existence. These perverse, negative outcomes are unsustainable. Irrespective of the
methods of water recovery, the Water Act 2007 (Cth) and the Basin Plan 2012 have
impacted agricultural producers as they have reduced in the ‘productive water’
entitlement pool, e.g. 2117.5 GL; June 2018 (Australian Government, Department
of Agriculture and Water Resources 2018b), which will not be available for food and
fibre production in the Murray-Darling Basin in the future. Further, as early water
recovery processes focus on nonstrategic entitlement purchases, the impact of the
Federal water reform process has been magnified as the transfer of water from
agricultural production to the environment has not been accompanied by an associated productivity gain. The latter infrastructure funding program has consistently
ignored broader policy developments, including energy generation and food production. For example, the infrastructure investments for on-farm and off-farm
irrigation equipment have led to an increasing electrification in irrigated agriculture
and changes in land use practices. Despite achievements in water efficiency, the
exponential increase in electricity costs since 2009 (ACCC 2018) has threatened the
financial viability of the previously installed water efficient infrastructure and has
impacted productivity in the agricultural sector. Without a coordinated holistic State
and Federal Government approach to integrated resource management which reconciles water efficiency and energy intensity in agriculture, Australia’s food and
fibre production will be at significant risk. Peak advocacy groups have called for
Australia’s next wholesale water reform process (Australian Parliament 2017), with
a comprehensive assessment on whether the current institutional and regulatory
reforms have achieved the overarching objectives of the National Water Initiative
and the National Plan for Water Security whilst accounting for developments in
other natural resource policy areas (e.g. energy and food production) are still
outstanding. Given the ongoing power struggle between the Federal Government
and the Basin States, it remains to be seen whether Australia’s existing institutional,
regulatory and governance arrangements are robust and durable enough to reconcile
ongoing water, energy and food challenges. Particularly, the full implementation of
the Basin Plan 2012 continues to be politically and practically challenging given the
Basin States’ responsibility for water and the interjurisdictional conflict between
Basin States. The Basin Plan also addresses the issue of current and future climate
change through some of its water sharing mechanisms (Reisinger et al. 2014).
Climate change is predicted to decrease water availability in the Basin, posing a
risk to rural communities and the environment. Also impacted are agricultural
businesses which rely on the water for food and fibre production; they have built
businesses and irrigation infrastructure and water delivery systems on the predictions
of future water availability (Reisinger et al. 2014). Agricultural production within the
Basin has been reduced and will be further reduced if the climate change predictions
(which predict a substantial ‘drying’) are realised, despite comprehensive adaptation
(Garnaut 2008; Qureshi et al. 2013). The additional challenge of climate change
makes it ever more important to address the regulatory and policy challenge identified in Australia’s water-energy-food nexus context.
102
S. Schulte et al.
methods of water recovery, the Water Act 2007 (Cth) and the Basin Plan 2012 have
impacted agricultural producers as they have reduced in the ‘productive water’
entitlement pool, e.g. 2117.5 GL; June 2018 (Australian Government, Department
of Agriculture and Water Resources 2018b), which will not be available for food and
fibre production in the Murray-Darling Basin in the future. Further, as early water
recovery processes focus on nonstrategic entitlement purchases, the impact of the
Federal water reform process has been magnified as the transfer of water from
agricultural production to the environment has not been accompanied by an associated productivity gain. The latter infrastructure funding program has consistently
ignored broader policy developments, including energy generation and food production. For example, the infrastructure investments for on-farm and off-farm
irrigation equipment have led to an increasing electrification in irrigated agriculture
and changes in land use practices. Despite achievements in water efficiency, the
exponential increase in electricity costs since 2009 (ACCC 2018) has threatened the
financial viability of the previously installed water efficient infrastructure and has
impacted productivity in the agricultural sector. Without a coordinated holistic State
and Federal Government approach to integrated resource management which reconciles water efficiency and energy intensity in agriculture, Australia’s food and
fibre production will be at significant risk. Peak advocacy groups have called for
Australia’s next wholesale water reform process (Australian Parliament 2017), with
a comprehensive assessment on whether the current institutional and regulatory
reforms have achieved the overarching objectives of the National Water Initiative
and the National Plan for Water Security whilst accounting for developments in
other natural resource policy areas (e.g. energy and food production) are still
outstanding. Given the ongoing power struggle between the Federal Government
and the Basin States, it remains to be seen whether Australia’s existing institutional,
regulatory and governance arrangements are robust and durable enough to reconcile
ongoing water, energy and food challenges. Particularly, the full implementation of
the Basin Plan 2012 continues to be politically and practically challenging given the
Basin States’ responsibility for water and the interjurisdictional conflict between
Basin States. The Basin Plan also addresses the issue of current and future climate
change through some of its water sharing mechanisms (Reisinger et al. 2014).
Climate change is predicted to decrease water availability in the Basin, posing a
risk to rural communities and the environment. Also impacted are agricultural
businesses which rely on the water for food and fibre production; they have built
businesses and irrigation infrastructure and water delivery systems on the predictions
of future water availability (Reisinger et al. 2014). Agricultural production within the
Basin has been reduced and will be further reduced if the climate change predictions
(which predict a substantial ‘drying’) are realised, despite comprehensive adaptation
(Garnaut 2008; Qureshi et al. 2013). The additional challenge of climate change
makes it ever more important to address the regulatory and policy challenge identified in Australia’s water-energy-food nexus context.
102
S. Schulte et al.