Measuring Sustainability

Evaluating sustainability-focussed river management programs: assess the outcomes AND the process!

Background paper to support a presentation at the Third Annual Stream Management Conference; Brisbane Aug 27-29, 2001. An abridged version of this paper will be prepared (in due course) to support the PowerPoint presentation.

Jon Nevill, Peter Nichols and Mary Maher

Draft 12 August 2001

Acknowledgments: Simon Molesworth, Alan Harridine, John Bennett, Ngaire Phillips, Chris Gippel, Bill Phillips, Norrie Sanders.

1.Abstract:

Achieving programs for the sustainable management of rivers and catchments will not be easy. We argue that, as policies and programs are developed, they must be evaluated against both process benchmarks and outcome benchmarks. In examining the idea of process benchmarks, we raise doubts about the capacity of current forms of democracy to deliver sustainable decisions, and suggest that the freshwater industry is particularly at risk. Our arguments regarding the establishment of process benchmarks rest substantially on the need to incorporate accepted principles into these processes. We discuss a number of types of principles, including good governance, adaptive management, and the sustainability principles which have evolved from international statements such as those of the Stockholm 1972 Earth Summit.

2.Introduction:

Australian governments are committed to develop programs to achieve sustainable management of natural resources. We need to be able to assess the extent to which proposed policies and programs will achieve this objective. In this paper we argue that this assessment must involve a two-pronged approach - where both outcome and process aspects undergo rigorous scrutiny during program design, monitoring and evaluation phases.

Firstly, in introducing the idea of evaluating management processes, we raise serious questions about the ability of current forms of democracy to deliver sustainable decisions. These questions must be addressed if our planet is to avoid eco-catastrophe, and the freshwater industry, perhaps more than other sectors, must play a role in developing community awareness of the need for change in these fundamental management processes. This is partly due to intense competition for freshwater for human use, and partly due to the fact that immense ecological damage can occur to freshwater ecosystems with very little visibility as far as the voting public is concerned.

Secondly, sets of values, indicators and indicator targets must be established, predicted, measured and evaluated. Where evaluation indicates that targets are not being met, the design and implementation of policies and programs must be reviewed and improvements must be made.

Thirdly, of equal importance is the examination of the management processes which are designed and implemented through policies and programs. These processes must embody sustainability principles. These principles have been established and are undergoing conceptual evolution. Management processes must be evaluated against these principles, and where gaps are demonstrated, changes must be made.

Water ecosystems and resources are used as examples. Many of the assumptions underpinning traditional water management programs were once correct, but are no longer correct. As the validity of underlying assumptions has disintegrated, water managers have tended to cling to existing processes, rather than embrace change.

Achieving sustainability will involve a questioning of traditional management concepts, and a commitment to change. Designing sustainable programs must involve careful attention to benchmarking indicator targets, as well as benchmarking management processes that thoughtfully embody sustainability principles. Part of this process must consider the future use of benchmarks which are not currently in use, and perhaps have not even been thought of, today.

3.Sustainability and democracy:

3.1Ecologically sustainable development

Australian governments at all levels (Federal, State and local) are committed to sustainability - often expressed broadly in ecological, economic and social terms.

According to the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development 1992:

Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) represents one of the greatest challenges facing Australia's governments, industry, business and community in the coming years. While there is no universally accepted definition of ESD, in 1990 the Commonwealth Government suggested the following definition for ESD in Australia:

· 'using, conserving and enhancing the community's resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased'.

Put more simply, ESD is development which aims to meet the needs of Australians today, while conserving our ecosystems for the benefit of future generations. To do this, we need to develop ways of using those environmental resources which form the basis of our economy in a way which maintains and, where possible, improves their range, variety and quality. At the same time we need to utilise those resources to develop industry and generate employment.

3.2Current democracies need urgent reform

Democracy is, we suggest, one of the key forces driving this planet to eco-catastrophe.  Democracy creates decision makers (the politicians) whose jobs depend on meeting the immediate needs of existing voters. Future generations do not vote, and their needs will hold little sway whenever hard trade-offs between the interests of present-day voters and future generations are involved. The reality is that politicians will make unsustainable decisions to keep their jobs - and why wouldn't they? We have established a system which rewards them for doing this. They won't be around to face the wrath of the future generations whose interests they are prejudicing. Examples of decisions made for these reasons are becoming increasingly common-place (back-downs by Australian and USA governments over international greenhouse commitments, for example).   Most freshwater resource managers have had personal experience of such political decisions at a more local scale.

This situation can only be remedied by constraining the decisions available to politicians by a political system which enshrines environmental principles - which in themselves reflect not only wise use of the planet's resources, but a deep respect for the planet and its life forms. 

How can this be achieved? There is no easy solution, and change can only occur at this level after massive community discussion and debate. How can we create cultures and political institutions which respect the planet? The core values of societies must change, and when we look at one of the prime drivers of change, the media, we see very little except explicit promotion of short term and materialistic values.

There seem to be, however, certain aspects of democracy which we could change reasonably quickly, if we could achieve a general awareness of the gravity of the crisis faced by our planet, and an awareness of the importance of political decision-making processes. We believe four elements stand out:

Firstly, we must provide politicians with job security. We need rolling elections which place politicians in position for 15 to 20 years. Each year, one twentieth of Australia's politicians would face election. The positions of ruling parties would be more stable, and would change gradually rather than suddenly. A system part-way towards this has operated for decades in some democracies – fixed four-year terms and half-elections. Australia could move gradually through this system to the one proposed.

Secondly, we need legislation which requires sustainable decisions. Legislation must be developed, preferably through whole-of-government approaches, which enshrines the objective of sustainable decision-making ABOVE all other objectives. Such legislation must require ministers and other functionaries to further these objectives. Current Australian legislation generally places the achievement of ecologically sustainable development on a parr with objectives such as ensuring fairness (equity), and the promotion of economic development. Due to the historic prominence of equity in common law, the inevitable result of this approach will be an effective primacy of equity issues above considerations of sustainability.

Thirdly, we need to underpin ALL decision-making processes with requirements to utilise sustainability principles at all decision-making levels, from national, to State, to local government. Ways of constraining corporations within sustainable frameworks must be found and implemented (mandatory product recovery legislation, for example).

Fourthly, we need to move towards consensus decision-making models, by building into our political processes increased reliance on bi-partisan committees to make "difficult" sustainability decisions.

4.Approach:

Measuring the sustainability of natural resource management programs (and proposed changes to processes or programs) presents important challenges.

In this paper, the management of water ecosystems will be used as an example. Around Australia, many major lakes, waterways and aquifers are seriously degraded, and are continuing to degrade. The links between our vision of sustainable management and what actually occurs on the ground are the management processes and programs we put in place.

How are we to assess and measure the extent to which these processes and programs meet our sustainability objectives?

Firstly, if we are to assess our success at achieving sustainability, we must be able to measure outcomes. Without measurement, we have no way of reaching a conclusion about whether our targets have been met. To measure something, we must establish benchmarks, and these benchmarks must in turn rest on reference points.

Secondly, we must also consider time-scales. Having selected an indicator which we take as representing one aspect of our sustainability program, if that indicator degrades over time, that suggests our program is not sustainable. But what timescales do we use? A decade? A century? A millennium? Within this context, how do we handle natural variation in the chosen indicators? Decisions must be made. Some biological outcome indicators (such as waterfowl breeding success rates, for example) have inherent high noise-to-signal ratios. Establishing trends in these indicators may need data collected over many decades, averaged (say) over a twenty-year period.

