Department of the Environment and Heritage

House of Representative’s Standing Committee on Environment and Heritage

Inquiry into
CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT

Submission by the Department of

Environment and Heritage

August 1999
Contents
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................................1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................4

1. THE AUSTRALIAN CONTEXT: DEVELOPMENT OF CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT

IN AUSTRALIA.....................................................................................................................................7
VALUE OF THE CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT APPROACH .......................................................................8
2. BEST PRACTICE METHODS OF PREVENTING, HALTING AND REVERSING
ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION IN CATCHMENTS, AND ACHIEVING
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY.........................................................................................10
Best-Practice Framework...............................................................................................................10
POLICY OPTIONS .................................................................................................................................10
Economic Incentive Initiatives........................................................................................................10
Management agreements................................................................................................................................11
Voluntary conservation covenants .................................................................................................................11
Fencing assistance schemes ...........................................................................................................................11
Rate relief and differential rating schemes ....................................................................................................11
Payments from vegetation management trust ................................................................................................12
Environmental levies......................................................................................................................................12
Tax Rebate......................................................................................................................................................12
Removal of perverse incentives .....................................................................................................................12
Market-based incentives.................................................................................................................................12
Legislative reform ..........................................................................................................................................13
Duty of Care...................................................................................................................................13
Importance of Research for Best-Practice Methods .......................................................................14
NATIONAL ACTIVITIES ENCOURAGING BEST PRACTICE ......................................................................14
National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS).............................................................14
ENVIRONMENT AUSTRALIA ACTIVITIES ENCOURAGING BEST PRACTICE ............................................16
Bushcare.........................................................................................................................................16
Bush for Wildlife.............................................................................................................................16
Coastal and Marine Programs .......................................................................................................17
OTHER ISSUES .....................................................................................................................................17
Invasive Species .............................................................................................................................................17
Acid Sulphate Soils ........................................................................................................................................18
Dryland and In-Stream Salinity .....................................................................................................................18
Flood Warning Systems .................................................................................................................................18
3. THE ROLE OF DIFFERENT LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, THE PRIVATE SECTOR
AND THE COMMUNITY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF CATCHMENT AREAS (INCLUDING
PLANNING, RESOURCING, IMPLEMENTATION, COORDINATION & COOPERATION)20
NATIONAL INITIATIVES .......................................................................................................................21
Basin Management .........................................................................................................................21
Lake Eyre Basin .............................................................................................................................................21
Murray Darling Basin (MDB)........................................................................................................................22
Great Artesian Basin (GAB) ..........................................................................................................................22
NWQMS..........................................................................................................................................23
ENVIRONMENT AUSTRALIA INITIATIVES .............................................................................................23
NHT................................................................................................................................................23
Bushcare .........................................................................................................................................................24
Coast and Clean Seas.....................................................................................................................25
Clean Seas Program (CSP).............................................................................................................................25
Coastal and Marine Planning Program (CMPP)............................................................................................26
Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP)..............................................................................................................27
Capacity Building Program for Coasts and Clean Seas.................................................................................27
Coast Care Program .......................................................................................................................................27
OTHER ACTIVITIES ..............................................................................................................................27
Flood Warning ...............................................................................................................................27
Data and Indicators .......................................................................................................................28
4. MECHANISMS FOR MONITORING, EVALUATING AND REPORTING ON
CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS, INCLUDING THE USE OF THESE
REPORTS FOR STATE OF THE ENVIRONMENT REPORTING, AND OPPORTUNITIES
FOR REVIEW AND IMPROVEMENT. ...........................................................................................29
NATIONWIDE INITIATIVES ...................................................................................................................29
Australian River Assessment Scheme (AusRivAS) ..........................................................................29
Australian Rivers and Catchment Condition Database (ARCCD) .................................................30
Database .........................................................................................................................................................30
River Disturbance Index (RDI)......................................................................................................................30
State of the Environment ................................................................................................................31
National Land and Water Resources Audit ....................................................................................32
Surface water resources assessment...............................................................................................32
Waterwatch Australia.....................................................................................................................32
PROGRAM EVALUATION ......................................................................................................................33
FUTURE MONITORING RESPONSIBILITIES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR REVIEW AND IMPROVEMENT .......33
ABBREVIATIONS

