Rural View

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Most of us are familiar with cases of data being used in ways that go beyond consumer expectations – just think of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/cambridge-analytica-used-our-secrets-for-profit-the-same-data-could-be-used-for-public-good-98745" target="_blank">Facebook Cambridge Analytica scandal</a>.
However this is also an issue relevant to Australia’s agricultural sector. Modern farms create a huge amount of data, but farmers have very little control over the collection, aggregation and potential distribution of that data.
Agricultural data collected by governments, agribusinesses and banks is regulated in a piecemeal fashion, and ends up beyond the reach of the very farmers who generated the data.
There are signs this may be starting to change.
Privacy and data rights
On April 4, animal activists engaged in <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-why-well-intentioned-vegan-protesters-are-getting-it-wrong-115224" target="_blank">widespread protests</a> that disrupted Australian cities and farming communities.
The next day Federal Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources David Littleproud took the extraordinary step of including Aussie Farms Incorporated – a self-described animal rights charity that publishes a map of farming and animal processing locations – as an “organisation” under the <a href="https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy-law/" target="_blank">Privacy Act</a>.
Littleproud <a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6008670/questions-over-pms-call-for-class-action-against-vegan-activism/" target="_blank">said</a>: "Federally, we’ve done our bit – we’ve brought Aussie Farms and its attack map for activists under the Privacy Act so that misuse of personal information results in enormous fines."
This is the first time in Australia such collation and publication of farming data has been addressed with a significant legal response.
It comes at a time when the new consumer data right (CDR) is imminent. This right, soon to be enshrined in new rules developed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), will provide Australians with greater access to and control over their own data.
On April 15, the ACCC released draft CDR rules for consultation. These are in preparation for the implementation of the first phase of the CDR set for July 1, 2019. The <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Exposure%20draft%20CDR%20rules%2029%20March%202019.pdf" target="_blank">ACCC’s rules</a> set out how the CDR will operate including data sharing and privacy safeguards.
The decision to include Aussie Farms Incorporated under the Privacy Act and the introduction of the CDR feeds into an important conversation about governance and control of Australian agricultural data.
The value of agricultural data
Australian farms generate huge volumes of agricultural data. Examples include the types of crops being grown, crop yields, livestock numbers and locations, types of fertilisers and pesticides being used, soil types, rainfall and more.
This data is typically collected through the use of digital farming machinery and buildings featuring robotics and digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and devices connected to the internet (“internet of things”, or <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-someone-watching-you-online-the-security-risks-of-the-internet-of-things-55701" target="_blank">IoT</a>).
Big data, data analytics and machine learning are incorporated into agriculture through electronic livestock tracing systems, electronic weather data, smartphone mapping and other remote sensing applications.
Over the past five years, <a href="https://www.crdc.com.au/precision-to-decision" target="_blank">numerous reports</a> have <a href="https://www.ey.com/gl/en/industries/consumer-products/ey-digital-agriculture-trends-opportunities" target="_blank">highlighted</a> the myriad benefits a data revolution can <a href="https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/au/pdf/2018/talking-2030-growing-australian-agriculture.pdf" target="_blank">bring to agriculture</a>.
Many think this data revolution will provide an opportunity for farmers to get closer to the consumer, make farms and farmers more efficient, and provide a way for farmers to show banks how sustainable practices lower long-term risk of things like droughts and pests.
Indeed, big data in agriculture is <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.triplepundit.com/story/2014/6-ways-big-data-helps-improve-global-water-and-food-security/39791" target="_blank">often seen</a> as the solution to the world’s impending food security crisis.
Piecemeal regulation
But a recent <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">review</a> from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics highlights the patchy and fragmented nature of existing government and industry approaches to agricultural data. What that means is Australian farmers are currently not adequately protected from their farm data being collected and used without their knowledge or consent.
Perhaps not surprisingly then, <a href="https://www.crdc.com.au/sites/default/files/P2D%20producer%20survey%20-%20CSIRO%20Final%20Report.pdf" target="_blank">recent research</a> into farmers’ attitudes about sharing their farm data reveals their level of mistrust about the way in which that data may be used or misused. More than 60% of farmers surveyed indicated they had little to no trust in technology providers to maintain their privacy and not engage in unauthorised use of their data.
