The Social Impact on the Lower Murray and Lakes Region during 2007-08
of Another Year of Low River Flows
February 2007
A Scoping Study for the
Lower Murray Drought Impact Community Reference Group
Dr. Jonathan D Sobels
Flinders University
Dr. Jonathan Sobels
SOCIAL IMPACTS OF DROUGHT, LOWER MURRAY, 2007
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my appreciation and thanks to the many people who participated in this scoping study, for sharing with me some of their valuable time, thoughts and knowledge. Invariably we talked about issues that were intensely personal experiences, from which came some of the more penetrating insights into the impacts of drought and living in regional Australia. In particular I thank those members of the Community Reference Group who put so much effort into organizing groups and individuals to talk with me.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
TERMS OF REFERENCE 4
BACKGROUND 5
METHOD 6
FINDINGS 9
Introduction 9
Relative Poverty 11
Increased Workloads 15
Impacts on Health 19
Access to Services 22
Alienation from Government 25
Community Division 27
Aboriginal Perceptions 30
Impacts on Children and Education 32
Fear of Man-made Drought 33
CONCLUSION 35
Perspectives and perceptions 35
Controversy 36
Complexity and context 37
Uncertainty 37
Interdependence 39
Capacity 39
FUTURE RESEARCH 41
REFERENCES 42
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Lower Murray Drought Impact Study
SOCIAL Consultant’s Brief
The Consultants will contract with Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA) to assess the environmental impacts of 3 low river flow scenarios on the reaches of the River Murray below Lock 1 and the Lakes Alexandrina and Albert (the Lower Murray) in 2007-08.
The 3 scenarios will be associated with
· water allocations to irrigators of 60%, 20% and 0%;
· raised salinity levels (3 scenarios);
· lower lake levels (3 scenarios).
PIRSA will provide assistance by providing 3 low flow scenarios, including water allocations, salinity and lake levels.
A sensitivity and reliability assessment of key results will also be provided.
The consultant will:
· organize and conduct interviews with representatives, drawn from across the communities that are affected;
· take advantage of any public community meetings to make presentations and collect information regarding the social research program;
· analyse the information collected.
Key themes:
· The breadth of perspectives and perceptions held about the drought by people in the study area;
· The extent to which the issues arouse controversy or act to unify the communities;
· The complexity of the issues, the contexts for decisions and the range of solutions as seen by community members;
· The impact of uncertainty about the drought and related issues;
· The interdependencies of social issues with other aspects of the drought;
· An indication of the capacity of the present communities to respond to the drought, particularly the larger role of women.
BACKGROUND
There are few reports or literature that deal with the Lower Murray region at a local scale that would inform this research. An exception are the various socio-economic reports by Econsearch Pty Ltd (2007; 2004) and environmental reports mostly associated with the RAMSAR wetlands and the Coorong. Given the time available I refer the reader to the above reports for a geographic description of the area. Suffice to say the region is a diverse mix of dryland agriculture and irrigated vegetable, dairy, fodder, beef, and perennial horticulture and viticulture supporting a population of approximately 48,000 people. Murray Bridge is the main regional centre with 17,000 people.
Some unpublished research is being conducted into the DWLBC Swamps Rehabilitation Program by PhD researchers at Adelaide University and University of South Australia, which provide a background into prevailing forces acting on land use practices and broader demographic impacts. In the time available for this scoping study I make the following comments.
The Lower Murray region is fortunate in that it is a region of faster than average population growth, with an estimated 2,500 to 3,000 jobs being created in Murray Bridge in the local export abattoir, various manufacturing businesses, and service industries. Although real estate values are increasing as people move from Adelaide to take up cheaper housing and jobs, they are also apparently attracted by the lifestyle. The fact that metropolitan Adelaide is less than an hour’s drive west on the South Eastern Freeway ensures that all services are within easy access. The diversity of the economic base of Murray Bridge, including regional government agency offices has ensured it is to a large extent protected from exposure to the fall-out of the drought on primary industry businesses.
