Bridging issue #67

If you are feeling like an imposter, you’re in good company – it’s actually just part of the human condition. As we all progress through our careers we are inevitably called upon to perform in roles that take us out of our comfort zones and that we may not feel qualified for. I’ve certainly been there! But believe me, while everyone else around you might look supremely confident and like they know what they are doing, they are almost certainly not always feeling that way. In fact there is probably not a leader in the country who isn’t at times beset with a sense of being out of their depth, while everyone around them is expecting them to know the answers.

It’s happened to me many times, from the start of my early career as a young female scientist in an almost entirely male-dominated world, to every new role or challenge I’ve taken on. Underneath our professional façades we are all really just the same person we always have been, having to just do the best we can in unfamiliar situations – and it’s just a human response to feel unqualified and like an imposter! 

My best example is probably when I stepped up to the role of Acting Chief Scientist at Geoscience Australia. My challenge was to coordinate a review of the organisation’s science, program by program. As a hydrogeologist, my understanding of much of the organisation’s science wasn’t much more advanced than whatever I’d touched upon in undergraduate courses, and I was certainly a lot more junior than many of the eminent experts I needed to engage to help me. There were plenty of reasons why I felt like an imposter! But this also felt like an amazing opportunity for me, that I wasn’t about to let pass me by without having a decent attempt to rise to the challenge. So I stepped up, acted confidently, wrangled multiple panels of eminent experts, and ultimately produced nine useful science reviews and an organisation-wide strategic review as well.

In hindsight, it’s amazing how occupying a role gives you a credibility that you may not feel, and acting confidently even when you may not feel it gives others confidence in you. It’s very helpful to remind yourself that feeling inadequate is a normal part of adjusting to a new challenge that happens to everyone. Give yourself some positive self-talk. Even if you don’t believe that you’re up for the job, others whose judgement you presumably respect have identified that you are – let that carry you in the absence of your own self-belief. Remind yourself of your underlying motivation for doing what you are doing, and that tackling this new challenge is an opportunity for progressing that. 

But also recognise that no one is ever the expert on everything, and that our hesitation in having self-confidence in a new role can also be turned into a useful piece of self-analysis to identify areas that need strengthening or seeking help with. Build a network, and don’t be afraid to lean on that for support when you need it. Your peers and managers actually want to see you succeed and will lean in to support you.

I’ve always wanted to make a difference to how we manage our environment, by improving how science is available to be incorporated into decision making. While I began my career trying to do that as a scientist, being progressively asked to take on different, and more diverse, leadership roles, led me to realising that my best contribution lay in guiding and supporting others to undertake and position their science in a way that had impact. That took me into roles where I needed to translate my existing skills into new areas where I certainly felt an imposter – but it also gave me the opportunity to better realise my overarching objectives. Sometimes when I doubted myself I had to trust in the judgement of others, and also to remind myself of the privilege of having the challenge I’ve been grappling with and to not waste it; but almost always, I surprised myself with how I did manage to rise to that challenge.

Ultimately, we have a choice to be courageous, and overcome the negativity of feeling like an imposter, or to miss the opportunity in front of us. And when I’m faced with that I’ve always reminded myself of the advice of a wonderful, wise woman: to try something that scares me every year. And that has always worked out well, because it is only by facing and overcoming our challenges that we grow – and we may never get that chance again. 

The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists was formed at the Wentworth Hotel in Sydney on Thursday 10th October 2002. We had been invited by the World Wide Fund for Nature to gather to discuss some of the amazing things being given prominence by radio commentators during the drought. There were 11 of us – Leith Boully, Peter Cosier, Peter Cullen, Tim Flannery, Ronnie Harding, Steve Morton, Hugh Possingham, Denis Saunders, Bruce Thom, John Williams and Mike Young.

Australia was in the grip of a major drought that was focusing the attention of rural and urban Australians alike. Irrigation districts had very limited water, and there were restrictions on water use in most of our major cities. Concerns with the way we manage water had been building over the previous five years with extensive press coverage of the degradation of the health of our major rivers and the squabbles between Governments and the various interest groups as to who was to blame, what should be done and who should pay. Media coverage had raised the issue in the minds of politicians who were starting to understand they had to do something, but were unclear as to what should be done.

It was in this context that radio commentator Alan Jones started a campaign to turn the rivers inland and stop wasting the water that was flowing to the sea. He advocated a variety of massive engineering projects; including piping water from the Ord to Adelaide and then on to the Murray-Darling Basin, as well as turning back the coastal rivers.

The underlying assumption that we could tame this country through engineering works was not one we could accept. Our society had just gone through a debate that resulted in Governments committing significant resources to return at least some water to the Snowy River, and here were proposals for further massive works that could repeat these mistakes.

As a group of experienced natural resource professional scientists, we were of the view that Australians needed to learn to live with the variability of our continent rather than trying to ignore these realities.

The First Wentworth Dinner

The WWF invited us to a meeting starting at around 5.00pm to discuss these issues and to develop some counter arguments. A spirited discussion took place, and there was broad agreement about the main points, although as might be expected, there were many differing views on the emphasis and priority that could be given to various aspects of the issue.

At about 7.00 pm we adjourned into an adjacent room for dinner, where we were joined by three invited journalists, Nick Grimm from the ABC AM program, Anthony Hoy from the Bulletin and Asa Wahlquist from the Australian.

Asa Wahlquist described the dinner in an article in the Weekend Australian Magazine of May 31 2003. “Desert eaten, the discussion continued to take many energetic, if undisciplined turns. The evening was threatening to collapse under the weight of so many fine ideas, when one of the journalists present banged the table. “What are you going to do about it?” he demanded”.

This was a sobering challenge. Scientists enjoy the tussle of ideas, and spend most of their time arguing about the contestable parts of their knowledge. This challenge meant we had to return to the core things we all agreed upon, rather than continuing to push the boundaries of our knowledge. It was not difficult, and in 15 minutes we had agreed the five-point plan that was the foundation of the Wentworth Group’s “Blueprint for a Living Continent”. 

