Bridging issue #60

The impetus for holistic, integrated approaches to land and water management has deep roots in numerous civilisations. When I arrived in Australia in 1980, after Post-doctoral studies in catchment hydrological modelling in the UK, I was immediately taken by the transitioning of the ‘water development’ paradigm to one of ‘water management’ – essentially the end of an era of large dam building across Australia. To make water management effective, and deal with the numerous extant land use issues of the time, the concept of Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) was formally adopted (in WA in 1987 and similarly in other states in different guises). The underpinning philosophy of ICM recognised that hydrological catchments formed a natural way of integrating the effects of all land and water uses into a series of measurable biophysical outputs. But more than that, ICM was a largely community-led social process aimed to engage all stakeholders – local communities, industries, government agencies and other interested parties – to identify their catchment objectives and find better ways to meet their social, economic and environmental aspirations.

ICM, along with the Landcare movement that also became established in the 1980s, set the foundations for improved natural resources management in Australia. The challenge of ICM was of course to align different parties with different interests and objectives to common goals. Perhaps the success of the model was based on everyone wanting to maintain or improve the environmental values in the catchment where they live – whether it’s the quality of the soil for farming or the quality of the rivers and wetlands for recreation and other uses. Of course, reaching agreement in all situations was and still is a challenge, sometimes requiring government intervention.

Integration within the multi-faceted water domain in Australia has taken on numerous forms beyond ICM. Examples I have been involved with include integrating across research, management and policy; in understanding how water interacts across different sectors, spawning the water-energy-food (WEF) nexus (and other nexuses); in the developing field of complex systems; in triple bottom line (TBL) reporting – combining social, economic and environmental aspects; in ‘best management practice’ (BMP) targeted to rural industries; in ‘water sensitive urban design (WSUD)’ and ‘water sensitive cities (WSC)’; in sophisticated modelling tools like eWater Source; in mainstreaming Gender Equality, Disability, and Social Inclusion (GEDSI) in water programs; and in debates between scientific reductionism versus holistic approaches. One tool not often noted is the integration of science and farmer knowledge into BMPs like the highly successful industry run MyBMP operated by the cotton industry, which requires individual farmer accreditation, encompasses water and most other aspects of cotton farming, and guides the environmentally aware day-to-day operations of these complex businesses.

One of the trickiest areas in integration is policy, and of course policy integration in itself. Politicians recognise that there are many differing interests and voices in the community, that there is no one ‘truth’, and that policy needs to deal with the societal issues of the day. Politicians also know the community at large cannot process too many issues at any one time, and certainly can’t process too much complexity (I here reference the Barry Jones ‘spaghetti and meatballs diagram’ – an attempt to illustrate societal complexity as a contribution to developing a Knowledge Nation – ridiculed by some politicians and parts of the media). It was once described to me that policy is a blunt instrument, that attempts to push society, as a complex system, in a particular direction. That may be simplistic, but the ‘issues-based’ approach is the most common policy driver, contrary to the precept of integration.

I now describe three specific examples of my more recent involvement in integration.

1. Integrating Water Resources Management (WRM) with Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)

In 2018 I was asked by the Water Futures Conference organisers to present a keynote on ‘Integration of WRM and WASH’ – an issue that had been perplexing the international development community. After agreeing to the task, I started scratching my head on how these two distinct approaches, largely successful in their own right, could be ‘integrated’. In my research I came across one key principle for ‘why to integrate’ – it was:

If two approaches are interdependent in the sense that both are needed for success, then this is the most compelling reason for integration.

I then set about identifying the barriers for integration, before providing some concrete examples of where I thought integration had worked in the water sector. The barriers to integration of WRM and WASH specifically were:

• A geographic/scale mismatch between WASH and WRM projects.
• WRM is often too broad and all-encompassing to apply at the local level.
• WASH projects can create momentum and organisations hesitate to divide and dissipate the attention and funding.
• Sector knowledge and culture differences exist between WRM and WASH

Whilst the barriers to integration across the water domain more generally were:

• Integrated projects require more patience, sophistication, and effort.
• Integration requires strong relationships across sectors and more focus on governance.
• Integrated projects run the risk of becoming too large to manage.
• The technical solutions required for integrated projects are often much more complicated.
• The technical language of specialists in different disciplines is a communication barrier.

