Data sources and accuracy

AWR 2005 seeks to provide answers to a range of questions of relevance to the National Water initiative (NWI). It will do so through assembling information based on the two levels of assessment (refer to Levels of reporting ).

The Level 1 assessment involved widespread consultation with the states and territories to compile a database of the management activities undertaken in each jurisdiction. As such it is somewhat self-assessed and relies on a common understanding of the questions by the organisations providing the information. The data provided by the states and territories have also been verified where possible through additional review, interviews and additional questions.

The Level 2 assessment will take a slightly different path. It asks the states and territories to provide water balance information for specific catchments, using existing data. The results will also be checked with the states and territories and also calibrated using water use data sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics water account.

Water availability

One of the key observations by the Water Availability theme, with respect to data quality, gaps and variability, was the differences across the jurisdictions. This is not surprising; given the different ways state and territories manage their water resources, and the different areas of focus in each area.

Summary of data quality, gaps and variability across jurisdictions and nationally identified through the Water Availability theme for 2004-05

Further discussion of data sources and accuracy for the water availability theme is provided in the theme reports on the Publications page (Water Availability – National Perspective).

Water use

Throughout Australia there are different definitions and interpretations of what constitutes a water trade. In the ABS publication - Water Access Entitlements, Allocations and Trading, Australia, 2004-05, water trading was defined as the "transaction (between a buyer and seller) involving water access entitlements (permanent trading) or water allocations assigned to water access entitlements (temporary trading)".

As noted in the ABS publications there may be differences in terminology, legislative arrangements and administrative systems to do with water trading and as such current data needs be interpreted with caution. For example, in irrigation schemes (where the majority of trades take place), some irrigators may not have a specific water access entitlement. Instead, the irrigation water provider has a bulk entitlement and irrigators receive and can trade shares of that bulk entitlement.

In the case where irrigators have a share of a bulk entitlement, any trades of these shares were not recorded on the state and territory water register because the water access entitlement (the bulk entitlement) has not changed. This is why trades in some regional water supply systems were not recorded by the jurisdictional agency responsible. Most irrigation water providers keep records of water trades and make this information publicly available.

If water trading data is to be compiled again further clarification and possibly tightening of the definition will need to be undertaken. If water trading is considered to be only those transaction involving a water access entitlements, then data should only be sourced from state departments. If water trading is considered to include any transactions of water, including trading that occurs within a bulk entitlement, then trading data needs to be sourced from irrigation water providers as well as from state departments.

In terms of presenting the complete picture of water trading in Australia it would be useful to present both, and identify separately trades of entitlements and trades within irrigation schemes, where possible.

River and wetland health

During the development of the framework for assessment of river and wetland health (FARWH), it became apparent that the level of progress in development and implementation of broad-scale river and wetland health assessment programs varies widely. Jurisdictions were asked to consider how they would implement a program in compliance with the framework including the specific indices and measurements that may be included. This process was designed to stimulate thought and discussion among all jurisdictions and to be a catalyst to ensure that all jurisdictions consider and raise any issues that are relevant to deployment of the framework in their jurisdiction. Results indicated that:

• All jurisdictions recognise that the periodicity of framework implementation may vary widely based on the type of sampling, resources and other factors. Most estimates ranged from 2-5 years.
• The most common need was for improved resources and capabilities in implementation of the framework for wetlands. However, gaps were also reported for most jurisdictions for wide scale assessment of all components except biota that is met in part by AUSRIVAS. Tasmania also has some current capacity to assess the hydrological condition across the surface water management areas.
• While most stakeholders proposed one or more indices for each component, only Tasmania and the Northern Territory were able to provide specific details on how components would be integrated or aggregated to form a combined score. For most other jurisdictions, particularly those in the early phases of development of assessment programs, significant research may be required before these questions can be completely resolved.
• Only Western Australia, Northern Territory and Tasmania were able to comment on the wetlands component of the framework. Since wide scale assessment of wetland health are in preliminary stages in most jurisdictions, significant research may be required before these questions can be completely resolved.

Home > Introduction to AWR 2005 > Data sources and accuracy

Back to top