Freshwater Protected Area Resourcbook

7.7 Framework requirements:

A national framework should be logical, cost-effective, simple, flexible, responsive to scale, and should be capable of being phased, or introduced in a number of stages.
A framework should be logical (it should have a clear aim and a path to achieve that aim), cost-effective (in a world of limited funds, it should be able to focus expenditure where it will be most effective in protecting identified values), as simple as possible (in a complex world), and it should be flexible enough to cater for different existing State river protection frameworks, and varying data availability.
Flexibility is also an issue regarding the availability of data. River and estuarine classification, as well as the determination of value, condition and threat, depend on having a certain amount of basic data. However, available data is often inadequate. Methods developed as part of the framework do need to be sufficiently robust to allow a 'best guess' approach in the absence of detailed site information²⁴³ (subject to revision as data becomes available).
River ecologies and threatening processes both operate on a variety of scales. The connections between rivers, wetlands, estuaries and groundwater (including subterranean aquatic ecosystems) have been ignored in the past by management processes unable to recognise the scale at which both the ecosystems themselves, and the threats, operate. It is important that a national framework be responsive to issues of scale.
It should also, perhaps, adopt a two-stage phased approach. Phase one should aim to consolidate and focus existing programs, using existing administrative mechanisms as far as practical. Where different State approaches create difficulties in achieving a cohesive approach, the first step is to agree on key principles. In some cases, this is all the framework can hope to achieve²⁴⁴ in the first phase. Such statements, however, can be extremely valuable in guiding the way a program changes over time. More adventurous ideas, like natural resource accounting (which has no Australian model) should be left to phase two.

7.8 Framework should be logical:

Management strategies must be able to control threats to the values of special places. A wide variety of threatening processes impacts on rivers and estuaries (Section 4.2). The three most significant are probably: pests and weeds, water extraction, and the effects of changing catchment land use.
Taking the first major threat: what tools are already available to combat pests and weeds? Prevention of infestation is the first strategy. Past infestation, a wide variety of controls are available; unfortunately most techniques are technically difficult, expensive and often ineffective. At a general level existing controls can be grouped under the headings of prohibitions and incentives. However, what we are seeking at the level of our framework is some means of focusing efforts to protect key areas. We also need to use existing tools and processes as far as possible.
Reserves²⁴⁵ will form a component of the framework, so it is useful to think in terms of on-reserve and off-reserve management approaches. Where a protected area can be managed in an effective way by a single agency²⁴⁶, the development of management plans provides a vehicle for focussing programs for the control of threats. Considering off-reserve programs, perhaps the most effective overall approach may be to use catchment (or NRM) plans, which can include (and coordinate) a variety of protective strategies.
Where special rivers and estuaries exist, there needs to be a higher degree of control of threatening processes. There are arguments for variable levels of control depending on the importance of the values at risk. Two levels of classification may be useful²⁴⁷. So… once these rivers have been identified (the first logical step) they need to be listed in catchment management plans to allow particular pest and weed control strategies to be applied. Particular strategies which might be promoted include landholder agreements, buffer zones, and (where local values are particularly high) aquatic reserves. Catchment plans provide a mechanism for focusing effort where there will be the most reward in terms of conservation outcomes. Where an aquatic protected area is established, catchment plans will also need to promote upstream threat management activities.
Biodiversity surrogates must be used, in the absence of detailed biodiversity data, to identify and select important areas. Existing terrestrial and marine bioregionalisations do not serve the purpose of providing broad biodiversity surrogates for freshwater ecosystems, and the development of an 'interim freshwater bioregionalisation for Australia' would be useful (Tait 2002, and above section 5.6).
Framework elements and sub-elements:

A. The identification of special rivers: we must have comprehensive State inventories of aquatic ecosystems including value, condition and threat information^248.

A1. Agreed classification methods or at least principles (the Qld EPA's system is suitably generic, for example) to define types of major aquatic ecosystems. A2. An Interim Freshwater Bioregionalisation of Australia. A3. Methods for assessing value, condition and threat. A4. Development of comprehensive State inventories of river ecosystems. A5. Methods of identifying ('listing') two tiers or special rivers: of (a) international importance, and (b) of national importance.

