Freshwater Protected Area Resourcbook

7.9 Framework should be cost-effective:

In a world of limited government funds and seemingly endless calls on those funds, it is important that a framework be cost-effective. It will need to use "smart" management approaches which, as far as practical:

• 
  commit to 'quality assurance' principles through adaptive management;
  
• 
  encourage and empower landholder conservation;
  
• 
  enable coordination of overlapping government and landholder programs;
  
• 
  utilise market forces; and
  
• 
  provide focus on areas where available funds can be used most effectively.
  

Considering this last point, a framework will identify certain objectives which must be achieved. These may, for example, include the protection of certain key biodiversity values or areas, like:

• 
  representative examples of major ecosystems;
  
• 
  critical habitat for threatened species;
  
• 
  areas sufficiently large for evolutionary processes to continue;
  
• 
  critical life-history locations (eg: nurseries); and
  
• 
  refuges from both short and long-term climatic variations.
  

Doeg (2001) provides an example of how careful selection of protected areas might seek to minimise funding requirements. In a commissioned review of representative rivers, he took account of the distribution of both fish and macroinvertebrates²⁵⁰ in identifying freshwater biophysical regions to be used as biodiversity surrogates. He identified 22 biophysical regions, and suggested that 16 rivers (13 of which are already partially 'protected' by either 'heritage' or 'representative river' designations) could be chosen so as to represent 21 of the 22 regions. Clearly, the existence of an already-protected river flowing through several bioregions is a distinct advantage.

Beyond these goals, the consideration of a value / condition / threat matrix can provide a mechanism for focusing limited management funds. The amenability of threats to control must also be considered in such an exercise. The basic principle is that of maximising conservation outcomes by focusing funding where threats are manageable and the protection of higher values possible.
As a simple example, take the case where value, condition and threat each have only two categories: 'high' and 'low'. In this case a three-dimensional matrix will have eight cells:

value 'h' condition 'h' threat 'h'	value 'l' condition 'h' threat 'h'
value 'h' condition 'h' threat 'l'	value 'l' condition 'h' threat 'l'
value 'h' condition 'l' threat 'h'	value 'l' condition 'l' threat 'h'
value 'h' condition 'l' threat 'l'	value 'l' condition 'l' threat 'l'

Where value is high, but condition low, and threat high (perhaps the southwest of Western Australia, for example – here most streams have been degraded by human impacts although biodiversity values are high due to high endemism) spending funds may achieve little real gain in biodiversity protection. On the other hand where value is high, condition high, and threat low but increasing (the north of the Northern Territory, for example, where major agricultural expansion threatens relatively pristine aquatic environments), spending funds may achieve considerable gains. There are, however, difficulties in this approach (see section 7.5 above).

7.10 Framework should be simple:

The second major threat to consider is water extraction, drainage or diversion. In all States water extraction is controlled by legislation, usually going under a name like the "Water Act 1999". In addition, Victoria (like the USA) has special purpose legislation applying strict controls (eg: 'no dams') to a few designated rivers (and catchments).
To keep things simple, we need to modify existing statutes to apply special controls to the 'listed' rivers and estuaries. In the long term, special purpose laws (like Victoria's Heritage Rivers Act 1992) could possibly be enacted, but that needs to be seen as a 'phase two' activity.
Several of Australia's State water statutes already incorporate special controls. For example, Victoria's Water Act 1989 applies more rigorous assessment processes to water extraction or diversions if such extractions could affect a designated Ramsar wetland or Heritage River (see section 40 of the Act).
Here is an opportunity to simplify the special river classification system. All States already recognise Ramsar wetlands. If we were to promote a 'Ramsar River' category, this would automatically link into existing State protective controls. A similar argument relates to extending the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia.

A4. Methods of identifying ('listing') two tiers or special rivers: of (a) international importance, and (b) of national importance

A4a. Provide a web-based 'toolbox' containing access to graphic and supporting inventory data, as well as methods and data for establishing value, measuring and reporting condition, and estimating threat. Authorised users would be able to input data; the general public would have access rights only. A4b. Consider extending existing wetland classifications to rivers. "Ramsar Rivers", and "Important Rivers". These become 'listed' rivers. Designation criteria are already established (see Appendix Seven).

All States already have mechanisms within their water statutes which allow catchment-based limits on water extraction to be imposed. So far these limits have only been applied to catchments in crisis, such as the Murray-Darling. Here is an opportunity: such controls need to be extended to catchments which are not yet in crisis, and the obvious front-runners for such an approach are catchments supporting 'listed' rivers or estuaries of high conservation importance.

There is also an opportunity here to use catchment / NRM plans as the stakeholder consultation vehicle for implementing development limits on water extraction. Moreover, limits on other catchment developments affecting water could be promoted within the same mechanism: controls on the draining of wetlands, or the construction of levee banks, for example.

C. Water legislation to apply an added degree of scrutiny where listed rivers are involved.

C1. Where water legislation applies controls over water extraction, drainage, or the construction of farm dams, for example, provisions need to be made to increase scrutiny of development proposals if they may affect a listed river. C2. Water legislation could be extended to apply controls (and catchment limits) over other activities (levee bank construction, for example) which have direct effects on the freshwater resource.