Proposal for a Community Based Landscape Rehydration Initiative

By Elly Hanrahan, Freya Phillips National Scholar, UNFCCC, 2022

Executive Summary

Australian landscapes and waterways have suffered heavy degradation due to land clearing, drainage infrastructure, and intensive agricultural practices implemented since colonisation. Landscape rehydration methodologies could offer a holistic solution through simple water-focussed techniques that can increase water availability, carbon sequestration, habitat availability, and resilience to extreme climate events at scale. Currently, misaligned state and territory planning legislation and inadequate funding impede the adoption of landscape rehydration. This policy proposal suggests aligning planning regulations and allocating 20% of the Future Drought Fund to support community co-designed landscape rehydration projects.

Problem Identification

In Australia, water is managed via a complex suite of policy arrangements and statutory authorities. Water itself has become a profitable and cutthroat industry, with some individual water allocations valued at hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars (Harley, 2021). State entities, catchment management authorities, and water retailers are responsible for managing water resources and allocating shares to various users. To prevent the illegal storage of shared resources, legislation has been enacted to prohibit the construction of water holding infrastructure, such as dams, weirs, and water channels (Water Act 2007).

The primary objective of landscape rehydration infrastructure is to slow the downstream movement of water to enable the surrounding landscape to effectively utilise it. The structures implemented to achieve this have the additional benefit of capturing sediments to create a fertile bed for vegetation, promote habitat and increase carbon sequestration (Peel, et al., 2022). However, complex water policies have hindered the implementation of rehydration projects, as any works on waterways require lengthy and costly approvals (Connor, personal communication, January 16, 2023). These barriers have been challenging for land managers and not-for-profit organisations to overcome individually.

Therefore, a landscape rehydration policy aimed at implementing community-co-designed rehydration projects in an inclusive, cross-tenure manner is crucial to achieving large-scale rehydration strategies in such a complex, policy-heavy environment. Catchment-scale rehydration projects have been proven to be effective, and it is essential that the projects are designed to cross fence lines and governmental borders and have widespread community support in these degraded areas (Peel et. al., 2019).

Context:

In 2023, the impacts of anthropogenic climate change are increasingly evident across the globe, with unprecedented droughts, wildfires, floods, and storms (Head et al., 2021; IPCC, 2021; WMO, 2021; NOAA, 2021). There is a pressing need to address both the adaptation required to cope with these impacts and the mitigation of further global warming, as the opportunity to act is rapidly dwindling. The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) has highlighted that limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is impossible without "a root-and-branch transformation of our economies and societies" (UNEP, 2022).

Internationally, Nature Based Solutions (NBS) are being increasingly implemented as holistic techniques able to address both the mitigation and climate adaptation needs of communities. Examples of NBSs include sustainable agriculture and agroforestry, wetland restoration, and forest landscape restoration. (World Bank, 2022). Given Australia's unique water landscape, there is an opportunity for the implementation of Nature Based Solutions (NBS) to address the degradation of these natural water systems and build resilience to the increasingly variable climate (World Bank, 2022).

Australia's water systems were previously characterised by a wealth of swamps, wetlands, and sluggish watercourses, which evolved to store large amounts of water in soil and underground aquifers to withstand long droughts (Wassens, 2016). However, since colonisation, these natural water systems have been severely disrupted by land clearance, water channelling, dam construction, and irrigation via aquifers to accommodate agricultural practices (Williams et al., 2018; Jolly et al., 2017), leading to widespread degradation and depletion of water storage, rendering landscapes more vulnerable to flood and fire risks that are common today (Wilson et al., 2019).