In the literature 'threat' is sometimes referred to as 'pressure', while 'condition' is sometimes referred to as 'state'. 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 Appendix 7). For example, a wetland may have a high value as the last remaining habitat of the western swamp turtle, yet, if it is infested with weeds, its condition may be poor.

A3. Methods for assessing value, condition and threat^249.

A3a. Assess value: model approach on methods used by Victoria, Tasmania and Queensland? A3b. Assess condition: rivers, use Index of Stream Condition or similar (Vic, Qld, Tas approach?). Use the National Audit, and Wild Rivers databases / methods? A3c. Assess condition: estuaries, use multifactorial index including catchment disturbance (see existing CRCCZEWM protocols). A3d. Assess threats: protocols are already established? Refs? Rivers? Estuaries - CRCCZEWM has preliminary assessment.

B. Catchment / NRM plans to incorporate "listed" rivers.

Special strategies to include: B1. Accreditation arrangements (see discussion of NRM frameworks) for regional NRM plans should emphasise the need to maintain the special values of designated rivers. B2. Landholder agreements, reinforced by "payments for ecosystem services", or tax breaks, or conditional NAP funds etc. B3. Buffer zones around rivers, where special efforts are focused on pest and weed control. B4. Designation of riparian or aquatic reserves, owned by the Crown. B5. Identify acceptable limits to ecosystem change. B6. Investigate new statutory controls which could prohibit the introduction of certain invasive species into high conservation value catchments. B7. Examine catchment / NRM plans as vehicles for gaining stakeholder commitments, and / or introducing 'hard' limits on developments like in-stream weirs, or the expansion of irrigated land. See discussion of the Paroo Agreement above.

Joint management areas.

Victorian legislation provides examples of the use of landowner agreements. The Trust for Nature (Victoria) is a statutory corporation which operates under the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972. The Trust purchases land of high conservation value to manage as private conservation reserves, as well as entering into legally-binding conservation covenants with private landholders. Both the Victorian Conservation Trust Act 1972 and the Wildlife Act 1975 provide for statutory joint management areas. These areas are created where a landowner enters into an agreement with either the Minister for Sustainability and Environment (in the case of the Wildlife Act) or the Trust for Nature (in the case of the Victorian Conservation Trust Act) to manage freehold land for the purposes of conservation. The Minister or the Trust are then empowered to spend money assisting conservation measures identified in an agreed management plan.

The voluntary, non-binding Land for Wildlife program (run by Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment and the Bird Observers Club of Australia) had over 5,800 private properties registered at September 2003 constituting an area of some 156,000 ha managed for conservation. While government / landholder agreements underpin this program, they are informal (they have no penalty provisions, and they are not registered on the land title). A similar situation exists in NSW, where the same name (Land for Wildlife) is used for land under informal agreements. Proclamations by the State government under the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 underpin both Wildlife Refuges, and land under Conservation Agreements (referred to as VCAs or Voluntary Conservation Agreements) - both hinge on a landholder wishing to enter into an agreement with the State to provide protection to the natural values of the property. In the case of the VCA, the agreement is registered on the property title, and binds future landowners. The VCA provides added incentive to the government to provide funds to assist the landowner in conservation works. Property Vegetation Plans under the NSW Native Vegetation Act 2003 can be either formal or informal. Informal plans may be 'approved' by the Minister (s.26) and may provide for clearance of native vegetation on some parts of a property. At a landowner's request, an approved plan may become a 'registered plan' (under s.31) which then runs with the title and binds subsequent owners of the property. This is a tool for landowners to protect natural values.
Aquatic protected areas.

All Australian jurisdictions are committed, by the InterGovernmental Agreement on the Environment 1992, to the establishment of comprehensive, adequate and representative networks of protected areas in terrestrial, marine and freshwater environments. All States have endorsed that commitment through policy statements (see s. 1.3 and Table 1.1 above) and Victoria, the ACT and Tasmania have funded programs to establish freshwater reserves.

B3. Designation of riparian and/or aquatic reserves, owned by the Crown

B3a. Jurisdictions to assess the degree to which existing reserves protect representative aquatic ecosystems. B3b. Programs to be developed to identify, select and manage reserves to fill identified gaps in the existing reserve network. B3c. Identification of critical habitat for threatened species, keystone species.