Chapter 7Climate Change
Introduction
7.1This chapter commences with an overview of two prominent contextual elements—the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s (MDBA) Basin Plan reviews and the Productivity Commission’s recent Basin Plan implementation review interim report. It then summarises key feedback received from submitters on climate change issues and arguments for addressing climate change impacts in the bill.
7.2The climatic conditions of the Murray-Darling Basin are changing, with a warmer, drier future that includes more frequent droughts and extreme weather events.
7.3The most recent evaluation of the Basin Plan in 2020 found that the ‘change in climate will significantly impact water availability, use and management resulting in flow on impacts to communities, industries and the environment. These changes pose the greatest risk to achieving the Basin Plan’s desired social, economic and environmental outcomes.’
7.4The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (Wentworth Group) highlighted that:
The Basin is likely to experience significant changes in water availability due to human-induced climate change, particularly in the southern Basin where annual rainfall is projected to change by -11 to +5% by 2030. Any reduction in precipitation is likely to have significant impacts on water flows in rivers, in some cases driving a threefold reduction in runoff, with implications for water recovery under the Basin Plan.
7.5In introducing the Water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers Bill) 2023 (the bill), the Minister for Environment and Water, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP, recognised the impact of climate change on water management in the Basin:
Water management is only going to get more difficult in this country, as it gets hotter and drier. Rainfall patterns are changing. Temperatures are changing. Climate change means we’ll see more variable rain in the north and less rain in the south-east. That means that basin flows could fall by as much as 30 per cent by 2050. Water will always involve difficult decisions in this country. But that’s not an excuse to shy away from making the necessary decisions.
MDBA Basin Plan reviews
7.6As noted in previous chapters, the Basin Plan is required to be evaluated every five years. The first full Basin Plan evaluation was undertaken in 2020. Among the findings from that evaluation, the MDBA found that:
Climate change will require difficult decisions to be made at national, Basin and local scales. An almost certain outcome is that there will be insufficient water resources — or unpredictable rainfall/runoff patterns — to continue business as usual.
7.7In response, the MDBA made three recommendations to improve adaptation to climate change and increasing resilience:
Basin governments should improve sharing of knowledge, tools and innovations that are critical to support climate adaptation and water management. Information and science on future water availability and trends must be shared widely to support businesses, communities and industries plan to be proactive, adapt and diversify;
Basin governments and the MDBA need to prepare to adapt the Basin Plan in 2026 to incorporate future climate scenarios and trends. This means improving existing tools and developing new frameworks for Basin-scale management. An agreed work program should be established and shared publicly; and
Basin water users, managers, First Nations and community groups need to plan for the future climate. As well as Basin-wide assessment, local climate opportunities and risks should be given attention along with implications, trade-offs and adaptation priorities.
7.8Climate change has been identified as one of the four key themes for the 2026 Basin Plan review, along with sustainable water limits, First Nations, and regulatory design. A key area of focus will be the ‘need to incorporate up to date climate data and science in the Basin Plan’s strategies and activities’ and identifying actions to help the Basin adjust to a changing climate.
7.9To support this, the MDBA has developed a climate workplan that will guide its efforts to support the 2026 Basin Plan review.
7.10In addition, in October 2022 the Australian Government announced it would provide $22million to update the science to ensure the impacts of climate change are accounted for in managing the Basin’s water resources. This includes:
reinstating the Sustainable Rivers Audit to track and report on the health of Basin rivers to inform the 2026 Basin Plan review;
updating the CSIRO Sustainable Yields study to show how much water will be available in the future with climate change; and
assessing the impact of climate change on 16 Ramsar listed wetlands in the Basin to support their future protection and management.
Findings of the Productivity Commission Interim Report
7.11The Productivity Commission’s (the Commission) recent Interim Report on its Murray-Darling Basin Plan: Implementation review 2023 made several findings and interim recommendations to strengthen the Basin Plan, including with respect to climate change.
