A New Balance

The Salinity Taskforce:Dr Fionnuala Frost (Chair)

Dr Bruce HamiltonMr Michael LloydDr David Pannell

A New BalanceSalinity:

The report of the

Salinity Taskforce established

to review salinity management

in Western Australia

September 2001

The report of the

Salinity Taskforce established

to review salinity management

in Western Australia

September 2001

The Salinity Taskforce:Dr Fionnuala Frost (Chair)

Dr Bruce HamiltonMr Michael LloydDr David Pannell

A New BalanceSalinity:

The Salinity TaskforceDr Fionnuala Frost (Chair)Dr Frost is a rural sociologist and currently works as a private consultant for both Government and the communityand is a lecturer at the University of Western Australia and Curtin University of Technology.

Dr Bruce HamiltonDr Hamilton is the former CEO of the Waterways Commission and is now a private consultant. He has a depth ofexperience in organisational and natural resource management and is currently a board member of GreeningAustralia (Western Australia).

Mr Michael LloydMr Lloyd runs a farm business in Lake Grace. He was a former President of the Western Australian Farmers’Federation wool section, is the founder and inaugural chair of the Saltland Pastures Association, and has had along and continuing involvement in the Landcare movement.

Dr David PannellDr Pannell is an Associate Professor in Agriculture and Resource Economics at the University of Western Australia,and Leader, Economic and Social Assessment Program, Cooperative Research Centre for Plant-BasedManagement of Dryland Salinity.

Salinity: A New Balance 2

This report should be cited as: Frost, F.M., Hamilton, B., Lloyd, M., and Pannell, D.J. (2001). Salinity: A NewBalance, The report of the Salinity Taskforce established to review salinity management in Western Australia, Perth

Simultaneously with its publication in hard copy, this report is being published on the world wide web athttp://www.ministers.wa.gov.au/edwards/features/salinity.htm

From left: Dr David Pannell, Mr Michael Lloyd, Dr Fionnuala Frost and Dr Bruce Hamilton.Photo supplied by the State Salinity Council

Foreword to Minister11 September 2001

Dr Judy Edwards MLAMinister for the Environment and Heritage;Minister with Special Responsibility for Salinity29th Floor, Allendale Square77 St George’s TerracePERTH WA 6000

Dear Minister

Dryland salinity remains one of the most substantial challenges facing the Western Australian community. Recentinformation suggests that even with significant and immediate intervention, groundwater levels will continue to riseuntil well into the future, placing at risk highly valuable public assets, such as biodiversity on public and privateland, rural towns, water supplies and road and rail infrastructure as well as at least four million hectares ofproductive agricultural land.

These projections justify continued concerted and long-term action by Government and the community to addressthe threat of increasing salinity and its impacts. The Taskforce considers that this further action should beinformed both by an agreed Vision of the future Western Australian landscape which recognises that salinity ishere to stay and by an attitude which views salinity as both a threat and an opportunity.

For the most part, the Taskforce endorses the programs and processes already in place across Government andthe community to support salinity management in Western Australia. However, the Taskforce has recommendedan even closer focus and greater investment on strategic activities that will achieve results. In other words, theTaskforce advocates a deliberate shift away from the broad-brush distribution of spreading funds across thelandscape facilitated throughout the Decade of Landcare which, while valuable for its role in catalysing change, isunlikely to contribute significantly to managing salinity.

The salinity problem is serious and so difficult to manage that very careful consideration must be given to theapplication of public and private resources to its management. In particular, the Taskforce has argued forincreased activity to protect public assets (such as biodiversity-rich nature reserves and infrastructure) and for thedevelopment of commercially viable options and industries to assist farmers and regional communities to moreeffectively manage salinity. This will mean a different approach to Government funding involving targeted publicinvestment to promote private action and investment. It should also materially help the Government in negotiatingpartnerships with the Commonwealth Government. The resulting coordinated and visionary approach to jointlydeveloping integrated solutions to salinity should bring considerable benefits to rural communities.

Apart from developing commercially viable options to manage salinity, developing the capacity of individuals andcommunities to respond has also been a central concern of the Taskforce. Therefore the Taskforce has argued forincreased investment to develop new technologies, improve extension and build stronger institutional arrangementsincluding the role of natural resource management regional groups.

The Salinity Taskforce has greatly appreciated the opportunity to ‘take stock’ of the State Government’s currentresponse to salinity in Western Australia. We appreciated the level of enthusiasm within the community tocontribute to the Taskforce’s deliberations. One hundred and forty one written submissions were received andpublic meetings were attended by some 200 people. This level of engagement clearly demonstrates the far-reaching impact of salinity on the lives and businesses of many in the Western Australian community and thegenuine commitment of people to continue looking for solutions and to take action.

The Taskforce has made 94 recommendations to the Government for consideration. While the Taskforce hopesthat its report and recommendations will shape salinity management in Western Australia in the coming years, theTaskforce would also urge the need for periodic review to ensure that the State is responding to new informationand new opportunities as they become available.

On behalf of the Salinity Taskforce I commend our report and recommendations to you.

Yours sincerely

Dr Fionnuala FrostChairSalinity Taskforce

Foreward to Minister 3

Contents

Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................6

Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................7

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 13

2. A New Position on Salinity and its Management ....................................................152.1 Targeted intervention to protect particular public assets 15

2.2 Development of new technologies and new industries 15

2.3 Planning, coordination and implementation of on-ground works 16

2.4 Implications of the Salinity Taskforce position for Government’s Response 17

3. Leadership and Vision ............................................................................................. 19

4. Background ..............................................................................................................214.1 Policy history 21

4.2 Origin, impact and extent of salinity 224.2.1 Origin of dryland salinity 224.2.2 Impact and extent of salinity in Western Australia 22

4.3 Treatments and their impacts 234.3.1 Perennials to prevent groundwater rise 234.3.2 Engineering methods for water management 24

4.4 Living with salinity 254.5 Economics of salinity management 25Case study: The Rural Towns Program 264.6 Social issues 28

5. Findings and Recommendations ..............................................................................315.1 The Existing State Salinity Strategy and Salinity Action Plan 315.2 Prioritising salinity investments and monitoring effectiveness 33

5.2.1 The process for prioritising future expenditure on salinity 335.2.2 Monitoring and evaluation 34

– Appropriate goals and targets 35– Monitoring arrangements 36– Evaluation 36

5.3 Technology and industry development for salinity management 395.3.1 Progress with engineering options 405.3.2 Perennials to prevent salinisation 415.3.3 Productive use of saline land and saline water 435.3.4 Industry and research and development groups 43

5.4 Community support, capacity building and mechanisms to encourage change 465.4.1 Extension 46

– Information and technology transfer 47– Education, training and capacity building 48– Tenure of Community Service Officers 49

5.4.2 Working with Indigenous people 495.4.3 Coordination of extension 505.4.4 Demonstration catchments and participatory research 505.4.5 Economic policy instruments 51


5.4.6 Regulation 525.4.7 Commonwealth Government programs 52

– The National Landcare Program 52– The Natural Heritage Trust, including Bushcare 53– National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality 53

5.5 Institutional arrangements and partnerships 56

5.5.1 Statewide structures that support a whole of government and community 56approach to the implementation of the Salinity Strategy and Action Plan

5.5.2 Integration of actions across government 56– Natural Resource Management Council for Land and Water 57– Natural Resource Management Office 59– Natural resource management legislation 59– Natural Resource Management Policy and Strategy 60– Natural resource management regional groups 61– Regional strategies 63– Partnership agreements 64– Resourcing and government support 64

5.5.4 Working with Local Government 64

5.6 Managing salinity’s impact on biodiversity, public assets and communities 675.6.1 Biodiversity and environmental assets 675.6.2 Water resources 685.6.3 Infrastructure, including rural towns 685.6.4 Health, welfare and well-being 68

6. Future Investment Directions for Salinity ................................................................71

References .................................................................................................................... 73

Appendices ................................................................................................................... 75Appendix 1: List of written submissions 75

Appendix 2: List of attendants at public meetings 77

Contents 5

AcknowledgementsThe Salinity Taskforce would like to acknowledge all of the people and organisations that made writtensubmissions to the Taskforce and those people who attended the public meetings or contacted the Taskforcemembers individually. The Taskforce also benefited greatly from the individual briefings provided by Chief ExecutiveOfficers and senior staff from Agriculture Western Australia, Department of Conservation and Land Management,Department of Environmental Protection, Waters and Rivers Commission, Department of Local Government andRegional Development and Department of Indigenous Affairs as well as the State Salinity Council, and theircontributions are acknowledged.

The Taskforce greatly appreciated the time made available by Dr Judy Edwards, MLA Minister for the Environmentand Heritage and Minister with Special Responsibility for Salinity and Hon Kim Chance, MLC, Minister forAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, to meet with the Taskforce throughout its deliberations.

The Taskforce has also greatly appreciated the assistance and time provided by Ministerial Policy Officers, DamienHills, John D’Agostino and Mark Chmielewski in supporting close liaison with the Ministers for Environment andHeritage and Agriculture.

The Taskforce would particularly like to thank and acknowledge the work of the South Coast Regional InitiativePlanning Team, the South West Catchments Council, the Blackwood Basin Group, the Avon Working Group, theSwan Catchment Council and the Northern Agriculture Integrated Management Strategy Group who, at shortnotice, ably assisted the Taskforce in hosting, organising and delivering its public meetings.

The Taskforce also would like to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Christine Wardell-Johnson whosimilarly stepped in at short notice to perform the role of Acting Executive Officer and who contributed much to theTaskforce’s work.

Taskforce members would like to sincerely thank Michael Rowe, Executive Officer to the Salinity Taskforce, for hisoutstanding contribution and advice.

The Department of Agriculture provided considerable staffing resources at short notice to support the Taskforceand the Department of Conservation made available its significant publication expertise. This was muchappreciated and is gratefully acknowledged.


whole of government and community partnershipapproach to the implementation of the StateSalinity Strategy and Action Plan.

4. Review the processes through which thesestatewide structures report and are accountableto government and the community.

5. Taking into consideration the development of theInter-Governmental and Bilateral Agreements forthe National Action Plan for Salinity and WaterQuality and other national, state and regionalfunding programs, review the process forprioritising the future expenditure of funds tocombat salinity.

6. Review existing monitoring and evaluationarrangements and processes to:6.1 Advise on appropriate social, economic and

biophysical goals and targets;6.2 Advise on how to determine whether

strategies and projects are contributing to the targets and outcomes required;

6.3 Advise on how to ensure salinity funds are achieving positive change in priority areas on-the-ground; and

6.4 Ensure monitoring arrangements are adequate as the basis for annual and five yearly reviews of the effectiveness of the Strategy in delivering relevant environmental and social outcomes.

Overall commentsThe predicted extent of dryland salinity in WesternAustralia is very great and the threat to public andprivate assets is undeniably serious. The availableevidence suggests that more than four million of 18million hectares of agricultural and public land maybe affected by salinity with significant impacts onbiodiversity, water supplies, rural towns and otherinfrastructure.

With these projections it is not surprising that salinityhas become an important catalyst for change inWestern Australia. The Taskforce considers that muchhas been achieved since the Government launched theSalinity Action Plan in 1996. A primary achievementhas been a much better understanding of the real scaleof the problem and in the face of this, recognition thatthere are currently few economically viable options tomanage salinity. The solutions to salinity are notsimple. Salinity has also sparked serious debate aboutfuture land uses and what is actually achievable interms of landscape change. Whole new areas ofresearch have become established and there areincreasingly urgent calls to recognise the roles ofdifferent approaches to salinity management.

The Salinity Taskforce considers that salinity can andshould be usefully viewed as an opportunity and driver

Executive summary 7

Executive SummaryThe Minister for the Environment and Heritage andMinister with Special Responsibility for Salinity, Dr JudyEdwards MLA, announced the formation of theSalinity Taskforce on 31 May 2001. The Taskforcewas necessary to provide a more targeted andcohesive response to Western Australia’s salinitythreat and to review how salinity could be managed inthe broader context of natural resources management.The Taskforce has maintained close liaison withMinister Edwards and the Hon Kim Chance MLC,Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

The Taskforce has consulted widely in preparing itsreport and recommendations. More than 200 peopleattended public meetings with the Taskforce inEsperance, Jerramungup, Boyup Brook, Merredin,Three Springs and Perth. In addition, the Taskforcereceived 141 written submissions responding to itsTerms of Reference. Finally, the Taskforce invitedbriefings from a range of key stakeholders, includingGovernment departments, the State Salinity Council,Natural resource management regional groups, non-government environment organisations and a rangeof groups and organisations representing farmers.

The Government directed the Taskforce to respond tosix Terms of Reference.

1. Review the strategies and actions of the StateSalinity Action Plan and Strategy, and theirimplementation, paying special attention to:1.1 Community support and capacity building;1.2 Progress in assessing the feasibility of

engineering options;1.3 Integration of actions across government at

ministerial, agency and regional level;1.4 The potential role of industry, research and

development groups in salinity management;1.5 Progress in the development of new

solutions, including the level of support to development programs;

1.6 The relationship to and the congruence with regional Natural Resource Management strategies;

1.7 Mechanisms to encourage adoption of improvements in land management practicesand to discourage continuation of inappropriate land management practices; and

1.8 Mechanisms to support biodiversity protection.

2. In a strategic context, advise on the adequacy ofthe State’s salinity program paying specialattention to:2.1 Funding gaps ie. actions which are not

funded in the current program; and2.2 Whether the level of response is appropriate

for the scale of the problem.

3. Review the statewide structures that support a

to develop new sustainable industries, landscapesystems and management techniques. In part, thismeans accepting that salinity will be part of our futurelandscape and must therefore influence our ways ofdoing business. A key part at the approachrecommonded by the Taskforce is the creation ofopportunities which are jointly positive for thecommunity, the environment, and the economy.Substantial changes in current farming practices andland use will be part of this. In seeking this outcomethe Salinity Taskforce recommends that the Stateshould attempt to capitalise on opportunities thatintegrated responses to salinity management mightpresent. These include opportunities through as yetundeveloped industries, such as in power generation,wood production, food production, mineralproduction, and carbon sequestration among others,and in the developed industries such as wool andmeat production.

Strategic DirectionsIn responding to its Terms of Reference, theTaskforce has presented to Government a reportthat reflects both the messages it heard throughoutits consultation and its own considereddeliberations. The Taskforce concludes that theGovernment must continue to build on thesubstantial previous effort but with a renewed,clearly focused and targeted investment approach.Another priority is to build on the current naturalresource management framework and link it to theGovernment’s Sustainable Development initiative, toimprove integration across government and thedelivery of government services.

While the Taskforce has made a number of detailedrecommendations, the following points and headingsreflect the main elements of the strategic approachwhich the Taskforce is recommending in its report(relevant recommendations are listed in brackets).

A landscape Vision for the Future• A comprehensive long-term vision for the

landscape of the south west of Western Australiawith an estimate of the long-term Statebudgetary requirement for achieving the vision(3.1) to guide coordinated action and provide abetter basis for negotiation with theCommonwealth Government.

Targeted investment of public funds• Future Government investment guided by the

Framework for Investment in SalinityManagement, currently being developed by theState Salinity Council (5.2.1).

• Substantial additional funding for the protectionof public assets at risk from salinity (especiallybiodiversity) and the development of a NatureConservation, Native Vegetation and BiodiversityStrategy (5.6.1 & 5.6.2).

• Substantial additional funding for the

development of new commercially viablemanagement options and industries includingengineering options (5.3.3), perennial vegetation(5.3.11-5.3.14) and the productive use of salineland and water (5.3.15,5.3.16). A DevelopmentPlan for New Regional Industries should bedeveloped to support this (5.3.10).

Better integration of Government actions for naturalresource management and sustainable development• A Statutory Natural Resource Management

Council for Land and Water (5.5.1) and NaturalResource Management Office (5.5.4) to ensurecoordinated activity across Government forsalinity and natural resource management.Regional natural resource management groupswill remain non-statutory but be stronglysupported by Government (5.5.15), includingthrough the development of partnershipagreements (5.5.14).

An outcome-oriented monitoring and evaluationprogram • A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation

framework to inform the Government on progressand improve decision making about theeffectiveness of existing activities and guideinvestment decisions (5.2.2 & 5.2.3).

Training and security for advisers as part of a newextension service• A new training program for departmental staff

and community support officers to improvetechnical expertise (5.4.6) and the extension ofemployment contracts for community supportofficers to five years (5.4.9) as part of enhanceextension activities coordinated by the Department of Agriculture (5.4.15).

Refocussing Salinity Strategy 2000 to include theTargeted Approach and New Directions• The development of a new Salinity Strategy to

give effect to the Taskforce Report and anynegotiated outcomes of the National Action Planfor Salinity and Water Quality (5.1.1).

Role of Government in salinitymanagementThe Taskforce considers the Government has afundamental responsibility in salinity management toprotect significant public assets at risk and assist inthe protection of private assets. The Taskforceconsiders the Government must invest in:• protecting high-value public assets from the

consequences of salinity;

• promoting and supporting actions undertaken onprivate land by developing new technologies andindustries; and

• providing support and incentives for planning,coordination and implementation of on-groundworks on private land.

8 Salinity: A New Balance

The Taskforce notes Governments (both State andCommonwealth) have previously invested in each ofthese areas. However the Taskforce considers that,with current knowledge about the extent and impactof salinity, additional resources must now be directedat protecting public assets and developing newtechnologies and industries to manage salinity onprivate land. While planning, coordination andsupport of small-scale works remain important fornatural resource management, this effort is less likelyto achieve broadscale salinity managementoutcomes. The Taskforce has providedrecommendations on the areas of priority investmentthroughout its report.

It was also clear from the majority of submissions,both written and verbal, that the investment of time,knowledge and money in salinity management mustbecome more strategic than that undertaken thus far.The Taskforce therefore supports the ongoingdevelopment and application of the Framework forInvestment in Salinity Management.

The need for vision and leadershipThe current extent of salinity and its likely futureextent has prompted calls for the development of ashared vision of the rural landscape in the future andcontinued leadership by Government on salinitymanagement.

The Taskforce has recommended that theGovernment, through the Cabinet StandingCommittee on Environmental Policy, develops atangible vision of the future landscape of southwestern Australia. This vision should incorporatefeatures including the areas at risk of salinity, landssuited to various agricultural practices, sites that mayrequire restructuring for conservation or agriculturalpurposes and employment growth and regionaldevelopment opportunities.

The existing State Salinity Strategy (TOR 1)The Taskforce acknowledges that the SalinityStrategy 2000 has effectively only been operationalsince March 2000. The findings of the Taskforce willnot dramatically alter the principles of the Strategy,but will put greater emphasis on specific areas thatrequire additional resources. The Taskforcerecommendations on various aspects of the SalinityStrategy occur throughout its report.

In saying this however, the Taskforce considers thatits findings and recommendations, together with otherrecent or pending initiatives (including the NationalAction Plan on Salinity and Water Quality, and theGovernment’s new initiatives in engineering solutionsand demonstration catchments) justify thepreparation of a new salinity strategy.

Prioritising salinity management andmonitoring effectiveness(TOR 5 and 6)The Taskforce considers that Government investmentin salinity management must be carefully prioritisedand commends the existing work done by the StateSalinity Council on the proposed Framework forInvestment in Salinity Management. The Taskforceconsiders that this must continue and must alsoinform Government’s investment in the future,including negotiations on the CommonwealthGovernment’s National Action Plan for Salinity andWater Quality. To work well, the investmentframework must be undertaken rigorously and besupported by sound analyses. Additional resourcesare recommended to allow this to occur.

The Taskforce considers that there is also asignificant need for a much improved monitoring andevaluation framework and has recommendedadditional resources be directed at developing andimplementing this.

Technology and industry developmentfor salinity management (TOR 1.5, 1.2 and 1.4)The Taskforce considers that there has been far toolittle Government investment in the development oftechnology and industry development for salinitymanagement and to make productive use of salinisedland and water. The Taskforce acknowledges theenormous effort that has gone to developingindustries like oil mallees and that initiatives such asthe Cooperative Research Centre for Plant-BasedManagement of Dryland Salinity will contribute to thisarea.

Even so the Taskforce is firmly of the opinion thatmuch more should be done, in particular with theincreasingly significant farming industry groups, suchas the Liebe Group, the Facey Group, the SaltlandPastures Association and the Oil Mallee Association.In addition to recommending the development of anoverall Development Plan for New Regional Industriesto provide impetus and coordination, the Taskforcealso recommends additional resources be provided todevelop specific initiatives further.

The Taskforce contends that engineering solutionswill become increasingly important in managingsalinity, particularly around public assets. TheGovernment’s proposed engineering investigationsinitiative is therefore supported with recommendationsand with the overall qualification that the communitymust be closely involved in the research anddevelopment of successful engineering solutions.

Executive summary 9

Community support, capacity buildingand mechanisms to encourage change (TOR 1.7 and 1.1)The Taskforce recognises the enormous effort thatindividual farmers and community members,catchment and landcare groups, farmer and industrygroups, natural resource management regionalgroups and others have dedicated to salinity andnatural resource management in Western Australia.The Government must continue to support this effortto ensure that the community has the capacity to beable to continue to respond to salinity in the longerterm.

The Taskforce has recommended additional effort infocusing and coordinating Government departments’extension services, technical training for CommunitySupport Officers and other extension agents andadditional effort by Government departments toensure the best available information on salinity andits management is widely available to, andunderstood by, land managers. Specific effort alsoneeds to be made to ensure Indigenous people areinvolved with and contribute to salinity managementin Western Australia.

Institutional arrangements andpartnerships (TOR 3, 1.6, 1.3 and 4)The Taskforce considers that there is an ongoingneed to ensure coordination of Government action,holistic policy advice to Government and genuinecommunity involvement and interface on salinitymanagement and natural resource management atthe State and regional levels. The Taskforce istherefore recommending that a Natural ResourceManagement Council for Land and Water beestablished to achieve the necessary integrated andcoordinated response to salinity and other naturalresource management issues, as no singleDepartment or Minister is solely responsible for thesematters in Western Australia. This Council shouldreport to and advise jointly the Ministers for theEnvironment and Heritage and Agriculture, Forestryand Fisheries.

The Taskforce also recommends that the Council ischaired by an independent community member with amembership including the Directors General of thethree natural resource management departments andnine other members with expertise in key areas. Underthis model the State Salinity Council would bediscontinued. However, the Taskforce considers thatit is not in the interest of the State to immediatelylose the expertise of the State Salinity Council andtherefore recommends an interim arrangement wherethe State Salinity Council Executive becomes acommittee of the Council.

The Council would be supported by a NaturalResource Management Office and created under a

Natural Resource Management Act. The Taskforcehas identified a number of options for the location ofthe Natural Resource Management Office includingwithin a Ministerial Office, the Department of thePremier and Cabinet, the Department of Environment,Water and Catchment Protection, the Department ofAgriculture or the Department of Conservation. Underthis arrangement, the existing Natural Heritage Trustsecretariat would also be based within the proposedNatural Resource Management Office.

The Taskforce considers that the Government shouldenter a genuine partnership with Natural ResourceManagement Regional Groups and that this shouldbe reinforced through a new Natural ResourceManagement Policy and ongoing provision for coreadministrative support. In addition, the naturalresource management regional groups are becomingincreasingly important under the National Action Planfor Salinity and Water Quality and their roles thereforeneed to be redefined. In supporting regionaldevelopment initiatives there is also a need for these groups to forge stronger links withlocal government and Regional DevelopmentCommissions.

The Taskforce recommends that the proposedNatural Resource Management Office be a centralcoordination point between the Natural ResourceManagement Regional Groups and Governmentdepartments. However, the Taskforce also considersthat the responsibility for providing administrativesupport should be consolidated with the Departmentof Environment, Water and Catchment Protection,enabling the Department of Agriculture to focus onits core business of farm viability and sustainabilityand increased liaison with the emerging farmerindustry groups.

The Taskforce considers that more effort must bemade to better engage local government with salinityand natural resource management. This tier ofGovernment has much to lose from salinity and muchto gain from being involved with its management, andits lack of engagement in the past needs urgentattention.

Managing salinity’s impacts onbiodiversity, public assets andcommunities (TOR 1.8)The Taskforce is concerned at the substantial threatthat salinity poses to public assets such asbiodiversity on public and private lands, conservationreserves, public water supply catchments, rural townsand other infrastructure such as roads and rail. TheTaskforce considers that both State andCommonwealth Governments must invest significantresources in this area and the Taskforce hasrecommended increased investment and attention tothese areas.


Future investment directions (TOR 2.1 and 2.2)The Taskforce has concluded that the existing level ofresponse to salinity in Western Australia does notsufficiently respond to the scale of the problem,particularly as we are now more aware of the greaterthreat to public assets such as biodiversity.

Accordingly the Taskforce has identified a number ofactions that are not currently funded or that requireadditional funding.

In preparing these recommendations, the Taskforce hasattempted to indicate the level of funding that shouldbe directed to particular areas. The Taskforce has notattempted to prescribe the source or the amount offunding. In most of the recommendations the Taskforcehas recommended that funding should be additional tothat already allocated to the receiving department.

It is the strong view of the Taskforce that the Stateshould endeavour to secure funding under theNational Action Plan for Salinity and Water Qualityfor all of these initiatives.

Finally, the Taskforce appreciated the opportunityprovided by the Government to take stock and toreview the direction of the State in salinitymanagement, and recommend future directions. Wetrust that the recommendations will assist the State togo forward with confidence during the next five years.The Taskforce emphasises however, that ongoingsalinity management will require that the approachremains flexible, adaptive and responsive, and evolveas new pressures emerge, new technologies becomeavailable and our knowledge improves. TheGovernment must continue to review its direction andactivities over time.

Executive summary 11

Introduction 13

strategies; 1.7 Mechanisms to encourage adoption of

improvements in land management practicesand to discourage continuation of inappropriate land management practices; and

1.8 Mechanisms to support biodiversity protection.

2. In a strategic context, advise on the adequacy ofthe State’s Salinity Program, paying specialattention to:2.1 Funding gaps ie. actions which are not

funded in the current program; and2.2 Whether the level of response is appropriate

for the scale of the problem.

3. Review the statewide structures that support awhole of government and community partnershipapproach to the implementation of the StateSalinity Strategy and Action Plan.

4. Review the processes through which thesestatewide structures report and are accountableto government and the community.

5. Taking into consideration the development of theInter-Governmental and Bilateral Agreements forthe National Action Plan for Salinity and WaterQuality and other national, state and regionalfunding programs, review the process forprioritising the future expenditure of funds tocombat salinity.

6. Review existing monitoring and evaluationarrangements and processes to:6.1 Advise on appropriate social, economic and

biophysical goals and targets;6.2 Advise on how to determine whether

strategies and projects are contributing to the targets and outcomes required;

6.3 Advise on how to ensure salinity funds are achieving positive change in priority areas on-the-ground; and

6.4 Ensure monitoring arrangements are adequate as the basis for annual and five yearly reviews of the effectiveness of the Strategy in delivering relevant environmental and social outcomes.

The other sections of the Taskforce report aredescribed below. For consistency, the Taskforce reportrefers to Government departments by the titlesrecommended by the Machinery of GovernmentTaskforce, including the Department of Agriculture,the Department of Conservation, the Department ofEnvironment, Water and Catchment Protection andthe Department of Local Government and RegionalDevelopment.

The Taskforce has also included quotations takenfrom written submissions at the beginning of each of

1. IntroductionThe Minister for the Environment and Heritage andMinister with Special Responsibility for Salinity, Dr JudyEdwards MLA, announced the formation of theSalinity Taskforce on 31 May 2001 to recommendfuture strategies to combat salinity. The Taskforce wasnecessary to provide a more targeted and cohesiveresponse to Western Australia’s salinity threat and toreview how salinity could be managed in the broadercontext of natural resources management. TheTaskforce has maintained close liaison with MinisterEdwards and the Hon Kim Chance MLC, Minister forAgriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

The Taskforce has consulted widely in preparing itsreport and recommendations. In addition, theTaskforce received 141 written submissions respondingto its Terms of Reference (see Appendix 1). A numberof quotes from the written submissions have beenincluded in this report. More than 200 peopleattended public meetings with the Taskforce inEsperance, Jerramungup, Boyup Brook, Merredin,Three Springs and Perth (see Appendix 2). TheTaskforce has also met separately with a range of keystakeholders, including Government departments, theState Salinity Council, Natural Resource ManagementRegional Groups, non-Government environmentorganisations and a range of groups andorganisations representing farmers.

This extensive consultation has provided theTaskforce with a good appreciation of the priorityissues that people consider must be resolved toimprove further the State’s response to salinity and itsmanagement in a natural resource managementcontext. The Taskforce has also heard divergentviews on a range of issues including deep drainageand wetland conservation, highlighting the complexityof salinity and the need for balance in decidingappropriate responses to its management.

The Government directed the Taskforce to respond tothe following Terms of Reference.

