Home > Policies

Aquatic Protected Areas
for the protection of inland aquatic ecosystems
of high conservation value

Introduction

While most aquatic ecosystems in Australia have been degraded to some extent (NLWRA, 2002) and protecting less-disturbed river systems is considered the most cost effective form of biodiversity conservation (Possingham et al., 2002), Australia has no national policy for protecting high-conservation-value aquatic ecosystems (HCVAE) (Nevill & Phillips, 2004; Kingsford et al., in press).

The Australian Society for Limnology proposes the establishment of a nationally coordinated network of Aquatic Protected Areas (APAs) to ensure the protection, management and rehabilitation of HCVAEs across Australia.

Aquatic ecosystems for the purposes of this Policy include freshwater and non-marine saline aquatic ecosystems such as lakes, rivers, creeks, wetlands, floodplains, groundwater dependent ecosystems, karst, subterranean caves, waterfalls, hyporheic zones, sinkholes, and estuaries that rely on freshwater inflow.

Protected areas are central to biodiversity conservation and in turn, provide the ecosystem services that maintain economic, social and cultural values. They play key roles in providing ecologically based benchmarks vital for assessing the long-term sustainability of management programs (ESA 2003).

What is an Aquatic Protected Area?

There are many types of protected areas that help conserve aquatic ecosystems and species. Some focus on aquatic ecosystems, such as Ramsar wetlands and Heritage Rivers. Others such as Nationals Parks, Marine Protected Areas, World Heritage Areas and Indigenous Protected Areas protect a range of ecosystems including aquatic ecosystems.

To paraphrase the most broadly accepted definition (IUCN 1994) the term ‘protected area’ means an area of either public or private land where at least some major threats can be managed in an effective way. To be considered as an APA the protective management arrangements must be consistent with one of the six categories of protected areas defined by the World Conservation Union (IUCN 1994).

Aquatic ecosystems may also receive some protection under management arrangements such as nature reserves, water catchment zones, conservation agreements, protective covenants, World Heritage Sites or forest reserves. Whether the protection afforded by such management arrangements are comprehensive, adequate or representative (as defined by the National Reserve System (NRS)) remains unknown.

Protected areas are about establishing boundaries within which at least some threatening processes can be effectively controlled. Given the effects that poor catchment and water use can have on downstream aquatic ecosystems, the effective protection of aquatic ecosystems within APAs means ensuring these processes help to reduce or prevent such impacts.

Why Australia needs a national policy and coordinated network of Aquatic Protected Areas

a) Threats to aquatic ecosystems

One of the main drivers for an APA Framework is the prevention of the continued loss and degradation of aquatic ecosystems. Worldwide, freshwater biodiversity is experiencing extinction rates that exceed those for forest or marine ecosystems (WWF 2004). In Australia, many species considered common a couple of decades ago are now threatened with extinction (eg Murray Cod, Silver Perch and Murray Crayfish). Entire aquatic ecosystems are listed as being endangered of becoming extinct (eg all lowland regulated river systems in inland New South Wales and all coastal floodplain vegetation in NSW).

Over much of Australia, inland aquatic ecosystems are either already in crisis or are rapidly approaching a crisis situation. Introduced plants and animals present intractable problems. The spread of agriculture has been accompanied by drainage, diversions and extractions that have altered the hydrological regimes of aquatic ecosystems. Coupled with land clearing, the complex morphology of pristine streams with deep holes, submerged timber and gravel and rock beds has disappeared under sediment loads from eroding catchments. Grazing of wetlands and riparian areas is destroying terrestrial and dependent aquatic ecosystems. Unsustainable extraction has seen the disappearance of springs, wetlands and ephemeral streams. Poorly designed irrigation schemes and the clearance of deep-rooted vegetation has seen salinity levels rise in streams over increasing areas of Australia. Sand mining and urban sprawl has destroyed coastal wetlands. Increasing reliance on groundwater is compounding the stresses on groundwater-dependent ecosystems. These and other threats to inland aquatic ecosystems are discussed in a variety of references, including the 1996 State of the Environment Report and the technical background papers.

