Ken Matthews addressed the need for reform of water science in Australia. He argued that Australia lacks a national water science strategy to guide research efforts, and that science should more strongly influence policy and management. He proposed several reforms including establishing a national water science coalition called "Water Science Australia" that would bring together providers and users, and develop a strategic research plan and transparent budgeting process to better target research priorities and grow capacity. This would help ensure water management is evidence-based and science has greater policy influence.

1. Water Science in Australia: ideas for reform Address to British Columbia Water Science Symposium Tuesday 31 August, 2010 Ken Matthews, Chair & CEO National Water Commission, Australia

2. Australia’s water landscape Rainfall distribution from 2000 to 2010 Scarcity, variability, drought and climate change Highly urbanised and increasing population in major coastal centres Irrigation development particularly in the Murray Darling Basin Internationally important water dependent ecosystems Flow variability - Australian and international rivers On a comparative basis, Australian rivers are highly variable

3. Australia: Early signs of climate change? Annual inflows to Perth Dams Source: WA Water Corporation.

4. Water Management in Australia State government responsibility Increasing federal policy leadership & funding An agreed water reform agenda - the National Water Initiative Goals: Economic yield, environmental sustainability, social & indigenous goals

5. The Oz approach to water – unusual features An agreed national water reform blueprint Perpetual water entitlements (rights) Entitlements expressed as shares of available water, not volumes Widespread water markets and water trading Science-based determinations of the consumptive pool Equal statutory status for the environment Participatory water planning (sharing) processes Statutory water (sharing) plans An independent assessor of reform progress

6. The Independent Assessor: the NWC Assessment Products Transparency Products Thought Leadership Products Practical Products e.g. Biennial Assessments of reform e.g. Water Markets Report; Performance reports on utilities e.g. National Standards for water meters e.g. Position Statement on future water restrictions

7. The Central Issue in Water Management How much water is available? How much for the environment? How much for consumptive use? How much for each Environmental asset? How much for each alternative consumptive use? How much for each alternative consumptive use? How much for each Environmental asset? How much for each alternative consumptive use? How much for each Environmental asset?

8. Science in Australia As a natural resource-based economy Australia relies more on the natural sciences in policy formulation The public policy agenda in Australia is rich in natural science issues (e.g., Natural Resource Management) It is the disciplines of science and economics that have most to say about Natural Resource Management Various agencies have emerged to help bridge the science-policy gap - but the gap remains

9. Water Science in Australia Water is often a location-specific issue unlike other areas of science such as say, IT, nuclear physics, or nanotechnology Examples: the specific hydrology of Australian floodplain rivers Australia’s unique and ancient aquatic ecology These unique-to-Australia water science challenges require a strategic, targeted Australian science effort

10. The Water Reform Cycle Assessment/Audit NWC Policy Implementation State & Federal Departments Issue Identification (“Diagnosis”) NWC Policy Development (“Prescription”) Ministers, State & Federal Departmental Advisors Incubation Acceptance Handover Diagnosis

11. An NWC diagnosis: there are problems in Australia’s water science arrangements... Good water management should be science and evidence based. The NWC has pushed hard for better science and better access for science, e.g., NWC recommends “a national water science strategy to guide science efforts in the water sector” – NWC February 2008 NWC recommends governments “collaborate in the development of a national water science strategy...” – NWC October 2009 11

13. How big a river red gum forest?

14. How green a wetland?

15. How often a hatching or nesting event?

16. How resilient do we want the ecosystem?

17. What risk to our assets will be acceptable?Hence, decisions should be science-rich & science adequate, but not science-determined. Choices, judgements and trade-offs will always be required.

18. Some Water Science Needs Better science is needed for key water reform challenges: Climate, seasonal, weather & hydrological forecasting Climate change adaptation needs and opportunities Identifying environmental assets & their water regimes Identifying & managing environmental externalities Improving environmental water management (effectiveness/ efficiency) Managing groundwater-surface water connectivity Managing water interception (e.g., forestry) Enabling integrated water cycle management Informing health and environmental regulation of water Enabling new water technologies e.g., recycling 13

19. A National Water Science Strategy These are all national issues, but Australia lacks a national water science strategy ... and certainly lacks a policy-led science strategy national water policy priorities should lead national water science priorities and water science should be more influential in shaping national water policy

20. Challenges in Australian water science Integrating indigenous and mainstream water knowledge Linking science providers and science users (both ways) “Strategic science planning versus “cottage science” (local) projects Overcoming science & social science silos Building water science capacity beyond the public sector Maintaining & accessing water data and knowledge Identifying, funding and tackling research priorities