1. Review the strategies and actions of the StateSalinity Action Plan and Strategy, and theirimplementation, paying special attention to:1.1 Community support and capacity building;

1.2 Progress in assessing the feasibility of engineering options;

1.3 Integration of actions across Government at Ministerial, agency and regional levels;

1.4 The potential role of industry, and research and development groups in salinity management;

1.5 Progress in the development of new solutions, including the level of support to development programs;

1.6 The relationship to and the congruence with regional natural resource management


the following sections that highlight the strength anddiversity of views that the Taskforce considered inpreparing its report.

Section 2 - A New Position on Salinityand its ManagementThis section describes the position the Taskforceadopted in considering how best to apply limitedGovernment resources and effort to managing salinityin Western Australia. It is important that this positionis clearly stated as it has guided the Taskforce’sdeliberations and recommendations and makes clearthe assumptions that the Taskforce holds in relationto salinity and its management.

Section 3 - Leadership and VisionThis section outlines why the Taskforce considers thatthe Government must lead the way in developing ashared vision for the future of the landscape of theSouth West of Western Australia and in guidingfuture Government and community effort andinvestment in salinity.

Section 4 - BackgroundThis section provides background information ondryland salinity in Western Australia, includingdescribing recent policy responses to this issue as wellas the available treatments and issues associatedwith ‘living with salinity’. The economics of salinitymanagement are also discussed, as are the socialissues arising from the need for broadscale treatmentof salinity.

Section 5 - Findings andRecommendationThis section describes the findings of the Taskforce andits recommendations to Government. The Taskforcehas written its findings and recommendations againstthe following headings in responding to its Terms ofReference (listed in brackets).

5.1 The Existing State Salinity Strategy (TOR 1)

5.2 Prioritising Salinity Investment and MonitoringEffectiveness• Prioritisation of Government Investment in

Salinity (TOR 5)

• Monitoring and Evaluation (TOR 6)

5.3 Technology and Industry Development for SalinityManagement• Progress in Developing New Solutions

(TOR 1.5)– Engineering Options (TOR 1.2)

• The Potential Role of Industry and Research and Development Groups in Salinity Management (TOR 1.4)

5.4 Community Support, Capacity Building andMechanisms to Encourage Change• Mechanisms to encourage adoption of

improvements in land management practicesand to discourage continuation of inappropriate land management practices (1.7)– Community Capacity Building (TOR 1.1)

5.5 Institutional Arrangements and Partnerships• Review the statewide structures that support

a whole of government and community approach to implementation of the Salinity Strategy and Action Plan (TOR 3)

• The relationship to and congruence with regional Natural Resource Management Strategies (TOR 1.6)

• Integration of actions across Government at Ministerial, agency and regional level (TOR 1.3)

• Review the processes through which statewide structures report and are accountable to government and the community (TOR 4)

5.6 Managing Salinity’s Impacts on Biodiversity,Public Assets and Communities• Biodiversity and Environmental Assets

(TOR 1.8)

Section 6 - Future Investment DirectionsThis section summarises the future investmentdirections proposed by the Taskforce and responds toTerm of Reference 2 including:• Funding gaps; actions not funded in the current

program (TOR 2.1)• Whether the Level of Response is appropriate for

the scale of the problem (TOR 2.2)

Position on salinity and its management 15

The Taskforce considers that the Government has afundamental responsibility in salinity management toprotect public assets and to assist in the protection ofprivate assets.

There are three main actions that Government shouldbe leading:1. Protection of outstanding public assets from the

consequences of salinity and other forms ofresource degradation (e.g. water resourcecatchments, threatened high-value conservationareas or rural towns);

2. Investment in and support for major actions onprivate land by developing new technologies andnew industries (e.g. perennial plants for salinityprevention, salt tolerant plants for productive useof saline land or engineering options); and

3. Support and incentives for planning, coordinationand implementation of smaller on-ground workson private land (e.g. for water management andprotection of biodiversity).

It is important to distinguish between these because: • while all are important not all have been

adequately recognised or resourced inGovernment strategies and programs to date;

• each action needs to be pursued in differentways, with different roles and emphases byGovernment, community groups and individuals;

• acceptance of these three distinct actions hasimportant implications for future salinitystrategies. If Government accepts the Taskforce’sadvice on the relative emphasis of each action,this should shape Western Australia’snegotiations with the CommonwealthGovernment on the National Action Plan forSalinity and Water Quality and phase two of theNatural Heritage Trust; and

• many written and verbal submissions to theTaskforce also drew these distinctions andindicated that current mechanisms and programsdo not appropriately prioritise the three types ofaction.

These categories do not encompass every aspect ofgovernment involvement in salinity (e.g. statewidemonitoring and evaluation). However, the Taskforceconsiders that collectively they capture the key roles directly related to achieving change on theground.

2.1 Targeted intervention to protectparticular public assetsPreviously, salinity has been seen as a problem thatwould be addressed by landholders across the entirelandscape with the protection of public assets

achieved as a result of the voluntary actions oflandholders. In Western Australia the need fortargeting of priority assets was recognised in the 1996Salinity Action Plan with the establishment of WaterResource Recovery Catchments, the Rural TownsProgram and Natural Diversity Recovery Catchments.

Further improvement in scientific understanding ofsalinity has highlighted that:• Other than in some Recovery Catchments, the

level of adoption by landholders of salinityprevention measures is generally only a smallproportion of that needed to prevent impacts onpublic assets and that this is likely to continue tobe the case for some time.

• Even if landholders were to increase dramaticallyand immediately the adoption of salinitymanagement measures there would becontinuing damage to key public assets aswatertables shift to a new equilibrium over thecoming decades.

• For some key public assets at risk, the priorityneed is for works within or immediately adjacentto the assets. Often this will require engineeringsolutions, especially where salinisation is welladvanced. Work in the surrounding catchmentcould provide benefits in the longer term but willbe insufficient to protect these public assets inthe short to medium term.

These insights indicate the need for a much moretargeted and selective approach to protection ofpublic assets from salinity. The Taskforce considersthat public assets must continue to be identified andprioritised for action because of the richness of thebiodiversity and the high value of the publicinfrastructure and public water supplies that are atrisk.

The new Salinity Strategy should focus ondetermining what action is required to protect specificpublic assets and importantly, whether those actionsare justified. This will be achieved through theproposed Framework for Investment in SalinityManagement, discussed in Section 5.2.

2.2 Development of new technologiesand new industriesThe highly-targeted approach to protecting publicassets described above implies that only small areasof farm land would qualify for direct public funding forthe purposes of implementation of on-ground worksto prevent salinity impacting public assets.

For other farmland, salinity management wouldprimarily be the responsibility of farmers with limiteddirect financial support from Government.

However the Taskforce is well aware that

2. A New Position on Salinity and its Management


technologies and farming systems which allowfarmers to deal with salinity at a large scale are viablein only a few parts of the State where farmland is atrisk (e.g. the broadscale planting of lucerne in someregions).

Therefore the Taskforce considers that there is aneed to better develop new technologies and farmingsystems in four broad areas. These are: • various kinds of engineering works;

• profitable perennials for recharge areas (forsalinity prevention);

• salt-tolerant plants to make use of saline land;and

• methods to utilise saline water economically.

All of these are important and all have their place indelivering options and solutions for salinitymanagement.

The Taskforce notes in particular the ground swell ofsupport amongst farmers for the use of engineeringsolutions to combat salinity, particularly by deep-drainage. While there are some situations in whichdrainage appears to be having a beneficial impact, itis still unclear in what circumstances drainage will bebest applied to be effective and economic. There areconflicting views within the farming and scientificcommunities about the efficacy of engineeringsolutions to reduce salinity and the significance ofpotential down-stream impacts. This conflict anduncertainty reinforces the need for far greaterresourcing and effort in this area.

Even with concerted efforts under the Salinity Strategyand by groups and individuals, the realistic prognosisis for a continuing worsening of salinity impacts infuture. This highlights the importance of developingimproved methods for making productive use of salineland and saline water.

Of these four types of technology, the mostchallenging may be the development of newprofitable perennials for recharge areas. Realisticallythis will be a slow and expensive process withfailures as well as successes. In addition, recentstudies indicate that even if perennials areestablished over large areas, salinity in manycatchments will continue to worsen (although at areduced rate and to a lower final equilibrium level).Therefore we must be clear about the rationale forpursuing this approach. Reasons for advocating itinclude the following:• Profitable perennials are the only prospect for

prevention (as opposed to remediation) of salinityon most of the threatened agricultural land.

• Substantial improvements in the range and scopeof profitable perennials seem achievable.

• Of the four types of technology for salinitymanagement on farms, public off-site benefits

would arise primarily from salinity preventionusing perennials.

• In situations where subsidies for perennials onfarms may be appropriate (ie. on farms near tothe key public assets) the level of subsidy can bereduced if the perennials are less costly/moreprofitable. Therefore public funds can be savedand directed to other priorities.

• More profitable perennials will dramaticallyreduce the problem of achieving widespreadadoption.

• Profitable perennials could also attract privatesector finance to meet the establishment costs,which are beyond the means of many farmers.

• New industries based on perennials will generatesocial benefits to rural regions, resulting fromgreater wealth and employment. This includesthe potential to introduce new industries such asbio-energy, bio-fuels for transport, aquacultureand wood products, as well as maintainingexisting industries such as wool and meatproduction with the introduction of perennialpastures.

In all likelihood, the salinity-related benefits from newindustries based on perennials will be small relative tothe total of other benefits of such industries, whichwill include profitability, diversification, regionaldevelopment and broader environmental benefits.Nevertheless, salinity provides an imperative to pursuethis approach, since large-scale salinity prevention onfarmland is probably not achievable by any othermeans.

2.3 Planning, coordination andimplementation of on-ground worksThis category represents the dominant approach tosalinity policy in Australia over the past 10 years,primarily driven by the Commonwealth Government’sNational Landcare Program and continued by theNatural Heritage Trust. The approach relies onvoluntary actions of catchment groups coupled withpartial subsidies for on-ground works. The Taskforceconsiders that this approach remains dominant in thethinking behind the National Action Plan for Salinityand Water Quality.

The Taskforce believes that this approach will notachieve change on the scale necessary to managesalinity. While a range of important benefits forfarmers and the broader community have resultedfrom the National Landcare Program and the NaturalHeritage Trust (including benefits to biodiversityconservation and waterways) in many locationssalinity prevention benefits are a minor outcome. Thisis because of the scale of change needed foreffective salinity prevention, the great expensesinvolved in acting at that scale and the

Position on salinity and its management 17

ineffectiveness of small-scale changes.

A further important outcome from this category ofaction has been awareness about salinity and othernatural resource management issues. This foundationof knowledge means that Western Australia is verywell placed to take the next step in its salinitymanagement strategy.

2.4 Implications of the Salinity Taskforceposition for Governments’ responseThe Taskforce notes that the Salinity Strategy 2000contains elements of all three of the actions describedpreviously. However, within Western Australia, theTaskforce considers that the development of newtechnologies and new industries for salinitymanagement requires significantly increased attentionby both the State and the CommonwealthGovernments.

The Taskforce also considers that the National ActionPlan for Salinity and Water Quality is deficient in itsdominant emphasis on funding delivery throughregional groups, implying an emphasis on planningand coordination for on-ground works (which willachieve relatively little for salinity management in

most threatened areas of Western Australia). TheNational Action Plan should focus on the targetedprotection of public assets and the development ofnew technologies, new industries for salinitymanagement and developing technologies to makesalinity management information more accessible toland managers and Natural Resource ManagementRegional Groups.

The Taskforce appreciates the considerable work inplanning and coordination that many catchment andsub-catchment groups have already undertakenduring the Decade of Landcare. While the Taskforceconsiders that planning and coordination for on-ground work remains vital to achieve other naturalresource management outcomes (such as on-farmbiodiversity protection and reduction of sediment andnutrient flows into waterways) it is less likely toachieve a widespread reduction in salinity. The mainsalinity-related contribution from this approach is inthe management of water flows from engineeringworks. Therefore, planning and coordination for on-ground works should primarily be addressed withinthe new Natural Heritage Trust Program rather thanthe National Action Plan for Salinity and WaterQuality.


“Life in rural Western Australia is changing,perhaps faster than we as human beings can copewith, but by working together I’m sure that a new‘face’ can be developed for Western Australia. Itwill be different, but it will be new and excitingand with a shared vision we can look to the futuretogether. There will be a future, it will just bedifferent from the past and we need to have the‘tools’ and ‘training’ to cope with the change.”

Monica Durcan

“There is also a need for the Government tocommunicate a clear vision that is prepared tosupport saving the long-term economic benefits ofagricultural production and its multiplier effect onemployment and wealth creation. This objectivetends to be lost in debates of ‘public good vprivate good’. It also tends to be secondary tosaving biodiversity and rural infrastructure whenthe interdependence well being of them all shouldbe obvious”.

Western Australian Farmers’ Federation

“We need to more clearly articulate what our visionis. The vision would address what the landscapeshould look like, what agriculture should look like.To us, it is also about doing agriculture differentlyand reinventing agriculture in Western Australia.We envisage a landscape dominated by deeprooted perennials, much of them woody perennialswith more varied sources of income, someproduction based, some for carbon credits, somefor biodiversity credits/ecosystem services, some foroff-farm stewardship. Important catchments andmaybe all catchments will need to be managedcollectively with payments between managerswithin the catchment and to and from otherbeneficiaries.”

Conservation Council of Western Australia

“Leadership should be able to resist political,bureaucratic and community pressures but at thesame time maintain an open mind to fresh ideasand approaches.”

H M Churchward

What people said about leadership and vision

Leadership and vision 19

tables will occur and salinity will spread, and as aconsequence, which areas will be suitable for existingand new agricultural industries.

Much of the work necessary to define such a‘landscape vision’ has been done in the past fewyears. Creating a tangible vision of how the futurelandscape will look will assist in setting priorities underthe proposed Investment Framework and support newindustries such as ‘oil mallees’, bush networks forbiodiversity and regional development opportunities.

The Taskforce considers it is important to begindefining collectively how the Western Australiancommunity wants the landscape in the South West ofWestern Australia to look in the future, even thoughthe vision will evolve and change as we learn more.

Recommendation 3.1

The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the StateGovernment, through the Cabinet StandingCommittee on Environmental Policy, establishes atangible long-term vision for the landscape of theSouth West of Western Australia with an estimate ofthe long-term State budgetary requirement forachieving the vision.

The vision should incorporate as far as possible: • identification of areas with high water tables with

the potential to become saline;

• a network of natural systems, including highpriority conservation areas and remnant nativevegetation on private lands;

• lands suitable for agro-forestry (with twinobjectives of commercial returns and loweringwatertables);

• lands where other new agricultural practices willbe needed to reduce water tables;

• saline land which could be used for productiveand nature conservation purposes;

• areas where restructuring may be needed foragricultural or conservation purposes; and

• employment growth and regional development.

3. Leadership and Vision

The vision - a new sustainable landscapeSuccessfully managing salinity and other land andwater degradation problems that beset our landscapewill require a long-term strategy over many years -beyond the normal terms of Governments andprobably over several generations. To succeed, theTaskforce considers that a clear and tangible vision ofwhere we as a community want to go is needed.Strong leadership from Governments, industry and thecommunity is required.

In developing this vision it will be necessary forGovernment and the community to be informed ofthe long-term costs and benefits associated withsalinity management so that public and privatemoney is invested wisely and sufficient funding iscommitted over time. The Taskforce thereforeconsiders that repairing and maintaining WesternAustralia’s natural capital assets of land, water andvegetation requires ongoing commitment byGovernment and should therefore be accommodatedwithin successive State Budgets as for other coreareas of Government, such as health, education andjustice.

Several visions for the rural areas of the South West ofWestern Australia have been developed for regionalstrategies and plans or at conferences. Virtually allcontain similar themes of revitalised communities livingin healthy sustainable landscapes. A good example isa recent vision statement from the ‘Managing Salinityin Wheatbelt Valley Floors’ conference held inMerredin from 30 July to 1 August 2001:

A revitalised rural community, working together,that has achieved positive change to create ahealthy, well-drained landscape maximisingbiodiversity and landscape resilience withsustainable economic returns from existing andnew industries.

A key step to achieve such a vision and managesalinity is to define as far as possible the options forusing and managing the land and water resourcesacross the landscape. This will involve identifying theparts of the landscape where natural areas of bushwill remain and be connected, where high water

Background 21

The Salinity Action Plan, while an important step, wascriticised for its lack of community consultation,particularly in the development of priorities and finalrecommendations, and for a number of importantomissions. In response to these concerns, a process ofextensive consultation was undertaken, culminating inthe release of a revised (draft) Salinity Strategy in 1998.

Soon after that release, important new hydrologicalresearch was completed, revealing what is nowregarded as a more accurate perspective on thedifficulty of preventing salinity in this state. From theresearch it became clear that the State Governmentand private land managers could not expect to ‘solve’salinity, particularly not with the strategies andmanagement options currently available.

This perspective was reflected in the Salinity Strategy2000, although the detailed implications of the newhydrological information were not fully developed. TheStrategy highlighted the importance of communityparticipation, the role of regional and communitygroups, a requirement for ongoing on-ground worksand monitoring and evaluation. The importance ofnew industries and systems was also stated in thisStrategy.

With the end of the Decade of Landcare, there wasgrowing recognition and acceptance that, if salinitywas to be managed successfully in Western Australia,a new approach would be required, away from the‘Landcare’ paradigm and focusing more on strategicinvestment decisions and industry developmentopportunities. Farmers were calling for an increasedemphasis on technologies to help them bettermanage salinity, including engineering methods, andcommercial land use options with salinity benefits.

This new emphasis on development of managementoptions for salinity was reflected in a proposal for anew Cooperative Research Centre for Plant-BasedManagement of Dryland Salinity, headquartered atthe University of Western Australia (funded in January2001), and an election commitment by the thenopposition Labor Party for a major initiative toinvestigate and demonstrate engineering options forsalinity management. The State Salinity Councilinitiated a ‘Framework for Investment in SalinityManagement’, to support a more strategic andtargeted approach to investment.

The rapidly evolving understanding of salinity inWestern Australia was only partly reflected in theNational Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality,announced by the Commonwealth Government inOctober 2000. This contributed to difficulties for theState in negotiating an acceptable agreement withthe Commonwealth Government under the Plan.

On 31 May 2001, the State Government announcedthe establishment of a Salinity Taskforce. TheTaskforce was to review the current direction of

4. Background4.1 Policy HistoryAgricultural development in Western Australia wasguided by visions and policies that aimed to increasethe wealth and productivity of the state and toprovide agriculture with opportunities for expansionand profitability. Governments in the 1920s and1930s invested heavily in rural infrastructure, notablythe Goldfields pipeline, railway networks andsettlement schemes to support continued expansionand development of agricultural regions. Decisions onclearing were based on whether a soil was Class I,Class II or Class III as determined by its inherentfertility and production potential. Environmentalimpacts, including salinity, were not considered in thisclassification system despite the link between clearingand salinity having been made (Woods 1924).

Estimates of the impact of salinity on agriculturalproduction and development were published in the1970s. The prevailing view was that salt-affected landwould comprise less than 2 per cent of the landscapeand therefore that salinity was unlikely to have asubstantial impact on agriculture (Burvill 1979).Policies and research in agriculture continued to bedirected towards improving the production potentialof existing systems.

During the 1980s, there was a growth in awareness ofnatural resource management issues in agriculture.Declining water quality, soil erosion, loss of nativespecies and salinity were attributed to agriculturalpractices and the need for new strategies to manageagricultural resources was recognised. In response,the Commowealth Government announced theNational Soil Conservation Program, which evolved tobecome the National Landcare Program in 1989. TheNational Landcare Program leveraged resources fromstate governments and private land managers,directing the funds into land management, catchmentplanning and Community Landcare Coordinators.While the National Landcare Program was effective indrawing attention to the potential benefits ofpartnership approaches and maintaining a focus onmanagement of natural resources, there was concernthat salinity management would require a far moreintegrated and strategic approach - a theme thatremains relevant in 2001.

In Western Australia, such an integrated and strategicapproach was attempted in the 1996 Salinity ActionPlan, developed primarily by four State Governmentdepartments. At about that time the NationalLandcare Program was subsumed within the NaturalHeritage Trust, a program that continued support forcatchment groups and community support, with arenewed emphasis on on-ground works. Biodiversityand native vegetation as well as waterways, worldheritage and oceans were also emphasised in theNatural Heritage Trust.


1. Defined as land on which wheat yield would be reduced by 50 per cent or more.2. Defined as land with a groundwater table which is either (a) less than 2 m from the surface, or (b) between 2 and 5 m and rising.

salinity investment in Western Australia and advisegovernment on future directions for state strategiesand policies.

4.2 Origin, Impact and Extent of Salinity4.2.1 Origin of Dryland SalinitySalt, mainly sodium chloride, occurs naturally at highlevels in the subsoils of most Australian agriculturalland. It has been carried inland from the oceans onprevailing winds and deposited in small amounts (20-200 kg/ha/year) with rainfall and dust (Hingston andGailitis 1976). Over tens of thousands of years, it hasaccumulated in sub-soils and in Western Australia it iscommonly measured at levels between 100 and15,000 tonnes per ha (McFarlane and George 1992).

Prior to European settlement, groundwater tables inAustralia were in long-term equilibrium. In agriculturalregions, settlers cleared most of the native vegetationand replaced it with annual crop and pasture species,which allow a larger proportion of rainfall to remainunused by plants and to enter the groundwater(George et al. 1997; Walker et al. 1999). As a result,groundwater tables have risen, bringing dissolvedaccumulated salt to the surface (Anonymous 1996).Patterns and rates of groundwater change vary widelybut most bores show a rising trend, except where theyhave already reached the surface or during periods oflow rainfall. Common rates of rise are 10 to 30cm/year (e.g. Ferdowsian et al., 2001). Given thegeological history and characteristics of theAustralian continent, large-scale salinisation of landand water resources following clearing for agriculturewas inevitable.

4.2.2 Impact and Extent of Salinity in WesternAustraliaFerdowsian et al. (1996) estimated that the area ofagricultural land in Western Australia affected by

salinity1 was 1.8 million ha in 1994 (approaching 10per cent of the total area of cleared agricultural land).Using a different method, the National Land andWater Resources Audit (2000) estimated that the areaof all land “at risk”2 in Western Australia is currently4.4 million ha and will be 8.8 million ha by 2050. Theproportion of agricultural land in Western Australiathat is salt-affected may exceed 30 per cent within thenext 50 to 100 years (Short and McConnell, 2001).Nationally, Western Australia has by far the greatestarea at risk, with 80 per cent of the current nationaltotal, and 50 per cent of the 2050 forecast area at risk(National Land and Water Resources Audit, 2000).

Shallow saline groundwaters have a multitude ofcostly consequences, as summarised in Table 1.Although traditionally seen primarily as an agriculturalproblem, it is now appreciated that the non-agricultural impacts are likely to be at least assignificant.

Salinity is rising in most rivers of the southwest(Hatton and Salama 1999) including rivers currentlyor likely to become used for potable water supplies.

According to George et al. (1999b) in WesternAustralia, without massive intervention, most or all ofthe wetland, dampland and woodland communities inthe lower parts of catchments will be lost to salinity.There are at least 450 plant species which occur onlyin these environments and are at high risk of extinction(State Salinity Council 2000; Keighery, 2000). Thereare also an unknown number of invertebrates at risk.For example, recent surveys by CALM have found thatin the areas of Western Australia at risk from salinity,arachnids alone number at least 700 species, witharound half of those species previously undescribed.

Increased flood risks have been studied for only asmall number of case studies (e.g. Bowman andRuprecht 2000). Based on these, George et al.

Table 1. Examples of impacts from dryland salinity

Type of salinity cost Agricultural impacts Non-agricultural impacts

Preventative action Costs of establishing preventative Costs of engineering works (pumps, drains,treatments: areas of perennial plants, evaporation basins) and revegetation tosurface drainage protect buildings, roads, bridges and other

infrastructure

Replacement, Repairs to buildings, replacement of dams, Repairs to houses and other buildings,repairs and establishment of deep drains to lower desalination of water resources, repairs tomaintenance saline groundwater infrastructure, restoration of natural

environments

Direct losses Reduced agricultural production, reduced Extinctions, loss of biodiversity, loss offlexibility of farm management amenity, loss of aesthetic values, loss of

water resources, eutrophication of waterways, loss of development opportunities on flood plains

Background 23

(1999b) concluded that, with the predicted two- tofour-fold increase in area of wheatbelt land withshallow watertables, there will be at least a two-foldincrease in flood flows.

Infrastructure at risk has also been identified andvalued in case studies. For example, Campbell et al.(2000) estimated for a sub-region of south-westWestern Australia3 that 1200 buildings (15 per cent ofall buildings in the region), 3,300 km of roads (28 percent) and 16,000 farm dams (44 per cent) facedamage or destruction from salinity.

Short and McConnell (2001), summarised by theNational Land and Water Resources Audit (2000),quantified a number of the key assets at risk over thenext 50 years (Table 2).

relatively shallow-rooted and “annual” in nature.Deep-rooted perennial plants reduce the rate ofgroundwater rise by using a larger proportion of the available rainfall before it drains below the rootzone. There are a number of deep-rooted perennialscurrently being planted by farmers, including: • lucerne, a perennial pasture plant which is reported

to have been established over 100,000 ha;

• blue gums, a commercial woody perennialsuitable for high rainfall zones, grown mainly forwood chips;

• maritime pines, a commercial woody perennialgrown for timber, which is mainly being establishedon poor soil types, on which it grows relatively well;

• tagasaste, a woody perennial used to providegrazing for livestock, particularly cattle;

• oil mallees, a woody perennial that, it is hoped,will provide feedstocks for bioenergy production,as well as oil extracted from leaves, andactivated carbon;

• eucalypts for commercial saw logs in mediumrainfall zones; and

• non-commercial native vegetation for biodiversityenhancement.

Although this list appears encouraging, the areas ofperennial vegetation recommended by hydrologists forprevention of groundwater rise are extremely high.Areas of perennials currently in place or in prospectare very small compared to the areas needed foreffective salinity prevention. In recent years, we havelost earlier hopes that large-scale preventativeimpacts on salinity could be achieved by cleverselection and placement of relatively small-scaletreatments, or by changes to the management oftraditional annual crops and pastures.

The new scientific consensus is that large proportionsof land in threatened catchments would need to berevegetated with deep-rooted perennial plants for atleast part of the time4.

Even with massive changes in land use, the long-runpotential to prevent salinity is believed to be limited inmany catchments of Western Australia, particularlymany of those in lower rainfall areas. This is becausethe catchments in low rainfall regions tend to be larger,flatter and less well drained than elsewhere. Figure 1shows the results of hydrological modelling for severalcatchments in Western Australia (George et al. 1999b).These results indicate that if recharge across acatchment were reduced by 50 per cent (implyingperennials on more than 50 per cent of the land) thesalinity risk5 in the catchment would be averted onbetween 3 and 12 per cent of the catchment.

Table 2 Key assets at risk from dryland salinity in Western Australia

Assets 2000 2050*

Agricultural land (ha) 3,600,000 6,500,000

Perennial vegetation (ha) 600,000 1,800,000

Important wetlands (ha) 72,000 80,000

Highways (km) 720 1,500

Primary roads (km) 680 1,200

Secondary roads (km) 1,200 2,300

Minor roads (km) 12,000 23,000

Rail (km) 1,400 2,200

Stream length (km) 1,500 2,800

Towns (number) 20 29

Important wetlands 21 21(number)

* Predictions based on groundwater trends and ‘best guess’ futureland use.

4.3 Treatments and Their ImpactsMost of the forecasts which have been made aboutfuture salinity impacts are based on a “business asusual” scenario. Sufficiently intensive responses tosalinity will reduce the forecast impacts. This sectioncovers the establishment of perennial plants forprevention of groundwater rise, and a range ofengineering options for managing water. Thefollowing section covers “living with salinity”,including plant-based options for farming salinisedland, and a range of options for making use ofsalinised land and water.

4.3.1 Perennials to prevent groundwater riseMost plant species used in commercial agriculture are

3. The region comprises the Western South Coast (Mt Barker Landsat TM scene) and the Upper Blackwood Catchment (Dumbleyung and the Bunbury scene as farwest as the Towerinning Catchment). The total area is about 30,000 km2 (3 million ha).

4. Some of the proposed systems for perennial production involve phases of perennials for some years, followed by some years of traditional annual crops orpastures. In other systems, perennials may be grown more or less permanently in belts or blocks.

5. The indicator of salinity risk shown in Figure 1 is not “area of salinity” but “flowtube length with high risk of a shallow water table”.


The timing of treatment impacts is also important. Onthe positive side, even where equilibrium areas ofsalinity are reduced little, the implementation of large-scale revegetation programs is likely to delay theprocess of reaching that equilibrium by between 20and 80 years (Campbell et al. 2000).

