Bridging issue #53

The Board’s scope of activity extends to a number of Committees, reporting to the Board.  The skills of Trent Wallis (2017, Victoria) have recently been added to the Audit, Finance and Risk Committee (AFRC), where he sits alongside other Fellows Stuart Richardson (2010, SA) and Ailsa Kerswell (2016, Queensland). Current Board Directors Prof Katherine Daniell (2010, ACT) and Dr Lisa Ehrenfried (2014, Victoria) will jointly chair the AFRC, following on the wonderful contribution made by Suzy Nethercott-Watson in this role over a long journey.

The recently established Business Development and Philanthropy Committee will kick off this month under the Chairmanship of Chris Arnott (2010, Victoria).  Karlene Maywald will support this team, which is further strengthened by the inclusion of Fellows Tim Napier (2016, Tasmania) and Vikki Kimberlee (2022, Victoria).

Our focus on “the big picture” for the water sector in this issue of Bridging shines a light on the valuable contribution from our Fellows to the debate on National Water Policy Reform in Australia, and more broadly on the global stage, and recognises that these conversations must engage new policy areas if we are to successfully take a systems approach, and more impactfully a “systems of systems” approach, to our complex challenges. 

Water is critical to climate mitigation and adaptation, energy security, food security, mitigation of the loss of biodiversity and caring for country. Our water and environment leaders must be at the table in conversations outside our traditional communities if we are to change the narrative on water and have policy responses that recognise the critical role of water.  Over the past few weeks, evidence of our collective engagement with these challenges includes:

• The 2023 Science to Policy Leadership Program Fellows, the Steady Green Ants, explored this challenge in terms of the water impacts as we drive to increase renewable energy. 
• The Fellows Roundtable highlighted the impact of water policy and biodiversity policy and the nexus between food security and water security.
• The National Webinar on COP27 and UN 2023 highlighted the need for COP28 to have a conversation about water security, nature-based solutions, regenerative policies, and the role of water in mitigation and adaptation on the formal agenda, not just as a footnote. 

Under-investment over the past decade in science, leadership and capacity in water management requires urgent correction. The Trust’s fostering of leadership in over 250 Fellows is a start, but the voices and influence of many more water leaders is required to address our critical issues of water scarcity, water security and the loss of biodiversity in the face of climate change. 

The organising committee explored six themes, the four suggested by Rachel Connell and two identified in our discussions.  Using an appreciative inquiry framework, the group developed a vision for each theme, then explored past policy and reports, examined the current situation and considered opportunities for innovation and improvement. An online workshop-style session was attended by over 50 fellows. The notes from this session were captured and a summary developed as a draft ‘overview’.

1. Informed by Trusted Science – theme leader Dr Paul Frazier (2012) 

2. Strategic Approach to Better Groundwater Management – theme leader Dr Declan Page (2014) 

3. Facilitating First Nations Peoples’ Rights and Interests in Water – theme leader Kathryn Silvester (2022) 

4. Ensuring Access to Safe and Secure Drinking Water – theme leader Kylie Climie (2022)

5. Regional Water for Community Wellbeing and Productive use – theme leader Tim Napier (2016) 

6. Water Accounting, Planning and Allocation – theme leaders Susie Williams (2011) and Dr Clare Taylor (2010).  

The ‘Water Policy – A Nationally Significant Conversation’ event involving Fellows and DCCEEW staff was held on the 25^th May at the Academy of Science. Numbers were limited to 40 attendees and the event was fully subscribed. Chris Golding (2022 Fellow and General Manager, Strategic Water Policy and Engagement Branch, DCCEEW) stepped in to set the scene and used a house metaphor for national water policy, suggesting the need for updating and renovation (rather than demolition). A panel session provided opportunity for theme leaders to introduce themes with conviction and passion and this was followed by a workshop session allowing for deeper conversation. Feedback and reflections from participants continued the house metaphor to consider whose house? built on whose land? the need to create a new groundwater wing, the need for clearer and consistent terminology across all areas of water (the wrong spanner?), and the need for climate upgrades. It was an enjoyable and productive conversation and the output will be incorporated in a final ‘overview’ – coming soon.   

Thanks to Darryl, Lesley, Susan Worley, the organising group of Fellows and all involved. This was the first time we have undertaken to make a contribution to national policy as a group of Fellows and we will reflect on this process and provide guidance for future ‘Nationally Significant Conversations’. 

