lower murray landscape futures – dryland areas evaluating current nrm targets with policy options...

Lower Murray Landscape Futures – Dryland AreasEvaluating current NRM targets with policy options and scenario analyses

Dr Neville Crossman

CSIRO Land and Water

CSIRO LMLF – Dryland Component

Project Aims

• The Lower Murray Landscape Futures Project

• A tri-catchment, multi state collaborative research project which aims to:

1. Analyse the impact of existing regional NRM plans and investment strategies on natural resources, with consideration given to community well-being (social, economic and environmental outcomes), and;

2. Explore future options and scenarios for the Lower Murray in partnership with stakeholders in the region.

• Project has 2 core components:

1. River Corridor

2. Dryland


Analysis of NRM Plans and Landscape Futures


Regional Plans & Targets

• Reviewed 15 relevant Regional Plans and Investment Strategies

• Targets:

• 173 Aspirational Targets

• 252 Resource Condition Targets

• 1252 Management Action Targets

• 3 key environmental objectives relevant to dryland agricultural areas:

• Biodiversity

• Deep Drainage and River Salinity

• Wind Erosion

+ Climate Change


Policy Options for Achieving Targets

• Six policy options for reaching regional targets including:

• Go Anywhere – actions located at random• Cheapest – actions located in areas of lowest economic cost • Best for Biodiversity – actions located in areas with greatest

biodiversity benefit• Best for NRM - actions located in areas with greatest overall

benefit for biodiversity, deep drainage, wind erosion, climate change

• Most Cost Effective - actions located in areas with greatest overall benefit and cheapest cost

• With a sixth special case policy option:• Sustainability Ideal – as for Most Cost Effective

but with a new target set aimed at long termsustainability


Alternative Future Scenarios

• S0 – Baseline *• Climate – current (historical mean)• Carbon trading – none• Biomass – no market• Biofuels – no market

• S1 – Mild Warming/Drying• Climate – 1oC warming, 5% drying

• Carbon trading – $15/tonne CO2e

• Biomass – $50/tonne • Biofuels – %150 current price

(wheat/canola)

• S2 – Moderate Warming/Drying• Climate – 2oC warming, 15% drying


• Biomass – $40/tonne • Biofuels – %130 current price

(wheat/canola)

• S3 – Severe Warming/Drying• Climate – 4oC warming, 25% drying


• Biomass – $30/tonne

• Biofuels – %110 current price (wheat/canola)

• S4 – Mild Warming/Wetting• Climate – 1oC warming, 5% wetting


• Biomass – $50/tonne

• Biofuels – %150 current price (wheat/canola)


Natural Resource Management Actions

• Six on-ground NRM actions considered:

• Areas of Remnant Native Vegetation

1. Remnant vegetation management (stock exclusion, weed control etc.)

• Cleared Agricultural Areas

2. Ecological restoration (local native species/communities)

3. Conservation farming (stubble retention, minimum tillage)

4. Deep-rooted perennials (fodder crops – lucerne, saltbush)

5. Biomass (Eucalyptus plantations for renewable energy, oil, activated carbon)

6. Biofuels (wheat/canola rotation for ethanol, biodiesel production)

• The spatial distribution of NRM actions in the landscape is a landscape future

• Landscape futures have associated impacts:environmental, economic, and social


NRM Actions for Environmental Benefits


Research Structure and Methods


Analysis of Regional Plans


SAMDB NRM Board – S0 Baseline

Biodiversity• Improve condition of 50% of vegetation

on private land• Protect and enhance 10,000ha of

vegetation• 50% of 6 specific threatened

communities protected• Increase area of priority vegetation

protected to >2,000ha Biodiversity

• Increase cover by 1% in agricultural region

• Re-establish 950ha of vegetation to provide links in priority areas

Wind Erosion

• 40% reduction in agricultural land at risk of wind erosion in each June

• Increased trend in soil carbon levels in cropping soils

Deep Drainage & River Salinity

• Establish 25,000ha of perennial vegetation

• Maintain salinity of River Murray below 800EC at Morgan 95% of the time


Environmental and Economic Indicators

Remnant Vegetation Go Anywhere CheapestBest for

Biodiversity Best for NRMMost Cost

EffectiveSustainability

Ideal

Remnant Vegetation Management (ha) 767,272 767,219 767,217 767,217 767,219 401,674

Total Biodiversity Benefits 1,860,262 1,790,140 1,939,934 1,939,934 1,909,710 1,007,362

Net Economic Returns ($/yr) -$2,060,505 -$238,447 -$2,844,646 -$2,844,646 -$981,435 -$1,149,439

Cleared Agricultural Areas

Ecological Restoration (ha) 311,276 30,748 30,748 256,600 256,600 722,658

Conservation Farming (ha) 312,984 225,852 445,953 0 0 37

Deep-rooted Perennials (ha) 307,909 25,000 455,468 25,000 25,000 14

Biofuels (ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Biomass (ha) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Biodiversity Benefits 1,686,213 151,002 386,553 1,607,372 1,624,332 3,813,042

Total Wind Erosion Benefits 7,355,084 2,634,537 7,012,188 3,381,884 3,338,085 7,875,311

High Wind Erosion Areas Managed (ha) 227,754 244,043 226,397 204,830 214,861 567,860