On the negative side, given the slow rate ofdevelopment of salinity, the benefits of treatmentsimplemented now may be well into the future.Although local reductions in watertables can beachieved within a year or two (George et al. 1999a),catchment-scale impacts, such as reductions of salinedischarges into waterways, will be very much slower.In catchments having regional groundwater flowsystems6, much of the benefits will probably be acentury or more in the future (Hatton and Nulsen1999; Hatton and Salama 1999). This is becauseregional flow systems are large and, particularly inWestern Australia, groundwater movement withinthem is generally slow.

4.3.2 Engineering methods for water managementEngineering methods provide an alternative or asupplement to perennial vegetation.

Shallow drainage for surface water management isrecognised as a key strategy throughout theagricultural region of Western Australia. It is clearlycheaper to prevent water reaching the groundwaterthan to extract it from the groundwater later. As wellas long-term salinity benefits, surface watermanagement can provide short-term benefits fromreduced water logging. If waters leaving a farm aremainly surface waters, they are less likely to salinisewater resources and other assets downstream.Surface water management at the catchment scalerequires planning and a degree of cooperationbetween neighbouring farmers.

Reduction in recharge (% of current level)

Salin

ity

risk

in 2

100

(% o

f ca

tchm

ent)

00

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Limit with alley-farming/annuals Limit of tree

belts &perennials

in alleys

All trees orengineering

Increasingly, farmers are interested in deep drainageon valley floors, to protect or reclaim areas. There aresome areas of controversy regarding deep drains.There are widely differing views about theireffectiveness and the likely causes of their observedeffects, and there are concerns about the downstreamimpacts of saline discharge waters from deep drains.However, deep drains are being installed at a rapidrate, with or without the appropriate approvals, so it isimportant to address these areas of controversyurgently. Recent measurements by CSIRO of deepdrains at Narembeen are revealing greater levels ofgroundwater draw down than in some earlier studies,further highlighting the need for more comprehensiveand detailed assessments of these drains.

A key issue to resolve with deep drainage is the cost-effective and environmentally safe disposal ofdischarged waters. Some farmers are calling for thegovernment to install major arterial drainage systemsto collect all waters drained off agricultural lands. Ona related theme, proposals have been made toconstruct major regional engineering schemes to befed by engineering works on agricultural land (eg.Belford 2001; Thomas and Williamson 2001). Again,further investigations are needed to assess the safetyand cost-effectiveness of these approaches, whichwould have very high up-front costs.

Pumping is more likely to be a viable strategy whereparticularly valuable assets are at stake (e.g. theinfrastructure of a town, or an importantenvironmental asset).

In situations where a valuable asset is located in acatchment where the process of watertable rise is welladvanced, the benefits of revegetating the catchmentmay be too little and too late to save the asset.

In these cases, pumping is probably the only strategyavailable with the technical capacity to protect theasset (Campbell et al. 2000). Pumping is a key part ofa multi-pronged attempt to preserve Lake Toolibin,the last remaining freshwater lake in the WesternAustralian wheatbelt.

Pumping can be more effective in locations where it isable to access water from a paleochannel, which is amore permeable zone from which groundwaters canbe extracted more easily than elsewhere. Some of theexisting pumping to protect Lake Toolibin is accessinga paleochannel.

Identification of paleochannels is one aim of theairborne geophysics program of the National ActionPlan for Salinity and Water Quality. Airbornegeophysics has been used for a number of years inWestern Australia. Attitudes to it among those withtechnical expertise vary. It seems likely that it has acontribution to make, but will fall short of playing thepivotal role envisaged by some.

6. In a regional groundwater flow system (e.g. a large, flat wheatbelt catchment), groundwaters may move slowly over long distances (e.g. greater that 10 km),crossing several farm boundaries before discharging lower in the landscape. At the other extreme, in local groundwater flow systems (e.g. in relatively undulatinglandscapes) recharge and discharge are likely to occur close enough together to be within the same farm (Pannell et al., 2001).

Figure 1. Responsiveness of dryland salinity to reduced recharge(e.g. from perennials or drainage) in a range of catchment types inWestern Australia, assuming that “business as usual” would resultin high salinity risk on 30 percent of the catchment. (source: based on George et al. 1999b)

Background 25

Finally, another approach currently being investigated isthe use of “relief wells” which allow saline groundwatersto be discharged under pressure at the surface.

Overall, there is a new recognition and acceptance ofthe role of engineering works in managinggroundwaters (as well as surface waters). There is,however, relatively little information available abouttheir on-site and possible off-site impacts, and evenless about their cost-effectiveness as broad strategies.

4.4 Living with salinityAs noted earlier, even with major interventions,continuing salinisation of resources will occur inWestern Australia. If large-scale changes to farmingpractices are made immediately, the area of saline landwould still increase by at least two million ha fromcurrent levels (around two million ha) before stabilising.The reason for this is that the salinisation processesalready under way will take many years to reachequilibrium even if future recharge rates are reduced.Water which has been added to groundwaters over thepast decades will continue to discharge over steadilylarger areas in coming decades.

Farmers in Western Australia with large areas of salt-affected land are already trialing and implementingfarming systems based on salt-tolerant plant species.These farmers are viewing saline land as a potentiallyproductive resource, and are attempting to developnew ways to make use of it. There are a number of“halophytic” plants that will grow on saline land, andsome are suitable for livestock forage. Lambs grazedon saltbush are said to have an enhanced flavour,which may provide marketing opportunities. Livestockindustries are likely to be the major users of salt land,but a number of opportunities exist to develop newcommercial uses for salt water, as identified throughthe “Options for the Productive Use of Salinity” study:• Saline aquaculture is attracting growing interest.

A number of farmers are already stocking saltydams with yearling trout.

• Saline water can be used for electricitygeneration, algae (eg. for agar, ß-carotene,pigments, or fish food), seaweed and, if it is notexcessively saline, irrigation water.

• There is potential to process saline water toextract valuable salts and minerals, includingmagnesium, bromine and potassium chloride.

Where water resources are salinised, desalination as aform of “living with salinity” is an option whichappears to warrant further investigation. Theeconomics of desalinisation are more likely to befavoured if the water can be desalinated locally andsubstitute for water piped over considerabledistances. Further, if prevention of salinisation of awater resource catchment involves very high costs,desalination may again be a cheaper method toobtain fresh water.

Other types of engineering methods to adapt tosalinity may also be more efficient than salinityprevention. These potentially include engineeringworks for flood mitigation, and replacement ofdamaged infrastructure with structures designed tobetter withstand salinity.

Finally, an option available to landholders is to allowsalinity to occur and to make do with smallerproductive areas, perhaps with some intensification ofproduction. In situations where treatments areexpensive and/or slow to show benefits, and the assetsat risk are not sufficiently valuable, such an option mayconceivably be the most efficient course of action, notjust for the farmer but also for society more generally.

4.5 Economics of salinity managementThe economic costs and benefits of available salinitymanagement options are important at two levels:• At the farm level, they have a strong influence on

the attractiveness of the management options toland managers; and

• At the catchment, regional or state level, they havean influence on the type of policy approaches andthe scale of public investment which would be inthe best interests of the community as a whole.

Where public funds are less than needed to fullyaddress the problem, economic considerations influencethe prioritisation of targets for public investment.

First consider the farm level. The hydrologicalmodelling results presented earlier, combined withrecent economic modelling results, have strongimplications for use of perennials for salinity prevention.Unless the perennials used are almost as profitable asthe farming enterprise they replace, they will usuallynot pay their way through salinity prevention. Whereperennials are established, their on-farm economicbenefits from salinity prevention are usually smallrelative to the direct and indirect costs of establishingthe perennials. Therefore, in order to assess thepotential for widespread adoption of perennials bylandholders, it is essential to consider their economiccosts and benefits other than salinity prevention.

The economic attractiveness to land managers ofexisting perennial options varies widely from locationto location, and between different soil types orlandforms within a location. Nevertheless it is possibleto draw some broad conclusions about the economicsof existing options.

In general, the existing perennial plant options forsalinity prevention are economically attractive only on ascale that is much lower than we would need toeffectively prevent salinity. All of the perennials listedearlier are attractive in certain situations, but all havesignificant limitations on their potential scale, including:• requirements for particular soil types or soil

conditions (eg. lucerne is susceptible to waterlogging and acidity);


• rainfall requirements (eg. blue gums require highrainfall); and

• market or processing limits (eg. the capacity foroil mallee production will be limited by thecapacity of processing plants and the mallees willneed to be grown sufficiently close to processingplants to avoid excessive transport costs).

The Cooperative Research Centre for Plant-BasedManagement of Dryland Salinity is a newlyestablished national centre, with headquarters at theUniversity of Western Australia. It will be attemptingto develop new perennial options that are profitablefor farmers to adopt. Given the observations above,this is clearly a task of outstanding importance.

The Cooperative Research Centre will also beaddressing the need for additional options forprofitable agricultural production on saline land. Newsalt-tolerant pasture and crop types will be developed.Given the inevitable increase in saline land, this isalso a key task. Given the low value of saline land foralternative uses, the economics of these options forliving with salinity (for “discharge” areas) are probablyless challenging than those of perennials for salinityprevention (for “recharge” areas).

Successful development of both discharge andrecharge commercial plant options will require morethan research and development. Marketing, transportand processing issues will also be important, as willthe involvement of farmers in participatory research totest and refine management systems for plant options

as they become available.

As noted earlier, there is relatively little evidence aboutthe farm-level economics of engineering options.Surface water management appears likely to be viablefor farmers, particularly in cases where it reduceswater logging problems, or provides fresh water forother productive uses. The farm-level economics ofdeep drains are likely to vary depending on theirtechnical effectiveness in the local conditions. Aneconomic analysis of deep open drains on agriculturalland by Ferdowsian et al. (1997) reached negativeconclusions about their cost effectiveness, but givenrecent farmer observations and new evidence that isemerging about their effectiveness in some situations,further research and analysis is needed.

In some cases, engineering works will be the mostcost-effective method for protecting high value publicassets, especially where processes of salinisation arewell advanced. This is because of the technicaleffectiveness of engineering, but also because of thelong lags in achieving catchment-scale benefits fromrevegetation.

However, it should not be presumed that engineeringworks would be economically viable, even in locationswith high value assets at risk, such as threatenedrural towns. It depends on a careful comparison ofthe benefits with the costs. Recent studies ofengineering works for salinity prevention in sixthreatened rural towns reveal the challenges inmaking large-scale engineering interventions pay.

hydrological studies to identify systems ofintervention which would be needed to reduce theimpacts of salinity, and for six of them, detailedeconomic analyses of these interventions have beenconducted. These are very important studies andthey have major implications for the management ofsalinity in the towns. Some of the common findingsfrom the six towns are listed below, drawn from thereport by Dames and Moore - NRM (2001).

• In low-lying towns like Merredin and Katanning,groundwater beneath the towns has low ratesof lateral flow through material of lowtransmissivity. Actions taken to reducegroundwater recharge higher in the catchmentwill have very little impact on groundwaterbehaviour beneath the town within time framesneeded to prevent damage. The corollary isthat actions to prevent groundwater rise or tolower existing levels need to occur within orimmediately adjacent to the town site.

• Surface water management within the towns isinadequate. In some cases, observed damage

Hydrologists recommend that the most importantand effective treatment for preventing salinitydamage within town sites is reducing rechargewithin the town site, and/or enhancing discharge inand around the town by engineering treatments,such as pumping (Matta, 1999; Dames and Moore -NRM 2001). It is believed that, in most cases,benefits from revegetation of surrounding farmlandwill be insufficient and/or too slow to prevent majordamage to town infrastructure.

For towns such as Merredin, which have fresh waterpiped to them for domestic use, the problem isworsened by release of this imported water into theground from garden irrigation systems or septictanks. For some towns in Western Australia (eg. Cranbrook, Tambellup), imported water andrunoff from roofs and roads accounts for asubstantial part of the groundwater rise within thetown.

The Rural Towns Program is concerned with 42Western Australian towns facing salinity impacts. Anumber of these towns have been subjected to

Case Study: The Rural Towns Program

Background 27

is being caused by poor domestic watermanagement or a lack of sealed drainage,rather than rising groundwaters.

• Roads are the biggest cost item from salinity inthe towns, amounting to about 60 per cent ofthe total.

• There is great variability in the situation indifferent towns. Towns need individualinvestigation and advice in determining themost appropriate course of action. Withoutspecialist professional input, affected towns areunlikely to grasp the necessary approach tourban water management that is needed.

Some of the actions recommended by theconsultants are cheap and could be taken upimmediately (eg. appointment of “Water Wise”coordinators to provide advice to businesses,householders and builders). Nevertheless, preventingthe rise of groundwaters in most of the towns willrequire expensive engineering works. In some of thetowns, the cost of the recommended works is sohigh that it outweighs the potential salinity damagecosts which would be avoided, implying that livingwith the salinity damage may be more economicallyefficient than attempting to prevent it. This isapparent in Table 3, which shows a summary of theeconomic analysis for each town. The costs shownare total costs over 30 or 60 years, discounted topresent values using a 7 per cent discount rate.

The final column shows an estimate of the netbenefits of strong intervention in the towns, based onan (possibly optimistic) assumption that it wouldresult in prevention of all costs listed in the thirdcolumn. In four of the six town, the economics of theengineering interventions studied appear adverse.The two positive results, Brookton and Corrigin, havethe advantage of being able to make some valuableuse of the pumped water hence the negative cost forCorrigin. Even in Katanning, which is probably the

most salt-threatened town in Australia, the costsestimated for disposal of pumped saline water intolined evaporation ponds is so high that costs morethan offset the benefits from salinity prevention. If itis difficult to economically justify lined evaporationbasins to protect the extreme example of Katanning,it seems unlikely that this approach could pay off inany less extreme cases.

Care is needed in interpreting the result thatengineering works for salinity prevention are noteconomically viable in several of the towns. It doesnot imply that the town’s infrastructure should be leftto deteriorate without any response. Rather it impliesinvestment in Katanning will be more effective inrepairing damage caused to infrastructure as a resultof rising groundwater than to prevent that damage.Money would be spent on repairs, but in three of thetowns, the cost of repairs would be approximately 25per cent (or less) of the costs of preventing thedamage.

The results highlight the importance of cheapdisposal of saline pumped water, and shouldencourage investigation of potential safe and cheapalternatives. The positive economic results forBrookton and Corrigin suggest that making profitableuses of the water may be the key to making theengineering systems economically viable. It may bethat continuing advances in desalination methods willmake the pumping option attractive in more towns.

The Merredin town site is currently the subject of amajor trial involving pumping of groundwater,desalination of a proportion of the water with theresulting fresh water substituting for piped water fromMundaring Dam, and disposal of saline effluent in alined evaporation basin outside the town. Althoughprospects for a full-scale version of such a system tobe viable in Merredin currently appear poor, muchwill be learnt in the trial that may improve thoseprospects either in Merredin or other towns.

Table 3. Summary of economic analyses of salinity management for six towns in the Rural Towns Program

(timescale of estimates) (years) ($ million) ($ million) ($ million)

Town Timing of onset of Damage costs from Total cost of Potential gain frommajor costs salinity if no works possible works to engineering works

undertaken control risinggroundwater

Brookton (60 years) 4 0.62 0.28 0.34

Corrigin (60 years) 2 0.21 -0.10 0.31

Cranbrook (60 years) 22 0.61 2.3 to 5.7 -1.6 to -5.1

Katanning (30 years) 1 6.9 7.6 -0.74

Merredin (60 years) 26 0.38 1.8 to 4.6 -1.4 to -4.2

Morawa (30 years) 1 0.25 0.90 -0.65(source: based on Dames and Moore - NRM (2001).


A final aspect of the economics of salinity is the valueof off-farm benefits and costs from on-farm salinitymanagement. In principle, such off-farm benefitsmight be used to justify so-called “salinity credits”.Such credits may be paid by the State to farmers as areward/incentive for implementing salinity preventionmeasures. These may help to make the availablemanagement options more financially attractive tofarmers.

The State Salinity Strategy has had a specific goal toinvestigate such an approach and the NationalAction Plan for Salinity and Water Quality alsoincludes the investigation of “economic policyinstruments” or “market-based instruments” such assalinity credits.

Economic policy instruments do, no doubt, have arole to play in promoting change on farms in somesituations. However, recent developments in ourunderstanding, as reflected in Figure 1 above, revealthat the potential benefits of economic policyinstruments are likely to be a somewhat limited. Themain benefits will be in a small proportion of locationswhere off-site benefits from on-farm revegetation areoutstandingly high and groundwater systems aresufficiently responsive to on-farm management. Forthe majority of agricultural land, off-site benefits fromrevegetation are low (per ha of revegetation), or on-site costs are high, or both. In these situations, use ofmarket-based instruments are unlikely to be effectivein altering farm management on the scale needed foreffectiveness against salinity, unless the incentivesprovided are greater than the off-site benefits. Theuse of such large incentives would actually worsenmatters, rather than improve them, because theywould encourage adoption of perennials in situationswhere the total costs (combining on-farm and off-farm) exceed the total benefits, including reducedsalinity costs.

Situations where salinity credits or some relatedapproach may be beneficial will normally be localised,specific cases. Examples might include water resourcecatchments (such as for the Wellington Dam), or farmsupstream from outstanding environmental assets.

The Water and Rivers Commission has investigatedeconomic instruments for use in the Wellington Damcatchment. They examined a range of types ofeconomic instruments, indentifying differences in theirpracticality and distributional impacts. No discussio tochange from the existing approach based on costshaving has been made. For more diffuse publicbenefits (eg. prevention of flood risk, protection ofsmall remnant areas of native vegetation on farms,protection of agricultural land) other approaches areneeded. Expenditure of public funds at the level thatwould be required to fund credit schemes for thosemore diffuse benefits is unlikely to be in thecommunity’s best interest.

The observation that off-farm benefits from on-farm

management are commonly small is related to theconclusion of hydrologists (reported earlier) thatmanagement of groundwaters within country townsprimarily needs to focus on actions within the towns,rather than in the surrounding catchments. Thisresults from the intrinsic properties of groundwatersystems in our agricultural region. Even for someenvironmental assets, it may be that on-site action isthe top priority for successful salinity prevention. Theexample of groundwater pumping from under LakeToolibin is an illustration of this. Actions within thesurrounding catchments will also provide benefits insuch cases, but they will often be insufficient in scale,and too long in coming to be relied upon as the soleprotective measure.

4.6 Social issuesThe impacts of salinity in Western Australia are notconfined to primary production, physical infrastructureand the environment. There will also be a number ofsocial impacts, including influences on people’s senseof community and sense of place. The State SalinityStrategy therefore needs to also acknowledge the‘social dimension’, including individuals, groups andrural communities.

There will be social impacts both from salinity andfrom the treatments employed to manage salinity.

Most tangibly, the loss of income from salt-affectedland will adversely affect the welfare of farmers andthe communities where they shop and live. In extremecases, salinity may mean that some farmers areforced to leave their properties. These impacts will bekeenly felt by rural communities already fighting tomaintain population and services. Loss of land tosalinity will not be distributed evenly through thelandscape, so that social impacts also will fall moreheavily on some individuals (Frost and Marsh 2000).

Farmers place a high value on ‘legacy’ - the ability tohand on their property in good order to the nextgeneration. With the ongoing spread of salinity, theloss of legacy value will be felt keenly by bothindividuals (Frost, 2000) and communities. Effects ofsalinity on rural infrastructure and environmentalassets may have similar psychological impacts onpeople in rural towns. In the long run, impacts onpopulation, prosperity, land prices, tourism potentialand recreational resources are likely.

The establishing of new industries may also havesocial impacts, both negative and positive. Forexample, in some regions of the south-west, largeareas of plantation forestry on farms has seen manyland managers leave the district. Indeed, farm forestryappears to have had a greater impact on populations(at least locally) than salinity itself. It is less clearwhat the net effect on populations in a region will be,once the positive employment impacts associatedwith processing, transport and marketing serviceindustries are fully felt. Similarly, new industries such

Background 29

as aquaculture, wildflower production and treenurseries have had positive social impacts throughemployment of local people in the operation ofbusinesses.

Inevitably, views on management differ betweenfarmers, rural town communities, urban communitiesand government agencies. Marsh et al. (2000)investigated attitudes of farmers, rural town and citypopulations to resource management issues in theMoore Catchment in Western Australia. The outcomesof various hypothetical water management optionswere described in terms of the area of salt-affectedfarm land, the area of farm land planted to trees, theimpact on wetland ecologies, the risk of a major floodevent, and changes in farmers’ incomes. The authorsconcluded that the values and attitudes of the threegroups vary widely, with very different emphases onagricultural and environmental benefits. Even withinany one of the groups, the variations were substantial.

Findings such as this have implications for communityacceptance of resource management strategies. Asthe prognosis for salinity becomes more widely knownin the urban community, the effectiveness andorientation of past public investments in programssuch as Landcare may be questioned. There ispotential for disillusionment among those who have

made major efforts to protect their local environments.

Most people acknowledge the need for a substantialand integrated response to salinity. The differingperceptions and values of people inevitably mean thatit is sometimes difficult to reach consensus on whatforms that response should take. Differing attitudestowards deep drains in rural communities todayprovide a current example.

Government policies for salinity rely very much onfarmers to voluntarily adopt new farming practices tomanage salinity. The speed and level of adoption ofnew practices depends on many factors, particularlyon the interaction of economic and social factors.

A farmer’s capacity to change depends on factorssuch as his or her economic resources, knowledge,time, family situation and the importance of non-agricultural income sources (Barr et al., 2000). Evenwhere commercially viable treatments are available,social factors will play a role in their speed of uptake.The cohesiveness of farmer groups, the strength ofinformation channels, and the credibility ofinformation sources all play important roles infarmers’ learning about and evaluation of newinnovations.


“The Quairading Land Conservation DistrictCommittee was happy with the level of communityawareness that was a result of the State SalinityStrategy. The group has applauded theGovernment’s recognition of an integratedapproach and its commitment to looking after thepeople of rural communities. The QuairadingLCDC also supports the strategy in thatlandholders should learn to live with salinity andview saline areas as a resource on farms thatneeds greater utilitation.”

Quairading LCDC

“Nyabing Pingrup LCDC has held two meetingswhere this submission was discussed... Of thepeople attending, only four had seen the SalinityAction Plan and only two had read it.”

Nyabing Pingrup LCDC

“The Federation believes that the State SalinityStrategy and Action Plan has proved to be anintegral component in the State’s battle tomanage salinity. The fact that WA is furtheradvanced in its management of salinity than otherStates is clear evidence of the effectiveness of thestrategy.”

Western Australian Farmers’ Federation

“One of the mysteries of the Salinity Action Planand Strategy is the incontrovertible attitude takenby its proponents. Any criticism of “the plan” isroundly ignored and when well reasonedalternatives are put forward the only sound is therustle of papers destined to the waste bin. In short,new solutions have not been welcomed.”

Rod Bradley

“It should be clearly identified that the StateSalinity Strategy and the Salinity Action Plan are acomponent of natural resource management andshould be addressed in that manner.”

Peel Harvey Catchment Council

“I am derisive of the attempt by this Governmentto change current thinking of salinity issues. Therehave been an awful lot of studies andrecommendations but none have really taken theprocess anywhere. A complete overhaul of thewhole structure, I believe, needs to be adopted. Allthe millions of dollars that have been spent in thisState in salinity; what real purposes andachievements have emerged? All the monitoringand research projects; what is the summary ofthese results?”

John Hall

What people said about the existing State Salinity Strategy & the Salinity Action Plan

Findings and recommendations 31

5. Findings and Recommendations5.1 The Existing State Salinity Strategyand Salinity Action PlanTerm of Reference 1, in its entirety, required theTaskforce to review the strategies and actions of theSalinity Strategy 2000 and their implementation,paying special attention to a range of issues. Specificcomments on these matters are made throughout theTaskforce Report.

The Taskforce considers that the strategic directionand actions stated in the Salinity Strategy 2000 aresupported by the themes emerging throughout itsreview. However, the Taskforce considers that thepoints of emphasis have shifted and that a processfor more strategic investment is required. Therefore,while the principles of the 1996 and 2000 Strategiesremain relevant, the Taskforce has identified shifts ininvestment in a range of areas. On balance, theTaskforce considers that the sorts of changes inemphasis and direction that it is recommending, ifaccepted by Government, will alter the current SalinityStrategy and Action Plan.

A number of significant events have occurred sincethe Salinity Strategy 2000 were released including:• announcement of the Government’s new

initiatives of demonstration catchments andtesting of engineering solutions;

• the National Action Plan for Salinity and WaterQuality;

• establishment of the Cooperative ResearchCentre for the Development of Plant-BasedSolutions to Dryland Salinity;

• new information about the potential impacts ofsalinity, particularly on biodiversity andinfrastructure; and

• new information about the requirements foreffective salinity management.

These events, when considered together with thechanges that the Taskforce is recommending, point tothe need for the development of a new SalinityStrategy. In recommending this, however, theTaskforce is very aware of the significant effort andconsultation that occurred to develop the SalinityStrategy 2000 and the effort that people have madeto contribute to the Taskforce’s own deliberations.The Taskforce therefore recommends that the newStrategy be prepared as a matter of urgency and withtargeted consultation.

Recommendation 5.1.1

The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theproposed Natural Resource Management Council forLand and Water develops a new State SalinityStrategy to reflect the new investment priorities of theGovernment and any outcomes of negotiations forthe National Action Plan for Salinity and WaterQuality. The Strategy will build on the 1996 and 2000Strategies by incorporating the findings of the SalinityTaskforce, particularly the need for increasedattention to: • the completion and application of the Framework

for Investment in Salinity Management;

• better systems for monitoring and evaluation;

• engineering methods for salinity management insuitable locations;

• commercial drivers and development of newtechnologies and farming systems for salinitymanagement;

• new structures and institutional arrangements;and

• improved biodiversity management andprotection.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that its statementof ‘A New Position on Salinity Management’ (Section 2)be endorsed and used as the basis for developing thenew State Salinity Strategy as well as guiding theState’s negotiations for the National Action Plan forSalinity and Water Quality and influencingnegotiations for phase two of the Natural HeritageTrust.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the newSalinity Strategy incorporate interim outcomes,targets and milestones, based as far as possible onthe proposed Framework for Investment in SalinityManagement (see Recommendation 5.2.1).


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that, over time,outcomes, targets and milestones be refined as theFramework for Investment in Salinity Management isapplied with greater detail and rigour to the range ofinvestment options for salinity management.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the newSalinity Strategy be completed within six months ofendorsement of the recommendations of the SalinityTaskforce.


“Government policy on dryland salinity needs to bemuch more responsive to scientific informationand subject to regular review, taking into accountscientific and technical developments.”

Simon Abbott

“Considerable funds, largely derived from Telstra,have been all allocated to this problem with littleif any impact upon it. It was clear early in the firstphase of funding of this massive infusion of fundsthat the scenario of fund allocation would matchthe “honey pot” phenomenon and so be open toabuse by the more vigorous and/or favoured landholders, technocrats (both private and public) andpoliticians....It appears that most of the money hasbeen spent on a scatter of farms, minorcatchments and wetlands.”

H. M. Churchward

“While the 2000 Salinity Strategy was a significantimprovement on the 1996 Plan the ConservationCouncil was critical of the lack of actual strategicapproach in the new Strategy. We are thereforestrongly supportive of the development of thePriority Investment Framework. Once finalised, thisshould be applied to expenditure on all salinityand NRM issues.”

Conservation Council of WA

“Monitoring and evaluation have been the Achillesheal of NRM and Salinity Strategies. We do notand cannot show clear advancement for theinvestment made. A more effective tool needs tobe developed. The key will be the regional groupsinformation networks using suitable software andwell developed guidelines to capture levels ofinvestment, past and present and its progress insuccess or failure with technical/social assessmentin spatial reporting.”

Mike McFarlane

“Fast track a salinity monitoring system capableof educating the public on the dangers and costsof salinity to the community as a whole. Thecommunity at Shire level should have regularinformation on parameters such as groundwatermovements over time, stream and river salinitiesand rate of change of land salinisation over time.On a State basis this information should bepublished regularly in the media so that urbancommunities have some understanding of theproblem.”

JDS O’Connell

“In my experience, I consider that a moreprofessional approach to monitoring these bores,together with the many other bores throughout theState is urgently required. This monitoring processincludes information such as water table depth,water quality and quantity and general groundwater pressure information. Monitoring of groundwater is fundamental to the knowledge of saline land control because without the influence of saline ground water, there is noproblem.”

Soil Conservation Services

“ The greatest difficulity for developingmonitoring and evaluation processes for salinitychange has been the lack of a process to measurebiophysical and economic changes at any scale.”

Avon Working Group

“If we can learn anything from our experienceswith the decade of Landcare and the first fiveyears of the Natural Heretage Trust, it is that wemust not confuse activity with effectiveness.”

Tom Hatton, CSIRO

What people said about prioritising salinity investment & monitoring effectiveness


5.2 Prioritising salinity investments andmonitoring effectivenessSection 2 outlines the Taskforce’s general philosophyin relation to salinity management and explains why itconsiders that a strategic investment prioritisationframework is vital to future salinity managementactivities in Western Australia.

