The Victorian Government has just released a report “Inquiry into Improving Access to Victorian Public Sector Information and Data“.

The terms of rerference for the inquiry were to

“consider and report to Parliament on the potential application of open content and open source licensing to Victorian Government information”, in particular:

“report on the potential economic benefits and costs to Victoria of maximising access to and use of Government information for
commercial and/or non-commercial purposes….consider whether the use of open source and open content licensing models, including Creative Commons, would enhance the discovery, access and use of Government information… report on the use of information and communication technology to support discovery, access and use of Government information …identify likely risks, impediments and restrictions to open content and open source licensing of Government information”

The Committee has proposed three key recommendations for access to and re-use of Government information.

1) that the Victorian Government develop an Information Management Framework … The default position of the framework should be that all information produced by Victorian Government departments from now on be made available at no or marginal cost.

2) that the Victorian Government make use of the Creative Commons licensing model … for up to 85 per cent of government information and data…. Remaining Victorian Government PSI should either not be released, or released under licences tailored specifically for restricted materials.

3) that the Victorian Government establish an on-line directory, where the public can search for and obtain information… held by the Victorian Government. …people will be able to download information and data directly, or make contact with people in the Victorian Government to discuss access conditions.

The Victoria Government has been a bit of a leader is putting its government data in an online environment, with initiatives such as the Victorian Water Resources Data Warehouse and Victorian Resources Online.

The Federal Government is also getting interested in what can be loosely called “Open Government”, in my view thanks to the terrific effort that Kate Lundy is doing to raise the issues and encourage the debate. The Government has recently announced a taskforce to explore Open Government. There is a small amount of funding available from this taskforce:

“The taskforce won’t just be dishing out advice, but will be distributing funds from a $2.45 million pool to support the development of web 2.0 tools and applications which enable engagement between the government and community or support use of government information. The grants will either be in the form of funding for pilots and projects or in the form of prizes for innovative applications…. Those hoping to obtain funds don’t apply directly, but participate in competitions seeking ideas and designs for consideration.”

Government data belongs to the community and citizens in my view, and like the Victorian Government, I believe “The default position… should be that all information produced…. from now on be made available at no or marginal cost”

Written by Paul Dalby on 24 June 2009

This is a blog-post based on an article about ‘water neutrality’ in the journal Conservation Letters.  The article references the term water neutrality as an idea proposed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002.  The concept is similar to the idea of carbon credits in that it seeks to create a cap on resource use. If someone takes water out of the system, they should take steps to make sure water is put back into the system from another source. Private water users balance their water account through both demand- and supply-side interventions.

The paper describes a scheme in South Africa which sets out to harness private sector investment in water security, “by allowing investors to balance quantitatively their water account based on sound scientific rationale.”

A three-step process is established:

1. reviewing water usage,

2. implementing a reduction strategy,

3. replenish of water to hydrological systems.

In South Africa, private water users can invest in removing weedy plants in the watershed that have a high water demand. By removing these weeds, private water users can “put back” water into the system that is  equivalent to their own water usage. Such a model opens up other clever ideas and will create a market for people who might sell water that they have been able to ‘create’ to those who wish to expand their water use. The trial presents an operational model for the promotion of a water-neutral market in South Africa.

In Australia, rural water users can trade water licenses across a 1 million km2  in the Murray Darling Basin, albeit in an environment where too many water licenses were handed out in the first place. Farmers trade water between each other. As water becomes scarce, some farmers are willing to pay a higher price for water, which attracts other farmers to sell or lease their water. Water trade also occurs between the city and the rural areas – that is, water utilities in the city are able to buy water licenses from farmers further back up the catchment. Another way water is sourced from the watershed is to shut down wetlands – removing their water so that the wetland system dies out, replaced by a terrestrial ecosystem. All of these decisions are made centrally by government and water utilities. Could Australia set up a system that allowed individuals and entrepreneurs to both find water savings and sell them, not just in the watershed, but in cities themselves? Professor Mike Young, Executive Director of the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide has suggested the concept of water neutrality for cities using a different set of language to describe the same thing – a cap on water use in urban areas.