A strong future for digitally-enabled Australian agriculture needs a data governance framework. Such guidelines must encompass the legal, social and ethical rules we need to protect the agricultural sector, the interests of farmers and farmer privacy.
This latter point is key, as agricultural data is often connected to farmers’ personal information. For example, the location of the farms, or the location of GPS-enabled farming equipment, may be digitally linked to farmer names and financial information.
Within industries, anecdotal stories abound about banks and insurance companies knowing more about the incomes and businesses of farms than the individual farmers themselves.
Towards a solution
Farmers are aware of the changing data landscape, with proposed federal government legislation on <a href="https://dataavailability.pmc.gov.au/" target="_blank">data availability and use</a>, and the <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/consumer-data-right-cdr-0" target="_blank">consumer data right</a> being rolled out across industry sectors. As Shadow Minister for Agriculture Joel Fitzgibbon <a href="http://www.joelfitzgibbon.com/speech_rabobank_farm2fork_summit_doing_more_with_less_innovation_sustainable_agriculture_thursday_28_march_2019" target="_blank">recently observed</a>: "If given the opportunity, a Labor government will reform the research system and improve data availability. If we want to develop good evidenced-based policy we need more and better data."
Yet the problem is that many farmers don’t know if, and under what circumstances, they should share their agricultural data.
We argue that Australian agricultural industries need to urgently address issues such as data sharing protocols and governance arrangements. Perhaps the group best placed to coordinate such activities is the National Farmers’ Federation (<a href="https://www.nff.org.au/" target="_blank">NFF</a>).
What should those rules look like?
We have seen attempts to improve the position of farmers against anti-competitive practices of supermarkets through the recent re-appointment of <a href="https://www.accc.gov.au/focus-areas/agriculture" target="_blank">Mick Keogh as Agricultural Commissioner</a> to Australia’s competition watchdog, the ACCC.
In other countries, attempts to improve agricultural data management practices have been administered through the introduction of voluntary agricultural data codes of practice in the <a href="https://www.fb.org/issues/technology/data-privacy/privacy-and-security-principles-for-farm-data" target="_blank">US</a>, <a href="http://www.farmdatacode.org.nz/" target="_blank">NZ</a> and now the <a href="https://www.ecpa.eu/news/code-conduct-agricultural-data-sharing-signing" target="_blank">EU</a>.
Australia’s <a href="https://www.nff.org.au/" target="_blank">NFF</a> is currently <a href="https://www.nff.org.au/read/5873/budget-roadmap-charts-course-for-100" target="_blank">considering</a> developing an agricultural data code for Australia as well.
But an agricultural data code of practice is just one piece of the large puzzle of how best to protect farmers and their data while maximising the potential for agriculture.
Providing guidance around agricultural data is not just about privacy, but also productivity.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115228/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Leanne Wiseman, Associate Professor, Griffith Law School, Assoc Director Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture (ACIPA), Griffith University
Jay Sanderson, Professor, Head of USC Law School, University of the Sunshine Coast
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/farms-create-lots-of-data-but-farmers-dont-control-where-it-ends-up-and-who-can-use-it-115228" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Farms create lots of data, but farmers don’t control where it ends up and who can use it

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
What happens if you decide to jump in, <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006vb2f" target="_blank">Escape to the Country</a>-style, and flee the city rat race?
Well, for a start, <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-moving-house-changes-you-109225" target="_blank">your identity begins to change</a> in response to the new place around you. This change happens inside you, but is also reflected in the objects you surround and clothe yourself with.
My recent research looked at the stories of two women who moved from the city to the country and published books about their experiences. Hilary Burden moved from London to rural Tasmania and wrote about it in <a href="https://www.allenandunwin.com/browse/books/general-books/biography-autobiography/A-Story-of-Seven-Summers-Hilary-Burden-9781742376844" target="_blank">A Story of Seven Summers</a>. Margaret Roach, author of <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8218719-and-i-shall-have-some-peace-there" target="_blank">And I Shall Have Some Peace There</a>, moved from New York City to rural upstate New York. The two women tell the story of their moves, but at the same time, they narrate a journey of changing identity that is shared with others through the clothes they wear.