Where water is abundant in the landscape, large amounts of water enter the lower atmosphere through evapotranspiration processes; increasing relative humidity, which acts as an efficient buffer against extreme temperatures and lowers flammability. (Shuttleworth, 2012). The increased moisture in the atmosphere from evapotranspiration forms atmospheric rivers, which can draw cloud cover inland, increasing precipitation in regions that would otherwise be arid. Therefore, the cooling of the lower atmosphere due to evapotranspiration and the subsequent formation of atmospheric rivers can have significant impacts on precipitation patterns and water availability in affected regions (Ralph et. al., 2018).

Water management is not a new concept in Australia. Traditional custodians have played an essential role in managing valuable water resources for millennia (Gammage, 2011; Pascoe, 2014). Over time, indigenous populations across the continent employed various techniques, which were documented haphazardly by some of the earliest colonial accounts, to manage water on macro and micro scales (Gammage, 2011; Pascoe, 2014). Examples of these water management techniques include the introduction of ‘snags’, fish traps and the protection of waterways from wildfires through carefully applied traditional fire techniques (Gamage, 2011).

The proposed rehydration methodology involves reintroducing these traditional techniques, along with other holistic practices, such as those included in the Natural Sequence Farming (NSF) suite of practices; one of the few agricultural methodologies certified as sustainable by the United Nations (UNESCO, n.d.). The methodology offers a holistic solution to restore Australia's water systems, increase soil moisture, and provide a microclimate buffer against climate extremes, such as flooding, drought, and extensive bushfires. However, the implementation of such a methodology in Australia requires overcoming several obstacles, including a complicated existing water policy landscape and constructively engaging with conflicting stakeholder perspectives.

Policy Background

The regulatory framework surrounding landscape rehydration works varies greatly among the Australian states and territories. A preliminary review of planning regulations undertaken for the development of a policy proposal revealed most states and territories have implemented legislation prohibiting such works, however the specific wordings, definitions, permit requirements, and available exemptions differ considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

For instance, in Victoria, Section 75A of the Water Act 1989 prohibits any obstruction of or interference with a waterway, with compliance powers delegated to water corporations, commonly known as Catchment Management Authorities. However, each of the ten delegated water corporations applies different costs and fee structures to the process of obtaining works on waterways permits. For example, the Wimmera CMA does not impose any fees for obtaining a permit, whereas Goulburn Murray Water charges a permit fee of $1530 plus an inspection fee of $610 for the same process (Waterways and Catchment Protection Authority, n.d.; Goulburn-Murray Water, 2022)

In Queensland, the Water Act 2000 requires land managers to obtain a Riverine Protection Permit if they intend to “place fill in a watercourse, lake, or spring,” free of charge. Nonetheless, the Act provides certain exemptions for specified entities, such as community groups engaging in natural resource management, catchment management, or landcare, subject to additional requirements and conditions.

Similarly, in New South Wales, the installation and operation of instream structures are classified as a Key Threatening Process under the Fisheries Management Act 1994, which prohibits such activities. However, in 2021, the New South Wales government amended Section 25A of the State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021, which now exempts landscape rehydration infrastructure works from requiring a permit if specific conditions are met. These works are defined as “involving the placement of permeable structures on the bed of a stream to reduce erosion and maintain or restore flows for ecological purposes, excluding works designed to impound water or impede the passage of fish”. This policy only applies to land in certain zones, including RU1 Primary Production, RU2 Rural Landscape, and RU4 Primary Production Small Lots.

It is worth noting that New South Wales is currently the only jurisdiction that has created legislation explicitly allowing the implementation of landscape rehydration works.

Policy Recommendations

The following recommendations aim to tackle the complex policy landscape that hinders the widespread adoption of landscape rehydration projects. The policy proposes two recommendations. First, the federal government should review state planning regulations to assist states and territories in allowing landscape rehydration works. Second, the Australian government should support states and territories to implement large landscape rehydration projects by allocating 20% of the federal Future Drought Fund (FDF) to support catchment-scale, community co-designed landscape rehydration projects.

Policy Recommendation One:

The Australian federal government should undertake a comprehensive review aimed at supporting states and territories in aligning their planning regulations to facilitate landscape rehydration initiatives.