I read the statement straight from the computer screen, since we had no printer handy. It was recorded by Nick Grimm, and went to air next morning on AM. As Asa Wahlquist reports in the Australian article “the astonished journalist applauded” “Their statement hit the media like a drought-breaking storm.” Nick Grimm subsequently won a Eureka Prize for Environmental Journalism for the report and was commended in the Walkley Press Awards.

The Essence of the Wentworth Group’s Message

As Asa Wahlquist reports “it was a concise yet eloquent statement, that not only outlined the problem but presented a five point solution.”

 The essence of the message is:

• Clear and simple language that everyone could understand. No qualifiers, conditions or references.
• Clear articulation of the problem, but strongly linked to realistic and effective solutions that could be implemented by governments should they wish.
• No obvious self-interest in that we were not just calling for research funding
• The message kept focused on the key points and did not diverge to the many other interests that the authors also feel passionately about.

One commentator, Daniel Lunney describes the Blueprint as brief, well written and positive. He also criticizes it for not being more comprehensive and addressing some of the other important issues concerning the environment. We could have written a comprehensive treatise, like many others have done, and it would not have had the impacts of the Wentworth Blueprints which were written to deliver our message to the media and politicians rather than academic elites.

Lane et al (2004) also criticize us for not presenting the evidence to support our arguments and prescriptions. This indicates a profound misunderstanding of how media functions – a normal opinion piece in a daily newspaper is less than 800 words and most news stories much less. Our aim was to bring our ideas into the public arena where they could be debated.

Delivery of the Wentworth Message

Giving three senior journalists an exclusive turned out to be very powerful. Many other journalists were keen to get access to the story and we probably handled 50-100 media interviews between us in the weeks following the release.

We were clearly lucky with our timing in that the blueprint was released at a time that caught the window of interest when the media was looking for an answer to all the drought stories that had been being aired in previous weeks.  A key part of building this media momentum was our “staying on message” rather than having it develop in unplanned ways.

We had made it plain that we were delivering the Blueprint to the Prime Minister and the State Premiers before its public release on the Web and in hard copy. This probably added to the media interest.

There was also media interest because we were taking on a very well known and influential radio shock jock in Alan Jones who had been proposing to turn the rivers inland to “drought proof our country”. This element of conflict with a well known figure stimulated interest.

The other factor was some mystique surrounding the Group – who were we, why we were speaking out, why were scientists acting as advocates, why were we named the Wentworth Group. In fact it was reported that our meeting took place in the town of Wentworth at the junction of the Darling and Murray Rivers, but this is untrue.

This is an example of scientists using all of the modern tools of mass media to communicate messages quickly to a variety of audiences. Radio and print media were critical, but there was also considerable television coverage. Release on the World Wide Web gave instant access to the reports. A benefactor funded publishing a one-page display outlining the Blueprint in the Financial Review and elsewhere.

Some Internal Factors

The members of the Wentworth Group are all experienced scientists with well-established reputations in their areas and some with a significant media experience and profile. This certainly helped in getting media attention and in delivering the messages.

The group also had a shared vision and developed a significant level of trust with each other. There was no competing for supremacy of ideas as is common, but a wish to pool our expertise to develop a more integrated solution to these problems than any of us could have done by ourselves.

Leadership of the Group is shared, and we have no designated leader, much to the concern of both media and outside groups. Leadership is readily shared around the group depending on who has the best knowledge in any particular area. The views of all are respected and we are able to trust each other. Part of this is we have agreed on the boundaries of our activities as a Wentworth Group, and are concentrating our efforts on land clearing and water reform, and we are largely in agreement as to what has to be done in these areas.

The Impact of the Blueprint for a Living Continent

“It is no mean feat to gather together several prominent & influential Australians for a meal, & come up with a succinct blueprint to change the Nation” (Nick Grimm, AM Report ABC Radio National).

The Blueprint was very well received. It was understandable and presented simple ways to resolve difficult issues that politicians had been concerned about but were not being given effective solutions for from their agencies or the key interest groups.

We did not pretend that the Blueprint was the only solution to these difficult problems, or even that it was the best solution. We said it was an effective solution, and invited anyone with a better solution to bring it forward. If critics like Lane et al (2004) have a better solution they should bring it out rather than making self-serving calls for more research funding for studies of regional governance.

Politicians generally welcomed the Blueprint and acknowledged receiving it. Some invited us to explore the issues further with them or their staff, and this led to the Wentworth group report on land clearing and catchment management in NSW which is influencing reforms now being implemented by the Carr Government.

As Lane et al (2004) say “the ideas of the group… apparently enjoy considerable policy influence with the current federal administration. Indeed there are a number of obvious parallels between the Group’s approach and the trajectory of the current Federal Governments thinking on key areas of environmental policy, including decentralization.”

It may be flattering to assume causality here but the Federal Governments thinking on these areas was laid down before the Blueprint was released, so it is more likely we chose to operate within the model already established by Government.

Many people in urban and rural Australia welcomed the Blueprint as providing a way forward on difficult and important issues, and we got many calls of support and encouragement.

Many in the irrigation communities expressed alarm at the thrust of the Blueprint, especially the notion that water had to be taken away from irrigators to restore river health. There were two thrusts to their arguments – that the river was not really degraded, and that if any water had to be taken that farmers should be compensated. Perhaps the proponents faith in their first argument is shown by the fact that they felt the need for the second argument at all.

Murray Irrigation commissioned a consultant to review some of the scientific work on the Living Murray, but he appeared unable to refute the science and seemed in the end to agree the river needed to have some water returned to it. Such critical reviewing is of course totally proper and is the way science advances our knowledge. The thrust of the argument is that the damage is not such that we need immediate action and there is time for further research.