Term of Reference 5 required the Taskforce to reviewthe process for prioritising the future expenditure offunds to combat salinity.

Term of Reference 6 required the Taskforce to reviewexisting monitoring and evaluation arrangements andprocesses to:• advise on appropriate social, economic and

biophysical goals and targets;

• advise on how to determine whether strategiesand projects are contributing to the targets andoutcomes required;

• advise on how to ensure salinity funds areachieving positive change in priority areas on-the-ground; and

• ensure monitoring arrangements are adequate asthe basis for annual and five-yearly reviews of theeffectiveness of the Strategy in delivering relevantenvironmental and social outcomes.

This section considers both Terms of Reference.These interrelated activities should underpin all ofGovernment’s investment in salinity and theTaskforce has chosen to address these Terms ofReference early in its findings to emphasise howfundamental these activities are to future investment.

5.2.1 The process for prioritising future expenditureon salinityThe Taskforce considers that it is neither possible inpractice nor desirable in principle for Government toprovide direct financial assistance for the up-front andongoing costs of on-ground works on the scaleneeded to manage salinity effectively across theagricultural region. As outlined in Section 2, theGovernment response needs to be catalytic andstrategically directed with a careful process ofprioritisation applied to funding.

The 1996 Salinity Action Plan and 2000 SalinityStrategy do encompass some prioritisation(particularly around public assets at risk ofsalinisation). However, the increased knowledgeabout salinity in recent years has highlighted the needfor a more strategic and rigorous approach toallocating funding as small scale works will beineffective in most of the areas at risk.

In recognising this, the State Salinity Council begandeveloping a new Framework for Investment in SalinityManagement (hereafter, the “InvestmentFramework”) in October 2000 and the principles ofthis are listed below.

1. The top priority public investments are thosewhich generate the greatest public benefits perdollar of public investment. Whether protection ofa particular asset falls into this “top priority”category depends on the costs of preventativetreatments, the effectiveness of the treatmentsand the values of the assets. “Values” includesocial and environmental values, as well aseconomic values.

2. Direct financial assistance to landholders toundertake salinity action should be strategic andshould not exceed the public benefits that result.(i.e. focused on priority areas with high value andhigh probability of success).

3. Where the priority is high and net public benefitsare sufficient, Government should be prepared totake strong action to ensure protection of theasset (e.g. compensation or structuraladjustment, regulation and monitoring to ensureachievement).

4. Where the public priority is low but there areextensive private assets at risk, the publicinvestment should be aimed at industrydevelopment (i.e. profitable systems to prevent orcontain salinity or to adapt to saline land andwater).

5. Inevitably, a targeted investment strategy insalinity management will result in an unequaldistribution of investment across the state. Overtime, funding priorities will change as newinformation becomes available and programsadapt, goals are met and new challenges arise.

6. Government must fulfil its statutory obligationsfor land, natural resources and functions (such asresearch) when it sets its priorities for investmentin salinity action.

The Taskforce endorses these principles as forming asound basis for investment prioritisation.

Although the Investment Framework is not yetfinalised, the Taskforce considers that this is a veryimportant initiative and that good progress has beenmade in its development.

The Taskforce concurs with the Salinity Councilworking group which has been developing thisframework that a rigorous investment decisionprocess for allocation of available resources needs tobecome part of the “Natural Resource Managementculture” of the State with shared ownership acrossGovernment, Government departments and thecommunity. With the allocation of scarce resourcesalso comes the need to ensure funding decisions andprocesses are transparent and accountable with aclear statement of the assumptions used in theprocess.

The Taskforce expects that the InvestmentFramework will provide a sound basis for planning and


investment over the long term, but to be trulyeffective this will require endorsement of theInvestment Framework by Government as the basis ofresource allocation decisions in salinity management.

Existing regional Natural Resource Managementstrategies prepared by the Natural ResourceManagement Regional Groups do contain priorities,but in general they have not been derived using aformal prioritisation process of the kind representedby the Investment Framework.

In addition, existing regional strategies containdesired outcomes that are perhaps unrealistic giventhe limited resources available to achieve them. Giventhe emphasis in the National Action Plan for Salinityand Water Quality on funding delivery throughnatural resource management regional groups, it willbe important that the these groups adopt a processof prioritisation for on-ground works that is moreconsistent with the Investment Framework.

However, meaningful application of the InvestmentFramework makes high demands for information andexpertise, and so regional groups will need significanttechnical support from departments in applying theInvestment Framework to their regional strategies.

A component of this support will be training in boththe methodology and application of the process.

Such a process will also require coordination andcontinued development and review. The SalinityTaskforce considers that the proposed NaturalResource Management Council for Land and Watershould lead this. Additional funding will be required toprovide the specific data requirements for applicationof the framework.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the StateSalinity Council’s “Framework for Investment inSalinity Management” be finalised and thatsubstantial additional funds be allocated to datacollection and analysis to support the application ofthis framework in guiding priority setting forinvestment of public funds at State and regionallevels. This process should be overseen by theproposed Natural Resource Management Council forLand and Water and coordinated by the proposedNatural Resource Management Office and involve thefull range of relevant groups and departments,including natural resource management regionalgroups. The principles and assumptions behind theInvestment Framework must be clearly articulatedtogether with an explanation of its role in guidinginvestment decisions at the State and regional levels.

Later in this report, the Salinity Taskforce makes anumber of specific recommendations for funding toparticular activities. It has not been possible tosubject these recommendations to detailed

evaluation along the lines of the InvestmentFramework within the time and resources available tothe Taskforce. The Taskforce acknowledges potentialweakness in this, but has attempted to identifyactivities that it believes would clearly satisfy anInvestment Framework analysis. Application of theInvestment Framework to these recommendations asGovernment further considers them may beappropriate.

5.2.2 Monitoring and evaluationThe Taskforce considers that prioritisation of futureexpenditure on salinity (which largely determines theactions that are undertaken) and monitoring andevaluation are inextricably linked. In essence, theselection of specific programs of investmentdetermines the monitoring and evaluationrequirements, and ongoing monitoring and evaluationmust inform future prioritisation of funding (as aninput to the Investment Framework). Similarly, theframework used to prioritise salinity expenditure mustalso be kept under review.

For the purpose of this report, the Taskforce hasdefined monitoring to mean the collection of dataand information over time. The Taskforce has definedevaluation to mean the interpretation and analysis ofthat information to determine if programs are meetingoutcomes and targets and to allow improved decisionmaking by managers. In the context of this report, themanagers in question are policy and decision makersin Government and the community (e.g. NaturalResource Management Regional Groups).

It is important to note that monitoring and evaluationis also important for business managers, includingfarmers, but their monitoring and evaluation needsare somewhat different from those of policy makers,and are best dealt with within their own businessmanagement process.

In responding to Term of Reference 6, the Taskforcenotes existing monitoring and evaluation activities,including the 2001 audit of outcomes of the SalinityAction Plan and Salinity Strategy conducted for theState Salinity Council by consultants URS Australia,and the 2001 internal review of programs by theDepartment of Conservation. While the Taskforceacknowledges the value of these initiatives, it is of theview that there is a need for a better designed andresourced monitoring and evaluation program for thewhole of the Salinity Strategy. The purpose of therecommended program is to provide advice to theMinisters, the proposed Natural ResourceManagement Council for Land and Water,departments’ Directors General and natural resource management regional groups to allowthem to make decisions about resource allocationand continuation or cessation of programs oractivities.

The Taskforce considers that monitoring andevaluation is not just a matter of accountability for

the expenditure of public funds; it is also needed tosupport the application of the Investment Frameworkin the medium to long term. A good monitoring andevaluation program will allow decisions on publicinvestments to improve and be more responsive toevolving circumstances and new knowledge. It wouldalso allow for continuous review and improvement ofsalinity strategies and projects within the SalinityStrategy.

There are three main components of a monitoringand evaluation framework:• development of outcomes and targets;

• monitoring of appropriate indicators to providemeasures of whether the targets and outcomesare being met; and

• evaluation, auditing, and reporting processes.

Background to these components is set out below.

The Taskforce considers that the EnvironmentalProtection Authority is best placed to undertake thetask of developing an improved monitoring andevaluation program, given its increased responsibilitiesarising from the Machinery of Government Taskforcerecommendations.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that substantialadditional funds be provided each year to theEnvironmental Protection Authority to work with theproposed Natural Resource Management Office andthe Departments of Agriculture, Conservation andEnvironment, Water and Catchment Protection todevelop, coordinate and ensure the ongoingimplementation of a comprehensive and cost-effectivemonitoring and evaluation program for salinity andnatural resource management. The new program will,as far as possible, build on the existing monitoring andevaluation activities of State Governmentdepartments.

These resources provide for staff for the program andfor purchase of monitoring and evaluation servicesfrom appropriate departments or commercial sources.The approach of providing resources to theEnvironmental Protection Authority to purchasemonitoring and evaluation services is recommendedfor the following reasons:

• It will ensure that monitoring and evaluation arenot neglected by departments.

• It will reveal the cost of monitoring andevaluation, which might otherwise be obscuredwithin program budgets. This transparency willallow future decisions about the value of andappropriate investment in monitoring andevaluation.

• It will reduce the risk of conflict of interest, whichcan arise when departments are responsible forevaluating their own programs.


Appropriate Goals and Targets

Term of Reference 6.1 relating to the setting ofoutcomes and targets is addressed here.

In principle, appropriate targets should be anoutcome of the application of the InvestmentFramework, in a process that involves full consultationwith stakeholders. Targets would be the expected (i.e.most likely) outcomes of the selected set of salinityinvestments, with these outcomes having beenidentified by rigorous analysis, rather than beingaspirational goals. In general, these targets will bebased on future projections from computer modellingstudies, or on insights gained from previousinterventions in similar circumstances.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that targets forthe new State Salinity Strategy be developed as keyoutcomes of the application of the “Framework forInvestment in Salinity Management”.

These targets should:• specify the difference which will be made by the

State Salinity Strategy in comparison to ascenario where there is no coordinated strategyand no additional funding;

• be expressed in terms of specific outcomes,including area of land protected from salinisation,area of saline land in productive use, value ofinfrastructure protected from salinity, number ofspecies estimated to have been protected fromextinction, area of native vegetation protectedfrom salinisation and reduction in peak floodflows; and

• incorporate targets for community and socialimpacts such as increased employment in ruralareas, prevention of rural population decline andincreased wealth in rural areas.

The above recommendation particularly relates toinvestments to protect specific public assets. For theindustry development aspects of the Salinity Strategy,target levels of adoption of new land uses over timeshould be estimated as a means of focusingprograms onto achievement of on-ground outcomes.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that as new landuse options become available targets for their adoptionbe established on the basis of analyses to determinerealistic areas of adoption over time in view of: • areas of suitable soil types within suitable

climatic zones;

• the expected economic performance of the newland use options relative to traditional land uses;and

• realistic adoption levels and adoption rates basedon historical experience.



The Salinity Taskforce recommends that targets bespecified for research and development and industrydevelopment as a whole in terms of the potentiallevels of adoption of newly developed technologiesand the actual aggregate levels of adoption of thetechnologies over time.

For the third broad element of the Salinity Strategy(planning, coordination and implementation of on-ground works), the setting of targets is likely to be amixture of the two approaches outlined above. Forelements of regional strategies that involve protectionof specific identifiable assets, targets should representthe expected (most likely) outcomes of the programs,as determined in application of the InvestmentFramework (or similar) during development of therelevant regional natural resource managementstrategy. For elements that seek broad changes toachieve less site-specific benefits, targets shouldindicate potential and actual levels of adoption of thechanges in question over time.

Targets under the National Action Plan for Salinityand Water Quality should be based on the State’stargets established under the three approachesoutlined above. The apparent intention of theNational Action Plan is that targets for salinityoutcomes will be established and investmentsrigorously assessed against them.

The Taskforce has some concerns about this aspectof the National Action Plan for Salinity and WaterQuality. There is a twin danger that:

• genuinely realistic target outcomes for salinityprevention will be deemed as not sufficientlyambitious by those accrediting the proposedinvestments for the National Action Plan; and

• if more ambitious but unrealistic targets are set,the State will be subject to criticism for failing tomeet them.

Monitoring arrangements

Here, the key elements of the monitoring componentof the monitoring and evaluation program arediscussed.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that themonitoring and evaluation program for salinity andnatural resource management include two broadmonitoring components:

(a) Broadscale baseline monitoring of the impacts ofsalinity and the implementation of salinitymanagement practices; and

(b) Monitoring to support evaluation of specificprograms.

The broad-scale baseline monitoring aspect discernstime trends in variables such as stream salinity or the

aggregate area of lands affected by or at risk ofsalinisation. This does not inform resourcing decisionsin the same direct way as the monitoring of specificprograms, but is valuable to the community andgovernment as a general guide to progress in theSalinity Strategy. The State has most of the elementsof a baseline monitoring program already, including:

• the Land Monitor project;

• monitoring of water table depths by theDepartment of Agriculture;

• monitoring of wetlands by the Department ofConservation; and

• stream gauging and monitoring of waters by theDepartment of Environment, Water andCatchment Protection.

However, with limited resources, ongoing allocationsto these areas are not necessarily secure and may notbe adequate.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that substantialadditional funds be allocated to continue the LandMonitor project in support of the statewide programof baseline monitoring.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theadequacy of existing baseline monitoring programsbe reviewed by the proposed Natural ResourceManagement Office, together with the Departmentsof Conservation, Agriculture and Environment,Water and Catchment Protection. Any gaps orinefficiencies should be reported to the proposedNatural Resource Management Council for Landand Water and the Cabinet Standing Committee onEnvironmental Policy, with recommendations forimprovement.

In designing the monitoring activities for specificprograms, the information collected needs to providethe inputs to a formal evaluation.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that monitoringbe built into each program of the Salinity Strategy(including measurable targets over time) as anintrinsic part of the work, with a requirement that it will provide information for use in regularevaluations.

Evaluation

Terms of Reference 6.2 and 6.3 concern thedetermination of whether strategies and projects arecontributing to targets and outcomes and how toensure that funds are achieving positive change. Thatis, they relate to the evaluation of programs and ofthe Strategy as a whole.

Evaluation needs to be rigorous and to be carried out


by independent bodies at time intervals that areappropriate to the situation and the outcomes thathave been agreed.

The Taskforce recognises that evaluations areexpensive to conduct, so that their frequency andscope needs careful consideration. In addition, thevalue of conducting an evaluation depends verymuch on the willingness of program managers andpolicy makers to make changes in response. Thereneeds to be a commitment by Government to viewevaluations as an opportunity to improve programswhere possible, rather than to justify existingactivities.

A key aspect of evaluation is quantifying the linkbetween on-ground actions and salinity outcomes. Ingeneral, this is a major challenge, particularly forstrategies involving establishment of perennial plants.The diversity of hydrogeological circumstances andthe very long lag times between action and off-sitehydrological responses mean that the salinity-relatedbenefits from the establishment of perennials are hard

to predict and hard to observe. However, despite thisdifficulty, meaningful evaluations need to address thislink. It will, in most instances, require advice fromtechnical specialists, such as computer modellers.

Standard evaluation methods, such as Cost BenefitAnalysis, are available, but not sufficiently used innatural resource management programs generally. Arecent review of the Salinity Action Plan conducted byconsultants URS Australia was informative, but theterms of reference for the review were not designed toallow improved decision making about futureinvestments. The 2001 internal review of programs bythe Department of Conservation provides a bettermodel for this activity.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the newmonitoring and evaluation program includedevelopment of formal and rigorous evaluationprocesses for salinity programs and identification ofdata requirements for such evaluations.


“Too many people see the salt scald as theproblem, when lack of water use is the culprit.The only way we can be sure of adequate wateruse it to have perennials in the landscape. Theoptions for these are not great. I submit thatmore of the salinity budget dollars are spent onresearch and development to find commercialperennial options and that guide lines for fundingbe broadened to help farmers move to theseoptions.”

Maurice Barnes

“Drainage is having success in some areas andwill probably form part of the overall eventualstrategies for addressing the problems ofwaterlogging and dryland salinity. There is nodoubt that it will prove useful in many areas, thatusefulness will only become apparent over the longterm with examination of the results achieved todate in many areas.”

Ferugson, Kenneison and Associates

“There is an urgent need to take a commerciallyoriented business planning approach to thesalinity issue and in so doing involve corporationswho could be expected to become keystakeholders in strategies which can commerciallydrive the management of salinity. Suchcorporations could be involved in: - short rotationperennial tree crops for dryland areas; breedingsuperior strains of perennial pastures; utilisationof existing saline situations. Approaching salinityas a business proposition will focus attention onthe real issues which need addressing in economic,social and environmental terms.

Oil Mallee Company

“What is needed . . . is a change in attitudetowards drainage. Drainage is used as a matter ofcourse in agriculture in many parts of the worldand yet for some reason Western Australia has yetto accept it as a vital part of our agricultural

system. It seems somewhat strange that ourgovernment can accept that drainage can be usedto lower the water table in the city...and yet not seethe urgent need to drain the excess water from ouragricultural areas. It is the current attitude towardsdrainage that has held back a serious assessmentof engineering options to combat salinity.”

Salinity Drainage and Management Association Inc.

“Little has been done to develop natural croppingsystems other than timber plantations in highrainfall areas, oil mallees or small niche productssuch as sandalwood and ti trees. Research anddevelopment should be encouraged to develop endproducts such as bio-fuel oil, pharmaceuticalproducts, industrial products and perhaps highvalue timber for longer term applications incertain areas of the landscape. These systemsmust be more profitable than current croppingoptions to encourage broad scale adoption.”

Hyden-Kalgarin LCDC

“AGWA should have more funding to help farmersset up trials, possible long-term trials to researchdifferent and new methods in combating salt.

Wyalkatchem LCDC

“Eventually a way must be found to get industry todrive the salinity problem or solution.”

Liebe Group

“In the short to medium term engineeringsolutions (drainage) provide the only effective toolto limit the effects of salinity, while plant basedsolutions and high water use systems aredeveloped (in the long term). It is the role ofGovernment to provide research for viablesolutions and extension to bring these researchresults to farmers through implementation.Demonstration sites to give farmers confidencethat solutions do work will be necessary.”

JDS O’Connell

What people said about technology and industry development for salinity management

5.3 Technology and industrydevelopment for salinity managementThe Salinity Taskforce considers that research anddevelopment continues to play a vital role, particularlyin providing new options for salinity management.Research and development must be well supported,most importantly in the areas of engineeringsolutions, development of perennials and the use ofsalt land and salt water.

The Salinity Taskforce also considers, however, thatresearch and development alone is not sufficient.Significant additional resources and effort must bedirected to the development of commercially viableindustries that build on these technical solutions andthis must be done with close involvement, of farmerresearch and development and industry groups thatare emerging in Western Australia.

In making recommendations in this area the Taskforce is responding to three Terms ofReference:• Term of Reference 1.5 - progress in the

development of new solutions including the levelof support to development programs;

• Term of Reference 1.2 - progress in assessing thefeasibility of engineering options; and

• Term of Reference 1.4 - the potential role ofindustry and research and development groups insalinity management.

Existing plant-based options available to farmers areviable only on a scale that is small relative to the scaleneeded to address the salinity problem effectively.

The farmers of Western Australia are recognised fortheir high level of innovation, and their creative andpractical responses to salinity.

However, the task is too great and too complex toexpect farmers to be able to create the necessarytechnologies without substantial research anddevelopment and support from Government indeveloping new regional industries and markets basedon new technologies (e.g. bio-fuels from woodyperennials).

Both the 1996 Salinity Action Plan and the SalinityStrategy 2000 acknowledged the importance ofdeveloping management options and solutions tosalinity management.

The 1996 Action Plan discussed research anddevelopment needs for commercial tree crops and forhigher water use by crops and pastures but noadditional funding was provided in either area. Newfunding for “commercial industry development” fordeep-rooted perennials was stated to be $11.0 millionper year and this sum was to be sought from theCommonwealth. Funds received under the NaturalHeritage Trust were significantly less than this.

The Salinity Strategy 2000 broadened the scope of

potential management actions, acknowledging theneed for additional activity in warm season cropping,perennial pastures, productive salt-tolerant plants andproductive uses of saline water, as well as reiteratingthe importance of commercial shrub and tree crops.Again, however, no additional State funding wasprovided for research and development or industrydevelopment in these areas.

The Taskforce acknowledges the contributions ofseveral research and development organisations atthe national level, including:• the Joint Venture Agroforestry Program of the

Rural Industries Research and DevelopmentCorporation;

• the National Dryland Salinity Program;

• the Grains Research and DevelopmentCorporation;

• Land and Water Australia; and

• CSIRO.

Nevertheless, the Taskforce considers that, overall,the ongoing investment in development of newsolutions has been very low relative to the levelneeded. Most past research and development forsalinity has focussed on understanding andmeasuring the problem, rather than developing newmanagement options.

Of the three areas identified in Section 2, theTaskforce considers that the development of newviable agricultural industries that will assist inmanaging salinity is the most important funding gapfor Western Australia and this aspect also requiresnational recognition and support. The newlyestablished Cooperative Research Centre for Plant-Based Management of Dryland Salinity is a verypositive development, but the Taskforce considersthat further investment in this area is required.

The Taskforce acknowledges the important role to beplayed by community-based groups involved inparticipatory research, development and extension,including the Western Australian No-Till FarmersAssociation, the WA Lucerne Grower’s, the Oil MalleeAssociation, the Saltland Pastures Association andthe Salinity Drainage and Management Association.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends a very substantialincrease in annual funding for the development ofeconomically viable new salinity managementtechnologies and the establishment of new industriesand markets based on those technologies, subject toevaluation of economic feasibility. This initiativeshould be pursued in close partnership withcommunity-based groups involved in participatoryresearch, development and extension.

The State Salinity Council established a Research andDevelopment Technical Committee to advise on


for particular situations should be integrated as far aspossible with other management measures such assurface water management, perennial pastures andtree cropping. In this way successful engineeringoptions can be matched with other managementoptions to demonstrate an integrated approach tomanaging rising water tables and salinity. Forexample, engineering measures could be part of ademonstration catchment, or built into existing trialsor demonstrations for other management options.

Resolving engineering issues should involve:• carrying out generic analyses of the feasibility of

engineering options;

• identifying likely sites where engineering optionsmay be cost-effective, environmentallyacceptable and socially acceptable;

• undertaking specific studies on prospective sitesjudged to be most likely to succeed;

• developing cost-sharing principles (based on abeneficiary pays approach) for land managerswith a stake in those particular areas; and

• monitoring the impacts and evaluating the resultsif a decision is made to proceed.

The Taskforce has made a number ofrecommendations to progress further thedevelopment of engineering solutions to salinity as amatter of urgency.


The Salinity Taskforce supports the current directionsproposed for the $4 million engineering investigationinitiative and recommends that it be implementedwithout delay, in close collaboration with CSIRO.


The Salinity Taskforce supports the proposedestablishment of a broad-based advisory committeeto oversee the engineering investigation initiative andrecommends the close involvement and participationof farmer groups (e.g. Salinity Drainage andManagement Association), contractors, Governmentdepartments, research and developmentorganisations and natural resource managementregional groups.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the aims ofthe engineering investigations include: • resolving technical uncertainties about

effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of differentengineering options in different situations;

• advising on practical design of engineeringoptions;

• addressing regional drainage planning whichminimises adverse downstream impacts andadvances the potential to identify situationswhere downstream impacts from drainage are or


technical matters, coordinate research activitiesacross institutions and oversee the prioritisation ofresearch and development in Western Australia.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the Researchand Development Technical Committee continue itscurrent role under the proposed Natural ResouceManagement Council for Land and Water.

5.3.1 Progress with engineering optionsThe Salinity Taskforce acknowledges the increasinglyimportant contribution that engineering options willmake to the management of salinity in WesternAustralia, particularly where urgent and localisedaction will be required to prevent further salinisationof high value assets. Relevant engineering methodswill likely include deep drains, pumping, siphoning,relief wells, evaporation basins, arterial drainage andsurface water management.

In responding to this Term of Reference, theTaskforce also acknowledges the progress that hasbeen made to date, by Government departments andothers, in researching the feasibility of engineeringsolutions to salinity management. Research recentlycommenced by CSIRO appears particularly helpfuland important. In addition, a Deep DrainageTaskforce reported in March 2000 (“Deep Drainage inSouth-west Western Australia: Making it Work, notProving it Wrong”) with a comprehensive review ofthe issue and 11 recommendations. The SalinityTaskforce considers that these recommendationsremain relevant.

However, the Salinity Taskforce is also very well awareof the strong views expressed by farmers whoadvocate engineering solutions, particularly deepdrainage, as a solution to salinity and who havecriticised the lack of Government leadership in thisarea. The Taskforce therefore considers that existingcommunity concern and uncertainty aboutengineering options, particularly deep drains, needs tobe resolved as soon as possible and increased effortis required to progress this area.

The existing diversity of views within the farming andscientific communities and the lack of technicalknowledge needed to evaluate potential downstreamimpacts from engineering works (including flood riskand environmental impacts) makes it impossible tosupport implementation of major engineeringschemes in the short term. The current Governmentinitiative on engineering investigations is thereforevery timely and important.

In particular, the Taskforce considers that thepreliminary directions that have been proposed for theengineering investigations through the Government’s‘Engineering Advisory Committee’ initiative doaddress the key areas of need.

As well as investigations to demonstrate whereengineering options will work best, the options chosen


wheatbelt to the ocean or into evaporation basins.Some work has been done to show how such systemscould work. However, the State needs the capacity tojudge whether such proposals should be subjected topre-feasibility or full feasibility analysis.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the‘engineering options advisory committee’ consider theneed for pre-feasibility analyses of specific proposalsfor large-scale arterial drainage systems in thewheatbelt, and advise the Department ofEnvironment, Water and Catchment Protection of theneed for such analyses.

The crossing of roads and rail lines by drainagesystems is expensive. A number of farmers raisedconcerns about unwillingness or inability of relevantauthorities to provide for such crossings.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theDepartment of Planning and Infrastructure, WesternAustralian Government Railways Commission and theWestern Australian Local Government Associationdevelop a system of cost sharing for crossing of roadsand rail lines by drainage waters for situations wherethe drainage system is assessed as being costeffective and downstream impacts of drainagesystems are found to be acceptable.

5.3.2 Perennials to prevent salinisationA range of new profitable perennials is needed toprovide a sufficient range of choices for differentphysical environments and different farming systems.Significant progress has been made with theestablishment of maritime pines and oil mallees in thelower to medium rainfall areas through the work ofthe Department of Conservation and the ForestProducts Commission.

New commercial industries will be based on woodyperennials, perennial pastures and, if possible,perennial crops. Perennials based on native specieswill ensure adaptation to local conditions and reducerisks of introducing new woody weeds. Success indeveloping industries based on woody perennialswould generate the greatest range of benefits, but isalso likely to be more difficult to achieve and takelonger to realise benefits relative to herbaciousperennials.

The process of successful industry development fromnew perennial plants is complex, multifaceted andinherently risky. The Taskforce commends theDepartment of Conservation for its comprehensiveand well-conceived approach to new industrydevelopment, involving:• the search for prospective perennial species and

products;

• pre-feasibility analysis to identify a shortlist ofbest prospects;

are not acceptable (including issues of concernto indigenous groups, waterways managementauthorities and environmental organisations);

• defining the role of Government in any suchschemes (consistent with the principles of theInvestment Framework);

• resolving equity issues, e.g. providing a soundbasis for decisions about which catchments willand will not receive funding for drainage schemes(again the Investment Framework principles arerelevant); and

• providing advice on how to resolve and simplifynotification and approval procedures forlandowners who propose engineering options.

To allow us to forecast credibly the future state ofwheatbelt rivers, in terms of flood peaks, salt loadsand flows, including the impact of any large-scalerevegetation or engineering works, there is a need foran improved modelling and analysis tool.

Once developed and evaluated the model should beable to be used to determine new 100-year floodlevels for all wheatbelt drainage systems. Thisinformation will help to determine public and privateassets at risk and to evaluate the benefits and costsof flood mitigation measures.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that additionalfunds be allocated to the CSIRO and Department ofEnvironment, Water and Catchment Protectiontowards the development of a modelling tool to allowimproved analysis of flood peaks, salt loads andflows, including the impact of any large-scalerevegetation or engineering works, and for applicationand testing of this model to at least one major basin,in conjunction with the engineering investigationinitiative.

The existing approval process for engineering works,which places the onus on landowners to prove thatdownstream impacts are acceptable, is reasonable inprinciple but problematic in practice. In a contextwhere deep drains are seen by many as an urgentneed and are being installed at a rapid rate andwhere the process of assessing downstream impactsis difficult and expensive, the existing process willresult in many landowners bypassing the approvalprocess.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theDepartment of Environment, Water and CatchmentProtection, with other appropriate agencies, developsa system of cost sharing for evaluation of drainageproposals.

