Freshwater Protected Area Resourcbook

7.12 Responsive to issues of scale:

The functioning of aquatic ecosystems, as well as the results of human activities, need to be understood in terms of both physical and temporal scale.
Connectivities are crucial and reflect both the structurally and functionally dynamic nature of aquatic environments. Floodplain wetlands depend on river flows. Aquifers feed, and are fed by rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands. Riparian vegetation depends on the groundwater surrounds of rivers and streams. The ecologies of estuaries depend on the flows of freshwater streams and aquifers, and many native fish have life-cycles involving both marine and fresh waters.
The water of shallow and deep aquifers, of streams and rivers, of estuaries, wetlands and lakes, is all ultimately connected at some level. These linkages all have spatial and temporal dimensions that manifest themselves through patterns and rates of change across the landscape - from the shrinking of an ephemeral desert pool to the infilling of a huge lake. The draining of an artesian aquifer can destroy a desert spring fed by that aquifer. Erosion resulting from agricultural development can destroy deep river holes, and can increase the natural infill rates of wetlands and estuaries.
The need to identify bioregions relates to the difficulty of defining and measuring biodiversity. Biodiversity (the diversity of living things) is usually conceived of as existing at (at least) three levels: genes, species and ecosystems. Practically, biodiversity cannot be effectively monitored in all its complexity, so biodiversity surrogates are used, such as bioregions, ecosystems and habitats. Bioregions can be thought of as areas containing repeating patterns of similar ecosystems²⁵³. Ecosystems can be thought of as areas containing both repeating patterns of similar habitats, and distinctive nutrient and energy pathways. Habitats themselves contain repeating patterns of similar micro-habitats.
In the freshwater world, certain concepts can aid discussions of issues of scale. River order, for example, allocates higher orders to streams consisting of combinations of smaller streams²⁵⁴. Streams exist within subcatchments, which lie in catchments, which themselves may lie in continental river basins.
The critical principle relating to issues of both physical and temporal scale is that dependencies and connectivities need to be recognised by management systems, irrespective of administrative and jurisdictional boundaries relating to those management processes. Assessment and management frameworks should be hierarchical to work at the required scale, and protection tools include a full spectrum from catchment-scale protection to site-based management arrangements. Where protected areas are considered, the viability of managing linkages and connectivities outside the site must be evaluated prior to site selection.
Another critical aspect of a framework is that it must consider the dynamic and linear nature of riverine ecosystems, and their connectivity requirements, in choosing effective conservation management units. Aquatic ecosystems are far more dynamic than terrestrial ecosystems. Over time, a river will tend to move around a floodplain, creating channels and billabongs in different places. Any selection of protected areas must take this dynamic nature into account, and recognise that the nature of habitats at any particular place can change completely over moderately long periods of time.
We have discussed the main threats to freshwater ecosystems: (a) water extraction, diversion and drainage, (b) impacts from surrounding land use, and (c) the effects of invasive species. There are, however, a wide variety of threats which lie outside large-scale pervasive processes. Overfishing, destruction of riparian and aquatic vegetation, and various effects from recreational activities (eg: lead pollution from gun-shot) are examples of threats which may apply to quite limited areas. Legislation and administrative processes designed to control such activities need to be responsive to the existence of particularly valuable aquatic ecosystems.
State legislation needs to be able to apply strict controls over the ecosystems themselves, as well as more moderate controls over large buffers around such ecosystems (which, depending on the threat and the value concerned, may extend to entire catchments).

J. State fisheries legislation.

J1. Fisheries legislation needs to have the ability to declare and protect discrete areas from a wide variety of threatening processes at a very high level, and J2. Legislation needs to be able to apply tighter levels of activity control over general areas (catchments or river basins, for example) containing freshwater ecosystems identified as having particularly high value.

7.13 A phased approach:

A number of strategies could be left for the longer term: heritage river legislation, bilateral State / Commonwealth agreements, and the introduction of natural resource accounting. These are briefly discussed below.

7.13.1 Victoria's Heritage River Act 1992:

To summarise information presented in Chapter 6 and Appendix 4: Victoria (until the passage of Queensland’s Wild Rivers Act 2005) was the only Australian State to possess specific legislation focused on the protection of rivers of special value: in this case the Heritage Rivers Act 1992. Rivers designated under this Act complement rivers and wetlands protected (through both reservation and land-use planning mechanisms²⁵⁵) within the framework of the Victorian government’s wider system of terrestrial reserves, and its biodiversity and wetlands²⁵⁶ strategies.
Victoria's State Conservation Strategy 1987 set out the aims of the Heritage Rivers Program: they were to:

• 
  protect those rivers and streams that essentially remain in their natural condition;
  
• 
  ensure that rivers and streams of special scenic, recreational, cultural, and conservation value are maintained in at least their present condition; and
  
• 
  ensure that representative²⁵⁷ examples of stream types in the State are protected.
  

