Keynote: Rivers of Northern Australia - Douglas

295 views
201 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
295
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Many of the fish species included in this risk assessment were harvested by indigenous people over the period of our surveys. Out of the top ten species that make the largest contribution to hh income, three species were found to be at high risk from dry season water extraction: Barramundi, Black Bream and Mullet were within the top ten species in the Daly (according to the replacement method of valuation). Black Bream (first bar) was at high risk (30) as was Barramundi (28) (third bar) and Mullet (27) (fourth bar)Those species that are highlighted as being at high-medium risk of late dry season water extraction make up 21% of the total replacement value in the Daly River.Consumption of the top ten species equates to 5% of HH income in the Daly i.e. $67 per fortnight.
  • Keynote: Rivers of Northern Australia - Douglas

    1. 1. Back to future:Can lessons from restoring the Willamette help to protect the rivers of northern Australia? Michael Douglas Director, TRaCK Research Hub Charles Darwin University
    2. 2. Outline• The region• The issues• TRaCK• The future
    3. 3. Australia’s wet-dry tropics• 25% of Australia (463,000 square miles)• 1.4% of Australia’s population (300,000 people)• 30% of population are Indigenous people
    4. 4. Hot, wet season & hot, dry season 110 240 100 220 90 200Temperature (F) or Humidity (%) 180 80 160 70 Rainfall (inches) 140 60 M ax. T em p. 120 50 M in. T em p. 100 40 9 am Hum idity Rainfall (T otal 650 inch) 80 30 60 20 40 10 20 0 0 Jan Feb M ar Apr M ay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
    5. 5. • 55 catchments• 50% of Australia’s river flow• <0.02% of water diverted
    6. 6. Outline• The region• The issues• TRaCK• The future
    7. 7. TRaCK - Research to support river and estuary management innorthern Australia
    8. 8. Heffernan touts the “Ord as the foodbowl for the region” 20072008
    9. 9. Research to support sustainable management• Increasing interest in developing northern Australia• Need to avoid the mistakes made in the past• Lack of basic knowledge of the full implications of future scenarios Fundamental need for research Historic opportunity
    10. 10. TRaCK’s AimTo provide the science and knowledge thatgovernments, communities and industries need for the sustainable management of Australia’s tropical rivers and estuaries
    11. 11. TRaCK• 80 Researchers• 5 years• 30 Projects1. Why do people value tropical rivers?2. How do they differ across the region?3. How do tropical rivers work?4. What are the opportunities for Indigenous people?5. How can we make good decisions about managing tropical rivers?
    12. 12. Barramundi catch and annual flow 3 year moving averages with 4 year lag (R2=0.81) Robbins et al (2006) Marine and Freshwater Research
    13. 13. Correlations of flow with fisheries production in tropical Australian estuaries Barramundi & Banana prawns N 200 0 200 400 Kilometers +ve Darwin +ve Ú Ê +ve +ve +ve Ú Ê Cairns Broome Ú Ê Ú Ê Townsville Rockhampton N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NÚ N Ê N N N N Ian Halliday et al 2010
    14. 14. Connected river systems support fisheries Where does the fish biomass come from?Jardine et al 2011 20% 45% River Estuary 35% Floodplain
    15. 15. Western science and Indigenous knowledge
    16. 16. Relative risk score Bla 10 15 20 25 30 Bu ck b tle r rs eam gru B Or arra nter dR m ive und r i Sle mul Gia ep let nt y co gu d Higher risk Bla dgeo We ck n ste Bony mas rn t rai brea Ba nb m rre owfi Ex d g sh qu run i L te Ma ste ra ong r cle inb tom ay ow Sp s gla fish an s gle sfish dp To erc oth h les Tarp o B s ca n Fly Snu lack tfish -sp b-n ca ec os tfis k d h No ed ha garfi rth s we rdyh h st ea Mo d uth glasf alm ish Bla Go ck- ld igh ba Hy en g ty Fish species nd rtls ob ed t y Mi rai anda dg nbo n Pu ley w rpl s g fish e-s run po Arch ter tte B d erfis Fa erne gudg h lse e -s ys c on Ka Prm pined atfis the i h rin tive a catfi e R rc sh ive her r g fish u dry season water extraction Sw dge am on Blu p e Sh Salm e ca el ov t el- on c fish no atf Em sed ish pi ca Relative risks of freshwater fish species to Fre re gu tfish s d Re hwa georisk nd ter n De ahl s lica s c ole teLower atf blu ish e Pe -eye nn yfis h
    17. 17. Aboriginal people rely on a wide range of river plants and animals Jackson et al 2011