The water neutrality concept could be expanded to allow individual companies, local councils, and government agencies to find new water sources and trade them back into the system. This would require the water network to be opened up to third party suppliers who may be able to supply water from water recycling schemes, local, small scale desalination plants and rainwater harvesting (with quality assurance and the core infrastructure provided by government for an access fee).

In an environment where we have reached the limit of the water resource for human consumption in many areas across the globe, we need to create new institutional frameworks to allow economic growth to continue under conditions of resource constraint. The water neutrality concept, or establishing a cap on net water extractions from a watershed, is an example of a policy setting that allows us to protect our resource base, but encourages everyone to find better and more efficient ways of utilising the available resource.

Written by Paul Dalby on 21 June 2009

I’m resyndicating a blog post by Tim Kelly on Barry Brook’s “Brave New Climate” blog about Australia’s renewable energy policy. To quote the gist of Tim’s point:

“From June 9, 2009 when a householder is seduced into signing across Solar Credits associated with their small scale Solar, Wind or Hydro generation schemes, they will continue to reduce their emissions yet for every deemed megawatt hour (MWh) created, they will displace 5 MWh of accredited Renewable Energy already required under Australian Law. They will be causing a net 4 MWh to be continued to be produced from fossil fuel sources and therefore will cause more greenhouse gas emissions and do more harm to the environment than doing nothing.”

This is the sort of outcome only a cross-agency government committee can come up with. There is enormous goodwill in the Australian population to contribute to lowering carbon emissions. The current policy is either cynically taking advantage of that goodwill, or the committee has become so bound up in the complex issues it has to address, that it has invented a camel when it meant to invent a horse.

A different approach would be to replace the GST with a carbon tax. This could be cost neutral to the Australian economy (in terms of net tax collected – there would obviously be significant costs in shifting policies over), would not unfairly disadvantage our exporters (no carbon tax on exports) and would encourage Australians to buy and manufacture low carbon products. Over time, one would expect that the economy would shift to a lower carbon economy – which would mean the price of carbon would have to rise to maintain the taxation base to the government. There is some brief discussion about this idea here and here.

Written by Paul Dalby on 14 June 2009

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has just released results from a survey of agricultural land management practices undertaken in 2007/08.

54% of Australia’s total land area was managed by agricultural businesses – Tasmania the smallest  (23%)  Queensland the largest (82%). Grazing land accounted for 87% of land managed by agricultural businesses, 8% for cropping and 2% was set aside for conservation.

The most common land management practices undertaken were surface water management (74%), application of fertiliser (62%) and monitoring ground cover in paddocks (54%).

66% of all agricultural businesses reported having native vegetation on their properties, more than half reported rivers or creeks and wetlands were reported by 10% of all agricultural businesses. About half of all agricultural businesses that had such ecological assets on their property reported that they were protecting them.

Nationally 17 million hectares was prepared using zero-till compared with 9 million hectares prepared using one or more cultivation passes. Of all agricultural businesses managing crop residue, the main crop residue management practices undertaken were to leave stubble intact (43%), removal of crop residue by baling or heavy grazing (34%) and ploughing crop residue into the soil (33%). These management practices were used on 90% of all land managed for crop residue in 2007-08.

Of agricultural businesses grazing livestock on crops or pasture, 69% monitor the amount of ground cover in paddocks and 57% of these have established a minimum ground cover level target. By far the most common method undertaken by agricultural businesses for monitoring ground cover was visual estimates, with 96% reporting using this method. This proportion was generally reflected in all states except the Northern Territory where 17% reported using photo monitoring standards (comparison with photos of known ground cover levels) to monitor ground cover.

Is the glass half full or half empty?

On the one hand, this survey does suggest the billions of dollars spent on natural resource management and engagement of farmers in conservation has has an impact, but there are still half of all agricultural businesses in Australia who do not see that protecting ecological assets is part of their business and a similar proportion who are leaving their soils at risk to erosion. While I could not find a comparable earlier survey by the ABS, when I think back to the 1980’s, this survey suggests that there has been a major shift towards improvements in agricultural land management practices. However, there is still plenty of room for improvement. Failure to protect natural resources now such as soil, native vegetation and water will disadvantage the ability of future generations to enjoy the productive benefits of Australia’s agricultural lands.