In memoirs such as these, the authors interpret the events they write about, but so does the reader, who brings their own understandings to their imagined experience. This allows readers to imagine a new way of living too, through the pages of the book. Through this, they might <a href="https://theconversation.com/imagining-your-own-seachange-how-media-inspire-our-great-escapes-105207">imagine their own SeaChange</a>.
Clothes are part of our identity
When people get dressed each day, they let others know who they are, or who they think they are, in an identity-sharing performance. The clothes the authors discuss in the pages of their memoirs effectively map how their identity changed and how they shared this change with the people around them by wearing different styles of clothes from the ones they wore before. These items combine to produce a narrative that lets others understand those around them more clearly.
Most of the time people are not even aware that they are doing this. They just pick and choose the things they like from the vast array of options open to them.
Sometimes, however, it becomes clear that the clothes that once worked for a person just do not “fit” any more. This can happen in the process of life transformation, including moving from the city to the country the way these women did.
Roach had experienced a long and successful career at Martha Stewart Omnimedia. She knew how to dress for her professional role and had confidence in sharing her wealth and status through the expensive suits she bought. When she moved to the country, however, she could not dress in the same way. With her career behind her, she asked herself: “Who am I if I am not mroach@marthastewart dot com any longer?”
Unsure, and in pyjamas
This lack of clarity about her evolving identity is shown in the pyjamas she starts to wear during the day. Far from familiar terrain, and experiencing a state of flux and transition, Roach finds it simpler just to remain in her nightclothes and not have to figure out her new identity via the clothes she wears. Understanding this dilemma, Roach describes how her old way of living no longer fits her new self: 
"…like the wardrobe hanging in my closet, a vestige of a life left behind, it just doesn’t resemble me any longer."
She talks about how her clothes no longer fit, mentally or visually, with her new life in the country. With real insight, she writes: 
"The outside packaging … has to match what’s going on inside of me."
This understanding enables her to finally reconcile who she is to where she now lives. Once she negotiates this process, she is able to manage the transition of her clothing and visual identity to what works in her new country home.
Burden’s move across oceans starts a similar journey. She writes:
"I knew I wanted to shed the stuff I associated with cities: suits … dressing up, being very important or busy or loud."
These had once enabled her to present and perform her class identity and status to others, but they no longer suited her work outside at a farmers’ market in rural Tasmania. Her clothes needed to fit the time and place she lived in, but she found they did not. These old clothes end up in garbage bags on a journey to the op shop, and Burden adapts to share her new identity through her clothes.
These memoirs offer a glimpse into lives and identities within the imaginative space they create, permitting identity to be shared through language and text. They show how moving to the country impacts identity, and how these people need to work through this process of change to adapt to their new life and feel comfortable in their new location.
Next time you contemplate moving to the country, just be sure to factor in the cost of a whole new wardrobe!<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/112137/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Rachael Wallis, Lecturer and Research Fellow, University of Southern Queensland
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-home-new-clothes-the-old-ones-no-longer-fit-once-you-move-to-the-country-112137" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

New home, new clothes: the old ones no longer fit once you move to the country

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
More than <a href="https://www.bioversityinternational.org/research-portfolio/diet-diversity/" target="_blank">half the world’s plant-derived energy</a> intake comes from just three crops: rice, wheat and maize. These crops, like most land plants, live in an evolutionarily ancient partnership with a certain type of fungus, called arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi.
These fungi penetrate plants’ roots, even entering the root cells themselves. In a win-win relationship, the fungi provide the plants with crucial nutrients and the plant provides the fungi with sugar.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236795/original/file-20180918-158225-l6jwah.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/236795/original/file-20180918-158225-l6jwah.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> Fungi associate with plant roots, forming a symbiotic relationship. Created with BioRender
By helping plants take up nutrients from the soil, these fungi can enhance crop yields, increase pest resistance, and reduce the need for fertiliser. So it’s hardly surprising that there has been a long-held interest in harnessing these soil-dwelling fungi for agriculture.
But our <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S003807171830275X#bib33" target="_blank">research</a> shows that in some cases these fungi can harm crops instead of helping them. This means we need to proceed with caution in pursuing the benefits of using these fungi as fertilisers.