In order to take advantage of the holistic opportunity which rehydration methodologies offer, states must simplify and explicitly allow rehydration projects and the infrastructure associated in planning legislation. It is recommended the federal government conduct a national review to identify barriers to implementing landscape rehydration methodologies due to planning legislation and recommend pathways forward. This will enable the development of strategies to align state and territory approaches to landscape rehydration interventions.

To implement this policy recommendation, the federal government should establish a taskforce composed of experts from relevant departments, such as the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts. The taskforce should conduct a comprehensive national review, working alongside state and territory planning departments to identify the existing barriers and opportunities for implementing landscape rehydration methodologies due to planning legislation. Based on the review's findings, the taskforce should develop recommendations and strategies for overcoming these barriers and creating a streamlined, nationally consistent approach to allowing, or even encouraging, the implementation of landscape rehydration interventions.

To ensure the success of the taskforce, it is recommended that it be allocated a budget to cover its expenses, including staff salaries, travel and accommodation expenses, and any consultant or expert fees. The Australian government's ACNC review provides a relative indication of costs, with a budget of $259,000 allocated for expenses (Department of Social Services, 2018). The implementation of this recommendation will require collaboration and coordination between federal, state, and territory governments to ensure its success.

Policy Recommendation Two:

The Australian government should incentivise catchment scale, community co-designed landscape rehydration initiatives through the allocation of 20% of the federal Future Drought Fund

The implementation of a community-focused approach to landscape rehydration is justified by the complexity of the water industry and the presence of conflicting stakeholder perspectives. The water industry is a complex, multi-faceted system that involves a range of stakeholders, including government agencies, landowners, farmers, and traditional custodians. These stakeholders have different interests, priorities, and values, which can lead to conflicts when it comes to water management and use.

Water management is subject to various laws, regulations, and policies that can create barriers and challenges to implementing landscape rehydration projects. These regulations can also be subject to different interpretations by different stakeholders, leading to further conflict. By adopting a community-focused approach to landscape rehydration, these complex issues can be addressed in a way that prioritises the needs and interests of local communities. A community-focused approach can help to build trust, encourage collaboration, and ensure that the voices of all stakeholders are heard and valued.

Furthermore, community-focused projects can help to build local capacity and knowledge, which would lead to more effective and sustainable water management practices over the long term. By involving local communities in the design, planning, and implementation of landscape rehydration projects, we can ensure that the projects are tailored to the needs and priorities of the community. This can help to build a sense of ownership and investment in the project, leading to greater success and sustainability over time.

Despite the clear benefits, large catchment-scale projects have not had much interest or uptake in the wider community. A common mechanism utilised by governments is to stimulate development of desirable projects through making funding available for projects which meet a certain set of criteria.

The Federal Future Drought Fund is a $5 billion fund, committing $100 million annually towards cultivating "drought resilience in Australia's agriculture sector, the agricultural landscape, and communities" (Australian Department of Agriculture, Farming, and Fisheries, 2023). According to the Fund’s website, the fund has focused on investing in research, on-farm education and training programs, developing digital platforms, and trialling on-ground practices since 2020 (Australian Department of Agriculture, Farming, and Fisheries, 2023).

Applications for landscape rehydration projects would already satisfy all three of the fund's strategic objectives, which include:1. economic resilience for an innovative and profitable agriculture sector2. environmental resilience for sustainable and improved functioning of farming landscapes3. social resilience for resourceful and adaptable communities

Applications for Landscape Rehydration projects would also satisfy three FDF goals, which aim to:1. grow the self-reliance and performance (productivity and profitability) of the agricultural sector2. improve the natural capital of agricultural landscapes for better environmental outcomes3. strengthen the wellbeing and social capital of rural, regional and remote communities

However, no landscape rehydration projects have been funded by the FDF to date (Department of Agriculture, Farming and Fisheries, 2023).