A number of submissions to the Taskforceemphasised the benefits of large-scale arterialdrainage to transport unwanted water from the

excludes access to traditional octane-enhancingadditives such as benzene and MTBE. Ethanolproduced from wood or other plant products is themost likely product to replace these newly-excludedadditives, and this provides a major opportunity forstimulating woody perennial industries and processingplants over the agricultural region of WesternAustralia. Requirements for this to succeed would beone of the key issues to be addressed within the‘Development Plan for New Regional Industries’.

In the shorter term, the best prospects for wideadoption of new types of perennials are herbaceousperennials for grazing by livestock. Because of theircompatibility with existing farming practices and theexistence of markets for livestock products, perennialpastures are likely to be taken up rapidly by farmers,provided they are sufficiently profitable.

The Cooperative Research Centre for Plant-BasedManagement of Dryland Salinity has a key role toplay in coordinating and delivering research anddevelopment in plant-based management of salinity(for both salinity prevention and productive use of saltland, which is discussed below). Although theCooperative Research Centre is a welcome newinitiative in this area, its resources are spread acrossthe nation, and the level of resources available to beallocated to generating new plant-based options forWestern Australia are not sufficient, given themagnitude of the task. In particular, the provision offunds for identification and development ofgermplasm would significantly enhance theCooperative Research Centre’s capacity.

The following recommendations address short-termneeds in these areas. Over the long term, significantfunding will be needed for similar initiatives. Thisshould be addressed in the Development Plan forNew Regional Industries.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that substantialadditional funds be allocated to the Department ofAgriculture each year to enhance the germplasmdevelopment of perennial pastures, in collaborationwith the Cooperative Research Centre for Plant-BasedManagement of Dryland Salinity.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that substantialadditional funds be allocated to the Department ofConservation over two years for research anddevelopment to establish industries based on Acaciaspecies, including selection of specific species basedon their suitability for production of wood productsand/or feed in collaboration with the CooperativeResearch Centre for Plant-Based Management ofDryland Salinity.

In addition, beyond research and development,funding is needed to support market research,development of processing technologies,

• industry exploration to plan and commencebuilding the foundation for an industry; and

• full feasibility investigation to prepare businessand industry plans.

Consideration of market prospects for products isincluded throughout the process and guides allassessments of feasibility. A key requirement for newindustries is large markets for the products, given thevery large areas that need to be planted to addresssalinity successfully. The Forest Products Commissionperforms a vital role in this area. Prospective productsinclude bioenergy, biofuels, wood particle products,activated carbon and eucalyptus oil and structuraltimbers.

To summarise this vision, development of newagricultural industries should be a central part ofregional development as a new route to naturalresource management and sustainable development.

Given the importance and difficulty of this set oftasks, the Taskforce considers that a ‘DevelopmentPlan for New Regional Industries’ should be prepared.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theDepartment of Local Government and RegionalDevelopment provide leadership in preparing a‘Development Plan for New Regional Industries’ incollaboration with the Forest Products Commission,natural resources managment departments, naturalresource management regional groups, regionalplantation committees, local governments, RegionalDevelopment Commissions, natural resourcemanagement departments, Western Power, theproposed Natural Resource Management Office,research and development institutions, farmerindustry groups, existing relevant businesses,environmental interests and farmer organisations.

Issues to be addressed in the Plan would include:• requirements to reconfigure the electricity grid to

accommodate dispersed generation;

• the reconfiguration of regional water supplies totake desalinated water produced fromcogeneration plants (joint electricity/desalinationplants);

• the potential for ethanol mixtures in fuels and thepotential need to modify transport fuelsinfrastructure accordingly;

• secure long-term funding sources for the largeresearch and development task to support theseinitiatives;

• the achievement of natural resourcemanagement outcomes, including salinity; and

• benefits to the farming community and ruraltowns.

Recently, new fuel quality standards have beenimposed by Commonwealth legislation that limits or


expertise, which reflects past funding neglect of thearea. Therefore any increase needs to be modestinitially and scaled up over several years.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that substantialadditional funds increasing over time are needed forresearch and development to improve germplasm forsalt land and to develop new types of commercialsalt-tolerant plants. National research anddevelopment funds should be sought for this purposeby the Department of Agriculture in collaboration withthe Cooperative Research Centre for Plant-BasedManagement of Dryland Salinity, supplemented byadditional State funds if necessary.

As part of the National Dryland Salinity Program, aninitiative known as Options for the Productive Use ofSalinity has identified a wide range of potential usesof salt water. Options identified in this initiative’sdatabase include aquaculture, electricity generation,irrigation with brackish water, algae (e.g. for agar, ß-carotene, pigments, fish food), seaweed, andextraction of valuable salts and minerals (e.g.magnesium, bromine, potassium chloride). Thecommercial potential for most of these options hasnot been explored in Western Australia.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that additionalfunds be allocated to the Department of Agricultureto establish a program to evaluate the commercialpotential of options identified by the Options for theProductive Use of Salinity project for makingproductive use of salt water in collaboration with theDepartment of Local Government and RegionalDevelopment.

The option which is most advanced at this stage issaline aquaculture. The Taskforce considers that thiscould be better integrated between the Department ofFisheries and the Department of Agriculture topromote development of this industry as well as acloser working relationship with the Western InlandFisheries Co-operative and other relevant growergroups, and additional resourcing of salineaquaculture activities within the Department ofFisheries.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that additionalfunds be allocated to the Department of Fisheries tofurther develop inland saline aquaculture industriesand to develop a coordinated approach to industrydevelopment involving the Department of Agriculture,the Western Inland Fisheries Co-operative and otherrelevant grower groups.

5.3.4 Industry and research and development groups Term of Reference 1.4 requires the Taskforce toconsider the potential role of industry and researchand development groups in salinity management. The

identification of the marketable attributes of specificproducts, feasibility studies, infrastructure,demonstration processing plants and so on.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends substantialadditional funds be allocated for product testing anddevelopment for eucalyptus oils derived from oilmallees and other eucalypt species, to beadministered by the Department of Conservation.

In the short term, difficult seasonal conditions in 2000and 2001 have affected the impetus of oil malleeplantings. There is a high probability of greatlyreduced plantings in 2002, which would adverselyaffect the organisations that both rely on and supportcontinued expansion of the industry. Given that oilmallee is by far the best prospect for largecommercial plantings of woody perennials in the shortterm, support for 2002 plantings would help to sustainthe momentum and the health of the industry.


The Salinity Taskforce recognises the adverse impactof seasonal conditions in 2001 on the ongoingdevelopment of the oil mallee industry andrecommends the provision of substantial additionalfunds to encourage continued plantings during 2002.

5.3.3 Productive use of saline land and saline waterThe area of salt land and volume of saline water willcontinue to increase, so it is important to view theseas potentially productive resources. In the evolution ofthe 1996 Salinity Action Plan to the Salinity Strategy2000, there has been an increase in recognition ofthis area but still greater emphasis is justified.

The Cooperative Research Centre for Plant-BasedManagement of Dryland Salinity is providing anincreased research and development effort. Inaddition, the Animal Production from Saline LandSystems Initiative lead by CSIRO Livestock Industriesis addressing the animal production aspects ofsaltland pastures. This initiative is in the process offorging close links with the Cooperative ResearchCentre. The Cooperative Research Centre and theinitiative will be working with the small existingprogram in the Department of Agriculture and withthe Saltland Pastures Association, to demonst rateand encourage uptake through participatory research.

Existing and anticipated funding programs for saltlandpastures are focusing on promotion of existing planttypes and investigating their utilisation by livestock.There remains a relative weakness in funding forresearch and development to improve germplasm forsalt land, and to develop new types of commercialsalt-tolerant plants. New funding initiatives in saltlandpastures are being discussed by national research anddevelopment funders. It is unclear whether they willaddress the existing weakness in the development ofnew germplasm. Increasing the effort in this area islimited by the availability of relevant scientific


with farmer groups in participatory research todemonstrate and test engineering options, newperennial options and technologies for productive useof salt land and salt water. The ‘Development Planfor New Regional Industries’ should be used as ameans to create partnerships between Governmentdepartments, other research and developmentorganisations, farmer groups (such as the Oil MalleeAssociation, the Saltland Pastures Association and WA Lucerne Growers), non-agriculturalbusinesses and natural resource managementregional groups.

The Department of Agriculture has a key role in this.It has historically provided strong support toCatchment Groups. The Taskforce considers that thegrowing strength of farmer industry groups andfarming system groups is a very importantdevelopment and that the Department of Agricultureshould continue to form strong supportive links withthese new groups.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theDepartment of Agriculture give priority to maintaininglinkages with and support for the emerging farmergroups which are focusing on a particular industry (e.g.lucerne, oil mallees, saltland pastures) or on productiveand sustainable farming systems generally (e.g. WANo-Till Farmers Association).

role of research and development organisations hasbeen outlined above. In this section, the role offarmer and community groups involved inparticipatory research and development and industrydevelopment is addressed.

There are several types of groups relevant here.Firstly, there are groups with a focus on a particularindustry, such as WA Lucerne Growers, the Oil MalleeAssociation or the Saltland Pastures Association(referred to below as “farmer industry groups”).Secondly, there are groups focusing more broadly onproductive and sustainable farming systems, such asthe Liebe Group and the Esperance Regional Forum(referred to as “farming systems groups”). Thirdly,there are catchment groups, who will also benefitfrom involvement in the development of newperennial options.

The Salinity Taskforce supports the intent of theSalinity Strategy 2000 in attempting to involve farmergroups more closely in developing solutions for salinitymanagement. The Taskforce considers that farmergroups have a key role to play in testing, improving,demonstrating, and communicating the newmanagement options as they develop. Such groupsshould continue to be fostered and supported in theseactivities.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that research anddevelopment organisations support and work closely



“The emphasis on catchment action beingessential is so strong that individuals are likely tofeel that there is little point in them acting alone.This is certainly not true as demonstrated byvarious members of the Saltland PasturesAssociation who have made their saltlandproductive, lowered groundwater levels, controllederosion, mitigated flooding, improved habitat andreduced nutrient flow to streams withoutcatchment plans being in place.”

Clive Malcolm

“The emphasis on community capacity building ismisguided and is attempting to solve the wrongproblem. Most of the funding to this area shouldbe redirected into the development of potentialsolutions for salinity.”

Olsen and Vickery

“Doing agriculture differently must involve changesto the way people do business and manage theiractivities. Therefore, doing agriculture differently isabout managing people - people will be responsiblefor introducing change and will have to adapt. Ourapproach to salinity must focus a lot more attentionand resources on people, eg. information provisionand management, decision making, social support,human resources, investigation into behaviouralchange, community support officers. So large scaleinvestment is needed into social aspects of salinity.”

Conservation Council of WA

“To gain the best outcome for limited investmentdollars, both public and private, a clearer andmore prescriptive solution to salinity needs to beprovided by agencies with well resourced technicalpersonnel and extension staff. This wouldovercome much of the “silver bullet” or last ditchemotional expenditure on solutions of dubiousvalue being implemented at present.”

Western Australian Farmers Federation

“Informing or educating urban communities aboutregional salinity and natural resourcemanagement issues, their complexity and theirimpact on the state’s economic, social and

environmental well-being should be a priorityproject for state salinity funding. Government willneed broad-based community and electoralsupport to commit the resources required toaddress the issues.”

Alcoa World Alumina Australia

“The element so far untapped is the humandetermination. Time and again people have strivenand succeeded in the face of overwhelmingadversity. We can do it again by setting our heartsand hands to the tasks of getting on and fixing theproblem of salinity. But ordinary people needsupport and encouragement, a nucleus to workaround.”

Men of the Trees

“Ongoing funding for Community LandcareCoordinators is the first priority for governmentsin NRM at all levels. Local Government has a highcapacity for the employment of professionalsthrough administration and personnelmanagement arrangements and the power of legislation through the Local Government Act.”

Yilgarn LCDC

“There is a great wealth of knowledge and ability inthe rural community - and our experience with thefunded co-ordinators is that after 3 years they havethe required expertise we need and they leave”

West Ballidu LCDC

“The recent Rapid Catchment Appraisal done in ourLCDC this year appears to be very short on specificsto that catchment and provides little use to thelandholders concerned other than a collection ofdata from other sources. There is a need for morehydrologists and the support to make them useful.”

Hyden Kalgarin LCDC

“You will have some farmers beavering away to fitthe guidelines, just to get the money - others whocan see no net benefit to their sustainable landuseare just turning their backs and walking away.”

John McDougall

What people said about community support, capacity building & mechanisms to encourage change


5.4 Community support, capacitybuilding and mechanisms to encourage changeTerm of Reference 1.7 required the Salinity Taskforceto review the State Salinity Strategy to advise onmechanisms to encourage adoption of improvementsin land management practices and to discouragecontinuation of inappropriate land managementpractices. Term of Reference 1.1 similarly required theTaskforce to review the Salinity Strategy and ActionPlan paying special attention to community supportand capacity building.

The Taskforce considers that these Terms ofReference are closely related; indeed that communitysupport and capacity building is one of the primaryways of encouraging adoption of new landmanagement practices and so both are considered inthis section.

The farming community is very often a key source ofnew ideas, innovations and initiatives. Farmers’passion and commitment to management of salinityand other natural resource management issuesrevealed in public meetings and written submissionshas impressed the Salinity Taskforce. The greatmajority of farmers are clearly highly motivated toaddress salinity, within the context of having tomaintain a viable farming business.

The Government and the wider community need toacknowledge the substantial contributions alreadymade by the farming community and to recognisehow very difficult and expensive the remaining taskwill be. Following from this is recognition of the needfor appropriate assistance. The over-riding philosophyof the Taskforce has been to create opportunities,which are jointly positive for the community, theenvironment, and the economy. Substantial changesin current farming practices and land use will be partof this.

Direct contributions to salinity management will alsoincreasingly be required from non-farmers,particularly from residents of rural towns. Anotherimportant element, which is often forgotten, isworking with Aboriginal people who are the originalcustodians of the land and have maintained a verystrong interest in its good management. This aspectis brought together below as part of ‘communitysupport’ rather than have it dispersed through thereport.

There are several types of Government action thatcan help to promote and support the neededchanges, including:• research and development of various types, but

particularly that targeted to create new land useoptions which are profitable in their own right, aswell as being beneficial for salinity management;

• other support for new industry development,including support related to marketing,

infrastructure, finance and processing;

• extension, including delivery of technicalinformation, and support and facilitation offarmer groups involved in salinity management;

• economic policy instruments, such as subsidies,taxes, tradeable salinity permits, cost-sharing,and auction-based systems; and

• regulation to constrain inappropriate land usesand farming practices.

The first two of these categories have been discussedin the previous section. This section examines theother three categories, and includes a discussion ofmajor relevant Commonwealth Governmentprograms.

5.4.1 ExtensionFor the purposes of this report, extension is broadlydefined to include public and private sector activitiesrelating to technology transfer, education, attitudechange, human resource development anddissemination and collection of information. Itincludes off-farm as well as on-farm participants inagricultural industries.

The Taskforce considers that salinity managementinto the long term is highly dependent on thecommitment, innovation and action of individuals andgroups in the community and that good extensionactivities are therefore very important.

Good extension activities will contribute substantiallyto the following critical requirements for engagementof the community in salinity management:• Awareness of technical and scientific aspects of

salinity;

• Awareness of likely economic, social andenvironmental impacts of salinity and of optionsfor salinity management;

• A community which is knowledgable and skilful inthe application of salinity management practices;and

• Involvement of community groups and individualsin decision-making, planning and action fornatural resource management.

The Taskforce considers that it is also important torecognise the limitations of extension in promotingchange. The experience of the Decade of Landcarereinforces the findings of social researchers that evenexcellent programs of awareness-raising, informationprovision and improved social processes may not besufficient to induce large-scale changes involvinggreat expense and high complexity. In particular, inrelation to salinity the Taskforce has noted the seriousneglect of technology development and industrydevelopment to provide land managers with systemsthat are economically viable on the scale needed tomanage salinity. In general the appropriate role forextension is in the promotion of technologies whichare already effective and economically viable, or


The Taskforce sees an increased role fordissemination of information by natural resourcemanagement regional groups, particularly under theauspices of the National Action Plan for Salinity andWater Quality. Some regional groups have alreadyundertaken initiatives in this area.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that thecommunication processes and networks of naturalresource management regional groups be furtherdeveloped with support from the National Action Planfor Salinity and Water Quality. The proposed NaturalResource Management Office should support thiswork along with the natural resource managementgovernment departments.

A key initiative of the Salinity Strategy 2000 is theRapid Catchment Appraisal program. This grew outof concerns that the Focus Catchment process of the1996 Salinity Strategy was not working effectively inall regions, and that it would take many years toprovide basic management information to farmers inall parts of the South West. The aim of RapidCatchment Appraisal is to provide farmers with keytechnical and management information, includingpredictions of future salinity impacts and informationabout available management responses. This is toallow farmers to make well-informed decisions aboutmanagement options.

Public feedback to the Taskforce about the RapidCatchment Appraisal process was mixed. Thetechnical information provided was well received bysome farmers. However, some considered that theinformation progressed them no further towardshaving effective management systems, in partreflecting the State’s past neglect of technologydevelopment and industry development to which theTaskforce has referred.

Another concern was the whether there would besuitable follow-up technical support for planning anddecision making once the information has beenabsorbed by farmers. The nature of the RapidCatchment Appraisal Program as a fast-movingprocess designed to rapidly cover all areas of theagricultural region necessarily means that goodextension processes will be compromised to someextent. This reinforces the importance of therecommendations below for improving the tenure andtechnical expertise of Catchment LandcareCoordinators, to meet this need for technical supportand follow up.

However the Taskforce considers that theDepartment of Agriculture should ensure that theeffectiveness of Rapid Catchment Appraisal is notcompromised by lack of technical support forinterpretation and decision-making following theprovision of written reports. It may be preferable forthe program to move more slowly through theregions if this can significantly increase the usefulness

advancing the participation of landholders in researchand development of such technologies.

The following sections address key extension-relatedissues that have been raised with the Taskforce.

Information and technology transfer

Information is critical to increase the capacity ofindividuals to review both the positive and negativeimpacts of their management decisions and to makenew decisions accordingly. A number of submissionscalled for improved access to technical data andmanagement information by community groups andindividuals.

The extension services of the departments,particularly the Department of Agriculture, are wellestablished and have considerable capacity to providetechnical support to farmers and farmer groups.Bushcare Officers from both the Department ofConservation and Greening Australia, WesternAustralia, are another established source of technicalinformation. Community Landcare Coordinators arealso highly valued by farmers. For various reasons,their roles have most commonly been in coordinationand planning, rather than technology transfer, but theTaskforce considers that improving technical capacityof Community Landcare Coordinators is important,and makes recommendations below regarding tenureand training to advance this.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theDepartments of Agriculture, Conservation andEnvironment Water and Catchment Protectioncontinue to develop resource information kits toincrease awareness of available salinitymanagement options, highlighting circumstanceswhere these options are considered to beeconomically viable. It is recommended that theinformation in these resource kits be targeted toenable individuals to better identify and implementappropriate and cost-effective activities and reviewthe outcomes of these activities.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theDepartment of Conservation and Greening Australia,Western Australia continue to develop informationresource kits to increase awareness of the richness ofbiodiversity in Western Australia. The kits shouldinclude information to facilitate monitoring andmanagement of this biodiversity by communitygroups.

Scientific studies conducted under the Salinity ActionPlan and Salinity Strategy have provided the Statewith much improved information about the currentand potential future impacts of salinity. The LandMonitor project is a key example. Recommendation5.2.7 supports the continuation of the Land Monitorproject.


of the information and the effectiveness of theprogram.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theDepartment of Agriculture carefully considers theextension methods used in, and following, the RapidCatchment Appraisal Program to ensure that full useis made of the information and therefore that theprogram is effective.

A further gap identified in the Rapid CatchmentAppraisal Program was its limited coverage ofconservation and biodiversity information.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that reportsprovided to landholders under the Rapid CatchmentAppraisal Program be broadened to includeinformation on native vegetation and biodiversity.This could include direct biological information as wellas contact details for sources able to provide moredetailed advice and support.

Another information tool increasingly available to landholders is airborne geophysics data. There are threetypes of airborne geophysics (magnetics, radiometricsand electomagnetics) with different strengths andweaknesses and different levels of cost-effectiveness.The National Action Plan for Salinity and WaterQuality includes a substantial program of airbornegeophysics. The Taskforce acknowledges thepotential value of this type of information for planningon-ground works. It may help to target works forgreatest cost-effectiveness, especially wherepaleochannels can be identified. On the other hand,the Taskforce notes that suitable paleochannels arelikely to be available for only a minority of thethreatened land.

In addition, an economic analysis of airbornegeophysics in Western Australia found that the valueof data provided was modest, when correctlyestimated based on the improvement in decisionmaking beyond what is possible with existinginformation sources (such as digital elevation modelsand soil-type maps). Finally, it should again be notedthat, in many cases, the primary problem is not ashortage of information for planning, but a shortageof economically viable management options forlandholders to adopt.

Overall, the Taskforce supports the selected use ofairborne geophysics methods, but considers that theirexpense will probably not be economically justified inall circumstances, so that careful consideration needsto be given to public investments in programs toprovide airborne geophysics data.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that carefulconsideration be given to the location and scale of

public investments in programs to provide airbornegeophysical data.

Education, Training and Capacity Building

The Salinity Taskforce identified the need for animproved approach to training of the many‘extension’ people involved in salinity and naturalresource management. The key objective of thetraining would be to raise the level of technicalexpertise of extension agents in areas such ashydrogeology, engineering options, farming systems,woody perennials, native vegetation management,biodiversity and farm-level economic evaluation ofmanagement options.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that additionalfunds be allocated to the Department of Agricultureto develop a new coordinated training and educationprogram available to all extension officers, advisersand Community Support Officers involved in salinityand natural resource management. The trainingshould improve technical expertise in areas such ashydrogeology, engineering options, farming systems,woody perennials, native vegetation management,biodiversity and farm economics evalutation ofmanagement options. The Department ofAgriculture should work closely with the proposedNatural Resource Management Office, theDepartment of Environment, Water and CatchmentProtection and the Department of Conservation andrelevant non-government organisations to developthis program. Where appropriate the training shouldbe made available to farmer industry groups andindividuals.

A different kind of training for rural communities is inbuilding the capacity of individuals and groups to takeleadership roles in their communities. Given thedegree of land use change needed for salinitymanagement and the importance of innovation fromthe community to achieve that change, strongleadership is particularly relevant to salinity.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the StateGovernment continues to support capacity buildinginitiatives such as the Foundations for LeadershipProgram for the next five years.

The Taskforce also notes the importance of buildingawareness and understanding of salinity and naturalresource management issues in the broadercommunity, and particularly in schools.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theproposed Natural Resource Management Office liaisewith the Department of Education to ensure thatthere is adequate coverage of salinity and naturalresource management in school curricula.


Tenure of Community Support Officers

The Taskforce received many expressions of supportfor Community Landcare Coordinators and otherCommunity Support Officers. However, there wasconcern at their common lack of experience and oftechnical knowledge. Related to this, people spoke oftheir frustration at being unable to provide jobsecurity for Coordinators with the result that manycommunities frequently have to re-employ and re-trainnew Coordinators.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the tenure ofCommunity Support Officers (including CommunityLandcare Coordinators, Bushcare, Rivercare and LandFor Wildlife Officers) be extended to five years toenhance the security of these positions and reducethe problems of high staff turnover and inexperience,and that the State Government negotiate such anarrangement with the Commonwealth Government.

5.4.2 Working with Indigenous PeopleThe Taskforce received comments on Aboriginalinvolvement with salinity and natural resourcesmanagement and met with an Aboriginalrepresentative to discuss links with Aboriginal peoplein more detail. From these limited interactions it isclear that Aboriginal people are both angry anddeeply sad about the current situation with risingwater tables and spreading salinity.

It was explained to the Taskforce that Aboriginalpeople have a strong ‘sense of place’ with the areaswhere their families lived and that the degradationthat has happened impacts directly on all who belongto those areas. They are deeply sad because theyhave been dispossessed from the land, which issacred and is their kin, and now they see it ‘dying’.They believe they learnt to live in harmony with theland before white settlement and understood whatthe ‘land could take’ over many years.

It was suggested to the Taskforce that Aboriginalpeople are angry because they have been left out ofthe development of policies and strategies to dealwith salinity and natural resources management, andare now finding it very difficult to gain approval andfunding for land care projects.

It was pointed out to the Taskforce that whileAboriginal people now control 15 per cent of the landarea of Western Australia they have only obtained$200,000 from the Natural Heritage Trust for on-ground projects.

While land title is very important to Aboriginal people,so is land management. Aboriginal people want towork with the Government and the rest of thecommunity to repair the land and vegetation. This isnot an idealistic stance, as shown by the strongstatement to the Taskforce that Aboriginal peoplebelieve there should be more research and

development to develop new agricultural industries thatwill ‘fit what the land can handle’. Aboriginal peoplewould also like to see the native bush rehabilitated andremnants connected wherever possible with widecorridors. This is not just to improve biodiversity but it isalso to allow Aboriginal people to once again traveland enjoy the bush areas of the agricultural area.

On the positive side, Aboriginal Land Councils andCorporations are now taking a stronger interest innatural resources management and are buildinglandcare into their programs. Good examples ofpartnerships with government and non-governmentorganisations exist in the north west of WesternAustralia and in the Northern Territory, but muchmore needs to be done in the south west of WesternAustralia.

For Aboriginal people to become better involved inthe management of salinity and natural resources,there needs to be progress in several areas:

• Aboriginal people should be included in thedevelopment of regional natural resourcemanagement strategies and operational plans bybuilding relationships with natural resourcemanagement regional groups. Aboriginalfacilitators are being appointed in each regionand supportive networks are being built withAboriginal people.

• Key positions should be established in the naturalresource management government departmentsso that networks are built with Aboriginal peopleand so they are involved in the development ofrelevant policies, strategies and programs.

• Training should be included for a range ofextension officers, especially the CommunityLandcare Coordinators, on Aboriginal interests,how to work with Aboriginal communities andhow to develop and implement joint projects.

• Aboriginal interests should be included in anyumbrella natural resource managementlegislation, including recognition of special sitesand involvement in broader land management.

• Aboriginal ‘land management’ positions should beestablished for each of the larger regions in theState (South West, Goldfields, Gascoyne-Murchison, Pilbara, Kimberley and East Kimberley).

• An ‘Aboriginal Lands Management AdvisoryCommittee’ should be established to bringAboriginal people together with other people withexpertise in land management and naturalresources management to provide advice andsupport to Aboriginal land managers.

The Taskforce was reluctant to make detailedrecommendations on all of these suggestions becausethere needs to be further consultation with Aboriginalpeople and agreement on the best way forward. Evenso the Taskforce believes there needs to be much


Agriculture should lead a coordination process to betterintegrate the delivery of salinity and natural resourcemanagement extension services to farmers and rurallocal government authorities. This does not mean theDepartment of Agriculture would directly manage all ofthese advisers. Rather, the Department, as the primarycontact for farmers into Government, should establish aprocess to coordinate the relationship between themany programs, agencies and other groups to maximisethe integration and efficiency of delivery.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theDepartment of Agriculture establish a process toensure integration and coordination of the delivery ofsalinity and natural resource management extensionservices to landowners and land managers in theagricultural area of Western Australia.

5.4.4 Demonstration catchments and participatoryresearchThe Salinity Taskforce considers the formation of closelinks between scientists and the farming community tobe very important. An emphasis is needed on use oflocal knowledge and experiences when developingresearch and development projects. There is alsoscope for improved collation and dissemination offindings from the considerable number of on-farmresearch trials conducted by agency researchers,farmer groups and individual farmers.

In Section 5.3, in relation to Term of Reference 1.4,recommendations were made about the involvementof farmer groups in different types in participatoryresearch.

The Government has committed $6 million over fouryears for ‘demonstration catchments’ and thisfunding could potentially be matched through theNational Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.Demonstrations are a means by which new practicesor systems may become known to farmers.

The Taskforce is strongly of the view that thedemonstration catchment initiative needs to build onthe experience of past demonstration initiatives, suchas the Landcare Vision program, and the results ofresearch on what drives farmers to adopt newpractices. The strong evidence is that extensionactivities such as demonstrations will not contributemarkedly to major changes unless the technologiesand systems being demonstrated are effective andattractive to adopt. The Taskforce has noted thatthere is a general shortage of salinity technologiesand systems that would meet these criteria, and thata key priority is the development of improvedtechnologies and new industries.

