Freshwater ecosystems

6.10 Australian Capital Territory

The ACT must be included in this comparison as it is one of Australia's eight States and Territories. Its inclusion, however, creates some problems, for in many respects the ACT is in a very different situation from the other jurisdictions. It was created to 'house' Australia's administrative capital, Canberra, at the time of Federation. Its land area (around Canberra, as well as another small area at Jervis Bay) is tiny compared to other jurisdictions, being about the scale of a large local government area in rural WA. Not only is the matter of scale different, but much of the land outside urban Canberra is park or conservation reserve. Additionally, the administration of the Territory is comparatively well-financed by State standards.
So - while the ACT 'shines' to some extent in the State comparison (see the Table 6.1 below) its comparative advantages must be borne in mind.
The ACT Nature Conservation Strategy (NCS) 1998 takes the place of both a biodiversity strategy and a wetlands strategy. The NCS does not include specific commitments to the development of representative freshwater reserves, however, it does make clear commitments to establish CAR representation of all ecosystems, and states: “riverine systems are … an area of concern”.
This commitment has already been largely completed due to the small size of the ACT. The Cotter and Murrumbidgee are the two rivers of highest ecological value. The Murrumbidgee is largely protected in the series of reserves which form the Murrumbidgee River Corridor and the Molonglo River below Coppins Crossing is similarly protected. The great majority of the Cotter River is protected within Namadgi National Park.²²⁷
Intrinsic values are acknowledged, using the simple and eloquent statement used in the national biodiversity strategy.²²⁸ Like WA and NSW, the ACT's water statute (the Water Resources Act 1998) does protect intrinsic values²²⁹.
Action plans for threatened species and ecological communities prepared under the Nature Conservation ACT 1980 are reviewed every 3 years and updated as necessary. CAR reserves (all ecosystems) are being reviewed and developed within an IBRA framework.
The “aquatic” section of the NCS makes no reference to a need for specific freshwater reserves - which is perhaps understandable in view of the extensive reservation which already exists.
The ACT's Water Resources Act 1998 provides for environmental flows, and allows for change or withdrawal of allocation on environmental grounds. The ACT has established general Environmental Flow Guidelines 1999 - pertinent to all developments and applications that involve water. Under their Water Resources Management Plan 1999, once necessary environmental flows have been set, water resources available for diversion or abstraction can be allocated.
The Water Resources Act needs to be read in conjunction with the Territory Plan, the Nature Conservation Act and the Environment Protection Act.
The ACT's Future Water Supply Strategy was developed following public consultation. The Strategy takes an ecologically sustainable approach to water supply planning, provision and use - focusing on: education and awareness, water pricing, water conservation practises, supply security, alternative water supply sources, efficient supply systems and monitoring.
The ACT has a statutory requirement for the integrated management of interlinked surface and groundwater. This requirement has been put into practice within the framework of water allocation plans. The ACT has essentially only two main types of aquifer: fractured rock, and alluvial.
Infrastructure proposals are subjected to EIA through the provisions of Environment Assessment Act 1994. This is Commonwealth legislation and is only relevant to the National Capital Authority’s interests. Environment assessments are carried out by the ACT under the Land (Planing and Environment) Act 1991²³⁰. At this stage biodiversity considerations are not included in the Territory's ICM planning, but could be following further development of the ecological survey. Neither EIA processes or the NCS handle cumulative effects in any useful way.
The NCS makes commitments: a) to complete the ecological survey of the ACT, and to identify deficiencies and gaps in the reserve system. This program should lead, in theory:

• 
  firstly to the development of a comprehensive freshwater inventory, although this is not identified as an outcome; and
  
• 
  secondly, to the development of a system of representative reserves which includes aquatic ecosystems.
  

In summary: the ACT, being Australia’s smallest jurisdiction (by a long way) is also in the position where all land is either Crown controlled, or leased from the Crown. Given this unusual situation, land management presents somewhat different, less complex challenges here than in other jurisdictions. Management of cumulative effects remains an important issue, although here catchment caps developed through policy instruments rather than legislation seem likely to provide flexible and effective outcomes.

6.11 Summary tabulation

FRESHWATER MANAGEMENT: STATE REPORT CARD
Table 6.1 State by State summary of action being taken on eight important water management issues.