To effectively address drought, it is crucial to tackle the water cycle and restore Australia's water systems. In a similarly complex environment, the community-centred approach of the Victorian Safer Together program’s Community Based Bushfire Management program has had enormous success (Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience, 2022). The program aims to build resilience in high risk communities as well as develop strong relationships between community leaders and fire agencies (Sutton et. al., 2016). The program achieves this by building strong, grass roots relationships with community leaders, co-designing resilience building strategies, and linking communities with agency decision makers, resources and information.

The Community-Based Rehydration Strategy developed for this policy proposal was inspired by this way of working. The proposed strategy involves a collaborative approach where facilitators will work alongside the community to assist them to achieve their objectives and implement their own plans for rehydrating the local landscape. The facilitators would collaborate closely with the community to understand their needs, aspirations, and vision for the future of the landscape. Together, they would develop a comprehensive plan that takes into account the unique characteristics of the area, including its topography, soil, and water resources. The facilitators would provide technical expertise, training, and resources to help the community implement their plan, and will work to ensure that the project is sustainable in the long-term.

State and territory implementation of this strategy would also ensure effective, community oriented collaboration between public and private land managers. Consequently, it is recommended that 20% of the Future Drought Fund be exclusively allocated to support the implementation of large-scale rehydration projects. The eligibility criteria for this funding should prioritise:

1. Strong leadership and high levels of engagement from First Nations groups

2. Engagement and implementation across different land tenures

3. Collaboration between communities and the government

By prioritising strong engagement and leadership from First Nations groups, engagement and implementation across different tenures, and collaboration between communities and the government, this funding can be utilised to create large-scale rehydration projects.

The most crucial part of the strategy is the employment of a full-time community facilitator per identified rehydration ‘zone’ to help the community design and implement cross-tenure, community-focused landscape rehydration projects. This community-based approach can help overcome departmental barriers and hurdles, involve traditional custodian groups, pool private and public resources, and work with all stakeholders to design bespoke rehydration projects that achieve the community's goals for their surrounding landscape. An overview of the timing and indicative costs can be found in the table below:

Limitations and Barriers

Landscape rehydration is a critical approach for restoring degraded landscapes and enhancing the resilience of ecosystems. However, the implementation of landscape rehydration techniques is not without its challenges. This policy has been devised to overcome the primary barriers of policy and funding which are critical in the success of widespread implementation. However other barriers identified included technical challenges, financial interests, land tenure issues, social and cultural barriers, and climate change impacts. Effective implementation of the state-based Landscape Rehydration Implementation Strategy may also assist in overcoming the land-tenure and sociocultural barriers.

Understanding all potential barriers is crucial for developing effective strategies to overcome them and promoting the widespread adoption of landscape rehydration techniques. The following will briefly explore each of these challenge areas.

Technical challenges: 

The implementation of landscape rehydration techniques requires technical expertise and knowledge, which may not be available to all land managers and organisations. This can limit the uptake of rehydration techniques in certain areas. A possible solution for overcoming this limitation would be to provide training and education opportunities to land managers as well as peer-to-peer learning programs to spread the availability of technical skills.

Financial interests in water allocations: 

The implementation of landscape rehydration projects may be limited by the financial interests of those who own water allocations or have the right to access water resources. For example, farmers or businesses may prioritise their own financial interests over the long-term benefits of rehydration projects, leading to limited collaboration opportunities or active lobbying to protect existing interests. Financial incentives such as subsidies or tax breaks for participation and collaboration on rehydration initiatives may assist in overcoming these hurdles.

Land tenure issues: 

The implementation of landscape rehydration projects requires cross-tenure collaboration and support from landowners, which may not always be forthcoming. This can limit the scale and effectiveness of rehydration initiatives.

Social and cultural barriers: 

The success of landscape rehydration initiatives also depends on the participation and engagement of local communities. Social and cultural barriers, such as lack of trust and communication breakdowns, can limit community engagement and hinder the success of rehydration projects.