As a consequence, the Taskforce considers that thedemonstration initiative should primarily focus onmoving technology development forward, rather thanon demonstrating past technologies. There should beclose links established to research and development

more attention given to involving Aboriginal peoplefully in measures to manage salinity and otherpressing land management issues. Nevertheless somerecommendations can be made.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the naturalresource management government departments andthe natural resource management regional groupsreview their involvement with Aboriginal groups andestablish positions to develop better networks toinvolve Aboriginal people in the development ofsalinity and natural resource management policies,strategies, programs and projects.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theproposed Natural Resource Management Council forLand and Water and the proposed Natural ResourceManagement Office work with the Department ofIndigenous Affairs, the Department of Conservation,ATSIC and the Aboriginal Lands Trust to establish asuitable ‘advisory committee for management ofAboriginal lands in Western Australia’, and key‘Aboriginal Facilitator’ positions to better involveAboriginal people in land and water management inWestern Australia.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the StateAssessment Panel work with the proposed NaturalResource Management Office and the natural resourcemanagement government departments, andappropriate Aboriginal organisations, to develop simpleand equitable procedures for funding from State andCommonwealth Natural Resource Managementprograms for Aboriginal land and water managementprojects.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that one of thepositions in the proposed Natural ResourceManagement Office be designated to ensureAboriginal groups and organisations are fully involvedin the development and implementation of naturalresource management policies, strategies andprograms.

5.4.3 Coordination of extensionA message from farmers in the public meetings andin their submissions was the need for bettercoordination and integration of the advice andsupport they access. The Taskforce was givenexamples where advisers from different programs(such as Landcare, Bushcare and Rivercare) havedifferent agendas and rules about how they workedwith farmers, resulting overall in an inefficientextension system. In addition, farmers utilise a rangeother advisers, consultants, and scientists.

The Taskforce considers that the Department of


• The landscape is representative of the region.

• Baseline data has been collected and the salinityand groundwater processes are being measured.

• The catchment community is willing to investtime and money into the initiative.

• The catchment community is willing to sharetheir experiences with others.

• Ideally, industry partnerships (such as thatdeveloped with Alcoa World Alumina) areavailable (e.g. MetaSource in a bioenergypartnership agreement).

• Social and economic impacts can be measuredalong with biophysical outcomes.

5.4.5 Economic policy instrumentsThere is increasing interest in the potential foreconomic policy instruments to contribute to thebetter management of dryland salinity in Australia.There are many possible instruments available,including tradeable salinity permits, auctions of rightsor permits, enhanced tax deductibility, tax rebates,subsidies on particular inputs/practices, financialrewards for outcomes, cross compliance, cost sharing,and share farming.

The National Action Plan for Salinity and WaterQuality includes an examination of the design andpotential role of economic policy instruments forsalinity. A similar objective was included in theSalinity Strategy 2000 and preliminary assessments ofeconomic instruments were made. In particular, thethen Water and Rivers Commission engagedeconomic consultants to advise on the design andscope for economic policy instruments in the WaterResource Recovery Catchments.

Analyses at the University of Western Australia haveconcluded that the appropriate role for economicpolicy instruments for salinity in Western Australia isprobably limited to the protection of outstandingpublic assets, such as in recovery catchments, ratherthan being applicable to agricultural land in general.There are a number of practical difficulties with theapplication of economic instruments, including: • the information needs for a system of economic

instruments to operate;

• the difficulty of defining a suitable variable to bethe basis for the scheme (e.g. water table depth,the area of saline land, the quantity of salt beingexported);

• the “transaction costs” involved in implementinga scheme;

• the initial allocation of rights (e.g. the right toexport saline waters versus the right of thecommunity to fresh waters);

• distributional impacts; and

• the need to identify circumstances where there is

organisations to ensure that primarily new options aredemonstrated. Further, the initiative provides avaluable opportunity to accelerate the process oftechnology development by involving farmers inparticipatory research examining and improving as-yetunproved options.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that thedemonstration catchment initiative primarily beconcerned with demonstrating and further developinginnovative salinity management practices, rather thanemphasising relatively well-established options.

In this context, an exclusive emphasis on catchmentscale demonstrations may be unnecessary, or evencounter-productive. For many of the technologies andsystems to be demonstrated or tested, the primarymotivation for adoption will be commercial gain in theshort to medium term, even though salinity benefitswill occur as a side benefit. For the purposes ofdemonstrating commercially viable systems, thepaddock scale is likely to be sufficient. Therefore, theinitiative may reach a larger number of farmers inmore regions if it relies more on demonstrations atthe paddock-scale than at the catchment-scale.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends thatdemonstrations in the initiative not be limited to thecatchment scale. Where appropriate, paddock scaledemonstrations may be used to reach more farmers inmore regions.

Notwithstanding these comments, the Taskforcesupports a broad and integrated approach to thedemonstration initiative, involving the full range ofmanagement options, including plant-based systems,management of surface water and groundwater, andmeasures for nature conservation and biodiversityprotection.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that treatmentsin the demonstration catchments encompass thewhole range of management and farming practicesappropriate to the catchment type, including watermanagement, new crops and pastures and natureconservation and biodiversity management.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theDemonstration Catchments initiative be closely linkedto the Engineering Investigation Initiative toemphasise the interrelated nature of a range ofmanagement options in many situations.

In selecting the demonstration sites, the followingpoints need to be considered.

• The demonstrations are accessible to thecommunity.


so-called “market failure”, a necessary conditionfor economic instruments to be justified.

For economic instruments (or any other form ofGovernment action) to address salinity to be desirablefrom the point of view of economic efficiency, thefollowing conditions would be required: • Groundwater systems need to be responsive to

changes in land management.

• Land use change must not involve excessivelosses of income from currently productiveactivities.

• Assets of high value are at risk. In general, tojustify Government programs to influence on-farm action, a public asset of outstanding valuewould need to be both at risk and cost-effectivelyprotected by on-farm treatments.

It appears that water resource recovery catchmentsare likely to be the prime example where economicpolicy instruments may be appropriate. There remainsthe question of which type of policy instrument will bebest, and this is not a straightforward question.Further investigation is required to determine the bestapproach. The key point for this report is that, even ina water resource recovery catchment, the problemsfor successful and effective implementation of anytype of economic instrument remain substantial andunresolved.

Further research on economic policy instruments willbe conducted in a number of current initiatives,including a program of the National Action Plan forSalinity and Water Quality and a project of theCooperative Research Centre for Plant BasedManagement of Dryland Salinity.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the StateGovernment, through Treasury, maintains a watchingbrief on the outcomes of new research into economicpolicy instruments, to assess the potentialcontribution of these instruments for promotingsalinity management.

5.4.6 RegulationThe Salinity Taskforce does not support the positionof some who believe that regulation should be theprimary method for achieving major changes in landuse for prevention of salinity, but legislation does playan important role for some salinity-related issues.

There is much in common and statute law that isrelevant to salinity, including the following:• Common law;

• Riparian rights;

• Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914;

• Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945;

• The Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947;

• Waterways Conservation Act 1976;

• Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984;

• Land Drainage Act 1925;

• Town Planning and Development Act 1928;

• Environmental Protection Act 1986;

• Conservation and Land Management Act 1984;

• Wildlife Conservation Act 1950; and

• Aboriginal/Heritage Acts.

The Taskforce considers that there is scope to makemore effective use of regulation. A recommendationto examine how this can best be achieved is made inthe next section (Recommendation 5.5.5) in thecontext of the new institutional structures, which arerecommended to take responsibility for therecommendation.

In addition, Section 5.6.1 on ‘Biodiversity andenvironmental assets’ contains a specificrecommendation that the Government shouldstrengthen regulations against vegetation destructionwhere adverse environmental outcomes will occur andthat existing and new regulations are stronglyenforced (see Recommendation 5.6.9).

5.4.7 Commonwealth Government ProgramsThis section of the report concludes with commentson three key programs of the CommonwealthGovernment: the National Landcare Program, theNatural Heritage Trust and the National Action Planfor Salinity and Water Quality. Each of theseprograms has emphasised activities relevant to thissection on encouraging change.

The National Landcare Program

Concerted policy efforts to address salinity inAustralia began with the National Landcare Program,launched in 1989 from the foundation of the NationalSoil Conservation Program. The National LandcareProgram started with the premise that awarenessraising, education, and catchment planning processesfor groups of farmers could solve land degradation inagriculture. A stewardship ethic was to be cultivatedamong farmers. For more than a decade, thisparadigm has been the dominant force shapingresource management policies for agriculture at thenational level.

The National Landcare Program approach has beensuccessful in raising awareness of resourceconservation issues among farmers, and in somecases this awareness has led to changes in farmingpractices. It has also clearly had benefits in areasother than salinity. However, as noted elsewhere inthis report, the changes achieved for dryland salinityhave been too small to prevent ongoing resourcedegradation.

To be fair, the land-use changes required to preventsalinity effectively are now known to be very muchmore substantial than was believed when theLandcare program was conceived.


The primary instruments used within the Landcareprogram have been provision of paid facilitators andorganisers for Landcare groups (often without strongagricultural or technical backgrounds), thedevelopment of catchment plans, and subsidies forpartial funding of relatively small-scale on-groundworks. There has been little hydrological or economicanalysis done of these catchment plans or on-groundworks. The National Landcare Program was subsumedwithin the Natural Heritage Trust in 1997. The basicapproach and philosophy of Landcare has continuedand has also been applied to other programs withinthe Natural Heritage Trust such as Bushcare.

Although reported levels of membership of Landcaregroups are high, farmers are increasingly jaded withthe Landcare approach. There is a noticeable trendfor Landcare groups to move away from the Landcarebanner and adopt a more production-oriented,farming-systems approach, more in tune with theneeds and aspirations of their members.

The Natural Heritage Trust, including Bushcare

The Taskforce also found a high degree ofdissatisfaction with the Bushcare program for farmersin Western Australia. Bushcare is currently the onlyprogram offering funds to support partially on-groundnative vegetation and biodiversity works in WesternAustralia. However, the objectives of Bushcare, whichfocus on biodiversity, are understandably different tothe core objectives of most farmers, and the rigidity ofthe rules for projects and the non-availability of fundsfor other purposes has been a source of frustrationfor them.

The Taskforce was made aware of some importantbenefits which have resulted from the Bushcareprogram, including:• funding for on-ground works, information

packages and case studies within the Metaproject; and

• funding for the Search project and for conditionalsubsidies for oil mallee seedlings.

Nevertheless, there clearly are problems with theBushcare Program, which go beyond the above-noteddivergence of objectives. A recurring and veryfrequent theme in our public consultation has beenconcern about the complexity and length of thefunding application process for Natural HeritageTrust projects. Many farmers feel that the amount ofwork involved in winning a Natural Heritage Trustgrant is much too great. It does appear that thetransaction costs created by this process areneedlessly large and could be greatly reduced withbenefits all round.

An important criterion for Natural Heritage Trustfunding is the generation of public benefits. TheSalinity Taskforce supports this criterion. However theinterpretation that this criterion implies that worksmust not also generate private benefits for farmers (orothers) is illogical and counterproductive in achieving

the core objective of public benefits.

In many cases, the most cost-effective approach isthe encouragement of environmentally beneficialpractices, which generate some benefits to farmers,but not sufficient to make them commerciallyattractive in their own right.

For this reason, the Natural Heritage Trust criterion toexclude private benefits results in a loss of publicbenefits, not a protection of them.

Compounding this, the criterion sends a message tofarmers that the Natural Heritage Trust is not apartnership. Given that almost all of the existingmanagement strategies needed to addressenvironmental degradation require farmers to sacrificeeffort and money (above and beyond the financesprovided by Natural Heritage Trust) this interpretationof the public benefit criterion is extremely unwise.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the StateGovernment negotiate with Commonwealth Ministersand agencies to address problems with the criteriaand application process for the Natural HeritageTrust.

The problems with the Natural Heritage Trust relateto the funding of on-ground works by communitygroups, rather than to the large-scale initiativesidentified above. The Taskforce notes that on-groundworks on the scale funded by Natural Heritage Trust,while beneficial in a number of respects, will do littleto prevent salinity. They are highly relevant to otheraspects of natural resource management, but muchless so to salinity management in most cases.

There was also some concern raised by communitymembers about the flexibility of the BushcareProgram in managing biodiversity and bushregeneration.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theBushcare Program continues to work with farmergroups to increase awareness of biodiversitymanagement requirements. However, the programshould adopt a more flexible approach, such asacknowledging the potential need for non-localspecies in areas that have become saline.

The National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality

The Commonwealth Government’s National ActionPlan for Salinity and Water Quality includes a rangeof measures, including investigation of economicpolicy instruments (discussed above) and funding tosupport implementation of Integrated CatchmentPlans.

The main vehicle for delivery of funds is proposed tobe natural resource management regional groups,and the intended approach appears broadly similar tothe Natural Heritage Trust, with an emphasis on


planning and on provision of partial subsidies for on-ground works on private lands. The National ActionPlan emphasises “Integrated Catchment/RegionManagement Plans” to be developed “by thecommunity”. The community is to be supported inthis by the existing facilitator and coordinatornetwork, by skills development programs, by extensionof technical information, and by a major publiccommunication program “to promote behaviourchange and community support”.

The Taskforce is concerned that this approach is illconceived and will be ineffective against salinity, forreasons explained in Section 2 of this report.

The natural resource management regional groupswho are to allocate and manage the funds will needvery high levels of information, expertise andleadership if they are not to allocate the money inways that will be socially and politically attractive, buttechnically and economically inefficient.

Provision of high levels of technical information fromGovernment and research organisations will beessential for the process to operate effectively. Arecommendation on this matter was included inSection 5.2. The natural resource managementregional groups who are to allocate and managefunds will also need high levels of administrative andfinancial support in order to maintain transparentdecision-making processes and well maintainedfinancial records required for block fundingarrangements. It is the view of the Chairs of thenatural resource management regional groups, andone that is shared by the Taskforce, that a centralisedmanagement and accountability model for the Stateshould be developed.

Findings and recommendations relating to the settingof targets under the National Action Plan for Salinityand Water Quality were presented in Section 5.2.2.

A further concern is that there may be pressures tobegin rapid expenditure of National Action Planfunds, before careful analyses of potentialinvestments have been conducted.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that on-groundworks that may be funded by the National ActionPlan for Salinity and Water Quality be subject tosufficient technical and economic analysis beforeapproval to ensure that funds are spent in ways thatare technically effective and cost-effective. Anapproach that rushes into implementation of on-

ground works without adequate assessment should bestrongly resisted.

In Section 5.2, it was recommended that funds shouldbe provided from the National Action Plan to resourcethe analyses that will be required.

Finally, the Taskforce is concerned about the narrowconcept of how National Action Plan funding shouldbe delivered, primarily through regional groups. TheState Salinity Strategy includes a mix of deliverymechanisms to best suit the issue at hand and thescale at which it needs to be addressed. Thesedelivery mechanisms variously involve individualfarmers, local groups, regional groups, industryassociations, research and development institutions,and State agencies, plus State and regional policiesand strategies.

An appropriate mix of these mechanisms is essentialand would not be achieved by the existing plannedapproach of the National Action Plan for Salinity andWater Quality. As a key example, statewide programsof industry development are a priority need forsuccessful large-scale salinity management inWestern Australia. The Taskforce is recommendingthat a significant proportion of salinity funds shouldbe directed to this end, rather than to on-groundworks selected by natural resource managementregional groups.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that innegotiating with the Commonwealth Government overthe National Action Plan for Salinity and WaterQuality, the State Government should emphasise thata range of other delivery mechanisms are needed tobest suit the issue at hand and the scale at which itneeds to be addressed. Delivery of funds throughnatural resource management regional groups shouldnot be the predominant vehicle for delivery of fundsfrom the National Action Plan for Salinity and WaterQuality.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that in view ofthe major budget commitments entailed and thesignificant problems identified in the National ActionPlan for Salinity and Water Quality, the StateGovernment maintain a strong stance in negotiatingthe National Action Plan to seek outcomes which willmost effectively enhance salinity management inWestern Australia.


“Council supports and believes in the concept ofnatural resource management (NRM) and this isstated in the State Salinity Strategy. Council hasalways believed that Salinity Council would evolveinto a NRM Council...There is a growing case forCouncil to become a statutory body as communityprocesses matures.”

State Salinity Council

“The Salinity Council needs to be retained as acommittee of a statutory NRM Council. This willachieve integration across Government andcommunity yet maintain a focus on salinity whichwould be lost if it were to become too broad.”

Water and Rivers Commission

It would appear that NRM is going to be deliveredthrough the ministries of Environment andAgriculture. There should be housed on the samefloor in the same building. Local Government andRegional Development should be close by, in thesame building, if not on the same floor. Thecumbersome State Salinity Council should becomea Reference Group advising a newly appointedNatural Resources Management Council orCommission (statutory body, no more than 15people, revamped SLCC). The existing NRMgroups should become statutory bodies . . .

Mount Marshall LCDC

“Regional Natural Resource Managementorganisations have been evolving over the pastseveral years and involve all stakeholders fromGovernment agencies to rural communities in thecommunication process. Any major change from this structure would risk losing communitysupport.

Western Australian Farmers Federation

“There are too many conservation, natural resourcemanagement issues that are dealt with by individualgovernment agencies, largely in isolation from othergovernment agencies. The Wildflower Societysupports the need for a whole of governmentapproach and the introduction of processes andmechanisms that will ensure a more integrated andco-ordinated approach from government.”

Wildflower Society of Western Australia

“The enormous number of statutory bodies dealingwith single NRM issues needs to be rationalised.Government does not give effective support tostrategic community groups. The formation ofmany additional groups is partly due to theresponse to inadequacies of the communitystructural interface with government.”

Jean Webb

“I urgently request the Government to restructurethe landcare industry with particular reference tothe membership structure of the State SalinityCouncil. A single authority should be establishedso as to clearly identify to the community who isresponsible for policy formulation and decisionmaking. This Authority’s membership shouldcomprise of individuals not driven by ego orpolitics, but selected for their experience,achievements and their broad philosophical views.

Soil Conservation Services

“Regional groups exist because regional and localcommunities have recognised that there is anatural resource management problem, includingsalinity, that government and communities do notdeal with, that requires urgent attention.”

NRM Regional Chairs

What people said about institutional arrangements and partnerships


5.5 Institutional arrangements andpartnershipsIn advising on appropriate institutional arrangementsand partnerships for natural resource managementand salinity, the Taskforce is responding to fourTerms of Reference:• Review the statewide structures that support a

whole of Government and community approachto implementation of the Salinity Strategy andAction Plan (TOR 3);

• Integration of actions across Government atMinisterial, agency and regional level(TOR 1.3);

• Review the processes through which statewidestructures report and are accountable togovernment and the community (TOR 4); and

• The relationship to and congruence with regionalNatural Resource Management Strategies (TOR 1.6).

In Australia, State, Territory, Local andCommonwealth governments are introducing a rangeof institutional and structural measures to promotemore sustainable use and management of thenation’s natural resources. These new approaches areaimed at better integration across Governmentsectors to improve service delivery and strongerinvolvement of communities and land owners in policydevelopment, setting priorities and decision-making.

5.5.1 Statewide structures that support a whole of Government and community approach to theimplementation of the Salinity Strategy and Action PlanThe Western Australian Government has establishedfour Cabinet Standing Committees coveringEnvironmental Policy, Regional Policy, Economic Policyand Social Policy. Policy units within the Departmentof the Premier and Cabinet support the four StandingCommittees. A separate Sustainable DevelopmentPolicy Unit has been formed to facilitate integratedpolicy development and delivery across Government.This new integrating and coordinating frameworkprovides a strong foundation for the management ofnatural resources and salinity in Western Australia.

Western Australia also currently has a State SalinityCouncil and a number of natural resourcemanagement regions. The State Salinity Council wasestablished to promote a coordinated approach totackling salinity, primarily in the south west ofWestern Australia. A State Assessment Panel withoverlapping membership to the Salinity Counciloversees delivery of the Natural Heritage TrustProgram in Western Australia.

The natural resource management regions haveemerged partly in response to Commonwealth fundingprograms, but also in an attempt to attain a moreintegrated and effective approach to natural resourcemanagement issues in different parts of the State.Each natural resource management region has its own

community-based leadership group and StateGovernment departments and Commonwealthfunding, most recently from the Natural HeritageTrust, variously support these groups. Sub-regionalgroups have formed in most regions and these interactdirectly with local groups, such as Land ConservationDistrict Committees and small catchment groups.

The Land Conservation District Committees (LCDCs)have been the mainstay of on-ground action for landcare and salinity in the past. However, the Taskforceis aware that the future for LCDCs is at a crossroads.While some remain active, others are effectivelymoribund. Some LCDCs have evolved into otherbroader agricultural sustainability groups, such as theEsperance Regional Forum or the Liebe Group. TheTaskforce considers that any future consideration ofnatural resource management in Western Australiashould give serious consideration to the role ofLCDCs and whether they need to continue to beestablished by statute with statutory powers. A moreflexible arrangement may be desirable, in recognitionof the multiple community-based landcare andenvironmental groups of different types that are nowactive in Western Australia.

Another type of community group that has evolved inthe past few years are farm industry groups such asthe WA Lucerne Grower’s, the WA No-Till FarmersAssociation, the Saltland Pastures Association andthe Oil Mallee Association.

A recommendation about the inclusion of suchgroups in participatory research, development andextension was made in Section 5.3.

The key Government Departments for rural naturalresource management in Western Australia are theDepartments of Agriculture; Conservation;Environment, Water and Catchment Protection; andto a lesser extent, Fisheries.

There are four other parts of State Government thatare important for Natural Resource Management andsalinity management. These are Local Governmentand Regional Development, State Development,Planning and Infrastructure and the EnvironmentalProtection Authority. They are important because thefirst three lead planning and development of the State,while the Environmental Protection Authority assessesthe environmental impact of development proposals.The Environmental Protection Authority may alsobecome the body that audits natural resourcemanagement and salinity targets in Western Australia.

All of these aspects of Government need to beworking well together to ensure an effective responseto salinity. Recommendations to support integrationacross Government at Ministerial, agency andregional level are set out below.

5.5.2 Integration of actions across GovernmentFor integration of actions to occur across Governmentthere needs to be an overall framework or modelwhich should include:


• Integration across the whole of Governmentthrough the Sustainable Development processthat the Government has established, includingthe four Cabinet Standing Committees and theirPolicy Units and the Sustainability Unit.

• The establishment of a natural resourcemanagement structure to link into theGovernment’s Sustainable Developmentframework through the Cabinet StandingCommittee on Environmental Policy. This includesan enabling Natural Resource Management Act,a Government Natural Resource ManagementPolicy and Plan, an advisory Natural ResourceManagement Council for Land and Water and aNatural Resource Management Office. Thisstructure builds on existing government andcommunity structures at State, regional and locallevels.

• The creation of an advisory Natural ResourceManagement Council for Land and Water thatwould report directly to the Minister for theEnvironment and Heritage, the Minister forAgriculture and the Cabinet Standing Committeeon Environmental Policy. The new Council willprovide an umbrella role to ensure acomprehensive and coordinated approach tonatural resource management by the other peaknatural resource management bodies such as theConservation Commission and Soil and LandConservation Council, even though some ofthese bodies have separate statutory roles.

• The discontinuation of the State Salinity Council.The current Salinity Council Executive wouldbecome a committee of the proposed NaturalResource Management Council for Land andWater as an interim arrangement.

• The current Chairs of the natural resourcemanagement regional groups becoming acommittee of the proposed Council.

• The Government Natural Resource ManagementPolicy and Plan becoming an umbrella forexisting natural resource management policiesand strategies even though some of these arisefrom separate statutory responsibilities. Gaps willbe identified and policies and strategiesdeveloped to fill them.

• The establishment of a Natural ResourceManagement Office. This office should compriseof a small team of senior staff with direct accessto the policy levels of Government who are ableto negotiate directly with Governmentdepartments and the community groups, toensure implementation of the Government’sSalinity Strategy and Natural ResourceManagement Program.

• The amalgamation of the current NaturalHeritage Trust and State Salinity Council

Secretariat into the Natural ResourceManagement Office.

• The implementation of a range of processes topromote integration including Regional Strategiesand Partnership Agreements.

Natural Resource Management Council for Land and Water

With the experience gained through the SalinityCouncil and the recommendations of the Machineryof Government Taskforce, the Salinity Taskforceconsiders that it is now appropriate to establish aNatural Resource Management Council for Land andWater as the peak body to coordinate and overseenatural resources management in Western Australia.

The proposed Natural Resource Management Councilfor Land and Water would advise the Government onall natural resource management issues related to useand conservation of land and inland waterways. Itwould have the power (with the approval of theCabinet Standing Committee on EnvironmentalPolicy) to establish committees to provide a focus toaddress priority natural resource management issuesin addition to salinity. The proposed Council wouldalso need to establish close working relationships withthe other peak Natural Resource Management bodiessuch as the Conservation Commission and the Soiland Land Conservation Council to eliminateduplication and ensure an integrated approach toNatural Resource Management, where there areexisting statutes and legislative responsibilities.

The Taskforce notes that the Machinery ofGovernment Taskforce has recommended that thefuture role of the Soil and Land Conservation Councilbe reviewed.

The proposed Natural Resource Management Councilfor Land and Water should have high standing withGovernment and in the community, similar to theEnvironmental Protection Authority. It would report toboth the Minister for the Environment and Heritageand the Minister for Agriculture and more broadly tothe Cabinet Standing Committee on EnvironmentalPolicy.

The Salinity Council Executive should become aCommittee of the proposed Natural ResourceManagement Council for Land and Water as aninterim arrangement to ensure the management ofsalinity continues to have a strong focus, until itsmembership and terms of reference are reviewed bythe proposed Council.

A key issue that needs to be considered is whether theproposed Natural Resource Management Council forLand and Water should be a statutory body withpowers. The Taskforce is firmly of the view that theproposed Council should be established by statute,through a Natural Resource Management Act, to giveit status and standing to carry out its charter, but thatit should not have independent powers at this stage.


In other words, it would work in an advisory capacitywith the ‘client’ Ministers and in partnership with thepolicy units in the Department of Premier and Cabinet,and natural resource management departments andthe natural resource management regional groups.

This approach supports the Machinery of GovernmentTaskforce recommendation that ‘an advisory NaturalResources Council should be created to provideholistic policy advice and a high profile directinterface between Government and the community.’


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theGovernment establish by 30 June 2002 an interimNatural Resource Management Council for Land andWater (pending promulgation of a Natural ResourceManagement Act). An independent member of thecommunity with significant experience in integratednatural resources management would Chair theCouncil. The Council’s membership would include theDirectors General of the Departments of Agriculture,Conservation and Land Management, andEnvironment, Water and Catchment Protection andnine other members with expertise in the followingareas:• Industry development;

• Regional and local delivery of Natural ResourceManagement;

• Nature conservation, biodiversity and nativevegetation management;

• Regional development and local government;

• Climate change and Greenhouse;

• Social issues and impact;

• Natural resource economics;

• Research and development; and

• Environmental regulation and impact assessment.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theproposed Natural Resource Management Council forLand and Water advise and report to the Minister forthe Environment and Heritage and the Minister forAgriculture.

The final membership and functions of the proposedNatural Resource Management Council for Land andWater needs to be developed with full stakeholderconsultation, but the Taskforce believes the Council’sroles and responsibilities should include:

• Consulting widely under the direction of the‘client’ Ministers and the Cabinet StandingCommittee on Environmental Policy to prepare aState Natural Resource Management Policy andPlan.

• Providing advice to the ‘client’ Ministers and theCabinet Standing Committee on Environmental

Policy on priorities for natural resourcemanagement in Western Australia.

• Ensuring that priority natural resourcemanagement issues are being addressed in anintegrated, effective and efficient manner.

• Ensuring that outcomes, objectives and targetsare established for natural resource managementpriority issues and that appropriate monitoringand auditing procedures to evaluate progress arein place.

• Implementing processes and procedures toinvolve the community in natural resourcemanagement at State, regional and local levels.

• Working with other peak natural resourcemanagement, industry and conservation groupsto formulate and promote relevant naturalresource management policies, strategies andimplementation plans.

• Promoting and facilitating procedures to ensurethe integrated development and implementationof natural resource management programs.

• Supporting the establishment and effectiveoperation of natural resource managementregions and groups, including the development ofpartnership agreements, the implementation ofState natural resource management policies andstrategies, and processes for decision makingabout equity issues and tradeoffs.

• Preparing, publishing or endorsing statementsconcerning the State’s natural resources.

• Ensuring strong links with state and regionalplanning, State and regional development,environmental protection and local government.

The State Salinity Council has provided a valuable rolein coordinating implementation of the SalinityStrategy. It has been ably assisted by a smallsecretariat which provides administrative support andalso coordinates delivery of Natural Heritage Trustfunding and assessment of projects. In effect theSalinity Council has been a defacto Natural ResourceManagement Council, but this has caused confusionwith other statutory and non-statutory bodies such asthe Soil and Land Conservation Council, the formerNational Parks and Nature Conservation Authority andthe Natural Resource Management Regional ChairsGroup. The Taskforce also acknowledges the expertiseand experience of Council members and is of the viewthat these qualities should be utilised in thedevelopment of these new structural arrangements.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the existingSalinity Council be discontinued and as an interimarrangement, the current Executive of the SalinityCouncil become a committee of the proposed NaturalResource Management Council for Land and Water.


Natural Resource Management Office

The proposed Natural Resource Management Councilfor Land and Water needs to be well supported andhave the status to carry out its charter to operateeffectively across Government and with thecommunity and industry. As well as a series ofintegrating processes which are set out below, theproposed Natural Resource Management Council forLand and Water requires a small core of senior andexperienced staff led by an experienced CEO levelofficer to carry out the following functions:• Provide executive support to the proposed

Natural Resource Management Council for Landand Water.