Do we need to invent a “Landcare” for the 21st Century that picks up the other 50% of landholders and taps into the latest in science and technology? Is the current dry period across southern Australia an impediment to change, or a catalyst?

Written by Paul Dalby on 12 June 2009

Many people have been asking for the video from the launch of the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide.

Written by Paul Dalby on 6 June 2009

Thanks so much to Robyn Williams for speaking at the Environment Insitute Launch last night. Professor Williams is an eloquant speaker and just quietly has some interesting theories on where laywers come from. Also thanks to The Hon Jay Weatherill, Minister for Environment and Heritage in South Australia for launching the Institute, and Mark Butler MP, Federal Member for Port Adelaide who is an obvious candidate for Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change.

#environmentinst

Written by Paul Dalby on 5 June 2009

Steve Collin’s blog post expands on the article I pointed to recently from Lavartus Prodeo on the use of Web 2.0 by politicians and government (Thanks to Penny Sharpe for pointing me to both articles). Steve makes the same point I made in response to the Lavartus Prodeo blog post, which is that the real opportunity for social networking in a democracy is to link the public servants to the public.  My particular beef is about making government data available freely online, both in raw form, and interpreted from the view of government. But there is so much more that could be achieved, so much more richness in terms of conservation and interaction. I’d be very keen to hear from people in the public service about their views on this.

Written by Paul Dalby on 26 May 2009

I enjoyed reading this well researched Climate Progress blog post regarding the proposed Clean Energy Bank  in the US.

“Last week House Energy and Commerce members approved by 51-6 an amendment to the Waxman-Markey bill offered by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) to create a clean energy bank .  As Greenwire explained, the amendment would “create an autonomous Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) within the Energy Department” that would “provide a suite of financing options, including direct loans, letters of credit, loan guarantees, insurance products and others” for “energy production, transmission, storage and other areas that could reduce greenhouse gases, diversify energy supplies and save energy.”

At the same time as investment in clean technology increases around the world, investment in oil exploration is falling,which may lead to another oil price spike in the medium term.

“…Oil firms must work doubly hard to replace declining fields and to increase output. Yet the oil industry is short of equipment and manpower, thanks to underinvestment in the 1980s and 1990s, when prices were low. As soon as the world economy starts growing again, the theory runs, demand for oil will once again outstrip the industry’s ability to supply it. In other words, the global recession has only interrupted the “supercycle” of which many analysts used to speak, during which the normal boom-and-bust cycle of oil and other commodities would give way to a protracted period of high prices, as ever-growing demand from emerging markets swallowed everything the extractive industries could produce.”

Where does this leave Australia? Weak and vulnerable in my view. The recent Federal Budget was analysed by Professor Barry Brook from the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide. There is little cheer in the budget for entrepreneurs in the clean energy game according to Barry’s analysis, particularly in relation to the flawed design and inadequate targets of the CPRS. And Australia is an economy heavily reliant on energy. It’s a big place with relatively few people, extreme climates, and all of our capaital cities will be reliant on energy-hungry desalination for their water supplies. We are rich in coal, but produce only 60% of our oil consumption, so we rely on imported oil and petroleum products. A spike in energy prices will result in pressure on Australia’s economy, and leave us reliant on imported technology to meet renewable energy targets and needs, much like we rely on imported desalination technology.

I would add a note of optimism. The changes to the research and development (R&D) tax credit scheme will “double the level of assistance currently available to small companies and remove the cap on the amount of R&D expenditure subject to a tax credit. Large companies with more than $20 million annual turnover will receive a 40% R&D tax credit instead of tax deductions, which is a 10% net – benefit – one third higher than the current regime.  Small companies will receive a 45% R&D tax credit, which amounts to a 15% benefit – twice the current level.  Small companies with tax losses will be able to ‘cash out’ their R&D credit when they file their income tax return.”