This table is based on material presented in the paper as well as the perusal of additional material published by States. If you believe this summary is incomplete, unfair, or inaccurate, please email me ([e-mail]).

Issue	WA	NT	SA	Qld	NSW	Vic	ACT	Tas
Cumulative effects: policy or statute exists to support catchment-based caps on water-related development^231.	yes	part^232	yes^233	yes^234	yes	part^235	yes	no^236
Cumulative effects: caps are being developed well before allocations approach catchment capacity^237.	possible^238	possible^239	no	no	no^240	no	yes^241	no
Representative reserves: policy commitments to develop systems of representative freshwater reserves.	yes	yes	no^242	yes	yes	yes	yes^243	yes
Representative reserves: the above policy has been implemented^244.	no	no	n/a	no	no	part^245	part^246	no^247
Representative reserves: comprehensive inventories of all freshwater ecosystems, capable of supporting the identification of RRs, are under development^248.	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes^249
Representative reserves: comprehensive inventories are substantially complete.	no	no	no	no	no	no	yes	no
Programs are in place to identify and protect rivers of high ecological value.	no	no	no	yes^250	yes^251	yes^252	yes	no
A policy or statute exists encouraging integrated surface / groundwater management.^253	no^254	no	part^255	part^256	yes^257	no^258	yes^259	no
Integrated management of surface / groundwater exists recognising conservation targets in both and the need for dual demand management.	yes^260	no	no	no	yes	no	yes^261	no
Comprehensive compliance auditing programs exist, including air-photo recognisance of illegal dams and levees.	no^262	no	no^263	no^264	no^265	no	n/a^266	no
Effective action to detect and assess all significant non-compliance.	no	no	no	no	no	no	yes^267	no
Policy / statute provides for environmental flows	yes	yes^268	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Environmental flows are being implemented.	yes	no^269	yes	yes	yes^270	yes	yes	yes
Management of surface flows^271 is addressed by policy and statute	yes	no^272	yes	yes	yes	no^273	yes^274	yes^275
Surface flows are being managed.	no	no	no^276	no^277	yes	n/a	yes^278	no
Policies discouraging on-stream farm dams exist.	no	no	yes^279	no	no	uc^280	no^281	no^282
Fish passage needs have been identified in policy, and are being effectively implemented^283.	weak	weak	weak	strong	strong	strong	strong^284	weak
Aquatic intrinsic values are clearly acknowledged.	no^285	no	no	no	yes^286	no	yes^287	no

Very briefly:

• 
  in regard to the management of cumulative effects, the catchment management programs of Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia all have statutory foundations. In my view such programs provide much greater potential for the effective management of cumulative effects than programs loosely based on policy or voluntary cooperation.
  
• 
  in regard to systems of representative freshwater reserves, although all States except South Australia have made policy commitments, only Victoria has made a focused attempt to implement its commitment. The ACT presents a special case. Table 6.2 below presents a summary of the current situation.
  
• 
  in regard to the integrated management of surface and groundwater, there has been significant progress in both legislation, policy and program implementation on the part of some States over the last one to two years. Tasmania, the NT, and Victoria appear to be lagging behind.
  
• 
  In regard to effective compliance auditing and enforcement, New South Wales and Queensland have recently taken steps laying the legislative foundations for such programs. The ACT, again, presents a special case. It is to be hoped that all States will take effective action on this issue.
  

Table 6.2 Summary tabulation:
Representative freshwater reserve commitments and programs

	Commitment contained in:	Implementation program
WA	Wetlands Conservation Policy 1997	None. The commitment has not been re-stated in the recent Waterways WA Policy, although the current State government has re-endorsed the 1997 Wetlands Policy.
NT	A Strategy for Conservation of the Biological Diversity of Wetlands, 2000	None
Qld	Wetlands Strategy 1999	None
NSW	Rivers and Estuaries Policy 1993; Wetlands Management Policy 1996; Biodiversity Strategy 1999;	None
ACT	Nature Conservation Strategy 1998	Nature Conservation Program
Vic	Nature Conservation Strategy 1987; Biodiversity strategy 1997	Heritage Rivers Program wetlands component incomplete
Tas	Developing Tasmania’s nature conservation strategy; 2000 (- commitment in draft form).	None
SA	SA is developing a draft wetlands policy (no commitment to representative freshwater reserves at this stage).	No commitment made at this stage - so no program needed.