It is clear that inland aquatic ecosystems are under increasing threat. As the pervasive and intractable nature of threats makes them difficult to manage, avoidance through protection mechanisms is hugely cost-effective and beneficial. Given that aquatic ecosystem degradation is ubiquitous and increasing, the identification and protection of ecosystems, especially rivers of high conservation value, is urgent.

b) International and National obligations and existing management arrangements

Following on from the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992, Australia as a signatory developed the National Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Diversity 1996. All Australian States are a party to this Strategy. Signatory nations to the Convention agreed to ‘establish and maintain comprehensive, adequate and representative systems of protected inland water ecosystems within the framework of integrated catchment/watershed/river-basin management’. The outcome of the CDB was the establishment of the National Reserve System that aims to conserve ‘comprehensive, adequate and representative’ ecosystems in Australia’s bioregions. This task has occupied most Australian nature conservation agencies over the last decade in protecting terrestrial and marine ecosystems. However, establishment of protected areas explicitly focussing on inland aquatic ecosystems has lagged in Australia.

In spite of international, national and State commitments to the establishment of representative systems of inland aquatic protected areas, only a few jurisdictions have made serious attempts. Victoria led the nation with its Heritage Rivers Act 1992. However, the initial vision of the Victorian program has not been fully realised. Tasmania also initiated a program in 2002 to protect freshwater ecosystems, both by reservation and by alternative approaches, and the Australian Capital Territory has also created some impressive protected areas.

Australia's remaining five jurisdictions have not developed strategic programs to implement their commitments using accepted approaches to systematic conservation planning (Margules and Pressey 2000). The focus of the National Reserve System at the bioregional and landscape level may have diverted attention from the finer spatial scale of many inland aquatic ecosystems. Although some representative examples of freshwater ecosystems are contained within existing protected areas, no systematic national review has been conducted to identify gaps in the reserve network and it is likely that many freshwater ecosystems are not adequately protected – particularly rivers and aquifers.

With regard to the Ramsar Convention, all States are yet to meet their full obligations. Jurisdictions are developing comprehensive inventories of freshwater ecosystems, but these remain incomplete. Implementation of some management plans has been slow. The definition of "wetlands" under the Ramsar convention covers all aquatic ecosystems from the intertidal zone through to ephemeral salt lakes and other temporary aquatic ecosystems. This makes the commitments under this international agreement highly relevant to the coordinated protection of APAs sought in this ASL Policy.

Other tools for freshwater protection exist under various State water, catchment and fisheries legislation, but these provisions lie largely unused (Nevill & Phillips 2004, Table 1.1 and Appendix 4). The reluctance of relevant management authorities to embrace environmental responsibilities that they now have a mandate to do may relate to this historically being the province of nature conservation agencies and a slow realisation that this is now core business.

The overall situation is, however, starting to be recognised at the Commonwealth level. The National Reserve System Taskforce recently acknowledged that aquatic ecosystems were not sufficiently addressed by the NRS and recommended that ‘the current understanding of freshwater biodiversity in relation to CAR be reviewed and an agreed approach be finalised’ (NRMMC 2005). The National Water Initiative (2004) under the Council of Australian Governments (CoAG) also requires States and Territories to identify, protect, enhance and manage aquatic ecosystems of high conservation value.

Important considerations for the establishment of Aquatic Protected Areas

There are many considerations for selecting and managing protected areas and this is especially the case for aquatic ecosystems. The following are some key issues:

What would be the criteria for an Aquatic Protected Area ?

Criteria for determining important wetlands have been drawn up by the ASL (ANZECC Wetlands Network 1994) and are a good starting point. In the context of this Policy, we recommend that an Aquatic Protected Area meets one or more of the following criteria:

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

The process of identifying and selecting reserves for conservation planning are largely transferable across terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats. The process is not unidirectional but entails many feedbacks and reasons for altering decisions. The methodology of Margules and Pressey (2000) could form the basis of a national strategy aimed at establishing systems of representative APAs, but would need modification to recognise issues specific to inland waters. Size, linearity and connectivity of streams, rivers and wetlands, as well as isolation and endemism (eg arid waterholes, mound springs, alpine tarns) are vital to understand for the effective conservation of plant and animal species, and selection and management of APAs.

The catchment context

All protected areas are affected to some extent by activities outside their boundaries and given the connectivity between aquatic ecosystems and their surface water and groundwater catchments, the issue of defining the boundary is critical (Saunders et al. 2002). For these reasons, we recommend that commitments to protect inland aquatic biodiversity be closely tied in with Integrated Catchment Management and NRM Planning. For example, land reserves and aquatic reserves could be closely aligned, or buffer zones ensured between aquatic reserves and heavily modified surrounds. Where permanent water has been a feature, especially in arid areas, over long periods of time, locally endemic species with poor dispersal mechanisms are typical. Species with restricted distributions are difficult to cater for by APAs. Protection could be afforded by sound NRM (eg maintaining water flow, riparian vegetation and excluding exotic species and grazing). This type of situation illustrates the need for an APA policy and approach to engage with regional NRM planning.