As a modest investor in commercial R&D myself, this is a great incentive, and one that the Rudd government should be applauded for. Let’s hope it stimulates Australian businesses and entrepreneurs to invest in clean energy. More targeted approaches, such as a national feed in tariff, and a redesigned CPRS system along the lines suggested by Professor Brook would be even better. An increase in oil price would be a much more economically damaging driver of investment by Australian researchers and entrepreneurs in clean energy solutions. A Clean Energy Bank for Australia would be visionary.

Written by Paul Dalby on 24 May 2009

Responding to Trev’s comment in the Larvatus Prodeo blog, what you have described is about politicking, which is valuable in its own right. What I am interested in is allowing the same sort of interaction between public servants and the broader community in policy development. I think in New Zealand, the new Police Act was developed through a public wiki. But from what I can work out, In Australia politicians are making use of social media because they get benefit from it, but are blocking public servant access to it. As someone who would like to contribute from the outside to policy development, I am frustrated that government agencies cannot interact with the outside world except through the government’s media office. This is stifling the flow of ideas and information, and limiting democratic input into policy development. Most government departments block all social networking tools. This is such a shame, but seems to be driven from the desperate need by the politicians to control their message.

Was made aware of these websites by tweets from the Whitehouse.

http://www.data.gov/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/innovations/

President Obama is the first world leader to really ‘get’ the power of online social networks. These initiatives aim to put government data online (that’s right, ‘other’ people will be able to download it and ‘misinterpret’ it ), and champions more open, accountable and transparent government using the web as a tool.

I’m thinking of emigrating.

Written by Paul Dalby on 22 May 2009

Corey Bradshaw from the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide in Australia writes about how climate change is getting all the attention while biodiversity conservation does not.

Biologists like Corey should know that the selection pressure for being able to respond to immediate scary, dangerous things has been much more powerful than the selection pressure for being able to see well into the distance and respond to dangers that will effect populations down the track. Our DNA just isn’t up to the task. A few outliers and individuals who get pleasure and/or income directly from biodiversity conservation might really care, but the general huddled masses who vote people in and out of government do not so much. We might donate money or sign petitions, but we rarely vote governments in and out of power based on their biodiversity conservation policies. We also rarely choose NOT to buy something because of that companies impact on biodiversity (except dolphins and tuna – I give you that). This is not true for climate change. It was not an issue globally until there were heat waves in Europe, unseasonal hurricanes in the US and a long, long dry period in Australia. It is a direct impact that got people scared. The fickle populations who could not give two hoots about climate change the year before voted governments out of power because they were soft of climate change, and now you can buy carbon neutral beer! Seriously – a beverage MADE with carbon dioxide!!

It is not government who are the problem. It is us. Our brain is too interested in the immediate problems of how to survive, get sex and not be bored. Genetic engineering is required if you want lots of interest in biodiversity conservation. Or we need the bees to die out to show us the direct impact of no free services.

Written by Paul Dalby on 20 May 2009

This is a recording from the Indigenous Water Planning Workshop held in Adelaide in February 2009 hosted by the National Water Commission.

The powerpoint slides can be viewed along with the audio recording here:

The presentation describes the intentions of the National Water Initiative for water planning to involve Indigenous people in water planning, and how well or otherwise the states are delivering these intentions. Like many areas of involving Indigenous people in water and natural resources management, success is patchy, and they are an interest group who are often left out of the decision making processes. The states of New South Wales and the Northern Territory seem to be doing the best in terms of involving Indigenous people in water planning, and in South Australia and Western Australia, there seems to be very little involvement at a state level.

Written by Paul Dalby on 20 May 2009

I had the great pleasure of attending the launch of Writing Scientific Research Articles: Strategies and Steps, on 1 May 2009 in the Lirra Lirra Cafe on the Waite Campus. The book has been a labour of love for Margaret Cargill and Patrick O’Connor who have spent many years travelling internationally to give training courses on writing scientific text.

Mike Brookes, Margaret Cargill and Patrick O'Connor at the launch

The speakers at the launch in order are Professor Mike Brooks, Deputy Vice Chancellor (Research) at the University of Adelaide, Margaret Cargill and Patrick O’Connor.

