Monday 30 April 2018
What the Australian Government didn’t want the UN to publish
During Nationals MP for New England Barnaby Joyce’s
disastrous sojourn as Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for
Agriculture and Water Resources the federal government began a successfull campaign
to have the United Nations delete
all criticism of Australia’s $13bn effort to restore the ailing Murray-Darling
river system from a published study.
It seems the Turnbull Government did not want the
world to know, or Australian voters to be reminded, that it had placed long
term water sustainability in four of its eight states and territories in jeopardy.
The Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United
Nations draft report in question was the following:
C.J. Perry and Pasquale
Steduto, (25 May 2017), DOES IMPROVED IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY SAVE
WATER? A review of the evidence: Discussion paper on irrigation
and sustainable water
resources management in the
Near East and North Africa
Abstract
The
Near East and North Africa (NENA) Region has the lowest per-capita fresh water
resource availability among all Regions of the world. Already naturally exposed
to chronic shortage of water, NENA will face severe intensification of water
scarcity in the coming decades due to several drivers related to demography,
food security policies, overall socio-economic development and climate change.
Irrigated agriculture in the Region, which already consumes more than 85
percent of renewable fresh water resources, will face strong challenges in
meeting augmented national food demand and supporting economic development in
rural areas. Countries of the NENA Region promote efficient and productive
irrigation as well as the protection and sustainable management of scarce and
fragile natural resources, particularly water, in their national plans. Through
the Regional Initiative on Water Scarcity, FAO is providing support and focus
to efforts in confronting the fast-widening gap between availability and demand
for fresh water resources. A key question to address is: how can countries
simultaneously reduce this gap, promote sustainable water resources management
and contribute effectively to food security and enhanced nutrition? The
traditional assumption has been that increasing irrigation efficiency through
the adoption of modern technologies, like drip irrigation, leads to substantial
water savings, releasing the saved water to the environment or to other uses.
The evidence from research and field measurements shows that this is not the
case. The benefit at the local “on-farm” scale may appear dramatic, but when
properly accounted at basin scale, total water consumption by irrigation tends
to increase instead of decreasing. The potential to increase water
productivity— more “crop per drop”—is also quite modest for the most important
crops. These findings suggest that reductions in water consumption by irrigated
agriculture will not come from the technology itself. Rather, measures like
limiting water allocation will be needed to ensure a sustainable level of water
use. The present report provides the evidence needed to open up a discussion
with all major stakeholders dealing with water resources management on the
proper and scientifically sound framework required to address jointly water
scarcity, sustainability and food security problems. A discussion that has been
disregarded for too long.
C.J.
Perry stated at Research
Gate on 25 April 2018 that:
Government representatives from the Australian Embassy in Rome disagreed
with the research findings for the Australia section summarised in the original
report. FAO, in response, welcomed the opportunity to improve the report.
Dissemination was put on hold and the report was removed from the FAO website
pending inclusion of additional material relevant to the Australian section. In a series of exchanges, no empirical evidence was presented to support
the Australian authorities’ claim that the investment program in the Murray
Darling Basin has generated substantial water savings and environmental
benefits. This left the global principles
and conclusions set out in the original report unchallenged, while the results
from Australia remained contentious. Therefore, it was decided that the best
solution to the matter was to withdraw the Australian section from the
publication and let the Discussion Paper to be available again on the web. The
original and current versions of the report both invite submissions of additional
case studies, information and analysis to WSI@fao.org. Cases documenting technical or policy interventions
where irrigation water has been released to environmental or other uses will be
particularly valuable.
The
suppressed section in the original draft of this UN report would have been
identical or very similar to this version of the text:
4.1 AUSTRALIA
Document(s)
System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Water (SEEA-Water)
(United Nations Statistics Division, 2012); Water Account Australia 2004–05,
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006); Droughtand the rebound effect: A
Murray–Darling basin example (Loch and Adamson, 2015); Understanding irrigation
water use efficiency at different scales for better policy reform: A case study
of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia (Qureshi et al., 2011); Water Reform and
Planning in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia (Grafton, 2017)
…………………………………...........................................................................................
Context
Australia
has led the world in the introduction of water rights in a context of extreme
resource variability.
This in turn
has provided the basis for managed trading between sectors and locations, and
valuable lessons regarding potential problems as previously under-utilized entitlements
are sold and used, and of “stranded assets” if significant volumes of water are
traded out of an area. More recently, evidence suggests that subsidy programmes
to “save” water seem to have been ineffective, poorly conceived and
un-prioritized.
…………………………………...........................................................................................
