Freshwater Protected Area Resourcbook

Appendix 6.
New Zealand Resource Management Act 1991: extracts

The role and responsibilities of regional councils and territorial authorities.
30. Functions of regional councils under this Act.

(1) Every regional council shall have the following functions for the purpose of giving effect to this Act in its region:

(a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the natural and physical resources of the region:

(b) The preparation of objectives and policies in relation to any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land which are of regional significance:

(c) The control of the use of land for the purpose of-

(i) Soil conservation:

(ii) The maintenance and enhancement of the quality of water in water bodies and coastal water:

(iii) The maintenance of the quantity of water in water bodies and coastal water:

(iv) The avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards:

(v) The prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances:

(d) In respect of any coastal marine area in the region, the control (in conjunction with the Minister of Conservation) of-

(i) Land and associated natural and physical resources:

[(ii) The occupation of space on land of the Crown or land vested in the regional council, that is foreshore or seabed, and the extraction of sand, shingle, shell, or other natural material from that land:]

(iii) The taking, use, damming, and diversion of water:

(iv) Discharges of contaminants into or onto land, air, or water and discharges of water into water:

[(iva) The dumping and incineration of waste or other matter and the dumping of ships, aircraft, and offshore installations:]

(v) Any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards and the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances:

(vi) The emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:

(vii) Activities in relation to the surface of water:

(e) The control of the taking, use, damming, and diversion of water, and the control of the quantity, level, and flow of water in any water body, including-

(i) The setting of any maximum or minimum levels or flows of water:

(ii) The control of the range, or rate of change, of levels or flows of water:

(iii) The control of the taking or use of geothermal energy:

(f) The control of discharges of contaminants into or onto land, air, or water and discharges of water into water:

(g) In relation to any bed of a water body, the control of the introduction or planting of any plant in, on, or under that land, for the purpose of-

(i) Soil conservation:

(ii) The maintenance and enhancement of the quality of water in that water body:

(iii) The maintenance of the quantity of water in that water body:

(iv) The avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards:

(h) Any other functions specified in this Act.

(2) The functions of the regional council and the Minister of Conservation [under subparagraph (i) or subparagraph (ii) or subparagraph (vii) of subsection (1)(d)] do not apply to the control of the harvesting or enhancement of populations of aquatic organisms, where the purpose of that control is to conserve, [use, ... enhance, or develop any fisheries resources controlled under the Fisheries Act 1996]

31. Functions of territorial authorities under this Act.

Every territorial authority shall have the following functions for the purpose of giving effect to this Act in its district:

(a) The establishment, implementation, and review of objectives, policies, and methods to achieve integrated management of the effects of the use, development, or protection of land and associated natural and physical resources of the district:

[(b) The control of any actual or potential effects of the use, development, or protection of land, including for the purpose of the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards and the prevention or mitigation of any adverse effects of the storage, use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous substances:]

(c) The control of subdivision of land:

(d) The control of the emission of noise and the mitigation of the effects of noise:

(e) The control of any actual or potential effects of activities in relation to the surface of water in rivers and lakes:

(f) Any other functions specified in this Act.

Appendix 7. Value and importance criteria

In a world of limited resources, managing natural resources efficiently and effectively depends on:

• 
  understanding what values exist in specific locations (values are used to identify and describe ecological assets);
  
• 
  being able to control at least some of the processes which threaten those values (see section 4.3 above); and
  
• 
  being able to monitor changes to the condition (or health) of managed ecosystems (assets) over time, as well as changes to value.
  

Value, importance (significance), condition and threat

These words are used in different ways in the literature relating to aquatic ecosystems, and it is thus not possible to refer to ‘general usage’ by way of explanation. To make matters more confusing, the terms actually overlap – both logically and in practice. It is, however, important that as authors we try to be clear about what we mean by these terms.
Here is one way to look at it: (significance here is equivalent to importance)

TERM	MEANING	MEASUREMENT	COMMENTS
value	an aspect of the ecosystem which is valued by humans	by defined criteria, eg: habitat for endangered species.	see discussion below.
importance	benchmark levels of value	In Australia: four classes are in common use – see comments.	international, national, State, (sometimes ‘regional’ is added) local
condition	degree to which the ecosystem approaches ‘natural’ or ‘pristine’ functioning	In Australia: by methods specific for broad ecosystem type: eg rivers – see comments.	Eg: AusRivAS invertebrate data, or the more general Index of Stream Condition – see box below.
threat	a process likely to degrade identified ecosystem values	The degradation of ecosystem values by human ecosystem modification or alien introduction has been well documented, and supports ‘informed judgement’ which is the most commonly used method for identifying threats. Quantitative measurement of threatening processes is usually not attempted.	Sometimes referred to as ‘pressure’ – particularly in studies using a ‘pressure/state/response approach.