2. Integration within the Murray-Darling Basin Plan with a focus on market-based methods

One of Australia’s biggest experiments in integration is the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It was established through the 2007 Water Act to primarily address the declining quality of the Murray-Darling Basin, which suffered dramatically in the Millennium Drought (1997-2010). To do this the Plan set out to balance the use of the Basin’s water resources between the environment and consumptive uses in a situation in which total water resource is declining and competition was increasing. This involved, in effect, optimising water allocation between consumptive uses – critical human water needs, irrigated agriculture, urban, hydropower, manufacturing – and environmental water needs, while taking account of socio-economic, cultural, aesthetic, and spiritual values. The overall paradigm was one of integrated river basin management (IRBM). A key method to achieve this optimisation was to employ a market-based approach, where the range of water values are in effect monetised and managed flexibly by the ‘invisible hand’ of the market. Much work was required to establish the ‘cap and trade’ system. The cap was set at a scientifically based sustainable limit (Sustainable Diversion Limit) and required review and possible adjustment every 10 years. Trade was facilitated by separating water rights from land rights, so market participants could buy and sell their water entitlements, temporally or permanently. The MDBA announced an annual water allocation for consumptive use based on water availability and other factors. Importantly the Australian government was a player in the water market, buying up and using water entitlements to improve river and wetland health, up to a scientifically determined target. Irrigation modernisation was supported to improve water use efficiency in this major sector. In operation the market has influenced a significant change in land use as water moves to higher value uses, while increased environmental water has been made available to ecosystems at critical times.  Market-based integration is working in efficiently allocating scarce water resources, although the results don’t suit everyone. In the 2026 review of the Plan, emerging water leaders could be seeking greater integration of climate change, land use and Indigenous water rights to ensure a more robust version of the Plan for the future.

3. Integrating climate risks into water security

Climate change is a major societal issue today and Australia is especially vulnerable – something emerging water leaders now face every day. Historically the climate profession worked separately from the water community, and integrating these two fields has required substantial effort, globally and locally. Recently I was involved in a massive review of climate impacts on water security across the Asia-Pacific (Ojha & Schofield 2022), including responses from communities to governments and ideas for a more integrated way forward. With assistance from the International WaterCentre, we converted the complex review into a Policy Brief that included seven principles for integrating climate risks into water security, appealing to the ‘principles-based approach’ common in policy development. In summary the principles (paraphrased) are:

1. Focus on context: Understanding local social and ecological context is critical to formulating any actions.Actors need to be able to localise risk assessments to specific socioecological zones and work across sectors and scales to integrate risk assessments.
2. Anticipate and iterate: With incomplete knowledge and considerable uncertainty, the ability to test, learn and iterate over time is crucial to managing large uncertainties and long timeframes inherent in understanding the influence of climate as well as other socioeconomic and biophysical changes.
3. Identify solutions that work to achieve multiple goals: A water-focused approach can improve the provision of water supply and sanitation services, tackle both the causes and impacts of climate change, contribute towards meeting several of the Sustainable Development Goals, deliver multiple benefits, and help build system-wide resilience.
4. Be inclusive and co-design solutions: Community participation along with proactive and deliberate participation of women or socially discriminated people, is needed in co-designing practical and robust socio-technical solutions.
5. Link policy and actions across scales: The response to climate risks must be considered at all levels of planning and decision-making, from households through communities to sub-national and national governments. There is a need to strengthen feedback loops between processes, implementation and policy across scales and jurisdictions.
6. Share knowledge and strengthen partnerships: Enhancing water security requires widening and strengthening of knowledge, partnerships and collaboration whilst building on traditional and local knowledge of ecosystems.
7. Integrate focused projects with high-level coordinated management: A great policy challenge lies in recognising locally-defined risk and solutions while remaining coordinated and integrated with system-wide dynamics.

In my personal experience over the years, having run some 14 national and regional research and development programs aimed at delivering solutions, it has been an absolute pleasure to work with industry leaders from agriculture, mining, forestry and other sectors, with passionate researchers wanting to make a difference on the ground, with community groups ready to give up their time for local land and water improvements, with NGOs who play a vital role in civil society, and with government officials seeking earnestly to enable necessary change. Australia has a proud history in collaboration and innovation when given the opportunity.

Looking ahead, water and land management is becoming more complex as competition for water resources increases due to increasing population and a changing climate, and as more voices want and need to be heard. Today’s water leaders and tomorrow’s emerging leaders need to develop not only holistic approaches to water challenges but also flexible and adaptable ways of managing multiple water values and interests in a rapidly changing world. Leaders need to be able to deal with a high level of complexity, and to work beyond traditional water and climate management apparatus in government to include other stakeholders in planning, finance, the private sector, Indigenous groups and civil society.

