Discussion paper:
Assessing the importance of Australia’s aquatic ecosystems
Paper prepared for the Department of the Environment and Water Resources
Canberra, Australia
By
OnlyOnePlanet Australia
PO Box 106
HamptonVictoria 3188
Authorship:
Jon Nevill, Max Finlayson (research)
Bill Phillips, Tim Doeg (peer reviews – Appendix 17)
Jessemy Long (Appendix 10 – a Tasmanian case study)
Josie Carwardine and Bob Pressey (Appendix 18 – a systematic approach)
Corresponding author: Jon Nevill 0422 926 515, .
Version 1.1
10 August 2007
Copyright:
Department of the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra.
Executive summary:
The purpose of this paper is to:
- propose a set of principles to guide the selection of criteria for the identification of high conservation value aquatic ecosystems (HCVAEs);
- propose a set of criteria for discussion;
- propose the use of criteria for the classification of importance;
- provide a background for these criteria by a brief identification, analysis and critique of existing approaches, including a discussion of ecosystem integrity; and
- consider the value of a more rigorous long-term approach to assessing importance, based on a comprehensive national inventory of inland aquatic ecosystems.
Six guiding principles are listed, supplemented by three additional principles from New Zealand’s Waters of National Importance project (WONI). Of these nine principles, the second of the WONI principles is of particular interest. In essence, this principle states that a list of nationally important ecosystems should contain at least one example of every distinct ecosystem type.
While this is an important concept (systematic complementarity, on which reserve network design is partly based) its use depends on the availability of a national inventory of aquatic ecosystems, including lentic, lotic, subterranean and estuarine systems. Although a considerable amount of Australian data has been collected (with Tasmania, Victoria and NSW having reasonable coverage) a comprehensive national inventory is not currently available. Subterranean ecosystem data at a national scale is a notable gap.
The paper recommends that actions to develop a national ecosystem inventory should be supported, with the long-term goal of using a systematic approach (perhaps modelled on the WONI project – Appendix 15) to establish ecosystem importance.
However, in the interim, an approach based on traditional criteria is recommended. Seven core HCVAE identification criteria are proposed, largely based on existing usage:
Criterion 1: The ecosystem and its catchment is largely undisturbed by the direct influence of modern human activity.
Criterion 2: The ecosystem is a good representative example of its type or class within a bioregion or sub-bioregion.
Criterion 3:The ecosystem is the habitat of rare or threatened species or communities, or is the location of rare or threatened or significant geomorphic or geological feature(s), or contains one of only a few known habitats of an organism of unknown distribution.
Criterion 4:The ecosystem demonstrates unusual diversity and/or abundance of features, habitats, communities or species.
Criterion 5: The ecosystem provides evidence of the course or pattern of the evolution of Australia’s landscape or biota.
Criterion 6: The ecosystem provides important resources for particular life-history stages of biota.
Criterion 7: The ecosystem performs important functions or services within the landscape (e.g., refugia, sustaining associated ecosystems).
Differences of opinion:
There are many complexities in approaching the issue of assessing ecosystem importance. No single approach is clearly ‘right’. The paper’s lead authors, Jon Nevill and Max Finlayson, take an approach closely aligned to current practice. They recommend that ecosystems of international importance be identified using Ramsar criteria, and that ecosystems of national importance be identified using Directory of Important Wetlands of Australia (DIWA) criteria. Under their proposal, ecosystems of regional importance would be identified using the seven new HCVAE criteria, applied using appropriate (to-be-developed) guidelines.
Difficulties in this approach are discussed, and it is suggested that addition of an eighth criterion, mirrored in both the DIWA and HCVAE criteria, could solve some of these problems.
At this point Tim Doeg, a peer-reviewer, has taken a markedly different approach. Doeg’s recommendation is simple: the seven (or eight) new criteria should be used to identify all three groups: those significant at the international, national and regional levels. What is required in this case is a set of guidelines which provide three different interpretations, appropriate to the three different importance levels.
