Implications for sustainability, social justice and equity

Introduction

The introduction of the Cap system has brought about many positive changes in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB). The economic and social benefits it has already generated also look likely to continue into the future. The Cap system, however, still leaves many questions of sustainability unanswered. It is far from a perfect solution to the plethora of environmental issues caused by salinity in the MDB and, while it has undoubtedly helped improve the drinking water situation in Adelaide, it only represents one small step towards solving this complicated problem.

This chapter will explore implications of the Cap for sustainability. It will also asses whether the Cap has succeeded in delivering a socially just outcome for users of the Murray-Darling, and whether the processes of decision-making and implementation underpinning it were equitable for all stakeholders.

Economic and social benefits of the Cap

Since it became permanent in 1997, the Cap has had many clear economic and social benefits throughout the MDB - in both agricultural and non-agricultural contexts - and it is highly likely that these will continue to increase. One specific benefit has been that Adelaide's drinking water supply has not continued to deteriorate at the rate it was prior to Caps. If it had not been introduced, the South Australian government (and hence its residents) would have had to bear the economic burden of devising new and improved systems for treating their water, which is usually very expensive.

Other economic benefits throughout the MDB have included reducing the sensitivity of the landscape to climatic changes and creating greater certainty of water supply for farmers and crop growers (albeit more restricted). These benefits have meant that it is easier for farmers to predict the future productivity of the land. The Cap has also made the process of water trading between irrigators much more simplistic, which has benefited many users.

The Cap system has also brought about many clear social benefits since its inception, many of which have come as a result of the economic benefits. These have included reducing tensions between irrigators, reducing tensions between urban and rural users and providing a forum for discussion between different stakeholders within each State and Territory jurisdiction. In a non-agricultural context, apart form improving drinking water supplies for domestic users, the Cap system has also brought about positive benefits for the tourism, recreation and real estate industries in many areas within the MDB. See image 1

Implications for sustainability

As the first major step towards reversing salinity problems within the MDB, the Cap has gone a long way towards reaching a balance between environmental quality and consumptive needs. It is undeniable that if the Cap had not been implemented, the situation would be much worse than it is today, however, there is still room for increased fine tuning of the initiative.

Firstly, the Cap was set based on the diversion levels the 1993-94 period, which is now over a decade ago. Even though this means that levels of water diversion have stabilised since then (and not increased), there is no guarantee that even this amount of water extraction is sustainable. The full effects of this amount of water use may not even be known yet, as often it takes many years (or decades) for environmental problems to surface. For this reason, a report produced by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission in 2000 noted that the Cap may be lowered even further in some valleys.

Perhaps the biggest shortfall of the Cap system in terms of sustainability is that it does not address some of the most fundamental causes of water salinity - namely those which fall into the category of land management. Addressing the issue of water salinity is inextricably bound to tackling the problem of land salinity: simply reducing the use of water from the river system - although clearly an effective strategy - will not in itself solve the problem of land and water salinity (refer to Chapter One). Sustainable use of the Murray-Darling will need to incorporate strategies that look at changing the systems of agriculture and farming that have so drastically damaged Australia's physical environment over the past two centuries.

This tendency to dodge the bigger issue has become commonplace in managing issues of environmental concern in Australia. The focus often seems to be on finding short-term solutions to pressing political concerns, when it should really be on developing sustainable long-term solutions to problems that will continue to worsen well into the future if they are not adequately addressed now.

Investing in completely new farming techniques and revegetating vast areas of farmland (some scientists suggest up to 80 per cent needs to be revegetated) would be two such long-term strategies. The likelihood of them becoming a reality is, however, quite low. Such drastic measures would involve sacrificing a considerable amount of the national wealth that is generated from the agricultural industry. It would also require a massive shift in the economic, social and environmental priorities of our population and government. This would necessitate a move away from development focused solely on economic growth towards a sustainable future for all. Although it is likely that many farmers would resist this, the difficult question that needs to be asked is whether current farming practices in Australia are even compatible with the principles of sustainability.

Other suggestions for tackling the drinking water shortage in South Australia have included harnessing the potential of the State's enormous uranium ore deposits and developing nuclear-powered desalination plants to convert sea water into drinking water. This proposal, however, raises a whole new set of questions about the sustainability and safety of nuclear power (refer to Topic Four). See image 2

Implications for social justice and equity

In so far as acknowledging the shared nature of the Murray-Darling and attempting to distribute its water in a fair and systematic manner, the Cap represents a just and equitable strategy for water management within the MDB. The fact that no social group was exempt from the diversion limitations reflects that it was socially just. The way in which the various governments and the Community Advisory Committee (CAC) were all included in the decision-making process reflects that it was implemented through equitable means. The inclusion of Indigenous members and experts form various fields as members of the CAC in 2004, further increased the Cap's level of equity and integrity. This also reflected favourably upon the socially just nature of the initiative.

While this may all seem very positive there are, however, still some overarching social justice and equity issues which the Cap system raises. There is no denying that limiting diversions upstream to improve water quality downstream is a logical approach to curtailing the effects of water salinity, however it is not a solution likely to please all interest groups. Relieving South Australia from the economic burden of treating its water, for example, would essentially mean increasing the economic burden of struggling farmers upstream, whose profits would potentially decrease from a reduction in quality produce. While this could be seen as favouring one interest group over the other, it could also be perceived as socially just. This would largely depend on which interest group was asked.

As previously discussed, when the idea of the Cap was first announced in 1995, it proposed placing a limit on all uses of water within the MDB. The original Caps proposed were, however, only permanently implemented in SA, Victoria and New South Wales in 1997. At this stage, they were still not finalised for Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory. Even though these last two areas use far less water than the other States, limitations for these areas had still not been clearly defined by 2000. It was believed by some that this greatly questioned the fairness, and hence integrity, of the whole system. New South Wales' failure to comply with the Cap in some valleys (refer to Chapter Four) had a similar effect.