7.12The Commission highlighted that while the knowledge base has considerably improved, particularly in the areas of climate change and ecological water requirements, there is evidence that ‘not all aspects of the water management framework are adequately updated through the review processes to reflect the best available knowledge’.
7.13The Commission also highlighted the need for greater clarity about the measurement and assessment of the Basin Plan’s climate change objectives, and its integration of this information in the Basin Plan. The Commission noted the need for improved transparency about the data, modelling outputs and government-commissioned research used to make decisions about water management in the Basin, including those used to reset the sustainable diversion limits in 2026.
7.14The Commission will also consider whether the Water Act should be amended to ensure climate change science is appropriately considered when amending, reviewing and implementing the Basin Plan and is seeking stakeholder feedback on how climate science can be better embedded into the Basin Plan.
7.15The Commission’s final report will be presented to the Australian Government on 19 December 2023 and publicly released in 2024.
Submitter views on addressing the impacts of climate change
7.16The Water Act 2007 (Water Act) requires the Basin Plan to be developed on the ‘basis of the best available scientific knowledge’ and to identify risks to the availability of Basin water resources due to the effects of climate change. However, it does not explicitly state that climate change science, including projections, must be considered when making, reviewing or amending the Basin Plan, nor describe how this science should be integrated into Basin water management arrangements.
7.17Several submitters recommended the explicit inclusion of the impact of climate change in both the Water Act and Basin Plan to be addressed as part of the bill. For example, the Wentworth Group emphasised the ‘urgently needed additional reform to the Water Act and Basin Plan’.Relevantly, the Wentworth Group made several recommendations including:
(a)Amending Section 3, Objects, to add a new object to recognise and acknowledge the threat of the impacts of climate change to the communities, environment and industries of the Basin and the need for the immediate and urgent action in response.
(b)Amending the Water Act to ensure the Basin Plan is required to provide immediate, urgent and adaptive responses to the impacts of climate change.
(c)Requiring the [Environmentally Sustainable Level of Take] ESLT to be updated in 2027, and regularly updated thereafter, to ensure that it is capable of achieving flow requirements for priority assets and functions under likely projected climate change scenarios.
(d)Requiring the MDBA to review State water planning rules and practices to ensure objectives can be achieved under likely climate scenarios.
(e)Requiring the Commonwealth to develop a ‘National Standard for Managing Water in a Changing Climate’ and ensure that Basin States and Territory update their water planning and management rules.
7.18Similarly, the Law Council of Australia recommended that additional provisions be included in the bill to consider the impact of climate change on environmental water compared to consumptive water. It also proposed more adaptive and flexible approaches towards environmental water planning and implementation, to consider climate change as well as variability and uncertainties.
7.19The Environmental Justice Australia (EJA) identified that ‘the Bill is silent on targeted reforms that will ensure climate change projections and impacts are adequately accounted for in the implementation of the Basin Plan’.
7.20EJA’s submission noted that while the Water Act requires the Basin Plan to be developed on the best available scientific knowledge, the sustainable diversion limit:
…fails to account for climate change projections or adopt a proactive, precautionary approach to water availability in anticipation of the future impacts of climate change.
7.21To address this, EJA recommended that relevant sections of the Basin Plan ‘must be amended to refer to climate change projections, rather than a “repeat of historical climate conditions”’. This includes expressly requiring the MDBA to incorporate the best available science in its calculations, including climate science.
7.22The Australian Conservation Foundation also recommended that the MDBA and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) look at ‘Basin Plan 2’ options that take into account reduced inflows and bring forward the CSIRO Sustainable Yields Project:
This should assess the water in the system and include connectivity (how the river sustains the floodplain) under different climate conditions. The government’s own science (CSIRO Hydroclimate Storylines) says climate change will reduce rainfall in the Basin by up to 20% and reduce mean annual water inflows by 20–50%. Taking a business-as-usual approach, reduced inflows of 20% will be catastrophic for river ecosystems and stressed catchments.