Biofertilisers
The idea of using arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as “biofertilisers” is <a href="https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2435.12976#fec12976-fig-0001" target="_blank">not new</a>. Many companies already sell fungal products that <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04090.x" target="_blank">boost crop growth and mineral uptake</a>.
Yet the effects of these biofertilisers on crops are actually highly variable. And despite the <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13199-012-0208-9" target="_blank">growing market interest</a>, there is little proof they are necessarily beneficial in every situation.
Biofertilisers can boost plant growth and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929139316302116" target="_blank">pest resistance</a>, but this effect often <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01430.x" target="_blank">depends on the context</a>. Different species of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi can provide different benefits, or sometimes no benefit at all.
Results can vary between crops too. One cultivar might get a significant boost from biofertiliser, whereas another one may not. Differences in soil type, nutrient availability, and even season can also affect the outcome.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238295/original/file-20180927-48653-te8eod.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238295/original/file-20180927-48653-te8eod.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associate with plants by colonising their roots.
To work properly, fungal biofertilisers also need to be compatible with local conditions, including the microbes that are already present in the soil. A crucial question is whether the inoculant fungi are superior competitors to the “native” fungi already established? What’s more, little is known of the long-term effects of introducing these fungi to the soil and surrounding ecosystem.
Fungal friends or foes?
Mycorrhizal fungi can also have negative effects on crops. In our <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003807171830275X?via%3Dihub#bib33" target="_blank">research</a>, my colleagues and I explored the effects of an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal community on the growth of wheat and its resistance to tiny worms that attack the roots. These pests, called plant-parasitic nematodes, cause an estimated <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/mpp.12057" target="_blank">US$80 billion per year</a> in crop damage.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237657/original/file-20180924-170656-qz57mi.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/237657/original/file-20180924-170656-qz57mi.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi reduced crop growth and suppressed important defence-related compounds which may have caused an increase in nematode populations in the soil. Created with 'Biorender'
We found that fungal inoculation actually reduced plant growth and suppressed important defence-related compounds in the roots. We also observed an increase in nematode populations in the soil, potentially due to lowered plant defences.
Of course this is only one example. And this experiment was not done in the field. Yet it is not the only study to have identified potentially negative consequences of biofertilisers.
Soil probiotics
Biofertilisers are similar to gut probiotics, in that both approaches aim to inject “good” microbes into places where they will prove beneficial. But just as the widely touted health benefits of gut probiotics <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867418311024?via%3Dihub" target="_blank">don’t work for everyone</a>, our results paint a similar picture for soil fungi.
Put simply, there isn’t a one-size-fits-all fungal biofertiliser that will boost every crop in every environment. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t work towards improving our ability to use these fungi. In fact, this should be a priority – biofertilisers can be a powerful tool to help tackle the challenges posed by population growth and climate change.
In the right situation, biofertilisers can dramatically increase crop yields and pest resistance, potentially helping us grow more food, more sustainably. But we need to learn more before we can turn this ancient symbiosis between plants and fungi to our advantage.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/103236/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Adam Frew, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Charles Sturt University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/soil-probiotics-promise-bigger-healthier-crops-but-theres-a-downside-103236" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

‘Soil probiotics’ promise bigger, healthier crops, but there’s a downside

<html><body>
<h1><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AAerial_view_of_the_Darling_River.jpg" target="_blank">Given the </a><a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-15/murray-darling-basin-plan-changes-blocked/9448280" target="_blank">outraged reaction from some state water ministers</a><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AAerial_view_of_the_Darling_River.jpg" target="_blank"> to the disallowance of an </a><a href="https://www.mdba.gov.au/basin-plan-roll-out/basin-plan-amendments/basin-plan-amendments-northern-basin" target="_blank">amendment</a><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AAerial_view_of_the_Darling_River.jpg" target="_blank"> to the </a><a href="https://www.mdba.gov.au/basin-plan" target="_blank">Murray Darling Basin Plan</a><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3AAerial_view_of_the_Darling_River.jpg" target="_blank">, you would be forgiven for thinking that a heinous crime had been committed against farmers in upstream states.</a></h1>
In fact, what happened was that the Senate voted for the Basin Plan to continue unchanged, rather than allow a modest increase in the water available to farms in the Murray Darling’s Northern Basin.