AFFA Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry Australia

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and
Conservation Council
ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of
Australia and New Zealand
ARCCD Australian Rivers and Catchment Condition Database
ASS Actual Acid Sulphate Soils
AusRivAS Australian River Assessment Scheme

BSP Basin Sustainability Program

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CDI Catchment Disturbance Index
CMP Coastal Monitoring Program
CMPP Coastal and Marine Planning Program
COAG Council of Australian Governments
CSP Clean Seas Program

EA Environment Australia
EPG Environment Protection Group (part of EA)
ERIN Environmental Resources Information Network

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

FRDI Flow Regime Disturbance Index

GAB Great Artesian Basin

GABCC Great Artesian Basin Consultative Committee
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GPT Gross Pollutant Traps
GSAM Generalised Southeast Australian Method
GTSM Generalised Tropical Storm Method

1
GSDM Generalised Short Duration Method

IBRA Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation for Australia

ICM/TCM Integrated or Total Catchment Management

LGA Local Government Association

LWRRDC Land and Water Resource Research and Development
Corporation

MDB Murray Darling Basin

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NEPC National Environment Protection Council

NHT Natural Heritage Trust
NLWRA National Land and Water Resources Audit
NSCABD National Strategy for Conservation of Australia’s
Biological Diversity
NWQMS National Water Quality Management Strategy
NWRA National Water Resources Assessment

PASS Potential Acid Sulphate Soils

RDI River Disturbance Index

SCARM Standing Committee on Agriculture and Resource

Management
SLWRMC Sustainable Land and Water Resources Management
Committee
SMP Strategic Management Plan
SoE State of the Environment
SoER State of the Environment Reporting
SCDI Sub-catchment Disturbance Index

2
UNCSD United Nations Commission for Sustainable
Development
UNEP United Nations Environment Program
UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation
UNDP United Nations Development Program
USE Upper South East

3
Executive Summary
Environment Australia strongly supports integrated catchment management
in Australia as a means of protecting our land and water resources, native
vegetation and biodiversity.

Since European settlement, Australia has generally sought to address

individual land and water issues through ad-hoc activities and initiatives that
have not necessarily considered the bigger environmental picture. Over the
past decade, the relatively new approach to conservation and sustainable use
of resources - the integrated catchment management approach - has proven
more holistic, recognising that land and water use and environmental impacts
are interconnected and that actions in a catchment have cumulative impacts
on areas downstream. Integrated catchment management is also increasingly
seen as critical to the coastal zone as nutrients, sediments and other pollutants
arising from within catchments can have a significant impact on the health of
coastal and marine ecosystems.

Integrated catchment management is a system-based approach, attempting to

blend the objectives of environmental protection, sustainable agriculture and
natural resource management within catchments with the principles of
ecologically sustainable development. The approach also attempts to ensure
all interested parties in a catchment (those involved in land use planning,
natural resource management, primary production, conservation and the
community) work together in planning and implementing catchment
management policies. The approach provides a focus for translating national
and state natural resource management strategies into coordinated and
effective on-ground action. It is at this level of resolution that integration can
achieve maximum synergies between primary production and biodiversity
outcomes.

This holistic approach provides a more effective way than previous

approaches of managing production and development activities in sympathy
with the landscape’s natural values. Moreover, it provides a better way of
dealing with some issues that simply cannot be addressed at a smaller scale -
threats such as dryland salinity and the management of blue-green algae, for
example. Catchments are a natural and obvious scale that can be used to
frame such resource management issues. Further, the holistic approach
maximises the benefits obtained from more specifically targeted activities in
the catchment (such as water allocations for environmental flow purposes)
and assists in effective implementation of broader strategies such as the
National Water Quality Management Strategy or the National Strategy for the
Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity.