Highlights
The Murray
Darling Basin (MDB) is widely recognized for its advanced standards in water
resources management—in particular the system of tradable water rights that
allows transfer of water on short term or permanent leases subject to
evaluation of third party impacts by the regulatory authorities.
Australia
participated in the formulation of the United Nations (UN) System of
Environmental-Economic Accounting for Water. This framework accounts for water
withdrawn from “the environment” (rivers, aquifers), use of that water in
various sectors, including transfer between sectors (for example a water utility
supplying a factory or town), consumption through ET, and direct and indirect
return flows to the environment and to sinks. Trial implementation of the
framework was planned in Australia, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics had
already in 2006 issued guidelines referencing the System of Environmental-Economic
Accounting for Water (UN- System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for
Water
(SEEAW) system), which was to be applied to the reporting of the 2004-5
national water accounts.
However, the
following statement from the introduction to Chapter 4 of the 2004-5 National
Water Accounts for Australia5 is apparently at variance with one critical
element of the SEEAW approach—namely the distinction between consumptive and
non-consumptive uses:
This chapter examines the use of water within the AGRICULTURE industry
in Australia. Water used by this industry includes livestock drinking water and
water applied through irrigation to crops and pastures. Since the AGRICULTURE
industry does not use water in-stream, or supply water to other users, total
water use is equal to water consumption.
Elsewhere in
the Accounting Standards it is stated that:
It is believed that leakage to landscape from surface water resources
such as rivers and storages occurs in the MDB region; however, reliable volumes
are not available, and currently there is no suitable quantification approach
to estimate these volumes.
Does this
assumption of zero return flows matter? Indeed it does: Australia is now
embarked on a massive (AUS$ 10bn) programme to save water for the environment,
including subsidies to farmers for hi-tech on farm investment. Savings are
estimated on the basis of typical application efficiencies (e.g. flood irrigation
50 percent, drip 90 percent), so a farmer with a water entitlement of 100 water
units, switching from flood to drip would be assumed to consume 50 units at
present, which would require a delivery of only 50/0.9 (55.5) units after
conversion. The “saving” of 44.5 units are then divided between the farmer and
the environment. Of the 22.25 units going to the farmer, he consumes (with the
new technology) approximately extra 20 units. So on-farm water consumption is
expected to increase from 50 units to 70
units (and return flows are diminished by approximately the same amount), in
apparent direct contradiction to the programme objectives. In some cases, such
return flows will be non-recoverable outflows to saline groundwater; in other
cases, where irrigation is close to rivers or where groundwater is usable, the
return flows are recoverable and cannot be counted as “savings”. However, the
current evaluation of investments includes no apparent basis for assessing whether
subsidized introduction of hi-tech systems will actually release water to
alternative uses, or simply increase consumption by the extra amount allocated
to the farmer. A more comprehensive implementation of UN-SEEAW—where return
flows to the environment are specifically accounted for—would have addressed
this problem.
Other
authors have identified the issue. Qureshi et al. (2011) point to the problem
of ignoring return flows, and the danger of focussing on local “efficiency”,
while Loch and Adamson (2015) go on to identify the “rebound effect” whereby
when water deliveries to the farm are more valuable, the demand for water
actually increases.
Most
recently, writing in a Special Issue of Water Economics and Policy that
addressed many of the complexities of managing water scarcity in the Murray
Darling basin, Grafton (2017) made the following key observations regarding the
Australian experience with providing subsidies for on-farm improvements in
irrigation technology:
* About USD 2.5 billion of taxpayers’ funds used for improving farm irrigation
has primarily benefitted private individuals;
* These investments have had no discernible impact in terms of reduced
water use on a per-hectare basis, or release of water to alternative users;
* The buyback of water rights from willing sellers was the most effective
use of taxpayer funds to release water to alternative uses;
* Investments in irrigation to raise “crop-per-drop” productivity
had failed to deliver water savings on a basin scale.
NOTE: Full draft report Does
improved irrigation technology save water.pdf
It only took five little words....
Some people should never be allowed near a public discussion and Institute for Public Affairs Deputy Director John Roskam is one of them.
This was John as a ABC TV Q&A panel guest on Monday 23 April 2018.
Working hard makes you free.
Ouch!
Memory immediately flies back to...
Arbeit macht frei
Work sets you
free.
A phrase forever linked to Nazi ideology.
Labels:
IPA,
right wing rat bags
Sunday 29 April 2018
HTLV-1 Infection: “I suspect we would have dealt with the problem before now if it was in Sydney”
The
Guardian, 24
April 2018:
Researchers say HTLV-1
is more widespread across central and northern Australia than previously
thought. Dr Lloyd Einsiedel is an infectious diseases clinician with the Baker
Heart and Diabetes Institute based at Alice Springs hospital.