Karlene gave a very visual account of COP27, and the many pavilions, events and networking opportunities, especially at the Australian Pavilion which had established itself as a networking hub, providing the best coffee at the entire event (with mile-long queues!). She moderated 3 panel sessions that recognised the importance of Traditional Owner knowledge in water management, explored resilience and approaches to it through natural resource management and community engagement, and on the role of water and adaptation to climate change. “Water is to adaptation what energy is to mitigation” was a great way to summarise the important role of water in climate change.

Lucia summarised the bad and the good of COP27: there were several shortcomings and disappointments, such as the lack of integration of issues to look at food AND water, energy AND water etc., which were all discussed as siloed issues. She highlighted that many alternative energy solutions would all require water (hydrogen, hydro power, mining of rare earths for batteries), and that this was not sufficiently addressed. The goal of maximising efforts to mitigation was not fully achieved, with only those coal plants without carbon capture and storage to be phased out, rather than all coal plants. The finance required to address climate change sits at $3-6T per year, way more than is currently made available. While a loss and damage fund was set up (a success!), it was not clarified who would host that fund, who contributes to it, and what exactly “loss and damages” actually are… Overall, climate negotiations were very slow, and extremely careful, to avoid e.g. contradicting any other international (e.g. trade) agreements. 

On the positive, the goal of 1.5C was kept alive, and there was a strong sense of “we can do this together”, and shared agreement on the moral obligation and social reciprocity between the participants. Lucia was proud to see Australia demonstrate leadership in the engagement of Indigenous people. 

Tony’s review of the UN’s water conference in New York (March 2023) had similar features: it was also a historic event (the first UN water conference after 46 years), it attracted a lot of participants (10,000), many events (over 1,300 side events) were competing for attention, and the outcomes were not quite what some may have hoped for e.g. it was not possible to agree on a “water action agenda” of nations’ obligations towards better water outcomes (similar to climate) to address the triple-threat of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. Instead, there were many (700) voluntary commitments, and a list of “game changers of the water action agenda” was created, that includes initiatives such as a Global early warning system re water-based disasters (floods, droughts, storms), Global approach to science and water information, including harvesting traditional knowledge. (More information here: Summary report 22–24 March 2023)

There were some doubtful voices of the value of the COP, especially given that 35,000 people were flown into the middle of a desert to discuss climate change. Had it achieved enough? Was it resulting in enough action? Overall, the COP process seems to be the best available alternative to tackle climate change globally, together. So many issues were discussed at the COP, to the extent that it was likened to a “global sausage machine that can process many issues”. It provided a great platform to share the many grassroots initiatives that are happening around the world, and to promote the many changes towards greener energy already happening, and that the panellists found to be a reason for optimism.

Fellows and Friends were encouraged to present their water issues to the climate negotiators that are now gearing up for COP28. 1.5C can’t be achieved without a more advanced way of looking at water. Issues include:

1. Integrating water prominently into other portfolios (such as agriculture, energy and mining), which will facilitate…
2. …Planning for new water uses that are required to mitigate climate change (rare earth mining, bio fuels, hydrogen, hydropower, cooling data centres/ digitalisation)
3. Wastewater management (with minimised emissions and energy needs)

The Peter Cullen Trust is an enormous asset, and we need to find ways to become a stronger and more influential voice in this space – our work in the National Water Initiative is a great start. 

COP28 next?

The issues of climate change, rising sea levels and habitat destruction were seen first-hand at two villages where we planted mangroves and other endemic species to restore areas degraded by illegal developments. Students visited the site of a case where the domestic Fijian environmental law imposed a $FJ 1 million fine on a proponent and stopped the development; they met the villagers who instigated the litigation and saw their courage first-hand. 

The Study tour included a visit to a Fiji water factory on the north coast of Vitu Levi where we came face to face with the reality of non-potable drinking water and the costs that imposes on society and the environment.

We studied the land tenure system and the new Parliamentary system and in the High Commission learnt about Australia’s ongoing role in Fiji.  Our students gained a tremendous amount from the experience and their assessments show a deep and long-lasting impact. 

The Study tour highlights the value of experiential learning as an effective way to provide emerging lawyers with an understanding of the social and environmental reality of our pacific neighbours. 

There are six criteria the Trust has used to select a Leith Boully Award recipient, and they are:

• Commitment to purpose and standing for something
• Willingness to challenge and raise the bar
• Courage and grit
• Bridging science and policy
• Speaking truth to power as a fierce advocate, and
• Working in service of the greater good for our sector and the Australian community

Eric’s work and contribution in relation to closing the water gap for First Nations communities has contributed to a step change ripple effect across the water sector in all its forms and across an extensive range of stakeholders nationally including all levels of Government, Utilities, private sector, NGO’s, universities and more. Over the last 12 months, one of the obvious outputs from this work that many of our community will know is the release of the Closing the Water for People and Communities Gap Report with the Water Services Association of Australia.