The Institute of Public Affairs also produced a report showing that salinity was not worsening in the Lower Murray, and may indeed be reducing. The facts of this are not in dispute, but the interpretation is. We now appreciate that river health is more complex than is shown by water quality data, and that biological outcomes are an important part of the assessment. The study did not also put the work in the context of the drought or the salt interception schemes undertaken by governments, or the rising salinity in upland tributary streams.

The IPA reports have attracted considerable regional media coverage, but little in the national press. They appear coordinated with statements by irrigation interests that deny the degradation of the river and its importance.

There were also views expressed that it was inappropriate for Government funded scientists in CSIRO to be associated with the Wentworth Group who were making recommendations seen as damaging to some irrigators. Murray Irrigation is reported to have met with the Minister for Science Peter McGauran in an “attempt to thwart the influence of the Wentworth Group in the present water debate” (Pastoral Times, 21/11/03). Murray Irrigation Ltd is reported as being concerned that the taxpayer funded CSIRO was inappropriately supporting the Wentworth Group that wants extra water for environmental flows in the Murray River. It is also reported that as Murray Irrigation had committed $400,000 to projects conducted by CSIRO that a further commitment by the CSIRO to be more supportive of irrigation advances was essential.

There are a number of disturbing aspects to these reports:

• The assumption that by giving funds to support research an interest group wants done the research body should show their gratitude by becoming its advocates.
• That taxpayer-funded research should be to the benefit of those exploiting a resource rather than the broader public interest of those who seek to protect it.
• Research that is damaging to a vested interest group should not be made public, and is flawed research because one group does not like the findings, rather than being flawed research itself. This shows a total mis understanding of the process of science.

When scientists contribute to public debates they will stimulate various reactions. The idea that for every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD is well know from the debates about smoking and health and other controversial issues. Bringing out these various interpretations allows for full examination of the evidence but can confuse the public.

People can decide what are the important questions and can weigh up the evidence.

Subsequent Reports of the Wentworth Group

A New Model For Landscape Conservation in New South Wales

NSW Premier Bob Carr invited the Wentworth Group to develop a way forward to address the problems of clearing of native vegetation in NSW. In this exercise, some Wentworth Group members worked with farmer interest and conservation groups to hammer out a Plan that has subsequently been adopted by the NSW Government.

This report, A New Model For Landscape Conservation in New South Wales, was released in February 2003 and led to the formation of the Sinclair committee to implement the main ideas which has led to the establishment of catchment management structures in NSW.

The Blueprint for a National Water Plan

The Wentworth Group released The Blueprint for a National Water Plan on 31 July 2003, which also received reasonable media coverage. The Blueprint laid out the immediate challenges for water reform.

1. Protect river health and the rights of all Australians to clean usable water, by:
   • Ensuring that the environmental needs of our river systems have first call on the water required to keep them healthy, protecting both their environmental values and ability to meet human needs into the future;
   • Establishing comprehensive water accounts and management systems that reflect the linkages between run-off, river water and groundwater systems;
   • Agreeing to bring over-allocated river and groundwater systems back into balance by recovering water for the environment;
   • Protecting Australia’s less developed rivers by adopting an Australia-wide classification system to guide management strategies, and guarantee protection of important natural and cultural values; and
   • Investing in the science required to make better management decisions in the future.
     
2. Establishing a new, nationally consistent water entitlement and trading system that provides security to both water users and the environment by:
   • Defining water entitlements as a perpetual share of the available water resource; 
   • Clearly articulating ways that water can be used in each catchment to protect both the environment and other uses; 
   • Linking entitlements and allocations to transparent and balanced water accounts; and 
   • Removing impediments and simplifying temporary and permanent water trading so that water can be used to create greater social and economic value.
     
3. Engage local communities and ensure a fair transition, by:
   • Supporting community-based catchment, river and estuary management; 
   • Establishing Environmental Water Trusts for stressed river systems to provide active and accountable environmental management; 
   • Reducing freshwater use in our cities and towns; and 
   • Ensuring that steps to recover environmental water are both fair and efficient, so that no group is asked to bear an unreasonable burden in achieving these national goals.

Outcomes of the Wentworth Group

There appear to have been a number of important outcomes from the activities of the Wentworth Group.

Firstly, Governments have responded to the issues addressed by the group, and while many others have also been important in these reforms, the activities of the Wentworth group are widely regarded as having been very influential. Significant outcomes include controls of tree clearing in New South Wales and now in Queensland; the commitment to a new round of water reform in the National Water Initiative with funding of $500 million; and the decision of the federal governmentand subsequently the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council to commit 500 GL as the first step in restoring the River Murray to health.

“ the ideas of the group… apparently enjoy considerable policy influence with the current federal administration. Indeed there are a number of obvious parallels between the Group’s approach & the trajectory of the current Federal Government’s thinking on key areas of environmental policy, including decentralization.” Lane et al (2004)

Secondly I hope we have encouraged the scientific community to bring forward solutions to the many problems faced by our Nation, in simple and clear ways that can inform public debate. The community is tired of hearing of the litany of problems, and how researchers would like to be funded from the public purse. They were very positive to the solutions brought forward by the Wentworth group.

Thirdly I hope we have helped attract students to careers in science by showing that scientists can make a difference, and are concerned about fixing some of the problems of the world.

Lunney (2003) has described the Blueprint for a Living Continent as a major document in Australian conservation biology. He says “The Blueprint is more than just an influential report, it is a model for change.”

Other Pre-Disposing Factors

It is likely the impact of the Wentworth Group was made easier by the malaise in the public service at both State and Federal levels. There has been significant deskilling, and substantial technical knowledge is now almost a barrier to promotion in the managerial or policy ranks, where generalists are preferred (technical knowledge is seen as a liability) (Thompson, Canberra Times 27/11/03). Allied with a culture that the public service is there to implement the Government’s policy, alternative policy ideas to present policies are often not encouraged. There is also a suspicion that bureaucracies are often more interested in expanding their power, influence and funding than solving problems. These three factors await further examination, but if they are true, point to a serious problem for our country.