In many cases, economic considerations have been seen as precluding the establishment of sufficient sampling points (in time or space) to allow the use of statistical techniques which can assign probabilities to trends. This is particularly the case in the water environment, where a single indicator can vary widely due to natural variation in environmental variables, such as weather. Monitoring and evaluation programs need to be carefully designed with long-term costs in mind. Once begun, however, there must be a commitment to ongoing funding.

Thirdly, we need to make decisions on which conditions relating to our environment are most important, and to what extent we are consciously prepared to allow certain conditions to deteriorate to facilitate our objectives in other areas (economic growth, for example). In some cases we appear to have little choice. For example, are we to specify a condition relating to our Murray waterways: "carp free"? Is this practical or achievable?

Fourthly, will benchmarks be enough? Given that we want some way of assessing the sustainability of the processes and programs which we are now developing, and given that uncertainties regarding future circumstances make it difficult, in many instances, to predict with confidence whether our chosen indicator is going to remain stable (which presumably we might want) or slightly degrade (in which case our program is not sustainable in the long term) - can we rely simply on our predictions of the "likely" effect of our program on these indicators?

We suggest that, in assessing the degree to which our present processes and programs achieve sustainability, we need to make a series of decisions, and these decisions must incorporate both measurable targets, and criteria applicable to mechanisms (or process elements) deriving directly from our philosophies.

In relation to programs of measurement, these decisions must encompass:

· the essential qualities, or values, which we are seeking to protect and pass on to future generations;

· the indicators which we chose to measure these values. One value, for example, may have several indicators;

· the benchmarks we are going to apply to the indicators, and the methods by which we will establish reference points for these indicators;

· given that knowledge about the environment will change, possibly in major ways, how can we provide for benchmarks which have not yet been thought of?

· the timescales we are going to apply to our predictions and measurements;

· the design of monitoring programs where we believe we can apply statistical techniques to assign probabilities to the measurement of indicators;

· the methods we are going to use to predict the effects of our chosen processes and programs on our set of indicators;

· the processes for continuous improvement of the indicators and their measurement; and

· the uncertainties involved in these methods, and the way we will account for these uncertainties.

The issue of timescales is important, particularly in relation to indicators (as mentioned above) which inherently contain high ‘noise to signal’ ratios. Trends need to be evaluated using timescales measured in decades. Outcomes measured by these indicators will become evident long after those responsible for designing the management programs have left the scene.

In relation to embodying our processes and programs with sustainable philosophies, we must ensure that our principles (which, of course, may be interpreted widely depending on the temporal and spatial horizons of our conceptualisation of "sustainability") do, in fact, permeate our processes and programs.

So: - the assessment of sustainability must encompass both (a) prediction and measurement of the stability of indicators, and (b) assessment of process/program principles.

The principles of sustainable development have received a great deal of attention over the last thirty years, and many clear statements of principle can be found to guide the choice of principles to fit a particular program.

Let us examine how this approach might apply to the management of freshwater ecosystems:

5.Assumptions underlying traditional water management policies and programs

In order to understand the evolution of existing freshwater management processes, we must examine some underlying assumptions.

The degraded (and still degrading) circumstances of many of Australia's major waterways can in part be attributed to eleven important assumptions underlying Australian water management frameworks. Most of these assumptions were once valid. The first three of these assumptions relate to the cumulative impacts of incremental water infrastructure development:

· although very large dams were subject to environmental assessment, it was assumed that small and medium-sized dams needed only cursory assessment on a case by case basis - no assessment of the catchment's capacity to support increasing numbers of small dams was thought to be necessary. In other words, it was assumed that "the little ones don't matter";

· similar assumptions were made concerning small users of surface and groundwaters, and the construction of levee banks. These escaped catchment-based strategic assessments on the basis that "the little ones don't matter";

· it was assumed that the harvesting of surface flows away from watercourses did not need to be controlled - that these flows comprised a minor proportion of total surface flows and that their harvesting (through channelling surface flows into farm dams) would not significantly reduce overall catchment flows;

· it was assumed that landholders should, by and large, be allowed to place dams across small watercourses, on the basis of generally cursory case-by-case assessments and licensing arrangements - ie: that it was unreasonable for State water agencies to ask landholders to pay the additional costs involved in off-stream dams;

· it was assumed that the plants and animals living in the streams would look after themselves, and that no particular attention was needed regarding the provision of guaranteed environmental flows to keep them alive, or to support their life-cycle requirements;

· it was assumed that, while the need to protect biodiversity necessitated the development of systems of representative reserves conserving key examples of terrestrial and marine ecosystems, it was unnecessary and impractical to apply the concept of representative reserves to freshwater ecosystems;

· it was assumed that the provision of fish passage facilities was either impractical, uneconomic, or unnecessary;

· it was assumed that surface groundwaters and surface waterways were somehow separate, and could be managed independently;

· it was assumed that, in the main, grazing wetlands and riparian zones would not produce significant long-term damage; and finally:

· it was assumed that there was no need for rigorous program implementation, compliance auditing and enforcement; that illegal dams, bores, off-takes, drains and levee banks would be minor and insignificant features in overall water management programs.

· because completely natural waterways are self-maintaining, and provide their services (at least in the early stages of human modification) without the need for financial expenditure, it was assumed that it was unnecessary to value them as capital assets (infrastructure), or to provide significant annual budgets for their maintenance, as they were increasingly modified over time for human use.

While the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) water reform agenda signalled the death of some of these assumptions (concerning environmental flows, for example) others live on, to a large extent unscathed by that agenda. We argue below that, while all of these assumptions were probably correct many decades ago, this is no longer the case, and it is now dangerous to make any of these assumptions in the development of State water management frameworks. We believe that, as far as the freshwater ecosystems of Australia are concerned, it is a key challenge of the next decade to reverse all these assumptions.

The focus of natural resource management within Western society has tended to focus on values as the starting blocks on which management objectives and procedures rest. These values have tended to be defined in terms of human use: agricultural, landscape, industrial, recreational, cultural… It has been argued that management frameworks need to move beyond these values to encompass intrinsic values. This issue is not, however, within the scope of this paper.

6.The management of freshwater ecosystems: values and indicators

Considering the matter of values and measurable indicators, we must (a) predict the effect on values and indicators of our chosen policies and programs, and (b) design monitoring systems to assess the achievement of the objectives of these policies and programs, using these values and indicators.

6.1Decide on the essential qualities, or values, which we are seeking to protect and pass on to future generations

Many values may be chosen. For example, the National Water Quality Management Strategy uses six general environmental values:

· aquatic ecosystems

· aquaculture and human consumers of aquatic foods

· agricultural water

· recreation and aesthetics

· drinking water

· industrial water

6.2Decide on the indicators which we chose to measure these values.

Taking one of these values, aquatic ecosystems, let us consider the issue of indicators.

Many indicators can be used to measure the ability of water to sustain aquatic ecosystems.

We can chose dissolved oxygen as an indicator. In predicting the effects of our policies and programs, we will need to set targets or objectives which we will seek to achieve. At the very least, if one of our objectives is to maintain the stream in its present condition, we will seek to stabilise or improve dissolved oxygen.

However, dissolved oxygen varies diurnally (with the variation of day/night photosynthetic processes), and is affected by a variety of external factors, such as water temperature, stream flow rate, and leaf fall - which can vary seasonally (regularly) and irregularly (due to weather changes - flood or drought, or due to unpredictable and rare events such as bushfires).

The monitoring program we design must take account of these factors if our measurements are to have meaning over time. Ideally, we would wish to design a monitoring program with sufficient samples in time and space to allow us to use statistical techniques. At the end of the day, we need to specify a confidence level. One of our objectives might be: "to at least maintain current dissolved oxygen levels, within a 95% confidence limit".

We must choose a comprehensive set of indicators to assess value. In the case of the aquatic ecosystem value, it is conceivable that dissolved oxygen could be well within target limits, even though most aquatic fauna had died.