Eric’s commitment to this cause has been unwavering, grounded by work on country, with Indigenous communities, and supported with clear insights to science, governance and technology. He drives impact and change behind the scenes, often where people may not be watching or aren’t able to see. Eric upholds a strong commitment to purpose, has an incredible drive for the greater good, and operates with integrity grounded in his values.

While this award acknowledges Eric’s work and impact so far, it is also a vote of confidence in his capacity to continue to drive change, to seek solutions to complex problems, and to stay the course.

Congratulations Eric!

Starting with our vision for “a connected and collaborative network leading positive change in water and environmental management”, we confirmed the four key objectives of the FC:

• Building awareness, connection and meaningful engagement
• Professional development opportunities
• Ways to engage with the Fellows Network on emerging issues
• Giving back

We then proceeded to identify the current and future initiatives that will see us meet those objectives.  Ultimately, we will distil the many pages of notes into a strategic-plan-on-a-page which we’ll share with the Fellows Network.  

The day together was hectic, productive and as much fun as it was work, and the connections that we each continue to build beyond our original leadership cohorts are invaluable.  Following our session, we went out for a fabulous dinner and continued the discussion with plenty of laughs.

Later in the year, we will activate our first round of Fellows Committee renewal and put a call out to all Fellows to nominate to join us.  I warmly encourage Fellows to consider giving back to the Trust through a role on the Fellows Committee which – much like your leadership program experience – will reward you in surprising ways.

Thank you to my colleagues on the FC for your leadership, fellowship and friendship, and particular special mention to Lesley Ryall, our illustrious Fellows Coordinator, who has provided unwavering support to our ragtag crew that is the Peter Cullen Trust Fellows Committee.  

The day began with Kylie Climie expertly setting the scene and introducing Professor Cynthia Mitchell to deliver the keynote.  Cynthia has been at the leading edge for three decades, embedding sustainability in our beloved water sector, by developing leaders and ensuring that if we invest in the right way we can be truly proud of the legacy we’ll leave. Cynthia encouraged us to challenge our own world views in order to lead our teams and indeed our industry to better meet the needs of today’s modern world. She spoke of the fact that we all have fixed world views; likening our views to having a fence and even a moat around our thoughts, feelings and perceptions; not letting in new ideas and allowing for change. In challenging our world view she encouraged us to break down the fence, drain the moat and create a “gap” between our thinking and what happens next by developing mindfulness. When being truly mindful we can better understand the ‘beat’ of our own lives; and being comfortable with that, while we may not be able to control the tune, we sure can dance to it!

We then moved into our Extreme Teaming session. This was led by PCT Fellow Kristen Knight (2016). She shared with us the difference between teams and teaming; teamwork on the fly. She outlined that increasingly we are needing to form extreme teams to work through complex problems.  Kristen discussed the benefits of extreme teaming through her lived experiences of operational service delivery during and post extreme weather events. We explored the four leadership needs of extreme teaming. 

1. Build an engaging vision 
2. Cultivate psychological safety 
3. Develop shared mental models 
4. Empower agile execution 

Leaving us with the challenging thought from Amy Edmonson of instead of looking to your left and right and being in competition with our team mates, to look to your left, look to your right and think; how can I get to know and understand the skills you bring to this work and how can I make you understand my strengths too?

Next was our deep dive into the “Voice to Parliament”, led by Jackie Luethi. She spoke of how forming a personal and professional opinion within this debate can be complex, and that indeed it will challenge our world view and require us to break down the fence and look at things differently. After the session we all came to understand that the voice is complex, for First Nations Peoples and for every Australian. We learnt that through digging into well rounded information, asking questions in a psychologically safe space and indeed looking left and right and asking for help, we can navigate this space carefully and respectfully. If you are interested in learning more; we have some materials you might like to dig into – let us know. 

The day was capped off by a panel of our wonderful Fellows – Monique White, Grace Rose-Miller and Paul Frazier, chaperoned by Professor Cynthia Mitchell – sharing their leadership journeys; their experience in extreme teaming; navigating complex issues like the voice; and challenging their mindsets. 

The day was enjoyed by all; a big thank you to the organising committee; Jackie Luethi, Kristen Knight, Catherine Atkinson and Kylie Climie, and to the remarkable Professor Cynthia Mitchell.  

