A new Australian Government drought plan

OFFICIAL

submission to the consultation draft of the Australian Government Drought Plan 2024

notes that the Australian Government Drought Plan 2024 is the Federal
Government plan and is not related to activity. It is noted that roles and responsibilities are set out in the National Drought Agreement 2024-2029.

current Drought Policy is based on the concept of resilience as set out in the principles of the National Drought Agreement. At the core of this policy is that primary producers adopt risk management strategies to minimise the impact of drought on their enterprise. This may include on-farm management decisions (such as the early disposal or relocation of livestock), improvements in infrastructure (such as livestock watering or feeding systems as supported by
or through retention of financial reserves through facilities such as Farm Management Deposits.

recommends the continuation of the Agricultural Ministers’
Meeting Working Group on Drought and the further development and promotion of Local, State and Federal Governments working collaboratively together on drought policies and responses.
This is in alignment with current National Drought Agreement.

Question 1: Is the Australian Government’s approach to drought clear in the draft plan?

The Australian Government’s approach to drought is clear in the draft plan.
recognises the importance of identifying what the Australian Government will not do during periods of drought. The role of the Australian Government versus the State and Territory
Governments in preparing and responding to drought is clear.

Enhanced communications and engagement may assist in more people understanding the plan. While policy professionals internal to government understand the new National Drought
Agreement, there is limited knowledge of the level of understanding amongst primary producers across Australia.

1

OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL

Question 2: Is the draft plan clear as to why the Australian Government’s drought policy and response is different to that for natural disasters?

The Australian Government’s differing approaches to drought policy and response and natural disasters is reasonably clear in the draft plan. The difference between drought and disaster is recognised and justification is clearly provided. However, ongoing coverage by media and industry organisations of presents severe drought and disaster as intertwined or the same. To address this, it is suggested that the link to the National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework or similar (as identified in the chapter ‘Links to other government policy’) be inserted into the chapter ‘Forward Looking Drought Policy’ in the section ‘Drought is Not a Natural Disaster’.

It is also recommended that the section ‘Drought is Not a Natural Disaster’ in the chapter
‘Forward Looking Drought Policy’ is strengthened. Although relevant information is provided in the chapter ‘Links to Other Government Policy’, bringing forward a summary of this chapter would better articulate why and how the responses are different.

In the chapter ‘Links to other government policy’ it is suggested that explanation is included to be clear that while drought is an excluded hazard type for eligibility to the Disaster Ready Fund, projects which increase drought resilience are not excluded if they primarily target other eligible natural hazards (Disaster Ready Fund Guidelines, Round Two – 2024/25).

Question 3: Does Pillar 1 – Evidence based decision-making provide greater clarity about when, why, how and what the government will consider when determining its response to drought?

Pillar 1 identifies the resources the Australian Government will utilise to identify drought and climate risks. It is noted that the focus on short-term weather forecasts in the section titled
‘Weather Information and Climate Forecasting’ does not necessarily align with earlier statements that highlight droughts as being longer term events. This section should be combined with the ‘Climate Services for Agriculture’ section.

A link to the Australian Agricultural Drought Indicators Project (AADI) should be included when available. If it will not be publicly available, an explanation should be provided, or the section removed. Additionally, this section acknowledges ABARES and CSIRO as key organisations in developing the AADI but does not acknowledge contribution for

2

OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL

is concerned that these indicators may not effectively show the impact of drought on an area due to the use of economic indicators which are not always directly correlated with drought impacts on a community.

It is understood that the task of delivering relevant climate information for all agricultural sectors of Australia on a national basis is difficult. On the ‘My Climate View’ website, climate data is provided to the end user, however there is limited accompanying interpretive information provided. It is noted that the Drought Resilience Self-Assessment Tool (DR.SAT) website has now disappeared/ceased and appears to have been partly incorporated into the ‘My Climate
View’ website.

welcomes ongoing discussions around co-operative approaches to drought analysis that would also build on existing long-term platforms.

Question 4: Does Pillar 2 – Strategic drought support provide greater clarity about how the
Australian Government will respond across the drought cycle, including what support it will not provide?

Pillar 2 provides clarity on the Australian Government’s comprehensive response across the drought cycle.

A section on the Federal and State Governments working together to deliver a number of these services and responses would highlight the collaborative approach required to respond to drought effectively. While this is covered in some detail in Pillar 3 – Working together, it should be highlighted that without the contribution and involvement of State Governments (and increasingly NGO’s) delivery of components of this support would not be possible.

encourages a stronger commitment to work across jurisdictions to avoid duplication of funding, ensuring that effective assistance is provided. Previous drought assistance measures were often for duplicative services.

This comment also flows onto the section titled Working with the States and Territories in Pillar
3- Working together.

3

OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL

Question 5: Have you identified any gaps in how we have responded to any of the review recommendations in the draft plan?

A potential gap is the lack of discussion of food security due to drought.

Prolonged drought events not only impact farming families and their communities but result in systemic flow-on-effects that often impact the most vulnerable populations not supported by resilient food systems.

While the draft plan has a strong focus on scaling up adaptation and promoting innovative resilience activities in the agricultural sector, it is suggested that the draft plan could also benefit from additional measures that could be used to target small scale and remote farming operations (including in Indigenous communities).

Changes to the Future Drought Fund to establish a new pilot program to facilitate place based and First Nations–led activities will hopefully be incorporated with identified benefits into the proposed Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning framework for the drought policy.

Question 6: Do you have any comments on the work underway for us to consider as we progress it?

The acknowledgement that drought is known to affect the mental health and wellbeing of individuals, both on-farm and in farming communities is welcome and the proposed mental health and wellbeing interventions outlined in the draft plan are supported. The draft plan’s focus on developing community support networks, including through the Future Drought Fund’s community initiatives is a positive.

4

OFFICIAL