Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment

To:The Minister

Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment

First Floor, Franklin Square Offices

Hobart TASMANIA 7000

From:Jon Nevill

Environmental consultant.

317 Strickland Ave, South Hobart TASMANIA 7004

phone 0401 350 084

30 September 2000.

Submission

A WETLANDS STRATEGY FOR TASMANIA

Draft discussion paper; August 2000:

1.Opening comments: discussion paper is of a high standard

Firstly, congratulations on a well-researched and documented report. The report covers key components of a wetlands strategy in useful detail, and in understandable language.

I have a number of suggestions which I believe will assist in developing an effective wetlands strategy.

2.Wetland values:

The Commonwealth government, in preparing the National Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Diversity, explicitly acknowledged intrinsic values in a short but eloquent statement. The Australian Capital Territory, in preparing their Nature Conservation Strategy, endorsed this ethic in the following terms:

A respect for nature ethos.

There is a widely held ethical basis for conserving our biodiversity. It is expressed in the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity in the following terms: "We share the earth with many other life forms that warrant our respect, whether or not they are of benefit to us. Earth belongs to the future as well as the present; no single species or generation can claim it as its own".

Although wetland strategies and policies developed by Victorian, New South Wales, Queensland, and Western Australian have omitted acknowledgment of intrinsic values, I believe that Tasmania should support the lead taken by the ACT in acknowledging this important ethic. The development of an ethic of environmental stewardship (for want of a better name) may be one of the most important issues for our generation, and for the future of mankind on this planet. See also the views expressed at

The discussion paper comes close to this acknowledgment when it states on page 11:

Wetlands, as well as being the habitat for a wide variety of flora and fauna, have many values and uses for humans.

All this sentence needs is a little expansion using the words quoted above.

3.Wetland definition:

The term "wetland" in general use in Australia has a more limited meaning than the term used in the Ramsar Convention. According to the Discussion Paper:

For the purposes of discussion, the internationally accepted definition of wetlands, provided by the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance is given below.

Wetlands are areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres.

The Ramsar definition is necessarily broad; it needs to encompass the many different wetland environments found throughout the world. In Tasmania, we do not need to adopt such a broad definition. For example, the Ramsar definition would include all rivers, yet deep, fast flowing parts of rivers are not normally regarded as wetlands, unlike marshy areas associated with rivers.

While this is a reasonable point, it should be born in mind that Australia and of course Tasmania have certain obligations under the Ramsar Convention, and these obligations will not be fully met by programs based on a more limited definition.

The key dilemma is: how to develop policy covering both still and flowing waters.

There is a problem here. In other States:

• New South Wales has approached the matter by having two policies: a Wetlands Policy and a Rivers and Estuaries Policy;
• Victoria has a Wetlands Program and a separate Heritage Rivers Program, the latter resting on an Act of parliament and an unpublished government instruction to departments requiring them to implement the final recommendations of the Land Conservation Council's Rivers and Streams Investigation;
• Queensland has a Wetlands Strategy, and is currently developing a separate Rivers Policy;
• Western Australia has a Wetlands Policy divided into two sections: (a) a policy statement, and (b) a section dealing with policy implementation. Here the problem is approached by adopting the Ramsar definition in the policy statement, which also applies to the State's river management programs, while restricting the implementation section of the Wetlands Policy to a definition of wetlands which excluded the flowing sections of rivers.

The distinction between 'wetlands' and 'rivers' is somewhat artificial. Both are aquatic ecosystems. Both are fed by groundwater and rainfall. Both have overlapping sets of values, and both are subject to similar uses, demands and threats.

I recommend that Tasmania take a lead in developing a State Policy covering both wetlands and rivers in the one document, utilising the full Ramsar definition of wetlands.

4.Goal statement:

On page 8 of the Discussion Paper we find an exploration of the term "wise use", a key principle of the Ramsar Convention. According to the Discussion Paper: "The wise use principle should be applied to all of Tasmania’s wetlands…"

The suggested goal statement (p.21) reflects a focus on wise use:

The wise use of Tasmania’s wetlands through their ecologically sustainable management and conservation.