We had a special opportunity to take a glimpse into the evolution of this magnificent and gracious leader as she shared her life journey and the numerous roles, (many of them voluntary) that she has undertaken whenever she saw a problem or a need. Throughout her impressive career journey, Julia’s courage in challenging norms and traditional leadership roles and in decision making is inspirational.

Some key takeaways:

1. The value of networks in leadership
2. Being clear about your values and remaining true 
3. Embrace change, bring all your experiences no matter how unrelated they may seem.
4. Invest in life-long learning.
5. Know when its time to move on.

Julia then summarised three key things that leaders need to give their people as:

1. Direction
2. Protection and 
3. Order

Big thanks to our inspiring guest Julia Spicer OAM for her generosity in sharing her time and experiences so openly with us, Matt Fullerton and the Brisbane team for organising and just great company!

Susan’s career commenced with 15 years as a secondary science teacher, that provided her with a wealth of transferrable skills and knowledge that she has applied to her long and influential career.  Her approach to leadership recognises that relationships and understanding of others is key to bringing people together and achieving good outcomes. Susan reflected on her success stories and challenges in leading and building teams, attending “shed meetings” in the State’s north and adapting to new roles and water management issues. 

Susan referred to the “rules of excellence” that she applies as a foundation to bring perspective and motivation in her life. She explained these 5 simple principles as:

1. Don’t stress with all the details but some details really do matter
2. Look outwards and see what’s happening, make connections.
3. Keep going – navigate around the obstacles
4. Look at what can you do with what you’ve got.
5. Share, repeat, share, repeat.

It was an honour to have such a driven and influential leader share words of wisdom from her successful career in water management in such an intimate setting. Several of those attended were fortunate to have worked closely with Susan during her career. The discussion that followed reflected the high level of respect and gratitude held for her leadership and continued advice and support to those around her.

The ESD principle is in over 60 Australian laws and is defined as using, conserving and enhancing the community’s resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained and the total quality of life, now and in the future can be increased.  Prior to Australia signing the Climate Change Act (Cth) in 2022, ESD was just one factor to be considered in weighing the merits of a proposal and the decision maker had to decide the weight given to the components of ESD. Now, ESD is seen as the balance between development and environmental imperatives with a focus on viewing the environment as connected (catena) and precaution to ensure an environment for future generations 

Components of ESD post 2022

Precautionary principle – the legal rule here is per Justice Preston where the impacts of a decision are uncertain, use the precautionary principle. 

Inter-generational equity – recent case regarding visual impacts on a landscape and points out that future generations rights can have priority over present generation. See Stannards Marine Pty Ltd v North Sydney Council [2022] NSWLEC 99

Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity which has been limited as cumulative impacts of proposals were rarely considered. Early cases in NSW read cumulative impacts as a part of the precautionary principle. In Gray v Minister for Planning and Others (2006) 152 LGERA 258 The EPBC Act was amended to reflect the decision expressly by including the extended definition of impact that includes reference to ‘indirect impacts’ after the Nathan Dam case, Minister for the Environment and Heritage v Queensland Conservation Council Inc. (2004) 139 FCR 24. Looking forward to another case here.

Improved valuation and incentive mechanisms – the DCCEEW has reviewed incentives to encourage organisations to ameliorate threats to biodiversity and has created an annotated list in 2022.  Whilst the popular argument is that a federation provides 7 policy experiments, this complexity and diversity could be counter-productive and have huge transactional costs.

 A new regime is building in case law and statutes supported by community activism.

For governments, after the Bushfire Survivors case, the legal rule will be to comply with the ESD obligations in the objects of Acts. A local NGO, the Bushfires survivors for Climate action conducted successful litigation against the NSW EPA as they pointed out that the policies of the EPA failed to live up to the ESD obligations to address climate change and regulate GHG emissions.

The private sector is rapidly pursuing education.

The EPBC Act was found to be wanting and a review is currently in place with a draft bill to be circulated in late June. Major recommendations are legally enforceable National environmental standards to deliver ESD through collective contributions of the actions, decisions, plans and policies of the Commonwealth and accredited parties. This looks like catena to me.

Summary 

The movement toward catena and intergenerational equity is supported by the above environmental laws which have taken on and will increasingly take on a human rights perspective. This is in part driven by international action such as the , October 2021at the  48th meeting of UN Human Rights Council landmark resolution of the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a separate human right.  Queensland, Victoria and the ACT have human rights acts but it is expected other States will follow soon. Internationally, regional judicial and quasi-judicial bodies such as the European Court of Human rights and inter American court deal with environmental issues applying right to life to a range of pollution and climate change issues. Basically, the protection of the environment and the protection of human rights are deeply interconnected.