Fellows and Friends of the Trust are invited to connect with Nick @ nickjschofield@gmail.com

References

• Australian Cotton Industry Best Management Practices: myBMP Home
• Australian Water Partnership (2022). Water and Climate Risk in Asia-Pacific. Policy Brief, 5pp
• Schofield, N.J. (2018). Bridging WaSH and water resources management. Keynote presentation WASH Futures Conference Brisbane
• Ojha, H., & Schofield, N. (2022). Climate change and water security in the Indo-Pacific region: risks, responses, and a framework for action.Canberra: Australian Water Partnership

Why do we need to start ‘disconnecting’ to protect our waterways and receiving waterbodies? Well, the all-but-complete loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services due to urbanization has been well known for some time (Walsh et al., 2005). It is concerning at the local, state and national levels, given that the rate of extinction in freshwater systems is greater than any terrestrial ecosystem (Dudgeon, et al., 2006). Catchment urbanisation results in an almost universally negative physical, ecological and social impact on streams (Vietz et al. 2016), wetlands (Lee et al., 2006) and the urban environment (Coutts et al., 2007). 

With development extending into greenfield belts and regional areas, what is preventing us from disconnecting stormwater runoff from our waterways? An answer to this is that the political impetus is not there. This could be attributed to the inability of the industry to demonstrate the whole-of-system benefits. The level of water sensitive urban design required must be ambitious to maintain a near-pre-development flow regime. This comes at a significant cost to development. Offsetting this cost requires recognising the significant ecological, social, cultural and economic values of waterways and receiving water bodies that will otherwise be lost, forever. The most important action leaders can now take is to support demonstration of these retained values, yet the ability to demonstrate this impact and determine the quantum of change has been severely lacking in the management and policy realm.

Can MrsP help?

Most recently, a diverse team was assembled to develop a new method and graphical-interface tool called MrsP, the Method for Regional Stormwater Priorities. MrsP draws upon the knowledge of urbanisation impacts on waterways and provides a risk-based framework, and a tool, to explicitly translate this knowledge into real-world planning support. Inputs include urbanisation and climate scenarios and waterway values. Outputs include graphical and spatially-distinct maps of stress and impact to values, informing priorities for stormwater management, as well as providing an economic evaluation tool.

The method is scalable, repeatable, robust and adaptable to towns and cities.

Two recently completed Victorian applications of MrsP, for the City of Greater Geelong and the regional town of Trentham, demonstrate not only the locations of catchment-based priorities for stormwater management, but also the magnitude of effort required, the influence of climate change, and the types of stormwater flows to be specifically addressed, informing stormwater management plans and development strategies. MrsP is a dramatic shift from understanding a problem to demonstrating the extent and opportunities for addressing it, with guidance for planning at many levels.

An initial presentation on MrsP and the Scenario Tool can be found here:

Stormwater flow targets are here: What does this mean for our growing regions? 

Ultimately, if we can better demonstrate the benefits of disconnecting runoff from our waterways, reconnect the management of land and water, and ensure the impetus to act, many benefits will flow. If we don’t, there is a good chance our future leaders will grow up without access to nearby healthy waterways and will be disconnected from healthy aquatic environments. 

—-

Dr Geoff Vietz is a 2010 PCT Fellow. He is the Founder and Director of consulting company Streamology (with colleagues Birgit Jordan and Dr Christine Lauchlan Arrowsmith). The project to develop MrsP was led by Streamology, in conjunction with Hydrology and Risk Consulting and Marsden Jacob Associates, for the Victorian Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and Coliban Water. MrsP is an example where science ultimately informs policy with the method building on decades of research from the University of Melbourne, and the Scenario Tool initially developed by the Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities.

Through tailored coaching and enlightening interactions with organisational and thought leaders, we were emboldened to expand and challenge ourselves. Highlights include:

• Attending WSAA member meetings with utility CEOs and MDs allowing the voice of young people to be included
• Connecting and expanding our networks to facilitate value add program experiences that broadened knowledge and awareness
• Deep engagement with First Nations leaders providing clarity on reconciliation at a personal and societal level.