Climate change impacts:

Weather extremes associated with climate change can also pose significant challenges to landscape rehydration initiatives. Extreme weather events, such as floods and droughts, can damage rehydration works and reduce their effectiveness. A potential way to mitigate the negative impact extreme weather may have on the projects would be to integrate adaptive management strategies into the project designs. This way, projects could be more easily pivoted when new information arises or unexpected changes in the landscape occur.

Conclusion

Landscape rehydration offers a holistic solution to begin the reparation of Australian landscapes and waterways. However, misaligned state planning legislation and a lack of available funding are impeding the widespread uptake of this methodology. A community-based rehydration policy that prioritises cross-tenure, catchment-scale, community co-designed projects is recommended. Such projects are potentially the only way large-scale rehydration strategies could be implemented in a complex, policy-heavy environment.

The urgency of climate change requires root-and-branch transformation of economies and societies. Nature-based solutions, such as landscape rehydration, are being increasingly implemented globally as techniques able to address both the mitigation and climate adaptation needs of communities. Ultimately, landscape rehydration has the potential to increase local water availability, carbon sequestration, habitat availability, and build resilience into landscapes to buffer extreme climate events, thus contributing to the long-term health of Australia's water systems and the communities that depend on them.

References

Australian Institute for Disaster Resilience. (2022). Resilient Australia National Awards 2022. Retrieved from https://www.aidr.org.au/resources/resilient-australia-national-awards-2022/ 

Bill Gammage. (2011). The Greatest Estate on Earth: How Aborigines Made Australia. Allen & Unwin. 

Callow, J.N. (2007). River response to land clearing and landscape salinisation in southwestern Australia. [Honours thesis, University of Western Australia]. 

Connor, T. (personal communication, January 16 2023) 

Ellison, D., Morris, E., Locatelli, B., Shel, D., Cohen, J., Murdiyarso, D., Gutierrez, V., Van Noordwijk, M., Creed, I., Pokorny, J., Gaveau, D., Spracken, D., Bargues Tobella, A., Ilstedt, U., Teuling, A.J., Gebrehiwot, S.G., Sands, D.C., Muys, B., Verbist, B., Springgay, E., Sullivan, C., (2017). Trees, forests and water: Cool insights for a hot world. Global Environmental Change, 43, 51-61 

Department of Agriculture, Farming and Fisheries (2023) Future Drought Fund. [webpage: https://www.agriculture.gov.au/agriculture-land/farm-food-drought/drought/future-drought-fund ] 

Department of Social Services. (2018). Review of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission: Final report. Australian Government. 

https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/06_2018/ACNC_Review_Final_Report.pdf 

Goulburn-Murray Water. (2022). GMW pricing table 2022. Retrieved March 21, 2023, from https://www.gmwater.com.au/downloads/gmw/Pricing_List/20220525_Form_GMW_Pricing_Tab le_2022.pdf 

Harley, R. (2021, June 6). The ebbs and flows of the water market explained. The Financial Review 15

Head, L., Adams, M., McGregor, H. V. & Toole, S. (2014). Climate change and Australia. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: WIREs Climate Change, 5 (2), 175-197. 

Infrastructure by-law 2018: Tasmanian Government. (2018). Infrastructure By-law 2018. https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/html/2018-07-01/act-2018-021 

IPCC. (2021). Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/ 

Jolly, I., Williamson, D. R., & Franks, A. J. (2017). The impact of land-use change on catchment hydrology in large catchments: The Comet River, Central Queensland, Australia. Journal of Hydrology, 553, 760-774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.08.039 

Makarieva, A.M., Gorshkov, V.G. (2007). Biotic pump of atmospheric moisture as a driver of hydrological cycle on land. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 11 (2) 

NOAA. (2021). Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters: Overview. National Centers for Environmental Information. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/overview 