I am concerned by the interpretations which could be placed on this statement. It could potentially open some of Tasmania's important fully-protected wetlands for multiple use. The line between wise use and unwise use is a difficult one to draw.

The suggested wording also fails to adequately capture the two cornerstones of biodiversity conservation: (a) the establishment of fully-protected reserves to provide benchmarks and biodiversity banks for future generations, and (b) "wise use" of ecosystems managed for their productive capacities. These cornerstones are captured by Principle 8 of the national biodiversity strategy:

Principle 8
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 use of the term “protected area” is derived from the international Convention on Biological Diversity, and applies equally to terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems.

The suggested goal statement should be amended in line with these concerns. It could read, perhaps:

The conservation of the biodiversity and productive capacities of Tasmania’s wetlands through both reservation and wise use.

or

The ecologically sustainable management of Tasmania's wetlands through both reservation and wise use.

5.Principles:

I strongly endorse the principles listed on p.21 of the Discussion Paper, particularly the inclusion of the precautionary principle (which might be better referenced to a document endorsed at the national or State level - see Appendix 1).

However, there are important principles missing from the list:

(a) need for reservation of representative wetland ecosystems (as discussed above). I suggest the wording be adapted from Principle 8 above:

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

Commitments by Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland to the development of systems of representative freshwater reserves may be found in:

• Government of Victoria (1987)
• New South Wales Government (1996)
• Government of Western Australia (1997)
• Queensland Government (1999)

At this stage only Victoria has funded a program to put in place such a reserve system.

(b) need for management regimes to take cumulative effects into account:

The management of the cumulative effects of incremental water infrastructure development was one of four key "intractable issues" workshopped by DPIWE late last year. That workshop found that the management of cumulative effects was central to the achievement of effective and integrated water management within a catchment context.

I suggest a principle could be worded:

The management of the cumulative effects of incremental water infrastructure development, and incremental growth in water utilisation, is central to the (ecologically) sustainable management of both wetlands and water resources in general. Procedures must be established to take account of cumulative effects within a catchment management framework, and information systems must be established to support such procedures.

The workshop mentioned above found that one of the important data needs of such procedures would be the development of a comprehensive State-wide inventory of freshwater ecosystems. Appropriate budgetary and organisational resources should be applied to the extension of the existing Tasmanian Wetlands Inventory as a matter of urgency.

In passing, it is worth noting that Queensland's Water Quality Policy requires the assessment of cumulative effects in development approval processes.

(c) no net loss of wetlands:

New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia are the three Australian States suffering the greatest loss of wetlands. South Australia is currently developing a wetlands strategy, and I hope this will include the principle of "no net loss". The NSW Wetlands Policy and the Victorian Wetlands Program already incorporate the concept of "no net loss".

Under this concept, if a development must destroy or severely degrade a natural wetland, an artificial wetland must be created to replace it. The artificial wetland must be designed, constructed and managed to re-create and protect the values lost in the natural wetland, as far as practical. This usually involves both capital and operational expenditure.

While recognising that wetland loss in Tasmania has not been as severe as in some other States, I strongly recommend the incorporation of this principle. I suggest wording to the effect:

Recognising that about half of Tasmania's wetlands have been destroyed or severely degraded, measures should be taken to halt further erosion of this important resource. There should be no net loss of wetland area, and measures should be taken wherever practical to expand wetland areas. If a development must destroy wetlands, compensatory proposals must be developed, implemented and funded. The size of such artificial wetland must be at least 20% greater than the size of the natural wetland which is destroyed.

(d) incorporation of catchment management principles into land use planning.

Although Tasmania has discussed the development of a statutory State Policy on integrated catchment management, at this stage no formal arrangements have been proposed. The integrated management of rivers, aquifers and wetlands should take place within a catchment framework, and should incorporate all relevant stakeholders and values.