• Provide links to the Cabinet Committees andPolicy Units in the Department of the Premierand Cabinet for development of policy anddelivery of natural resource managementprograms as part of the Government’sSustainable Development Strategy.

• Negotiate with the natural resource managementdepartments to deliver integrated programs,budgets and actions to deal effectively withnatural resource management issues such assalinity.

• Coordinate natural resource managementfunding programs on behalf of the State,including regional delivery of funds in accordancewith State and Commonwealth agreements andspecifically the National Action Plan for Salinityand Water Quality.

• Work with the natural resource managementdepartments and the natural resourcemanagement regional groups to develop regionalnatural resource management strategies andpartnership agreements.

• Support the development of natural resourcemanagement outcomes, objectives and targets, aswell as the development and ongoing maintenanceof monitoring and evaluation systems.

• Under direction of the proposed NaturalResource Management Council for Land andWater ensure the establishment of clear naturalresource management outcomes, objectives andtargets, and the development and ongoingmaintenance of monitoring and evaluationsystems.

• Ensure and maintain effective links with RegionalDevelopment, State and Regional Planning andlocal government so that natural resourcemanagement becomes an integral part of thesocial and economic development of the State.

While the Taskforce’s preference is that the NaturalResource Management Office be establishedseparately from existing natural resourcemanagement departments, the Taskforce accepts

that there are a number of other options as to wherewithin Government the Office could be locatedincluding:• the Office of the Minister with Special

Responsibility for Salinity;

• the Department of the Premier and Cabinet;

• the Department of Environment, Water andCatchment Protection;

• the Department of Agriculture; or

• the Department of Conservation.

Of these, the Taskforce’s preference is that theNatural Resource Management Office not be locatedwith a natural resource management department.However, if the Government decides that it should bewith such a Department, the Taskforce wouldrecommend the Department of Environment, Waterand Catchment Protection because of the consistencywith this Department’s role, as recommended by theMachinery of Government Taskforce.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theGovernment establish a Natural ResourceManagement Office to support the proposed NaturalResource Management Council for Land and Waterand provide integrated across-Government responsesto natural resource management issues such assalinity.

Natural resource management legislation

Comments were made to the Taskforce that therewas enough existing legislation to cover themanagement of salinity and other Natural ResourceManagement issues if it was coordinated and usedeffectively. While this may be true, the Taskforce isonly aware of a limited number of situations wheredifferent pieces of legislation have been used toaddress natural resource management issues andthese have mainly been in cases of more intenseresource competition such as water supplies fromgroundwater mounds for metropolitan Perth.

Nevertheless, there is considerable potential toimprove the use of existing legislation separately ortogether to support the adoption of better landmanagement activities and to discontinue those thatare causing degradation.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theproposed Natural Resource Management Office workwith the Environmental Policy Unit in the Departmentof the Premier and Cabinet, the natural resourcemanagement departments and the natural resourcemanagement regional groups to recommend howexisting natural resource management legislation canbest be used to support the management of salinityand other priority natural resource management


issues. The resulting report and recommendations willbe reviewed by the proposed Natural ResourceManagement Council for Land and Water andforwarded to the Cabinet Standing Committee onEnvironmental Policy for consideration.

In general, comments and submissions did not favourthe formation of statutory natural resourcemanagement regional groups at this stage of theirevolution in Western Australia. However, there wassupport for a statutory natural resource managementframework in Western Australia that establishes anatural resource management peak body (theproposed Natural Resource Management Council forLand and Water), provides a basis for the naturalresource management structures and processes andsets out the objectives and principles for naturalresource management in Western Australia. Suchlegislation would be enabling rather than prescriptiveso that flexibility for regional and local variationswould be retained. Some potential models exist,particularly the recent draft natural resourcemanagement legislation in South Australia.

The Taskforce does not wish to be prescriptive on thecontent of such legislation as it needs to be developedin consultation with stakeholders but it should includethe following ‘objects’ and ‘mechanisms’:

Objects

• Promote and facilitate integrated management ofthe State’s natural resources as part of theGovernment’s approach to sustainabledevelopment.

• Provide arrangements to promote integration andcoordination across State Government naturalresource management peak bodies anddepartments.

• Provide arrangements to involve the communityin the development and implementation ofnatural resource management policies, plans andstrategies at State, regional and local levels.

Mechanisms

• Establish a Ministerial committee to integratenatural resource use and management across allGovernment legislation and programs and reportto Cabinet (the existing Cabinet StandingCommittee on Environmental Policy fulfils thisaspect).

• Establish a Natural Resource ManagementCouncil for Land and Water to support theMinisterial Committee, with membershipincluding the natural resource managementdepartments and community members withexperience and standing in various aspects ofnatural resource management.

• Require the Ministerial Committee and theproposed Natural Resource Management Councilfor Land and Water to prepare a State Natural

Resource Management Policy and Plan whichsets out the way integrated Natural ResourceManagement will be developed and delivered inWestern Australia, including the use ofpartnership agreements.

• Establish the basis for natural resourcemanagement regions and natural resourcemanagement regional groups (without beingoverly prescriptive).

• Require regional groups to work in partnershipwith the natural resource managementdepartments to prepare natural resourcemanagement and investment strategies forendorsement by the Ministerial Committee andCabinet.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theEnvironmental Policy Unit in the Department of thePremier and Cabinet work with the proposed NaturalResource Management Council for Land and Waterand Natural Resource Management Office, thenatural resource management departments and thenatural resource management regional groups toprepare drafting instructions for an umbrella NaturalResource Management Act for Western Australia by30 March 2002.

Natural Resource Management Policy and Strategy

The main heading of the 2000 Salinity Strategy was‘Natural Resource Management in Western Australia’.Several of the regional ‘Natural ResourceManagement’ strategies have similar headings. Thisis an indication that the evolutionary approach inWestern Australia is already well advanced inidentifying a range of policies and strategies as fallingunder a natural resource management “umbrella”.

While the State natural resource managementdepartments have taken a useful first step indeveloping a ‘framework to assist in achievingsustainable natural resource management’ this doesnot go far enough in formally recognising andsupporting the existing natural resource managementstructures and processes.

An essential step is a State Natural ResourceManagement Policy and Plan promulgated by theGovernment to build on and amplify the proposedNatural Resource Management Act and provide moredetail on how natural resource management willfunction across Government, Governmentdepartments, the community and industry.

Such a policy and plan would provide an umbrella andcontext for the existing natural resource managementpolicies and strategies and show how natural resourcemanagement will link to other key aspects ofgovernment such as planning, regional development,environmental protection and local government.

The policy would set out the Government’s vision,


objectives and key strategies to achieve integratednatural resource management. The plan would setout detail on the mechanisms and processes forimplementing integrated natural resourcemanagement including the content, process forpreparing and process for endorsement of regionalnatural resource management strategies.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theEnvironmental Policy Unit in the Department of thePremier and Cabinet works with the proposed NaturalResource Management Council for Land and Waterand Natural Resource Management Office, thenatural resource management departments and thenatural resource management regional groups todevelop a comprehensive natural resourcemanagement policy and plan which together set outthe vision, objectives, operating arrangements andcross Government links for natural resourcemanagement and salinity management in WesternAustralia.

Natural resource management regional groups

Western Australia already has a community-basednatural resource management regional framework, builton the large number of landcare and catchment groups.

There are five natural resource management regionalgroups in the South West of Western Australia: AvonWorking Group (AWG); Northern AgriculturalIntegrated Management Strategy Group (NAIMS);South Coast Regional Initiative Planning Team(SCRIPT), South West Catchments Council (SWCC)and the Swan Catchment Council (SCC). The naturalresource management regional groups are communityrepresentative structures with membership largelyfounded on democratic principles.

Several sub-regional groups exist under these regionalgroups, such as the Blackwood Basin Group and theMoore River Catchment Council. The natural resourcemanagement regional groups are a key component ofthe delivery of State and Commonwealth naturalresource management policy. The regional groupsalso provide a consolidated voice for the issues andneeds of the communities they represent.

Some submissions recommended using regionalgroupings of local government authorities or theexisting Regional Development Commissions as theregional framework for natural resource management.While this may appear attractive and may be the wayto evolve in the future, the majority view was that itwas too early to make such major changes in WesternAustralia. The Taskforce endorses this view.Regionalising local government to this extent wouldbe a major step in Western Australia and would needconsiderable consultation and development. Usingthe Regional Development Commissions could divertthem from their core business and would requiresignificant legislative change.

The Taskforce considers that it would be better tobuild on the existing regional framework of naturalresource management regional groups and establishstronger links to local government and the regionaldevelopment framework. Once experience has beengained with these arrangements, consideration couldbe given to merging the natural resourcemanagement structures with either the regionaldevelopment framework or with a regional localgovernment structure.

The Taskforce recognises the importance of thenatual resource management regional groups in theapplication of the National Action Plan for Salinityand Water Quality particularly in the negotiation ofagreed targets and outcomes and in the design ofprocesses that aim to engage people to undertakeactions within the context of the National ActionPlan.

The Salinity Taskforce considers that the naturalresource management regional groups shouldcontinue to work in close partnership with Governmentto identify natural resource management issues, rolesand responsibilities, priorities for action and steps forimplementation in each region. They would providestrong cross-links to regional development andregional planning, and take into account the socialaspirations of people in the regions.

It is also important that natural resource managementregional groups work together to provide anintegrated State approach to natural resourcesmanagement as well as developing strategies andaction plans for their own region.

This ‘working together’ has started with the chairsand executive officers of the existing natural resourcemanagement regional groups meeting together underthe auspices of the Soil and Land ConservationCouncil. It can be continued and strengthened underthe arrangements proposed in this report. Forexample, the Chairs of the natural resourcemanagement regional groups could become acommittee of the proposed Natural ResourceManagement Council for Land and Water.

While terms of reference and membership need to bedeveloped it is important to retain flexibility to caterfor the different needs and circumstances acrossWestern Australia from the densely populatedSwan/Metropolitan region, through the agriculturalregions to the vast areas of the rangelands.

The Taskforce also appreciates the significant rolenatural resource management regional groups have in:• providing influence and advocacy for regional

catchment needs;

• the facilitation and coordination of regionalresearch and development and communicationinitiatives;

• representing community views and coordinationof Government policy;


• avice to the Government, Governmentdepartments and other community groups;

• managing the delegated funding to ensuretransparency and accountability;

• lobbying to ensure adequate representation ofregional natural resource management issues atall forums;

• brokering opportunities, particularly corporateinvestment within the regions; and

• providing an important ‘reality check’ of the intentsand outcomes of projects developed and intendedfor the region, its catchments and sub-catchments.

Some might say that a number of these functions arealso funcntions of the natural resource managementdepartments. While this may be true it is not surprising,because there will be complementary roles forgovernment departments and natural resourcemanagement regional groups in any integratedapproach to natural resource management. This is astrength, not a weakness, and any potential duplicationwill be overcome through the joint preparation ofregional strategies and partnership agreements.

The Taskforce has a number of concerns regarding thestatus of the regional groups. The expectations andworkload of the regional groups, particularly the Chairs,are considerable while the administrative support isvariable and often short-term (some more than others).The level of awareness of the existence of the regionalgroups is generally low throughout the community andthe capacity to involve the community in regionalnatural resource management initiatives is limited.Partnership arrangements between State governmentdepartments and the natural resource managementregional groups are uncertain and unclear.

Significantly, Commonwealth Government and StateGovernment grants programs and initiatives arebecoming increasingly dependent on regional groupsfor their delivery and accountability. It is thereforeessential that the partnership arrangements,administrative support and capacity of the naturalresource management regional groups arestrengthened and formalised.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the primaryactivities of the natural resource managementregional groups are:• negotiation of natural resource management

targets and outcomes in their regions consistentwith State outcomes and targets;

• monitoring and evaluation of the agreed targetsand outcomes;

• supporting the communication of technicalinformation to community groups;

• providing administrative support for CommunityLandcare Officers;

• providing a regional perspective in thedevelopment of State and CommonwealthGovernment policy;

• developing regional natural resourcemanagement policy and strategies;

• providing advice on strategic natural resourcemanagement investment, particularly inidentifying areas of high risk;

• assisting in the assessment of new initiatives andinnovations;

• integrating natural resource managementregional programs with other statewide initiativesthereby providing opportunities for whole ofGovernment approaches;

• developing communication systems that enablethe regional community to become more awareof the activities of the regional group andindividuals to explore the ranges of activitiesundertaken within the region;

• providing direction and training support forCommunity Landcare Coordinators and othernatural resource management extension officers;and

• taking part in the process of the allocation ofpublic funds within the region.

Membership of the natural resource managementregional groups should reflect these tasks.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that partnershipagreements be developed between the naturalresource management regional groups and theDepartments of Agriculture, Conservation, andEnvironment, Water and Catchment Protection.

Currently the Departments of Agriculture andEnvironment, Water and Catchment Protectionprovide considerable support to the natural resourcemanagement regional groups and other sub-regionalgroups. This partnership, together with support fromthe Soil and Land Conservation Council, has enabledthe regional groups to develop their regional naturalresource management strategies.

However, the focus of the CommonwealthGovernment’s National Action Plan is water qualityand salinity, which, according to the Machinery ofGovernment Taskforce, are primarily the responsibilityof the Department of Environment, Water andCatchment Protection. In addition, the Department ofEnvironment, Water and Catchment Protection hasbeen given the responsibility of providing a frameworkfor catchment management, including a leadershiprole across Government, by the Machinery ofGovernment Taskforce. Therefore, the SalinityTaskforce considers that the Department ofEnvironment, Water and Catchment Protection shouldbe the lead agency responsible for providing


support to natural resource management regionalgroups.

The other natural resource management departmentswould play important supporting roles linked to theircore business and legislative functions, with theserelationships being clarified in a Memorandum ofUnderstanding or partnership agreement.

As a result, the Department of Agriculture will haveincreased capacity to work, in partnership, with theemerging farming systems groups (for example theFacey and Liebe groups) and farming industry groups(for example the WA No-Till Farmers Association andthe Saltland Pastures Association). It will also allowthe Department to improve coordination of thevarious extension and support services asrecommended earlier in the report. This shift inresponsibility reflects the primary focus of theDepartment of Agriculture, which is farm businessviability and industry development.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theDepartment of Environment, Water and CatchmentProtection be responsible for providing coreadministrative support and support to preparepartnership agreements and regional strategies forthe natural resource management regional groupsand that this be done as a matter of urgency.

The Taskforce recognises and appreciates thehazards of separating natural resource managementresponsibilities from industry developmentresponsibilities. While it is the case that many of theindustry groups have evolved from LandConservation District Committees or catchmentgroups, the focus of the industry groups remainsfarm and resource sustainability. The naturalresource management regional groups, however,have the capacity to maintain an overarchingresponsibility to report on the ‘state of the region’and provide strategic investment advice toGovernment and private companies. In addition, theproposed Natural Resource Management Councilfor Land and Water and the proposed NaturalResource Management Office will provide astronger impetus for coordination and integrationacross the farm industry and natural resourcemanagement sectors.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the naturalresource management regional groups establish linkswith the various farm industry groups that are active intheir region. This link will ensure that the naturalresource management regional groups are wellinformed on research and development initiatives andable to support new industry development.

Salinity is an issue that may require the adoption ofinitiatives and industries that are currently under-developed or as yet unknown. While there is a call for

strategic investment processes, there is some risk thatnew ideas and innovations will have feweropportunities to be demonstrated and encouraged. Indeveloping alternative ways of managing salinity smallbusiness ideas, for example new pumps, desalinationsystems and alternative uses for salt, may emerge.The natural resource management regional groupsand the proposed Natural Resource ManagementCouncil for Land and Water should be recipients ofrequests for investment, trials and demonstrations ofthese potential innovations.

Regional strategies

The development of regional natural resourcemanagement strategies is a key initiative to provideagreement on priorities for each region, which areendorsed and supported by the State Governmentand the natural resource management departments.Each of the existing natural resource managementregional groups in the South West of WesternAustralia has prepared final or draft regionalstrategies, but none of these have been signed offor endorsed by Government except for the purposeof Natural Heritage Trust funding. Additionally, nonehave attempted to apply a process for prioritisinginvestment consistent with the Salinity Council’sFramework for Investment in Salinity Management.Similarly, the previous ‘Western AustralianGovernment framework to assist in achievingsustainable natural resource management’ providesdetailed criteria to the community regional groupsfor the content and endorsement of regionalstrategies but no process or support from theGovernment departments to prepare the strategies isset out.

Well-developed and prioritised regional strategies willprovide a firm basis for the State to work with theCommonwealth and negotiate for funding throughprograms such as the next phase of the NaturalHeritage Trust and the National Action Plan forSalinity and Water Quality.

For regional strategies to be effective they need to bedeveloped in full partnership between Governmentdepartments, industry and the community andendorsed in an open and supportive environment.There must also be rigorous prioritisation of programsand projects in line with the Strategic InvestmentFramework referred to earlier in this report.

The proposed Natural Resource Management Officeshould facilitate the process of development andendorsement with nominated senior and regionalofficers from the natural resource managementdepartments, working in partnership with the naturalresource management regional groups and theirsupport staff. Endorsement will show that the regionalstrategy accords with Government policies andstrategies and is suitable to be used in negotiatingwith the Commonwealth for regional delivery ofCommonwealth funds.



The Salinity Taskforce recommends that regionalnatural resource management strategies bedeveloped in full partnership between the naturalresource management regional groups and thenatural resource management by Governmentdepartments for ‘sign off’ and endorsement by theproposed Natural Resource Management Council forLand and Water and Government through theCabinet Standing Committee on Environmental Policy.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the contentand scope of regional strategies be jointly agreed bythe proposed Natural Resource Management Councilfor Land and Water working with the natural resourcemanagement regional groups and the naturalresource management Government departments,facilitated by the proposed Natural ResourceManagement Office. The resulting agreed contentand scope to be endorsed by the Cabinet StandingCommittee on Environmental Policy and Cabinet.

Partnership agreements

Partnership agreements need to be developed at theregional and sub-regional level between communitygroups, Government departments and industrygroups, to establish clear roles and responsibilities,accountability, working arrangements, supportmechanisms and dispute resolution procedures.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theGovernment formally endorse the development ofPartnership Agreements through the NaturalResource Management Policy and authorise theproposed Natural Resource Management Council forLand and Water and the proposed Natural ResourceManagement Office to lead the process of developingsuch agreements between the natural resourcemanagement Government departments and thenatural resource management regional groups.

Resourcing and Government support

A major issue for the natural resource managementregional groups is a long-term commitment byGovernment to their support. If a strong and resilientnatural resource management framework withGovernment in partnership with the community is tobe established in Western Australia, it is importantthat the community component has long-term andsecure support.

Currently the support to natural resource managementregional groups is variable, so that some are very wellsupported and others have only tenuous and short-term support. Some of this support comes from StateGovernment departments but most comes from short-term funding from the Natural Heritage Trust.

If State and Commonwealth governments provided

this core support funding on a more secure basis,separate from program and project funding it wouldbe a big step forward for government-communityrelationships in natural resource management and ademonstration of the Government’s commitment to afull partnership approach.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theproposed Natural Resource Management Council forLand and Water and the proposed Natural ResourceManagement Office develop a core support fundingframework recognising the need for very substantialfunding for natural resource management regionalgroups in Western Australia. The framework shouldinclude simple budget and audit processes, and beused in negotiations with the CommonwealthGovernment. In the interim the Environmental PolicyUnit within the Department of the Premier andCabinet should work with the Department of theEnvironment, Water and Catchment Protection tobegin development of the framework (see alsorecommendation 5.5.10).

5.5.3 Working with Local GovernmentIn recent years following international and nationalinitiatives on sustainable development and naturalresource management, local governments acrossAustralia have been considering a greater role innatural resource management. Some have done this,but for many local government authorities, especiallythose in rural Western Australia, there is a real lack ofcapacity and resources to take on moreresponsibilities.

Additionally, the submission from the WesternAustralian Municipal Association to the SalinityTaskforce makes the point that the current SalinityStrategy has little reference to the role andcontribution that local government could make,except for the Rural Towns Program.

For some time there has been a lack of clarity inWestern Australia about what the role of localgovernment might be in natural resourcemanagement, despite local government being “themost accessible government face to the community”.While the Municipal Association believes that there isgreat variation in the capacity of Western Australialocal governments to take on a greater role in naturalresource management and that there are somecouncils undertaking very good work, there is a needto clarify local governments involvement in naturalresource management.

Another significant issue is the lack of resources thatlocal government authorities (particularly ruralauthorities) have to enable them to effectivelycontribute to natural resource issues in theirmunicipalities. Local government funding principallycomes from the rates they raise and through theGrants Commission. Small rural councils have limitedopportunities to raise rates for non-core business, so


additional funding through the Grants Commission isseen as the most likely way to support localgovernment becoming more involved with naturalresource management.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theproposed Natural Resource Management Council forLand and Water and the Natural ResourceManagement Office work with the Western AustraliaLocal Government Association to clarify the rolesthat local government could effectively play innatural resource management and how the localgovernment authorities can be better resourced andsupported.

Rural local government authorities have providedstrong support to farmer groups through directassistance and by supporting extension staff,particularly Community Landcare Coordinators.Unfortunately most of these officers have all theirtime taken up supporting farmer groups and cannotcontribute to enhancing the role of local governmentin natural resource management. To undertake agreater role in natural resource management andsalinity management, local government will requirethe capacity to focus on the regional perspective andbig picture issues.

Local government currently has a system of regionalgroupings in the form of the ward system of theCountry Shire Councils Association. These willbecome Country Zones when the Country ShireCouncils Association, Western Australian MunicipalAssociation and the Local Government Associationcombine to form the new Western Australian LocalGovernment Association. With some resourcing, theseZone groups could be strengthened to contributemore substantially to the natural resourcemanagement regional groups. The currentarrangements in the Moore River sub-region where allthe local government authorities are involved providea good model. New South Wales also has a strategyfor working with local government, which couldprovide some guidance for Western Australia.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theproposed Natural Resource Management Council forLand and Water and the proposed Natural ResourceManagement Office work with the local governmentassociations in Western Australia to develop aregional model for local government to work inpartnership with the natural resource managementregional groups, including dedicated resources and

staff to enable local government authorities to makea meaningful contribution to natural resourcemanagement issues in the regions.

Another concern raised by the Western AustralianMunicipal Association was the lack of involvement innegotiations with the Commonwealth Governmentover major natural resource management fundingprograms, especially the National Action Plan forSalinity and Water Quality. Local government, as thethird tier of government, should be involved in suchnegotiations. A perceived lack of integration acrossgovernment at all levels was also raised. Theseconcerns should be addressed by all of therecommendations for a more integrated approach toNatural Resource Management that are made in thisreport, as long as local government plays an activerole in the structures and processes that will result ifthey are implemented.

Engineering works have received considerableattention in other parts of this report and the WesternAustralian Municipal Association emphasises thatsuch works will become increasingly important forlocal government, as it tries to manage the impacts ofsalinity on infrastructure, particularly on roads andbuildings. Some local governments in WesternAustralia have undertaken engineering solutions, suchas lowering culverts and improving floodways, butmuch more needs to be done.

The Taskforce has discussed this important issueelsewhere in the report (see Section 5.3) and hasmade a recommendation for the Department ofPlanning and Infrastructure to work in collaborationwith local government to develop a program to assessthe extent of the problem with roads (seeRecommendation 5.6.13). The Rural Towns Program,which is discussed in Section 5.6, deals withinfrastructure in rural towns, and local government istaking a strong role in this program.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that engineeringworks where local government is involved becoordinated with appropriate leadership by localgovernment authorities.

The Western Australian Municipal Associationsubmission to the Salinity Taskforce made a numberof other useful suggestions and recommendations.These should be passed on to the proposed NaturalResource Management Council for Land and Waterfor further discussion with local government as part ofthe partnership approach that is recommended in thisreport.


“We appreciate that, given limited resources,strategic decisions must be made in terms of whatpublic assets (or private assets where there issufficient public interest) shall receive a particularlevel of protection. However, we stress that, withthe vast majority of the south-west agriculturalregion already cleared of its native vegetation,biodiversity values must receive a high priority inthe allocation of public resources for salinityprevention and management.”

Australian Conservation Foundation

“If the community is to contribute anything to thecost of salinity, or the cost of keeping farmers onthe land, they will need a good reason. In years tocome, once the community becomes aware of ourbiodiversity, this will be the reason they will bewilling to contribute to problems such as salinity.”

David Rees Farm Consultancy Service

“Landowners who are caring for native bush,remnant vegetation or re-growth of bush byfencing off from stock should not have to pay landrates to local Shires, this should be paid for the bythe Federal Government, to encourage morefarmers to do likewise.”

Wyalkatchem LCDC

"There needs to be acceptance that the state willhave a significant area of salt affected land, whichneeds to be managed profitably, if possible, butcertainly in a way which minimises off-siteimpacts. The long-term consequences of anothertwo to four million hectares being affected bysalinity on the economy per se are not greatcompared to the effects of declining terms oftrade, adverse seasons and disease and pestoutbreaks. The threat to agriculture will becommunity demands that off-site impacts ofsalinity are controlled."

Department of Agriculture.

“It seems reasonable to argue that the economicreturns from programs with a general bias towardswidespread restoration and even protection ofagricultural lands would be very small indeedwhen compared to programs aimed at protecting,and even restoring, areas of high investment suchas towns and transportation corridors.Furthermore, since many more people wouldbenefit, whether they be in the towns (and indeedcities) or in the countryside, there would be a moreequitable allocation of these public funds. I wouldtherefore argue that the bulk of expenditureshould be in the area of infrastructure protection.”

H. M. Churchward

What people said about manaing salinity’s impact on biodiversity, public assets & communities


5.6 Managing Salinity’s Impact onbiodiversity, public assets andcommunities5.6.1 Biodiversity and environmental assetsTerm of Reference 1.8 required the Taskforce toexamine mechanisms to support biodiversityprotection. This has partly been addressed in thesection on “Community Support, Capacity Buildingand Mechanisms to Encourage Change” in relation toTerm of Reference 1.7: Mechanisms to encourageadoption of improved land management practices.This section addresses mechanisms and programsthat are specifically concerned with biodiversity.

Western Australia has outstanding biodiversity ofinternational significance and a significant proportionof it is under serious threat from salinity. The 2000State Salinity Strategy recognised the need to provideadditional measures for protection and managementof native vegetation.

While good progress has been made in initial recoverycatchments, resource limitations have meant thatsome outstanding environmental assets are still underserious threat.

The Department of Conservation’s Biodiversity SurveyProgram has been of great significance in revealing theexceptional biodiversity of south west Western Australia.In addition, this Department’s wetland monitoringprogram provides one of the few sources of informationabout environmental impacts from salinity over the longterm. The Taskforce considers that continuation of boththese programs should be a high priority for the State.

Further, the valuable information obtained by theDepartment of Conservation, through its surveys andmonitoring, together with complementary work byCSIRO, should be used to develop a strategy fornature conservation, native vegetation andbiodiversity on public and private lands across thesouth west of Western Australia.

The work of Greening Australia, Western Australiaand Kings Park Botanic Gardens in developing seedstorage systems to preserve the genetic diversity ofthe state are initiatives that should also continue toreceive support.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that verysubstantial additional funding be allocated to theDepartment of Conservation for the protection ofspecific, highly valuable environmental assets throughthe Natural Diversity Recovery Program subject toconsistency with the principles of the InvestmentFramework.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theDepartment of Conservation establishes a WorkingGroup to develop a Nature Conservation, Native

Vegetation and Biodiversity strategy for public andprivate lands across the south west of WesternAustralia. Development of the strategy should involvethe other natural resource management departments,farmers, local government, CSIRO, GreeningAustralia, the World Wide Fund for Nature and theConservation Council. It should be endorsed by theConservation Commission, the proposed NaturalResource Management Council for Land and Waterand the Cabinet Standing Committee onEnvironmental Policy.

The Native Vegetation Working Group wasestablished to address the protection of nativevegetation on private lands. The previous Governmentadopted the recommendations of the Working Groupin October 2000 and the Taskforce received manysubmissions that called for the recommendations tobe implemented. However, implementation has beenslow because of limited resources.

There remain a number of important impediments toprivate investment in bushland conservation. Forexample, conservation management of bushland stillattracts high levels of rates and taxes, particularly forthe non-farmer. This is clearly not in the best interestsof the community and the Taskforce thereforerecommends that the Government implement thefollowing recommendations which reflect key findingsof the Native Vegetation Working Group.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that verysubstantial additional funds be allocated among thefive natural resource management regions to fundincentives that assist land managers to protect andmanage native bushland.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that substantialadditional funds be allocated to part fund four“Conservation Brokers” able to “case manage” landmanagers and catchment groups to assist them toaccess and utilise opportunities to protect andmanage native bushland.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that additionalfunds be allocated to assist local authorities introducerate relief schemes for private bushland in rural areas.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that substantialadditional funds be allocated to the Department ofConservation for the continuation of the Land forWildlife Program.