Conclusions

Committed and knowledgeable scientists can make a contribution to public policy if they are prepared to speak out. In doing so it is important that they clearly and simply articulate the problem, and identify some realistic and acceptable ways forward. This requires methods of public communication that are not usual for scientists, and which many are uncomfortable with. Simplification of complex issues is fundamental to communicating to a wider audience. Detailed references and qualifiers are inappropriate if ideas are to be got into the public domain. That is not to say that such subtleties are unimportant; just that they get played out in other arenas.

The Wentworth Group presented its views privately to political leaders and publicly through the mass media and the World Wide Web. Having a clear and simple position, and the discipline to stay on message helped get these ideas into the public arena.

References

Lane, Marcus, GT McDonald & TH Morrison (2004) Decentralisation and Environmental Management in Australia: A Comment on the Prescriptions of the Wentworth Group. Australian Geographical Studies. March 2004. 42 (1) 103-115.

Nick Grimm ABC AM program 11th October 2002

Lunney (2003) A way forward, yes; a Blueprint for a living continent, no: a critical look at the Wentworth group’s report of November 2002. Editorial Australian Zoologist, October 2003.

Wahlquist, Asa Weekend Australian Magazine of May31 2003

Wentworth Group of Concerned scientists. “Blueprint for a living continent. A way forward from the Wentworth group of concerned scientists” (www.wwf.org.au/download/blueprint-for-aliving-continent.pdf)

Wentworth Group of Concerned scientists. “Blueprint for a National Water Plan”

Applications are welcomed from:

• First Nations leaders who live or work in YVW’s service area, or
• Leaders of community organisations (e.g. Friends of groups) that operate in YVW’s service area and share YVW’s 2030 Strategy goals and values.

You can check if you’re in the YVW service area using 🔗 this map provided by DEECA.

The program runs from March to May 2026, with two week-long residential sessions. You can find more details and the application form on the Trust’s website:

🔗 Peter Cullen Trust Leadership Program

To apply for the YVW-Sponsored Scholarship, please use this unique link:

🔗 YVW-Sponsored Scholarship & Program Application Form

Applications close 23 November 2025. 

As part of the scholarship, recipients are asked to: 

• Share their reflections with YVW on their experience and leadership journey.
• Build their understanding of the water sector and environmental challenges to benefit YVW’s customers and communities.

If you know someone who would be a great fit, please encourage them to apply.

Following introductions, David asked what we most wanted to hear about from him.  There were many great suggestions from the PCT crowd, including how to best work with the community in a dynamic policy context, navigating how to talk truth to power on climate, indigenous engagement, what David thought was the ‘best mistake he has made’, and his thoughts on the use of economic mechanisms to represent inherent ecological value, amongst others. David kindly responded to each of these questions over lunch, but we spent most time discussing two of David’s high profile media events which launched his career as a public science figure and provided examples of speaking truth to power. 

David described an interview with former radio shock jock and climate change denier Alan Jones at the peak of Jones’ power in 2011.  By way of background, the scientific consensus at that time was that Jones consistently misrepresented climate change data and statistics, and dismissed the importance of addressing climate change.  A complaint had been submitted to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) against Jones along these lines, but despite consistently being fact checked and corrected, Jones argued that he was simply relaying his opinions to his audience, and that opinions weren’t required to be factually correct.  

You can imagine that most climate scientists would be unlikely to willingly subject themselves to the hostile grilling they were likely to receive, but when David was invited onto Jones’ show in May 2011, he saw it not only as a chance to talk directly to Jones’s audience, but also as an opportunity to ensure that Jones and his audience had access to the  best and latest climate science.  After the interview, David summarised all the points where Jones was wrong and sent it to the producer of Alan Jones program, and ABC Media Watch. Jones was ultimately found guilty of misrepresenting climate change facts (which apparently included a punishment of 2 weeks off air during which time Jones was expected to attend ‘factual accuracy retraining’).  

David also described his appearance in 2008 on ABC’s live debate on TV (that was the precursor of ABC Q&A), after the ABC showed The Great Global Warming Swindle – Wikipedia.  Climate change was highly politicised at this time, and the panel included several scientists and climate sceptics.  David ensured that he knew who else would be on the panel and took time to review ‘their language’ on climate change in detail before the show.  This gave David the ability to debate the sceptics’ perspectives specifically, using language that they and their audience could clearly understand. After the program he was referred to as the ‘smiling assassin’. 

David Karoly, the “smiling assassin” of climate science (Photo courtesy David Karoly)

An example of where a compromise in scientific specificity may improve communication impact is David’s preference for the term ‘confidence’ instead of ‘uncertainty’.  As scientists, we use ‘uncertainty’ to acknowledge that data, information and models are never entirely comprehensive or accurate, which means that forecasts and estimates are unlikely to be 100% correct.  However, in David’s experience, ‘uncertainty’ is understood by ‘99% of the public as ‘you don’t know’ (no error bounds provided on David’s estimate!) which can lead to disengagement.   

In addition to these valuable learnings, David also described his family history, which includes his grandfather having worked in water resources management in Victoria in the 1950s, and his journey as an academic and public-sector researcher in Australia.  David’s staunch defence of climate science has come at some personal and professional cost, though there have also been many great achievements along the way.  Successes include David’s role as Leader of the National Environmental Science Program (NESP) Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub (2018-2021), through which David pioneered some of the earliest Indigenous engagement programs on climate change, and for which NESP funding has increased over time.  

David’s main message about climate change is that it is going to be worse than we think – Australian temperatures are rising faster than the global average, we have already exceeded 1.5 degrees warming on land and projections for 2090 are that the world will have warmed by about 3 degrees.  This will lead to increases in extreme climate events, and some serious challenges for our terrestrial and marine ecosystems and the foundations of our economies and livelihoods.  Having reviewed the latest data for the 2024 State of the Climate report, I fear he is correct.  

Despite being among the people most informed about the greatest environmental challenge we have ever faced, David describes himself as an optimist and maintains that communicating climate science is easy – just know your audience and speak their language. 

