Freshwater Protected Area Resourcbook

7.3 The existing Ramsar framework:

Australia endorsed the Ramsar convention (see section A2.6.2 below) in 1974. Under the convention, parties are required to:

• nominate suitable sites as Wetlands of International Importance and to manage those sites (and all wetlands in their jurisdiction) to maintain their ecological values;

• formulate and implement land-use planning procedures to include wetland conservation considerations;

• develop national systems of wetland reserves; and

• to co-operate with other nations in promoting the wise use of wetlands, where wetlands and their resources, such as migratory birds, are shared.

After 30 years, these obligations have not yet been fully met, partly as Australia’s actions to implement the convention have been coloured by the Australian use of the word ‘wetland’. Generally speaking, Australians describe an area of still or very slow-moving water as a wetland. However, the Ramsar convention uses the term to describe ‘wet land’ which includes rivers and streams (the definition is discussed in more detail below).

As discussed above, a national framework for the protection of HCV rivers must consist of three essential elements:

• 
  agreement by Australia governments on how HCV rivers²³⁷ should be identified and selected;
  
• 
  a list of HCV rivers developed from that agreement; and
  
• 
  ways of linking that list with environmental assessment, control and planning mechanisms, as well as protected area reservation programs²³⁸.
  

Taking the first point, all States have agreed to implement the Ramsar convention (and in fact all have made considerable progress in so doing). This convention contains agreed criteria for identifying and selecting Ramsar areas. These criteria are set out in Appendix 7 below, and are directly relevant to rivers and streams.

Taking the second point, Ramsar sites effectively comprise a sub-section of a well-accepted national list: the Directory of Important Wetlands of Australia ( DEH 2001). International frameworks for allocating heritage value use three value levels: international importance, national importance, and State importance. Ramsar sites, listed within the Directory, are explicitly allocated as internationally important. The remaining sites within the directory are important at the national level. Victoria, for example, lists 11 Ramsar sites and 159 nationally important sites within a wetland inventory containing 13,114 sites (Victoria was thought to contain around 17,000 wetlands over 1 ha in size at the time of European settlement).
Taking the third point, Ramsar sites provide a head of action within the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (section 16 of the Act). Australian States have also implemented legislation, policy and programs specifically focused on protecting Ramsar sites. Victoria provides an example, where their statutory Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) 2003 specifically seeks to provide additional protection to Ramsar sites. The Victorian State Government is at present considering review or replacement of the Water Act 1989. It seems likely that this re-examination of the Act may result in Ramsar sites being added to the heads of consideration listed under section 40 of the existing Act, which would provide additional protection for environmental flows affecting Ramsar sites.
In summary, Australia’s endorsement of the Ramsar convention on the protection of wetlands has provided a national framework for the protection of high conservation value rivers. An advantage of expanding this framework (rather than developing a new one) is that it is already accepted by all Australian States, and to some extent protective mechanisms already exist in both Commonwealth and State legislation. There are, of course, many other management strategies which need to be applied in tandem with the Ramsar framework (see below).

7.4 International context:

Many nations have developed freshwater protected area programs, partly in response to commitments under the Ramsar Convention 1971 and the World Charter for Nature 1982 (discussed Appendix 2). The United States of America was the first nation to develop a program for protecting rivers of high conservation value, under their Wild and Scenic Rivers Program (based on the US federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 1968). Canada initiated a Canadian Heritage Rivers System (www.chrs.ca) in 1984, and now has around 40 designated rivers. Given similarities of broad government structures and responsibilities between Canada and Australia, the Canadian system may be the most interesting international model.
The Canadian Heritage Rivers System (CHRS) was created by an agreement between the Federal and State and Territory governments in 1984. The purpose (in essence) of the agreement was to create an administrative structure, based on jurisdictional cooperation rather than legal or funding arrangements, which would protect Canada’s outstanding rivers. The CHRS aims to use and strengthen existing legislation and management arrangements.
There is only a single category: "heritage river". Listing as a heritage river is achieved by a two-step process: nomination and designation.
While the first heritage rivers were nominated by provincial governments or their river management agencies, nominations now come from mainly from the community. Nomination submissions must demonstrate that the river in question meets criteria for 'outstanding value' . Nominations must demonstrate strong community support, and must have the support of the provincial government. A nominated river will not be designated until a management plan has been developed which seeks to protect the values for which the river has been nominated.
Provincial governments monitor heritage river condition and value at one year (short report) and ten year (long report) intervals. A river can be de-listed if the values for which it was listed degrade.
The advantages to the community of heritage river listing are the strengthening of existing river protection frameworks, as well as providing a 'benchmark' which enhances tourism and recreation activities related to the river. Limited special federal funding is provided for the management of heritage rivers (see below). According to Don Gibson (CEO CHRS):
CHRS is a model of increased intergovernmental cooperation in conservation. Intergovernmental charters among all jurisdictions are a rare achievement in Canada, especially in heritage conservation, and this charter was a major step forward. The program fosters close cooperation and consensus building between federal and provincial governments which, like Australia, are sometimes conflicting jurisdictions.
One of the greatest strengths of the system is the community support it receives from local citizens who want to be proactive in protecting and promoting the heritage values of their community rivers. Significant and diverse support for the System has come from every level of government; national and grassroots non-governmental organizations; Aboriginal organizations, rural and urban communities, and industry including tourism, agriculture, forestry and local businesses.
CHRS is a tool of community revitalization and increased quality of life for residents. It is a designation which communities can use to market their river as tourism destinations. Communities such as St. Stephen, New Brunswick and Cambridge, Ontario have used the designation as an important component of their long-term economic development strategies. Economic impact studies on the CHRS have been very positive and demonstrate that the program is an excellent investment for governments.
The Canadian Heritage Rivers System is discussed in more detail in Appendix 14.