Further south to the Lakes and Coorong including Goolwa to the west and Meningie to the east, population is growing with retirees and semi-retirees moving into the area. Tourism and residents who earn incomes outside the region provide a diversity of cash flow for local businesses: There are few if any vacant shopfronts in any of the small towns indicative of a sustained economic threshold for profitability that also protects the towns from the full impacts of drought that their more isolated, primary industry-dependent broadacre cousins experience..
I reviewed recent background literature of the social impacts of drought which were completed for the NSW Government, Commonwealth Department of Education Science and Education (DEST), and the Commonwealth Department of Transport and Regional Services (DOTARS). The reader is referred to a series of high quality, qualitative research papers and reports in the References; in particular, Alston and Kent (2004) DOTARS (2005) and Stehlik et al (1999). I have adapted some of their key research findings to guide the organization and presentation of this scoping study.
Finally I have also drawn on Systems Theory as an epistemic viewpoint that stresses that Natural Resources Management should be cognisant of themes of complexity, uncertainty, interdependence, multiple stakeholders and controversy. I refer the reader to the SLIM Report (Ison et al 2004)
METHOD
This study was conducted within the framework of ‘Participatory Action Research’ (PAR). This means that I was involved in and very much aware of the contribution that I may make to people’s thinking and information about the drought. I was involved in a very fluid, highly politicised and dynamic process of government drought policy decision making in a real, substantial crisis brought on by the worst drought in southern temperate Australia since records began, and which followed the (now) second worst drought on record in 2002.
This study used qualitative data collection methods which included: semi-structured interviews with individuals; focus groups of up to 12 people; participant observation at public meetings; and collection of local media articles for the period October 2006 through January 2007. There was not time to explore other approaches such as surveys, or case studies, if I was to collect the breadth of information from across the communities of the Lower Murray in this initial scoping study. The PAR approach was conducted as a rapid appraisal to deliver a short-hand version of a slice of life under the impact of drought across the Lower Murray.
The data collected for analysis would be people’s words and in this report are presented in an ethnographic format. That is, I relate excerpts of people’s stories as quotations in support of themes and conclusions that the data demonstrates, as in Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss 1967; Schwandt 1994; Spickard 2002). Written in italics are verbatim transcripts made from digital recordings of our discussions in interviews and focus groups. There are also quotations in italics that came from personal impact statements collected by the weir action groups and my requests for the same, but more generally about the drought. Comments made that are not in italics came from my hand-written notes. Recordings were not transcribed in toto as there was not time. It takes approximately 2.5 to 3 hours to transcribe one hour of recording.
Participants signed ethics consent forms and were given information sheets on the terms of reference and purpose of the study. This provided the interviewee or focus group participant with control of their words, such that I guaranteed that they could withdraw at any time with no consequences, and that I would take all steps to guarantee their anonymity and confidentiality. Therefore, attribution of quotations where noted is only a vague reference to their community sector. Focus group quotations are largely un-attributed.
Interviewees were selected as key informants principally from the Murray Bridge region to provide me with their regional views as well as their personal experiences. I used the so-called snowball technique of gathering names on the basis of personal recommendation (Also called ‘rhizomatic sampling’ by Stehlik et al 1999 in deference to a very Australian hot drought). Focus groups were set up through the hard work of Reference Group members in their respective towns in Murray Bridge, Meningie and Wellington. Selection criteria were the same: to try to get key informants from across the community sectors including farmers, local manufacturing, real estate, tourism and services, hospital, medical ,education, welfare and Aboriginal interests.
A set of questions were approved by at the initial Community Reference Group meeting with the consultants. They were designed to highlight the key findings from recent drought studies and the epistemic view of Systems Theory. They were:
1. In terms of outlining the different communities, organizations, groups, clubs and personal networks to which you feel a sense of belonging, how would each of you describe the different ‘hats’ you wear?