Measurement of condition

Both the ISC and the Australian River Condition (ARC) Index share a philosophy where waterway condition is assessed independently of any special values the waterway may have (unlike the approach taken by Bennett et al. 2002). Condition is assessed by the use of quantitative indicators which reflect both primary drivers of ecosystem health (such as hydrology) as well as indicators that represent measures of ecosystem function (such as invertebrate indices).

Measurement of condition (continued from previous page)

The ISC combines five indicators of river health: hydrology, water quality, physical form, the streamside zone, and aquatic life. The National Audit project reported an integrated ARC Index, also made up of five key indicator groups: hydrology (including change in seasonal period, seasonal amplitude, flow duration curve, mean annual discharge), water quality, physical habitat, catchment disturbance, and biota. The biota data in the initial Audit report was limited to AUSRIVAS macro-invertebrate data of the NRHP, but this framework is being expanded. The ARC Index was developed in the knowledge that a considerable amount of modelled data, rather than measured field data, would be used to obtain a reasonable degree of national coverage. A primary difference between the ARC and the ISC is that all five sub-indices are integrated to a single assessment in the ISC while the ARC combines the environmental sub-indices and keeps them separate from the biota index. Thus, the ARC reports the ARC_E (environment) and the ARC_B (biota) as the response variables.

Similar indices for wetlands and aquifers are not in general use in Australia, although Spencer et al. 1998 trialled a wetland condition index. This is an area where further work is needed. An Index of Wetland Condition (IWC) is under development in Victoria. According to Papas and Holmes 2004a: “Condition, based on the Ramsar definition of ecological character, will be measured against a reference, and the index will be structured on the primary components that define wetlands: soils, hydrology and biotic communities, and the wetland catchment. The IWC will be a standard rapid assessment method for wetland condition in Victoria, and will be straightforward and cost-effective to apply”. See also Papas and Holmes 2004b, and Holmes and Papas 2004.
This issues, and some of the dilemmas involved in using the concepts to prioritise the funding of conservation or rehabilitation programs, are discussed in this Appendix, as well as in section 7.5 above and Appendix 19 below.

Assessing the value of freshwater ecosystems:

Value and condition overlap, but are separate concepts (see also section 7.5 above). For example, the wetlands in southwest Australia which now provide the only habitat for the western swamp turtle (Pseudemydura umbrina an endangered species) are valuable on that account; however, due to the degrading effects of surrounding urban and agricultural development, the condition of these wetlands is poor. Where threats are high and values are high, action should be taken to protect the condition of the ecosystem – otherwise values will degrade. Indices of condition have been developed for both streams and wetlands, aimed at enabling consistent monitoring and reporting over time (see discussion above relating to the ISC and ARC Index).
Value, or importance, can exist in both qualitative and quantitative measures. Consistent and transparent management and reporting frameworks depend on repeatable measurements over time, so there is a strong incentive to develop quantitative measures. The reality, however, is that most ecosystem management frameworks depend, to a greater or lesser extent, on qualitative concepts relating to both value and condition.
A review of discussions of aquatic ecosystem values (eg: Dunn 2000, Bennett et. al 2002, Government of Victoria 2002:s2.4.2) suggests that such values can be expressed through seven general concepts:

1. 
   the waterway and its catchment is largely undisturbed by the influence of modern human activity;
   
2. 
   it is a good representative example of its ecological type or class;
   
3. 
   it is the habitat of rare or threatened species or communities, or is the location of rare or threatened geomorphic or geological features;
   
4. 
   it demonstrates unusual diversity and/or abundance of features, habitats, communities or species;
   
5. 
   it provides evidence of the course or pattern of the evolution of Australia’s landscape or biota;
   
6. 
   it provides important resources for particular life-history stages of biota, or contains a unique ecosystem;
   
7. 
   it performs important functions within the landscape (e.g. provides an ecological refuge, or it sustains associated ecosystems, or it is of sufficient size to allow evolutionary processes to take place…).
   

