Freshwater Protected Area Resourcbook

6. Australian and New Zealand protection programs:

A more detailed discussion of the Australian context can be found in Appendices 2, 3 and 4. Australian approaches to waterway assessment are summarised above in Table 5.1 (s. 5.5.3b).

6.1 Australian national commitments

6.1.1 Policy background

Australia signed the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands in 1974. In so doing, the nation committed itself to the wise use of wetlands, to establish wetland inventories, and to protect wetlands generally, but particularly to protect important examples. The Convention’s definition of wetlands (see Appendix 8 below) includes rivers and streams. To date, few Ramsar sites have been declared in Australia to protect important rivers, and wetland inventories remain incomplete especially with regard to river and subterranean ecosystems (see Chapter 5 above).
The protection of viable examples of ecosystems representing all major ecosystem types has been a central plank of the biodiversity conservation programs established by several major United Nations resolutions and treaties. These include the Stockholm Declaration 1972, the World Charter for Nature 1982 (a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly), the Rio Declaration 1992, the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992 and the Johannesburg Declaration 2002. These important statements were all supported by Australia, and committed the nation to the establishment of systems of protected areas encompassing all major ecosystem types, including terrestrial, marine and freshwater. This obligation has not yet been fulfilled, or even approached, for freshwater and marine biomes. The World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Report) 1987 recommended that at least 8% of the world’s terrestrial and freshwater habitats be set aside in protected area networks. This target is considered by many scientists today as far too small for marine environments (Nevill 2005b) and is out of step with the Commonwealth’s own target of 30% (Commonwealth of Australia 2001).
The Convention on Biological Diversity 1992, ratified by Australia in 1993, requires that signatories to the agreement identify, protect, and monitor the health of major ecosystems. The convention committed Australian governments to establish strategic systems of protected areas, including aquatic protected areas. This commitment to establish freshwater protected areas was reinforced in February 2004, when a revised program of work on inland waters was adopted by the 7th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity held in Malaysia. The adopted measures include Goal 1.2: “to establish and maintain comprehensive, adequate and representative systems of protected inland water ecosystems within the framework of integrated catchment/watershed/river-basin management” (Conference of the Parties 2004). This commitment was further reinforced by the 2004 resolution of the World Conservation Congress (Appendix 18) on freshwater protected areas.
The establishment of systems of representative reserves has been identified as a commitment of all Australian governments in several key national strategies, including the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (Commonwealth of Australia 1992a), the InterGovernmental Agreement on the Environment (Commonwealth of Australia 1992b) and the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity (Commonwealth of Australia 1996).
Objective 10.1 of the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development states that the objective for a nature conservation system is:

To establish across the nation a comprehensive system of protected areas which includes representative samples of all major ecosystems, both terrestrial and aquatic; manage the overall impacts of human use on protected areas; and restore habitats and ameliorate existing impacts such that nature conservation values are maintained and enhanced. (Commonwealth of Australia 1992a; p. 54)

Item 13 of the InterGovernmental Agreement on the Environment schedule on Nature Conservation states that:

The parties agree that a representative system of protected areas encompassing terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine and marine environments is a significant component in maintaining ecological processes and systems. It also provides a valuable basis for environmental education and environmental monitoring. Such a system will be enhanced by the development and application where appropriate of nationally consistent principles for management of reserves. (Commonwealth of Australia 1992b; p. 40)

In the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity, protected areas are to be integrated with other measures for achieving ecologically sustainable use of natural resources. Objective 1.4 states:

Establish and manage a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of protected areas covering Australia's biodiversity. (Commonwealth of Australia 1996; p. 9)

It is generally recognised that a system of protected areas needs to be representative of ecosystem biodiversity. As argued above, without systems of representative reserves, biodiversity will decline as ecosystems are modified and simplified by human use.

A detailed discussion of national agreements and programs is set out in Appendices 2 and 3.