We have taken many things from the program, one being a commitment to embed and habitualise the leadership behaviours we’ve been exposed to. We will continue to ensure voices who aren’t in the room are heard, being flexible leaders who adapt according to context and provide consistent feedback. As a collective, alumni of the program want to create ripples across the water sector that contribute to wider societal change. We have a huge amount of gratitude to the PCT, WSAA and Benny for giving us the skills, experiences and networks to do our part in shaking up the status quo.

We also wondered how to use the content generated at the Water Symposium to analyse what the participants thought was important (i.e. what ideas and questions were raised and shared at the event) and based on their personal commitments and feedback we wanted to know what conversations they’d like to be engaged in in the future.

What they said:

Long term about Climate Change and Sustainability context:

• Addressing water management changes needed as climate changes.
• Opportunities for water and environment reform in the context of a net-zero transition.
• Nature repair and nature-positive initiatives.
• AI and tech disruptions in water and environmental sectors.
• Innovations in water management and thinking outside the box.

Community Engagement and Communication:

• Strategies for meaningful engagement despite unrealistic time frames.
• Building public support for environmental water.
• Using storytelling and effective communication internally and externally.
• Include young people in water and environment futures.
• Building trust across sectors and with scientific and technical experts.       

Vision:

• Describe a vision that encompasses practical, sustainable and equitable futures.
• Consider long-term implications and making decisions with knowledge gaps.

Address First Nations rights and concerns:

• Integration of Traditional Knowledge and Community Engagement
• New institutional arrangements for Traditional Owner self-determination in water and environmental management.
• How to incorporate First Nations needs in future water modelling systems.
• Community-led approaches and applying traditional knowledge in the water system.

Specific Regional Focus:

• Showcase regional successes and achievements in water management.
• Succession planning and future leadership in Australian water policy.
• Learning from case studies in different states (e.g., WA) and potentially other countries.
• Adopt global measures (planetary boundaries) that can translate into action for our Country and for our local places. 
• Managing multiple risks and crises (polycrises).

    Governance and Policy:

• Challenges and opportunities in leadership specific to water and environmental sectors.
• Defining policy consistency and exploring alternative institutional and governance arrangements.
• Reconciling the tension between market stability and the need for change.

Where to from here?

These points highlight a broad range of concerns and opportunities in water management and environmental policy, emphasizing the need for collaboration, innovation, and long-term sustainability in addressing complex challenges.

Of the many subjects and challenges that PCT may take, it seems that Fellows (who participated in the Water Symposium in Canberra) are most interested in matters that concern their roles as leaders and how to both contribute meaningfully to current initiatives and to maintain a sense of urgency for profound change for the long-term.

This Insight starts with a simple definition of ‘crisis’ as a global or regional situation that needs an urgent response to avoid a much worse future outcome. With this definition in mind and recognising that water permeates many aspects of society and the biosphere, the Insight identifies four distinct water crises operating at the global level:

• Climate change driven water impacts;
• Aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem decline;
• Water pollution; and
• Water consequences of unsustainable development.

If this isn’t enough, an additional three regional level water crises identified are:

• Increasing water stress in towns, cities, catchments and remote communities;
• Unsafe drinking water and unsafe sanitation in least developed and some developing countries; and
• Increasing internal conflicts over access to water, and damage to water services and infrastructure in war zones.

The intricate details of these crises can be found here.

So, what is to be done? And what role can leadership play in the face of these complex challenges?

On the positive side we have the know-how and tools to solve the water crises, have key global initiatives in place, and some inspiring success stories. But solutions have been difficult to implement on the scale required because, in toto, they necessitate a massive adjustment to the existing socio-economic paradigm, as is clear when considering the climate change induced water crisis alone.

Leadership then must focus on societal change, with clear, achievable pathways to a better future that will benefit all. Change, so fundamental, though, is difficult, with some powerful entities defending the status quo and their vested interests, by undermining, delaying, blocking, lobbying, greenwashing and funding disinformation campaigns.

Political will for real change appears relatively weak according to new research that shows politicians, besides Greens, are not strategically responding to increasingly extreme environmental disasters.

Leadership of course occurs across all scales from the collective actions of individuals, villages, local councils, catchment authorities, provinces, sovereign states, regions and ultimately at the global level; and within social entities like local community action groups, environmental NGOs, to businesses and industries demonstrating corporate citizenship.