Kingsford et al. (2005) contains a discussion of these criteria. This discussion has been re-worked slightly in Appendix 19 below to expand its scope from surface water ecosystems to include, in addition, subterranean ecosystems.

Assessing importance or significance:

Placing levels of importance on these values, again, should be quantitative (enabling transparent and repeatable reporting), but in reality is often done in general or qualitative ways. In Australia, the most commonly accepted importance (or significance) classification involves the use of three levels:

• 
  international importance;
  
• 
  national importance, and
  
• 
  State importance.
  

Occasionally ‘regional’ or ‘local’ levels are added to this hierarchy.

Generally speaking, these levels are seldom defined in a strictly measurable way, but criteria can be developed and are in use (see below). The hierarchy is referred to in the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (international and national levels). The hierarchy is implicit in the term ‘national park’ which has achieved global acceptance. Many other frameworks use the hierarchy, such as Commonwealth and State threatened specie legislation and policy, cultural heritage conservation, and land use planning at regional or local government levels, including natural resource management (NRM). South Australia's Fisheries Act 1982 uses 'national significance' as a criteria for the designation of a marine park.
Victoria’s wetland classification system illustrates how ‘international’, ‘national’ and ‘State’ importance classification levels have be applied in practice. Victoria was believed to contain around 17,000 wetlands (using the traditional Australian definition of wetland which excludes rivers and streams) over one hectare in size at the time of European settlement. Victoria’s 11 Ramsar sites have a surrogate ‘highest value’ or international importance. These sites sit within Victoria’s 159 wetlands listed in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia, resulting in 148 wetlands implicitly rated as ‘nationally significant’. All these sit within a larger dataset of the State’s 13,114 listed wetlands, the remainder implicitly having State, regional or local importance. Of the 4000 ‘missing’ wetlands… the remaining wetlands have not been included in the wetland inventory – and most will never be included due to small size and/or degraded condition. However, some large floodplain wetlands are likely to be added.

Ramsar criteria for designating Wetlands of International Importance

Criteria for designating Wetlands of International Importance under the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

Australia uses the agreed criteria for designating wetlands as internationally important (as last amended by the 7th Ramsar Convention Conference of the Contracting Parties, San Jose, Costa Rica, 1999 which are as follows:

Criterion 1: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it contains a representative, rare or unique example of a natural or near-natural wetland type found within the appropriate biogeographic region.
Criterion 2: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered species or threatened ecological communities.
Criterion 3: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports populations of plant and/or animal species important for maintaining the biological diversity of a particular biogeographic region.
Criterion 4: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports plant and/or animal species at a critical stage in their life cycles, or provides refuge during adverse conditions.
Criterion 5: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 20,000 or more waterbirds.
Criterion 6: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterbird.
Criterion 7: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it supports a significant proportion of indigenous fish subspecies, species or families, life history stages, species interactions and/or populations that are representative of wetland benefits and/or values and thereby contributes to global biological diversity.
Criterion 8: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it is an important source of food for fishes, spawning ground, nursery and/or migration path on which fish stocks, either within the wetland or elsewhere, depend.
Criterion 9: A wetland should be considered internationally important if it regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of wetland-dependent non-avian animal species

Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia inclusion criteria

Criteria for determining important wetlands: A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia

Australian jurisdictions use the following criteria for adding listings to the Directory, as agreed by the ANZECC Wetlands Network in 1994⁵⁰⁴:

• 
  it is a good example of a wetland type occurring within a biogeographical region in Australia;
  
• 
  it is a wetland which plays an important ecological or hydrological role in the natural functioning of a major wetland system or complex;
  
• 
  it is a wetland which is important as the habitat for animal taxa at a vulnerable stage in their life-cycles, or provides a refuge when adverse conditions such as drought prevail;
  
• 
  the wetland supports 1% or more of the national population of any native plant or animal taxa;
  
• 
  the wetland supports native plant or animal taxa or communities which are considered endangered or vulnerable at the national level; and
  
• 
  the wetland is of outstanding historical or cultural significance.