The social and cultural context

As the values and functions of aquatic ecosystems extend beyond those of biological diversity, the concept of an APA needs to be contextualised in the social and cultural environment as well as the geographic and hydrological catchment. People will be part of the solution for managing APAs. Indigenous communities will often have the rights to maintain customary resource management and this involvement is central to the goal of protecting APAs.

Overarching Recommendation

A national framework and policy be established by the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments to develop a systematic and scientifically-based network of APAs to protect, manage and rehabilitate aquatic ecosystems of high conservation value.

Underpinning Recommendations

• Establish and protect a comprehensive, adequate and representative network of APAs as part of the National Reserves System (cf, NRMMC, 2005).

• The degree to which protected areas currently protect aquatic ecosystems, habitats and species should be reviewed and assessed under the auspices of the National Water Initiative and the NRS.

• Establish national objectives and targets for the protection of high conservation value aquatic ecosystems, such as through the National Objectives and Targets for Biodiversity Conservation process (Possingham et al. 2002, Morton et al. 2002).

• An Australian Heritage Rivers System should be established, potentially modelled on the successful Canadian Heritage Rivers System (Kingsford et al. in press, Nevill & Phillips 2004).

• The establishment of a comprehensive network of Ramsar wetlands across Australia should be completed, with adequate resources to develop and implement management plans.

• The development of existing inventories of aquatic ecosystems should be accelerated, using nationally agreed classification methods, to encompass all major inland aquatic ecosystems and to include data on value, condition and threat.

• A nationally consistent classification system of aquatic ecosystems is required to guide the establishment of a national network of APAs (Kingsford et al., in press). Such a classification should include an aquatic analogue to the terrestrial Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia.

• Australian aquatic ecosystems should be identified and mapped at ecologically meaningful scales, with a focus on northern and central Australia where relatively little scientific information has been collected.

• National protocols should be established for the collection and storage of information regarding freshwater ecosystems to support the development of nationally compatible ecosystem classifications and inventories.

• The Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia should be reviewed for its adequacy in representing all wetland types across Australia.

• The role of catchment/regional planning should be reviewed and strengthened with regard to the protection of aquatic ecosystems, supported by easily accessible and comprehensive ecosystem inventories.

• In all areas, the Commonwealth needs to play a lead role, particularly with respect to promoting and funding programs and interstate working groups to address issues in a coordinated way. These actions could be initiated within the cooperative frameworks of the National Reserve System and the NRM Ministerial Council.

References

ESA Ecological Society of Australia (2003) Protected areas: a position statement by the Ecological Society of Australia. ESA website accessed 12/4/05 www.ecolsoc.org.au

IUCN (1994). Guidelines for protected area management categories. Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas with the assistance of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Kingsford RT, Dunn H, Love D, Nevill J, Stein J and Tait J (in press) Protecting Australia’s rivers, wetlands and estuaries of high conservation value: a blueprint, Land & Water Australia / Department of the Environment and Heritage; Canberra.

Margules CR and Pressey RL (2000) Systematic conservation planning. Nature (405) 243-253, 11 May 2000.

Morton S, Cristofani P, Cullen P, Possingham H and Young M (2002) Sustaining our Natural Systems and Biodiversity: An independent report to the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council. CSIRO and Environment Australia, Canberra.

National Land and Water Resources Audit, (2002) Australian Catchment, River and Estuary Assessment 2002, Australian Government, Canberra.

Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council, (2005) Directions for the National reserve system – a partnership approach. DEH, Canberra, 49pp.

Nevill J and Phillips N. (Eds) (2004) The Australian Freshwater Protected Area Resourcebook: the policy background, role and importance of protected areas for Australian inland aquatic ecosystems. Published for the Australian Society for Limnology Representative Reserves Working Group. OnlyOnePlanet Australia; Melbourne.

Possingham H, Ryan S, Baxter J, Morton S (2002) Setting Biodiversity Priorities. Paper prepared for the Prime Minster’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, Australian Government, Canberra.