population growth. In Australia, the impact of climate change has been a deeply divisive and debated topic, despite mounting evidence of adverse impacts on water systems and aquatic ecosystems. Climate change is recognised as a risk in the Basin Plan. However, given the rapid rate of climate change impacts, there has been ongoing debate about whether SDLs are sufficient to manage climate risk. In the Basin, water availability is expected to decrease as a result of climate change; this will stretch the flexible allocation mechanisms and lead to reduced water for the environment and for other water users. It is also likely to lead to an increase in the occurrence of incidents associated with poor water quality, such as blue–green algal blooms, blackwater events and fish kills (Figure 18). Tensions over water access can be expected to rise, with low-reliability water allocations (including many environmental water holdings) being affected first. The impact of climate change on SDLs will likely be considered in the mandated 2026 Basin Plan review. Figure 18. Menindee lakes mass fish deaths (Source: Davies, 2019) 4.2.14 Scientific uncertainty In addition to uncertainties surrounding the impacts of climate change, hydrological and ecological knowledge is usually incomplete, and key relationships (e.g. links between surface water and groundwater systems, relationships between flow and fish breeding) are often poorly understood. Similarly, considerable uncertainty often surrounds the costs and benefits of change. Transparency about levels and sources of uncertainty with all stakeholders is essential (Manski, 2019). Although uncertainty should not prevent decisions being made, stakeholder negotiations should be informed by sets of robust or ‘best-bet’ options. Blastland et al. (2020) identified five rules for evidence communication, including the need to avoid unwarranted certainty, and help decision makers and stakeholders understand evidence quality, noting that ‘part of telling the whole story is talking about what we don’t know’ (p. 363). Valuing water: The Australian perspective 36 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 4.2.15 Accounting for water resources Quantification of river flows, groundwater systems and water use presents substantial challenges for the monitoring and accounting that are essential for water resources management in the Basin. Assumptions applied in measuring and accounting for water delivery and use have real impacts on water users because they inform calculation of baseline conditions, setting of SDLs and evaluation of policy interventions to return water to the environment. Two areas where improved accounting would assist in setting and evaluating policy are return flows (Walker et al. 2020, 2021; Williams & Grafton, 2019) and floodplain harvesting (Chen et al., 2020; Hafeez et al., 2011; Paydar & Van Dijk, 2011). Return flows refer to the water returning to the river system following application to irrigation fields or environmental assets. Floodplain harvesting is the diversion of overland flows into storage systems for later use. Quantifying amounts of water delivered and returned to river systems from irrigated agriculture and environmental assets is complex, and many uncertainties remain. The difference in the treatment of return flows from environmental water use and consumptive water use in the Basin, and governments’ limited ability to account for water captured by floodplain harvesting are two examples of the way in which limitations and uncertainties in accounting for water resources can be a source of tension and debate among experts, water users and stakeholders. Although floodplain harvesting has been nominally regulated in the Basin since 1995, effective regulation has been stymied by lack of accurate monitoring and accounting for take. Work to better understand current and historical take is underway in NSW and Queensland, which aims to improve licensing, monitoring and compliance (MDBA, 2021). The extent to which these recent developments will reduce tensions and debate over floodplain harvesting is not yet clear. 4.3 Future opportunities 4.3.1 Leveraging policy windows The case studies highlight the role of ‘policy windows’ in opening opportunities for catalysing water reform. In the Murray-Darling Basin, these windows for precipitating public debate and policy shifts have included severe droughts, widespread toxic algal blooms and shifts in electoral politics. Although the timing of these windows was not necessarily foreseen, experts and water agencies were generally well placed to take advantage when they emerged because of previous analytical and design work. 4.3.2 Optimising existing legal and regulatory instruments The Water Act 2007 and the Basin Plan specify a number of review points, which present opportunities for continuous improvement and adaptive management (Figure 19). The MDBA identifies adaptive management as a ‘foundational principle of the Basin Plan’, with built-in mechanisms ‘to check progress and to adjust implementation if objectives can be achieved a better way … [and to] draw on input from local communities, new knowledge and feedback from reviews and monitoring and evaluation activities’ (MDBA, 2016c). In addition, the scope for amending existing legal and regulatory instruments for managing environmental and cultural water allocations, and enforcing compliance should be explored; using existing instruments rather than creating new ones is likely to aid acceptance and fast-track implementation. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 37 Figure 19. Basin Plan timeline towards the 2026 review (Source: MDBA, 2016c) Valuing water: The Australian perspective 38 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 4.3.3 Supporting adjustment There are consequences for individuals and communities when governments adjust water-sharing arrangements to achieve a new balance of economic, environmental and cultural values. Even when the changes achieve an overall net benefit for the community as a whole, individuals and communities will be impacted in different ways. Whereas many may experience positive outcomes, some will be adversely affected. For example, policy settings combined with the market-based decisions of individuals have led to stranded land and infrastructure assets (e.g. Figure 20), with knock-on effects for others (especially neighouring properties) and dependent rural townships. In some cases, the adverse socioeconomic and environmental impacts arising from more open water markets have been irreversible. There is an onus on governments to provide support to those whose values are diminished. Adjustment mechanisms applied in the Basin (e.g. efficiency measure projects) have not always achieved the intended results. Figure 20. A stakeholder who gave evidence to the Commonwealth senate inquiry into the multi-jurisdictional management and execution of the Basin Plan (Source: Calver, 2021) Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 39 4.3.4 Reinvigorating nested planning and action Nested planning provides an opportunity to better align catchment-scale plans and strategies with Basin-scale objectives, while allowing for area- and site-specific values to also inform decision making. Recent reviews of Australia’s national water reform agenda have highlighted the importance of strengthening catchment management arrangements (Productivity Commission, 2021a, b). Working more closely with the Basin’s 21 community-based natural resource management (NRM) regions, especially through technical support for, and investment in, their catchment-level NRM plans, could strengthen regional buy-in and capacity (Curtis et al., 2014; MDBMC, 2001; Robins & Kanowski, 2011). Similarly, engagement could extend to Australia’s more than 30-year-old Landcare movement, which comprises more than 5,000 local community groups Australia-wide and Landcare networks (coalitions of groups) (Curtis et al., 2014; Robins, 2018). In Australia, Landcare has played a pivotal role in stimulating and enabling knowledge sharing, learning and on-ground action in NRM, including water management. The Landcare model is being extended abroad (e.g. Johnson & Muller, 2020; Pearce & Alford, 2015), and is now practised to varying degrees in some 20 countries (Catacutan et al., 2009; Landcare Australia, 2017). Global Landcare (formerly Australian Landcare International) was established in 2020 as a not-for-profit incorporated organisation registered with the Australian Government, supporting overseas communities to sustain their land, water and biodiversity. 4.3.5 Strengthening cross-disciplinary collaborations Design and implementation of water policy require diverse knowledge and skills, including those of ecologists, engineers, lawyers, economists, sociologists, human geographers, politicians and political scientists, policy experts, communications specialists, stakeholder groups and local communities. Water policy may be further strengthened through greater attention to, and resourcing of, cross-disciplinary and collaborative approaches, based on effective working partnerships with a wide range of stakeholders and government jurisdictions. 4.3.6 Bolstering stakeholder engagement Engaging stakeholders and communities meaningfully in the processes of decision making, policy implementation and adaptive management helps build capacity, trust and long-term support for water policy objectives (Sefton et al., 2020). Water reforms take considerable time to demonstrate benefits, and it is difficult for water management agencies to implement and champion reforms alone. Negotiations over values, risk tolerance, trade-offs and desired outcomes will continue during implementation of water policy. Without broad social, political and interagency support, managing the politics of change and gaining the time required to show benefit is difficult (Moore, 2018). Investing in communication, engagement and capacity building in relevant stakeholder communities is critical for success, particularly with First Nations communities. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 40 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 4.3.7 Scaling up existing successful programs A practicable pathway forward is to identify and scale up existing programs that have proved effective. Indigenous rangers is one such program, which supports First Nations people to combine traditional knowledge with conservation training to protect and manage their land, sea and culture (NIAA, 2020). This includes activities such as bushfire mitigation, protection of threatened species and biosecurity compliance. The first Indigenous ranger project in 2007 was funded under an employment program (Working on Country). Project evaluations have demonstrated considerable success for participating First Nations communities, spanning economic, employment, cultural, social, environmental and health benefits. Although these programs have been implemented successfully across other parts of Australia, Indigenous ranger programs are currently only in the inception phase within the Murray-Darling Basin. The Murray-Darling Basin Indigenous River Rangers Program (AU$3.1 million) was announced in September 2020, which will initially establish four Ranger groups dedicated to improving waterway health across the Basin (Figure 21). Around 27 full-time Indigenous rangers will be employed by First Nations organisations. The program has the potential to be scaled up. Figure 21. Murray-Darling Basin Indigenous River Rangers Program (Source: NIAA, 2021) 4.3.8 Establishing co-management arrangements In Australia, co-management agreements are used as a mechanism for community engagement in protecting and managing environmental and cultural water values. These arrangements might be nonbinding (e.g. memorandums of understanding) or more formal agreements (e.g. legally binding contracts, land use covenants). Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) are voluntarily managed by Indigenous ranger groups as protected areas for biodiversity conservation through voluntary agreements with the Australian Government. There are currently 78 dedicated IPAs, which account for 46 percent of the National Reserve System; however, none have been established within the Basin (DAWE, 2021). An opportunity exists to secure and grow this success with more communities, with more Indigenous rangers and on lands within the Basin. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 41 5 Conclusions This report set out to elicit insights and generalisable lessons from three case studies to improve water-related outcomes in other country contexts. 5.1 Water development trajectories The ‘First Nations management’ phase (65,000+ years) in the Murray-Darling Basin encompassed use, modification and management of the Basin’s landscapes and freshwater systems by First Nations people for tens of thousands of years. The advent of the ‘settler establishment’ phase (1800s – early 1900s) saw the displacement of First Nations people by European settlers and landscape re-engineering that began a process of profound alteration to the hydrology and ecology of the Basin’s land and water systems. The ‘development expansion’ phase (early 1900s – 1950s) focused almost exclusively on agricultural and rural development. With increasing land and water degradation, the 1960s–1970s saw heightened awareness of environmental water values, but mostly through the lens of economic costs (the ‘emerging costs’ phase). The 1980s–1990s heralded the ‘major water reforms’ phase, giving more formal recognition to environmental, recreational and amenity values as legitimate nonconsumptive uses. From the turn of the century, the imperative to improve water use efficiency for consumptive uses increased, as water (re)allocation for the environment gained traction. Advocates for cultural water have only recently made inroads in this contested space. It is important to note that the specific trajectories of water development in other basin contexts will differ from that in the Murray-Darling Basin. In considering the insights and lessons that follow, readers should reflect on these six phases (Table 2) and consider the extent to which they might parallel or deviate from their own circumstances. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 42 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Table 2. Summary of water values according to the main phases of water development in the Murray-Darling Basin ‘First Nations ‘Settler ‘Development ‘Emerging costs’ ‘Major water ‘Acceleration’ management’ establishment’ expansion’ (1960s–1970s) reforms’ (2000s–2020) Phase (65,000+ years) (1800s – (early 1900s – (1980s–1990s) early 1900s) 1950s) The ‘original Water is valued Water is valued Water is Consumptive There is water industry’ by decision by decision still valued water use is still increasing managed makers for use makers for use by decision highly valued and concentration water, including in establishing in expanding makers for use dominant, but of higher-value Economic values fisheries, which agricultural and intensifying in agricultural with increasing productive sustained production agricultural production, with recognition of uses of water, First Nations and regional production a greater focus the need for, and including populations. development, and regional on emerging benefits of, more concentration including mining. development. financial costs. efficient water or expansion of use practices high-value crops. in consumptive sectors. There is no Decision makers place limited Environmental The value of Recognition separation of value on environmental values. costs are environmental of the value of nature and There is no perception of negative becoming water is environmental Environmental values culture by First environmental impacts from increasingly more fully water continues Nations people. abstraction or modification of apparent, recognised and to increase. supply. demonstrating accepted across the importance governments and of water for the communities, environment. although recognition of its value is not universal. Decision makers do not consider any cultural values The value of There is Australia’s First Nations cultural values or use. nonconsumptive emerging uses, such as institutionalised recreation and recognition amenity, are of water for beginning to Indigenous be recognised. cultural and Cultural value economic is still not well uses, and for recognised. recreational uses. Note: Refer to full case study reports for more detail. 5.2 Synthesis insights The synthesis of case studies has identified aspects of water resources management in the Basin with respect to enablers, challenges and future opportunities (Table 3). Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 43 Table 3. Summary of case study synthesis Enablers Challenges Future opportunities • Government commitment • Legacy lock-in effects • Leveraging policy windows and cooperation • Dominant interests and biases • Optimising existing legal • Strong institutional and • Limited First Nations inclusion and regulatory instruments regulatory arrangements • Supporting adjustment • Politicisation of the water • Intersection of land and reform process • Reinvigorating nested in-stream salinity with planning and action • Tensions among Basin actors sociopolitical changes • Noncompliance • Strengthening cross-disciplinary • Legislated limits on collaborations consumptive use • Integrated planning and management • Bolstering stakeholder • Best available science engagement • Complexity • Significant environmental • Scaling up existing allocations • Ongoing reform adjustment successful programs • Effective policy instruments • Institutional stability and • Establishing co-management functionality • Increasingly sophisticated arrangements trading mechanisms • Water market effectiveness • Long-term monitoring systems • Water delivery • Climate change • Scientific uncertainty • Accounting for water resources With regard to enablers, government commitment and cooperation across state and national levels have built strong institutional and regulatory arrangements over an extended period, culminating in the Commonwealth Water Act 2007 and the Basin Plan (2012). The Water Act’s environmental focus originates in a growing awareness of the environmental impacts of irrigation development in the Basin and the intersection of land and in-stream salinity with sociopolitical changes. The Water Act also recognises the importance of addressing the economic and social implications of implementation of the Basin Plan. Legislated limits on consumptive use are effected through the establishment of SDLs. The Basin Plan also emphasises the principle of using best available science in moving forward. The environment has been established as a legitimate water user, and significant environmental allocations have been made over the past decade. Cap-and-trade mechanisms and cost-reflective charges for infrastructure and services have been deployed as effective policy instruments in revealing the value of water, and increasingly sophisticated trading mechanisms are now a core part of Australia’s water markets. Long-term monitoring systems are being deployed to address management questions and challenges, and have resulted in strong partnerships between government agencies and scientific research. With regard to challenges, legacy lock-in effects such as modified waterways and longstanding legal structures have constrained the options available in going forward. Dominant interests and biases have mostly subordinated environmental and cultural perspectives to economic values, which is further reflected in limited First Nations inclusion in the water reform process. Politicisation of the water reform process has led to ongoing tensions and legitimacy concerns among stakeholders, especially with respect to infrastructure investments. Tensions among Basin actors (between water users and between government jurisdictions) since 2010 following reallocation of significant quantities of water to the environment pose a threat to further negotiation, innovation and advances in water reforms (Figure 22). Noncompliance has added to tensions among Basin actors, particularly irrigators extracting water in excess of their allocation in NSW, and NSW public officials prioritising the rights of consumptive water users over others (ICAC NSW, 2020). Valuing water: The Australian perspective 44 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Figure 22. Cartoon illustrating general discontent across a broad range of stakeholder groups with the draft Basin Plan (Source: Moir, 2011) Integrated planning and management of water with broader catchment management, regional development, agricultural transitions and climate change adaptation is a significant challenge. In the complexity of a transboundary and decentralised system, reform ‘success’ at sub-Basin scales is variable. Ongoing reform adjustment is needed to continue to deliver the desired outcomes (e.g. water market frameworks), and to respond to the best available science and contemporary thinking (e.g. relating to climate change). Any disruptions associated with institutional stability and functionality will make this task more fraught. Water market effectiveness presents challenges, particularly where multiple values need to be realised; existing frameworks have not developed to accommodate the current scale of the market and are no longer adequate. To achieve many of the water requirements for environmental values, more progress is needed to improve water delivery, including coordination arrangements and the easing of constraints. Climate change is recognised as a significant risk in the Basin Plan, but was not taken into account in setting SDLs. Although scientific uncertainty should not prevent decisions being made, stakeholder trust and the legitimacy of outcomes could be further undermined if transparency is lacking. Accounting for water resources in the Basin has been a driver of tension, disputes and debate. This is an area of significant uncertainty (and spatial variability) that requires further research effort, including better understanding of groundwater system connectivity to surface waters. The case study synthesis highlighted a number of prospective future opportunities. Significant scope exists to advance environmental and cultural values through leveraging policy windows. At the same time, implementation could be fast-tracked by optimising existing legal and regulatory instruments for managing and enforcing environmental and cultural water allocations and compliance. More attention is needed to supporting adjustment for those whose values have been diminished. Reinvigorating nested planning and action provides an opportunity to better align lower-level plans and strategies with Basin-scale objectives, while allowing area- and site-specific values to also drive decision making. Strengthening cross-disciplinary collaborations is essential at all scales to get the design and implementation of environmental and cultural water policy right, coupled with bolstering stakeholder Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 45 engagement to (re)build broader social, political and interagency support. Scaling up existing successful programs and establishing co-management arrangements provide pretested pathways for achieving positive outcomes, and offer particular promise for engagement with First Nations people. 