You can buy a copy of the book at amazon.com

Written by Paul Dalby on 4 May 2009

Professor Wayne Meyer from the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide, recently presented a new research program in the University of Adelaide – Landscape Science. It includes an excellent summary of the Natural Resource Management (NRM) governance and delivery structures in Australia and South Australia. Wayne makes a strong case for undertaking integrated landscape science (studying how all the bits of the landscape interact) to develop decision support tools that can be used to assess the cumulative impact of decisions by individuals and government on the landscape.

Written by Paul Dalby on 23 April 2009

The University of Adelaide proposes to develop a part (63ha) of Glenthorne Farm (208ha) in the southern suburbs of Adelaide to establish a Trust Fund to support research and on-ground works for decades to deliver a 100-year restoration project across the Mt Lofty region (in all 150,000ha of agricultural land need to be transformed back to native habitat etc). This is a key initiative addressing the state government’s ‘no species loss’ philosophy. Around 30 staff would be employed, more than half would be research staff. It will benefit terrestrial, freshwater and marine systems (reducing runoff from land) etc. See www.adelaide.edu.au/woodland-recovery/ if you want more details on the University’s proposal.

At present there is a push by two local groups backed by the local media to prevent housing on the Farm. If you support the university’s woodland recovery initiative then please see the web pages below and vote yes to the question proposed. This poll is all about creating a perception that no-one wants the housing or the Woodland Recovery Initiative and its outcome may sway politicians to reject the University’s proposal.

Select “yes” on the Guardian Messenger’s online poll (just under the main headline section) to support the Woodland Recovery Initiative for Glenthorne.

http://guardian-messenger.whereilive.com.au/

Written by Paul Dalby on 22 March 2009

I recently gave an interview to the media outlet “Global Atlanta” on a visit to the United States I made for ICE WaRM. In the interview I talked about how Australia has learned from hard lessons as a result of rapid shifts in climatic conditions, probably as a result of global warming. There are some excellent lessons to be learned for other countries who are at risk from drying and warming – the southern states of the United States of America in particular.

The full article is available at: http://www.globalatlanta.com/article/17131/

Written by Paul Dalby on 3 February 2009

This article from The Australian highlights an important issue about the neutrality of science in policy debates. It can be tempting for scientists to act like politicians and journalists – by spinning all information they come across to reinforce their point of view. I’m not saying Professor Kingsford from ANU necessarily did this by the way – The Australian publishes some woefully biased, anti-science journalism and this could be another example. Nevertheless, on first reading it is not a good look, and perhaps more care should have been taken in the interpretation of the information.

The one strength science has in environmental debates is its neutrality. If scientific input into policy debates becomes based on things other than a dispassionate analysis of data and information, it simply reverts to political debate and loses its special status. It reverts to being just another form of opinion.

We should value, cherish and continue to demand neutrality in scientific interpretation. While the science comunity may be frustrated by the sometimes outrageous twisting of facts, deliberate misinterpretation, or even straight out lying, by journalists and politicians, in the long run, scientists will have the greatest influence in policy debates if they are seen as being scrupulously dispassionate in their scientific interpretation in scientific reports.

Written by Paul Dalby on 12 January 2009

Responding to Andrew Wallace blogpost on Technocracynet, below are links to some blogposts and podcasts on River Murray, mostly focused on the lower reaches of the River which are under extreme stress and at risk of permanent ecological damage.

Rebecca Lester on Coorong and Lower Lakes

Acid Mud in the Lower Lakes

Dan Rogers on Aquatic Birds of the Coorong

A Regional Science Forum for the Lower River Murray (over 20 blog posts and podcasts)

Mike Young on ideas for “future proofing” the Murray Darling Basin

Written by Paul Dalby on 29 October 2008

This story from ABC news on the giant cuttlefish in Spencers Gulf in South Australia which are at threat from a proposed desalination plant and construction of a deep sea port for shipping iron ore out of South Australia.