The Salinity Taskforce supports the removal of Stateand Commonwealth taxes that discourage private


and well-conducted activity. It has much betterdefined the salinity problems facing rural towns andhas changed perspectives on the types ofinterventions needed to address these problems. Ithas highlighted that, as with agriculture, living withsalinity may be a preferable strategy in some towns,in view of the very substantial costs of salinityprevention. The existing investigations of pumping,desalination and safe disposal at Merredin areparticularly important in their potential contributionsto future salinity management efforts in the towns.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that the RuralTowns Program be continued as a high priority.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that a futurepriority for the Rural Towns Program be theinvestigation of cost-effective methods for living withsalinity (e.g. low cost repair methods forinfrastructure, methods to make infrastructure moreresistant to the impacts of salinity) as well as methodsto reduce the costs of salinity prevention (e.g. cheapdisposal of saline water from pumps within towns).The Rural Towns Program should work with theEngineering Investigation Initiative on the issue ofsafe and cheap disposal.

Roads and rail have been highlighted in recentprojections as being amongst the highest costs itemsas salinity continues to increase in Western Australia.The State Salinity Strategy will prevent some of theprojected impacts, but significant levels of damage areunavoidable. Issues addressed by the program shouldinclude use of verge vegetation and engineering worksto reduce salinity damage, impacts of roads on waterflows, and damage to roads from increased salinity.After the first year, funding should be conditional onmatching funds from local government authorities.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theDepartment of Planning and Infrastructure develops anew Rural Roads Program, in collaboration with theWestern Australian Local Government Association, toidentify salinity and flooding issues related to roadson a medium to long term planning basis.Investigations should include the potential forinvesting in land outside the road reserve to solve salt,water and silting problems.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theGovernment makes provision in longer-term budgetprojections for substantially increased costs ofmaintaining and repairing public infrastructure,particularly roads and rail.

5.6.4 Health, welfare and well-beingSalinity is adding to the stresses of life in rural areas

investment in bushland conservation, with the StateGovernment taking the lead in removing such taxesand lobbying the Commonwealth Government to dothe same.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that more flexibleplanning policies and procedures be promoted toassist in placing large areas of bushland into saleableparcels, such as the interim Subdivision forConservation Policy and the proposed Statement ofPlanning Policy on rural land use planning.

Land clearing has diminished, but not disappeared, asan issue in rural Western Australia. It has beenargued to the Taskforce that existing legal protectionmeasures against clearing are inadequate.

This recommendation is linked to the earlierrecommendation on better use of existing naturalresource management legislation.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theGovernment strengthen regulations againstvegetation destruction where adverse environmentaloutcomes are likely to occur and that enforcement ofexisting and new regulations are strongly enforced.

5.6.2 Water resourcesWater Resource Recovery Catchments wereestablished within the 1996 Salinity Action Plan.Currently, the Department of Environment, Water andCatchment Protection is preparing situationstatements for each of the Water Resource RecoveryCatchments. The aims are (a) to ensure thatadequate resources are provided to those catchmentswhere water quality targets can be met and (b)reconsider the inclusion in the Water ResourceRecovery Catchment program of those catchmentswhere it appears water quality targets will not be met.


The Salinity Taskforce endorses the approach beingtaken by the Department of Environment, Water andCatchment Protection of reviewing the current statusand future prospects of catchments currently includedin the Water Resource Recovery Catchment program.

Relatively little is known about the impacts of risingwater tables on flood risks across the south west,although expectations are for substantially increasedflood flows in many catchments.

It is intended that flood risks should be assessedwithin the engineering investigation initiative, andparticularly by the proposed initiative for a newmodelling tool for predicting flood peaks, salt flowsand loads (see Section 5.3.1).

5.6.3 Infrastructure, including rural townsThe Taskforce is impressed with the Department ofAgriculture’s Rural Towns Program as a well-designed

in a number of ways. The Taskforce notes thatadoption of salinity treatments on the scale needed tobe effective against salinity will probably have evengreater impacts on rural communities than will salinityitself. The Taskforce recommendations regardingindustry development are designed to ensure thatthose social impacts will be primarily positive, throughgeneration of wealth and new employment in ruralareas. Nevertheless, the potential for negative socialimpacts also exists, as has been found in somelocations in the south-west where blue gumplantations have been established over largeproportions of what was previously farm land,resulting in at least local population reductions.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theDevelopment Plan for New Regional Industriesattempts to ensure that new industries on agriculturalland enhance social benefits and minimise adversesocial impacts.

Initiatives to identify and manage the social impactsof salinity and salinity management practices haverecently commenced. The Department of Agriculturehas established a project to address social impactsand to ensure that the technical programs of theDepartment are sufficiently aware of relevant socialissues. The Cooperative Research Centre for Plant-

Based Management of Dryland Salinity has aprogram titled ‘Economic and Social Assessment’which includes leading national researchers on socialaspects of natural resource management. TheCooperative Research Centre program and theDepartment of Agriculture project are operatingcollaboratively. A greater knowledge and awarenessof social aspects of salinity will result from theseinitiatives, (and other ongoing work in this area) andshould allow the human dimension of salinity to bebetter considered in future programs.

Salinity has contributed to pressures on farmers toleave the industry. However, the Taskforce considersthat few farmers would count salinity as beingamongst the main threats to their farm businessviability. Market and climatic pressures are far moresignificant for most. Nevertheless, the Taskforceconsiders that the salinity-specific pressures on ruraladjustment should be reviewed to consider whetherspecific initiatives are needed to address the ruraladjustment consequences of salinity.


The Salinity Taskforce recommends that theDepartment of Agriculture review the salinity-specificpressures on rural adjustment, to consider whetherspecific initiatives are needed to address the ruraladjustment consequences of salinity.



“The level of response is severely inadequate.Technical support necessary for planning isseverely lacking in Yilgarn. Management supportand technical resources are available for prioritycatchments such as focus catchments (Bodallin)and recovery catchment groups, however this canbe at the detriment of the whole community withtechnical staff having little time left over for othercatchments.”

Yilgarn LCDC

“The Quairading LCDC believe that there need tobe significant changes to the current fundingsystem as it exists at the present. ... the LCDCbelieve that more money needs to be directedtowards on-ground projects at a larger scale,appropriate for managing a district as a whole.The LCDC also believe that the fundingconcentrates too heavily on the protection ofbiodiversity. Whilst recognising the large publicbenefits that this has, the LCDC believe that thereneeds to be more funds directed towards drainageand conservation earthworks if we are make adifference to salinity management.”

Quairading LCDC

“The model used to allocate funds from thevarious sources...is flawed in that the scales of theallocation have been woefully inadequate for theworks required, leaving the only alternatives formost of the funds to be used for poor qualityplanning, or on small scale demonstrations (which

have limited applicability). The process ofallocation by using local, regional, state andnational assessment panels means that whoever isat the table has determined the allocation of fundsand the money has been spread “like vegemite”across the landscape...The process of allocation ofpublic funds needs to be completely re-designedafter adequate planning has indicated the level ofreturns to alternative investments.”

NRMC Pty Ltd

“Inadequate money is being allocated. Newfunding mechanisms need to be investigated. Taxwrite-offs are the most attractive to mostAustralians. Investment in landcare work wherethere is no return but significant tax benefit wouldbe attractive.”

Sinclair Knight Mertz

“Our recommended allocation of future fundingplaces greater emphasis on engineering solutions,developed from existing data, supported byagronomic management measures, in order toachieve targeted advances in salinity management.We also advocate greater research on socialadjustment and the effects of government andinstitutional policy on salinity management. Currentdata acquisition/research programs would continue,but with reduced emphasis and directed tomonitoring progress from the measuresimplemented as part of the remediation programs.”

Brown & Root

What people said about future investment directions for salinity

Future investment directions for salinity 71

6. Future Investment Directions for Salinity• Financial support to encourage oil mallee

planting during 2002 (5.3.14).

• Research and development to improvegermplasm for salt land and development of newtypes of commercial salt tolerant plants (5.3.15).

• Funding ‘conservation brokers’ to assist landmanagers to access and utilise opportunities toprotect and manage native vegetation (5.6.4).

• Assistance to local authorities to introduce raterelief schemes for private bushland in rural areas(5.6.5).

• Continuation of the Land for Wildlife Program(5.6.6).

Additional funding• Development of a modelling tool to allow

improved analysis of flood peaks, salt loads andflows (5.3.6).

• Establishment of a program to evaluate thecommercial potential of options for makingproductive use of salt water (5.3.16).

• Development of a coordinated training andeducation program available to all extensionofficers and advisers involved in salinity andnatural resource management (5.4.6).

• Further development of inland saline aquacultureand coordinated approach to industrydevelopment (5.3.17).

ConclusionThe Salinity Taskforce has reviewed WesternAustralia’s current direction in salinity managementand, at the same time, considered emergingopportunities and identified issues which are currentlynot receiving adequate management or funding. In itsreport, the Taskforce has highlighted a number of keyissues, including institutional and structural reform,decision-making processes for strategic investmentand community and regional developmentopportunities. The majority of the recommendationspresented in this report reflect views presented to theTaskforce in submissions throughout the threemonths of the Taskforce review. However, the finalrecommendations are the responsibility of theTaskforce. It is our view that considered and strategicinvestment in salinity, as recommended in this report,will increase Western Australia’s capacity to meet thechallenges which salinity presents to the State.

This section responds to Term of Reference 2. TheTaskforce has concluded that the existing level ofresponse to salinity in Western Australia does notsufficiently reflect the scale of the problem,particularly as we are now more aware of the greaterthreat to public assets such as biodiversity.

Accordingly the Taskforce has identified a number ofactions that are not currently funded or that requireadditional funding and these are articulated within therecommendations previously outlined.

It is the strong view of the Taskforce that the Stateshould endeavour to secure funding under theNational Action Plan for Salinity and Water Qualityfor all of these initiatives.

The funding gaps are listed below and grouped toindicate the scale of investment that the Taskforceconsiders is necessary.

Very substantial additional funding• Expansion of the Department of Conservation’s

Natural Diversity Recovery Program (5.6.1).

• The development of economically viable newmanagement technologies and the establishmentof new industries and markets based on thosetechnologies (5.3.1).

• Funding to assist landholders to protect andmanage native bushland (5.6.3).

• Core support for natural resource managementregional groups (5.5.15).

Substantial additional funding• Finalisation and application of the Framework for

Investment in Salinity Management (5.2.1).

• Development and implementation of acomprehensive and cost-effective monitoring andevaluation program for salinity and naturalresource management (5.2.2).

• Continuation of the Land Monitor Program(5.2.7).

• Research and development to enhancegermplasm of perennial pastures (5.3.11).

• Additional research and development forcommercial Acacia species for wood productsand feed (5.3.12).

• Product testing and development for eucalyptusoils derived from oil mallees and other eucalyptspecies (5.3.13).

References 73

ReferencesAnonymous (1996). Salinity: A Situation Statementfor Western Australia, A Report to the Minister forPrimary Industry, Minister for the Environment,Government of Western Australia, Perth.

Barr, N., Ridges, S., Anderson, N., Gray, I., Crockett,J., Watson, B., and Hall, N. (2000). ‘Adjusting forCatchment Management: Structural Adjustment andits Implications for Catchment Management in theMurray Darling Basin’, Murray Darling BasinCommission, Canberra.

Belford, A.C. (2001). The Elegant Solution to Recoverthe Salinated Land in the South West Land Division,unpublished report.

Burvill, G.H. (1979d). The natural environment. In:Burvill, G.H. (Ed.) (1979). Agriculture in WesternAustralia 1829–1979. University of WA Press,Nedlands.

Campbell, N., George, R., Hatton, T., McFarlane, T.,Pannell, D., Van Bueren, M., Caccetta, P., Clarke, C.,Evans, F., Ferdowsian, R. and Hodgson, G. (2000),‘Using Natural Resource Inventory Data to Improvethe Management of Dryland Salinity in the GreatSouthern, Western Australia’, Implementation Project2, Theme 2 - Dryland Salinity, National Land andWater Resources Audit, Canberra.

Dames and Moore - NRM (2001). The Economics ofPredicted Rising Groundwater and Salinity in RuralTowns, Final Report, June 2001, for Rural TownsSteering Committee and Agriculture WesternAustralia, Dames and Moore - NRM (a division ofURS), East Perth.

Ferdowsian, R., George, R., Lewis, F., McFarlane, D.,Short, R. and Speed, R. (1996). ‘The extent of drylandsalinity in Western Australia’, Proceedings, 4thNational Conference and Workshop on the ProductiveUse and Rehabilitation of Saline Lands, Albany,Western Australia, 25-30 March 1996, PromacoConventions: Perth, Western Australia, pp. 89-97.

Ferdowsian, R., Pannell, D.J., McCaron, C., Ryder, A.and Crossing, L. (2001). ‘Explaining groundwaterhydrographs: Separating atypical rainfall events fromtime trends’, Australian Journal of Soil Research, vol.39, pp. 861-875.

Ferdowsian, R., Ryder, A. and Kelly, J. (1997).‘Evaluation of Deep Open Drains in the NorthStirlings Area’, Resource Management TechnicalReport 161, April 1997, Agriculture Western Australia,South Perth.

Frost, F.M. (2000). Future Frameworks: Future Needs.Community Support for Natural ResourceManagement. Misc. Publication 24/2000. AgricultureWestern Australia.

Frost, F.M. (2000). Value Orientations: Impacts andimplications in the extension of complex farmingsystems. Australian Journal of ExperimentalAgriculture vol. 40, pp. 511–517

Frost, F.M. and Marsh, S.P. (2000). Salinity: A MajorChallenge For Western Australian Rural Communities.Proc 10th World Congress of Rural Sociology. August2000; Rio de Janeiro

George, R., Clarke, C., Hatton, T., Reggiani, P.,Herbert, A., Ruprecht, J., Bowman, S. and Keighery,G. (1999b). ‘The effect of recharge management onthe extent of dryland salinity, flood risk andbiodiversity in Western Australia. Preliminarycomputer modelling, assessment and financialanalysis’, Unpublished report to State Salinity Councilof Western Australia.

George, R.J., McFarlane, D.J. and Nulsen, R.A.(1997). ‘Salinity threatens the viability of agricultureand ecosystems in Western Australia’, Hydrogeology,vol. 5, pp. 6-21.

George, R.J., Nulsen, R.A., Ferdowsian, R. and Raper,G.P. (1999a). ‘Interactions between trees andgroundwaters in recharge and discharge areas - asurvey of Western Australian sites’, Agricultural WaterManagement, vol. 39, pp. 91-113.

Hatton, T.J. and Nulsen, R.A. (1999). ‘Towardsachieving functional ecosystem mimicry with respectto water cycling in southern Australian agriculture’,Agroforestry Systems, vol. 45, pp. 203-14.

Hatton, T. and Salama, R. (1999). ‘Is it feasible torestore the salinity affected rivers of the WesternAustralian wheatbelt?’ in Rutherford, I. and Bartley, R.(eds.), Proceedings of the 2nd Australian StreamManagement Conference, Adelaide, 8-11 February1999, pp. 313-18.

Hingston, F.J. and Gailitis, V. (1976). ‘The geographicvariation of salt precipitation over Western Australia’,Australian Journal of Soil Research vol. 14, pp. 319-335.

Keighery, G. (2000). ‘Wheatbelt wonders underthreat’, Landscope, Summer 2000-2001.

Marsh, S.P., Burton, M.P. and Patterson, J. (2000).Community attitudes to land degradation issues andresponsibilities in Western Australia, SEA WorkingPaper 2000/02, Agricultural and Resource Economics,University of Western Australia.http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap0002.htm.

Matta, J. (1999). ‘The Rural Towns Program,groundwater modelling, the Merredin catchment’,Agriculture Western Australia, Perth, unpublishedreport.


McFarlane, D.J. and George, R.J. (1992). ‘Factorsaffecting dryland salinity in two wheatbelt catchmentsin Western Australia’, Australian Journal of SoilResearch vol. 30, pp. 85-100.

National Land and Water Resources Audit (2001).Australian Dryland Salinity Assessment 2000,National Land and Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

Pannell, D.J., McFarlane, D.J. and Ferdowsian, R.(2001). Rethinking the externality issue for drylandsalinity in Western Australia, Australian Journal ofAgricultural and Resource Economics Vol. 45(3): pp459-475.

Short, R. and McConnell, C. (2001). Extent andImpacts of Dryland Salinity, Western Australiancomponent of Theme 2 prepared for the NationalLand and Water Resources Audit, ResourceManagement Technical Report 202, AgricultureWestern Australia, South Perth.

State Salinity Council (2000). Natural ResourceManagement in Western Australia: The SalinityStrategy, Government of Western Australia, Perth.

Thomas, J.F. and Williamson, D.R. (2001). PotentialBenefits from Rehabilitation of Salt Affected Land bya Drainage Canal Scheme in the Blackwood RiverCatchment, Western Australia, Resource EconomicsUnit, March 2001, Unpublished report.

Walker, G., Gilfedder, M. and Williams, J. (1999).Effectiveness of Current Farming Systems in theControl of Dryland Salinity, CSIRO Land and Water,Canberra, 16 pp.

Wood W.E. (1924). Increase in salt in soil and streamsfollowing the destruction of native vegetation. Journaland Proceedings of the Royal Society of WesternAustralia, vol. 10, pp. 35–47

Ms Diana Phillips, Pristine Ecoscene Ltd

Mr David Williamson, David Williamson Consulting

Mr Brian Whittington, WISALTS Inc.

Dr David Bennett, NRMC Pty Ltd

Mr Viv Read, Viv Read & Associates

Mr Mick Poole, CSIRO Centre for MediterraneanAgricultural Research

Mr Peter Henning, Cadoux/Manmanning LCDC

Dr Paul Biggs, Forest Products Commission

Mr Michael Carmody, Salinity Drainage and ManagementAssociation Inc.

Mr F. W. Armstrong, Katanning LCDC

Ms Felicity Morel-EdnieBrown, W.A. Sandalwood Farmlands

Mr Jonathan Thomas, Resource Economics Unit

Ms Rosanna Hindmarsh, Chittering Landcare Centre

Professor Philip Cocks, CRC for Plant-based Managementof Dryland Salinity

Mr J Pulbrook, Morawa LCDC

Mr Roger Doyle, Audax Enterprises Pty Ltd

Mrs Franscine Boyne, Koorda LCDC

Mr Les Last

Mr Laurie Adamson, WISALTS Inc.

Mr Bernard Bowen, Environmental Protection Authority

Mr Paul Ensor

Dr Rob Kelly, CSIRO Livestock Industries

Mr David Williamson, David Williamson Consulting

Mr Twynam Cunningham, Tunney LCDC

Mr John Battaglia, Kalannie LCDC

Mr Kevin Hutchings, Toodyay LCDC

Ms Jan Star, Peel-Harvey Catchment Council

Mr Rod Bradley

Mr Colin Purcell, Goldfields Esperance DevelopmentCommission

Mr Justin Taylor, Gordon River Catchment Group

Dr Sarah Lumley Department of Agricultural and ResourceEconomics, University of Western Australia

Mr David Singe, Wheatbelt Region DevelopmentCommission

Mr John McDougall

Mr Ted Rowley, Amron Consulting Pty Ltd

Mr Simon Abbott

Ms Louise Duxbury, Green Skills

Ms Faye Christison, Cunderdin and Tammin Shires

Mr Eddie Garner, Wyalkatchem LCDC

Mr Barrie Oldfield OAM, Men of The Trees

Dr Tom Hatton, CSIRO Land and Water

Mr Max Hudson

Mr Des O’Connell

Mr Jim Limerick, Department of Mineral and PetroleumResources

Mr Alex Campbell, State Salinity Council

Appendices 75

Appendix 1

List of submissions to the Salinity TaskforceMr David Leake, Kellerberrin LCDC

Ms Rachel Siewert, Conservation Council of WesternAustralia Inc.

Mr Owen Dare, Dumbleyung Landcare Zone

Mr John Longman, West Koojan-Gillingarra LCDC

Mr Barry Oates, Geocatch

Mr Jeff Patterson

Mr Clive Malcolm, Saltland Pastures Association

Mr Clive Malcolm

Dr Ed Barrett-Lennard, Centre for the Management of AridEnvironments

Mr Fred Bremner JP, Soil Conservation Services

Dr Robert Lambeck, Greening Australia Western Australia

Ms Christine Wardell-Johnson, Natural ResourceManagement Regional Chairs Group

Mr Don Woodcock

Dr Paul Vogel, Department of the Premier and Cabinet

Mr Harvey Morrell

Mrs Jean Webb

Ms Peta Whitaker

Mr Andrew Thomson

Mr Michael Grasby, Swan Catchment Council

Mr Greg Street, Sinclair Knight Merz

Ms Pip Crook, Gillamii Landcare Centre

Mr Wes Horwood, Brown and Root

Ms Jan Star

Mr Glenn Dale, Saltgrow Pty Ltd

Mr Barry Oates, South West Catchments Council

Mrs Diana Lapsley

Mr Ian Longson, Department of Agriculture

Dr Wally Cox, Department of Conservation and LandManagement

Mr Jasper Trendall, Sea Dragon Farm

Ms Paula Deegan, South Coast Regional Initiative PlanningTeam

Ms Michelle Smart, Yilgarn LCDC

Professor Syd Shea, Oil Mallee Company

Mr David Chadwick

Mr James Duggie, Wildflower Society of WA Inc.

Ms Robyn Cail, Liebe Group

Mr Badger, Nyabing Pingrup LCDC

Mr Geoffrey Marshall, Western Australian No-TillageFarmers Association (Inc)

Ms Elizabeth Eaton, Moore Catchment Council

Mr Rick West, West Maya LCDC

Dr Susan Moore, Murdoch University

Ms Jane Madgwick, WWF Australia

Mr Roger Payne, Water and Rivers Commission

Mr Andy McMillan, The Western Australian FarmersFederation (Inc)

Mrs Barbara Morrell, Avon Working Group


Mr J Ferguson, Ferguson, Kenneison and Associates

Ms Gina Broun, Cuballing LCDC

Mr Lyn Messenger

Mr Graeme Baesjou, Midwest Development Commission

Mr Campbell Ansell, Conservation Commission WesternAustralia

Mr Don Punch, South West Development Commission

Ms Pamella Toster, West Ballidu LCDC

Mr J Gill, Water Corporation

Mr Eddie Garner, Wyalkatchem LCDC

Dr L Pyke, Salinity Drainage and Management AssociationInc.

Ms Dee Margetts, MLC for the Agricultural Region

Dr Christine Sharp, MLC for the South West

Mr Bruce Manning, Great Southern DevelopmentCommission

Mr S Fraser, Gingin Shire

Ms Claire Jordan, BP Refinery (Kwinana) Pty Ltd

Mr Simon Abbott

Mr Rolf Meeking, Hyden-Karlgarin LCDC

Ms Anne Jennings, West Australian Women in AgricultureInc

Ms Lisa Shreeve, Wheatbelt Area Consultative Committee

Mrs Diana Van Buerle

Mr Max Churchward

Mr Alex Campbell, State Assessment Panel

Mr Nathan McQuoid, Greening Australia (WA)

Ms Nicole Hodgson, WA Municipal Association

Mr Denam Bennetts

Mr Maurice Barnes

Mr Graeme Olsen, Olsen & Vickery

Ms Rebecca Carter, NAIMS

Mrs Irene Stokes

Mr David Rees, David Rees Farm Consultancy Service

Mr Rick Hurst, Bremer Bay Suite of Wetlands CommunityGroup

Mr Garry Middle, City of Rockingham

Mr Mike McFarlane

Mr John Hall, Hall Drainage

Ms Monica Durcan, Landcare Promotions

Mr John Dunne

Dr David Bennett, NRMC Pty Ltd

Mr Brian Doy, Alcoa World Alumina Australia

Mr Corey Watts, Australian Conservation Foundation

Mr Colin Anderton, Anderton Enviro Corp

Ms Juana Roe, Department of Agriculture

Mr Richard Moore, Department of Conservation and LandManagement

Mr Angas Hopkins

Mr Adrian Vlok, BSD Consultants

Ms Jeanette Conacher

Professor John Lovett, Grains Research and DevelopmentCorporation

Cr Jack Fox

Ms Margaret Carmody

Mrs Betty Heitman

Jerramungup - 9 July 2001Arjen Ryder

Brett Ward

Ian Peacock

Alan Danks

Rex Edmondson

Val Edmondson

Carolyn Daniel

Naomi Arrowsmith

Paula Deegan

Ross Williams

Ruth Speldewinde

Therese Bell

Louise Duxbury

Lawrie Walter

David Hancock

Fred Armstrong

Giles West

Graeme Jones

Anne Spencer

Serena Stevens

Geoff Bee

Richard Grant

Rob Johnstone

Jim Saunders

Gussie Saunders

Jenny Chambers

Rod Ebert

Dorothy Redreau

Lucy Skipsey

Jennifer Langmead

John Simpson

Rochelle Strahan

Hayley Turner

David Rees

Gary Featherstone

Peter Wilkins

Boyup Brook - 10 July 2001Karen McKeough

Peta Whitaker

Des O’Connell

Peter Beatty

Saan Ecker

Brian O’Hehir

Mick Murray

Kevin Moir

Shirley Broadhurst

Ian Purse

Simon Purse

John Mondy

Les Bardok

Grant Wardle

Tom Muir

Ned Rees

Billie Hills

Martin House

Richard George

David Williams

Owen Dare

Lynda Coote

Danny Schofield

John Platt

Sasha Taylor

Barry Oates

Richard Moore

Alice Karafilis

Glenn Batty

Wayne Tingey

Keith Nix

Andy McElroy

Roger Hearn

Greg Hales

Clark Ward

Jill Karena

Ryan Taylor

Paul Raper

David Chadwick

Eric Wright

Ivan Wunnenburg

Malcolm Gooding

Jan Gray

Chris Evans

Mark Samwell

Merredin - 11 July 2001David Auld

Ray Della Bosca

Sue Bosenberg

Sarah Gardner

Helen Dubar

Diana Lapsley

Travis Cattlin

Tanya Kilminster

Rob Edkins

Joe Crook

John Dunne

Rosemary Nott

Mal Harper

Mike Kelly

Juana Roe

Ed Barrett-Lennard

Mark Pridham

Maurice Barnes

Rachel Storer

Faye Christison

Greg Wahlston

Chris Barnett

Don Woodcook

Denam Bennetts

John Jefferys

Dinny Lane

Toll Temby

David Leake

Barrie Bywater

Ken Wallace

Emma Withers

Les Last

Kevin Cahill

Kevin Jones

Merrilyn Temby

Cecilia McConnell

Mike McFarlane

Brian Whittington

Laurie Adamson

Three Springs - 12 July 2001Mike Barr

Robyn Stephens

Emma Scotney

John Allen

Jessica Johns

Andrew Moore

Chris King

Debbie Patterson

Yvonne Marsden

Jamie Falls

Natalie Bort

John Pulbrook

Lyn Rheinlander

Ian Pulbrook

Ryan Mincham

Robyn Cail

Cliff Harding

Bill Lullfitz

Russell Speed

Jackie Healy

Jack Satchell

Ron Shepherd

Des Counsel

Appendices 77

Appendix 2List of Attendees at Public Meetings


2001295-09-500

Kelly Gillen

Mark Pendelbury

Duncan Peter

Anthony Desmond

Trevor Haeusler

Jim Bligh

Peter Whale

Nadine Morgan

Diana Van Buerle

Dee Margetts

Graham Haeusler

Rob Weir

Rebecca Carter

Max Hudson

Mike Clarke

Perth - 13 July 2001

Kaye Pearson

Peter Pearson

Michael Sanders

Lillias Bovell

Angus Belford

Rob Bradley

Linda Kirchner

Margaret Smith

Brian Lloyd

Tim Perkins

Dr Pyke

Jennifer Warburton

Cr Jack Fox

Jeremy Dunnette

Peter Wahlsten

Michael O’Dea

Mike Grasby

Robyn O’Grady

Greg Street

Simon Abbott

Garry Middle

Wes Horwood

Shelley Shepherd

Andrea Zappacosta

Monica Durcan

Jeanette Conacher

Judith Scott

Brian Moyle

Mary Gray

Dr Rob Kelly

David Bennett

Sarah Males

Raymond Matthews

Rob Hammond

Liz Yuncken

James Duggie

Sandra Franz

Paul Turner

Louise Stelcox

David Mitchell

Viv Read

Andrew Thompson

Esperance - 7 August 2001Ruth Kirchner

Ted Young

Ward McIntyre

David Johnson

Garry English

Phil Charmer

Des Neave

Jamie Bowyer

John Simons

Marg Agnew

David Hall

Vanessa Johnson

Rod Johnstone

Brigitte Wallefield

David Beard

Marjorie Stephen

David Spittle

Tom Quirk

A New Balance

Documents

Transcript of A New Balance