Monitoring programs must incorporate, wherever possible, indicators which integrate physical, chemical and perhaps biological variation. In this case, we would presumably need to incorporate a macroinvertebrate condition index, based on an equivalent reference measure. This is the mechanism used by the AusRivAS invertebrate sampling protocols.

An policy / program objective might be: "to maintain or improve the AusRivAS condition index for sampling points throughout this catchment".

6.3Decide on the benchmarks we are going to apply to the indicators, and the methods by which we will establish reference points for these indicators

However, we must consider the condition of the ecosystem - is it pristine or modified? We will need to apply different criteria to assess the meaning of indicator measurements.

In the case of our dissolved oxygen indicator, benchmarks are available for both pristine and modified streams, thanks to the complex scientific and consultative exercise behind the ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality.

If we have chosen an indicator outside the scope of these guidelines (and this will certainly occur regularly), the guidelines offer a systematic approach to determining indicator targets or objectives - where there is reliable and relevant data.

In relation to integrative indices such as the AusRivAS data, benchmarks depend on reference sites. Given the possibilities of long-term changes (such as climate change, or ozone depletion) it is important - as far as possible - to have reference sites subject to minimal human interference, or in some cases, stable human interference levels.

The maintenance of long-term reference sites in areas subject to complex human disturbance becomes difficult or impossible due to the complexity of inter-related effects and repercussions. To the greatest extent possible, systems of representative freshwater ecosystems must be identified, selected and protected from human interference to the greatest degree possible (Nevill 2001).

At present there is no Australia-wide agreement on the classification of ecosystem type which would allow a consistent national approach to establishing representative freshwater reserves. However, the Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia does provide a rough framework to use as a base, in combination with type classifications of rivers, wetlands and aquifers.

A project to develop such an approach, in combination with Commonwealth assistance to States to develop comprehensive freshwater system inventories (extending existing wetlands inventories to encompass streams and aquifers) is an urgent necessity.

6.4Given that knowledge about the environment will change, possibly in major ways, how can we provide for benchmarks which have not yet been thought of?

Ten years, or a hundred years down the track, it is almost certain that increasing knowledge about ecosystems, combined with different emerging problems and issues, will result in the selection of indicators which we haven't thought of yet.

Reference areas provide the only mechanism we have which will allow useful benchmarks to be established for such indicators. Freshwater reference areas must encompass rivers, wetlands and aquifers. The wide definition of "wetlands" used by the Ramsar Convention provides a guide in this regard.

Such reference areas must be comprehensive, adequate and representative, and the definition of these terms used by the Regional Forest Agreement process provides a template for use in freshwater.

6.5Decide on the timescales we are going to apply to our predictions and measurements.

What does sustainability mean? We must decide on the timescales we are going to apply to our predictions and measurements. Ten years? A hundred years? A thousand years? These three "round figures" are probably the most useful.

Are we achieving sustainability if our dissolved oxygen, and our AusRivAS indicators remain stable over 10 years? The answer may well be: "maybe".

we suggest that in designing our policies and processes, we need to use all these three broad timescales. In terms of designing and implementing monitoring programs to assess the achievement of sustainability, other short-term goals must be set. Realistically, 5, 10 and 20 year timescales may be the most useful for most indicators.

6.6the design of monitoring programs where we believe we can apply statistical techniques to assign probabilities to the measurement of indicators

For each value, and for each indicator within the suite of indicators chose to represent each value, monitoring programs should be designed which - in advance - anticipate the need to set confidence limits on outcomes.

Where resources do not allow the implementation of monitoring programs which will allow confidence levels to be established, this must be clearly stated in all relevant documents covering the design, implementation and reporting of monitoring results.

Where confidence levels cannot be set, trends should nevertheless be anticipated and measured. Program targets, by necessity, will need to be set in absolute terms - these will usually be indicator value ranges.

6.7Decide the methods we are going to use to predict the effects of our chosen processes and programs on our set of indicators

For each value, and for each indicator within the suite of indicators chose to represent each value, methods must be chosen and described (in policy / program design documentation) which are used to predict the effects of our chosen processes and programs on our set of indicators.

In the case of dissolved oxygen, for example, catchment management programs to stabilise soil erosion in both riparian and broadscale farmland may result in a decrease in water nutrient levels. These nutrient levels will in turn affect algae growth, which in turn will affect diurnal dissolved oxygen cycles.

These effects, due to their complexity, cannot be predicted accurately. However, we believe that they must be predicted, and this must be done and reported clearly and publicly, with all key assumptions explicitly stated. Only by such an approach will predictive methods improve, and opportunities for predictive model refinement and data collection will appear.

Predictive models are improving, however, the growth of more sophisticated models usually feed on better data. Unless this data is available, the increasing technical accuracy of the models is wasted.

6.8Identify the uncertainties involved in these methods, and the way we will account for these uncertainties

We live in an uncertain world, and this uncertainty must be recognised in the design of policies and resource management programs, and in monitoring and reporting arrangements designed to assess the effectiveness of these policies and programs.

If monitoring shows that, within a 95% confidence level, dissolved oxygen has declined by 5% over 10 years, what does that mean?

Where a monitoring program shows a declining indicator over a 5 year period, but without a confidence level, what does that mean?

In a world of limited resources, funding should be allocated both on the matter of uncertainty, but also on the matter of threat. Where important threats appear, and uncertainty is high, monitoring and assessment programs must be increased, and if necessary precautionary preventative or remedial action must be taken.

Conversely, where threats are low, a greater degree of uncertainty is acceptable.

6.9Summary: prediction and monitoring of indicators

In considering the matter of values and measurable indicators, we must (a) predict the effect on values and indicators of our chosen policies and programs, and (b) design monitoring systems to assess the achievement of the objectives of these policies and programs.

Even where data is inadequate, and the science is shaky, clear decisions must be made and articulated in the eight areas discussed above.

Sets of values, indicators and indicator targets must be established, predicted, measured and evaluated. Where evaluation indicates that targets are not being met, the design and implementation of policies and programs must be reviewed and improvements must be made.

Such an approach is, we believe, the only way to provide a framework for the sustainable management of natural resources which can be justified, argued, measured and reported.

And built on by those that follow us.

7.The management of freshwater ecosystems: principles and processes

Firstly, this section identifies three sets of principles which need to be incorporated in the water management processes embodied in sustainable policies and programs. These three sets relate to (a) ecological sustainability, (b) environmental management systems, and (c) administrative principles applicable to scientific and consultative management frameworks. It is argued that these principles have been accepted broadly within current Australian management paradigms.

Secondly, a hypothetical nation-state management framework for water resources is assessed against these principles.

Thirdly, it is suggested that more detailed catchment-scale management frameworks should be assessed against these principles. This suggestion is not developed in detail in this paper.

7.1What principles need to be applied?

The principles of sustainable development have evolved over a long period of time. Concerns over the protection of the environment have undoubtably been expressed for thousands of years. Many recent expressions of these principles can be found within international statements and agreements (Nevill 2000).

The management processes we use today must take sustainability principles into account. Moreover, they must embody other principles broadly accepted within current management frameworks, such as those relating to stakeholder consultation, or quality assurance. For the purposes of this discussion, principles are limited to those relating to:

· sustainability (drawn from Commonwealth and Victorian documents),

· government administration (drawn from Australian environmental assessment documents), and

· environmental management (drawn from accepted international environmental management system processes) are examined.

These principles, along with additional discussion, can all be located in Nevill 2000, and form a minimum base for the establishment of operational principles.

More "advanced" principles are available, and should be used once processes are handling the basic set of principles well. Advanced principles include:

· the Wingspread Principles;

· the Hanover Principles, and

· the Natural Step Principles.