Environment Australia has supported the development of integrated

catchment management in Australia through a range of activities for over ten
years. They include membership of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission

4
(one of the first and most notable exponents of the approach) and supporting
the Minister in his role as a member of the Australian and New Zealand
Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and its committees.
Other activities have been participation in the development of a number of
national strategies impacting on natural resource management and the
delivery of a wide range of Commonwealth environmental programs,
particularly through the Natural Heritage Trust. Details of these activities are
spelt out in the rest of this submission.

Environment Australia recognises, however, that although some initiatives

and agencies are proving very successful in adopting a catchment
management approach, the Australia-wide picture of the effectiveness of
catchment management is far from clear. Whereas integrated catchment
management has become increasingly influential in Australia and has now
spread into most areas of natural resource and environmental management,
catchment management structures are not necessarily reflected in statutory
planning or regulations that have any real legal force. Or if they are included,
the focus is often restricted to specific issues such as water quality. There may
also be several overlapping regional processes within a given catchment.

The issue is that integrated catchment management in Australia has to date

largely been driven by voluntary action through the Landcare movement or,
more recently, as a result of facilitation processes through the Natural
Heritage Trust. This has been extremely important in raising awareness of the
catchment approach. However, in order to take the next step, greater degrees
of intervention at the catchment level are warranted. Examples of the trend
towards this approach are the statutory planning and rating powers recently
given to catchment management boards and authorities in Victoria and South
Australia.

Catchment management without statutory underpinning has limited impact

on agency decision-making or decisions made through the Courts on appeal.
Appeal Courts are less likely consider the views of a catchment management
authority in the absence of a planning requirement. Without planning
coordination either by statute or agreement, catchment management will
remain a concept with merit but without the capacity to realise its full
potential for on-ground application. There is a need to improve vertical
integration, in terms of national sustainability principles cascading through
Statewide or regional planning, and given effect in local planning, zoning and
rating schemes. Delivery of better horizontal integration is also essential,
where management of rivers, catchments, coastlines, vegetation, wildlife and
land use is considered as an inextricable whole and planned accordingly.
This is both feasible and imperative at the catchment, or regional, scale.

Another key issue concerns the availability of, and access to, relevant data at
the catchment scale. Although many individuals and organisations collect
and analyse data across Australia, often it is not readily available to those

5
who are responsible for catchment planning and implementation. Further,
where data is available, it is often not suited for day-to-day land management
as it either monitors past impacts, or is a snapshot in time. Measurement is
further impaired because appropriate standards or measures of water, habitat
and catchment health are still under development. To ensure more effective
catchment planning and local action, data must be collected and managed at
an appropriate scale, over time, and must be easily available to those with the
responsibility for managing catchments, particularly land owners and
managers.

Improving catchment-based responses to natural resource management issues

also requires consistent and effective monitoring of resource condition and
other indicators of catchment quality, including biodiversity. Any approach
to monitoring within catchments needs to involve the full range of local
organisations and groups to ensure local ownership. This is essential to avert
the risk of establishing monitoring regimes which are not capable of long-
term implementation (because of lack of local support) or local groups
developing parallel systems of data collection which may not be consistent
nor meet catchment-wide needs.

In addition to better regulatory or institutional frameworks and improved

data and monitoring regimes, Environment Australia believes integrated
catchment management would be enhanced in Australia through greater
incentives for better management. For example, through market-based
mechanisms, and increased strategic investment, including by the private
sector, designed to deal with natural resource management issues.