The catchy paradigm of ‘think global, act local’ is probably insufficient for global challenges – rather global level initiatives are critical – but these need to trickle down to the local level. Leading in this space is the United Nations with four crucial initiatives, amongst others, that will contribute to addressing some aspects of some water crises:

• Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development;
• Framework Convention on Climate Change;
• Convention on Biological Diversity; and
• Sendai Framework for Disaster Reduction

Each formulates the actions needed to deal with current sustainability crises.

In terms of water, the United Nations is making progress with Sustainable Development Goal 6 – Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all, although positive results are uneven, and a significant acceleration and increased funding is needed to achieve 2030 targets. UN-Water is leading the integration of water into these global actions, as well as co-ordinating activities and reporting on progress. Whilst appearing ‘top-down’, leaders at all levels can get behind these initiatives to create the necessary change within their responsibilities, knowing this will result in positive global outcomes.

Over the last century or two, water management knowledge and expertise has grown dramatically, to the point that advanced economies have achieved a high degree of water security. By contrast, in least developed countries, some developing countries and war-torn regions, water management is rudimentary, subsistence or survival focussed. In these situations, access to clean water is fraught, treatment of wastewater is minimal, and as a result there is still a devastating loss of human life every year. Despite these differences between ‘haves and have-nots’, the global water crises are a growing challenge everywhere across the globe, while regional crises add pressures in their specific locations. In all situations the most vulnerable do and will suffer most.

In summary, water crises, alongside other crises, are challenging the resilience of modern civilisation and humanity generally. At times like this, that have seen the demise of past civilisations, a new and brave form of leadership is needed, rather than an instinctual grasping for would-be saviours.

Science and other forms of knowledge can take us to a better place, but a poor level of scientific understanding, and the growing distrust in institutions, combined with a healthy taste for self-interest, makes the attributes of today’s and tomorrow’s leaders even more demanding.

Kim:  Is it possible to balance competing needs and deliver co-benefits with landscape restoration?

I have been thinking a lot about this recently…….. I think we agree that there is a lot we should be doing in land and water management across the landscape to improve the condition of the natural environment as well as support sustainable and resilient communities.  I keep also being told there is a growing opportunity for investment in land and water management activities with existing and emerging nature-based markets such as carbon capture, nutrient offsetting, sediment reduction and biodiversity.  However, I am starting to witness growing competition for the land to deliver these restoration activities on, such as privately owned and managed agricultural land.  

Maria:  I’ve been on the same journey. I wonder if part of this conversation is the need to ditch the ‘co’ in ‘co-benefits’?

If the lowest common denominator for delivering the objectives under the different strategies for biodiversity, decarbonisation, water use and quality, is a ‘human (or community) and their backyard’ how do we identify and articulate benefits to maximise participation and change?  Does the ‘co’ add to the competition (and necessary prioritisation) of one benefit over another?

Kim:  This competition for land available to deliver restoration projects seems to be based on the premise that only one benefit can be funded and delivered at a given site.  For example, the stabilisation and rehabilitation of an eroding streambank can be either funded as a nutrient offset project or a sediment reduction project, creating competition for this site by the different organisations.  

Maria:  This is happening in practice across Australia and driving everyone nuts. From my government experience, implementation of the different strategies seem to drive the single benefit funding. Next to my house, the restoration of Norman Creek is celebrated for many different reasons and by many different people. https://landscapeaustralia.com/articles/restoration-and-connection-hanlon-parkburuda-waterway-rejuvenation/#. This project is an example of where there can be benefit in one organisation (in this instance the local council) having an integrated master plan which sets the direction for the funding of their programs.  

Kim:   There definitely seems to be a growing request for restoration projects to deliver co-benefits, or multiple functions. This is easier when there is one organisation who is responsible for these multiple functions and own the land.  The naturalisation of Norman Creek at Hanlon Park is a good example of this as Council owns the land and has responsibility for improving the natural environment, providing pathways and open space for the local community and minimising flooding impacts.  This is more difficult when there are separate investors wanting to fund activities on the same parcel of land.  It seems that unless there is a mechanism to transparently identify how different investment streams can co-fund restoration works which can demonstrate how they are providing the multiple functions and benefits, then we will continue to compete over landscape restoration projects and deliver projects which are designed to deliver one main function only.  

Maria: I agree. I then wonder about the roles ‘planning’ (are we planning at the right scale? How many strategies and plans are too many?), coordination (is there coordination happening in this space? Who is leading?) and partnerships (are effective partnerships good mechanisms to enable co-funding?) have in contributing to this conversation.