“We cover all the way
out to the western desert and we have patients from northern South Australia,
and it’s endemic throughout our entire catchment area of a million square
kilometres,” Einsiedel says.
“So it’s very suggestive
that we have a major problem and it really pays no attention to borders, these
very artificial constructs of Europeans.”
Einsiedel worries there
will be “significant mortality” over the next five to 10 years from HTLV-1
related bronchiectasis (lung disease). The region already has the highest
reported prevalence of adult bronchiectasis in the world.
I suspect we
would have dealt with the problem before now if it was in Sydney
Dr Lloyd
Einsiedel
Einsiedel says testing
and treatment are a priority. There also needs to be a public awareness
campaign in Aboriginal languages, and all remote area health workers need to be
educated too.
However, HTLV1 presents
a unique set of problems.
First, the world doesn’t
know enough about it. In the early 1980s, HTLV-1 and HIV were discovered around
the same time but HIV was a major global emergency that rightly got attention.
HTLV-1 was thought to be asymptomatic; people might carry it their whole lives
and never show any adverse effects. Five to 10% of patients might develop fatal
lung disease or leukaemia in later life but most would be fine. A map of the world’s HTLV-1
hotspots reveals another clue as to why it’s so neglected. [my
yellow highlighting]
Guardian graphic | Source: ECDC
Read the full aticle here.
Labels:
health,
Indigenous Australia
Turnbull Government has just placed a multinational corportion with an appalling human rights record at the first contact interface with the National Disability Insurance Scheme
“It has
a history of problems, failures, fatal errors and overcharging” [Senior
Appleby compliance officer quoted in The
Guardian on the subject of Serco, 7 June 2017]
A group implicated in: human rights abuses in prisons and immigration detention centres it has managed; poor to unsafe health service delivery including at Fiona Stanley Hospital in Perth, overcharging for services rendered under government contracts, fraudulent record keeping and manipulating results when there was a failure to reach targets; mishandling of radioactive waste and labour rights abuses.
The
Guardian, 23
Apri 2018:
Disability rights
groups, Labor and the Greens have slammed a decision to hire the multinational
outsourcing giant Serco in a key role administering the national disability
insurance scheme.
The National Disability
Insurance Agency (NDIA) announced
on Friday afternoon that Serco, a company with a chequered corporate
history, would help run its contact centres under a two-year contract.
The decision would put
the company at the frontline of the NDIS, interacting frequently with people
with disability and service providers, many of whom are still grappling with a
vast, complex and sometimes confusing scheme.
“Sourcing our contact centre services
from Serco will
give ongoing flexibility, responsiveness and value for money,” the NDIA said in
a statement.
But the decision has
outraged disability rights campaigners, who say Serco’s poor history abroad and
its lack of experience in disability should have precluded it from any role
delivering the landmark scheme.
People with Disability
Australia co-chief executive, Matthew Bowden, said he was “gravely concerned”
that Serco would, like other third-party providers, fail to uphold the values,
objectives and principles underpinning the NDIS.
“We have no details on
what expertise Serco have in providing communication services for people with
disability, or why the NDIA has decided to outsource such a vital part of its
services,” Bowden said.
“The NDIA needs to hire
more staff and make their communication avenues with people with disability
more transparent. Instead, they are offloading their responsibilities, and
requirements, to deliver services to people with disability.”
Paralympian Kurt
Fearnley was among those expressing concern at the decision, saying Serco would
be “racking their brains on how they can bring lived experience of disabilities
into their workplace”.
“The NDIS will be
worthless if people with disabilities aren’t at its core!” he tweeted.