5.3 Generalisable lessons A number of lessons have been gleaned from the synthesis of case studies for policy makers and other strategic-level interests operating in other basin contexts. These lessons are provided not as a roadmap for direct transfer elsewhere, but rather as framing and guidance that should be viewed through the lens of the hydrological, ecological, socioeconomic and political context of a specific basin or country. Specific lessons from the case studies are also provided in the appendices—each case study concludes with a section on ‘Lessons from Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin experience’. Here, generalisable lessons are clustered according to considering the context, leveraging existing systems and instruments, embedding governance arrangements, shaping markets and pricing, and managing for sustainable outcomes. Some overlap necessarily exists between these categories. Considering the context: • Context matters—Appreciate that the historical, sociopolitical, hydrological, geographical and ecological contexts matter for the design of water policy and its successful implementation, and that lessons cannot be simply transplanted from one basin to another. • More than a technical issue—Acknowledge that water reforms (and institutional transformation) for realising environmental and cultural values are inherently political; this may help avoid policy deadlock and barriers to effective policy reform or implementation. • Sociopolitical support—Garner broad social, political and interagency support for enduring reform; otherwise, managing the politics of change and gaining the time required to show benefit is difficult. • Engineered lock-ins—Do not underestimate the challenges of managing water for benefits in systems engineered for irrigation or hydropower purposes; system constraints and rules developed for these uses may prevent delivery of specific outcomes or require changes in approach. At the same time, engineering may have created new sources of social value, such as recreational dams, that should be recognised and, in some cases, enhanced. • Stakeholder engagement—Ensure ongoing communication and engagement with stakeholders and communities, including First Nations people; negotiations over values, risk tolerance, trade-offs and desired outcomes will continue during implementation of environmental and cultural water policy. • First Nations inclusion—Ensure ongoing inclusion of Indigenous knowledge, values and voices in water management decisions and implementation. • Policy windows—Be prepared for, and take advantage of, policy windows such as electoral cycles, droughts or floods to advance water reforms by having a strong standing base of technical work, investment in policy research and development, and continuous consultation processes that engage all stakeholders. Leveraging existing systems and instruments: • Existing platforms—Build on successful approaches, such as existing systems for managing in-stream salinity or water quality, as a potential means of more effectively progressing water reforms. • Catchment management systems—Understand and acknowledge existing systems for catchment and water management, and build water policy with these in mind. Successful water management outcomes require integration with waterway and catchment management, and broader policy domains—for example, regional development, agricultural policy, environmental policy and urban planning. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 46 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin • Existing networks—Engage with and leverage existing stakeholder networks, including supporting their knowledge development, and strategic planning and implementation capabilities. • Existing instruments—Consider the scope for fast-tracking implementation by amending existing legal and regulatory instruments for managing and enforcing environmental and cultural water allocations and compliance. Embedding governance arrangements: • Sustained commitment—Recognise that water reform is a continuous process that requires constant review, adaptation and improvement; it is a long-term ‘project’ that requires persistence by governments, including significant public investment. • Robust institutions and regulations—Design and delivery of an effective water reform agenda needs tailored institutional and regulatory arrangements, and effective engagement across multiple policy domains—for example, agricultural, regional development, environmental, First Nations, social services and health, and energy (where hydropower is a major part of river basin development). • Dedicated institutions—Establish dedicated institutions for water management with enough power and resources that they are independent of arbitrary change (e.g. swings in the political cycle). • Transboundary institutions and engagement—Establish institutions that allow policy coordination and transboundary governance where river basins span more than one jurisdiction (international or national). • Appropriate scale—Build institutions and nested planning processes that allow environmental and cultural water issues to be managed at the most appropriate scale; nested planning ensures consistency with basin-scale objectives while allowing area- and site-specific values to contribute to decision making. • Legal recognition—Establish environmental and cultural values formally as legitimate water uses and users (e.g. incorporate these values in legislation). • First Nations programs—Create mechanisms for First Nations people to combine traditional knowledge with training to protect and manage environmental and cultural water values for conservation, economic development and land management outcomes. • Voluntary agreements—Consider the scope for voluntary agreements as a mechanism for community engagement, including engagement with First Nations people, in protecting and managing environmental and cultural water values; these may be nonbinding (e.g. memorandums of understanding) or more formal (e.g. legally binding contracts). Shaping markets and pricing: • Intended benefits—Put in place sound regulation, monitoring and periodic evaluation of market-based mechanisms for distributing water to realise the intended benefits. • Embedding value—Use full cost accounting to inform the appropriate mix of policies and instruments to ensure that water management is sustainable and delivers value to the broader community. • Economic instruments—Consider using cap-and-trade mechanisms and cost-reflective charges for infrastructure and services to reveal the value of water and drive efficiency. • Limiting use—Consider applying limits for specific uses, users or areas to help signal the scarcity of resources. • Water market scale—Ensure that governance, regulatory and operational frameworks supporting water trading can accommodate the scale of the market. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 47 • Transparency and accountability—Ensure confidence in the integrity of policy settings through fair and transparent decision making by governments, and mechanisms that enable the community to hold governments to account. • Exclusion and dispossession—Be aware of the potential for water markets to entrench histories of exclusion and dispossession by creating property rights and prioritising claims to assets that can limit options to redress historical exclusion and dispossession. • Cultural perspectives—Recognise that the separation of water from land and the creation of new property rights in water can clash with cultural understandings of water’s value. Managing for sustainable outcomes: • Multiple outcomes—Identify the multiple potential outcomes arising from different water policy options in the context of an overall framework for sustainable development, and communicate options and trade-offs to stakeholders. • Early action—Act early to integrate environmental and cultural water policy into river basin development, because restraining water use and recovering water for environmental and cultural values are very difficult and costly once a river system has become overallocated. • Science informed—Apply the principle of using the best available science to inform water resources planning and management. Among other things, this requires establishing and investing in programs of research; building knowledge partnerships (e.g. with academia, government science agencies and non-government organisations); and conducting systematic reviews, audits and technical consultations. • Cross-disciplinarity—Build cross-disciplinary professional groups (e.g. ecologists, engineers, lawyers, political scientists, economists, engagement specialists) at all scales in the design and implementation of water policy. • Uncertainty—Accept that decisions will usually need to be made under considerable uncertainty. Avoid unwarranted certainty, and help decision makers and stakeholders understand evidence quality. Maintain transparency about levels and sources of uncertainty with all stakeholders. • Continuous improvement—Improve the ways in which values (quantifiable and nonquantifiable) are incorporated into water management (e.g. through pricing mechanism design, accounting rules, acknowledgment in decision making, monitoring and evaluation criteria) to help ensure that the appropriate policies and levers are used, noting that choices that incorporate values will often need to be made in the absence of full quantification. • Variable conditions—Consider the extent to which policy options will work well across the range of geographies and conditions that occur in highly variable or highly seasonal systems. Note that policy options that work well in one system might not work in another; for example, policies for a highly regulated, interconnected system with substantial amounts of public storage might not transfer well to a groundwater-dependent system with little public storage and few surface water interconnections. • Scenario testing—Test water management proposals against a wide range of plausible future scenarios, noting that historical data on system hydrology may not be a valid guide to future behaviour. • MERI—Design monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) systems into policy implementation processes; as competition for available water increases, monitoring and measurement of take, and enforcing compliance for all users (consumptive and environmental/cultural) become more important. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 48 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 5.4 What next? The case of the Murray-Darling Basin has shown that the process of water reform in practice is complex, nonlinear and ongoing—it is a work in progress. This means that there will always be setbacks and failures, and further issues to resolve. Because making decisions about water use and control is inherently social, cultural, economic and political, any water reform agenda must do more than undertake comprehensive scientific and technical analyses, and formulate effective and efficient policy responses. For water reforms to prove resilient, close attention must also be paid to identifying and engaging with stakeholders. Although engaging stakeholders in a meaningful process of co-design and co-implementation might slow the rate of progress and even increase costs in the short term, it is much less likely that significant setbacks will arise from sociopolitical pushback, and much more likely that the trajectory of reforms will trend upwards in the long term. The next phase of water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin faces a series of challenges that demonstrate the importance of a multifaceted understanding of water’s value. The ‘acceleration’ phase (2000s–2020) saw important gains in development of policy responses to issues of ownership, pricing, allocation, market design and establishing the environment as a legitimate water user. Economics provided the dominant frame for most of these reforms. However, this approach to valuing water has not been sufficient. Governments now need to grapple more directly with the social, cultural, political and institutional dimensions of valuing water in progressing with the next phase of water reform. Critical issues for further policy reform in the Basin include: • effective and just responses to Indigenous calls for making cultural values and economic development of First Nations people a key element of water reform and management • comprehensive reform of water markets to ensure effective operation, appropriate governance, and rebuilding of user trust in markets and regulatory institutions • a strong focus on climate adaptation, which will require – improved links between water policy and other relevant policy domains, including regional development, agricultural policy, land management, urban planning and broader environmental policy – improved interjurisdictional cooperation across these policy domains • improvements to monitoring and evaluation of social, economic and environmental outcomes to maximise learning and continuous improvement across domains as diverse as environmental watering, human health, flood risk mitigation, industry development and structural adjustment. Attention to coalition building and deliberative dialogues could help diffuse tensions and rebuild trust between levels of government, and between governments and communities. To this end, there may be space for third parties—coalitions of non-government organisations, think tanks and/or the network of regional NRM bodies (with their local-level Landcare groups)—to act as policy brokers and bridges to facilitate the reform process and increase the likelihood of successful and enduring change. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 49 References ABC (2017, July 24). Pumped. In Four corners. https://www.abc.net.au/4corners/pumped/8727826 ABS. (2012). 4628.0.55.001:Completing the picture—environmental accounting in practice, May 2012. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4628.0.55.001 ABS. (2019). Gross value of irrigated agricultural production 2017–18. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/agriculture/gross-value-irrigated-agricultural-production/2017-18 ABS. (2020). Water use on Australian farms: 2018–19. Australian Bureau of Statistics. https://www.abs.gov.au/ statistics/industry/agriculture/water-use-australian-farms/2018-19 ACCC. (2021). Murray-Darling Basin Water Markets Inquiry: Final report. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. https://www.accc.gov.au/publications/murray-darling-basin-water-markets-inquiry- final-report Alexandra, J. (2019). Losing the authority: What institutional architecture for cooperative governance in the Murray Darling Basin? Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 23(2), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241 583.2019.1586066 Australian Government. (2020). First Review of the Water for the Environment Special Account: Report to Commonwealth Minister for Water Resources as required under Section 86AJ of the Water Act 2007. Australian Government. https://www.awe.gov.au/water/policy/mdb/policy/wesa-review AWP, & World Bank. (2022a). Valuing water: The Australian perspective. Multiple values of water under scarcity in the Murray-Darling Basin. Australian Water Partnership, & World Bank. AWP, & World Bank. (2022b). Valuing water: The Australian perspective. Environmental values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. Australian Water Partnership, & World Bank. AWP, & World Bank. (2022c). Valuing water: The Australian perspective. Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. Australian Water Partnership, & World Bank. AWRC. (1975). Review of Australia’s water resources 1975. Australian Water Resources Council, Department of National Resources. Bird, R. B., Bird, D. W., Codding, B. F., Parker, C. H., & Jones, J. H. (2008). The ‘fire stick farming’ hypothesis: Australian Aboriginal foraging strategies, biodiversity, and anthropogenic fire mosaics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(39), 14796–14801. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0804757105 Blastland, M., Freeman, A. L. J., van der Linden, S., Marteau, T. M., & Spiegelhalter, D. (2020). Five rules for evidence communication. Nature, 587, 362–364. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03189-1 Blomquist, W. (2012). A political analysis of property rights. In D. H. Cole, & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Property in land and other resources (pp. 369–384). Lincoln Institute. Blomquist, W. (2020). Beneath the surface: Complexities and groundwater policy-making. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36, 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grz033 BoM. (2015). Recent rainfall, drought and southern Australia’s long-term rainfall decline. Bureau of Meteorology. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a010-southern-rainfall-decline.html BoM. (2018). The Australian Landscape Water Balance model (AWRA-L v6). Bureau of Meteorology. BoM. (2019). National Water Account 2018. Bureau of Meteorology. http://www.bom.gov.au/water/ nwa/2018/index.shtml BoM. (2020). National Water Account 2019. Bureau of Meteorology. http://www.bom.gov.au/water/ nwa/2019/ Bond, N. R., Brooks, S., Capon, S., Hale, J., Kennard, M., & McGinness, H. (2020). Water-based assets of the Murray-Darling Basin and their ecological condition. In B. Hart, N. Bond, C. Pollino, & M. Stewardson (Eds.), Murray-Darling Basin, Australia: Its future management, volume 1 (1st ed., pp. 75–93). Elsevier. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 50 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Calver, O. (2021). A string of policy decisions has left Bourke farmer John Gordon with largely stranded water assets. The Land, 29 April. https://www.theland.com.au/story/7230392/senate-inquiry-hears-of-water-anguish Catacutan, D., Neely, C., Johnson, M., Poussard, H., & Youl, R. (2009). Landcare: Local action—global progress. World Agroforestry Centre. Chen, Y., Colloff, M. J., Lukasiewicz, A., & Pittock, J. (2020). A trickle, not a flood: Environmental watering in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, 72(5), 601–619. https://doi.org/10.1071/ MF20172 Chiew, F. H. S., Piechota, T. C., Dracup, J. A., & McMahon, T. A. (1998). El Nino/Southern Oscillation and Australian rainfall, streamflow and drought: Links and potential for forecasting. Journal of Hydrology, 204, 138–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(97)00121-2 Colloff, M. J., & Pittock, J. (2019). Why we disagree about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan: Water reform, environmental knowledge and the science-policy decision context. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 23(2), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2019.1664878 CSIRO. (2008). Water availability in the Murray-Darling Basin: A report from CSIRO to the Australian Government. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Curtis, A., Ross, H., Marshall, G. R., Baldwin, C., Cavaye, J., Freeman, C., Carr, A., & Syme, G. J. (2014). The great experiment with devolved NRM governance: Lessons from community engagement in Australia and New Zealand since the 1980s. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 21(2), 175–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2014.935747 Davies, A. (2019). Water wars: Will politics destroy the Murray-Darling Basin plan—and the river system itself?. The Guardian, 14 December. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/dec/14/water-wars-will- politics-destroy-the-murray-darling-basin-plan-and-the-river-system-itself DAWE. (2020). Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia v. 7 (IBRA) [Data set]. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. https://data.gov.au/dataset/ ds-nsw-188ae132-d7b4-4a1a-8785-21786bcbe0bf/details DAWE. (2021). Indigenous Protected Areas. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. https://www.environment.gov.au/land/indigenous-protected-areas Doolan, J. (2016). The Australian water reform journey: An overview of three decades of water policy, management and institutional transformation. Australian Water Partnership. https://waterpartnership.org.au/ wp-content/uploads/2016/08/AWN-Australian-Water-Reform-Journey.pdf Dunlevy, G. (2016, February 18). Copies of guide to Murray-Darling Basin plan burnt. ABC News. https://www. abc.net.au/news/2016-02-18/young-men-burn-copies-of-the-guide-to-the-murray/7180740?nw=0 Dwyer, G., & Cheesman, J. (2019). Literature review: Supporting the independent assessment of economic and social conditions in the Murray-Darling Basin. Marsden Jacob Associates. Eastham, J., Mainuddin, M., Elmahdi, A., & Ahmad, M.-D. (2014). Water use and availability in the river basins of the Challenge Program on Water and Food. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Frangos, M., Moggridge, B., Webb, T., Bassani, T., & Duncan, P. (2020). The original water industry: Establishing an Indigenous voice in the modern water industry. Online Journal of the Australian Water Association, 5(2). https://www.awa.asn.au/resources/latest-news/business/diversity/original-water-industry Freund, M., Henley, B. J., Karoly, D. J., Allen, K. J., & Baker, P. J. (2017). Multi-century cool- and warm-season rainfall reconstructions for Australia’s major climatic regions. Climate of the Past, 13, 1751–1770. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-13-1751-2017 Gallant, A. J. E., Kiem, A. S., Verdon-Kidd, D. C., Stone, R. C., & Karoly, D. J. (2012). Understanding hydroclimate processes in the Murray-Darling Basin for natural resources management. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16, 2049–2068. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-2049-2012 Gammage, B. (2011). The biggest estate on Earth: How Aborigines made Australia. Allen & Unwin. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 51 Gann, G. D., McDonald, T., Walder, B., Aronson, J., Nelson, C. R., Jonson, J., Hallett, J. G., Eisenberg, C., Guariguata, M. R., Liu, J., Hua, F., Echeverría, C., Gonzales, E., Shaw, N., Decleer, K., & Dixon, K. W. (2019). International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition. Restoration Ecology, 27(S1), S1–S46. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13035 Gardner, A., Bartlett, R., Gray, J., & Nelson, R. (2018). Water resources law. LexisNexis. Gawne, B., Hale, J., Stewardson, M. J., Webb, J. A., Ryder, D. S., Brooks, S. S., Campbell, C. J., Capon, S. J., Everingham, P., Grace, M. R., Guarino, F., & Stoffels, R. J. (2020). Monitoring of environmental flow outcomes in a large river basin: The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder’s long‐term intervention in the Murray- Darling Basin, Australia. River Research and Applications, 36, 630–644. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3504 Geoscience Australia. (2004). Dams and water storages 1990 (3rd ed.) [Data set]. https://data.gov.au/dataset/ ds-ga-a05f7892-b795-7506-e044-00144fdd4fa6/details?q=water Geoscience Australia. (2012). Shaping a nation: A geology of Australia. Geoscience Australia. Guest, C. (2017). Managing the River Murray: One hundred years of politics. In: B. Hart, & J. Doolan (Eds.), Decision making in water resources policy and management: An Australian perspective (1st ed., pp. 23–39). Elsevier. Hafeez, M., Edraki, M., Rabbani, U., Chemin, Y., Ullah, K., & Sixsmith, J. (2011). A spatial hydrological model for estimation of unaccounted water diversions in the northern Murray-Darling Basin of Australia. Ground-based Methods in Multi-Scale Hydrology, 343, 41–46. Hanemann, M., & Young, M. (2020). Water rights reform and water marketing: Australia vs the US. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36, 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grz037 Hart, B., Byron, N., Bond, N., Pollino, C., & Stewardson, M. (Eds.). (2020). Murray-Darling Basin, Australia: Its future management, volume 1 (1st ed.). Elsevier. Hartwig, L., Jackson, S., & Osborne, N. (2018). Recognition of Barkandji water rights in Australian settler–colonial water regimes. Resources, 7(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7010016 HLPW. (2018). Making every drop count: An agenda for water action. High-Level Panel on Water, United Nations, & World Bank Group. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/ documents/17825HLPW_Outcome.pdf Humphries, P. (2007). Historical Indigenous use of aquatic resources in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin, and its implications for river management. Ecological Management and Restoration, 8, 106–113. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2007.00347.x Hunter, B. (2014). The Aboriginal legacy. In S. Ville, & G. Withers (Eds.), The Cambridge economic history of Australia (pp. 73–96). Cambridge University Press. Hutton, D., & Connors, L. (1999). History of the Australian environment movement. Cambridge University Press. ICAC NSW. (2020). Investigation into Complaints of Corruption in the Management of Water in NSW and Systemic Non-compliance with the Water Management Act 2000. Independent Commission Against Corruption, New South Wales. IIGMDBWR. (2020). Impact of lower inflows on state shares under the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. Interim Inspector General of Murray-Darling Basin Water Resources. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. Johnson, M., & Muller, C. (2020). Investigating the potential of international landcare: ACIAR final report (Project ASEM/2018/117). Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. King, R. (2019, May 14). Murray irrigators lodge $750 million class action against MDBA claiming ‘negligent’ water management. ABC Riverina. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-14/murray-river-irrigators-launch- 750m-class-action-against-mdba/11111996 Kingsford, R. T. (2000). Ecological impacts of dams, water diversions and river management on floodplain wetlands in Australia. Austral Ecology, 25(2), 109–127. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 52 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Landcare Australia. (2017). The Landcare story. https://landcareaustralia.org.au/about/the-landcare-story/ Leblanc, M., Tweed, S., Dijk, A. V., & Timbal, B. (2010). A review of historic and future hydrological changes in the Murray-Darling Basin. Global and Planetary Change, 80–81, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. gloplacha.2011.10.012 Maheshwari, B., Walker, K., & McMahon, T. (1995). Effects of regulation on the flow regime of the River Murray, Australia. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management, 10, 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrr.3450100103 Manski, C. F. (2019). Communicating uncertainty in policy analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116, 7634–7641. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1722389115 McMahon, T. A., & Finlayson, B. L. (2003). Droughts and anti-droughts: The low flow hydrology of Australian rivers. Freshwater Biology, 48, 1147–1160. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2427.2003.01098.x McMahon, T. A., & Petheram, C. (2020). Australian dams and reservoirs within a global setting. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 24, 12–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2020.1733743 McMahon, T. A., Finlayson, B. L., Haines, A. T., & Srikanthan, R. (1992). Global runoff: Continental comparisons of annual flows and peak discharges. Catena Verlag. MDBA. (2010). Guide to the proposed Basin Plan: Technical background. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. MDBA. (2012). Sustainable Rivers Audit 2: Summary. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. MDBA. (2016a). Condamine–Balonne environmental water requirements report. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. MDBA. (2016b). Assessment of environmental water requirements: Barwon–Darling river system. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. MDBA. (2016c). Murray-Darling Basin Authority: Basin Plan annual report 2015–16. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. https://www.mdba.gov.au/report/basin-plan-annual-report-2015-16/looking-ahead/towards-2026 MDBA. (2017). Basin Plan evaluation 2017 (Report 52/17). Murray-Darling Basin Authority. MDBA. (2018). A guide to Traditional Owner groups for water resource plan areas: Surface water. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. MDBA. (2020a). Where is the Murray-Darling Basin. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. https://www.mdba.gov. au/importance-murray-darling-basin/where-basin MDBA. (2020b). State annual diversions (time series data). Murray-Darling Basin Authority. MDBA. (2020c). 2020 Basin Plan evaluation. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. https://www.mdba.gov.au/2020- basin-plan-evaluation MDBA. (2021). Floodplain harvesting and overland flows. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. mdba.gov.au/basin- plan/sustainable-diversion-limits/floodplain-harvesting-overland-flows MDBA. (no date-a). A plan for the Murray-Darling Basin. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. https://www.mdba. gov.au/basin-plan/plan-murray-darling-basin MDBA. (no date-b). Why the Murray-Darling Basin matters. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. https://www.mdba.gov.au/why-saving-rivers-matters MDBA. (no date-c). A guide to water management in the Murray–Darling Basin. Murray–Darling Basin Authority. https://www.mdba.gov.au/water-management/allocations-states-mdba/guide-water-management MDBC. (1999). The Salinity Audit of the Murray-Darling Basin: A 100-year perspective. Murray-Darling Basin Commission. MDBMC. (2001). Basin Salinity Management Strategy (2001–2015). Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/pubs/BSMS-full.pdf Moggridge, B., Betterridge, L., & Thompson, R. (2019). Integrating Aboriginal cultural values into water planning: A case study from New South Wales, Australia. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 26(3), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2019.1650837 Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 53 Moir, A. (2011). “Murray-Darling Plan: We must be on the right track... everyone is equally unhappy” [cartoon]. Moore, S. M. (2018). Subnational hydropolitics: Conflict, cooperation, and institution building in shared river basins. Oxford University Press. Murdoch, C. (2020). Murray-Darling Basin: Budget review 2020–21 index. https://www.aph.gov.au/ About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReview202021/ MurrayDarlingBasin Murphy, B. F., & Timbal, B. (2008). A review of recent climate variability and climate change in southeastern Australia. International Journal of Climatology, 28, 859–879. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1627 NIAA. (2020). Murray-Darling Basin Indigenous River Rangers Program grant opportunity information. National Indigenous Australians Agency. NIAA. (2021). Indigenous ranger programs. National Indigenous Australians Agency. https://www.niaa.gov.au/ indigenous-affairs/environment/indigenous-ranger-program NMA (National Museum of Australia) (2008). “The river bed”. The Age, 19 June 2008. Cartoon by R. Tandberg. https://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/behind-the-lines-cartoons-2008/climate-change O’Gorman, E. (2012). Flood country: An environmental history of the Murray-Darling Basin. CSIRO Publishing. Palmer, M., Bernhardt, E., Chornesky, E., Collins, S., Dobson, A., Duke, C., Gold, B., Jacobson, R., Kingsland, S., Kranz, R., Mappin, M., Martinez, M. L., Micheli, F., Morse, J., Pace, M., Pascual, M., Palumbi, S., Reichman, O. J., Simons, A., Townsend, A., & Turner, M. . (2004). Ecology for a crowded planet. Science, 304(5675), 1251–1252. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1095780 Parliament of Australia. (1973). A national approach to water resources management: A statement of Australian Government policy. Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia. Paydar, Z., & Van Dijk, A. (2011, December 12–16). A conceptual model to estimate ungauged losses in river water accounting [Conference presentation]. 19th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Perth, Australia. Pearce, D., & Alford, A. (eds.). (2015). Adoption of ACIAR project outputs 2015 (ACIAR Adoption Studies Report No. 12). Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. Pitt, K. (2021a, May 26). Australia’s first Inspector-General of Water Compliance for the Murray-Darling Basin [Media release]. The Hon. Keith Pitt MP, Minister for Resources and Water. https://minister.awe.gov.au/pitt/ media-release/inspector-general-water-compliance Pitt, K. (2021b, June 24). Inspector-General of Water Compliance Bill passes through Parliament [Media release]. The Hon. Keith Pitt MP, Minister for Resources and Water. https://minister.awe.gov.au/pitt/ media-release/inspector-general-water-compliance-bill-passes Poff, N. L. (2018). Beyond the natural flow regime? Broadening the hydro-ecological foundation to meet environmental flows challenges in a non-stationary world. Freshwater Biology, 63, 1011–1021. https://doi. org/10.1111/fwb.13038 Pohlner, H., Hone, S., Fargher, W., & Olszak, C. (2016). Valuing water: A framing paper for the High-Level Panel on Water. Australian Water Partnership. Pollino, C. A., Hart, B. T., Nolan, M., Byron, N., & Marsh, R. (2020). Rural and regional communities of the Murray-Darling Basin. In B. Hart, N. Bond, C. Pollino., & M. Stewardson (Eds.), Murray-Darling Basin, Australia: Its future management, volume 1 (1st ed., pp. 21–46). Elsevier. Productivity Commission. (2017). Transitioning regional economies [Study report]. Productivity Commission. Productivity Commission. (2018). Murray-Darling Basin Plan: Five-year assessment. Productivity Commission. Productivity Commission. (2020). National water reform: Issues paper. Productivity Commission. Productivity Commission. (2021a). Environmental management: Supporting paper C to ‘National water reform 2020, draft report’. Productivity Commission. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 54 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Productivity Commission. (2021b). National water reform 2020, draft report. Productivity Commission. Quinn, M. (1997). Committed to conserve: The Western Lands Act, 1901, and the management of the public estate of the Western Division of New South Wales. Australian Geographical Studies, 35, 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8470.00018 Robins, L. (2018). More than 30 years of ‘Landcare’ in Australia: Five phases of development from ‘childhood’ to ‘mid-life’ (crisis or renewal?). Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 25(4), 385–397. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2018.1487342 Robins, L., & Kanowski, P. (2011). ‘Crying for Our Country’: Eight ways in which ‘Caring for Our Country’ has undermined Australia’s regional model for natural resource management. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 18(2), 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2011.566158 Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4532139 Schirmer, J., & Mylek, M. (2020). Thriving, surviving, or declining communities: Socio-economic change in Murray-Darling Basin communities. University of Canberra. Sefton, R., Peterson, D., Woods, R., Kassebaum, A., McKenzie, D., Simpson, B., & Ramsay, M. (2020). Final report: Independent assessment of social and economic conditions in the Murray-Darling Basin. Panel for Independent Assessment of Social and Economic Conditions in the Murray-Darling Basin. State of the Environment Advisory Council. (1996). Australia, state of the environment 1996. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Stewardson, M. J., Walker, G., & Coleman, M. (2020). Hydrology of the Murray-Darling Basin. In B. Hart, N. Bond, C. Pollino., & M. Stewardson (Eds.), Murray-Darling Basin, Australia: Its future management, volume 1 (1st ed., pp. 47–73). Elsevier. Stone, D. A. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). W. W. Norton & Co. UNESCO. (2021). United Nations world water development report 2021: Valuing water. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Vivès, B., Jones, R. N., & CSIRO. (2005). Detection of abrupt changes in Australian decadal rainfall (1890–1989). CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. Walker, B. (2019). Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission report. Government of South Australia. https://apo. org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2019-01/apo-nid217606.pdf Walker, G., Wang, Q. J., Horne, A. C., Evans, R., & Richardson, S. (2020). Estimating groundwater-river connectivity factor for quantifying changes in irrigation return flows in the Murray-Darling Basin. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 24(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2020.1787702 Walker, G. R., Horne, A. C., Wang, Q. J., & Rendell, R. (2021). Assessing the impact of irrigation efficiency projects on return flows in the south-eastern Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Water, 13(10), 1366. http:// dx.doi.org/10.3390/w13101366 Walker, J., Bullen, F., & Williams, B. G. (1993). Ecohydrological changes in the Murray-Darling Basin. I. The number of trees cleared over two centuries. Journal of Applied Ecology, 30(2), 265–273. https://doi. org/10.2307/2404628 WEF. (2020). The global risks report 2020 (15th ed.). World Economic Forum. Weir, J. K. (2011). Water planning and dispossession. In D. Connell, & Q. Grafton (Eds.), Basin futures: Water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. ANU Press. Williams, J., & Grafton, R. Q. (2019). Missing in action: possible effects of water recovery on stream and river flows in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 23, 78–87. https://doi.or g/10.1080/13241583.2019.1579965 Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 55 Appendix A. Case study synopsis: Multiple values of water under scarcity in the Murray-Darling Basin Refer to the full case study report prepared by Aither, with support from Lin Crase (University of South Australia). Australian Water Partnership, & World Bank. (2022). Valuing water: The Australian perspective. Multiple values of water under scarcity in the Murray-Darling Basin. Australian Water Partnership, & World Bank. A.1 Summary This case study explores how the value of water has affected the management of scarce water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin. Valuing water is crucial for making good decisions about water management globally and for responding to the many challenges facing the water sector. Although the context may differ by country, city, basin or aquifer, it should not prevent value-informed water management. The analysis of historical events starts during an expansionary phase in irrigated agricultural development in the region at the beginning of the 20th century. Four main phases in water management are described, together with an exploration of how changing perceptions of value have shaped policy, objectives and outcomes over time. This case study tracks progress in the Murray-Darling Basin in valuing water across all its uses—economic, environmental and First Nations cultural—and acknowledges that more work is still needed. It shows how water management can be adjusted in response to changes in our understanding of value and how this understanding can lead to more transparent valuation processes. Although water policies in the Basin have supported an open and flexible economy, and resilient and adaptive businesses, significant challenges remain in the management of its environmental and cultural values. A.2 Why manage water for its multiple values? Water is fundamental to healthy and functional societies, and most economic activity. It is an important input to production in agriculture and rural industries, from mining to manufacturing, and supports other industries such as tourism. Water supports the diverse ecosystems in which we live and has profound significance in many cultures. In economic terms, the value of water is the total benefit that all these groups receive from water now and in the future. Knowing the full value of the water we use is challenging. The value of water varies with use, with location, and over time. The costs of its provision, or prices paid for it, often do not reflect water’s total value. Water is implicitly valued in many daily decisions. We make a value judgment about the benefits of fresh water when we pay to have water piped to our homes, and when we turn off the tap to conserve water and reduce our water bills. Better understanding value helps us understand the demand for scarce water resources. Water is becoming more scarce; the world’s river basins and aquifers are increasingly fully allocated or overallocated, and scarcity conditions are amplifying as a result of climate change and population growth. Accurately valuing water helps us reveal the costs and benefits of different actions (or lack of action), and how these costs and benefits are distributed across users, uses, time and space. Understanding value leads to more informed decision making, from the household level to governments making decisions that affect industries, communities and environments. More accurately valuing water also helps us more effectively assess our management options. This includes how we allocate water under conditions of scarcity so that we can achieve a better balance between different needs and uses for all. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 56 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin A.3 Economic concepts of valuing water This section describes four economic concepts that inform the valuing of water: total economic value framework, cost-reflective pricing, pollution pricing and water markets. A.3.1 Total economic value framework Many methods can be used to reveal the value of water and other natural resources. These methods seek to understand or reflect the use of water for different users and uses. One of the most widely used frameworks for understanding the value associated with natural resources is total economic value. This aggregates all values provided by an ecosystem or resource. It allows comparisons between options where resources are scarce and decisions must be made about their use. The total economic value framework divides values into ‘use value’ and ‘non-use value’ categories. An example for waterways or other water resources is provided in Figure A.1. Use value: • Direct—the immediate use of the resource (e.g. consumptive use for irrigation; nonconsumptive use for recreational swimming) • Indirect—the incidental use of the resource (e.g. flood protection provided by wetlands). Non-use value: • Existence—the knowledge that a feature of a resource continues to exist, regardless of whether it benefits anyone directly • Bequest—the knowledge that a feature of a resource will be available for future generations • Option—ensuring that a resource is available for the future; a type of insurance for possible future demand. Urban water use Cultural use Diversions Agricultural use Rowing Rafting Direct use Contact recreation value Swimming In stream Cultural use Use etc Commercial fishing value Navigation Walking Alternative Habitat/environment Passive- economic shoreline Cycling values recreation Fishing Amenity Indirect use etc value Grazing Functional Consumptive Forestry Existence Watershed protection Non-use value Flood control Option Nutrient cycling Figure A.1. An example of the total economic value framework applied to waterways and other water resources Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 57 Each of these types of value can be estimated by different methods. Some types of value can be directly related to monetary benefits, as revealed in markets, such as additional profits accruing to farmers. But many types of value are estimated through people’s own assessments of what it is worth to sustain a value, or by indirect inference of this worth. For example, the use value of water for recreation may be estimated by asking anglers how much they would be willing to pay to continue to access a river for fishing, even if no direct payment is required. Or it can be reflected in the costs to access the angling opportunity and how often anglers access the river. Although these methods have been used extensively to estimate the value of natural resources, they can often be constrained—for example, by lack of data. This can make a full assessment of the total economic value of water challenging. This means that the politics of responding to different water values is important. Some of the most common mechanisms for taking into account the value of water include elements of both administrative and market approaches. Market-based approaches use a market to reveal value (and, in many cases, prices in that market), whereas administrative approaches signal value through setting prices or charges based on other techniques, or setting the level of water available to different users. Both approaches can be applied in different aspects of water management, such as pricing of water-related services and infrastructure, pricing of pollution, or secure tradeable water rights. Often, market-based and administrative approaches must be combined to some extent. For example, setting the level of a cap in a market-based ‘cap-and-trade’ system will be an administrative decision. A.3.2 Cost-reflective pricing Cost-reflective pricing of water-related services and infrastructure can help to signal the costs of water provision to the end user. The value of water is reflected in the costs needed to deliver the water to end users, such as the costs of pipes and pumps. Users weigh the value they place on water-related services against the price, and communicate their assessment of value to water utilities and governments through their consumer choices. This approach cannot fully reveal the value of water. It simply demonstrates whether the value to the end user is greater than the price charged. The decision on how to set charges and their level is an administrative one. A.3.3 Pollution pricing Pricing of pollution accounts for value by forcing polluters to consider the negative value (costs) of pollution, such as the degradation of surface water and groundwater. This is often done by establishing permit regimes for wastewater discharge, where a permit price is administratively determined. Other mechanisms can also be used, such as subsidies, property rights and social norms. Cap-and-trade approaches have also been used to establish markets, which then determine the price of polluting or achieving water quality. These markets usually require that the government first establishes the limits or tradeable permits. A.3.4 Water markets Secure tradeable water rights can also be used. When water is traded in markets, this trade can reveal the value of water for different uses. A cap-and-trade water market involves an administrative (usually government) decision to establish a cap on total water use and allow water users (licence holders) to trade water with each other based on their own needs and preferences. This encourages water to move to higher-value uses. Market fluctuations reveal the marginal value of water for various uses at different times and under different conditions of scarcity. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 58 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin A.4 An economics lens on water policy development This section provides a brief outline of the four phases of water resources management in the Murray-Darling Basin from the early 20th century to the present (Figure A.2). For simplicity, the phases have been broadly clustered by decades (early 1900s – 1950s, 1960s–1970s, 1980s–1990s, 2000s–2020), while noting that some overlap exists between them. Refer to the full report of the case study for a detailed account of each phase according to its basic characteristics, the dominant water values that informed water management at the time, the water policy instruments designed and adopted accordingly, and the high-level outcomes observed. Australia’s First Nations people have managed, used, and attributed great cultural and spiritual significance to the continent’s water resources for tens of thousands of years. A separate case study tells the story of how Australia’s First Nations people and their cultural values have been included in the management of water in the Basin. The current case study is principally concerned with how the value of water has affected the management of scarce water resources in the Basin. The detailed analysis of historical events therefore starts during a major expansionary phase in irrigated agricultural development in the region at the end of the 19th century. Figure A.2. Four phases of water resources management in the Murray-Darling Basin (spanning the early 1900s to 2020) A.4.1 ‘Development expansion’ phase (early 1900s – 1950s) Water resources development gathered pace in the Murray-Darling Basin from the early 1900s. An initial expansion of irrigation was accompanied by efforts to improve the navigation of streams in the Basin, with paddleboats employed to transport agricultural produce to downstream ports to satisfy domestic and export demands. The expansion of irrigation and settlement in the Basin drove further demand for water. Fluctuating water availability with alternating droughts and floods meant management was needed to secure the water supply and navigation routes. During this period, water was mainly valued for consumptive use and was seen as abundant. Policy focused on supporting water use for agriculture and development, and securing supply. The costs were mainly borne by government, reflecting the strong desire to populate Australia’s vast interior and support regional development. This led to substantial investment in infrastructure and continued but steady expansion of areas under irrigation. Environmental degradation, as we understand it today, was seldom valued in decision making or seen as being as important as food production and regional development. Cultural values were not reflected in the management of water resources during this period. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 59 The main approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising water values during this early phase of managing water for economic development are summarised Table A.1. Table A.1. Overview of approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising water values during the ‘development expansion’ phase in the Murray-Darling Basin (early 1900s – 1950s) Approaches Tools Examples Recognition and Water-sharing River Murray Waters Agreement (1914) acceptance of agreements water values Institutions River Murray Commission (1917) Funding Government investments and subsidies commitment Assessment of Metering Dethridge wheel (invented in 1910) measured the amount water values of water being supplied to a property (Green, 2000) Realisation of Water-related Locks, weirs and dams constructed water values infrastructure and New and growing irrigation districts supported development Urban water supplies built for growing cities and towns Limits of use Water set aside for annual transmission losses (e.g. seepage, evaporation) and critical human water needs No basin or catchment-scale cap on water abstractions or consumption Development and Population growth in rural areas supported, including through use incentives soldier–settler schemes Heavily subsidised irrigator access to, and use of, infrastructure Water rights, Water rights to landowners freely handed out licences and permits Water licences or permits tied to use on specific land A.4.2 ‘Emerging costs’ phase (1960s–1970s) By the 1960s, the water economy had begun to mature, and relatively low-cost sites for constructing dams and other infrastructure were largely exhausted. The costs of water capture and use, including infrastructure and service provision costs, became increasingly visible. Land and in-stream salinity were affecting agricultural land, and the environmental effects were beginning to emerge. Through the 1960s and 1970s, individual states tried to mitigate some of the environmental damage. They introduced volume-based licences to replace area-based water rights, and limits on new water diversions to prevent further deterioration of the environment. Volume-based licences also protected the rights of existing extractive licence holders. But there was continued investment in large-scale water supply infrastructure—in particular, to support development of irrigated agriculture. The main approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising water values during this phase from the 1960s when the states began to respond to the environmental costs of water abstraction are summarised in Table A.2. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 60 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Table A.2. Overview of approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising water values during the ‘emerging costs’ phase in the Murray-Darling Basin (1960s–1970s) Approaches Tools Examples Recognition and Legislation Existing common law rights abolished or displaced in some acceptance of cases, with control over water vested in the Crown water values Early legislation to limit groundwater extraction for irrigation in specific areas Institutions Government increasingly perceived as slow, bureaucratic, and not coping as a service delivery agent Education and Increasing public awareness of adverse impacts (e.g. toxic media blue–green algal blooms, irrigation-induced land and water salinisation) Assessment of Salinity monitoring Rising trend in river salinity, with exceedance of World Health water values Organization recommendations for human consumption Analysis of Declining employment in agricultural industries; weakened demographic trends case for subsidising irrigated agriculture infrastructure and rural settlement Service quality Irrigators (and urban customers) concerned about poor or and costs declining service levels and increasing costs Realisation of Privatisation Infrastructure and service delivery privatisation to reduce the water values financial burden on state governments Water-related New storage and control infrastructure projects infrastructure and development Limits of use Limits set on new water diversions Groundwater extraction limits for irrigation (in specific areas) Caps on water use; South Australia was first to restrict the issuing of licences to control surface water abstraction during times of low flow Minimal or no controls on extraction (such as farm dams, overland flow interceptions, harvesting, forestry and other interception activities) Water rights, Volume-based licences replaced area-based water rights licences and permits Water trading Water trade occurred in the 1966–67 drought A.4.3 ‘Major water reforms’ phase (1980s–1990s) By the 1980s, water supply options were decreasing even further, and demand for water was continuing to increase. The focus of Australia’s water resources management began to shift from developing new water resources and investing in infrastructure to managing limited water resources more efficiently and sustainably. The 1982–83 drought across eastern Australia, possibly the worst of the 20th century, underscored this need to change focus. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 61 Through the 1980s and 1990s, water management objectives began to account for both the wider costs and the benefits of water use. This meant maximising the economically efficient use of water while limiting environmental costs and impacts. Instruments to achieve this included government commitments to capping total water consumption and allocating water for the environment, enabling water trading, and applying full cost recovery and consumption-based pricing principles. The increasing complexity of policy instruments during this phase was justified by increasing demands and scarcity, and the need to address legacy decisions and related lock-in effects that did not reflect contemporary values. Table A.3 summarises the main approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising water values during this major water reform phase throughout the 1980s and 1990s when there was a greater focus on economic efficiency and environmental degradation. Table A.3. Overview of approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising water values during the ‘major water reforms’ phase in the Murray-Darling Basin (1980s–1990s) Approaches Tools Examples Recognition and Legislation Victorian Water Act 1989 enabled water trade acceptance of water values South Australian Water Resources Act 1997 set out procedures in developing a water allocation plan New South Wales Water Management Act 2000 introduced water-sharing plans in the 1990s (and 2000s) Water-sharing River Murray Waters Agreement (1914) amended in the 1980s, agreements and replaced by the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement (1987 and 1992) Policy statements United Nations Brundtland Report on sustainable development (1987) COAG Water Reform Framework (1994), including recognising that groundwater basins have environmental requirements ARMCANZ policy paper (1996) discussed ‘sustainable yield’ in the context of groundwater and the idea of groundwater trading Strategic initiatives Victoria established streamflow and groundwater management and plans plans (1990s) Australian National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (1992) Institutions New institutions established under the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement (1992), including the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council and the Murray-Darling Basin Community Advisory Committee Valuing water: The Australian perspective 62 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Approaches Tools Examples Assessment of River monitoring Declining water quality, especially in-stream salinity water values Inquiries and audits Industry Commission inquiry into Australia’s water resources and wastewater disposal (1991) Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council audit of water use (1995) Performance COAG water reforms (1994) established the use of a regular reporting performance reporting mechanism for states Pilot programs Testing of different market and regulatory mechanisms in the natural resource sectors (COAG, 1992) Realisation of Ownership Cooperative-based ownership in some smaller irrigation districts water values and functional arrangements Some service providers corporatised Separation of regulation, water service delivery and resource management functions Removal of state jurisdictions from service delivery roles Pricing and cost Shift towards user-pays mechanisms for recouping costs recovery (Musgrave, 2008) New pricing practices aimed at recovering costs (consumption based) and removing (or making overt) cross-subsidies Water-related Construction of salt interception schemes to reduce infrastructure and in-stream salinity development New developments from ‘sleeper’ (unused) and ‘dozer’ (underused) licences activated on initial opening up of water trading (i.e. perverse outcome) Limits of use Victoria set a 2% limit on entitlement that could be traded out of an irrigation district in any season (1994) (NWC, 2011) Basin-wide cap on water diversions introduced (1995). The cap restrained further increases in surface water diversions, but not groundwater development (MDBC, 2008) Water trading A restricted version of water trading in 1982–83 drought Victoria: Trading in allocations (1987); intradistrict (1991) and interdistrict (1994) entitlement trading (DNRE, 2001; Martin, 2005; Pigram et al., 1992) NSW: Entitlement trading among private diverters (1989); intervalley trading (1991) South Australia: Trading within irrigation districts (1989), between private diverters and those in irrigation districts (1995) Murray-Darling Basin Agreement (1992) included arrangements for promoting interstate water trading ARMCANZ = Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand; COAG = Council of Australian Governments Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 63 A.4.4 ‘Acceleration’ phase (2000s–2020) The millennium drought, which started in 1997 and peaked from 2001 to 2009 (BoM, 2015), prompted a series of major changes in water management. There was an escalation in reforms in a bid to achieve previous commitments, a number of which had progressed slowly and had been hampered by the drought. During this phase, the general public became increasingly aware of environmental and cultural values, but also the value of, and pressures on, agricultural production. This phase emphasised the potential for conflicts and trade-offs between economic, environmental, social and cultural values of water. The approach to management has a focus on managing multiple values and the trade-offs inherent under scarcity. It includes Basin-scale management; more water recovery for the environment; and laws for managing environmental, social and cultural outcomes. Trading mechanisms have also become increasingly sophisticated, including the use of markets to purchase water for the environment. Table A.4 summarises the main approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising water values during the current acceleration phase, which has grappled with managing competing values under increasing scarcity since the early 2000s. Table A.4. Overview of approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising water values during the ‘acceleration’ phase in the Murray-Darling Basin (2000s–2020) Approaches Tools Examples Recognition and Legislation New South Wales Water Management Act 2000 introduced acceptance of water-sharing plans in the 1990s and 2000s water values Queensland Water Act 2000 authorised the government to plan water allocations to environmental and other uses Commonwealth Water Act 2007 Basin Plan (2012) Water-sharing Interstate agreements under the Commonwealth Water Act 2007 agreements Policy statements Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council (2003) announced the ‘First Step Decision’ to recover 500 GL for the six iconic sites Strategic initiatives Living Murray Program (2002) to improve the health of six and plans designated sites along the Murray River National Water Initiative (2004), including water plans to make provision for the possible existence of native title rights to water, and for water to be allocated to native title holders for traditional cultural purposes National Plan for Water Security (Howard, 2007); later Water for the Future program Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program (DSEWPaC, 2011) under Water for the Future program National Groundwater Strategic Framework (2016–2026) Valuing water: The Australian perspective 64 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Approaches Tools Examples Education and Major increase in community concerns about the media environmental sustainability of the Basin Increasing awareness of the importance of groundwater Increasing recognition of the need for water for Indigenous cultural and economic uses Institutions Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (and state equivalents) Independent bodies to set or review prices, or price-setting processes, for water storage and delivery on a case-by-case basis Assessment of Monitoring, High-priority water-dependent environmental sites and their water values reporting and watering requirements scientific knowledge Water accounting systems, including state water registers, water monitoring, water metering and the National Water Account Transparent reporting and compliance regimes Audits Basin Plan evaluation (MDBA, 2020) Realisation of Pricing and cost Further reforms in water pricing (tariffs) to fully embed water values recovery user-pays principles and to ensure economically efficient use Water-related Extensive investment in more efficient irrigation systems infrastructure and (rather than increased abstraction) development Investment in on-farm water-use efficiency and the downstream movement of water Limits of use Comprehensive restrictions on use to protect limited supplies (during millenium drought) Sustainable diversion limits set both within valleys and on a Basin scale (more sophisticated than the previous caps) Establishment of environmentally sustainable level of take for surface water of the Murray-Darling Basin Significant increases in groundwater extractions No set level of recovery to account for the impact of climate change under the Basin Plan (2012) Water rights, Unbundling land and water rights licences and permits Converting entitlements into tradeable and bankable assets Licensing and management of groundwater withdrawals in areas subject to relatively high levels of demand Water trading Removal of artificial barriers to trade Buy-back of permanent entitlements for the environment Greater entry by corporate agribusiness, and other Australian and international investors into the water market Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 65 A.5 Lessons from Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin experience Water management during the past 100 years in the Murray-Darling Basin has enabled much to be achieved. The process of reform is not yet complete, and there are still improvements to be made. At a broad level, the water reform story of the Basin shows the following: • Scarcity is a major influence on our understanding of value. • Failing to understand value can undermine water resources management. • Embedding value through cost-reflective pricing, water markets, or simply identifying the many uses and values of water for communities can help ensure that water management delivers value to the broader community. • Improving the ways in which value is incorporated into water management can help ensure that the right policies and levers are used. • The increasing value of scarce and variable water supplies underscores the importance of getting policy and management implementation right, including managing trade-offs across communities, industries and the environment. More specific lessons are summarised below with regard to the effect of water values on management objectives and policy, drivers of change for water values, and effective policy instruments (cap-and-trade mechanisms, cost-reflective pricing, setting limits on specific uses, and investments in irrigation efficiency). A.5.1 Effect of water values on management objectives and policy Water management in the Murray-Darling Basin provides some lessons for how the value of water directly affects, and is affected by, water policy and management actions: • Consumptive use only—If water is only valued for consumptive use and the costs of that use are largely ignored, policy will focus on maximising extraction and use, and securing supply. This approach can prove unsustainable both financially and environmentally, and riskier in the presence of climate change. • Water use costs—If the value of water reflects the costs associated with water use, including infrastructure and service provision, and public costs such as environmental degradation, policy will focus on accounting for these costs. Cost-reflective pricing and limits on use can start to incentivise the use of water for high-value production, increasing economic value without increasing use. • Net economic benefits—Recognising that the value of water relates to net economic benefits leads to water management objectives that maximise the economically efficient use of water and minimise the economic and environmental costs. Instruments to achieve this include capping total water consumption and allocating water for the environment, enabling water trading in certain circumstances, and implementing full cost recovery and consumption-based pricing principles. • All use and non-use values—Valuing water based on all economic, social, cultural and environmental use and non-use values is the most comprehensive method of valuation. It can be achieved through Basin-scale management; setting legislation targeted at managing environmental, social and cultural outcomes; and increasing support for trading mechanisms, including the use of markets to purchase water for the environment. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 66 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin A.5.2 Drivers of change for water values There have been two main drivers of change in the perception of the value of water during the past 100 years in the Murray-Darling Basin: • Economic performance—Recognition of the changing economic performance (financial costs and economic returns) of the water sector over time has shifted the focus from agricultural expansion to more efficient water use and maximising the benefits of economic production by allocating water to its highest-value use. • Environmental harm—Recognition that environmental harm is driven by the consumptive use of water resources—in particular, for highly variable water sources—has been coupled with wider global recognition of the value of environmental water (Crase, 2008). A.5.3 Effective policy instruments Cap-and-trade mechanisms, and cost-reflective charges for infrastructure and services are key policy instruments that have been effective in revealing the value of water: • Cap and trade—This mechanism has been used to create a market for surface water that has enabled water to be reallocated to higher productive uses and return water to the environment in overallocated systems. • Cost-reflective pricing—This mechanism has been used to identify appropriate levels of investment in infrastructure and service provision, and has enabled high levels of services with very low water losses in Australia compared with other countries. • Setting limits or controls on use—This mechanism does not effectively reveal or increase value, but has been helpful in signalling the scarcity of resources and as a precursor to markets. • Traded water—Purchasing water for the environment from the market has been a more economically efficient way of recovering water for the environment than direct public investment in irrigation infrastructure; the purchase price for this water has generally had a much lower cost per megalitre (ML) of water recovered. Cap-and-trade mechanisms Australia’s water markets and the supporting institutional, regulatory and operational settings are now very well developed—including entitlements with clear characteristics, comprehensive registers, fast trade processing times, interstate trade and deep broker markets. For water markets to have benefits in a particular country or specific water system, the following characteristics usually need to be present: • Scarcity—Water systems need to be at or near full allocation. Scarcity can be given effect through a cap on a sector’s water use. • Variability—Variation in water availability in and between water years (seasons), across different geographic areas and over time contributes to the need for water users to trade with others. • Connectivity—Water systems that are connected to others increase the number of water users that can trade with each other. • Sufficient users—As with many markets, more users can increase the number of parties to trade with, liquidity, variation in demand, and opportunities for trade. • Heterogeneous demands—Different industry or crop types existing in the same or connected areas mean that demand profiles are more likely to vary and create more opportunities for trade. • Changing demand—Changes in crop types and changing competing demands can increase the need to trade water. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 67 Cost-reflective pricing One of the most significant water reforms has been the move to cost-reflective pricing, which reduces subsidies and improves outcomes: • Revenue generation—Most current service providers (in both the irrigation and urban sectors) generate enough revenue from user charges to operate without a government subsidy. • Independent economic regulation—This has been key to cost-reflective pricing; it facilitates consistent and improved planning, increases the transparency of decision making and reduces the risk of political interference in price-setting processes (Productivity Commission, 2017). • Full cost recovery—Most major irrigation areas now achieve full cost recovery of both capital costs, and operations and maintenance costs. In broad terms, Basin irrigators have very high levels of service compared with other countries, including on-demand ordering; high levels of automation; relatively low levels of water losses; sophisticated billing, customer and information services; and metering and monitoring. Ongoing challenges remain for the implementation of cost-reflective pricing: • Government support—Grants and other support via on- and off-farm efficiency programs have been provided to both privatised and corporatised entities. • Asset overinvestment—There is a tendency to ‘gold plate’, or overinvest in, assets without sufficiently considering the ongoing maintenance costs for irrigators. • Political priorities—Despite privatisation, investment in rural water infrastructure often becomes a political issue, with evidence on the economic and environmental costs and benefits being ignored if it does not meet the political desire for investment. Setting limits on specific uses Setting limits on specific uses of water can help to manage extraction and consumption, and respond to water scarcity. It can also help to drive efficiency gains, as individual irrigators cannot increase their use. During the ‘emerging costs’ phase, individual states used limits on licences to try to limit extraction, which successfully halted further diversions, but: • they did not apply to all systems (e.g. Victoria continued to issue groundwater licences) • some water-using activities continued with minimal or no controls on extraction (e.g. farm dams, overland flow interceptions, harvesting, forestry, other interception activities). Limiting use for specific uses, users or areas does not effectively reveal or increase value compared with implementing a Basin-wide cap-and-trade system. Prescriptive rationing of urban water supplies during past drought denied households the opportunity to choose how to use and conserve water in ways they valued most, and imposed greater costs (Productivity Commission, 2008). Investments in irrigation efficiency Flexible approaches to acquiring water for the environment that include direct buy-back are widely regarded as much more cost-effective than approaches that prescribe that water must come from investments in irrigation modernisation or ‘water-saving’ projects (Crase & O’Keefe, 2009). Infrastructure projects for water recovery: • cost around AU$2,200/ML on average under the Living Murray Program, compared with AU$1,700/ML for market purchases (Productivity Commission, 2010) Valuing water: The Australian perspective 68 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin • cost around AU$5,100/ML on average using infrastructure upgrades, compared with AU$2,200/ML for entitlement purchases (between 2007–08 and 2015–16) (Wentworth Group, 2017) • cost 2–7 times more than the direct purchase of equivalent quantities of water for individual projects (Wentworth Group, 2017) • do not always yield genuine net returns to the environment of the magnitude envisaged, largely because these projects ignore return flows from the irrigation system before upgrade. There has been resistance to buy-backs for environmental water, even though it was the least-cost approach from a society-wide perspective. The government response has been to invest in on- and off- farm water infrastructure to deliver water savings, with the water savings converted to water licences held by environmental water holders (purchased licences are also given to the same public environmental water holders). Expenditure priorities shifted in 2014 from water entitlement purchase to investment in infrastructure projects, often motivated by a desire to invest directly in regional communities to mitigate social impacts, rather than to achieve the greatest environmental benefits. A.5.4 Major challenges in the Murray-Darling Basin The Murray-Darling Basin has undergone a long period of sustained reforms, the impacts of which continue to play out across the Basin. Major challenges to water management include the following: • No new reforms—The current emphasis is one of ‘staying the course’ and implementing the ‘long tail’ of existing reforms, rather than creating new reforms. • Unwinding of reforms—There is pressure to unwind some reforms that have negative impacts on certain communities, regardless of whether these impacts were the direct result of reforms or other factors. • Amplified economic pressures—Water recovery has compounded, or occurred in parallel to, the many other economic pressures facing rural and regional Australia, and many agricultural communities have faced significant challenges as a result. • Framework deficiencies—Governance, regulatory and operational frameworks supporting water markets have not developed to accommodate the current scale of the market and are no longer adequate (ACCC, 2021). • Waning trust—Many water users, especially irrigation farmers, do not trust that the markets and key institutions are fair or working to the benefit of water users. • Trading impediments—Any impediments to informed and confident trading by irrigators can undermine investment in efficient agricultural production. • Regulatory deficiencies—Regulatory oversight and confidence in the national water reform have been eroded, especially in light of – abolition of the Sustainable Rivers Audit in 2013 – abolition of the National Water Commission in 2014 – revelations of possible water theft and meter tampering, which exposed inadequate monitoring and compliance regimes in 2017 (Wentworth Group, 2017). • Functionality of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA)—The general functioning of the MDBA has been called into serious question, particularly the transparency with which scientific research has underpinned some decisions (Walker, 2019). • Effectiveness of the Basin Plan 2012—Although progress and measurable outcomes have been observed at the Basin scale, the Basin Plan is unable to effectively support many floodplain and wetland ecosystems until critical improved water infrastructure and river operating rules are in place. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 69 • Accreditation of water plans—This is required to set the rules on how much water can be taken from the system on an annual basis, ensuring that sustainable diversion limits are not exceeded over time. • Low or no-flow conditions—Basin governments and the Basin Plan need to continue to adapt and improve approaches to managing water quality and in-stream salinity (MDBA, 2020). A.6 Conclusions This case study explores the multiple values of water under scarcity. It documents how the diverse values of water have informed water policy in the Murray-Darling Basin over time and how this has led to better water management in times of scarcity. Government objectives for water management, expressed in policy instruments such as the Water Act 2007 and the Basin Plan (2012), reflect an increasing acceptance of the need to value water across its many competing uses. There is scope to further refine approaches to water policy and management in the Basin, notably by addressing stakeholder tensions; achieving and communicating more demonstrated outcomes for communities, industries and the environment; and applying more flexible and effective reforms. Successive governments have contributed to increased efficiency, growth and productivity through competition reforms and deregulation across all sectors of the economy. This is seen in our highly unregulated agricultural sector, and in water entitlement and market reforms by the Council of Australian Governments. Although there have been setbacks, this strategy has achieved positive results and provides guidance for other countries or regions aspiring to develop a strong and resilient water sector. Recent experiences in the Basin of extreme dry conditions and community tensions associated with water reforms highlight the importance of considering the multiple values of water. Failing to do so leaves water policy vulnerable to short-term decision making and uncertain long-term costs. Improving the ways in which we incorporate value into water management in the Basin can help ensure that the most appropriate policies and levers are used in ways that optimise user benefits. The increasing value of scarce and variable water supplies underscores the importance of getting policy and management implementation right, including managing trade-offs across communities, industries and the environment. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 70 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin A.7 References ACCC. (2021). Murray-Darling Basin water markets inquiry: Final report. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. BoM. (2015). Recent rainfall, drought and southern Australia’s long-term rainfall decline. Bureau of Meteorology. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a010-southern-rainfall-decline.html COAG. (1992). National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. Council of Australian Governments. https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/165883 Crase, L. (2008). An introduction to Australian water policy. In L. Crase (Ed.), Water policy in Australia: The impact of change and uncertainty. Resources for the Future. Crase, L., & O’Keefe, S. (2009). The paradox of national water savings. Agenda, 16(1), 45–60. https://www.jstor. org/stable/43199583 DNRE. (2001). The value of water: A guide to water trading in Victoria. Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment. DSEWPaC. (2011). Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Green, K. D. (2000). Measuring farm supplies: The Dethridge wheel. In Technology in Australia 1788–1988 (p. 157). Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. Howard, J. (2007). A national plan for water security. Australian Government. Martin, W. (2005). Water policy history on the Murray River. Southern Riverina Irrigators. MDBA. (2020). 2020 Basin Plan evaluation. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. https://www.mdba.gov.au/2020- basin-plan-evaluation MDBC. (2008). The cap [Brochure]. Murray-Darling Basin Commission. https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/ files/archived/cap/cap_brochure_0.pdf Musgrave, W. F. (2008). Historical development of water resources in Australia: Irrigation policy in the Murray-Darling Basin. In L. Crase (Ed.), Water policy in Australia: The impact of change and uncertainty. Resources for the Future. NWC. (2011). Water markets in Australia: A short history. National Water Commission. Pigram, J. J., Delforce, R. J., Coelli, M. L., Norris, V., Antony, G., Anderson, R. L., & Musgrave, W. F. (1992). Transferable water entitlements in Australia [Report to the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation]. Centre for Water Policy Research, University of New England. Productivity Commission. (2008). Towards urban water reform: A discussion paper (No. 0801). Productivity Commission. Productivity Commission. (2010). Market mechanisms for recovering water in the Murray-Darling Basin [Research report]. Productivity Commission. Productivity Commission. (2017). National water reform (Report No. 87). Productivity Commission. Walker, B. (2019). Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission report. Government of South Australia. https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2019-01/apo-nid217606.pdf Wentworth Group. (2017). Review of water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin. Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. https://wentworthgroup.org/2017/11/review-of-water-reform-in-the-murray-darling- basin/2017 Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 71 Appendix B. Case study synopsis: Environmental values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Refer to the full case study report prepared by Rod Marsh (marsh.eco); Amanda Wealands, Simon Tilleard, Barry Hart and Ross Hardie (Alluvium Consulting); and Garry Smith (DG Consulting). Australian Water Partnership, & World Bank. (2022). Valuing water: The Australian perspective. Environmental values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. Australian Water Partnership, & World Bank. B.1 Summary This case study provides an overview of the Australian experience with environmental water reform and gives a detailed account of the current management regime for environmental water in the Murray-Darling Basin. It shows how environmental water policy has developed in the context of the Basin’s unique set of social, economic, political, institutional and hydrological variables. Development of a policy framework that recognised the environment as a legitimate water user in the Basin has had to respond to major droughts, competing societal interests, a transboundary system (albeit within a single nation), political power contests and interests, and stakeholder groups with often divergent values. The Australian experience reinforces the importance of understanding the extent to which decisions about the use and control of freshwater systems and catchment landscapes are inherently social, cultural and political (Frederiksen, 1992; Hanemann & Young, 2020; Molle, 2009; Mollinga, 2008; World Bank, 2018). Water policy mobilises a wide range of actors with the potential for coordinated collective action or persistent partisan contests over ‘who gets what, when and how’ (Lasswell, 1936) in the allocation of, access to, and control over, freshwater systems and catchments. Development and implementation of environmental water policy is no exception. The Australian experience in the Murray-Darling Basin does not provide a roadmap that can be easily transferred to other river basins around the world. However, the case study provides lessons about generalisations that can be made from the successes and challenges in management of water for the environment in the Basin. These lessons are presented according to three themes: recognition and acceptance of environmental values, identification of environmental water policy options, and implementation of environmental water policy. B.2 Why manage water for its environmental values? Allocation and management of water for the environment is a critical policy response to ameliorating unsustainable human impacts on freshwater systems. Human activities have transformed the majority of the world’s freshwater and estuarine systems:3 global water withdrawals increased at more than twice the rate of population growth from 1800 to 2000 (Smil, 2003; Vörösmarty et al., 2010). The World Economic Forum has ranked water crises and biodiversity loss among its top five global risks (WEF, 2019). Human population growth, climate change, water resources development and water use to provide for increased human water security all put significant pressure on freshwater ecosystems (Vörösmarty et al., 2010, 2013). There can be considerable tension between human development and water security needs, on the one hand, and managing the risks to the ecosystem services, critical habitat and biodiversity— which provide livelihoods, particularly for many the world’s lowest-income people—on the other. Providing for environmental water (or environmental flows) alongside broader catchment management Freshwater and estuarine systems include rivers, streams, springs, riparian zones, floodplains and other wetlands, lakes, freshwater- 3  dependent coastal water bodies (including lagoons and estuaries), and groundwater systems. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 72 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin allows societies to balance water for human use and development with the need to sustain the essential ecosystem services that freshwater systems provide. In this context, environmental water provision contributes to building a foundation for meeting the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Arthington et al., 2018). However, successful development and implementation of policy proposals that provide a sustainable balance between development, and protection and restoration of freshwater ecosystems is a long-term process. It requires recognition of the specific interactions between hydrological, ecosystem, social, cultural and political factors in each river basin. B.3 Environmental concepts of valuing water Development and implementation of environmental water policy is embedded in specific histories and geographies, processes of problem perception and definition, shifts in elite and public opinion, definitions of valid knowledge and evidence, tensions over areas of government and community power and control, and struggles over institutional and policy change (Sabatier, 1988). Defining terms such as ‘levels necessary to sustain’ or ‘sustainable compromises between river condition and human use’ is a difficult challenge, often involving deeply political decisions and tensions between social groups with very different values. Each of these terms hides complex interactions between ecosystems and human activities at multiple spatial and temporal scales (Lockie, 2019). Although science can inform these decisions, it cannot make them. There is no easy way to translate these concepts or the results of scientific studies simply, in a value-neutral way, into policy (Briscoe et al., 2011). Here, we briefly define four key environmental concepts that inform the valuing of water: environmental flows, environmental water, sustainable diversion limits (SDLs) and environmentally sustainable level of take. B.3.1 Environmental flows ‘Environmental flows’ are defined by the Brisbane Declaration (2018 update) as describing the quantity, timing and quality of freshwater flows and levels necessary to sustain aquatic ecosystems, which support human cultures, economies, sustainable livelihoods and wellbeing (Arthington et al., 2018). B.3.2 Environmental water ‘Environmental water’ refers to water managed to deliver specific ecological outcomes or benefits, and may refer to specific water allocations or releases made for ecological purposes (World Bank, 2018). The term is commonly used in South Africa and Australia. B.3.3 Sustainable diversion limits SDLs define how much water can be taken from rivers and groundwater on a sustainable basis for consumptive use (Water Act 2007, section 22). Note that an SDL is a long-term average. The amount of water available to allocate changes from year to year, depending on storage levels and weather conditions. B.3.4 Environmentally sustainable level of take SDLs must reflect an ‘environmentally sustainable level of take’, which is the level at which water can be taken from a water resource without compromising key environmental assets; key ecosystem functions; and the productive base of, or key environmental outcomes for, the water resource (Water Act 2007, section 4). Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 73 B.4 An environmental values lens on water policy development During the past 50 years, the Australian Government and state governments have identified and begun responding to the environmental challenges presented by the overdevelopment of the Murray-Darling Basin, the overallocation of its water resources and extensive catchment alteration. This has resulted in implementation of an approach to environmental water management that has reduced consumptive take of water from the system and returned significant volumes of water to the environment, with social and environmental benefits at local and regional scales (Productivity Commission, 2021a). Past decisions have shaped and constrained the development of environmental water policy in the Basin. The environment emerged as a legitimate water user only in the 1990s and 2000s, following major shifts in public sentiment, Australian politics, and approaches to policy during the 1960s and 1970s. Since 2010, tensions have mounted between water users and between Basin jurisdictions following the allocation of significant quantities of water to the environment. These tensions have been fuelled by the enactment of major policy reform at the same time as the most severe drought on record, ongoing demographic changes in Australia’s agricultural sector, and significant changes in returns for a number of the major irrigated crops in the Basin. Agricultural water users often expressed antipathy to environmental water as a means of exerting policy pressure and bringing about change. Although such disputes are not unusual, they highlight the extent to which valuing environmental water is a question of social and political judgment. Despite these challenges, Australia has, over the past decade, transferred around one-fifth of previous consumptive flows to environmental use, established the environment as a legitimate water user, and developed strong institutional arrangements to manage environmental water. Contested issues remain in the Basin with respect to identifying and prioritising environmental values, important ecosystem services and environmental watering objectives. Contestation of concepts that underpin the legislative context for environmental water recovery in the Basin, such as ‘sustainability’ and ‘protecting and restoring’ aquatic ecosystems, has shaped the way environmental water policy issues are portrayed and understood (Stone, 2012). Recovering and managing water for the environment in the Basin remains a dynamic and high-profile area of public policy. Even when successful, policy and management instruments have needed to adapt in response to new challenges and unintended consequences. The Australian experience in the Basin has not been a simple, linear process of clarifying values and objectives, undertaking comprehensive scientific and technical analyses, and formulating and implementing an effective and efficient policy response. Agreeing on ecological outcomes and demonstrating progress in such a highly modified and variable system is a difficult, long-term task (Briscoe et al., 2011; Gann et al., 2019). The process of developing and implementing environmental water policy in the Basin has seen both regional and sectoral political challenges, alongside periods of cooperation and ‘policy windows’ that permitted significant change. Australia’s experience demonstrates how decisions about the use and control of freshwater systems and catchment landscapes are as much a political, social, cultural and institutional challenge as they are a scientific and technical endeavour. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 74 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin B.5 Approaches to securing the environmental values of water This section examines approaches and tools used in the Murray-Darling Basin that recognise and accept environmental values, and assess and realise these values (Table B.1). Table B.1. Overview of approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising the environmental values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Approaches Tools Examples Recognition Agreements International agreements, especially the Ramsar Convention and on Wetlands of International Importance (1971) acceptance of Legislation, initiatives and National Water Initiative (2004) environmental strategies values Commonwealth Water Act 2007 Basin Plan (2012) Funding commitment Government investments and subsidies Assessment of Mapping and measuring Mapped distributions of floodplain ecosystems and environmental environmental features vegetation communities values Identification of environmental Environmental water requirements for key environmental water requirements assets and ecosystem functions Modelling Hydrological and eco-hydraulic modelling Monitoring and evaluation Flow measurement and accounting programs and activities Long Term Intervention Monitoring project Basin Plan evaluation State-based programs Reviews Scheduled and independent inquiries Realisation of Setting limits on extraction Environmentally sustainable level of take environmental values Sustainable diversion limit (SDL) Recovering water to meet the Purchasing water from the market for environment use SDL (‘buy-back’) Modernising infrastructure and transferring water savings to environmental use (‘infrastructure modernisation’) Administrative approaches Allocating the recovered water Environmental water holders (Commonwealth and Basin to an environmental user states) Embedding into broader water Water resource plans resources planning Long-term environmental watering plans Annual environmental watering plans Prioritising use Annual and 5-year environmental watering priorities Using water for the Mechanisms to use water: deliver, carryover, trade environment Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 75 B.5.1 Recognition and acceptance of environmental values Recognition and acceptance of environmental values has been a gradual process (refer to the full report of the case study for details). The focus here is on implementation of the recent suite of water reforms in the Commonwealth Water Act 2007 and the Basin Plan (2012), which has depended on significant financial commitments, alignment of management arrangements, and establishment of institutional structures to manage water for the environment. These commitments have led to the environment being legally recognised as a legitimate water user in the Basin. The Basin Plan (2012) is the legal framework for resetting the balance of water use in the Basin. It sets the amount of water that can be taken from the Basin each year, while leaving enough for rivers, lakes and wetlands, and the plants and animals that depend on them. It is supported by the Basin-Wide Environmental Watering Strategy and long-term environmental watering plans (LTWPs), and establishes new SDLs to achieve them. It also outlines the key actions, processes and time frames that governments are to adopt to implement the Basin Plan (Productivity Commission, 2018). B.5.2 Assessment of environmental values A key principle of the Basin Plan is to use and apply the ‘best available knowledge and science’ in identifying and developing water-sharing arrangements. From the identification of assets and functions through to the determination of environmental water requirements, all approaches must have regard to the latest knowledge and approaches. Many specialist technical skills have been used to assess environmental values, including hydrology, modelling (ecosystem, hydraulic and hydrologic), riverine, floodplain and wetland ecology, groundwater, water quality, river operations, and spatial analyses. Use of this range of expertise was constrained by the time frame to develop environmental watering knowledge and requirements, funding resources and the state of existing knowledge (e.g. hydrological data and models). Traditional ecological knowledge of First Nations people has not been systematically included in this stage of assessing environmental values. All states and asset managers are required to have formal processes for engagement with local communities and Traditional Owners to identify opportunities to achieve social or cultural outcomes with environmental water while ensuring that environmental outcomes are not compromised. Approaches to accounting for returned water to the river system from environmental assets are complex and highly contested. Multiple inquiries in recent years have examined specific areas of concern. Monitoring of, and accounting for, environmental water use are challenging. Monitoring water use across a large river basin such as the Murray-Darling Basin requires a range of different approaches—from site monitoring to remote surveillance. Monitoring programs in the Basin are being deployed over a long period, linked to addressing management questions and challenges, and have resulted in strong partnerships between government agencies and scientific research. The findings of these long-term monitoring programs inform environmental watering plans, priorities and delivery. These programs need adequate funding for their ongoing success. B.5.3 Realisation of environmental values Setting limits on extraction The original framework for setting an environmentally sustainable level of take and SDLs emphasised the technical and scientific elements of the policy challenge. In practice, trade-offs and political interventions have been a necessary part of developing SDLs and implementing environmental water policy. The limits are a compromise that aim to offset the impacts for those negatively affected. However, outcomes have not always been successful. The political and negotiated nature of the process has led to ongoing tensions and concerns about the legitimacy of outcomes. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 76 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Allocating the recovered water to an environmental user Environmental water now comprises around 20 percent of all water entitlements in the Basin that were available a decade ago for consumptive uses, such as irrigated agriculture. The majority of this water has been recovered through direct purchase of water entitlements. Table B.2 shows the tools applied in the Basin for recovering water for the environment: buy-back, infrastructure modernisation (off-farm) and efficiency savings (on-farm). Water buy-back was halted in 2013, and water recovery is now being implemented through investments in water infrastructure modernisation—this has contributed to the slow progress towards recovery targets. Recent estimates suggest that the water allocation price effect of water recovered through on-farm irrigation infrastructure projects is likely to be around double that of buy-backs, per unit of water recovered (Whittle et al., 2020). Table B.2. Tools used to recover water for the environment in the Murray-Darling Basin and their effects Water recovery tool Water recovery Economic effect of toolb achievementsa Bridging the gap Government Open tender Simplest and least expensive method of buy-back of recovering water for the environment entitlements through 149.8 GL in northern Basin open tender and/or 822.4 GL in southern Basin Reduces the supply of water available for strategic purchase irrigation, which can increase allocation prices, Limited tender unless proportional reduction in the demand for irrigation water 59.8 GL in northern Basin Price increase is more likely where irrigators 140.2 GL in southern Basin participating in the buy-backs do not decommission irrigation infrastructure Savings obtained 75.1 GL in northern Basin Rationalisation of irrigation areas has advantages through modernised but can be difficult to implement infrastructure 614.5 GL in southern Basin (on-farm and Off-farm water recovery has less effect on off-farm) allocation prices but may be becoming harder to find Efficiency measures Efficiency savings 1.9 GL in southern Basin Participants receive funds for making changes (on-farm) to their farms that improve water-use efficiency in exchange for a proportion of their water entitlements Potential to generate significant private benefits for recipient farms through higher productivity and profitability On-farm recovery has the largest effect on allocation prices GL = gigalitre a DAWE (2020) as at 30 September 2020 b Whittle et al. (2020) Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 77 Environmental water entitlements have the same rights and must follow the same rules as consumptive entitlements. Environmental water entitlements in the Basin are held by an independent, national institution, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH), as well as by individual Basin state governments and through joint governmental agreements. The majority of the water held for the environment in the Basin is managed by the CEWH. However, not all water for the environment is in ‘held’ environmental entitlements. Environmental entitlements make up a relatively small volume of the total water available or reserved for environmental use in the Basin. Significant volumes of environmental water are managed by state governments through the rules in regional water resource plans (WRPs). Embedding into broader water resources planning The Basin Plan provides a hierarchy of objectives, targets and outcomes for environmental watering. These are given effect through a suite of subordinate planning instruments, including regional WRPs, LTWPs, and annual plans and priorities. The Basin Plan contains broad, high-level environmental objectives, which become more specific and measurable down the hierarchy. At the Basin scale, several key environmental outcomes are specified to improve management and evaluation of success. The lowest level of the hierarchy contains objectives and targets for specific catchments and environmental assets, developed by state jurisdictions in LTWPs. These may include details about operational matters, such as environmental flow delivery (Gawne et al., 2020). WRPs are a key instrument in implementing the SDL in catchments and ensuring that Basin states consistently address key elements of the Basin Plan, such as critical human water needs; environmental water planning, delivery and management; and in-stream salinity and water quality. WRPs are developed at a catchment (water resource region) scale and enable new water-sharing arrangements to come into effect. While a WRP covers all water use, it is an important mechanism to achieve environmental water requirements from planned environmental water. Each state is responsible for developing and implementing WRPs in consultation with their communities and stakeholders. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority is responsible for accrediting the plans. A number of WRPs from New South Wales due in 2019 are still in development, putting at risk the planned implementation of SDLs in full by 2024. Regional translation of Basin-wide environmental outcomes and watering strategies involves regional- and asset-scale plans. The plans are developed by local and state environmental water managers in consultation with local communities and stakeholders. Annual Basin-scale priorities are published, and environmental water use must have regard to these priorities. Using water for the environment Environmental water entitlements can be used in three ways (MDBA, 2020b): • Delivery—Deliver water to a river or wetland to meet an identified demand. • Carryover—Leave water on the accounts and carry it over for use in the next water year. • Trade—Trade water by selling it and using the proceeds to either buy water in another catchment or in a future year, or to invest in complementary environmental activities. A seasonally adaptive approach is used to prioritise environmental water use. This approach prioritises water use based on the climatic and ecological conditions. Environmental water can only be delivered if there is water available—the same as for other water entitlement holders. Coordination of delivery is important to realise the intended outcomes of environmental watering and remains an ongoing focus of effort. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 78 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin In addition to coordination arrangements, constraints on the delivery of water need to be eased to achieve many of the water requirements for environmental values. A ‘constraint’ is anything that reduces the ability to deliver water for the environment—including both physical restrictions (e.g. low-lying bridges, crossings, private land) and operational aspects (e.g. river rules, operating practices). Even when sufficient water is made available for the environment, physical and operational constraints to water delivery can restrict the achievement of environmental benefits. Addressing constraints to providing water for the environment takes significant time. Removing or relaxing constraints is essential to the delivery of overbank flows and flows near floodplains, which are important for achieving environmental outcomes in the Basin. The use of water allocations alone will not achieve the desired outcomes without addressing system constraints. The current constraints program has been slow to progress (MDBA, 2020c; Productivity Commission, 2018) and is unlikely to meet the 2024 deadline. Much of this delay has resulted from modelling project impacts, engagement and reaching individual agreements with landholders (Water for the Environment Special Account Review Panel, 2020). B.6 Lessons from Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin experience The Australian experience in the Murray-Darling Basin does not provide a roadmap for use by everyone and everywhere. Lessons learned are provided as framing and guidance that should be viewed through the lens of the hydrological, ecological, socioeconomic and political context of a specific basin or country. Many of these lessons align with principles and approaches called for by international commitments (e.g. the Sustainable Development Goals), governments around the world and large development donors, such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. Generalisations from the successes and challenges that have arisen in the management of water for the environment in the Basin are highlighted below. These lessons are outlined according to three themes: recognition and acceptance of environmental values, identifying environmental water policy options, and implementing environmental water policy. B.6.1 Recognition and acceptance of environmental values Australia’s experience in developing and implementing environmental water policy in the Murray-Darling Basin has been shaped and constrained by the legacy of past decisions, particularly water resources development and the overallocation of water to irrigated agriculture. Major shifts in public sentiment, Australian politics and approaches to policy were required for the environment to become a legitimate subject of discussion and debate in the Basin during the 1960s and 1970s. It took longer for the environment to become a legitimate water user—this did not occur until the 1990s and 2000s. Implementation of environmental water policy, which has reallocated significant quantities of water to the environment, has been marked by increasingly severe levels of tension between water users and between Basin jurisdictions since 2010. Despite these challenges, during the past decade, Australia has transferred around one-fifth of previous consumptive flows to environmental use, established the environment as a legitimate water user, and developed strong institutional arrangements to manage environmental water. The Australian experience in the Murray-Darling Basin suggests the following general lessons with respect to recognition and acceptance of environmental values: • Early recognition—Recognise the importance of water for the environment and, if possible, implement environmental water policies before any further development takes place. Early recognition of the importance of environment values alongside a deep understanding of the environmental impacts of development can help minimise future tensions and maintain long-term sustainability. • Sociopolitical support—Build the broad social, political and interagency support needed for enduring reform. Without this support, managing the politics of change and gaining the time required to show benefit is difficult. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 79 • Stakeholder engagement—Communicate, engage and build capacity in relevant stakeholder communities. A well-developed understanding of water resource availability, current use, key environmental attributes and environmental impacts is foundational knowledge for stakeholders’ participation in decision making. • More than a technical issue—Recognise that allocating water for the environment has social, cultural and political aspects. Conscious acknowledgment of the politics of environmental water reform and institutional transformation helps avoid political deadlock, which can block effective policy implementation. • Multiple benefits—Identify and communicate the multiple social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits of environmental water. Emphasise from the outset that environmental water policy is part of an overall sustainable development framework, with multiple cross-sectoral benefits (and costs). • History matters—Understand that each river basin’s situation is different, so lessons from other basins cannot be simply transplanted. The history of river basin development matters for the design of environmental water policy and its successful implementation. • Policy windows—Be ready to take advantage of ‘windows of opportunity’ to change policy and never waste a good crisis. Major events such as severe droughts, large algal blooms and shifts in electoral politics have been very important in precipitating changes in water policy in Australia to include consideration of environmental values. • Retrofit laws—Identify and adapt existing legal and regulatory instruments for managing and enforcing environmental water allocations and compliance, where appropriate. B.6.2 Identifying environmental water policy options Australia has more than 50 years of experience in identifying and responding to the environmental challenges presented by the overdevelopment of the Murray-Darling Basin. This has resulted in an approach to environmental water management that has reduced consumptive take of water from the Murray-Darling Basin system and returned significant volumes of water to the environment. However, change in water policy in the Basin to include environmental considerations has not been a simple linear process and is unlikely to ever be complete. National and state government institutions in the Basin continue to develop approaches for integrating scientific and technical analyses with strategies to navigate disagreements between political actors, jurisdictions and stakeholder groups. The Australian experience in the Murray-Darling Basin suggests the following lessons with respect to identifying environmental water policy options: • Negotiation—Recognise that identifying environmental water policy options is a sociocultural and political task, requiring negotiation of values, risk tolerance, trade-offs and desired outcomes. • Trust—Build trust in institutions and processes when identifying and implementing environmental water policy options. Institutional transparency and accountability are crucial. • Uncertainty—Accept that decisions will usually need to be made under considerable uncertainty, but do not let uncertainty prevent decisions being made. Transparency about levels and sources of uncertainty with all stakeholders is essential. • Good practice—Good environmental water policy decision making requires local knowledge, adaptation, and a commitment to monitoring and evaluation. If possible, agree on processes for determining how environmental water policy might adapt before adaptation is required. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 80 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin • Variable conditions—Choose environmental policy options that work well across the range of conditions that occur in highly variable or highly seasonal systems. Historical data on system hydrology may not be a valid guide to future behaviour, and testing water management proposals against a wide range of plausible future scenarios is important. • Catchment management systems—Understand and acknowledge existing systems for catchment and water management, and build environmental water policy with these in mind. Successful environmental water management outcomes require integration with waterway and catchment management (Hart et al., 2020; Productivity Commission, 2021b). B.6.3 Implementing environmental water policy Environmental water policy in the Murray-Darling Basin has been built on more than a century of arrangements for delivering consumptive water. It is unreasonable to expect environmental water delivery arrangements to be fully formed or at the same level of maturity after little more than a decade of experience. Time and tolerance will be needed to develop sophistication in environmental water delivery. Valuing environmental water, and planning for its management and delivery must be informed by evidence gained from extensive technical and scientific work. It must also often resolve difficult values-based and political controversies that surround provision of water to the environment in large river basins. The Australian experience in the Murray-Darling Basin suggests the following lessons with respect to implementing environmental water policy: • Expertise—Integrate new professional groups, with new expertise and skills, into water management institutions. Designing and implementing environmental water policy requires a multidisciplinary and collaborative approach built around effective working partnerships with a wide range of stakeholders and government jurisdictions. • Engineered lock-ins—Do not underestimate the challenges of managing water for environmental benefit in systems engineered for irrigation or hydropower purposes. System constraints and rules developed for these uses may prevent achievement of specific outcomes or require changes in approach. At the same time, engineering may have created new sources of social value (e.g. recreational dams) that should be recognised and, in some cases, enhanced. • Specific institutions—Establish specific institutions for environmental water management with adequate power and resources. Institutions such as the CEWH help ensure parity and legitimacy for environmental water management alongside management for consumptive water users. • Appropriate scale—Build institutions and nested planning processes that allow environmental water issues to be managed at the most appropriate scale. Nested planning ensures consistency with basin-scale objectives while allowing area- and site-specific values to also drive decision making. • Integrated catchment management—Integrate environmental water management with broader catchment management, regional development, agricultural transitions and climate change adaptation. Integrated catchment management approaches are essential for the realisation of environmental water outcomes. • MERI—Design monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement (MERI) systems into policy implementation processes. As competition for available water increases, monitoring and measurement of take, and enforcement of compliance for all users (consumptive and environmental) becomes more important. • Long-term engagement—Ensure ongoing communication and engagement with stakeholders and communities, including First Nations people. Negotiations over values, risk tolerance, trade-offs and desired outcomes will continue during implementation of environmental water policy. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 81 B.7 Conclusions Australia’s experience in developing and implementing environmental water policy in the Murray-Darling Basin has been shaped and constrained by the legacy of past decisions from the 19th century to the 21st century. The complexities of governing a transboundary system in a federal system of government shaped many policy decisions. Early choices about the role of government in managing water provided the foundations for Australia’s current approach. Water resources development and the overallocation of water to irrigated agriculture also had an important influence on current environmental water policy in the Basin. However, major shifts in public sentiment, Australian politics and approaches to policy were required for the environment to become a legitimate subject of discussion and debate in the Basin. Disputes are not unusual in subnational transboundary river basins, where water governance must manage a long history of basin development and overallocation in a changing climate. Tensions between water users and Basin jurisdictions highlight the extent to which valuing environmental water is a contested question of social and political judgment. Scientific and technical knowledge is critical to inform water governance; however, the difficulties faced in implementing an environmental water management regime in the Basin reflect the ongoing social, cultural and political elements of the challenge. Determining and prioritising the ecosystem services and other benefits that aquatic ecosystems provide is highly contested among social actors in almost all contexts. Defining the meaning of concepts such as ‘sustainability’ and ‘protecting and restoring’ aquatic ecosystems, which underpin the Basin’s legislative context, has involved contests over who participates and what forms of knowledge are legitimate inputs to these definitions. Political contests over the use and control of water resources consequently shape the way environmental water policy issues are portrayed and understood. Water governance in Australia has always been a deeply political endeavour, tightly coupled to other major policy issues such as regional development, agricultural transitions and the rights of First Nations people. Policy decisions about the allocation and management of water are never value-neutral, and there is no way to translate technical and scientific knowledge into policy that bypasses difficult political trade-offs and decisions. One of the most important lessons from the Australian experience in the Basin is that, although valuing environmental water and planning for its management and delivery must be informed by evidence gained from technical and scientific disciplines, a resolution to the difficult values-based and political controversies surrounding the issue will not be found in purely technical solutions. It is critical to integrate technical analysis with broad stakeholder deliberation. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 82 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin B.8 References Arthington, A. H., Bhaduri, A., Bunn, S. E., Jackson, S. E., Tharme, R. E., Tickner, D., Young, B., Acreman, M., Baker, N., Capon, S., Horne, A. C., Kendy, E., McClain, M. E., Poff, N. L., Richter, B. D., & Ward, S. (2018). The Brisbane Declaration and Global Action Agenda on Environmental Flows (2018). Frontiers in Environmental Science, 6, 433–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2018.00045 Briscoe, J., McKay, G., Biswas, A. K., Likens, G., & Bertilsson, P. (2011). International review of the draft guide to the proposed Basin Plan. In Developing the guide to the proposed Basin Plan: peer review reports. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. DAWE. (2020). Registered surface water recovery under the Basin Plan. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. Frederiksen, H. D. (1992). Water resources institutions: Some principles and practices. World Bank. Gann, G. D., McDonald, T., Walder, B., Aronson, J., Nelson, C. R., Jonson, J., Hallett, J. G., Eisenberg, C., Guariguata, M. R., Liu, J., Hua, F., Echeverría, C., Gonzales, E., Shaw, N., Decleer, K., & Dixon, K. W. (2019). International principles and standards for the practice of ecological restoration. Second edition. Restoration Ecology, 27(S1), S1–S46. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13035 Gawne, B., Ryan, K. A., Coleman, M., Meehan, A., Davies, P. E., Sluggett, A., Lowes, A., Crossman, N., & Mues, C. (2020). Monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management in the Murray-Darling Basin. In B. Hart, N. Bond, C. Pollino., & M. Stewardson (Eds.), Murray-Darling Basin, Australia: Its future management, volume 1 (1st ed., pp. 227–249). Elsevier. Hanemann, M., & Young, M. (2020). Water rights reform and water marketing: Australia vs the US. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36, 108–131. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grz037 Hart, B., Byron, N., Bond, N., Pollino, C., & Stewardson, M. (Eds.). (2020). Murray-Darling Basin, Australia: Its future management, volume 1 (1st ed.). Elsevier. Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. Whittlesey House. Lockie, S. (2019). Failure or reform? Market-based policy instruments for sustainable agriculture and resource management. Routledge. MDBA. (2020a). The 2020 Basin Plan evaluation. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. MDBA. (2020b). Common water management terms. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. https://www.mdba.gov. au/water-management/common-terms MDBA. (2020c). The 2020 Basin Plan evaluation. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. https://www.mdba.gov. au/2020-basin-plan-evaluation Molle, F. (2009). Water, politics and river basin governance: Repoliticizing approaches to river basin management. Water International, 34, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060802677846 Mollinga, P. P. (2008). Water policy—water politics: Social engineering and strategic action in water sector reform. In W. Scheumann, S. Neubert, & M. Kipping (Eds.), Water politics and development cooperation: Local power plays and global governance (pp. 1–29). Springer. Productivity Commission. (2018). Murray-Darling Basin Plan: Five-year assessment. Productivity Commission. Productivity Commission. (2021a). Environmental management: Supporting paper C to ‘National water reform 2020, draft report’. Productivity Commission. Productivity Commission. (2021b). National water reform 2020, draft report. Productivity Commission. Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21, 129–168. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4532139 Smil, V. (2003). The Earth’s biosphere: Evolution, dynamics, and change. MIT Press. Stone, D. A. (2012). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). W. W. Norton & Co. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 83 Vörösmarty, C. J., McIntyre, P. B., Gessner, M. O., Dudgeon, D., Prusevich, A., Green, P., Glidden, S., Bunn, S. E., Sullivan, C. A., Liermann, C. R., & Davies, P. M. (2010). Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature, 467, 555–561. Vörösmarty, C. J., Pahl-Wostl, C., Bunn, S. E., & Lawford, R. (2013). Global water, the Anthropocene and the transformation of a science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(6), 539–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.10.005 Water for the Environment Special Account Review Panel (2020). First review of the Water for the Environment Special Account: report to Commonwealth Minister for Water Resources as required under section 86AJ of the Water Act 2007. Water for the Environment Special Account Review Panel. WEF. (2019). The global risks report 2019 (14th ed.). World Economic Forum. Whittle, L., Galeano, D., Hughes, N., Gupta, M., Legg, P., Westwood, T., Jackson, T., & Hatfield-Dodds, S. (2020). Analysis of economic effects of water recovery in the Murray-Darling Basin. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. World Bank. (2018). Environmental flows for hydropower projects: Guidance for the private sector in emerging markets. World Bank. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 84 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Appendix C. Case study synopsis: Cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Refer to the full case study report prepared by Phil Duncan, Lyndsay Charlton, Bill Moulden and Lisa Walpole (Alluvium Consulting). Australian Water Partnership, & World Bank. (2022). Valuing water: The Australian perspective. First Nations cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. Australian Water Partnership, & World Bank. C.1 Summary This case study tells a story of how Australia’s First Nations4 communities and their cultural values are included in the management of water in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin. It explores themes regarding the recognition or identification of First Nations water values, how these values are considered in decision making, and the protection of these values. Australia continues its journey of dealing with increasing water demands in a highly variable and changing climate, and there is increasing progress in recognising and involving First Nations in restoring sustainable management. Connection to land and waters is fundamental to the cultural values of First Nations people. However, only in recent decades has there been a move towards legal and moral recognition of ownership of the lands and waters occupied by its many nations before colonisation of Australia from 1788. The terms ‘Aboriginal’, ‘Indigenous’ and ‘First Nations’ refer to the first peoples of the Murray–Darling Basin. ‘Indigenous’ is a term 4  extensively used throughout Australia when referring to the Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples of Australia. ‘First Nations’ is used throughout the current report. However, this case study uses the terms ‘Aboriginal’ and ‘First Nations’ interchangeably, in recognition of the range of preferences among Aboriginal people, which include ‘Aboriginal people’, ‘First People’, ‘Traditional Owners’, ‘Traditional Custodians’, ‘Aboriginal Nations’ and ‘First Nations’. Readers should also note that these interchangeable terms recognise both the past and the dynamic and ever-evolving cultural values of Australia’s Aboriginal people. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations represent the rights and interests of First Nations people across Australia. The inclusion of First Nations values and perspectives in water management across the Basin occurs through statutory mechanisms, tailored engagement processes and mainstream community engagement activities. Culturally appropriate engagement with First Nations communities requires broader consultation than is often the case for other communities. The scope of this case study allowed only limited examples of First Nations perspectives on the cultural values of water. The case study concludes with some general lessons about efforts in the Murray-Darling Basin to recognise, assess and realise Indigenous cultural values associated with water that may be useful for others. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 85 C.2 Why manage water for its cultural values? First Nations Australians use the word ‘culture’ in a more expansive sense than non-Indigenous people. Culture includes spiritual beliefs, art and artefacts, but also includes connection to Country,5 practices, knowledge, social arrangements, respect for Elders, Traditional Owners, belonging, health and wellbeing. Indigenous cultural values belong to the people who are the original inhabitants and custodians of the land. In the Murray-Darling Basin, these people belong to more than 40 First Nations, which have inhabited the Basin for more than 65,000 years, including more than 230 years since European colonisation, and 120 years since the federation of the Commonwealth of Australia in 1901. There is growing recognition of the benefits of incorporating Indigenous cultural values into the management of natural resources, including water, across Australia and the world. With global population increase and climate change, shifting to sustainable management practices that balance economic, social and environmental considerations is paramount. Across the world, First Nations people have demonstrated a long history of balancing these considerations, and their participation in water management is increasingly viewed as an opportunity to address contemporary and future issues. In Australia, managing water for its cultural values can play a key role in increasing opportunities for First Nations people. There remains a significant social and economic disparity between First Nations and non-Indigenous Australians, which has been a focus of the ‘Closing the gap’ movement over recent decades. Participating in the management of water for its cultural values can create direct and indirect socioeconomic benefits for the individuals involved and their communities, as well as for Australian society. Managing water for its cultural values can enhance: • individual and community health and wellbeing (social, cultural and emotional) • cultural education on Country, particularly on rivers and wetland systems • workforce participation through programs that help First Nations peoples find employment • labour productivity through improved health and wellbeing of First Nations people • native fish populations, and the ability of First Nations people to hunt and gather • native vegetation, including plants that have medicinal values • cultural ecotourism opportunities • opportunities for First Nations cottage industries, tool making, art and cultural ceremonies (e.g. fish festivals, community events celebrating culture and connection to Country) • cost savings to governments through lower expenditures on public health, policing, corrective services and public housing. ‘Country’ is a word for everything within the landscape—landforms, waters, air, trees, rocks, plants, animals, foods, medicines, minerals, 5  stories and special places. It describes the entirety of the ancestral domains of First Nations people. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 86 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin C.3 First Nations concepts of cultural values In the First Nations world view, people and Country (including lands, waterways and seas) are interdependent entities that are intrinsically linked in the landscape through cultural and spiritual significance. Over millennia, First Nations people have sustainably managed the lands, waters and natural resources for the health of their Country and their communities. In this section, three key concepts are introduced: connection to Country, sites of significance (sacred sites and Indigenous historical places) and the ‘original water industry’. C.3.1 Connection to Country The ‘Dreaming’ is the dimension of sacred eternal time when ancestors’ spirits came up out of the earth and down from the sky to shape the land, rocks, rivers, mountains, forests and deserts (teachings from the grandfather of Phil Duncan, one of the case study authors). The spirit ancestors created all the people, animals and plants that were to live in the Country, and laid down the laws, customs and codes of conduct that First Nations people’s lives were to follow. Across Australia, connection to Country is an intrinsic birthright for First Nations people. Generally speaking, connection to Country includes land and water, plants and animals to create a greater understanding of the Dreaming and songlines relating to each family, clan and nation. Indigenous philosophy—the Dreaming—is based on the interrelatedness of all people and things. This means that people are related to their cultural environment and that all Aboriginal people are related to each other in some way. All relationships are important, and any situation will be resolved by calculating the relative importance of the relationship involved. The Dreaming is continuous and present, a cycle of life without beginning or end, a parallel and all-inclusive reality. It is something mystic and beyond words—a feeling of harmony of the universe, in tune with the rhythm of the land, waters and constellations. Dreaming is the life of the spirit and imagination, expressed in First Nations people’s cultural responsibilities to care for and repair Country. Most of all, the Dreaming can be described as a religious experience—the spiritual tie that binds First Nations people to the land, waters and stars, that they belong to, that own them. The sun, moon and all the stars are Dreaming figures. Indigenous songlines are interwoven into the Dreaming tracks through nations and trace the creative journeys of the spirit ancestors, whose power is concentrated in Dreaming places or sacred sites. An Indigenous person’s Dreaming is the place where that person’s spirit came from and to which it must return. First Nations people feel a strong sense of responsibility to educating the next generations about their Dreaming stories. Traditional ecological knowledge, such as stories and songlines, is passed from generation to generation; this continues today, in a modern way of learning. The Dreaming is the remote past of the spirit ancestors, which lives in the First Nation legends handed down by word of mouth from generation to generation for the past 65,000 years. In story, song, poetry, art, drama and dance, the Dreaming tells how the spirit ancestors formed and gave life to the land, water and First Nations people’s cultural landscapes where they have lived. The Dreaming also laid down the lore—the structure of society, rituals to maintain the life of the land and waters, and rules for First Nations people’s behaviours when interacting with the cultural resources in a culturally appropriate manner. For many First Nations people, the Dreaming explains the origin of the universe, the workings of nature (Mother Earth) and the nature of humanity, including the cycle of life and death. It shapes the structures of First Nations people’s Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 87 life by regulating kinships, family life and relations between people, with a network of obligations to people, land, water and spirits, via the Dreaming. Since colonisation, First Nations people have suffered enormous impacts from the removal of their rights to ‘a cultural way of life’. Removal from Country, family, clan and nation structures and knowledge keepers has had physical, emotional, tangible and intangible impacts on the identity and cultural spirituality of individuals, communities, clans and the many nations that have occupied Australia since time immemorial. Connection to Country and water ‘We don’t want to stop the irrigators from using things because they’re growing the food and whatever else, but they do have to pay respects to our land and make sure that they are not cutting across any cultural stuff.’ — Aunty Esther Kirby, Barapa Barapa, Victoria, 2020 ‘… none of us owned any country within our traditional lands … we, our nation, that is, were lucky because of being dispossessed peoples to get two properties that were purchased by the Indigenous Land Corporation and the Murra Murra and Bendee Downs … people were excited and ecstatic that for the first time in how many, 150 whatever it was years that … people could finally walk on Country and know that this was our traditional land. This was our Country that we’re walking on. These are our waters that we’re dipping our feet into. These are our waters that we’re fishing on. And I think that in itself changed the way that people begin to see themselves.’ — Cheryl Buchanan, Kooma Nation, Queensland, 2020 C.3.2 Sites of significance An Australian Indigenous sacred site is a place deemed significant and meaningful by First Nations people based on their cultural and spiritual beliefs and customs. It may include any feature in the landscape, and in coastal areas, which may lie under water. The site’s status is derived from an association with some aspect of social and cultural tradition, which is related to spiritual ancestral beings (the Dreaming), who created both physical and social aspects of the world. The site may have its access restricted based on gender, clan or other Indigenous grouping, or other factors. Sites of significance—rivers, banks, cultural sites (birthing, men’s, women’s), campgrounds, middens, rock engravings, scar trees—provide the cultural foundation for an intrinsic connection for past, present and future First Nations people. An Indigenous historical place could be the site of ancestral life, a colonial era massacre or another significant historical event. It may have associations with an important person, or be an example of wider political, social, spiritual, economic or historical events or trends. An Indigenous historical place could have a physical artefact (tangible heritage), such as a rock marking, a shell midden, foundations, a burial or a building. The significance may be in the intangible heritage of ceremony, story or song of a place. The historical place may have both tangible and intangible heritage (Moggridge et al., 2019). Indigenous historical places are identified through collaborative research, in partnership with First Nations people, that may include oral histories, archival sources, historical records and archaeological investigations. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 88 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Displacement of Aboriginal people from their traditional lands ‘What people have to understand is that about 150 years ago or more, they decided to open up that south-western country to pastoral lands. And so what happened through the 1800s was a lot of massacres took place … those who were left became slaves on stations, domestics, and the women were domestics …’ — Cheryl Buchanan, Kooma Nation, Queensland, 2020 C.3.3 The ‘original water industry’ Throughout Australia, a functioning water industry existed long before the arrival of Europeans, known as the ‘original water industry’. The industry’s operators and managers are First Nations people who have managed water and water-associated activities in many ways before and since European settlement. The nature of the original water industry reflects First Nations people’s culture, practice and knowledge. Its broad reach includes the operation and management of fisheries, which sustained Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations (Frangos et al., 2020). First Nations people’s knowledge, practices and beliefs around water provide value (Nursey-Bray et al., 2019). A number of key cultural concepts offer value in a strategic or conceptual sense, if applied in the current water industry (Frangos et al., 2020): • Custodianship—First Nations people are renowned for their custodianship and care for Country, providing excellent environmental outcomes in nearly all water-related activities undertaken. As a result of this organic environmentalism, Indigenous solutions are naturally sustainable. • Natural control system—A result of the custodial nature of First Nations culture and the connection to Country is the ability to integrate human activity within a local ecosystem—interlocking natural indicators or signals with the way human activity is managed within the original water industry. • Distribution and decentralisation—First Nations Australians were far more evenly dispersed throughout the country than Australia’s population is today. This meant that a decentralised or distributed economy was a necessity. The dispersion and low population densities meant that specialisation, and trade or collaboration between nations were a necessity, and a common part of culture. • Shared economy—Sharing is deeply rooted in First Nations people’s culture. This meant that there was a great deal of equity among and between discrete groups, and that resources were efficiently distributed. The value of First Nations people’s knowledge ‘… 75,000 years of all that ecological knowledge and all that spiritual knowledge. It’s there for us. It’s there for the taking …’ — Cheryl Buchanan, Kooma Nation, Queensland, 2020 Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 89 C.4 A cultural values lens on water policy This section provides a brief overview of water policy development in the Murray-Darling Basin through the lens of First Nations people, and the main actors involved in shaping policy, particularly with regard to the cultural values of water. Specific legislation (e.g. Native Title Act 1993) and government strategic initiatives and plans (e.g. National Water Initiative 2004) are discussed in Section C.5. C.4.1 Shaping of water policy Indigenous rights and obligations over water have a long history in Australia (Hart et al., 2020). Indigenous rights have existed for millennia, but colonisation denied the existence of those rights. In 1788, British colonisation began as Australia was declared terra nullius (a ‘land belonging to no-one’). Initial settler expansion into the Murray-Darling Basin created major ecological impacts from overgrazing, land clearing, mining and early irrigation. From the late 19th century, governments focused on large, state-financed infrastructure mega-projects to develop water resources and regulate the rivers of the Basin for national development. The 1980s saw emphasis on water efficiency, arising from environmental and economic concerns associated with drought. At this point, policy began to address the environmental impacts of Basin development (Mallawaarachchi et al., 2020). The growth of the water market in the mid-1990s saw hydrological schemes and water rights become popular, leading to the widespread overallocation of water resources. The millennium drought (1997–2009) led to more detailed reforms of rules for trading and sharing water in the Basin, and consequent reduction in water use to more sustainable levels. Major water reforms during the past 30 years have given the Australian Government a more active role in the management of the Basin’s waters. In 2008 (in the shadow of the millennium drought), the states referred some of their powers for water resources management to the Australian Government (Gardner et al., 2018). State governments agreed to implement the Basin Plan (2012), which was developed under Commonwealth law. Legal instruments that the states use to manage water must be consistent with Commonwealth law. However, there are still significant differences in written law and legal precedent among the states, especially for laws that specifically affect First Nations people. Therefore, there are significant differences in the ways that cultural values are recognised and considered across the Basin. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 90 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin C.4.2 Main actors in the ‘cultural values of water’ arena Myriad agencies and stakeholders are working to advance First Nations people’s cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin. Here, the major types of organisations are described. First Nations people are often represented by an organisation that has a contemporary statutory role while also reflecting traditional ways of organising. Examples are local Aboriginal land councils in New South Wales (NSW) and Registered Aboriginal Parties in Victoria. These organisations have roles under the NSW Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 and the Victorian Cultural Heritage Act 2006, respectively. They have an agreed process for selecting members and staff according to customary law and other contemporary considerations. First Nations engagement on councils, advisory bodies and the like is discussed in Section C.5.2. Government agencies have legislative and policy obligations to consider cultural values of water when executing their management functions in the Murray-Darling Basin. These include government departments, statutory authorities, government-owned corporations and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA). There is increasing recognition of the value of representation of First Nations people at senior levels and on boards. The Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN) and the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations (NBAN) are two key Indigenous mechanisms that have been funded to provide guidance and advice to the MDBA. Non-government organisations (NGOs), including philanthropic organisations, and universities can be valuable partners for First Nations organisations and communities. They can act independently from government policy, and often have skills, capabilities and resources that First Nations organisations may lack. C.5 Approaches to securing the cultural values of water This section examines approaches and tools used in the Murray-Darling Basin that recognise and accept cultural values, and assess and realise these values (Table C.1). Responses to First Nations people’s interests in the Basin to date have been driven by national and state initiatives more than Basin-specific ones. Cultural values tend to be more embedded in the management of land, rather than water, in Australia, so approaches applied in land management can sometimes serve as examples for water management. The approaches range from high-level and symbolic statements of intent through to participatory mechanisms and on-ground management. The approaches are complementary and should be employed together, where possible. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 91 Table C.1. Overview of approaches and tools, with examples, for recognising, assessing and realising the cultural values of water in the Murray-Darling Basin Approaches Tools Examples Recognition and Legislation Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993 acceptance of NSW Water Management Act 2000 cultural values Queensland Water Act 2000 (amended) Commonwealth Water Act 2007 Government strategic Sea Country plans initiatives and plans National Water Quality Management Strategy (1992); now Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality (2018) National Water Initiative (2004) Murray-Darling Basin Plan (2012) NSW Aboriginal Water Initiative (2012) Policy statements and Echuca Declaration (2007) papers NAILSMA Indigenous Water Policy Group policy paper (2012) Assessment of Frameworks and MDBA national framework for cultural flows cultural values mapping Aboriginal waterway assessments Nonmarket valuations Participatory and deliberative approaches Advisory committees First Peoples’ Water Engagement Council First Nations MDBA Board membership representation Realisation of Employment Indigenous rangers program/projects cultural values programs Voluntary agreements Indigenous Protected Areas Strategic Indigenous Reserves Water allocation Victoria’s Aboriginal Water Program (2016) Water trading Tradeable Aboriginal water entitlements MDBA = Murray-Darling Basin Authority; NAILSMA = North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance C.5.1 Recognition and acceptance of cultural values Recognition is far less formalised for Indigenous water rights than for land rights. To date, responses to Indigenous interests in the Basin have been mostly shaped by national or state initiatives. In particular, the concept of cultural flows relies more on commitments made through policies than legislation. Legislation Indigenous water rights were not included in early legislation and regulations in the Murray-Darling Basin. Throughout the 1980s, growing development pressures, and land and in-stream salinity problems precipitated the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative and culminated in legislative reforms in 1992–93. Indigenous water rights were not included in this policy framework (Taylor et al., 2016). Around the same time, Australia’s Native Title Act 1993 was introduced. This recognised native title holders’ rights to use water for domestic and personal purposes; however, it did not recognise their right to negotiate over water. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 92 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin The establishment of the NSW Water Management Act 2000 gave First Nations people access to Specific Purpose Aboriginal Cultural Water Access Licences and exemptions for otherwise mandatory water licences under native title rights. These allow Indigenous people or entities to access water—to a limit of 10 megalitres (ML)—for personal, domestic, cultural and spiritual purposes. Specific Purpose Aboriginal Community Development Water Access Licences supported Aboriginal businesses, but only in coastal areas, under high flow, and in some groundwater systems with water-sharing plans (up to 500 ML). The rules for these licences are discriminatory and show the inequity in water planning. The Queensland drought of 2013–2015 led to amendment of the Queensland Water Act 2000 to permit Aboriginal water use for traditional activities or cultural purposes, making traditional use a nonlicensed activity. Government strategic initiatives and plans Australia’s Oceans Policy recognises the responsibilities and interests of First Nations people in ocean environments. The policy’s objectives include ‘to involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the use, conservation and management of Australia’s marine jurisdiction’ (Vince et al., 2015). As a result, Australia’s first regional marine plan—the South-east Regional Marine Plan—was released in 2004. One of the actions identified in the plan is the development of sea Country plans as a potential vehicle for involvement of First Nations people in natural resources uses and management. Sea Country planning aims to help First Nations people negotiate with other marine managers and users to develop policies and institutional arrangements that are respectful of First Nations people’s rights, interests and responsibilities in sea Country (Ngarrindjeri Nation, 2007). In 2004, the Council of Australian Governments published the National Water Initiative, which aimed to address transboundary issues and return the Murray-Darling Basin water system to health. This policy document, combined with the Commonwealth Water Act 2007, established the national water market and (former) National Water Commission, and remains the ‘blueprint’ for water management reform in Australia. The National Water Initiative agreement requires jurisdictions to provide for Indigenous access to water resources through planning processes, and inclusion of Indigenous customary, social and spiritual objectives in water plans (Jackson et al., 2009). However, this consideration of First Nations people and their connection to water is as a footnote and does not give adequate recognition to Indigenous water rights (Taylor et al., 2016). The 1992 National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) was reviewed in 2009 to address cultural and spiritual values. It now provides, as an attachment, an illustrated process for incorporating Indigenous cultural and spiritual values in water quality planning. The NWQMS was updated in 2018 and is now called the Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality (DAWE, 2018). The Basin Plan, which was introduced by the MDBA in 2012, includes a section on Indigenous values and uses (Part 14 of Chapter 10). It provides an integrated and strategic framework for water reform, consistent with the requirements of the Commonwealth Water Act 2007. The Basin Plan is binding on state governments and requires the states to engage with Murray-Darling Basin representative First Nations groups. States must develop legislation or policy to give effect to the Basin Plan, deliver its outcomes and engage appropriately with First Nations communities. Aboriginal water units and initiatives have been established in some Basin states. The first was established by the NSW Government in 2012: the Aboriginal Water Initiative (Moggridge et al., 2019). Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 93 Policy statements and papers The Echuca Declaration in 2007 marks an important milestone in Indigenous water rights. First Nations people of the southern Murray-Darling Basin came together in the town of Echuca in northern Victoria and agreed on a definition of cultural flows (MLDRIN, 2007), which was subsequently adopted by NBAN in 2010: ‘Cultural flows are water entitlements that are legally and beneficially owned by the Indigenous nations of a sufficient and adequate quantity and quality to improve the spiritual, cultural, natural, environmental, social and economic conditions of those Indigenous nations. This is our inherent right.’ C.5.2 Assessment of cultural values Cultural values are holistic and intangible, and consequently difficult to quantify. Mapping exercises and nonmarket valuations are discussed below, as well as First Nations people’s participation in decision-making processes. This is because the cultural values of water can only be adequately considered when First Nations people who can articulate these values are present. The extent to which cultural values are shared and elevated within the broader community will depend on the arguments made by First Nations people, and how they are accepted by the broader community and decision makers. Frameworks and mapping Dedicated cultural flows are not consistently part of the water management system in Australia. Informed by the Echuca Declaration, the MDBA has developed a national framework for cultural flows from the findings of its National Cultural Flows Research Project. Under the framework, the values of cultural water use can be described and measured for the first time (MDBA, 2021). The National Cultural Flows Research Project introduced the concept of the Aboriginal Waterways Assessment, which is based on the New Zealand Māori Cultural Health Index. These assessments can take many forms, depending on the nature and preferences of the nation and its members. The common characteristic is a group of people from a nation visiting a water site together and recording its cultural values. Nonmarket valuations The state has, historically at least, placed a very low value on Indigenous cultural aspects of water. Although several governments in the Basin have recently committed to supporting Aboriginal water entitlements, nonmarket valuation by Jackson et al. (2019) suggests that the public’s valuation of Aboriginal water is higher than the state’s valuation. Global experience suggests that participatory and deliberative approaches to valuing water offer advantages over monetary methods. These include quantitative and qualitative techniques (e.g. surveys, interviews), participatory and deliberative tools (e.g. focus groups, citizens juries, participatory or rapid rural appraisal, Delphi panels), and methods expressing preferences in nonmonetary but quantifiable terms (e.g. preference assessment, time use studies, Q-methodology). Advisory committees Government agencies have shown significant commitment to increasing the capacity of First Nations organisations to represent their members and identify cultural values, through their support of MLDRIN and NBAN, and the program of Aboriginal Waterways Assessment. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 94 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin The former National Water Commission’s First People’s Water Engagement Council (FPWEC) developed a policy for improving the recognition of First Nations people’s water rights and for increasing their engagement in water issues (FPEWC, 2012). The policy presented 15 principles across the themes of governance and decision making, Aboriginal water and Aboriginal economic water. Many of the policy principles are being implemented in various jurisdictions across the Basin. The FPWEC reaffirmed the holistic value of water, and the connection between the health of people and Country. In achieving Aboriginal water outcomes, it advised participation in strategic water planning, where water could be allocated specifically to First Nations people for cultural flows, and participation in the planning and delivery of environmental water. Victoria’s Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning has been proactive in adopting and implementing the FPWEC’s recommendations, with successes in some key regions (but outside the Basin). The approach could be applied in the Basin to development and revision of water plans, with reference to Basin-wide maps identifying the nations within each of the surface water planning areas, and for groundwater planning areas. First Nations representation The North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance (NAILSMA) initiated the Indigenous Water Policy Group (IWPG) in 2006. The IWPG was formed to address Indigenous rights, responsibilities and interests in water, and to develop institutional arrangements for Indigenous participation in the National Water Initiative. Through its work, the IWPG has highlighted that Indigenous rights and interests span social, cultural, environmental and economic interests. In November 2020, the National Water Reform Committee (NWRC) established the Committee on Aboriginal Water Interests to advise it on how the revision of the National Water Initiative could better address Aboriginal water interests. This includes how governments could invest in, formulate policy for, and progress, Aboriginal water interests within their respective jurisdictions. The NWRC provides an advisory and oversight role for all ministers, with a specific focus on progressing national water reform. C.5.3 Realisation of cultural values There are a range of positive examples of First Nations people’s involvement in water management and the realisation of cultural values. However, without formalised statutory obligations, the success of on-ground initiatives currently relies heavily on the commitment of frontline staff working at project and program level, and the organisational capacity or cultural strength of the First Nations community. This can lead to mixed success. Employment programs Indigenous ranger projects, first funded under the former Working on Country program in 2007, have been successful in generating economic, employment, cultural, social, environmental and health benefits for First Nations communities. The projects support First Nations people to combine traditional knowledge with conservation training to protect and manage their land, sea and culture (NIAA, 2021). Activities include bushfire mitigation, protection of threatened species and biosecurity compliance. The Allen Consulting Group (2011) noted that daily wages paid were a significant improvement on the median gross income for First Nations people. The skills and experience Indigenous rangers gained from being employed also increased their chances of participating in the external economy (National Landcare Program, 2013). Indigenous rangers also provide community leadership and act as role models. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 95 As at April 2021, there were 129 nationally funded Indigenous ranger groups, and 898.7 Indigenous rangers and coordinators (full-time equivalent contracted positions) were reported in Australia (NIAA, 2021). Although these programs have been implemented successfully across other parts of Australia, Indigenous ranger programs are currently only in the inception phase within the Basin. The Murray-Darling Basin Indigenous River Rangers Program (AU$3.1 million) was announced in September 2020, which will initially establish four Ranger groups dedicated to improving waterway health across the Basin. Around 20 full-time Indigenous rangers will be employed by First Nations organisations. The groups will operate for 12 months, commencing mid-2021, with the National Indigenous Australians Agency delivering the program (NIAA, 2021). Ranger programs, such as the Aboriginal Waterways Assessment, offer an opportunity for a community to come together on Country and connect with its cultural values. Currently, programs are being developed for Indigenous rangers to participate in monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement processes for environmental water delivery. Voluntary agreements Indigenous ranger jobs in Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) are providing essential environmental management and protection across vast areas of Australia, although most are not in the Murray-Darling Basin. IPAs are areas of land and sea in Australia that are voluntarily managed by First Nations groups as protected areas for biodiversity conservation through voluntary agreements with the Australian Government. There are currently 78 dedicated IPAs, which account for 46 percent of the National Reserve System; however, none are established within the Basin (DAWE, 2021). The challenge and opportunity exist to secure and grow this success with more communities, with more rangers and on more lands across Australia. Various reports highlight the positive role that the Australian Government can play in securing these programs and increasing their beneficial effects. In northern Australia, the concept of Strategic Indigenous Reserves to address First Nations people’s disadvantage was advanced by NAILSMA in its 2012 policy paper Indigenous people’s right to the commercial use and management of water on their traditional territories (NAILSMA Indigenous Water Policy Group, 2012). Water allocation First Nations people hold little of the Basin’s water entitlement (Hartwig et al., 2020). Several governments in the Basin have recently committed to supporting Aboriginal water entitlements. However, most systems are already fully allocated or overallocated. In combination with declining inflows due to climate change, this makes the realisation of Aboriginal economic water and cultural flows a politically challenging task. Engagement with First Nations people on these matters tends to be overly narrow, and environmental considerations still supersede cultural needs when trade-offs between values need to be made. Victoria’s Aboriginal Water Program has an objective of making unallocated water available for First Nations Victorians. A recent positive outcome of this program is the allocation of 2 gigalitres of unallocated water from the Mitchell River in coastal southeast Victoria to the Gunaikurnai Land and Water Aboriginal Corporation to manage for shared environmental and social benefits (Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Association, 2020). Tradeable water For First Nations people, there is a complicated relationship between cultural values and the water-trading system. It is important to understand that decoupling land and water rights clashes with the way First Nations people engage with cultural landscapes in a holistic way. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 96 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin C.6 Lessons from Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin experience The following insights and recommendations have emerged from the Australian experience for improving opportunities for the inclusion of First Nations people and their cultural values in water management decisions and implementation: • Capacity development—Improve understanding and capacity of First Nations people to participate in water-sharing, access and management processes. This includes providing sufficient resources to give First Nations communities a higher level of understanding, interpretation and active engagement in water planning and policy development. • Account for culture—Incorporate Indigenous cultural values and perspectives, as well as cultural science and knowledge, into water policy and planning to improve sustainable use of water. Provide credible evidence of Indigenous cultural values and methodologies related to water management. • Research—Increase comparative research projects, which apply social science methodologies to compare different cultures, to better inform governments and NGOs on First Nations people’s issues in relation to water management, and how these issues should be interpreted and included in water planning and sharing plans. • Industry access—Improve access to opportunities for First Nations people to enter into water industries and markets. • Integrated planning—Integrate water management issues into First Nations community planning (which is often focused on business and social matters), providing for more efficient use of existing resources, and enabling linkages with other land and environmental management initiatives. • Networks and partnerships—Improve networks and partnerships with local, regional and national government agencies; NGOs; research bodies; and private industry, in relation to water sharing, planning and management. C.7 Conclusions There has been a significant shift to address the disadvantage in First Nations communities in Australia and to acknowledge First Nations cultural values in water management. First Nations people have had little involvement in formal water management processes in the past. This has resulted in knowledge gaps and inequitable access for First Nations people to provide adequate and appropriate input into water management, planning for water sharing and relevant legislation. Key Australian national and state government institutions have committed to increasing the engagement and integration of Indigenous cultural values and perspectives into water planning and management. This includes key government agencies and the individuals involved in developing and implementing the Basin Plan and other water-sharing plans in the Basin. Valuing water: The Australian perspective Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin 97 C.8 References Allen Consulting Group. (2011). Assessment of the economic and employment outcomes of the Working on Country Program. Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. DAWE. (2018). Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. DAWE. (2021). Indigenous Protected Areas. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. https://www.environment.gov.au/land/indigenous-protected-areas FPWEC. (2012). Advice to the National Water Commission. First People’s Water Engagement Council. Frangos, M., Moggridge, B., Webb, T., Bassani, T., & Duncan, P. (2020). The original water industry: Establishing an Indigenous voice in the modern water industry. Online Journal of the Australian Water Association, 5(2). https://www.awa.asn.au/resources/latest-news/business/diversity/original-water-industry Gardner, A., Bartlett, R., Gray, J., & Nelson, R. (2018). Water resources law (2nd ed.). LexisNexis. Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Association. (2020). Water for Gunaikurnai Country. Gunaikurnai Land and Waters Aboriginal Association. https://gunaikurnai.org.au/water-for-gunaikurnai-country/ Hart, B., Byron, N., Bond, N., Pollino, C., & Stewardson, M. (Eds.). (2020). Murray-Darling Basin, Australia: Its future management, volume 1 (1st ed.). Elsevier. Hartwig, L., Jackson, S., & Osborne, N. (2020). Trends in Aboriginal water ownership in New South Wales, Australia: The continuities between colonial and neoliberal forms of dispossession. Land Use Policy, 99, 104869. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104869 Jackson, S., Tan, P. L., & Altman, J. (2009). Indigenous Fresh Water Forum: Proceedings, outcomes and recommendations. National Water Commission. Jackson, S., Hatton MacDonald, D., & Bark, R. H. (2019). Public attitudes to inequality in water distribution: Insights from preferences for water reallocation from irrigators to Aboriginal Australians. Water Resources Research, 55(7), 6033–6048. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025011 Mallawaarachchi, T., Auricht, C. M., Loch, A., Adamson, D. C., & Quiggin, J. (2020). Water allocation in Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin: Managing change under heightened uncertainty. Economic Analysis and Policy, 66, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2020.01.001 MDBA. (2021). Water for First Nations people. Murray-Darling Basin Authority. https://www.mdba.gov.au/ about-basin/water-for-first-nations-people MLDRIN. (2007). MLDRIN Echuca Declaration 2007. Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations. https://www.mldrin.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Echuca-Declaration-Final-PDF.pdf Moggridge, B., Betterridge, L., & Thompson, R. (2019). Integrating Aboriginal cultural values into water planning: A case study from New South Wales, Australia. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 26(3), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2019.1650837 NAILSMA Indigenous Water Policy Group. (2012). Indigenous people’s right to the commercial use and management of water on their traditional territories: An Indigenous water policy position—the strategic Indigenous reserve (NAILSMA Knowledge Series, Issue 017/2013). North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance Ltd. https://web.archive.org/web/20160316141950/http://www.nailsma.org.au/ sites/default/files/publications/KS%200172013%20SIR%20Policy%20Paper_110313.pdf National Landcare Program. (2013). Caring for our Country achievements report 2008–2013. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment. Valuing water: The Australian perspective 98 Lessons from the Murray–Darling Basin Ngarrindjeri Nation. (2007). Ngarrindjeri Nation Yarluwar-Ruwe plan: Caring for Ngarrindjeri sea Country and culture (Prepared on behalf of the Ngarrindjeri Nation by the Ngarrindjeri Tendi, the Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee, the Ngarrindjeri Native Title Management Committee). Ngarrindjeri Land and Progress Association. NIAA. (2021). Indigenous ranger programs. National Indigenous Australians Agency. https://www.niaa.gov.au/ indigenous-affairs/environment/indigenous-ranger-program Nursey-Bray, M., Palmer, R., Smith, T. F., & Rist, P. (2019). Old ways for new days: Australian Indigenous peoples and climate change. International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 24(5), 473–486. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13549839.2019.1590325 Taylor, K. S., Moggridge, B. J., & Poelina, A. (2016). Australian Indigenous water policy and the impacts of the ever-changing political cycle. Australasian Journal of Water Resources, 20(2), 132–147. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13241583.2017.1348887 Vince, J., Smith, A. D. M., Sainsbury, K. J., Cresswell, I. D., Smith, D. C., & Haward, M. (2015). Australia’s oceans policy: Past, present and future. Marine Policy, 57, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.02.014 The Australian Water Partnership is an Australian Government international cooperation initiative helping developing countries in the Indo-Pacific region, and beyond, work towards the sustainable management of their water resources. Australian Water Partnership UC Innovation Centre (Bldg 22), University Drive South, Canberra ACT 2617, Australia T +61 2 6206 8320 E contact@waterpartnership.org.au waterpartnership.org.au