    18. 18. Relative risk score Bla 10 15 20 25 30 Bu ck b tle r rs eam gru B Or arra nter dR m ive und r i Sle mul Gia ep let nt y co gu dHigher risk Bla dgeo We ck n ste Bony mas rn t rai brea Ba nb m rre owfi Ex d g sh qu run i L te Ma ste ra ong r cle inb tom ay ow Sp s gla fish an s gle sfish dp To erc oth h les Tarp o B s ca n Fly Snu lack tfish -sp b-n ca ec os tfis k d h No ed ha garfi rth s we rdyh h st ea Mo d uth glasf alm ish Bla Go ck- ld igh ba Hy en g ty Fish species extraction – Daly River nd rtls ob ed t y Mi rai anda dg nbo n Pu ley w rpl s g fish e-s run po Arch ter tte B d erfis Fa erne gudg h lse e -s ys c on Ka Prm pined atfis the i h rin tive a catfi e R rc sh ive her r g fish u Sw dge am on Blu p e Sh Salm e ca el ov t el- on c fish no atf Em sed ish pi ca Fre re gu tfish s d Re hwa geo nd ter n De ahl s lica s c ole te atf blu ish e Pe -eye nn yfis h Lower risk From Chan et al 2011 Some are at high risk from dry season water
    19. 19. Future development scenarios (30 years) Management Strategy Evaluation, Daly River Indicator (c.f. to 2006) 5% Agriculture Indigenous  6% income Stoeckl et al (in press) Biological Conservation
    20. 20. Future development scenarios (30 years) Management Strategy Evaluation, Daly River Indicator (c.f. to 2006) 5% Agriculture Indigenous  6% income Non-Indigenous  12% income Stoeckl et al (in press) Biological Conservation
    21. 21. Future development scenarios (30 years) Management Strategy Evaluation, Daly River Indicator (c.f. to 2006) 5% Agriculture Indigenous  6% income Non-Indigenous  12% income Discharge  65% Stoeckl et al (in press) Biological Conservation
    22. 22. Future development scenarios (30 years) Management Strategy Evaluation, Daly River Indicator (c.f. to 2006) 5% Agriculture Indigenous  6% income Non-Indigenous  12% income Discharge  65% Optimal fish  89%habitat/wild harvest Stoeckl et al (in press) Biological Conservation
    23. 23. Future development scenarios (30 years) Management Strategy Evaluation, Daly River Indicator (c.f. to 2006) 5% Agriculture Indigenous  6% income Non-Indigenous  12% income Discharge  65% Optimal fish  89%habitat/wild harvest Stoeckl et al (in press) Biological Conservation
    24. 24. Future development scenarios (30 years) Management Strategy Evaluation, Daly River Indicator (c.f. to 2006) 5% Agriculture 5% Government Indigenous  6%  45% income Non-Indigenous  12%  70% income Discharge  65%  25% Optimal fish  89%  47%habitat/wild harvest Stoeckl et al (in press) Biological Conservation
    25. 25. Summary• TRaCK’s research is leading to a more informed debate - Society clearly values tropical rivers for many reasons - Communities are looking for balance - Clear trade-offs between different values• State governments are using this research to make decisions about water allocation
    26. 26. Tony Abbottsopposition party calls for a Federal plan for northern foodbowl network of new dams if elected by: Sid Maher From: The Australian September 17, 2011 12:00AM
    27. 27. Outline• The region• The issues• TRaCK• The future
    28. 28. Science process engaging stakeholders ScienceStakeholders process
    29. 29. Social processes may engage sciencePlanning, policy, management Science ? process Stakeholders
    30. 30. Partnership approach to achieveresearch outcomes & societal outcome
    31. 31. A new approach: Actionable research or Transdisciplinary research Stakeholders Science process Stakeholders Science & Scientists Stakeholders ach tre Ou processResearch Action
    32. 32. EngagementProviding Consulting Joint Joint Supporting usersinformatio with users decision action initiativesn s s PARTNERSHIP
    33. 33. EngagementProviding Consulting Joint Joint Supporting usersinformatio with users decision action initiativesn s s PARTNERSHIPPersonal traits Hubris, authority, Humility, empathy, listening talking, credibility with , credibility with peers & peers users
    34. 34. EngagementProviding Consulting Joint Joint Supporting usersinformatio with users decision action initiativesn s s PARTNERSHIPPersonal traitsHubris, authority, talkin Humility, empathy, listeningg, credibility with peers , credibility with peers & users Indicators of completion Publication Public action
    35. 35. ScaleIndiv., popl’n, Social ecologicalcommunity Ecosystems Watersheds systems
    36. 36. ScaleIndiv., popl’n, Social ecologicalcommunity Ecosystems Watersheds systemsDisciplinarity Single- Multi- Inter- Trans- Researchers, research Ecologist, Ecologist Ecologist, users, facilitators, Integrat hydrologist, hydrologist ors, communicators planner, economist