Many thanks to David for a great lunch, to Karen White (2021) for organising the event, to ARUP for hosting, and to all those who attended.  

 The Climate Anxiety Toolkit

If you’re ever overcome by feelings of stress, sadness or frustration when thinking or hearing about the state of our world, then you’re far from alone. Experts stress that climate anxiety (sometimes called eco-anxiety or climate distress) is not a mental health condition, but a rational response to the reality we’re all facing.  If you or anyone you know is feeling overwhelmed by the challenges in dealing with climate change, consider using the Climate anxiety toolkit . This guide from the Climate Council gives you practical tools for grounding your life in active hope—because looking after ourselves (and each other) and taking climate action go hand in hand.

This Lunch with a Leader event was hosted by Arup.

Strategic partnerships and community involvement

Alec stressed that research only has real impact when communities feel ownership. At the Goyder Institute, this happens through co-development processes, advisory committees and partnerships that embed Traditional Knowledge and local priorities from the outset. In the Coorong and Lower Lakes, for example, the Institute works with communities and partners to shape the future of the region. The challenge, Alec noted, is not a lack of expertise, but mobilising knowledge collectively for the greater good.

Leadership through pause, reflection and renewal

Leadership, Alec reflected, is as much about resilience as strategy. In the face of ecological crises like South Australia’s harmful algal bloom, he highlighted the weight leaders feel when urgent responses lag. To sustain courage and clarity, leaders must pause, reflect and create space for renewal, asking insightful questions and opening conversations with their teams. Alec’s personal story of returning to Australia during COVID, alone on a flight surrounded by airline staff in full HAZMAT suits, underscored the value of perspective and adaptability in navigating uncertainty.

Making research accessible and unlocking collective knowledge

The group explored opportunities to share knowledge widely. By translating research into accessible, actionable insights and connecting it with consulting, government and community expertise, we can unlock collective intelligence to solve complex problems. Under Alec’s leadership, more than $20 million of water-focused research has been delivered, strengthening the bridge between science, policy and practice.

We concluded that all three elements, community ownership through partnerships, reflective leadership, and accessible collective knowledge are essential to tackle complex challenges, including the algal bloom challenges currently facing South Australia’s environment and communities.

Our session closed on a personal note: sharing our favourite places in Australia. This simple exercise reminded us that our connection to place grounds us as leaders, shaping who we are and how we act.

If you have the chance to meet Alec, you will be in inspiring and enjoyable company, and perhaps hear more about that unforgettable HAZMAT flight.

Gritty conversations in trusted spaces (Photo courtesy Dan Mollison)

This Lunch with a Leader event was hosted by BMCG.

There is extraordinary history behind this tiny but mighty organisation, focused on the combination of courage and leadership.  In our new Strategy we honour two remarkable contributors to that history:

• Peter Cullen, acknowledging him as our forever ‘thinker in residence’ – our head, if you will; 
• Leith Boully, the epitome of grit, grace and strength of character – our heart. 
  

We also acknowledge a remarkable set of achievements in our first 15 years: 

• 21 of our unique transformative programs delivered;
• 300+ Fellows, many of whom are now in senior leadership positions themselves;
• An enviable reputation as a trusted broker, facilitator and sought-after partner. 

In 2025, we find ourselves halfway through the decade that matters, facing existential crises on many fronts. At the recent lunch with a leader, Friend of the Trust, Professor David Karoly, described the climate element of that as ‘much worse than most people, even those in this room, think’. This speaks to the urgency that we feel – and begs the question “what will we do about it?”.

When Cynthia joined the Trust 18 months ago, she said it had the sense of a coiled spring.  Her belief is that this new Strategy will, with your input and participation, do much to release the pent-up potential in that spring. We want to co-create a world that knows in its bones that right stewardship of water and environment is the foundation of a good society. 

And that comes about through collaboration, urgency, leaning into constructive conflicts and recognising the wholeness of each of us and all of us as we seek to balance lore and law, science and storytelling.

Here in this country that is home to the world’s oldest continuous culture, upholding and valuing the remarkable wisdom, knowledge, and science generously offered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, our First Peoples, is core to our vision for the future.

Our Statement of Commitment to Reconciliation and Self Determination, co-designed in discussion and reflection with our First Nations Fellows, makes real our commitment to walk alongside Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in pursuing their aspirations and rights for justice. 

As a largely non-Indigenous organisation, there is much for us to unlearn, learn and change so that we can grow together.  Unlearning is much harder than learning, so we seek to be explicit about holding safe spaces for gritty, experiential, two-way learning and conversations and initiatives – brokering the kind of spaces that will foster the depth of accountability needed to help us loosen our inadvertent colonialist hold.  

A right and powerful match for an organisation committed to courageous leadership. 

So to complete the metaphor of “head, heart and hands” – these are the commitments and the guardrails that will bring Our Strategy to life.

We are led by our purpose:

• To foster courageous leadership to tackle big challenges in water and environment.
  

We are guided by our principles:

• Speak truth to power
• Use knowledge wisely
• Be led by Country
• Lead together
• Forge new paths
  

We are accountable to our priorities, and we will:

• Cultivate leaders and their practice of leadership
• Hold space for courageous conversations
• Advocate for leadership to catalyse change

We are sustained by our enabling foundations:

• A thriving team
• Financial sustainability
• Effective governance and a learning organisation

Introduction

The Ag2050 project explores what Australian agriculture should and could look like between now and 2050. Phase one, a collaboration between the Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) and CSIRO, used stakeholder consultations and workshops to ‘reimagine farming’ by co-designing evidence-based future scenarios. Phase two (this phase) focuses on defining pathways to these scenarios and identifying practical opportunities and challenges, focusing on key components of agriculture. 

The Ag2050 scenarios identified water as a key feature of the agricultural sector, and we refer to this combination of water in agricultural contexts as “agrohydrology”^[1]. Phase 2 continues to develop insights around the role of agrohydrology on the path to 2050, establishing a broader understanding of systems influencing water and agricultural futures, including trends, drivers, challenges, and opportunities for stakeholders.