These can be found listed on the USA Department of Energy website: http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/overview/principles.shtml .

7.1.1Sustainability principles

The principle of integration of economic, social and environmental considerations

(1) Sound environmental practices and procedures should be adopted as a basis for ecologically sustainable development for the benefit of all human beings and the environment.

(2) This requires the effective integration of economic, social and environmental considerations in decision-making processes with the need to improve community well-being and the benefit of future generations.

(3) The measures adopted should be cost-effective and in proportion to the significance of the environmental problems being addressed.

The precautionary principle

(1) If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

(2) Decision making should be guided by--

(a) a careful evaluation to avoid serious or irreversible damage to the environment wherever practicable; and

(b) an assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.

The principle of intergenerational equity

The present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.

The principle of conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity

The conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making.

Central to the conservation of Australia’s biological diversity is the establishment of a comprehensive, representative and adequate system of ecologically viable protected areas, integrated with sympathetic management of all other areas, including agricultural and resource production systems.

The principle of improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms

(1) Environmental factors should be included in the valuation of assets and services.

(2) Persons who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance and abatement.

3) Users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life cycle costs of providing the goods and services, including costs relating to the use of natural resources and the ultimate disposal of wastes.

(4) Established environmental goals should be pursued in the most cost effective way by establishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms, which enable persons best placed to maximise benefits or minimise costs to develop solutions and responses to environmental problems.

The principle of shared responsibility

(1) Protection of the environment is a responsibility shared by all levels of Government and industry, business, communities and the people of Australia.

(2) Producers of goods and services should produce competitively priced goods and services that satisfy human needs and improve quality of life while progressively reducing ecological degradation and resource intensity throughout the full life cycle of the goods and services to a level consistent with the sustainability of biodiversity and ecological systems.

The principle of product stewardship

Producers and users of goods and services have a shared responsibility with Government to manage the environmental impacts throughout the life cycle of the goods and services, including the ultimate disposal of any wastes.

The principle of wastes hierarchy

Wastes should be managed in accordance with the following order of preference--

(a) avoidance;

(b) re-use;

(c) re-cycling;

(d) recovery of energy;

(e) treatment;

(f) containment;

(g) disposal.

The principle of integrated environmental management

If approaches to managing environmental impacts on one segment of the environment have potential impacts on another segment, the best practicable environmental outcome should be sought.

The principle of compliance enforcement

Enforcement of environmental requirements should be undertaken for the purpose of--

(a) better protecting the environment and its economic and social uses;

(b) ensuring that no commercial advantage is obtained by any person who fails to comply with environmental requirements;

(c) influencing the attitude and behaviour of persons whose actions may have adverse environmental impacts or who develop, invest in, purchase or use goods and services which may have adverse environmental impacts.

7.1.2Principles of good government

Participation

The process should include adequate participation of all stakeholders.

Transparency

EIA should be conducted through an established process. All elements of the process should be clearly understood by all participants.

Certainty

The process should have clear objectives, be consistent, and be conducted within agreed time-frames.

Accountability

Decision makers within government need to be able to provide clear and detailed reasons for their decisions to all stakeholders. Appeal provisions to an independent authority should exist. The EIA process should cover the life of the proposal, through project design, construction, operation and finally decommissioning: project operators must be accountable for commitments made during project approval.

Members of the public should therefore be given--

(a) access to reliable and relevant information in appropriate forms to facilitate a good understanding of environmental issues;

(b) opportunities to participate in policy and program development.".

Integrity

Decisions need to be based on the best available information, and all relevant factors need to be taken into account by decision-makers. Where impacts are uncertain, outcomes should rely on sound risk assessment and management.

Cost-effectiveness

The process should meet its objectives while imposing the least cost to participants. Accreditation of State government processes by the Commonwealth is a key mechanism for avoiding unnecessary duplication of approval processes.

Flexibility

The process should be able to accommodate proposals varying in type, scope of impact, and complexity. Flexibility is desirable in terms of the form of EIA process, issues to be addressed, process time-frames, and degree of public participation.

Practicality

The process should recognise community concerns, commercial realities, best practice technology, and scientific uncertainties.

7.1.3Principles of environmental management

Environmental Management Systems are procedural planning methods described by the ISO 14,000 series of standards (International Standards Organisation).

The 'principles' listed in the ISO documents are a combination of principles and mechanisms. Examination of the philosophy embodied in the systems suggests that the three key principles on which the framework is constructed are:

· producer responsibility

· quality assurance, and

· continual improvement.

Feedback is a key element of the framework, and this is implicit in the use of the word "system" which, in its engineering definition, incorporates feedback as an essential element. The EMS process can be illustrated as a loop: Figure 1:

The first step in the iterative process, of course, is to 'decide on the desired outcome'.

Producer responsibility

The very reason for undertaking the EMS planning process is a recognition that responsibility for the environmental effects of a product or service doesn't stop at the factory gate. Responsibility exists, all-be-it in an increasingly shared fashion, from cradle to grave.

An ongoing responsibility for these environmental effects is accepted as the spatial and temporal settings widen. The environmental effects of, say, a battery, extend past its creation, through its use, and into its life after death - whether it be re-cycled or disposed of in a landfill.

The producer responsibility principle can be stated in a variety of ways. One definition is: "The recognition of continuation of responsibility for the environmental effects of products and services by the producer. While such responsibilities become increasingly shared by users and beneficiaries of the products or services, they continue to exist, and should be recognised and accounted for by the original producer".

Quality assurance

Stated simply, the principle of quality assurance is that "quality is not an accident". The quality assurance principle can be stated: "in the management of complex systems, processes and programs, their success in achieving the desired outcomes cannot be taken for granted, but must be carefully planned, monitored and evaluated".

Continual improvement

The iterative planning process on which environmental management systems is based offers the possibility of not only achieving the initial objectives, but of re-evaluating these objectives in the light of changing technology, scientific knowledge and community expectations.

The 'principle of continual improvement' can be stated: "producers of environmental effects need to establish planning frameworks which will allow continual improvement in environmental performance over time, and circumstances and knowledge change".

7.2A hypothetical nation-state management framework

Having identified key principles, we need to examine how they might apply to the processes used to manage natural resources.

A number of essential elements need to be incorporated in government programs in order to protect freshwater biodiversity. At the highest level, these include:

· A natural resource accounting framework;

· Environmental impact (risk) assessment (EIA) requirements for new proposals;

· A system of State-owned and managed protected areas, or nature conservation reserves, complemented by privately-owned reserves;

· A water management framework (legislation, policy and infrastructure); and

· Land use planning (LUP) requirements, largely implemented through local government.

To illustrate, let us imagine that Australia has nine State jurisdictions rather than eight. The ninth, named “Great Southern Land” or GSL for short, could be a large island lying not far from Tasmania.

Examining the five key elements listed above in more detail, we find some important differences between the situation in GSL and the existing situation in the rest of Australia.

7.2.1A natural resource accounting framework

The State's natural resource accounting framework starts with the explicit recognition that natural assets belong both to the present and the future. There is also explicit recognition of the intrinsic value of these resources, irrespective of the needs of humans.

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, GSL has prepared a comprehensive inventory of all freshwater ecosystems, encompassing value benchmarks, condition indices, catchment boundaries, and environmental flow requirements. This latter category is not limited to river flows, but includes requirements on groundwater flows where these are relevant to the health of ecosystems dependent on groundwater. The inventory is utilised by State-of-the-Environment reports, and by the State’s EIA and LUP frameworks.