Kim:  I think there are a number of key questions coming out of this that would be good to explore further……..

• Is this something others are also witnessing?
• Is there a mechanism to support co-funding of multi-functional landscape restoration?
• Are there any examples of where co-funding and co-benefits have been delivered to deliver landscape restoration?

Maria:  And I want to know, in those examples, what were the enablers? What made the magic happen?

Let’s continue this conversation.  You can join it HERE.

She began by thanking the encouragement and support she had received from PCT Fellows and Friends in applying for the Churchill Fellowship (particularly Kath Broderick, Susie Williams and Susan Worley) and to the reviewers of her final report, Peter Spencer and Rachael Miller (both from Water Corporation) and PCT’s Darryl Day as a referee.

In true Leith Boully style she opened up to how she was feeling prior to the trip – “not in a good place” – with multiple things going on for her including her mum with dementia, her beloved dog recently passing away, a major hockey injury and a workplace restructure underway. The final straw but ultimately the motivator to push on was having to drive on the wrong side of the road in the US – and in Stacey’s own words, she “put on my big girl pants on and got on with it”.

Stacey described visiting multiple treatment plants and interviewing people at all levels within water utilities across the US. A complication of trying to manage water throughout the whole cycle is that many unrelated entities manage different aspects, such as source water treatment, wastewater collection and treatment, and recycling facilities. In Western Australia this is not the case as we have the privilege of having one major urban utility to manage the entire water cycle.

Her report includes some amazingly simple but effective graphics she commissioned to communicate highly technical treatment processes to policy makers and decision makers. She developed 5 recommendations which could be considered policy related or science related.

She concluded in her report that:

• Science to policy takes time
• Just because the science “works” doesn’t mean the community will accept it
• People before process – she learnt a lot from the plant operators she interviewed
• Leaders have to be brave

Some thoughtful and robust discussion with the audience followed, which concluded with the notion that the language we use as scientists is incredibly influential in developing trust with policy makers and the community, and this emphasized the importance of understanding and being able to describe the “why” for Purified Recycled Water when trying to make the case for it.

Following a PhD at the University of Southampton (UK) where he won the prize for the best doctoral thesis in the U.K., Sam took up a lectureship at the University of Tasmania in 1967, rising through the academic ranks to Professor with a personal Chair at Monash University by 1997.

Sam’s publication record is elite with over 220 refereed papers and two highly cited books on drought and freshwater monitoring.  His CV, with all publications, appointments, committees and research listed, runs to 34 pages.  While these outputs are impressive, Sam’s most significant legacy is the people he has taught, supervised and mentored and who are now in positions of influence in academia, government and industry. He has supervised over 40 PhD students and countless Honours students, many of these through the extremely productive and somewhat eccentric “Limno Lab” at Monash. Students who worked in Sam’s lab at Monash will have very fond memories of the intellectual environment Sam created, as well as the sense of enjoyment and discovery that Sam instilled in everyone who worked with him. 

Over some 45+ years, Sam has given freely and liberally of his time to support professional scientific organisations as well as government and non-government groups concerned with ecology, limnology, conservation and environmental restoration. It is particularly noteworthy that he has done this consistently and generously during a period when universities, while supportive of academics providing community service, did not reward them in any substantive way and the commitment of time and energy for community service typically came at a personal cost and a loss of time to devote to furthering research and careers.

In a professional scientific context, Sam has played a premium part in putting Australia “on the map” with respect to freshwater ecology and limnology around the world. Apart from the impact of his research at an international level, he has played pivotal roles in the development of scientific societies in Australia. He has been President, Vice-President, Bulletin and Newsletter Editor and member of the Executive of the Australian Society of Limnology and was a foundation member of the Ecological Society of Australia, Australia’s premier ecological science society, when it was formed in Canberra in 1962; he was Vice-President of this Society from 1988 to 1993.  He has served on many editorial boards, including those of the international journals Freshwater Biology, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, and Restoration Ecology.

Sam has also served on a multitude of advisory and consultative committees providing direct and fearless advice to government (both commonwealth and state) on matters of conservation and environmental restoration, as well as executive and steering committees for many NGOs. He has been generous to a fault in freely providing well-thought-through scientific advice to strengthen environmental knowledge and protection in Australia.