The project team ran online workshops with different stakeholder groups to understand what drives agrohydrology change, and how these drivers will shape the future of water and agriculture. One workshop on March 12th included Peter Cullen Trust Fellows. The workshop encouraged participants to break from “Business-As-Usual” thinking, and engage in long-term, future-focused thinking using the Ag2050 scenarios.  Through two structured activities, participants imagined and prioritised drivers of agrohydrological change between now and 2050, reflecting on the current state and considering what the future of agriculture in Australia might look like.  

Workshop approach

Participants completed two activities using the online whiteboarding tool Miro. In Activity 1, groups brainstormed key drivers expected to shape water and agriculture to 2050 using the PESTLE framework (political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental factors). In Activity 2, groups collaboratively developed the implications of one or two important drivers for water and agriculture. 

Data shared by participants were analysed using qualitative research methods.  Responses were sorted into clusters, based on similarity (e.g. all references for climate change were grouped together) through affinity mapping^[2].  Main topics from these summaries were used to understand the meaning and themes through thematic analysis^[3].  For instance, climate change references were reread and sorted until the nuances behind the broad topic of climate change were clear. Analyses were validated through crosschecks by different team members. 

Key Themes (Activity 1)

Based on the key drivers that participants believe will shape agrohydrology between now and 2050, the following key themes were identified across Activity 1.

• Risks and disturbances in foundational agrohydrological systems – Participants identified how multiple foundational drivers for agrohydrological systems were growing increasingly uncertain and disruptive.  Chief amongst these was climate change, characterised by increasing climatic uncertainty and extreme events, declining rainfall and runoff patterns, and potential system failures such as ecosystem collapse due to biodiversity loss. These disruptions were socio-ecological, and linked to broader uncertainties in human systems.  Global economic systems were also identified as being in a state of flux, with disrupted supply chains and uncertain trade arrangements developing due to changing tariffs amongst key trading partners.  Locally, participants identified declining confidence in political institutions to adapt to change. This included policy limitations, a lack of integrated coordination causing policy and regulatory gridlock, political short-termism and polarisation, and failure of the status quo economic thinking.  Related was a growing concern that urban-rural demographic divides would exacerbate polarisation and systems failure. 
  
• Emergent and adaptive responses to disruption – While many system stressors and disruptors were identified, diverse responses to these disruptions, either adaptive or emergent, were also observed.  Adaptive responses sought to manage changes within existing agrohydrological systems. Emergent responses represented new dynamics promising efficiency and optimisation, but potentially increasing competition and requiring the balancing of trade-offs to minimise unintended consequences
  

Examples of adaption included addressing policy and governance concerns within the existing policy system (new water legislation, investments, water trading systems, natural resource management, and increased agency of Indigenous peoples in water management), and changes to on-farm practices including land use shifts (retiring irrigated land, changing crop types, developing new areas), agricultural diversification, and adopting nature restorative approaches. Some options for adaption were more fraught, such as farm consolidation which maintains agricultural industries, but reduces diversity, limiting options for smaller, non-corporate farms.

Examples of emergent dynamics included technological innovations such as Artificial Intelligence (with Big Data-driven water modelling  and decision making), automation, new farming techniques (vertical farming, precision agriculture, genetically modified crops), and new energy technologies.  New water technologies like desalination attracted the most attention as potential solutions for increasing water scarcity.  Participants also identified shifting cultural and economic dynamics, including societal shifts (demographic change, migration, aging population, and population density) that may have workforce implications. Attitudinal changes were also noted including changing dietary preferences (increased protein demand, acceptance of alternative foods such as insects), changing consumer preferences (demand for vegan or ethical produce or acceptance of recycled water), and an increasing lack of public awareness of agrohydrological challenges. Finally changing market mechanisms (carbon/nature/biodiversity/nature repair markets, and corporate reporting expectations) might also drive change.

Key Priorities (Activity 2)

In Activity 2, participants selected one or two important drivers, then further developed their details and implications.  This activity identified the most important drivers and related issues.   Participants developed the follow drivers in detail:

• Technical innovation in agrohydrology; including desalination – Technical innovation was developed generally as a driver, with a specific focus on desalination for potential systemic change.  Participants explored new water technologies and genetically modified crops (offering higher resilience and reduced pesticide use). Uptake of these innovations will depend on cost and may produce unintended consequences (increased food costs or intensification from greater water use efficiency). Desalination benefits included greater farmer self-reliance, reduced reliance on river flows (releasing water for cultural flows and nature repair), and opportunities for innovative distribution infrastructure.  However, challenges included management of brackish waste streams, cost, energy requirements, access to saline water, and a lack comprehensive regulatory frameworks, and implementation procedures.
  
• Systemic economic and supply chain changes – Failures in contemporary economic systems, particularly around inequality and wealth concentration, were identified as significant problems requiring transformational economic change.  This would involve considering environment, social wellbeing, and health across economic and supply chains. However, cost impacts for consumers and suppliers are implications of this transformational change. Political division is also possible if change is not community led. 
  
• Regional development – Regional development, consolidation and growth of rural centres present opportunities to bring food production closer to populations, improving local economics, facilitating circular economies, and enabling regional innovation.  Challenges include potential polarisation with uneven distribution of benefits and disadvantages from this transition, increased climate risk exposure in inland areas, water security risks from increased regional water demand, and high costs for housing, food and land.
  
• Increasing incentivisation of sustainability practices – Demand for sustainable products could drive transformation in agrohydrology through societal pressure, sustainability certification, climate- and nature- related financial disclosures, and community expectations. This could improve rural living standards as sustainable farming practices (including Indigenous resource management) were implemented regionally. However, this transition may spark resistance, especially as agricultural developments are increasingly led by larger corporations and non-Australian entities. 
  