NSW water minister Niall Blair reacted by declaring that his state “will now start the process of withdrawing ourselves from the plan”, while his Victorian counterpart Lisa Neville <a href="https://www.sbs.com.au/news/vic-declares-murray-darling-plan-over" target="_blank">angrily declared</a> that “the plan is over” (despite Victoria not even being in the Northern Basin).
The political friction is generating a lot of heat, but precious little light. The debate could use a few more facts, so here they are.
First of all, the amount of water involved in the amendment represents less than 1% of the average annual surface water extractions allowed by the Basin Plan. This is roughly equivalent to a single day’s irrigation use throughout the basin during the growing season.
In other words, irrigators already use huge amounts of water, and ensuring that environmental water recovery on the Darling River is not reduced by 70 billion litres will make very little difference to irrigators.
Second, the delivery of the environmental water target of 390 billion litres in the Northern Basin, rather than 320 billion litres as proposed in the amendment, will be undertaken with full compensation. In other words, no individual irrigator will be made worse off by allowing the original target to be delivered. No one is “taking water” from anyone.
Third, let’s just reiterate that no one has changed the Basin Plan, so the “loss” of 70 billion litres simply represents 70 billion litres less in diversions that farmers were hoping to receive in future, but now won’t.
Meanwhile, there is <a href="https://www.mdba.gov.au/basin-plan-roll-out/proposed-adjustment-sustainable-diversion-limits" target="_blank">another amendment under consideration</a>, to be decided by May 7, that will potentially allow farmers across the Basin to divert an extra 605 billion litres from the river. These amendments are political compromises and not part of the scientific and economic assessments that led to the Basin Plan.
Fourth, the <a href="https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/pubs/S%26E-economic-modelling-report-KPMG.pdf" target="_blank">claims</a> by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority that the reduction in the environmental water recovery will save 200 jobs does not bear scrutiny. Jobs in agriculture have everything to do the weather, with commodity prices and the value of the Australian dollar, and very little to do with environmental water recovery. We should not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a consultant to get an “answer” that does not pass proper peer review in academic journals if we want good public policy outcomes.
Fifth, and finally, it’s time for some maths. The Basin Plan that was passed in 2012 had, on average, a surface water diversion limit (that is, the total amount that farmers and other water users were allowed to take) of 10,873 billion litres per year. Before surface water diversions were controlled in the mid-1990s, the average annual surface water diversions in the Basin were 10,684 billion litres per year. Between 2000-01 and 2014-15, the average was 7,956 billion litres per year.
In other words, the water limits allowed by the existing Basin Plan represent an increase, rather than a reduction, on what water users have been taking, on average, for the past 30 years. For this reason alone, we should be very careful about letting them have even more.
Politicians and vested interests are playing fast and loose with the facts. Let’s be clear, the Basin Plan will not keel over because of this disallowed amendment. But it will die if the irrigators who have already received billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, and who have billions allocated for them in the forward estimates, stop the Basin Plan from delivering on its original intentions.
It’s time our federal government stood up and defended the national interest and faithfully delivered on the original intent of the Basin Plan, and actually increase stream flows in the Basin by 2,750 billion litres per year.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/91913/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">As <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-murray-darling-basin-plan-is-not-delivering-theres-no-more-time-to-waste-91076" target="_blank">we and our colleagues argued earlier this month</a>, that means establishing a truly independent scientific and expert body to evaluate the Basin’s health and what has been delivered in terms of increased net stream flows with the Basin Plan. It also means an end to further infrastructure subsidies and efficiency projects until the full facts are publicly known and scrutinised about what public benefits they provide.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/quentin-grafton-1941" target="_blank">Quentin Grafton</a>, Director of the Centre for Water Economics, Environment and Policy, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/crawford-school-of-public-policy-australian-national-university-3292" target="_blank">Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-williams-142565">John Williams</a>, Adjunct Professor Environment and Natural Resources, Crawford School of Public Policy, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877" target="_blank">Australian National University</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/states-dummy-spit-over-the-murray-darling-basin-plan-clouds-the-real-facts-91913" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Rural View

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Rural View

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News