Current arrangement are far from ideal, and do not take full advantage of the frameworks and guidelines available through national programs such as the National Water Quality Management Strategy or the Healthy Rivers Program.

I believe a key focus of any wetlands strategy should be the development of legislation and statutory policy aimed at integrating the management of water (above and below ground) within a catchment framework into State land-use planning mechanisms.

For this to occur, the State government might provide community-and-shire based catchment management groups with guidelines for the development of ICM plans which take biodiversity values into account (amongst other matters). On completion of a catchment plan, such a plan could be assessed and endorsed by the DPIWE minister. Statutory controls could then require that planning decisions (made under the State's land-use planning legislation) take account of these ICM plans. Queensland, through its Water Quality Policy, has gone part of the way to achieving this objective, and this model could be built on and improved by Tasmania.

6.Auditing and enforcement of water management regimes:

No system of resource management will be effective unless it is implemented, enforced as necessary, audited and reviewed. These are standard quality assurance techniques, built into internationally accepted standards such as the ISO 9000 and ISO 14,000 series.

The Tasmanian water management regime is developing under new legislation. It is essential that programs be designed, and budgets provided, to audit and enforce controls. A situation where a farmer sees his neighbour build a substantial dam without the required approvals, and the State takes no effective action, undermines the entire water management regime. Under such conditions, cumulative effects become impossible to control.

7.References:

Commonwealth of Australia (1997) Wetlands policy of the Commonwealth of Australia. Environment Australia; Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia (Council of Australian Governments) (1996) The national strategy for the conservation of Australia’s biological diversity; Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories; Canberra. Also available at

Government of the Australian Capital Territory (1998) Nature Conservation Strategy. ACT Government; Canberra.

Government of Victoria (1988) Wetlands conservation program for Victoria. Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands; Melbourne.

Government of Victoria (1987) Protecting the environment – a conservation strategy for Victoria; Victorian Government Printing Office; Melbourne.

Government of Western Australia (1997) Wetland conservation policy for Western Australia; Department of Conservation and Land Management, and the Water and Rivers Commission; Perth, WA.

Northern Territory, Parks and Wildlife Commission (2000) A strategy for conservation of the biological diversity of wetlands in the Northern Territory of Australia. Parks and Wildlife Commission; Darwin NT.

NSW New South Wales Government (1996) The NSW wetlands management policy. Department of Land and Water Conservation; Sydney.

NSW New South Wales Government (1992) The NSW State rivers and estuaries policy. Department of Land and Water Conservation; Sydney.

Queensland Government (1999) Strategy for the conservation and management of Queensland’s wetlands. Environment Protection Agency; Brisbane.

Queensland Government (1997) Environment Protection (Water) Policy. Environment Protection Agency; Brisbane.

Appendix 1: The precautionary principle

According to the Rio Earth Charter:

“Where 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”

With the following provision added by Australia’s National ESD strategy:

“In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by:

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

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

Tasmania is committed to the precautionary principle through international, national and State policy. The precautionary principle is a key principle listed in:

INTERNATIONAL

The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 1992.

Ratified by the Australian Government 1992.

NATIONAL

Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment 1992.

Endorsed by the Premier of Tasmania on 1 May 1992.

The National Strategy on Ecologically Sustainable Development 1992.

Endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments (including the Premier of Tasmania) at its meeting on 7 December 1992.

The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity 1996.

Endorsed by the Premier of Tasmania 1996.

STATE

Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.

An Act of the Tasmanian Parliament; refer to schedule 1 part 2 section 3(h).

State Coastal Policy 1996; section 2.1.5

A policy passed by the Tasmanian Parliament under the provisions of the State Policies and Projects Act 1993.

State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997; section 6.1(e)

A policy passed by the Tasmanian Parliament under the provisions of the State Policies and Projects Act 1993.

Draft State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land 1999;

Attachment: Guidelines to Implementation, Clause 6.5.

This Draft Policy replaced the 1998 State Policy on the Protection of Agricultural Land, and has been declared an Interim State Policy in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the State Policies and Projects Act 1993, with immediate effect.

1