The Heritage Rivers Program was initiated in 1989 to apply both to Crown land and freehold land. It was initially envisaged that the program would be put into effect through management plans covering Crown Land, controls on private land implemented through land-use planning mechanisms²⁵⁸, and in some cases formal agreements with private landholders.

The selection of rivers listed in the Victorian Heritage Rivers Act, as well as the system of representative rivers, was based on an investigation and public inquiry process run by Victoria’s Land Conservation Council (LCC).
The LCC inquiry took into account geomorphological, ecological, scenic, cultural and recreational values. The initial report, provided for public consultation, included maps of: public land use, water use, aboriginal sites, geomorphic units and hydrological regions, water regulation and in-stream barriers. From this background data, maps were developed of “river basin values” covering natural, landscape and recreational values. These latter maps represent a major resource in themselves; however, although this data could continue to be used in local water planning mechanisms if it was kept up-to-date, it appears to have no formal role in current processes.
Following the LCC’s final recommendations, the Victorian government attempted to protect 18 key Victorian “heritage river areas” - as well as 26 relatively undisturbed river catchments - under the Heritage Rivers Act 1992. As required by the Act, management plans are ‘being prepared’²⁵⁹ for these rivers and catchments. Draft management plans were released for comment in 1997, but – after many years – are still to be finalised (in spite of a commitment to have the final management plans in place by 1998). While progress has been extremely slow, the Act, at least in theory, does set in place a management regime designed to provide special protection for these rivers, and the rivers protected by the Act do receive special consideration in current catchment planning mechanisms²⁶⁰.

7.13.2 Bilateral agreements relating to overlap of State and Commonwealth powers

To repeat points made above, the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (2002) as well as Cullen (2002) have argued for the identification, designation and protection of Australian rivers of national importance, or "heritage rivers". In addition, the recent report to the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council²⁶¹ on Sustaining our Natural Systems and Biodiversity called for the establishment of a Heritage River system to protect high-value rivers.

Recent amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act will allow the Commonwealth Government to list places, including rivers, under a new list called the National Heritage List²⁶². Once on this list, a river could be protected under the Commonwealth powers invoked by the Act. These provisions amplify existing provisions in the Act relating to Ramsar sites (see section 6.1.2 above).

This is a potentially powerful tool for the Commonwealth, and may cause concern amongst State water management agencies. It will not be in the interests of water management agencies to have Commonwealth powers superimposed over their own management programs. In addition, the EPBC Act requires permits for some activities that effect listed species in inland waters²⁶³.

As a consequence, State water agencies could enter into dialogue with the Commonwealth in this regard. It is possible that bilateral memoranda of understanding may eventuate from such discussions, and it is also possible that such MoUs will contain commitments by the States to identify and apply special protection to particularly important rivers and estuaries (wetlands, to some extent, are already covered by Ramsar agreements, and by the statutory assessment and planning provisions linked to listing in the Directory of Important Wetlands). As mentioned above, some jurisdictions, like Victoria and the ACT (and shortly Tasmania) already have such protective arrangements in place.

Such MoUs may also allow (or require) the Commonwealth to take action where required action is not being taken by the State. The recent legal action by the Commonwealth in relation to illegal 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 land clearing legislation is documented on the Australian Broadcasting Commission's Background Briefing of September 14, 2003.