Where they are inter-connected, surface water and groundwater resources are managed together, as a single resource (see below). Stocks and flows of both resources are measured and estimated. Aquifer recharge areas are identified and protected, and flow rates estimated. The interchanges between surface and groundwater flows are studied and modelled, and the quality of groundwater monitored and reported.

Corporations which use significant natural resources, including farming operations, are required to include "earth accounts" in every annual report.

To repeat a point already made above, if you don't know what you've got at the start of the year, and compare it to what you've got at the end of the year, you've no way of quantifying your progress during the year. This is a standard accounting principle.

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 should 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 should 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.

7.2.2Environmental assessment requirements

The State's framework for the assessment of environmental impacts and risks operates under the requirements of separate statutes governing: (a) major projects, (b) water, and (c) local government landuse planning procedures. Use of the precautionary principle is explicitly required at all levels.

Environmental assessment frameworks need to be able to manage proposals of varying type and scale in flexible, efficient and effective ways. As is standard practice in other Australian States, GSL’s framework utilises a “gold-plated” procedure (with full public consultation) for large and significant proposals, while relying on less costly and faster procedures within the LUP framework to deal with the far more numerous smaller proposals; or worse still, exempting them without regard for their cumulative impacts.

However, recognising that the cumulative effects of incremental small-scale development can have major environmental effects, GSL has put in place specific requirements for proposals where cumulative effects are likely to be important. The construction of farm dams and levee banks, surface water diversions, groundwater abstractions, and native vegetation removal, are among activities identified on the State’s “cumulative effects list”. None of these activities can take place unless they comply both with a catchment master plan prepared for each major catchment using integrated catchment management principles, and with a previously-approved plan for the farm / industry / land concerned. In order to manage the tyranny of small decisions effect (Odum 1982), there can be no “exceptions” clauses.

Under the master plan, caps must be placed on water diversions and abstractions (of both groundwater and surface water, where these systems are interconnected), total storage capacity of dams, number and location of on-stream dams if any, levee bank construction, and vegetation clearance in each sub-catchment. Where there is insufficient data to accurately determine cap size, statutes require that a precautionary approach must be taken.

The environmental assessment processes applying to major water infrastructure proposals must examine the direct and indirect effects of both the infrastructure itself (eg: a dam) and proposals (eg: large scale irrigation proposals) on which the economics of the infrastructure depend.

7.2.3A system of State-owned protected areas complemented by private reserves;

The GSL State government has established a comprehensive, adequate and representative reserve system protecting 15% of each major terrestrial, marine and freshwater ecosystem. Representative freshwater ecosystem 'types' have been identified and listed using layers of geomorphic, hydrologic and ecologic templates – applied within each Interim Biogeographic Region of Australia (IBRA) region. From this inventory of freshwater ecosystems, representative rivers, wetlands and aquifers have been selected for "protected area" status. Certain ecological communities of extreme importance (such as springs containing unique endemic biota) are entirely protected (that is, 100% of the existing ecological community is protected), and stringent precautionary safeguards are applied to their nurturing catchments and aquifers.

The reserve system includes value indices attached to each reserve (international, national, state, regional, local). These value indices are used to trigger different levels of EIA or LUP procedures in cases where a proposal may threaten the values of a reserve through indirect effects.

LUP procedures, where necessary, are used to protect the catchments and buffer zones of reserves.

GSL has established a system of Natural Rivers, protected under the GSL Natural Rivers Act. This Act is similar to Victoria's Heritage Rivers Act 1992. It protects rivers, or sections or rivers, valued for ecological, geomorphological, wilderness, recreational, landscape and historic/cultural reasons. At least one good example of each major river type has been marked by this legislation as "never to be dammed", recognising that fish passage provisions and environmental flow regimes, can never be fully effective in protecting a full suite of ecological values. The Act, in addition to establishing statutory freshwater reserves, provides high-value rivers outside the reserve system with an additional degree of protection through triggering comprehensive and precautionary strategic environmental risk assessments before new water-based developments can occur.

Incentives and support services are offered to private landholders to encourage the conservation management of private land. The reserve system incorporates international obligations under Ramsar, World Heritage, and other treaties.

7.2.4A water management framework (legislation and infrastructure)

The GSL water management framework provides for State and private roles in water harvesting, storage and sale. It includes controls and incentives for efficient use. It removes incentives and structures in previous legislation which were aimed to assist in “recovering” agricultural land from “swamps”. It requires surface and groundwater environmental flows to have “first priority” over available water in years of low rainfall, and requires the government to develop provisional water allocation plans in each subcatchment within major river basins, including both surface and groundwater.

Recognising the principle of quality assurance as a key sustainability principle, GSL statutes require State and local governments to undertake audits and related compliance programs, and to report the results of such programs to the public. Extensive use is made of the internet for public reporting.

The water allocation plans within subcatchments form a part of the catchment master plan referred to above.

The framework also provides for comprehensive, publicly available information on the size, use and health of the water resource, including both surface and groundwater. Inexpensive and convenient public access is available to information on all water allocations and diversions, the position, function and environmental effects of all dams and weirs, the contents of all catchment master plans, and water auditing and compliance programs.

Groundwater and surface water resources are the responsibility of a single government agency, and groundwater and surface waters fall within the scope of a single piece of legislation: the GSL Water Act. The Water Act contains an objective and a list of principles (including an expanded list of sustainability principles - Nevill 2001). The Act requires that all stakeholders with a direct role in the management of the water resource, as well as the community at large, must act to further the objective of the Act, and take into account the principles listed in the Act.

No new dams or weirs are permitted without fish passage provisions, and all obsolete weirs have been removed. Every attempt is made to ensure fish passage facilities work as well as practicable.

Extraction of groundwater is only permitted in compliance with water allocation plans which take account of both surface and groundwaters within a major catchment, and which have been prepared by catchment working groups representing all stakeholders, including non-human stakeholders.

These catchment working groups operate within a statutory framework provided by the State, which guides and constrains their operation. The water allocation plans form part of the catchment master plan prepared for the catchment basin. These plans must be complied with by local government in land use planning decisions (see below).

7.2.5Land use planning (LUP) requirements

In line with normal practice, GSL’s LUP requirements are carried out largely by local government, within a framework provided by the State. The LUP framework provides for the development of land use zoning plans, and facilitates the development of catchment master plans by the community. The LUP framework includes special purpose State strategies (such as the GSL wetlands policy and the biodiversity policy) and requires that land use zoning and catchment master plans must be compatible with these policies. Consequently these plans embody conservation strategies which rest in part on bioregional inventories.

The GSL wetlands policy (recognising the historic degradation of the wetland resource) requires “no net loss” of wetland habitat. Any proposal which impacts adversely on wetland habitat must develop compensatory proposals, perhaps at spatially different but ecologically similar sites. Any artificial compensatory wetland must be at least 50% larger than the wetland destroyed, must mimic the natural wetland as closely as possible, and must include ongoing maintenance funds in perpetuity to cover such matters as routine pest control, condition monitoring, and reporting provisions. Under the wetlands policy, freshwater ecosystems listed in the inventory are categorised by value and significance, and appropriate requirements are placed on the LUP framework to ensure special protection for the catchments of high value wetlands, as well as the inclusion of minor wetlands in the ICM planning framework.

GSL’s biodiversity legislation considers threatened species, communities and ecosystems. The legislation primarily targets threatening processes, but also provides protection for “critical habitat” through the LUP framework – impacting on both public and private land.

The LUP framework also embodies strategic planning provisions for the specific protection of the values of State reserves (on public land) and critical habitat (on private land), as well as habitat created and protected under voluntary landholder agreements. According to statute, land use plans and catchment master plans must take these values into account.