This would provide a more coherent approach, logically speaking, however at the expense of changes to current use of Ramsar and DIWA criteria. Ramsar criteria currently support the Ramsar provisions of the Environment and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999, while DIWA criteria lists are used as a statutory referral trigger in Queensland, and possibly other States.
The second peer-reviewer, Bill Phillips, also takes a different approach to the problem caused by the similarity of the three criteria sets: Ramsar, DIWA and proposed HCVAE. Instead of recommending the expansion of the DIWA and HCVAE criteria (like Nevill & Finlayson), Phillips recommends contracting the Ramsar criteria.
Phillips supports some of the report’s closing comments on the way forward, where recommendations are made specifically regarding the use of consultant expertise in inventory development and systematic planning. According to Dr Phillips:
For this initiative to succeed it is vital that it be advanced by a mix of experts; from both within and outside government. It must be under an independent leadership group in order to overcome ‘States rights’ and parochialism factors that have made this agenda problematic to advance in the past. It must also move away from being seen as an initiative of the National Reserves System; meaning, dominated by people with expertise in (terrestrial) park management. While these skills are part of what’s needed, they need to be balanced by experts from aquatic science and management realms.
There are also differences of opinion regarding immediate application of a systematic approach to importance identification. While acknowledging the value of a systematic approach to establishing importance priorities, Nevill & Finlayson argue for the adoption of a traditional criteria-based approach (above) as an interim measure, pending the availability of sufficient comprehensive data to support a systematic approach.
Josie Carwardine and Bob Pressey, in a commissioned appendix (which was unfortunately not available at the report deadline date of July 31) argue for the immediate application of a systematic approach to establishing importance priorities. Their work (Appendix 18) supports earlier comments by Janet Stein (Appendix 13).
Unresolved issues:
The discussion paper introduces the concept of ecosystem integrity, following long-standing use of this concept by the Canadian Heritage Rivers System. Suggestions for a three-way scale of integrity are developed in Appendix 5, with recommendations that the concept be used in developing guidelines for the application of the proposed HCVAE criteria.
Both Doeg and Phillips comment on the issue of ecosystem integrity, and support its use. Phillips comments on the importance of maintaining connectivity (in particular) between aquatic ecosystems, and sees major problems where integrity is compromised by restrictions on flows of both water and organisms. He suggests the issue should be part of the criteria determination process. Doeg also comments on the importance of the integrity issue, noting that fuller exploration of the concept, and the proposed integrity criteria in Appendix 5, would have been useful. These issues will need examination in future discussions.
There are at least two important issues which are not thoroughly canvassed in the 13-page discussion paper:
Firstly, how far away is a national aquatic ecosystem inventory? The paper assumes it is some years away. The closer it is, the less need there is for an interim approach to HCVAE identification. Janet Stein (as noted above) in a comment quoted in Appendix 13, argues that a start on a systematic approach could be made immediately, at least for lotic ecosystems.
Secondly, how many levels of importance are in fact useful? The paper assumes three levels are useful: international, national, and regional. The use of importance levels is considered in Appendix 5 of the discussion paper, and in the Discussion, but only briefly. If a single level – national – would meet all critical uses, then moving towards a quantitative systematic approach (such as that used in WONI) looks more straightforward, and thus more attractive. Can it be argued that current use (eg: the EPBC Act, referral triggers mentioned above, and non-statutory landuse and resource planning) could be satisfied with a single importance level?
Both these questions are important for the reader to consider in weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the discussion paper’s recommendations.
Discussion paper:
Assessing the importance of Australia’s inland aquatic ecosystems
OnlyOnePlanet Australia 10 August 2007
PO Box 106HamptonVICTORIA 3188.Ph. 0422 926 515
Abstract:
Identification criteria for high conservation value aquatic ecosystems (excluding marine ecosystems) are discussed, relating to ecosystem value and integrity. Underlying principles guiding choice of criteria are listed, and seven core criteria are proposed. Separate appendices outline both ecosystem classification approaches (at the most basic level - Ramsar) and importance classification approaches, as well as summaries of key examples. A four-tiered classification of importance is recommended, covering significance at international, national, regional and local levels. Recommendations are made for the inclusion of an irreplaceability criterion to DIWA and HCVAE criteria sets, and for the development of guidelines on the application of the identification criteria, largely thorough an interstate experts workshop. This overall approach should however be seen as an interim measure. Development of a national freshwater ecosystem inventory, underpinned by flexible ecosystem classification methods, is recommended as a priority. A comprehensive inventory would provide the basis, in the long term, for a more rigorous systematic approach to establishing importance, such as that taken in New Zealand (discussed in an Appendix).