• Water politics – The institutions surrounding water (social, economic, and governmental) will influence the future of water and agriculture.  Participants’ concerns included how institutions and water governance will respond to significant biophysical change, and contributions of social movements (e.g. intergenerational justice).  Global politics, such as water management by powerful global actors, was also raised.
  
• Urban rural divides – There are concerns of growing frictions between urban and rural communities around water, ranging from cultural differences in valuing water use to direct competition for resources as urban centres grow.  Such frictions may impact farm viability, signalling the need to invest in agricultural water security.  There is also opportunity to ensure these communities share power in improving water resource management. 

Discussion

The drivers highlighted by PCT participants illustrate the diversity of opportunities and challenges relating to agrohydrology now and into the future.  They emphasise the integrated, systemic nature of these challenges and opportunities.  For example, climatic variability connects to economic, political, and social consequences, just as much as biophysical or agricultural issues.  This is visible in Activity 2, where important drivers (like the rural/urban divide and systemic economic change) implicate multiple biophysical, social, economic, and political systems in their risks and opportunities (e.g. increased demand for water resources fuelling community polarisation in the urban rural divide, which might be addressed through technical innovations like improved water resource management).  The diversity of participants responses meant there was no clear priority driver or sentiment.  While there is concern around environmental stressors and growing uncertainty, participants identified both risks and opportunities.   This aligns with Ag2050’s vision, that multiple scenarios can exist simultaneously in cooperation or competition in 2050. 

In addition to these drivers identified by PCT Fellows, the following drivers were also identified in research literature and other Ag2050 workshops:

• Local practices and situated effects of drivers:  The PCT workshop provided excellent detail on broader agrohydrological drivers.  While on-farm and community issues weren’t ignored, there is an opportunity to consider what these drivers mean locally.  Additional workshops highlighted the effects of governance and policy limitations on communities.  The driver theme was consistent – dissatisfaction in governance systems – but the on-ground effects of this were detailed using more personal examples.
  
• Trades-offs of innovation:  Technical innovation has significant potential to drive transformational change for agrohydrology.  However, with emergent change there will be trade-offs, which were not discussed in as much detail as opportunities.  Innovations, like precision agriculture, present complications including cybersecurity risks and dependency on large multinational service provides. Understanding and addressing these will be critical to avoiding unintended consequences in transformational change.
  
• Implementation of transformational change – The overarching narrative from the workshop indicates  a willingness to engage in transformational change.  However, participants were less specific about the practical details – the methods, tools, and step-by-step approaches for making that change happen.  Developing further thinking around how populations might mobilised to engage in pro-social change is worthy of further investigation. 

What’s next

We are currently synthesising insights from all Ag2050 workshops to understand patterns of drivers across different cohorts. This will be published as a journal article, which should be available in 2026. 

• These drivers and responses will inform research programs concerning water and agriculture, addressing the core issues and needs of stakeholders
• The drivers will also support a place-based research approach in the Namoi region – using a game approach to understand irrigator responses to identified drivers and transformational attitudes.

We would like to thank the PCT for the opportunity to collaborate and facilitate conversations around the sustainable and productive future of agriculture and water.  The PCT Fellows’ time and insights into agriculture and water futures were extremely valuable. 

^[1] See this paper in the Farm Policy Journal for more

^[2] Affinity mapping is an industry standard for lightweight analysis of data, especially in design and technology contexts. For more information on Affinity Mapping, see this discussions by software company Atlassian.  

^[3] Thematic analysis is a social science research technique for analysis qualitative data.  It is primarily used in research and academic contexts.  The approach adopted in this project is based on this framework, developed for application in health and medicine where the standard for evidence is high.

About our session. 

Brad opened with Country-first wisdom; I grounded it in SEQ’s lived case; and Nina and Sarah tied it to programs and policy so others can adapt the approach. 

Professor Bradley Moggridge (Fellow 2018, University of Technology, Sydney) spoke with the kind of quiet authority we’ve come to expect and appreciate. As a Kamilaroi man and someone I have the privilege to call a friend, Brad doesn’t just talk about Country: he brings you into it, generously sharing its bounty, its hope, and its challenges. 

He told the story of the Ramsar-listed Gwydir wetlands, a sacred waterhole that dried up before his eyes: not as a metaphor, but as a warning. His reflections on the absence of baseline cultural and environmental data were sharp and honest. There’s the classic management adage: if you don’t measure it, you can’t manage it. More in Brad’s words: how can we protect what we haven’t even properly seen or recorded? 

Brad acknowledged the steps forward, like Indigenous lead authorship in national reports and the IPCC. But he didn’t sugarcoat the gaps. He called for real leadership, not just inclusion, and reminded us that Indigenous knowledge must sit at the centre of climate governance and not on the sidelines. His work to publish and elevate First Nations knowledge is part of a bigger push to shift power, visibility, and funding. 

I also recommend looking up a recent article he published in Nature. And as always, Brad returned to story—animations, media, and creative formats that carry knowledge in ways that connect. His message was generous and clear: Indigenous knowledge is not a supplement to climate science. It’s the foundation. It’s time we listened properly, resourced it fully, and followed the lead of those who’ve cared for Country for thousands of years.

Professor Bradley Moggridge – storytelling at its most powerful (Photo courtesy Andrew O’Neill)

I shared the story of SEQ’s waterways in the past 25 years, and how hard-won data illuminated the cause of Lyngbya blooms back in the 1990’s – that a simple and very expensive concrete and steel solution forced the retreat of this toxic Cyanobacteria.  

Later, the floods reminded us that sediment still drives the estuary; and how data is supporting our push for non-traditional investors in nature-based solutions.  These solutions have higher risk and are more complicated, but they have much richer and moving stories around them – and indeed much broader and deeper benefits to the communities we serve.  

I argued for reframing the Brisbane River’s health honestly – not a swimmability fairy tale – but rather that we ought to consider that in just 200 short years we have disrespected 60,000 years of stewardship and it will take us a lot more money than government has and a lot more than a few political cycles to fix it.  