Written by Paul Dalby on 29 October 2008

Finally we see that the government may ask farmers to demonstrate that they have prepared for dry periods before they will qualify for drought subsidies.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24543889-2702,00.html

All other sectors of the economy (with perhaps the car industry as a notable exception) have had to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to be independent before they qualify for support from the government. Aboriginal families, the unemployed and even state governments through Competition Policy have had quite tough conditions attached to government support.

Economists, agricultural scientists and many farmers urged the previous Federal Government to change the inequitable system of Exceptional Circumstances payments since its inception. It clearly distorts the market and reduces the sustainability of our agricultural sector.

Efficient farmers have been frustrated that inefficient farmers have been rewarded for their lack of preparation by constant government bail-outs when things get tough. This has meant that land has been locked up by poor farmers, restricting the ability of the best farmers to expand their enterprises and become more globally competitive. The policy of Exceptional Circumstances was a rort that damaged Australia’s agricultural industry.

With the threat of climate change, the current model was clearly going to be an economic drain on the country. It is great to see some sense finally prevailing in this important policy area.

Written by Paul Dalby on 24 October 2008

The Wine2030 Conference was held on 30 September 2008. Of particular interest was a presentation by Kym Anderson on the future of grape growing with climate change.

Wine2030 is a research network of the University of Adelaide pursuing a linked series of research projects on wine, alongside a series of education innovations.

You can subscribe to the feed of  Wine2030 Conference – http://feeds.feedburner.com/wine2030 or download individual podcasts from http://www.adelaide.edu.au/wine2030/podcasts/.

Written by Paul Dalby on 23 October 2008

Shawn from Anecdote has some sage advice on understanding your collaborator before you go into a partnership with them. Given the pressure on researchers in particular to collaborate, spending time assessing whether a potential partner is going to be a good match is important.

Written by Paul Dalby on 22 October 2008

Tonight I spoke at a Community Forum hosted by the Save the Gulf Coalition. This well organised and passionate community activist group are concerned about the potential impact of the planned desalination plant at Pt Stanvac in Adelaide on the health of near shore marine environments in the Gulf St Vincent.

At the end of my presentation I asked:

Is diversity of supply for Adelaide important?
Do we need a supply that is independent of climate?
How much risk to human health are we willing to accept?
How much risk to environmental values are we willing to accept?
If the plant can be carbon neutral, is that ok?
How much would we be prepared to pay?

For those of you who attended, what did you think of the talks? What are your key concerns? Do you have information you can add to the debate? What should happen next?

ADD YOUR THOUGHTS BY SUBMITTED A COMMENT OR LINKING YOUR BLOG

Other blogs you might be interested are listed on the right hand side of this webpage.

Some of my references for my talk which have further information are:

Tennille Winter, David J. Pannell and Laura McCann. (2000) The Economics of Desalination and its Potential Application in Australia. Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia
Energy & Equity. Preparing households for climate change: efficiency, equity, immediacy. Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), CHOICE and the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS)

THE FUTURE FOR WATER RECYCLING IN AUSTRALIA’S CITIES AND TOWNS. John C Radcliffe

Colin Creighton, CSIRO
Australian Bureau of Statistics
SA Water

Written by Paul Dalby on 24 September 2008

The Water Industry Alliance hosted the Green Water Forum on 31 July 2008 to explore possible responses by the water industry to the challenges of climate change.

The speakers at the Forum were:

• Tony Priestly (CSIRO) on Energy use in the Water Industry
• Michael Ottaviano (Carnegie Corp) on wind powered water desalination
• Paul Rasmussen (United Water) on increasing energy efficiency in water industry
• Peter Moller (Aquaspy) on how Aquaspy reduces energy use in urban and horticultural irrigation
• Darren Broad (Optimatics) on the use of optimisation to reduce energy use in water industry
• Brett McDonald (Hydrosmart) imagines a new technology to reduce energy use in water treatment
• Linda Zou (UniSA) on reducing energy costs in desalination
• Stephen Clarke (Flinders University) on research capability of Flinders University

Written by Paul Dalby on 29 August 2008

Presentation by Tony Priestly from CSIRO at the Green Water Forum on 31 July 2008 hosted by the Water Industry Alliance.

Written on 24 August 2008 by Paul Dalby