Contents:
Abstract:
Introduction:
Basic principles:
Criteria for the identification of high conservation value aquatic ecosystems:
Rationale of proposed identification criteria:
Application of identification criteria:
Classification of importance:
Discussion:
Summary and conclusion:
Recommendations:
Appendix 1. Principles for the conservation & management of freshwater ecosystems
Appendix 2. Ramsar criteria and criteria guidelines
Appendix 3. Directory of Important Wetlands of Australia (DIWA) criteria
Appendix 4. Canadian Heritage River System selection principles and guidelines
Appendix 5. Value, integrity and importance criteria
Appendix 6. Ramsar classification for wetland type
Appendix 7. Inventories of freshwater ecosystems
Appendix 8. Australian approaches to waterway assessment
Appendix 9. Wetland values (ecosystem services) generic list
Appendix 10. Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystem Values Project, Tasmania
Appendix 11. Australian Wild Rivers:
Appendix 12. Australia’s protected rivers:
Appendix 13. Absolute and relative importance scales:
Appendix 14. The Environment and Biodiversity Protection (EPBC) Act 1999:
Appendix 15. The NZ ‘Waters of National Importance’ project.
Appendix 16. Victoria’s Heritage Rivers program.
Appendix 17: Peer reviews:
Appendix 18: A systematic conservation planning approach:
References:
Endnotes:
Introduction:
The purpose of this paper is to:
- propose a set of principles to guide the selection of criteria for the identification of high conservation value aquatic ecosystems (HCVAEs);
- propose a set of criteria for discussion;
- propose the use of criteria for the classification of importance;
- provide a background for these criteria by a brief identification, analysis and critique of existing approaches, including a discussion of ecosystem integrity; and
- consider the value of a more rigorous long-term approach to assessing importance, based on a comprehensive national inventory of inland aquatic ecosystems.
Note that the words ‘significant’ and ‘important’ have equivalent meanings as used in this paper. ‘Freshwater’ is used in a broad sense to include all inland aquatic waters, both above and below ground, fresh or salty. ‘Conservation’ excludes cultural and historical values, and is limited to natural (ecological and geological) values. ‘Wetland’ is used in the wide (Ramsar) sense of ‘wet land’ – broadly encompassing most aquatic ecosystems.
Why is it necessary to identify HCVAEs, and why should we establish a scale of importance within HCVAEs?
The conservation of biodiversity, including aquatic biodiversity, requires the protection of representative examples of all major ecosystem types (especially those vulnerable to degradation) coupled with the sympathetic management of ecosystems outside those protected areas. This concept is a cornerstone of biodiversity conservation[1]. Australia is committed to the comprehensive and adequate reservation of representative ecosystems. Australia is also committed to the conservation of important ecosystems outside the reserve system – across the landscape. We apply a sliding scale of protection, with the most intensive protection targeted at the most important conservation assets.
HCVAEs can be assigned importance, for example at international, national and regional significance levels. While we might expect most of the international sites to receive protection through protected area status (reservation), most of the regional sites might be protected by wider landuse planning and natural resource management (NRM) provisions. To apply this sliding scale, we need to know which assets are most important, and the designation of significance levels is a vital tool through which this is may be achieved (Appendices 5 &13).
It should be emphasised that such importance criteria themselves do not directly address issues of the selection of protected areas, or the design of protected area networks; in the context of this paper importance ratings are primarily tools for resource and landuse planning. A reserve system, on the other hand, must be based on complementarity.
