Malcolm Turnbull, the Federal Parliamentary Secretary for water, recently announced a $13.4 million grant to revive the Macquarie Marshes and other important wetlands.
But it is unclear how the money will be spent. Reference has been made to ‘plans’, ‘models’, ‘competing interests’, ‘drought’, ‘market mechanisms to recover water’, and ‘noxious weeds’.
But more money, more plans, more water won’t necessarily save the marshes.
There has been much discussion at his blog about the relative impact of drought, levies, grazing and cotton since I first visited the marshes in October last year.*
I have come to the conclusion that the marsh environment would benefit most from the following actions which were detailed in a blog post entitled 'Three Pressing Issues for the Macquarie Marshes':
1. Bulldoze the levy banks which are channeling water away from the two nature reserves and onto private land,
2. Protect key bird nesting sites from trampling by cattle.
3. Reduce the risk of overgrazing perhaps through some agreement about stocking rates and grazing regimes.
These actions would not be popular locally or easily understood in Sydney, but they would make a difference on the ground and they wouldn’t cost a lot of money.
Chris Hogendyk, an irrigator and chairman of Macquarie River Food and Fibre (MRFF), sent me a note following the $14.3 million announcement. He recommends that more land be purchased and converted to nature reserve:
“Both the Macquarie Marshes and Gwydir Wetlands are iconic wetlands valued internationally and by the local community.
… It is overly simplistic during a drought of record proportions to simply call for more water to solve the problems that face these important wetlands.
… 90% of the Marshes are in private hands which means 90% of any purchased water will be used for little more than grazing.
As a taxpayer I do not think that funding the purchase of water under these conditions will achieve a good environmental outcome.
In fact, more water delivered simply means more cattle and that in turn leads to further degradation of the environment.
MRFF has no problem in principle with the Government purchasing water from willing sellers to be used for the benefit of the environment, but we do object the Government purchasing water from one stakeholder group and delivering it to another stakeholder group free of charge.
MRFF proposes that a much better solution would be to purchase key land area within the marshes to protect this environment from grazing and hence get much better environmental value from the water there today.”
------------------------
* Blog posts on Macquarie Marsh issues:
1. Cattle killing the Macquarie Marshes, 21October 2005
https://climatelab.com.au/blog/archives/000949.html
2. Marsh Graziers Don't Pay for Water, 25 October 2005
https://climatelab.com.au/blog/archives/000958.html
3. More Water Won't Save the Macquarie Marshes, 28 March 2006
https://climatelab.com.au/blog/archives/001282.html
4. But Reed Beds Need Water!, 12 April 2006
https://climatelab.com.au/blog/archives/001309.html
5. Three Pressing Issues for the Macquarie Marshes, 13 July 2006
https://climatelab.com.au/blog/archives/001481.html
6. Banking in the Macquarie Marshes: More Photographs & A Map, 17 July 2006
https://climatelab.com.au/blog/archives/001486.html
7. Fewer Trees Means More Water for Macquarie Marshes: Ian Mott, 23 July 2006
https://climatelab.com.au/blog/archives/001497.html
Haha, Hasbeen...Who can keep track of all car companies today, Volvo is owned by Ford, Rolls Royce by BMW and so on, really it's a shame...
As you have noticed I'm not business minded at all....
Ann, how did you manage to get shares in Volvo, when Ford own them?
You must have special "pull".
Ian , is it really that bad ?... Jeez , all my retirement pension is invested in Volvo shares.
Ann, it would also be interesting to know how many truck sales that award cost Volvo here.
Interesting perspective Ian...
Well, personally I'm glad that big companies such as Volvo can sponsor some environmental projects from their fat profits... guess of course this has a great PR- value for the company, saving animals such as the koalas and to mention that you want to save the rainforests.
Volvo is also involved in this sail around the world competition and sponsors money to the " save the albatross" campaign.
Yes, Ann, disgusting isn't it. The other irony is that the science has been conclusive for two decades that Koalas do not like closed forest, favouring open forest down to 30% canopy. They also favour disturbed sites over 'old growth' and are particularly fond of forest stands without any large old hollow trees.
But Aila stomped her foot and had her little whimsies met and we now have over 800,000 hectares of Koala habitat that is experiencing significant and unremedied canopy closure at a time when climate is already exacerbating the reduction in leaf moisture content and nitrogen levels.
And when they all start migrating in search of a decent feed, they will be weakened by malnutrition and disease which will then make them increasingly fall victim to dogs and roadkill. And Aila will blame it all on urban development.
Ian,
Aila Keto was awarded a great environmental prize last year in Sweden, it was about saving rainforests in Australia. Volvo sponsored this enviro prize...