6.1.2 The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

The EPBC Act Part 3 Division 1 (matters of national environmental significance) and Part 15 (protected areas) Division 2 (wetlands of international importance) provide for the protection of wetlands of international importance, and extend the very limited powers the Commonwealth has under the Australian constitution for area management. Under the Act, the Commonwealth has statutory power to designate wetlands for inclusion in the Ramsar Convention List (s 326). This provision applies broadly, and is not restricted to land owned or managed by the Commonwealth. Under ss 16-17 the Commonwealth can declare a wetland to be a ‘declared Ramsar wetland’ which is an interim listing while the wetland awaits formal designation under Article 2 of the Ramsar convention. The Commonwealth can only invoke these powers if it is convinced that the wetland is of international importance (according to Ramsar criteria – see Appendix 7) and that its ecological character is under threat (s 17A). Once an area is declared or designated, actions which will have, or are likely to have a significant detrimental impact on the wetland are prohibited, unless specific authorisations or exemptions apply (ss 16, 17B). These provisions thus provide an avenue for Commonwealth authority over State land which is absent under Constitutional arrangements alone. An important point to note here is that, implicitly, the Ramsar definition of ‘wetland’ applies, thus providing Commonwealth authority over both flowing water (rivers and streams) and shallow marine waters (eg: estuaries).
Amendments introduced to the EPBC Act in 2003 extend these provisions by allowing the Commonwealth to list places (including, for example, important freshwater ecosystems including rivers) under a list called the National Heritage List. Once on this list, a river could be protected under the Commonwealth powers invoked by the Act in a similar way to that described above.
This ability of the Commonwealth to protect important State sites without the consent of the States has not yet been used. Indirectly, however, the existence of the possibility of Commonwealth intervention provides an additional incentive for States to enter bilateral agreements with the Commonwealth directed at sustainable use of natural resources and conservation of nationally and internationally important sites – as exemption provisions can be written into bilateral agreements. The existence of these powers also provides an incentive for the States to cooperate with the Commonwealth in programs aimed at achieving a national approach to the conservation of Australia’s most important freshwater ecosystems, such as those outlined below in Chapter 10 (Recommendations).
Bilateral Commonwealth-State agreements and MoUs may however allow the Commonwealth to take action where required action is not being taken by the State. The legal action by the Commonwealth in relation to landowner clearing in the Gwydir Wetlands presents an example of Commonwealth legal action in a situation where the State government (NSW) has chosen not to enforce its own protective legislation. The substantial failure of the NSW government to enforce its native vegetation protection legislation was documented on the Australian Broadcasting Commission Radio National Background Briefing of 14/9/2003.
Several discharge springs from the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) and some other aquatic ecosystems are listed as ‘threatened ecological communities’ under the EPBC Act – another protective mechanism albeit not very effective at present. While in theory the EPBC Act can protect against major new developments which may constitute a threat to an area’s values, it cannot force proactive biodiversity management, and it cannot control a multitude of small widespread activities draining water flows from a site. Many GAB springs, known to include endemics (Ponder 2004) are already extinct as a result of drawdown resulting from over use of artesian water¹²¹.
An overview of the 2003 National Heritage List amendments, obtained from the Commonwealth's website, is included in Appendix 13. More details on the EPBC Act are found in section A3.5 below.

6.1.3 The MDBC native fish strategy

The Murray-Darling Basin Commission native fish strategy (MDBC 2003) was developed with extensive community consultation. Amongst a multi-pronged approach focused on managing both immediate and pervasive threats, the use of riverine protected areas are proposed. Riverine Management Zones, subdivided into smaller Demonstration Reaches and / or Habitat Management Areas will be developed, using zone management plans as a means of coordinating and focussing management tools which, in the main, already exist in the hands of river management agencies, local government, and catchment landholders. No new statutory mechanisms are contemplated, with an emphasis being placed on engendering cooperation through good will and funding incentives, as well as fostering coordination of catchment activities. The development of new statutory tools in an environment in which existing tools remain unused and untested (as pointed out in section 1 and Table 1.1 above, and by Hankinson and Blanch 2002) indeed appears unnecessary.
According to the Strategy (p. 2):