Labels:
#TurnbullGovernmentFAIL,
disability,
fraud,
health,
human rights,
multinationals,
NDIS,
safety,
Serco
Saturday 28 April 2018
Just because it is beautiful.....(36)
Red-winged parrot
Aprosmictus erythropterus
Male
Male
Native to northern Australia and New Guinea
The male is bright lime green with black back,deep blue rump & yellow tipped green tail
Female .has a smaller wing patch, dark green back and a paler rump
Photograph by David Marle
via @ParrotOfTheDay
Labels:
Australia,
birds,
flora and fauna
Quotes of the Week
“He’s nothing but a pre-Fitzgerald corruption inquiry Queensland
walloper” [An anonymous Liberal MP speaking of
Australian Minister for Immigration and Border Protection Peter Dutton, quoted in The
Saturday Paper by journalist Paul
Bongiorno, 21 April 2018]
“At the same time, returns to the AEC show that these same corporations paid a total of $21,733,192 in political donations to political parties with Westpac standing out with donations totalling of nearly $12 million during the 2014-15 financial year alone.“ [Campaigner Rosie Williams, in “What
can open data tell us about Australia’s major banks?”, 20 April 2018]
“The Liberals
complaining that ASIC is sleep is rich considering who administered the fucking
anaesthetic.” [Journalist Richard Chirgwin, Twitter,
23 April 2018]
Labels:
banks and bankers,
corruption,
right wing politics
Friday 27 April 2018
Nationals MP for Page Kevin Hogan jumps on the bandwagon now royal commission is revealing truths about Australian banking, finance and insurance sectors
There has been some 'emergency' repositioning occurring in Turnbull Government circles since Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry hearings began to reveal the extent of bad behaviour in the banking, finance and insurance sectors.
Former money market and bond trader with State Bank of NSW & Colonial State Bank,
Posting a video clip of what appears to be the one occasion he openly expressed disappointment with a bank during a committee hearing last year.
Even though Hogan
was on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics when it conducted
a 2016-17 inquiry into Australia’s four major banks and the Committee's recommendations clearly showed that the inquiry revealed serious deficiencies in bank practices, he has never been on his feet in
the House of Representatives calling the banks out for unethical behaviour or supporting a call for a royal commission.
He certainly never voted for the creation of such a royal commission in October 2016 or June 2017.
Perhaps
because the National Party of Australia has received over $1.15 million in
political donation from the banking, finance and insurance sectors since the 2012-13 financial year - and MPs probably expect more donations ahead of the forthcoming federal election?
The second
round of Royal Commission public hearings
is currently considering the conduct of financial services entities that provide financial advice to consumers, including the treatment of consumers, compliance with the law and community standards and expectations,and the sufficiency of the current legal and regulatory structure.
Mr. Hogan might allow himself to become a little more animated in his disapproval given some of the evidence involves the actions of independent financial advisers such as the jaw dropping example set out below,
But maybe not. There might be a smidgen of fellow feeling there, because Kevin Hogan just like the hapless Sam Henderson was also an independent superannuation consultant and before that had a regular financial segment on Sky News.
ABC
News, 24
April 2018:
A public servant was
impersonated while receiving financial advice from a high-profile financial
planner, the banking royal commission has heard.
Donna McKenna, who is a
Fair Work commissioner, told the inquiry she went to firm Henderson Maxwell
after seeing its chief executive Sam Henderson in the media.
Ms McKenna said if she
had followed the advice Mr Henderson gave her, she would have lost $500,000.
Mr Henderson followed Ms
McKenna in the witness stand.
The financial planner is
a regular media personality, with a show on Sky News Business channel and
articles published in the Australian Financial Review and Money Magazine.
Mr Henderson's appearance
before the commission did not get off to a good start, when it was revealed he
does not have a Master of Commerce degree, as stated in a 2016 financial
services guide from the firm.
The hearing was then
played a damning recording of a Henderson Maxwell employee impersonating Ms
McKenna in several phone calls to her super fund.
In the recordings, the
employee can be heard giving Ms McKenna's membership number and the State
Authorities Superannuation Scheme (SASS) representative refers to her as Donna….
he inquiry heard up to
six phone calls were made to the SASS super fund by Henderson Maxwell's
customer service officer.
Mr Henderson said the
information his employee had provided him about Ms McKenna's account was
inconsistent with the information given to him by Ms McKenna.
Mr Henderson refunded Ms
McKenna the nearly $5,000 in upfront advice fees she had paid.
The customer service
officer who impersonated Ms McKenna was not fired…..
Ms McKenna made a
complaint to the Financial Planning Association (FPA) about the quality of the
advice.
Despite complaining in
March last year, the complaint is still not finalised.
The inquiry heard Mr
Henderson responded to the complaint in a lengthy letter to the FPA, describing
Ms McKenna as "nitpicky" and her complaint as a "barrage of
aggressive and presumptive accusations".
In March this year, Mr
Henderson proposed a deal with the FPA that would see him admit to multiple
failings in the financial advice he provided to Ms McKenna and agree to
implement a number of changes at the firm.
The deal would have also
required the FPA to agree to not publish Mr Henderson's name in relation to the
proceedings.
The FPA wanted an
additional provision that would prevent Mr Henderson appearing in the media for
a year.
That proposal was not
acceptable to Mr Henderson and the complaint has not yet been formally resolved…..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)