Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Finance, funds and markets · Australia · 2008–2018

Murray-Darling irrigation efficiency subsidies, Australia, 2008 to 2018

Short record: the main facts, with sources. A full case file has not been prepared.

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
What the record lacks: 4 none on record · 1 insufficient · 1 not measured See the gaps

Irrigation efficiency subsidies in the Murray-Darling basin ran from 2008 to 2018, with return flows to the river recorded as falling. At stake for nature is river flow; the sources reviewed list AUD 3.5 to 4 billion of spending, borne by the river and taxpayers.

What?
Subsidies for irrigation efficiency in the Murray-Darling basin, alongside a water-markets inquiry and a probe into water buybacks. Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
Where?
Murray-Darling Basin, Australia
When?
2008 to 2018
Who?
Gained
  • Irrigation equipment sector — Listed as the main gainer from the subsidies
Lost
  • Taxpayers — Listed as bearing AUD 3.5 to 4 billion of cost
Harmed
  • The river — Return flows fell, according to the sources reviewed
Why?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
How?
Government subsidies for irrigation equipment and efficiency; water markets were examined by the ACCC, and a probe into buybacks was ordered. Canberra Times
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

The sources reviewed record Murray-Darling irrigation efficiency subsidies from 2008 to 2018.

According to the sources reviewed, return flows to the river fell.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's inquiry into Murray-Darling water markets found no evidence of manipulation but weak governance.

The Canberra Times reported that the Morrison government ordered a probe into water buybacks after the Joyce controversy.

    In court and with insurers

    Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

    Lawsuits and rulings

    No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

    Insurers

    No insurer decision on record.

    What we don't know

    Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.

    Nature

    • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

    Record

    • Insufficient Reported but not verified: the case table infers that the net effect is negative; no source is given for this.
    • None on record The 2.5 times water recovery cost has no stated baseline or unit of comparison.
    • None on record The sources reviewed do not explain how the 3.5 to 4 billion dollar range was calculated or over what period.
    • None on record The ACCC inquiry concerned water markets; the sources reviewed do not say how its findings bear on the subsidies.
    • None on record No court case is recorded for the subsidies.

    Did the harm stop?

    Not stated in the sources reviewed.

    Who paid?

    Not stated in the sources reviewed.

    Sources

    Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations— Communities and civil society— Researchers

    Press and investigations

    1. Murray-Darling Basin water markets inquiry: final report
      Australian Competition and Consumer Commission ·

    Connected cases

    Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.

    Carbon and conservation finance

    Baseline
    The projected scenario of what would have happened without a project, such as an expected rate of deforestation. Credits are issued for the difference between the baseline and what actually happened, so an inflated baseline produces more credits.