Within Riverine Management Zones there may be demonstration reaches, varying from a few kilometres in length to larger sections of about 100 kilometres. The demonstration reaches will integrate all land and water programs to form comprehensive rehabilitation exercises on important and visible river reaches. The key purpose of a demonstration reach is to show the community the cumulative benefits of using a number of actions for rehabilitating native fish populations and communities. Riverine Management Zones may also include Habitat Management Areas that aim to protect remnant areas of healthy fish habitat. The Habitat Management Areas can range from those with limited human access to multiple-use areas, such as those which allow sustainable recreational angling.

6.1.4 Funding incentives

Funding arrangements have been put in place by the Commonwealth and the States which link Natural Heritage Trust funding to the preparation, by the States, of NRM regional management plans. These plans will be accredited against an agreed strategic template, enabling, in theory at least, such plans to protect aquatic ecosystems within catchments managed in an integrated way. Such plans may also be an appropriate vehicle to coordinate State and local government development programs, which are now under increasing scrutiny in the light of both Commonwealth and State sustainability policies.
The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, in a document sponsored by the Worldwide Fund for Nature, called for radical reforms to achieve sustainable land and water management in Australia. In part, they recommended the establishment of payments to farmers for the provision of ecosystem services, and, importantly, for the protection of rivers:
There is also an urgent need for a National Water Plan focusing on improving the health of our damaged rivers, protecting our remaining healthy rivers and improving water use efficiency across Australia.
The overview from Wentworth Group (2002) is reproduced in Appendix 12 below. Whitten et al. (2002) provide a detailed assessment of incentive opportunities.

6.1.5 The Commonwealth: future directions

6.1.5.1 The National Reserves System

In spite of the commitments set out above, there is at present no national program specifically to assist the States in developing systems of representative freshwater protected areas. Perhaps a specific program is not needed; the National Reserves System program could be the appropriate vehicle to assist the States in the development of these protected areas. The National Reserves System does protect many wetland ecosystems (using the 'Australian' definition of wetland). Attempts have been made (or are currently under way) to assess their representative characteristics (in a systematic way in Victoria, the ACT and Tasmania, and in an ad hoc way in the remaining States). While some wetland types will be well protected with the NRS framework, others will not. At this stage we simply don't know exactly what the situation is. It seems safe to speculate, however, that the existing National Reserve System does not sample rivers and aquifer ecosystems in a representative manner, except in instances where these ecosystems form comparatively small components in large terrestrial reserves¹²².
Some years ago the NRS identified grasslands as an under-represented ecosystem type, and funded the States in surveying their grasslands. These surveys highlighted areas where particular grassland types were under-represented in the reserve network. Provided an appropriate national approach to the classification and inventory of wetlands types (using the Ramsar wetland definition) can be found, there seems to be no reason why the NRS could not focus funding on river and aquifer ecosystems in the same way. Developing a national approach to classification and inventory is also an issue which should receive the joint attention of the NRS and Land and Water Australia.
In summary, within the National Reserve System a variety of wetlands, rivers and aquifers are protected to varying extents. However, (as previously noted) a lack of consistency in the identification, classification, and mapping between the jurisdictions, as well as the general lack of ecosystem-quality data which would allow the classification of freshwater ecosystem types (as biodiversity surrogates) makes it difficult to allow accurate assessments of the comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness of the freshwater reserve system. For the NRSP to ensure that additions of aquatic ecosystems to the NRS actually improves the system’s comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness, a concerted effort to ensure greater jurisdictional consistency in the delineation of freshwater ecosystems, and a systematic national approach to classification and inventory development should be encouraged by targeted Commonwealth funds.
National Ramsar commitments and programs include the development of inventories and the establishment of protected areas. However (as previously discussed) such programs remain incomplete in all Australian jurisdictions except the Australian Capital Territory.
According to the minutes of the Land, Water and Biodiversity Committee of the Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) Meeting 1, December 2001, the Council has considered establishing an inter-jurisdictional working group to explore the feasibility of creating a national reserves system for 'Inland Aquatic Ecosystems'. The establishment of this group will be further considered following the finalisation of the 2004 Directions Statement on the National Reserves System. The Directions Statement (NRMMC 2005) contained the following text¹²³:
Direction 7:
"Review the current understanding of freshwater biodiversity in relation to the NRS CAR reserve system, and finalise an agreed approach, which may include future amendments of the NRS Guidelines, to ensure freshwater ecosystems are appropriately incorporated within the NRS."
Given the commitments which have already been made by State governments (see below) it is to be hoped that a working group will be established to examine the implementation of existing commitments regarding the protection of freshwater ecosystems within the framework provided by the National Reserves System and State NRM programs. The development of a national framework including aquatic ecosystem inventories, an aquatic bioregionalisation, reserve identification and selection procedures, and funding to assist the establishment and management of aquatic protected areas appear to be crucial elements in any attempt to progress these issues (see Recommendations in Chapter 10 below).