Basic principles:
Considerable attention has been given to the matter of principles underpinning the conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems. Several important references have developed and listed sets of principles, and these are referenced in Appendix 1.
Here, however, we are interested only in principles to guide the selection of criteria for the identification of HCVAEs. These are a small sub-set of the wider lists referenced in Appendix 1. The proposed principles draw on these more general principles, and are set out below:
- Hierarchical conservation tools:
A hierarchical approach needs to be applied to ecosystem protection. Within this approach high conservation value ecosystems need to be identified and afforded special protection. However, these ‘jewels in the crown’ ultimately depend on a healthy landscape, and measures must be taken to protect the composition and function of natural and semi-natural ecosystems across the countryside. Degraded ecosystems need to be prioritised for restoration. - Ecosystem inventories:
In a world of limited resources and increasing ecological threats, a strategic approach to ecosystem protection offers cost-effective outcomes. Experience in asset management suggests that effective management depends on knowledge of the value, location and condition of assets, as well knowledge concerning threats to such assets. In an ecosystem context, Australia needs a national inventory of aquatic ecosystems, containing information on value, importance and condition. The building blocks for such an inventory are available (Appendices 7 & 8). Such inventories supply crucial information for natural resource management and land use planning programs. - Identification criteria
Criteria are needed to enable the identification of HCVAEs, within the context of a national ecosystem inventory. Criteria are also necessary to enable ranking of importance within such an inventory. Approaches have been developed and used, both overseas and in the Australian context (Appendices 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 15, and 16). - Criteria design
Criteria need to be based on widely accepted approaches. Criteria need to be sufficiently general to apply to aquatic ecosystems in the major ecological categories of lentic[2], lotic[3], subterranean[4] and estuarine. Criteria should ideally be transparent, justifiable and replicable, and based on measurable attributes where possible. Where qualitative approaches must be taken, application guidelines must be developed and applied (see Principle 5 below & Appendix 2). Criteria must take into account knowledge of ecological function, and widely accepted human values. Criteria should be able to differentiate between sites of international, national and regional significance. Where long-standing criteria are in use, changes should not be made without strong reason. - Criteria, and guidelines for the application of criteria
Identification criteria need to be kept conceptually simple by framing at a high level of generality. Selection criteria need to be robust and stable, and not subject to frequent review. However, due to the complexity of the issues involved, guidelines on the application of criteria are necessary, and it is within the context of such guidelines that issues of detail (such as how the values listed in Appendix 9, for example) should be addressed. Such guidelines should be subject to review. - International responsibilities
Where practical, criteria should be compatible with (and supportive of) international reporting frameworks, such as those of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Criteria should support programs aimed at fulfilling these commitments.
Principles used in the NZ Waters of National Importance project:
Chadderton et al. (2004:12), in a report by the New Zealand Department of Conservation, describe the logic behind the identification of high conservation value aquatic ecosystems within the broader Waters of National Importance project. Their discussion takes the question of key principles to a finer resolution than the broader principles set out above:
Here we identify the set of nationally important water bodies for biodiversity protection by combining environmental and biogeographic frameworks with information about the distribution of threatened species, and communities, and a range of human pressure variables that collectively indicate the naturalness of the system. If representative and ecologically viable units of the full range of environments and species within each biogeographic units are protected, then it should be possible to conserve a full range of what remains of New Zealand’s freshwater biodiversity for future generations. Successful conservation of this range will at least set a base level at which the decline in our natural freshwater biodiversity may be halted.
Our approach is based on the following principles:
- The least disturbed waters have retained most natural biodiversity and are therefore the highest priorities for protection if further loss is to be minimised.
- All [wetland] environment types or hydro-classes must be represented among those protected, in order to retain the full range of natural habitats and ecosystems.
- Remaining threatened native species or community types, where known, also need to be protected, so that viable populations of all indigenous species and subspecies can be maintained.
This approach underlines the importance of criteria related to disturbance, representation, and special values (see discussion below) and emphasises a systematic approach incorporating complementarity (the second principle above).