Long before it was popular, Sam was passionately advocating the protection of freshwater systems, actively publicising (while scientifically assessing the demise of) the tragedy of the HEC flooding of Lake Pedder, and always encouraging his students to share his concern about the loss and destruction of our freshwaters.

He has never been shy about making his standards and his opinions known, even where those opinions have come at a cost. Although outspoken, Sam is without arrogance and without conceit. That humility and openness coupled with an engaging sense of humour have been pivotal in ensuring that he is approachable, well-liked and well-respected by everyone – not just his academic peers but people from all walks of life.

Sam has cultivated the ability to talk to Prime Ministers, farmers, bureaucrats, journalists and public servants…and for them to be able to talk to him and have him listen. These personal attributes of avoiding arrogance and being willing to listen to all have been critical in his capacity to help bring about change in the way we do environmental management in this country.

On a personal level, Sam has always been a warm, sensitive and stalwart friend.  His humanity touches everyone and he has always made himself available to help out or give advice, to lend his support and freely share his wide knowledge on more topics than most of us will ever know, interspersed by his irrepressible (and sometimes boyish) humour that adds richly to time spent in his company.

It is extremely rare for individuals to receive academic accolades for their research while also maintaining a strong profile as a principled, passionate and knowledgeable spokesperson for environmental conservation, protection and repair. Typically, a dazzling career in academia involves concentration only upon academic activities. Academics that do involve themselves in public debates and donate vast amounts of times to public-good activities often find themselves unable to maintain a strong profile in the academic community. Many also suffer from the problem that they cease to be seen as providing objective scientific advice and are viewed instead as lobbyists.

The fact that Sam has been able to maintain the highest reputation as an academic with an equally strong profile in serving in public-good roles has been outstanding, and these achievements were formally recognised in 2014, when Sam was made an Officer of the Order of Australia.

Sam is retired now but still holds an Emeritus Professor position at Monash. As he approaches his 83rd birthday, age has slowed Sam down, but he is still co-authoring papers, enjoys catching up with old colleagues and friends to discuss latest issues in science and freshwater ecology and he still follows what’s happening in the world with great interest.

A world which has benefited from his contributions, his passion and his wonderful mind.

In July and August 2022, hundreds of tonnes of dead fish were hauled out of the Oder River, which has its headwaters in Chechia, flows through the Silesian coalmining and heavy industry region in Poland’s south-west, then forms the border with Germany before emptying into the Baltic Sea. The mass fish kills were – and continue to be – a tragedy on a transboundary scale, exacerbated by politics, secrecy, and finger pointing between numerous jurisdictions.

Sound vaguely familiar? Yes, I immediately thought of the Menindee Lakes fish kills too. In both cases the immediate causes of the mass fish deaths were anoxic conditions and algal blooms. The proximate causes seem eerily similar too. As I argued at the Time for Oder conference in April (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnufywR0v14&list=PL9aTp2Y2Glg6YETIzg3LRgSt4aOzRud1m&index=6 ) any river basin managed primarily for one value (industrial uses in the case of the Oder, and irrigation in the case of the Murray-Darling) will inevitably result in unintended consequences for the environment – and that, in turn, will be to the detriment of the industrial, agricultural, touristic, cultural, and other values of the basin.

For us in the Peter Cullen Trust it is self-evident that water security, environmental security, food security, and human security are inextricably linked, and that our waterways must be managed accordingly. But this sort of thinking is not prevalent in Poland yet. For a start, water is the remit of the Ministry of Infrastructure, not the Ministry of Climate and Environment. But there is also a passionate cadre of Polish water professionals and academics, looking to the experience of countries such as Australia in addressing the increasingly wicked problems of water management.

I’m coordinating a study tour of Polish hydro-geologists, water ecologists, water economists, and other practitioners and academics to Australia. If you would like to be involved, or find out more, please email me: pmh@slow-water.net 

She explains: “This story is from a field trip in March to Uluṟu-Kata Tjuṯa National Park. I was fortunate to spend a week camping out and doing surveys with local Anangu rangers, the Tjuwanpa Women Rangers visiting from Ntaria (Hermannsburg), Parks Australia staff, school kids, and the indefatigable Dr Rachel Paltridge. In 40°C+ heat, we spent dawn to dusk searching for the burrows of Tjakuṟa! It’s an endangered, culturally-important and beautiful skink. I hope this story is a window into the amazing work that Indigenous rangers are doing all around Australia, from the deserts to the coast.

READ THE STORY HERE