7.13.3 A national system of CAR freshwater reserves.

To summarise information presented in Chapters 1, 2, 3 and 4 above: a cornerstone of biodiversity protection (first articulated in the international context in the World Charter for Nature 1982) is the tenet that, where ecosystems are subject to significant modification by humans (through harvesting, pollution, resource extraction, or the introduction of new species, for example) it is necessary to set aside representative examples of these ecosystems to provide biodiversity “banks”, and benchmarks against which human management of the ecosystems can be measured in the long term.
The “mirror” of this tenet states that actions should also be taken in managed (utilised) ecosystems to minimise anthropogenic impacts by protecting natural values (including biodiversity) as far as practicable. Threatening processes need to be identified and managed as far as practicable everywhere, not just within the reserve system.
The above cornerstone is one of the key foundations of the international Convention on Biological Diversity 1992, and has been broadly adopted by all national biodiversity strategies developed by signatory-nations to the Convention, including Australia's strategy. The Australian biodiversity program was established by the National Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Diversity 1996, to which all Australian States are signatories. This strategy built on two existing inter-State agreements: the InterGovernmental Agreement on the Environment (1992) and the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (1992).
Item 13 of the InterGovernmental Agreement on the Environment 1992 (to which all States are signatories) contains a schedule on Nature Conservation, which 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 summary, Australia signed the international Convention on Biological Diversity in 1992. This convention committed signatories to the development of representative reserve systems in terrestrial, marine and freshwater environments. The Council of Australian Governments (the Commonwealth and all State and Territory governments) committed themselves to the development of such reserve systems in the InterGovernmental Agreement on the Environment 1992. This commitment was reinforced in 2004, when a revised programme of work on inland waters was adopted by the 7th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity recently held in Malaysia. Among a raft of key expectations it has of parties, the revised program states that each signatory should establish “....comprehensive, adequate and representative systems of protected inland water ecosystems …”

All State and Territory governments have funded programs for the development of CAR reserve systems in terrestrial and marine environments. Only Victoria, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory have funded programs for the development of CAR reserves in freshwater environments. Such reserve systems remain incomplete in Victoria and Tasmania. Although the remaining States and the Northern Territory are committed at the policy level, funding the development of such reserve programs has yet to commence. It should be noted that all jurisdictions have established significant reserves, such as the Ramsar sites, protecting some freshwater environments.
A detailed discussion of national agreements and programs is set out in Appendices 2 and 3.
In the medium to long term, a national framework to protect high conservation value rivers and estuaries could be extended to encompass the development of CAR freshwater reserves, thus including a variety of ecosystems, such as subterranean ecosystems, not presently adequately protected.

7.13.4 Natural resource accounting:

In the long term, a State's natural resource accounting framework would start with the explicit recognition that (a) natural assets belong both to the present and the future, and (b) ecosystems services supplied by these assets need to be paid for.
Outside Crown reserves, aboriginal land, and urban and rural-residential areas, Australia's rural land lies in the hands of a relatively small group of landholders and lease holders. There are only about 150,000 properties over 10,000 ha in size²⁶⁴ across the continent. Any program developed by governments to pay these agriculturists for ecosystem services should incorporate the concept of natural resource accounting.
To manage any resource, it is necessary to keep track of stocks and flows. Audits must be undertaken at regular intervals, and reports prepared. Stock inventories must include information on condition. Reports must reconcile and explain changes which have taken place.
Within a bioregional framework, a State could prepare a comprehensive inventory of all freshwater ecosystems, encompassing value benchmarks, condition indices, catchment boundaries, and environmental flow requirements. The inventory would be utilised by State-of-the-Environment reports, and by the State’s EIA and landuse planning frameworks.
Where they are inter-connected, surface water and groundwater resources need to be managed together, as a single resource. Stocks and flows of both resources need to be measured and estimated. Aquifer recharge areas should be identified and protected, and flow rates estimated. The interchanges between surface and groundwater flows should be studied and modelled, and the quality of groundwater monitored and reported.
Corporations which use significant natural resources, including farming operations, would be required to include "earth accounts" in every annual report.
For example an early application might well identify the Murray-Darling as a priority area. Natural resource accounting could be phased-in initially based only on salinity. Managers of land over a prescribed size could be required to submit an annual salinity report, reporting on salinity levels in soils, near-surface aquifers, and in drainage from their properties. The report would need a similar standing to the standard annual tax return, with prescribed time lines, enforcement and sanctions. Over time, this approach could be extended to all landholders, and to other issues such as nutrient budgets. Much farther down the track, pest control, native vegetation, and wetland management could be introduced, depending on the success and acceptance of the program. (Refer to Whitten et al. (2002) for an overview of incentive opportunities).
It is important that such an approach be developed in tandem with payments made to large rural landholders for ecosystem services. For example, since 1997, the government of Costa Rica has been paying landowners for several ecosystem services: carbon sequestration and protection of watersheds, biodiversity, and scenic beauty. The payments, about US$50/ha-year, are financed in part by a tax on fossil fuels and are resulting in significant forest conservation and restoration. Costa Rica has also sold carbon sequestration credits to several European nations (Castro et al. 2000 quoted in Daily et al. 2000). The development of these types of payment in Australia is urgent.
It is also worth noting that a core recommendation emerging from the 1992 United Nations Rio Conference on Environment and Development was that nations should “promote the development and application of methods such as national resource and environmental accounting that reflect changes in value resulting from uses of coastal and marine areas…” (Agenda 21 chapter 17).