    37. 37. ScaleIndiv., popl’n, Social ecologicalcommunity Ecosystems Watersheds systemsDisciplinarity Single- Multi- Inter- Trans- Researchers, research Ecologist, hydrolog Ecologist Ecologist, hydrolo users, facilitators, Integrat ist, planner, econo gist ors, communicators mistResources Years Decades $$ $$$$
    38. 38. Finding and retaining the Peopleright people• The right personal traits - Humility, empathy, listening, doing - Credibility with peers and research users• Collaboration with the right range of skills - Research disciplines, facilitators, communicators• Continuous engagement with research users
    39. 39. Creating the right project Project• High quality research• Appropriate scale (time and space) for research users• Adequate resources (time and money)• Flexibility to respond to users needs
    40. 40. A clear pathway forapplication Pathway• Need for evidence-based decisions• Trust relationships with key research users• Co-identified problems and outputs• Opportunity for application - e.g. policy, plan, decision
    41. 41. Aligning people, pathway and project People Timely Action Pathway Project
    42. 42. Aligning the right Peoplepeople, right project andright pathway Requires: Pathway Project • Planning, leadership, timing • More from all partners • Researchers • Research users • Research funders
    43. 43. Aligning the right Peoplepeople, right project andright pathway Requires: Pathway Project • Planning, leadership, timing • More from all partners Results: • Defensible decisions & policies • Stakeholder support • Timely action • Publication Dynamic • Difficult to maintain alignment
    44. 44. TRaCK2- Future direction1. Interdisciplinary projects organised around solving problems2. Greater involvement of research users in co-identification of research problems and products3. Social-ecological systems framework4. Inspiring examples - Willamette
    45. 45. Modeling future scenarios Pantus et al (2011) Stoeckl et. al. (2011) Financial Impact on Indigenous Households Economic Financial Impact on Non-Indigenous Development Households Pantus and Impact on the Environment Barton (2011) (in this case, water extraction) Impact on Stream-Flows Cook et al (2010), Stewart-Koster et al (2011), Pusey et al (2011), Warfe et al (2011), Chan et al (2012), Linke et al (in press), Petit et al (in press) Flow and habitat requirements of fish and impacts of altered stream flows Jackson et al (2011)The Value of Wild Resources collected by Indigenous Householders Estimate of the financial value of the loss of wild resources caused by decreased stream flow Net impact on the finances of Indigenous and non-Jackson et al (2011), Stoeckl et al (2012) Indigenous households (allowing for loss of wild resources) Socio-cultural values Impact of economic development on Indigenous and non-Indigenous well-being
    46. 46. Conventional research activityArlletaz 2010
    47. 47. Research to actionArlletaz 2010
    48. 48. Having the right people and Peopleproject (but NOT the rightpathway) Project Cause: • Problems identified only by researchers • Change in policy or government Positive consequences: • Good discovery science • Knowledge available when a pathway appears Negative consequences: • Process ends with “management implications” • Delayed or no action resulting from good Ref: Duarte, Return to Neverland paper
    49. 49. Having the right pathway andproject (but NOT the right Pathway Projectpeople) Cause: • Can’t get the right people – (project never starts) • The right people move on (project ends) or • The project proceeds with the wrong people Positive consequences: • Can prepare for action, actively recruit the right people Negative consequences: • Unmet stakeholder expectations can damage reputation of organizations • Project damages relationships
    50. 50. Having the right people and Peoplepathway (but NOT the rightproject) PathwayCauses:• Resource limitations (project never starts or starts but falls short of expectations)• Misalignment of scalesPositive consequences:• Capability building, communication links open, planning can occur, positioned for funding opportunitiesNegative consequences:• Value of science not realized• Decisions made without poor or no evidence
    51. 51. People value these rivers for many reasons Most important management Responses issue (%) Preserving for biodiversity & natural 40 habitat Preserving rivers for the people who 20 live there and visitors Producing food for Australia 30 Developing northern Australia 6 Providing food for the world 4Zander and Straton (2010) Ecological EconomicsZander et al. (2010) Journal of Environmental Management

    ×