Total Deep Drainage Benefits 503,783 56,853 419,584 443,522 418,893 1,503,200

High Deep Drainage Areas Managed (ha) 37,480 3,863 31,668 22,313 21,856 148,610

Total Carbon Benefits 3,555,109 256,576 417,520 2,873,941 2,775,458 8,014,248

CO2-e (t) 3,073,411 245,564 339,911 2,516,017 2,453,974 6,995,393

# Cars Off The Road 765,719 61,180 84,686 626,848 611,390 1,742,853

Ethanol Produced (l) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Biodiesel Produced (l) 0 0 0 0 0 0

Megawatt Hours 0 0 0 0 0 0

% Pre-European Veg Communities > 15% 89 67 73 75 74 100

% Climate Zones > 15% 96 68 82 71 71 100

% Soil Classes > 15% 100 92 100 92 92 100

% Bioregions > 15% 100 73 91 82 82 100

Net Economic Returns ($/yr) -$62,108,996 -$3,575,532 -$35,494,873 -$36,670,230 -$32,820,893 -$91,242,263


Landscape Futures Analyses


Landscape Futures

• S0 – Baseline

• S1 – Mild Warming/Drying

• S2 – Moderate Warming/Drying

• S3 – Severe Warming/Drying

• S4 – Mild Warming/Wetting


Biophysical and Economic Impacts and Trade-Offs

S4 S0 S1 S2 S3

Go Anywhere

Cheapest

Best forBiodiversity

Best for NRM

Most CostEffective

SustainabilityIdeal


Socio-EconomicImpacts

• Input-Output & Demographic Analysis

• Indicators include:• Contribution to Gross Regional

Product• Employment• Household income• Population Migration

Employment

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Fu

ll T

ime

Eq

uiv

alen

t

Household Income

0

50

100

150

200

250

Do

llars

(m

illio

ns)

Population

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

No

. of

Per

son

s

Contribution to GRP

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

Do

llars

(m

illio

ns)

Current Random Cheapest Best for Biodiversity Best for NRM Most Cost Effective Sustainability Ideal

Scenario 0 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4

Direct Effects

Flow-on Effects

Flow-on Effects

Direct Effects


Key Messages So Far…

• Regarding regional NRM plans, some targets are:• Very expensive to achieve (e.g. By 2020… increase vegetation cover by 1% in the agricultural

region)

• Impossible to achieve (e.g. Reduce recharge by improving dryland water use efficiency by 70% across the region by 2020).

• Already achieved (e.g. By 2020 to have constrained the area of salt affected land within the region to 120,000 ha).

• Too vaguely specified to address• Difficult to monitor or assess• Unlikely to achieve aspirational sustainability targets

• Regional planning for NRM should:• Be founded in landscape scale biophysical science, economics, and social

science• Establish quantitative and evidence-based targets likely to achieve long-term

sustainability• Be spatially explicit and use rich spatio-temporal information• Utilise concepts of risk, cost, benefit, and priority-setting• Use decision theory and multiple criteria planning principles• Understand and be robust to uncertainty

• Be forward thinking and anticipate future change, surprises, shocks


Key Messages So Far...

• Analysis of landscape futures:

• The location and type of actions profoundly affects the costs and benefits of achieving targets

• Smart spatial prioritisation of investment can capitalise on multiple benefits and economic returns of NRM actions

• Policy choices are at least as influential on landscape futures as external drivers (climate change, technology, commodity prices)

• Widespread adoption of NRM actions can have a strong effect on the regional economy and population

• Achieving targets is costly but economic drivers can dramatically decrease the cost of achieving regional targets

• New industries such as biomass, biofuels, & carbon trading may be economically viable in some areas and can contribute significantly to regional targets

• Carbon trading and biomass production may offer more resilient production systems than traditional agriculture


Conclusion

• Natural resource management:• Is expensive and difficult to motivate on a large scale• Regional plans direct regional investment in NRM actions• Potential to have long-lasting impacts on regional environment,

economy, and society • Often, the impacts of widespread NRM actions are unknown

• Analysis of landscape futures enables:• Informed, evidence-based evaluation of regional planning• Quantification of triple-bottom-line impacts of targets• Spatial targeting of NRM actions• Ex-ante (“beforehand”) policy analysis• Estimation of future impacts of external climate and market drivers • Comparison of trade-offs

• Remaining challenges for the LMLF Project• Communication, adoption, and impact

Thank you

CSIRO Land and WaterDr Neville CrossmanResearch Scientist

Phone: +61 8 8303 8663Email: [email protected]: www.clw.csiro.au

Contact UsPhone: 1300 363 400 or +61 3 9545 2176

Email: [email protected] Web: www.csiro.au

Land Technologies Alliance: DWLBC (SA) DPI Victoria + PIRVic CSIRO Land and Water University of Adelaide SARDI

Regional NRM Stakeholders: SA MDB NRM Group (SA) Mallee CMA (Vic) Wimmera CMA (Vic) Lower Murray-Darling CMA (NSW) Murray-Darling Basin Commission Lower Murray Tri-State NRM Forum

Water for a Healthy Country

lower murray landscape futures – dryland areas evaluating current nrm targets with policy options...

Documents