1. This copy of slides has all photos removed to reduce file size
Managing Salinity with Markets, Plants and Engineering (How do we move policy forward?)
David Pannell

2. Degree of threat varies
Salt scald
Suitable for salt-tolerant plants
Completely unaffected

3. Values at threat vary Agricultural land Infrastructure
Threatened species, wetlands
Water

4. Responsiveness varies
Required intensity of management varies (but is generally high)
Myth: increase water use of annuals
National Land & Water Resource Audit

5. Cost of management varies
Perennials profitable in some areas
Unprofitable at high scale in most
Water efficient irrigation technologies available
Pumping is expensive
Myth: farmers can & will change land use sufficiently with existing options

6. Put it all together ... Small areas have high priotity
high threat
high value
higher responsiveness to management
low cost
Some have moderate priority
Most have relatively low priority

7. Prioritising funds We cannot buy a comprehensive solution
Focus $ support tightly onto high priority areas (or in ways that get high leverage)
Some catchments warrant few $
Investment framework
Myth: Sharing the money around evenly is “fair”

8. ICM Integrated Catchment Management (Planning) Myth: ICM Fine
Many situations require local management
e.g. many farm problems, country towns
Management (Planning)
Planning doesn’t get you adoption
What is the incentive?
Myth: ICM

9. Protecting an environmental asset
Lake Tarbilin
Lake Toolibin
Diversion drain
Pumps

11. If not ICM then what? Identify assets to protect
Analyse best method to protect them
May be local, catchment scale or in between
Consider “living with” salinity
Compare with other catchments
Prioritise at level above catchment
Concentrate funds to create incentive

12. “Living with salinity” options
Water resources: desalination
Built infrastructure: repair (Merredin townsite)

13. Servicing the majority
Develop and promote technologies for salinity prevention (leverage)

14. Servicing the majority
Develop and promote methods for “living with” salinity

15. Which technologies? Need a wide diversity They need to be profitable
Existing suite inadequate
Different methods suit different situations/different problems

17. Policy approaches
Policy instruments to encourage change on private land
market-based instruments (NAP)
subsidies (NHT)
extension, information (Landcare)
regulation
Direct works (e.g. on public land)
Technology development & industry development

19. Recommendations 1
Adopt a framework to assess and target salinity investments
Reverse the planning approach: asset based, not catchment based
Prioritise at state or national scale, not only catchment scale
Modify role of catchment planning groups

20. Recommendations 2
Allow time and resources for analysis of options. Provide technical support.
Adopt targets which come from analysis, not from desires
Include options for “living with salinity” in the analysis

21. Recommendations 3
De-emphasise policy instruments to achieve land-use change (including market-based instruments)
Recognise direct govt action (fully funded works, purchase water)
Change the nature of extension & communication
Promote properly evaluated technologies

22. Recommendations 4
Allocate 10-15% of salinity budget to technology development and industry development
Plants (CRC)
Engineering (CSIRO)
Keep an open mind and expect it to need to be changed

23. http://welcome.to/seanews Acknowledgements
Select Committee on Salinity
Tom Hatton, David Bennett
Grains Research and Development Corp.