7.23Other submitters, such as the Environmental Defenders Office (EDO), highlighted failures in the development of the Basin Plan to consider the best available scientific knowledge, including climate change projections, in the determination of the Environmentally Sustainable Level of Take (ESLT).
7.24The South Australian Commissioner for the Murray River, Richard Beasley SC, outlined:
Sadly, the Basin Plan was not drafted on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge… climate change projections were not included in the determination of the ESLT, despite strong warnings from the CSIRO, including the advice that to not do so would "not be scientifically defensible", and risked "irreversible environmental degradation".
7.25Mr Beasley further emphasised:
…one of the criticisms Mr Walker [Mr Bret Walker SC, former South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commissioner] had of the MDBA when it originally put the Basin Plan together was that the CSIRO told you [the MDBA] that you had to incorporate climate change projections into it and actually said that, if you didn't do that, it wouldn't be scientifically defensible as a plan or a choice, and they didn't do that. That should have been done… With or without a Basin Plan, if the climate scientists are right, all of us, but particularly the parliament, are going to have to do a hell of a lot of work about structural adjustments, adaptation and making what will be, if the projections are right for 2050 or 2070, some pretty difficult decisions about whether towns can be saved or parts of the environment have to be sacrificed.
It's going to be pretty horrible. I assume that work's being done. It's not really part of the Basin Plan. The Basin Plan should incorporate climate change science into its determination of the environmentally sustainable level of take because, for a long-term plan, it makes no sense not to do that, right?...
7.26Various submitters to the inquiry highlighted the long-term decline in the basin’s rivers and wetlands. Professor Richard Kingsford noted:
Our research has continued to identify long-term declines in the health of the Murray-Darling Basin rivers and wetlands, including wetlands for which we have international obligations under the Ramsar Convention… Many of the major declines in ecosystem health, reflected in waterbird population declines, relate to effects of river regulation and diversion of water for irrigation upstream of major floodplains of the Murray-Darling Basin as well as climate change.
Transitional funding for Basin communities to adapt to climate change impacts
7.27As outlined earlier in the report, the bill proposes to amend provisions for the Water for the Environment Special Account (WESA) to provide for more flexibility in how its funds can be spent. This includes allowing for payments from the WESA to address any detrimental social or economic impact on the well‑being of any community in the Basin that is associated with a project or purchase.
7.28The EJA proposed that this could be further amended to expressly allow for separate transitional funding to be made available to Basin communities that are disproportionately affected by climate change and reduced water availability.
7.29The Murray-Darling Conservation Alliance similarly recommended the establishment of a transition fund to assist impacted regional and rural communities with climate change adaptation, as did Healthy Rivers Lower Murray.
Concerns raised about delays in passing the legislation
7.30While inquiry participants acknowledged challenges in addressing many of the issues outlined throughout this report, such as First Nations water entitlements and climate change impacts on Basin inflows, there was support expressed for not delaying the bill’s passage. For example, Mr Beasley outlined:
You don't need more, in my submission, to know that that's telling the Australian parliament: pass this bill. It might be in a modified form. There might be some amendments, but it's saying, 'Pass this bill now.'
7.31Similarly, Professor Thompson of the Biodiversity Council highlighted the adverse consequences in delaying the bill:
I think it is a problem. At the end of the day we've built the foundations to actually achieve some benefit, and if we don't continue to push through this then a lot of the pain that has been experienced by a whole lot of people across the basin will actually have been somewhat to waste. I would be really concerned, if we don't push through this last barrier and try and get this delivered as best we can, there are no guarantees in the future that we will be able to achieve the level of bilateral agreement that generated the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. At this point it would be a pity to essentially waste that moment in time that let us actually get people together and agree on something.