Local government land use planning decisions, and the actions of the State government, must take into consideration the relevant catchment master plan, and must be compatible with the objectives of that plan, and the objectives of the Water Act. As mentioned above, the catchment management plan is checked and endorsed by an independent panel advising the minister before becoming legally 'active', and the objectives of the plan must be developed within the framework specified by the GSL State government.

7.2.6Coordination of programs

In order to coordinate programs over the five areas listed, the State has established a degree of harmony within different pieces of legislation, and the different programs established under these statutes. This has been achieved by establishing general objectives and principles covering all State programs, and reflecting these objectives and principles within two key on-ground planning frameworks: local government land use planning, and catchment planning developed under the guidance of a small number of State Catchment Management Agencies (established under the authority of the State's integrated water / NRM legislation).

This coordinated approach is modelled on frameworks which have been developed in Tasmania (which has an over-arching system of objectives within a suite of legislation known as the Resource Management and Planning System) and New South Wales and Victoria - which have well developed catchment management frameworks based on statute.

Specifically, the key components of GSL's framework are:

· incorporating in the (primary) Planning and Approvals Act a schedule of objectives and principles;

· reflecting these objectives and principles in each statute governing areas of natural resource management (including the five key areas listed above); and

· requiring decision makers to give effect to these objectives and principles in their decisions. These decision makers include: (a) State government in directing and funding State-wide programs; (b) local government in developing planning schemes and in implementing planning schemes though approval decisions, and (c) catchment agencies in developing and implementing catchment master plans (and the component plans which make up the catchment master plans).

7.3Assessment of the hypothetical framework against its design principles

In designing the process framework, an attempt has been made to incorporate key principles of sustainability, environmental management, and good government. But has this been successful? A check must be carried out.

Principle

Process elements

Can improvements be made?

social, economic and environmental integration

Hierarchical decision-making tiers allow for integration of different values through Commonwealth, State, local government and catchment plans, all operating within objectives and principles established by statute.

precautionary

Catchment master plans must set precautionary caps on catchment development, before significant problems emerge.

Application of the precautionary principle could transfer 'onus of proof of sustainability' on to the developer.

intergenerational equity

This principle explicitly underlies the statutory objectives of the State planning framework.

ecological integrity

The State's reserve framework, coupled with its planning mechanisms, is intended to protect ecological integrity.

economic incentives

Room for improvement here.

shared responsibility

Planning and reporting framework embodies shared responsibility.

Catchment planning groups could be funded from a catchment landholder or water user levee

product stewardship

Irrigators to pay saline drainage levees?

waste hierarchy

Need mechanisms for reducing saline drainage

integrated environmental management

Impact / risk assessment of major water infrastructure projects requires economic and environmental assessments of both the infrastructure proposals and the irrigation proposals on which the project's economic viability depends.

The tiered decision-making structures, with catchment master plans at the 'bottom' provide a general mechanism for integrated environmental management.

compliance enforcement

Compliance enforcement programs are in place, and compliance audits are undertaken.

Need programs to remove all illegal dams

Principle

Process elements

Can improvements be made?

participation

Consultative community / stakeholder mechanisms for developing and reviewing catchment master plans provide for participation.

transparency

All plans, licences and permits are available for public scrutiny..

Meetings of planning groups at all levels should be open to public observers, given prior notice. Observers must not participate in the meetings

certainty

The approval process is well understood and publicly accessible..

Decisions must be made within given timeframes

cost-effectiveness

Cost effectiveness must consider the benefits of a planning system where precautionary steps help avoid major future costs of environmental degradation.

flexibility

The hierarchical approach of the planning framework, coupled with EIA requirements balanced against both the size of the proposal and its likely impact provide a flexible approach to assessing impacts and risks.

practicality

The use of the precautionary approach coupled with basic planning frameworks leans towards practicality. "No development" is always a practical alternative.

producer responsibility

Those who benefit by using water resources also contribute directly to the planning processes, and contribute funds to run these processes.

As above: irrigators to pay saline drainage levees?

quality assurance

Management programs have clearly stated general objectives AND measurable performance indicators. Monitoring and reporting programs assess performance. Programs must adapt to poor performance.

continual improvement

Room for improvement here?

The result has been that a rigorous check of the process against the design principles has revealed a number of short-comings. Once identified, these can be remedied.

It is essential that all policy and program development assess the degree to which design processes embody design principles. Process elements must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny, if the desired outcome of sustainable management is to be achieved. Quality is not an accident.

7.4Scrutiny of detailed catchment-scale processes.

To achieve sustainability, all management processes must be subjected to examination to ascertain the extent to which they embody principles of sustainability, as well other principles running alongside sustainability, such as those of good government and environmental management discussed above.

While this will not be attempted in this paper, Appendix One illustrates how more detailed catchment-level processes could be designed to incorporate these principles, within the more general nation-State framework described above.

7.5A model framework for natural resource management legislation

This section provides information on process benchmarks which can be used to evaluate the water legislation responsible for the establishment of the administrative frameworks within which freshwater resource management takes place.

In general, environmental legislation operates by imposing blanket prohibitions on certain classes of activities, then establishing provisions (such as the issue of licences or permits by a government agency) which allow those activities under defined conditions. In the water area, this can be achieved by prohibiting the use, degradation or obstruction of water flows, then making specific provision for licences covering water allocation and use, and the construction of dams, bores, agricultural drains, and levee banks. Water pollution may also be controlled. This key aspect of traditional legislation operates by changing rights existing under common law, and creating new duties and responsibilities.

Water legislation operating in Australian States prior to the mid-1980s followed this general pattern. Typically, legislation often included provision for the establishment of agencies to carry out certain functions - often at a local or regional level. These agencies were usually called Boards, or Trusts, and dealt with the supply of water (for urban, agricultural or industrial use) as well as the drainage of land for agriculture, or the development of irrigation or hydro-electric schemes. All Australian water legislation current in the 1980s contained provisions for the establishment, governance and funding of such Boards. The creation of accountable bodies to expend public funds for defined purposes is, again, a traditional aspect of legislation.

Pre-modern water legislation typically treated surface waters and groundwaters as distinct resources, and failed to acknowledge the obvious interconnections between surface aquifers and rivers. For example, until the recent Water Management Act was passed by the Tasmanian government in 1999, groundwater and surface water flows were managed by different State government departments, under different pieces of legislation and policy, for different objectives and within different government programs.

During the 1980s, the degradation of many important Australian rivers prompted concerns regarding the need for more holistic or integrated water management, and New South Wales was the first of three States to introduce legislation to foster integrated catchment management (referred to as Total Catchment Management in the NSW Catchment Management Act 1989).

During the 1990s, the reform of water legislation has seen a number of important new elements appear in legislation:

· the use of objects and principles, and general duties linked to these (in particular, focused on the protection of defined environmental values);

· the use of tiered planning and management frameworks;

· integration of the management of both surface and linked groundwaters;

· recognition of the need for adaptive management (the quality assurance principle); legislation can establish mechanisms for setting targets related to desirable outcomes, monitoring the achievement of these targets, reporting the results, and reviewing performance;

· recognition of the need to control the harvesting of surface flows outside watercourses;

· the water legislation in all jurisdictions now recognises the need to evaluate and provide for environmental flows.