21. Specifically, what’s needed? Clearer strategy: A national water science strategy Improved governance: Better arrangements for: 1. policy input to science; 2. science input to policy; 3. science input to water management; 4. science profile with Ministers Better resource allocation: Policy & management-led budgets; clearer budget setting processes; budget predictability, including for basic research More coherent institutional arrangements:Less-fragmented water science institutions; optimisation of research infrastructure; better user/provider connectivity Role Clarity: Federal/State alignment; clearer roles of policy makers, other science users, science brokers, science providers, public sector vs. private sector roles, basic vs. applied science roles 16

22. Possible Elements of a National Water Science Strategy National water research objectives Key Result Areas and timeframes Identification of gaps in water science capacity Roles & responsibilities of science players Funding and resource allocation guidance Processes for governments to provide leadership Pathways for policy input by the science community Collaborative machinery between institutions Water science research infrastructure needs Adoption and innovation pathways Arrangements for a long term water knowledge repository Monitoring and review arrangements

24. and applied research is more readily funded & secure than basic research.18

25. Institutional arrangements matter! Science providers feel disempowered and lack influence Difficult for science users to connect with science providers Difficult to access science outputs in user-friendly form, & on time Policy makers do not always invest enough time in understanding the science Difficulties in the (increasingly important) integration, cross-disciplinary work. Science, economics and social science silos. University funding formulas may discourage interdisciplinary work National basic science work is displaced by tactical work “Could do better...” 19

26. Possible Features of a better National Water Science System A national water science strategy – 3 yearly cycle? An annual “Needs and Capabilities Forum” involving water science users and providers Based on (2.), an “Annual Statement of Water Policy Directions and Science Needs” (sponsored by the Federal Minister?) A national water science provider coalition “Water Science Australia”, inside, not outside, the water policy system (see over ...) A transparent annual budgeting process 20

27. What might “Water Science Australia” look like? It would be a national coalition of the leading water science provider institutions “science” includes economics, social sciences It would be accountable to a Board: 40% science providers, 40% science users, 20% stakeholders. Independent chair. Allowing for user pull, science push & stakeholder moderation Improved two-way interactions between users and providers Board would provide science advice to the Federal water minister It would nurture both basic and applied water science, and science capacity 21

28. What might “Water Science Australia” look like? (cont’d) Strong identity: a strong corporate identity (a “national champion” for water science) but member organisations would also retain their prior identity Close understanding of needs: inside the water policy and planning process, not outside looking in. Real commitment of researchers: Not less than 25% of researchers’ time (would require a transition period) High Quality Science Agenda: e.g., national intellectual leadership; continuing national and international peer review of all members 22

29. Possible roles of Water Science Australia an informed broker of science services a clearing house for national science collaboration (or competitive tension) science input to water policy science interpretation services science services to the public sector sale of services to the private sector recommend budget allocations internally (see later slide) national champion for water science a national gateway to international water science 23

30. Possible Features of a better National Water Science System A national water science strategy – 3 yearly cycle? An annual “Needs and Capabilities Forum” involving water science users and providers Based on (2.), an “Annual Statement of Water Policy Directions and Science Needs” (sponsored by the Federal Minister?) A national water science provider coalition “Water Science Australia”, inside, not outside, the water policy system A transparent annual budgeting process (see over...) 24

31. More strategic and predictablebudget arrangements Part A: Triennial baseline funding to Water Science Australia coalition members for basic and pre-competitive research Part B: Triennial and annual targeted allocations to grow capacity in areas of need identified in the “Annual Statement of Water Science Needs” Part C: For budget planning purposes, government users of applied science would provide, during the process of developing the “annual statement”, indications of their priorities and budgets for specific science purchases in the year ahead 25

34. WSA would account to the Minister for its performance – so engaging attention for water science at the political level

35. ... and it would have a world class priority setting process, see next slide...27

36. A World Class Priority Setting Process National needs and capabilities forum Annual statement of water policy directions and science needs Three year strategic research plan Annual rolling program of research 28 Users & Providers Federal Minister Evaluation of effectiveness and impact WSA Board WSA

37. The Research Spectrum Strategic pre-competitive Strategic Applied / tactical Basic Blue sky; curiosity-driven Known area; unknown opportunities Known area; targeted opportunities Targeted opportunities; specific problems

39. Potential yield

40. Consequence of success

41. Research tractability

42. Progress & success to date

43. Synergies with other work

45. ken.matthews@nwc.gov.au www.nwc.gov.au