…this process is about ensuring that there are as many checks and balances placed into this piece of legislation that will allow us to be confident that it will be delivered. I continue to share your concern here that there will be a lack of will to implement. That concern, I think, is shared by all of us. But, to me, this is an improvement on the current situation, and it would allow us, in realistic time scales, particularly if we're able to do buybacks of water from willing sellers, to actually be able to add value to the environmental returns we've already seen over the last five or six years.
Committee view
7.32The committee notes that despite the requirement for the best available scientific knowledge, the Water Act and Basin Plan do not recognise climate change and its impacts. In the committee’s view this is a fundamental omission.
7.33The committee heard evidence about the significant impacts of changing climate in the Murray-Darling Basin, creating challenges for both water availability and environmental sustainability within the basin.
7.34The weight of scientific evidence clearly demonstrates that the Murray-Darling Basin will become hotter and drier, resulting in reduced mean annual water inflows. The committee accepts this scientific basis.
7.35In this regard the committee notes the conclusion of the MDBA’s 2020 review of the Basin Plan that the impacts of climate change pose the greatest risk to achieving the Basin Plan’s desired social, economic and environmental outcomes.
7.36The committee supports the interim recommendations of the Productivity Commission’s report on its implementation review of the Basin Plan. These include measures that will encourage greater transparency about how climate change objectives are being measured and assessed, and how data and research is being used to make decisions about water management in the Basin.
7.37The committee looks forward to the outcomes of the Commission’s process, including its consultation on whether the Water Act should be amended to ensure climate change science is appropriately considered when amending, reviewing and implementing the Basin Plan.
7.38The committee agrees that there is a material risk that without taking these impacts into account, that objectives of the Water Act and Basin Plan will be compromised.
7.39There was general consensus among inquiry participants about the need for Basin management to take into account the impact of climate change, including up to date climate change projections and science. Some submitters recommended urgent amendments to the bill to recognise and acknowledge the impact of climate change.
7.40However, given the need to address critical timeframes for other aspects of the bill, the committee considers that the bill should not be delayed, given there are established processes already underway to best consider how climate change science can be embedded in the Basin Plan.
7.41The committee acknowledges the work being led by the MDBA in this regard, including preparations for the 2026 Basin Plan review where climate change will be a key focus area.
7.42The committee recommends that, following the MDBA’s 2026 review, the Australian Government embed the impacts of climate change in the WaterAct 2007 and Basin Plan.
Concluding comments
7.43The committee acknowledges that there are wide-ranging and strongly held views about the management and stewardship of the Murray-Darling Basin. Understandably, these diverging views flow to the reforms proposed by the bill including its potential impacts on industry, including irrigators, farmers and processors, the environment, and the communities that live and reside in the Basin including First Nations.
7.44The committee recognises the concerns of irrigators, farmers and processors, while also recognising that the future of those industries is reliant on a healthy river.
7.45Nevertheless, there is broad support for the Basin Plan’s overall trajectory, and its objectives to bring the Basin back to a healthier and more sustainable level, while continuing to support agricultural industries and Basin communities for the benefit of Australia as a whole.
7.46The committee heard evidence throughout the inquiry about the effectiveness of sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism (SLDAM) projects, the options to achieve the remaining water targets, and the need for greater accountability and transparency measures to guard against further delays and non-compliance in implementing the Basin Plan. The committee considers that many of these issues are effectively addressed as part of this bill.
7.47The inquiry also canvassed several important issues that extend beyond the immediate scope of the bill, including the need to provide for First Nations’ values and interests and to take into account the impacts of climate change science. The committee has made a number of related recommendations in this report, however does not consider that these should delay the passage of the bill given the looming deadlines that require urgent legislative resolution.
7.48The committee heard strong calls that the passage of the bill should not be delayed, given the necessity to implement time critical aspects of the Basin Plan by the end of 2023. Without the passage of the bill, the ability to implement the Basin Plan in full will be compromised.
7.49The committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill with amendments.
Senator Karen Grogan
Chair