Dr Andrew O’Neill advocating for nature based solutions (Photo courtesy Andrew O’Neill)

Associate Professor Nina Lansbury (University of Queensland) beamed in from Brisbane, with a powerful reminder that Indigenous knowledge is not just relevant, it’s actually essential to understanding environmental health and climate resilience. 

As an environmental public health academic at the University of Queensland, Nina’s work has contributed to the wellbeing of remote Indigenous communities, especially around housing, water, sanitation, and women’s health. She spoke on the broader context of Indigenous stewardship, reminding us that over 370 million Indigenous people globally manage vast landscapes through knowledge systems built on renewal, care, and deep time. 

Nina spoke candidly about her experience as a coordinating lead author for the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report, and the painful absence of Indigenous voices in previous cycles. She described the challenge of finding peer-reviewed literature that values oral knowledge, and how that absence perpetuates invisibility in climate science. But she also shared her perspective that things appear to be changing, where Indigenous contributors like Brad Moggridge were invited into the IPCC process (congrats to Brad for his achievement as a lead author on the science chapter of the next iteration of the IPCC’s Seventh Assessment Report), and this helps to bring cultural flows and water knowledge into the climate adaptation narrative. 

Nina celebrated the growing efforts to “weave” Indigenous and Western knowledge systems, citing examples from the US and Australia that show what respectful collaboration can look like. Nina’s call to action was to elevate Indigenous-led research, secure proper funding, and ensure that upcoming global platforms like COP31 reflect the voices and wisdom of those who have cared for Country for thousands of years. 

Sarah Ransom (Australian Water Partnership) who generously hosted the session, brought a regional and relational lens to the conversation, shaped by diplomacy, law, and deep listening. 

Sarah was clear that her role is not to speak for Indigenous peoples, but to walk alongside them as an ally. Sarah spoke about the urgent water challenges facing the Indo-Pacific such as saltwater intrusion, rising seas, and droughts that threaten not just infrastructure, but culture, health, and identity. She described the Pacific Water and Wastewater Ministers meeting in the Solomon Islands as a pivotal moment to elevate water as a political priority, and to move beyond technical fixes toward culturally grounded solutions. 

Sarah emphasized the richness of traditional knowledge across the region, and the importance of engaging with community governance structures in ways that are slow, respectful, and co-designed. While there have been historical failures of Australian water management to properly include Indigenous knowledge, there appears to be (much like Nina articulated) a shift toward partnerships built on trust, humility, and shared purpose. Sarah shared examples of AWP’s work: supporting new water laws that respect customary law, building technical capacity in hydrology, and working with journalists to embed Indigenous perspectives in climate reporting. Sarah left us with a beautiful and powerful message of mutual respect, valuing diverse knowledge systems, and moving from consultation to co-delivery. 

For those that have not attended Water Week, it’s huge – there are so many side events and the after-hours ledger matters too. One night I ended up with friends from the UK pavillion in Mammut—a hard-rock bar carved into a 500 year-old cellar; this is where I discovered Brad’s encyclopaedic and seriously impressive knowledge of metal (not the zinc, lead and copper found in Scandinavian granite – I mean heavy metal music). 

Sharing the universal love of metal… (Photo courtesy Andrew O’Neill)

Other highlights 

Meeting leadership from Frank Water, which is a small, values-led team doing smart work in WASH and stewardship and this was genuinely inspiring. 

The industry focus was sharper than ever: water is clearly the next big corporate priority after carbon. 

Three anchors kept surfacing:  

• Volumetric Water Benefit Accounting (VWBA) for credible benefit measurement; 
• SBTi/SBTN pathways for basin-level targets (only quantity at the moment but stay tuned for water quality!); and
• The planetary boundaries frame to keep our eyes on system limits. 

In plain terms: 

• Measure benefits properly; 
• Set the right targets in the right basins; and 
• Steer capital to where it matters.  

And a word to all of my friends and Fellows. 

Weeks like this remind me how much we bring to the table such as our diverse skillsets, lived experience, sharp observations and ideas for the future. You could feel Fellows’ fingerprints across panels and corridor conversations: decolonising leadership, nature finance, risk and resilience, and the craft of turning evidence into influence. 

With a network now 350+ strong, the ripple effect is real.  We show up differently, we listen longer, and we help bridge disciplines so action can stick.  

I wasn’t sure I would ever make it to Water Week, but Brad made the invitation and I took a chance, made the pitch and I got there – for anyone else who would like to give it a go, be brave and try! I’m working with another fellow on this right now, so stay tuned and reach out if you’d like to know more!

If I had to bottle the week, I’d say this: water now has global momentum: politically, financially, culturally. Our job is to keep it authentic. 

For me, that means listening, engaging (and getting married!), and empowering each other to care for Country and community, saying thanks where it’s due (thank you again, AWP, for holding the space), and keeping the story honest about what rivers like the Brisbane can and can’t be.

Context

Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin Plan aims to manage water over-allocation and conserve the environment, while promoting sustainable water use. However, the adequacy of policy instruments and their alignment measures with the objectives of the Basin Plan for wetland conservation are debatable. 

Aim

We explore the conservation mechanisms being implemented in the Commonwealth and three key Basin states to examine major trends in conservation policy and legislation and identify potential areas for improvement. 

Method

A comparative analysis of conservation policies and programs was conducted to assess their effectiveness.

Results

We found that the implementation of wetland conservation tended to be treated as a subset of conservation for terrestrial ecosystems. Implementation programs varied markedly among the jurisdictions studied, depending on perceptions of threatening processes, wetland types and their extent, and legislative and governance frameworks. The two main pathways for implementation were strategic policy frameworks and ecohydrological measures, but clear linkages between them were lacking. 

Conclusion

Conservation mechanisms require greater management integration to enable necessary trade-offs between consumptive and environmental uses. Although wetland conservation frameworks we examined include integrated measures to address threats to ecological processes, communities and threatened species, policies require improved target setting to enable representative conservation under climate change and alignment of policy mechanisms across scales.