Peel, L., Hazell, P., Bernardi, T., Dovers, S., Freudenberger, D., Hall, C., Hazell, D., Jehne, W., Moore, L., Nairn, G. (2022). The Mulloon Rehydration Initiative: The project’s establishment and monitoring framework. Ecological Management and Restoration, 23 (1) 

Pielke, R.A., Niyogi, D. (2009). The Role of Landscape Processes within the Climate System. Landform - Structure, Evolution, Process control, 67-85 

Pascoe, B. (2014). Dark emu: Aboriginal Australia and the birth of agriculture. Magabala Books. 

Peel, M.C., Taylor, M.P., and McMahon, T.A. (2019). “Effective Design and Implementation of Catchment-Scale Landscape Rehydration Projects.” Frontiers in Environmental Science 7: 64. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2019.00064. 

Shuttleworth, W. J. (2012). Terrestrial hydrometeorology. John Wiley & Sons 16

Ralph, M., Dettinger, M., Lavers, D., & Meyers, M. (2018). Atmospheric Rivers: A Critical Link in the Global Water Cycle. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 99(3), 489-498. doi: 10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0262.1 

Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914: Western Australian Government. (1914). Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914. https://www.legislation.wa.gov.au/legislation/prod/filestore.nsf/FileURL/mrdoc_1877.htm/$FILE/ Rights%20in%20Water%20and%20Irrigation%20Act%201914%20-%20%5B00-00-01%5D.pdf?Ope nElement 

Smith, S. (2019, September 25). Government inquiries: What they cost and how to do them right. The Mandarin. https://www.themandarin.com.au/120983-government-inquiries-what-they-cost-and-how-to-do-t hem-right/ 

State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021: NSW Government. (2021). State Environmental Planning Policy (Transport and Infrastructure) 2021. https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/asmade/act-2021-002 

Sutton, P., & Urquhart, C. (2016). Safer together: A program to improve community safety from bushfire in Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 16, 123-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.02.003 

UNESCO. (n.d.). Natural sequence farming. Retrieved from http://www.unesco.org.au/natural-sequence-farming/ 

United Nations Environment Programme (2022). Emissions Gap Report 2022. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2022 

United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative. (n.d.). Members. Retrieved from https://www.unepfi.org/members/ 

Wassens, S. (2016). Historical transformation of the wetland landscapes of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 24(3), 207-227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-016-9476-4 

Water Act 1989: Victorian Government. (1989). Water Act 1989. https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/acts/water-act-1989/102 

Water Act 1992: Northern Territory Government. (1992). Water Act 1992. https://legislation.nt.gov.au/Legislation/WATER-ACT-1992 

Water Act 2000: Queensland Government. (2000). Water Act 2000. https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/inforce/2000-12-15/act-2000-070 Water Act 2007 (Cth). https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2021C00539 

Water Resources Act 2007: Queensland Government. (2007). Water Resources Act 2007. https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/pdf/inforce/2007-08-31/act-2007-047 

Waterways and Catchment Protection Authority. (n.d.). Works on Waterways: Advice and Services. Retrieved March 21, 2023, from https://wcma.vic.gov.au/advice-and-services/works-on-waterways 

Williams, J., & Cook, P. (2018). The use of groundwater in Australia: past, present and future. Hydrogeology Journal, 26(3), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-017-1705-5 

Wilson, P., Pittock, J., & Cai, W. (2019). How natural and anthropogenic factors contribute to the hydrological droughts in southeastern Australia. Water Resources Research, 55(2), 961-980. doi: 10.1029/2018WR023427 

WMO. (2021). State of the Global Climate 2020. World Meteorological Organization. https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/library/state-of-global-climate-2020 

World Bank (2022). What You Need to Know About Nature-Based Solutions to Climate change [report] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2022/05/19/what-you-need-to-know-about-nature -based-solutions-to-climate-change