Other more progressive developments have occurred in a few jurisdictions:

· Victoria, through the Heritage Rivers Act 1992, recognised the need to protect rivers of special or representative significance;

· Tasmania, through the State's Resource Management and Planning System, has adopted a whole-of-government approach to natural resource management;

· the need to manage cumulative effects has been explicitly recognised in the NSW Water Management Act 2000, and in Queensland's Environmental Protection (Water Quality) Policy 1995;

In 1999, Land and Water Australia engaged consultants to examine changes to water legislation developed by Australian jurisdictions in response to the Council of Australian Governments' water reform agenda. The consultants, after examining legislative developments in the context of the serious problems evident in the management of the nation's water resources, recommended 10 key elements for 'best practice' river management legislation. These were:

Ten criteria for a best practice legislative framework for river management (Maher & Cooper, 1999)

1. binding, measurable river restoration standards to be a national function, requiring a strong leading role by the Commonwealth. A general duty-of-care to be legislated for all landholders and others to manage surface and groundwater resources sustainably, and to achieve ESD as the primary object (not one of several) of their activities;

2. extensive statutory definition of ‘river’, including floodplains and related wetlands;

3. a single, catchment-wide agency for each river’s management and restoration;

4. these agencies need statutorily-based powers binding the Crown commensurate with their responsibilities, that is, for planning, funding, educating, regulating and achieving all components of river restoration;

5. agencies to include all stakeholders in an open, equitable, adequately resourced way;

6. close links between these agencies and local governments;

7. a statutory, comprehensive catchment restoration plan by the agencies;

8. a statutorily required, regular, publicly available State of Environment Report / audit of catchment restoration, done independently from the catchment agency;

9. catchment laws to contain a requirement for their specified periodic review; and

10. laws with a direct or indirect effect on catchment restoration to have and maintain primacy over other laws, including for utilities and emergencies.

Changes to Australian water legislation have continued since this report was published, against a background of increasing international and national concern about the non-sustainable management of natural resources. This concern has resulted in the development of certain frameworks, of which three in particular influence the development of the broad natural resource management frameworks underpinned by legislation: ecological systems thinking, good governance principles, and management systems thinking.

Good governance principles have already been discussed. The other two conceptual frameworks are:

Ecological systems thinking for economic success:

· economic progress must occur within ecological limits;

· economic progress works in a climate of ecological uncertainty, where there are no guarantees and the harvesting regime must work with natural cycles of plenty and paucity of natural resources;

· economic progress works with the constancy of change, and makes innovation integral to its modus operandi;

· economic progress works on the basis of no net loss of ecological assets – give and take, that taking involves giving back;

· economic progress goes to those who compete best on providing for ecological protection and sustainable management;

· short term gains must be weighed up from a long term perspective - sustainability must not be prejudiced by short term gains achieved at the expense of declining ecological services.

Management systems thinking:

· plan, do, monitor, report, review, revise – the steps of adaptive management systems;

· the use of the adaptive management process to achieve continuous improvement;

· producer responsibility: responsibilities remain, although attenuated, for indirect and long-term effects;

· a constant process of assessing new opportunities and threats external to the operation, and strengths and weaknesses internal to the operation;

· working within a time frame, against targets, and reporting on their achievement;

· strategic assessment of major directions; strategic planning over complex issues;

· coordination of all the critical players, and clear definition of their roles and responsibilities for the overall outcomes;

These three system approaches, together with the more traditional contents of legislation (prohibitions, management structures, infringements, penalties) underpin the logic of the best practice criteria.

In 2000, Land and Water Australia again commissioned consultants to examine recent changes in water legislation, with a view to reporting on stakeholders' experiences with the new legislative frameworks, and providing a detailed comparison of key aspects of State legislation. The consultants (Mary Maher and Associates) have re-examined the 10 'best practice criteria' in the light of stakeholders' experiences, the systems thinking described above, and frameworks of accepted principles. Their report (in preparation) suggests that a model legislative framework for catchment management could consist of 13 major elements, and about 65 sub-elements. The 13 major element partly echo the 10 criteria listed above.

These statutory elements, we suggest, provide benchmarks which can be used to evaluate the degree to which water legislation provides sustainable management frameworks. At this stage they are available in draft form, and should be seen very much as work in progress. The National Rivers Consortium, for whom the project is being commissioned by Land and Water Australia, have not yet had a chance to review the consultant’s preliminary report.

8.Conclusion

Achieving sustainability will be an on-going and evolving process. However, certain elements, or building blocks, are now available.

Designing ecologically sustainable programs must have at least two central thrusts.

Firstly, values must be identified, and sets of indicators chosen to represent these values. Policies and programs now in place, and those currently being designed, will affect these indicators. In some cases, where the natural systems or mechanisms under study are simple and amendable to modelling, and where sufficient accurate data is available to support modelling, it will be possible to accurately predict the ways in which management programs will affect indicators, at least in the short term.

In many cases such accurate predictions will not be available, at least at any reasonable cost. Nevertheless, we have argued that these predictions must be made, in quantitative terms wherever meaningful. Moreover, such predictions must not only be made, but must be clearly articulated, monitored and reviewed.

Where sustainability performance targets are not being met by monitoring programs, management must be reviewed and improved.

Long-term benchmarks are necessary, and an essential part of their establishment will involve comprehensive, adequate and representative systems of freshwater ecosystem reserves. Such reserves must encompass rivers and streams, wetlands, and aquifers - in fact encompassing the full range of "wetlands" covered by the Ramsar Wetlands Convention definition.

Secondly, performance targets alone will not be enough. Management processes, at all scales, must be designed to incorporate principles of sustainability, along with concomitant principles such as those of good government and environmental management. Once designed, processes must be subject to rigorous examination to ascertain the extent to which they do in fact embody these principles.

Finally, the ability of democratic political frameworks to deliver sustainable decisions must be questioned. The freshwater industry, perhaps more than any other sector, is affected by the failings of current democratic processes. Change will not come easily, but a discussion must be initiated and kept alive. Unless changed, democratic decision-making processes will continue to drive this planet towards eco-catastrophe.

9.References

Gardner, Alex (2000) Developments in the whole-of-government management of terrestrial water resources. In University of Western Australia Law Review 29(1)116-141.

Hardin, Garrett (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-1248

Mary Maher & Associates, Susanne Cooper & Associates, and Nichols, Peter (1999) Australian River Restoration and Management: criteria for the legislative framework for the twenty-first century, based on an analysis of Australian and international experience. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation; Canberra.

Nevill, Jon (2001) Freshwater Biodiversity: protecting freshwater ecosystems in the face of infrastructure development. Water Research Foundation of Australia, Australian National University; Canberra. Also available on the Only One Planet website: http://www.onlyoneplanet.com/freshwater-a.htm .

Nevill, Jon (2000) Environmental Principles. Only One Planet website: http://www. onlyoneplanet.com/Env_principles.htm .

Odum, William (1982) Environmental degradation and the tyranny of small decisions. Bioscience 32(9) 728-729

10.Appendix OneGuideline: Catchment Master Plan: Model framework

Background

Conceptually, a State can establish a water management framework using a central policy-making and funding agency, devolving on-ground operations to Catchment Boards. The State's key statute is the Water Act. Each major river basin has a Catchment Board. The Boards can impose their own levy, and / or may also draw funds from local government. Membership of Boards is determined by the Water Act to draw on key stakeholder groups. Stakeholder groups nominate candidates from which appointments are made by the State minister responsible for water resources, on 5-year staggered rotations. The Water Act has a central objective, and lists several key principles. The Act requires that actions taken by a Board, and by Board members, must seek to further the objective of the Act, must comply with the principles listed in the Act, and must (where appropriate) satisfy the issues listed in the Act. Among those issues, of course, are relevant State statutes and policies, regional strategies, the operations and programs of local water and sewage agencies, and local government planning schemes.

The Boards are required to develop, in consultation with the public, Catchment Management Plans (CMPs). These plans incorporate a hierarchy of plans addressing key catchment issues. Water Allocation Plans (WAPs) address the allocation of surface and groundwater. There are also River Management Plans (RMPs), Aquifer Management Plans (AMPs) and Wetland Management Plans (WMPs).