6.1.5.2 Encouragement of sympathetic land management

At a more general level, the Council of Australian Governments (CoAG) water reform framework has sought to promote a two-pronged approach to water reform since 1994 (see discussion below) stressing the need for both better economic and environmental management of the water resource. A third phase of the framework will be initiated at CoAG's first meeting in 2004. While the publication of this resourcebook precedes this meeting (planned for April) it is disturbing to note that the Communique issued by CoAG in August 2003 outlining the proposed National Water Initiative failed to address two critical issues highlighted by the Wentworth Group (see Appendix 12): firstly, the need to provide special protection for Australia's remaining high-value rivers, and secondly the need to better manage the cumulative effects of incremental water-related development (see Appendix 15). This last issue was referred to by the Wentworth Group under the heading: 'comprehensive water accounts'.
To date the Commonwealth has also failed to clearly address two key issues related to the encouragement of sympathetic and sustainable land management: firstly the need to pay large landholders for the provision of ecosystem services, and secondly the need to develop natural resource accounting procedures which would require large corporate landowners to report (annually or bi-annually) on the condition of natural resources¹²⁴ under their stewardship (s.7.13.4 below, and Nevill 2001: chapter 7). Such annual reports would be prepared by corporations in much the same way that annual taxation reports are prepared - with the help of accredited environmental specialists, just as accredited tax accountants are used today.
With respect to the first point above, organisations wishing to buy land for the purposes of the provision of ecosystem services are currently offered little assistance by any of Australia's three levels of government - so much so that such land bought for such purposes usually becomes a financial burden to the owners. Nevertheless, organisations like the Bush Heritage Trust, the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, New Zealand's Landcare Trust, the Nature Conservation Trust of NSW, and Victoria's Trust for Nature (see s.7.8 below) are purchasing land for the provision of biodiversity conservation services (a part of the more general concept of ecosystem services). Newhaven Station, purchased by Birds Australia, is currently in the process of Ramsar listing. These organisations need far more encouragement by governments than is now available.
Land owned and under the control of Australia's indigenous people occupies large areas of Australia, especially in the Northern Territory and tropical Western Australia - including large Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs). These areas currently make a major contribution to the provision of ecosystem services, without real recognition by the Commonwealth or State governments of the financial value of these services. Adequate methods of paying landowners for these services must be developed as a matter of urgency. Where there are opportunities for establishing joint (landowner / government) management of such areas¹²⁵, these opportunities need to be explored along with more realistic funding provisions.
Whitten et al. (2002) provide a detailed assessment of incentive opportunities.