Freshwater Protected Area Resourcbook

7.5 Natural values:

Generally speaking, Western societies do not act to protect natural ecosystems for their own sake, although such action has had its advocates for several centuries. Australia is no exception, in spite of an eloquent statement contained in the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity²³⁹ (Commonwealth of Australia 1996:2). Protective actions are based on values which we perceive in the environment in question.
Values relating to aquatic environments which might be conserved include biodiversity, geodiversity, recreation, landscape (scenic), historic, cultural and spiritual. Table 1.1 above compares the focus of different protective mechanisms on different values.
Value, importance (or significance), condition and threat are related concepts. Importance is usually seen as a level of value (see Appendix 7). The pressure-state-response model has been used in various ways to connect the concepts in assessment exercises, although (in the Australian context) more often in estuarine rather than freshwater environments (National Land and Water Resources Audit (2001d, 2002a).
Value is related to condition, but is not the same thing. Value is often defined to include relative disturbance, but can extend far beyond that (see below). For example, a wetland may have high value as the last remaining habitat of the endangered western swamp turtle (Pseudemydura umbrina), yet, if it is infested with weeds, its condition may be poor, and the long-term prognosis for the turtle uncertain.
In a world of limited resources, it is desirable to try to obtain the most effective and efficient outcome (in this case ecosystem protection) for money spent. If a site has high value, good condition, and is not likely to be under threat, there are arguments for spending money elsewhere. On the other hand, if a site has high value, deteriorating condition, and increasing threat, this may be an important location to direct funds, provided that threats can be managed with reasonable economy. The problem with this philosophy is that it directs funds towards crisis situations, ignoring locations where the most economical long-term protective measures might be put into place. Over a long period of time, such an approach may see catchment after catchment pushed towards over-exploitation, with pervasive loss of values. High-value low-threat sites are thus good candidates for protected area establishment where this can be effected economically.
Comprehensive inventories of aquatic ecosystems are need to prioritize funding programs. Ideally, it is important to have information about where:

• 
  different types of values exist;
  
• 
  where such values are highest (where significant or important sites exist);
  
• 
  where values are under threat (where condition and subsequently value is, or is likely to deteriorate); and
  
• 
  where the most effective and efficient opportunities exist to protect values.
  

The ability of Australian regional NRM planning frameworks to obtain and integrate this information is critical, and is likely to be the Achilles heel of current NRM programs.

Theoretically, such programs need to identify (a) concordance of high conservation values with high condition as the most effective areas for proactive conservation management, and (b) concordance of high value with low ecological condition as potentially priority rehabilitation areas (subject to availability of funds and the feasibility of rehabilitation). The form of threatening processes, and their manageability, need to be considered in detail in this equation.
Existing frameworks for the conservation of natural river values generally include recreational and scenic values (eg: Victoria²⁴⁰, the USA²⁴¹, and Canada²⁴²). Victoria's Heritage Rivers were also selected partly on the basis of geomorphic values (see Appendix 4).

7.6 Australian models for a national framework:

The ACT has created river reserves by establishing a string of terrestrial reserves under their Land (Planning & Environment) Act 1991, and Tasmania is presently developing protective mechanisms under its Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values project. However, the most important current model is provided by Victoria.
Victoria passed its Heritage Rivers Act in 1992. While both NSW and WA attempted to develop similar legislation, both attempts failed, although in both cases existing legislation was modified to enhance the protective mechanisms available to government. For example, New South Wales modified its National Parks and Wildlife Service Act to allow the designation of ‘wild rivers’. In practice, this has done little to protect undamaged rivers.
Victoria’s 18 Heritage Rivers were selected after an extensive public investigation by the Land Conservation Council. The LCC examined and mapped rivers according to a variety of attributes, one of which was value. Values considered were:

• 
  nature conservation – (a1) highly natural catchments, (a2) native fish rarity or diversity, (a3) botanical significance, (a4) geological or geomorphological significance.
  
• 
  landscape – (b1) high scenic value, (b2) waterfalls; and
  
• 
  recreation – (c1) whitewater canoeing, (c2) car-based camping, (c3) recreational fishing for exotics, (c4) recreational fishing for natives. Refer maps 11, 12 and 13;
  

The Act sought to protect Heritage Rivers by preventing further dam construction or water diversion, and by controlling certain activities, like timber harvesting, in the river’s catchment. Sections 9 and 10 of the Act state:

Section 9. Contents of management plans

A management plan for a heritage river area or natural catchment area must state the way in which the managing authority is to undertake its duties and exercise its powers under this Act and the management plan must be consistent with the purpose of this Act, the authority's duties and powers and any Land Conservation Council recommendations in respect of which notice has been given under section 10(3) of the Land Conservation Act 1970.

Section 10. Land and water uses which are not permitted in heritage river areas

(1) An impoundment, artificial barrier or structure that impedes the passage of water fauna must not be constructed in a heritage river area specified in Column 1 of Schedule 3 unless the Governor in Council by notice published in the Government Gazette, approves its construction in that area.

(2) There must not be a new water diversion in a heritage river area specified in Column 2 of Schedule 3 unless it is approved by the Governor in Council by notice published in the Government Gazette.

(3) Any new water diversion from a waterway upstream from the lowest point of a heritage river area specified in Column 3 of Schedule 3 must not significantly impair the nature conservation, recreation, scenic or cultural heritage attributes of the area.

(4) Sub-section (3) does not apply to a water diversion approved by the Governor in Council by notice published in the Government Gazette.

(5) Timber harvesting is not to be carried out in any heritage river area specified in Column 4 of Schedule 3.

If the general principles of Victoria’s approach were applied elsewhere, the management plan could be expanded to encompass two distinct levels: (a) strict controls over the area of public land under the direct influence of the managing authority, and (b) a wider plan covering both public and private land in the river’s catchment, developed after consultation with landowners and other stakeholders, and implemented through controls and incentives available to:

• 
  the State government through water legislation;
  
• 
  the relevant local government(s) through land use planning provisions, and
  
• 
  regional catchment or natural resource management plans through incentive funding.