2. What are the major impacts of the drought up to now, as it affects you… and people you know… in:
· daily work / business activities
· voluntary commitments, eg. CFA, service clubs, Meals on Wheels,
· family relationships
· attendance at church or sporting clubs functions, etc.
· leisure
3. What changes (if any) have you noticed in the provision of, or access that people have, to services such as …
· Finance and banking
· Health
· Counselling and advice
· Education
· Welfare / unemployment assistance
4. Droughts do not discriminate between people, but who, as a set of people, do you think have suffered more and less from the effects of the drought?
5. Communities are not uniform groupings but quite variable in their make-up. What impact has the drought had on existing divisions and has it created new categories of exclusion/inclusion?
6. How can you and your community be better prepared for future local droughts?
7. How would you respond if the water allocation next year went down to 40% or 20% or 0%?
· if the local drought breaks?
· if the local drought continues?
8. What would happen to your community in the worst case scenario of 0% water allocation and continuing drought?
A number of caveats result from this methodology.
1. No trends or forward estimates and few generalisations can be made on the basis of this brief survey. Further longitudinal research would be required to establish reliable baseline analysis. Instead this scoping study outlines evidence for some of the key impacts of drought on some individuals, social entities and institutions.
2. This study makes no claims as to the legitimacy of key informants except to say they were the result of initial contact through the Community Reference Group and appear to fill roles that allow some overview of their sector of the community in which they work. Elements of bias must therefore be considered in drawing conclusions from my findings.
3. Interpretation of the data was severely constrained by time. It is therefore not an in-depth use of Spradley’s (1979) technique of semantic analysis as originally intended. Rather I have borrowed key themes from and assumed the utility of the findings of recent Australian drought studies and Ison et al’s (2004) European Union study of systems approach to integrated catchment water management.
4. I encountered much cynicism from people about the possible hidden agenda of government and the questionable value of such a brief collection and analysis of data into social impacts of drought. I am aware, therefore, that some comments are likely to have a political edge to them in this ‘climate’, but essentially, the issues at the heart of this process are the construction of trust and the perceptions of power in relationships between government and community. To illustrate, one correspondent expressed her views thus:
Hi Jonathan,
As discussed over the phone the [ ] Action Group has 2 purposes, to oppose the weir, and to reduce overallocation of the Murray-Darling system.
It was formed in the new year in direct response to the attitude of a senior public servant who visited the area with Dean Brown. The attitude was one of 'the weir will be built', in spite of the fact that the govt. is saying the 'decision is yet to be made'.
Because the weir is the reason for the meeting, it has no bearing on
information being collected on the drought. If there were only the drought we would not have been meeting.
In addition I have very low tolerance for any project which is rushed
through in a hurry, and not carried out thoroughly and with plenty of time for thought and follow up.
I am also very suspicious of the timing. Your report is due for completion about the same time as the public expect an announcement to be made by the govt. on the weir. Of course they want to be able to say they have made these studies.
I am very angry at the cynical attitude and arrogance of this govt. and its servants.
In spite of this, good luck with your report
FINDINGS
Introduction
I hoped to separate the impacts of this drought from the recent 2002/03 drought impacts and effects of on-going government programs and broader market forces that variously shape the business and personal lives of the communities of the Lower Murray. I also needed to gather the views of people on the potential impacts of maintaining current allocations at 60%, lower (20%) or no (0%) flow scenarios, coupled with the possibility of continuing drought through 2007.
The first section below describes the number and type of meetings and people with whom I talked. Allowing for some overlap, I estimate I spoke with approximately 150 people from farming, small business – retail and manufacturing, health - medical, hospital, community and counselling, local government, welfare, education - schools, university research, local media, Aboriginal community, fishing, and banking sectors. Following this, I have gathered quotations and information under headings of a range of impacts of drought drawn from previous studies of drought (eg. Alston and Kent 2004; Stehlik et al 1999).