Once assessed and approved by the Minister, the CMP becomes a statutory document, and must be formally complied with by local government in approving developments or changing local landuse strategies or landuse zoning plans. The CMP must also be complied with by State agencies whose works or activities may impact on the catchment, such as road construction authorities.

This document provides a model for a CMP.

Objective and Principles

The plan draws these directly from the Water Act, which in turn draws on key national and international strategies and agreements. These are discussed elsewhere.

Cumulative effects

The plan recognises the need to manage the cumulative effects of incremental water infrastructure development, and seeks to manage these impacts by the strategic implementation of caps or limits on such developments long before problems arise. The policy under which the plans are prepared recognises that, if the caps are considered only after problems become evident, they are unlikely to be efficient or effective.

Matters to be considered

The Catchment Management Plan must take into consideration:

· the need to further the objectives of the Water Act, within the framework provided by the principles of the Act;

· international, national, State legislation and agreements;

· local government planning strategies and landuse zoning plans;

· interdependencies between aquifers and surface flows;

· beneficial use of surface and groundwaters both now and in the future;

· dependence of ecosystems on surface and groundwater flows, taking special regard to ecosystems of high natural value, and identified representative ecosystems;

· size and variations (seasonal and climatic) of surface and groundwater stocks and flows, the capacity of aquifers to buffer seasonal variations, and the ecological effects of these variations;

· impacts on the environment that may occur as a result of water utilisation (abstractions and discharges), and the risks associated with such impacts

· special significance of aquifer recharge and discharge zones;

· economic and social impacts of management options;

· needs and methods applicable to implementing, enforcing and auditing water plans; and

· scientific uncertainties, and the implications of such uncertainties for management plans.

Supporting studies

The Catchment Management Plan must be prepared after the following information is assembled (with the assistance of the State Water Agency scientific support unit) and examined:

· an assessment of the catchment resource base including surface water flows, groundwater storage quantities, groundwater recharge and discharge rates, and seasonal and yearly variations and directions of both surface and groundwater flows;

· mapped data providing information on the aquifers of the catchment, including their geology, and geomorphology;

· mapped data showing all of the catchment's watercourses, wetlands, and highly water-dependent ecosystems such as riparian zones, known subterranean ecosystems, and spring-fed ecosystems - this data should highlight special and representative ecosystems, and provide GIS links to supporting data;

· mapped data providing information on all known dams, weirs, irrigation and industrial water abstractions (including bores), and levee banks - with GIS links to data on this infrastructure such as permits and licences - as much data should be provided as possible on illegal structures;

· mapped data indicating landuse, vegetation cover, and runoff coefficients in the catchment

· an inventory of freshwater ecosystems within the catchment; with special regard to groundwater-dependent ecosystems, and ecosystems of special (and representative) value.

· identification of the degree of dependence of ecosystems on surface and groundwater flows, and the intrinsic, economic, scientific and aesthetic importance of those ecosystems;

· agricultural, industrial and domestic demands for water, including an assessment of their location, seasonal variations, quality requirements, and applicability of water conservation measures;

· identification of places of cultural importance, and the relationship between surface and groundwater resources and these places;

· development of an contaminants inventory; including point and area sources affecting both surface and groundwater resources;

· information from existing systems for monitoring and reporting the condition of both the water resource (surface and ground) and the condition of water-dependent ecosystems - summary data in the form of aquifer condition indices and stream condition indices must be examined;

It is absolutely essential that this review provide information on the size of the catchment's water stocks and flows, on the needs of the catchment's water-dependent ecosystems, on the needs of existing domestic, agricultural and industrial users, and on the degree to which the catchment's water resources are already allocated in a median rainfall year, and in 10th and 90th percentile rainfall years.

Strategic planning must be undertaken to set limits on human use of catchment water, and where necessary wind back existing human use.

Program implementation will be facilitated, within the State framework by:

· setting local objectives, including environmental objectives, for surface and groundwater use and protection;

· establishing management and allocation criteria in line with ecologically sustainable use principles;

· determining appropriate values and uses for the resource;

· developing transfer strategies, where appropriate;

· devising protection priorities and mechanisms for dependent ecosystems;

· providing protection strategies for places of cultural significance related to water;

· devising infrastructure protection policies;

· where appropriate, providing rehabilitation and remediation programs;

· taking account of regional planing strategies and local government planning schemes, and by providing recommendations to local government regarding inclusion of specific water protection strategies and mechanisms in planning instruments (such as buffer zones, for example), and

· developing and budgeting for local monitoring, reporting and review mechanisms.

Catchment Management Plan Specifications:

· the Catchment Management Plan must establish a framework of detailed plans, including River Management Plans, Aquifer Management Plans, and Water Allocation Plans;

· The CMP must examine interactions between regional and local planning strategies and catchment health, and must make recommendations in particular regarding needs to maintain or change local government planning (landuse zoning) schemes;

· The CMP must establish procedures for monitoring, reporting and reviewing measures of catchment health, including surface and groundwaters.

Measures of Catchment Health:

Procedures are to be established to allow monitoring and reporting of river health.  These procedures are to include measurement of the Index of Stream Condition in accordance with agreed national protocols.  The ISC includes measurements of five key indicator groups: (a) hydrology (flow volume and seasonality);(b) physical form (stream bank and bed condition, presence of and access to physical habitat)(c) streamside zone (quantity and quality of streamside vegetation, condition of billabongs);(d) water quality (nutrient concentration, turbidity, salinity and acidity); and(e) aquatic life (diversity of macroinvertebrates).

Procedures are to be established to allow monitoring and reporting of aquifer health.  These procedures are to include measurement of the Index of Aquifer Condition in accordance with agreed national protocols.  The IAC is to include measurements of five key indicators: (a) storage capacity - the size of the stored water resource, (b) physical aquifer structure and function, including measures of the condition of recharge and discharge zones (taking special note of damage due to extractive industries); (c) recharge and discharge rates, taking special note of divergence between recharge and (abstraction plus natural discharge) rates; (d) water quality; and (e)  biological health, taking special note of the condition of groundwater-dependent ecosystems (especially stygofauna and other biota totally dependent on aquifer health, such as mound spring communities).

Additional notes on the use of indicators (both for indexes and special studies):

Hydrology indicators: change in volume and seasonality of flow from natural conditions.

Biological indicators: riparian and in-stream macrophytes - diversity and abundance; in-stream algae; diversity and abundance indicators for invertebrates, macro-invertebrates, fish, birds, amphibians, reptiles, mammals; aquatic and riparian weeds; aquatic and riparian pest species; wetland area - spatial extent, age structure of vegetation indicating regeneration.

Physical and chemical indicators: total phosphorus, electrical conductivity (salinity); turbidity; and pH; contamination by suspected carcinogens or endocrine disruptors.

Habitat indicators: connectivity (weirs, dams and levees blocking the movement of fish and water); riparian cover; riparian weeds; woody debris in streams; stream geomorphology - bank stability, bed erosion or aggradation; frequency and timing of flooding, particularly of billabongs and wetlands.

11.Appendix TwoCatchment management: model legislative framework

to be added later.

Decide on the desired outcome

Plan for the outcome

Implement the plan

Monitor and audit the results (against the desired outcomes and plan)

Report the findings

Review the report: has the right outcome been achieved?

Identify necessary changes to the plan for the next reporting year

EMS planning cycle

� Dr Luke Pen, of the WA WRC, has expanded on this point by comparing rivers to roads. The comparison is striking and important (Penn 2001, in preparation).

� Refer to the Only One Planet website. See also page 4 of the ACT Nature Conservation Strategy.

� Water pollution controls are often found in multiple State statutes, and Tasmania is no exception. Here pollution is now primarily controlled through the provisions of the Environmental Management and Po