Third Australian Stream Management Conference – Brisbane, August 2001 Evaluating sustainable river management programs: assess the outcomes AND the process ! Third Australian Stream Management Conference – Brisbane, August 2001 Evaluating sustainable river management programs: assess the outcomes AND the process ! Jon Nevill, Peter Nichols and Mary Maher

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.

Background paper (30 pages) PowerPoint Presentation

Land and Water Australia Improving the legislative basis for river management in Australia – Stage 2 Report Mary Maher and Associates

Is there a problem? Democracy, as it is currently practised, is driving the planet towards ecocatastrophe. Failure to apply conceptually simple accounting principles to the management of natural resources is destroying the planet’s resource base.

Is there a problem? Failure to apply accepted biodiversity conservation processes (relating to the establishment of representative reserves) is seriously undermining the conservation of freshwater biodiversity. Failure to apply accepted management techniques to the control of cumulative effects in the freshwater industry is driving catchments across Australia towards over-exploitation and degradation.

…and all this is happening with scarcely a whimper from practitioners in the freshwater industry….

ESD –  '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'.

Democratic structures driving planet to eco-catastrophe creates decision makers whose jobs depend on meeting immediate needs ignores future generations our system rewards them for this

Changes political system which enshrines environmental principles core values must change eschew short term consumerist values give politicians job security – annual elections for 15 to 20 years legislate for sustainable decisions

Measurement programs must encompass essential values indicators to measure these values define benchmarks for the indicators how to provide for new benchmarks? timescales statistical techniques for probabilities predictive methods processes for continuous improvement accounting for uncertainties

Water management assumptions small dams, users, levees “…don't matter" no attention to environmental flows no need for freshwater reserves systems fish passage facilities unnecessary surface & groundwaters are separate no damage from grazing wetlands / riparian no need for rigorous enforcement unnecessary to value rivers as capital assets

Principles to be applied Basic principles  sustainability  good governance  environmental management “Advanced” principles  Wingspread Principles  Hanover Principles  Natural Step Principles USA Department of Energy website:

Sustainability principles integrate economic, social & environ’t’l precautionary principle intergenerational equity conserve biodiversity / ecological integrity improve valuation / pricing / incentives shared responsibility product stewardship wastes hierarchy integrated environmental management compliance enforcement

Good government principles Participation Transparency Certainty Accountability Integrity Cost-effectiveness Flexibility Practicality

Environmental management ISO 14,000 standards ISO lists principles & mechanisms Core principles:  producer responsibility  quality assurance  continual improvement

Example: The cumulative effects of incremental water development (dams, bores, drains, levee banks, irrigated pasture, removal of deep- rooted vegetation) escapes careful scrutiny. The “Tyranny of small decisions” effect. The precautionary principle must be applied: Cumulative effects can only be managed by placing strategic (catchment) limits on development, well ahead of need. In other industries: Marine fishing industry - strategic limits established to control catch and fishing effort. Statutory landuse planning - strategic limits established through landuse zoning schemes.

Current Australian strategies to management cumulative effects: Strategy One: “forget about them” Australian water resource legislation: Western Australia:no mention Northern Territory: no mention South Australia: no mention Victoria:no mention New South Wales: principle: cumulative effects must be identified and constrolled Queensland: no mention Tasmania:no mention Aust Capital Territory: no mention

Current Australian strategies to management cumulative effects: Strategy Two: “leave it until its too late” Australian water resource legislation: No clearly defined requirements in any legislation. NSW has general statutory provisions relating to the control of cumulative effects, BUT... Australian water resource policy: - shared by all States and the Commonwealth Government (through the National Action Plan on Salinty and Water Quality). “Establish caps on the development of activities affecting the water resource ONLY when catchments are stressed, or clearly approaching a stressed condition”. Victoria is currently considering the establishment of a planning process which would establish development caps on some activities (such as susrface water extraction) across ALL catchments. South Australia and Western Australia have both established such a process, but are not appliying it.

A more detailed example: Tasmania’s Water Management Act 1999: Section 63 (Minister’s approval of licence application) obliges the Minister (or, more usually, his delegate) to grant a licence application in cases where environmental requirements have not been determined, providing that it is unlikely that the granting of the application would cause significant environmental harm, or detriment to other users of the water resource. Given that the Act does not acknowledge the issue of cumulative effects, this section prevents the use of a precautionary approach in allocating water to off-stream uses. This appears to me to be an oversight in the draughting of the Act, even accepting that the Act does provide for allocation windback at a later stage when environmental requirements have been determined, and a WMP drafted.

Tasmania’s Water Management Act 1999: From an environmental viewpoint, a far better approach would be to withhold the approval of licence applications pending the development of the WMP for the local resource. A similar alternative approach would require the Minister to assess the likely environmental effect of the application, taking into account the cumulative nature of such effects. The provisions of s.86 (allowing the Minister to assess the effect of a water allocation) do little to remedy the situation, as – outside the framework of a WMP – such an assessment is almost certain to ignore the critical issue of cumulative effects.

Hypothetical framework  A natural resource accounting framework  EIA requirements for new proposals  A system of State-owned protected areas, complemented by privately- owned reserves  A water management framework  Land use planning requirements

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.

Ten criteria (1999) 1. National binding river standards 2. Duty-of-care legislated for all 3. ‘River’ legally to include floodplains etc 4. Single, catchment-wide agency 5. Commensurate statutory powers 6. Agencies to include all stakeholders 7. Close links between agencies & LG 8. Statutory catchment restoration plan 9. Independent regular catchment audit 10. Statutory periodic review 11. Remove perverse laws & subsidies

Ecological systems thinking economic progress within ecol. limits climate of ecological uncertainty constancy of change innovation integral no net loss of ecological assets economic gain to achievers of ESD evaluate on long-term perspective

Management systems thinking plan, do, monitor, report, review, revise adaptive management for continuous improvement producer responsibility for all effects assess new opportunities & threats work & report against targets strategic assessment of major directions coordination of all critical players clear roles and responsibilities

Progressed framework (2001) 4 States’ stakeholders' experiences systems thinking (above) frameworks of accepted principles model legislative framework for catchment management could consist of 13 major elements, and about 65 sub-elements

Further information on the draft model legislative framework:

Achieving sustainability on-going and evolving process certain elements are now available at least two central thrusts  values identified & indicators chosen  management processes to incorporate principles of sustainability, good government & environmental management ability of present political frameworks to deliver ESD must be questioned