Environment Australia is contributing to improvements in integrated

catchment management in Australia through a range of activities including
participation in intergovernmental consultations through the Murray-Darling
Basin Commission and ANZECC, and through its policies and programs as
outlined in this submission. In particular, the Natural Heritage Trust, and the
partnership between Environment Australia and Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry – Australia for its implementation, are providing an enhanced
integrated and strategic approach to environmental protection, sustainable
agriculture and natural resource management in a regional or catchment
context.

6
1. The Australian Context: Development of Catchment
Management in Australia
The development of catchment management in Australia as an influential
idea dates back to the late 1980s. Internationally, the 1987 Brundtland Report
Our Common Future alerted the world to the need for sustainable development
as a way of engaging in economic growth within the planet’s ecological
means. At about the same time, Australian authorities began to give attention
to catchment management as a means of integrating environmental, economic
and social considerations into decision-making processes.

This is perhaps best epitomised by the signing of the Murray-Darling Basin

Agreement in 1987 by the Governments of the Commonwealth, New South
Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The Murray-Darling Basin Initiative,
which now includes Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory, is the
largest integrated catchment management program in the world, covering
more than a million square kilometres.

The Australian Environment Council (now ANZECC - the Australian and

New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council) was also involved in
the move towards integrated catchment management. Together with the
Australian Water Resources Council and the Australian Soil Conservation
Council (now combined as ARMCANZ - the Agriculture and Resource
Management Council of Australia and New Zealand), it held a national
workshop on integrated catchment management in 1988. The workshop built
on State and Territory initiatives and explored opportunities for further
development of the concept. The workshop concluded that:

• integrated catchment management is an effective tool to achieve improved

natural resource management;
• joint action involving all levels of government plus relevant groups within
the community is required;
• successful implementation requires coordinated action to be taken at the
catchment level; and,
• solutions should be ‘tailor made’ to suit the needs and problems of each
particular catchment.
These conclusions remain relevant today and have influenced the
development of natural resource management across Australia. In the decade
since the workshop, most States and Territories have developed regional
consultative mechanisms and are progressing with the development of
integration processes with a focus on regional or catchment management.
There have also been a number of strategies and policy documents
underpinning the development of the catchment management approach.
Details of these are at appendix A.

7
Value of the Catchment Management Approach
The primary value of integrated catchment management is that it promotes
management of natural resources in a balanced and sustainable manner. It
recognises that the effects of land and water use and environmental impacts
are interconnected, that actions in a catchment will have cumulative impacts
on other areas downstream, and that an holistic approach to the planning and
coordination of land and water management is therefore essential. Many of
Australia’s long-term environmental degradation problems such as dryland
salinity can only be addressed effectively through an integrated approach
made possible through catchment management responses.

Good catchment management should also ensure that all processes take
account of the terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity within the catchment, and
the effects of current and proposed actions on it. Indeed, if addressed in an
integrated way, catchment management can ensure conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity in conjunction with other objectives. For
example, tree planting for groundwater or riparian (streamside) management
can contribute to biodiversity conservation if habitat needs are considered in
decisions about the locations and species chosen for planting.

Catchment management is also an important aspect of overall coastal zone

management. Nutrients, sediments and other pollutants arising from within
catchments have a significant impact on the health of coastal and marine
ecosystems. The most obvious expression of this problem can be found in the
eutrophication of coastal estuaries. Management at a catchment level will
help reduce these adverse impacts.

Sustainable land management practices within catchments can also play an

important part in reducing greenhouse emissions. Improving animal
husbandry, adopting conservation cropping and reducing biomass burning in
agricultural systems will have positive greenhouse outcomes and contribute
to broader sustainability outcomes. In particular, maintaining and increasing
vegetation cover plays an important role in enhancing Australia’s greenhouse
gas sinks capacity, while also assisting in the control of erosion and salinity.

Another benefit of the catchment management approach is the involvement of

all elements of the community in dealing with the environment and
sustainable agriculture across the entire catchment. In this way, the
community is made aware of the communal nature of many of Australia’s
environmental problems, particularly the impacts of individual land use
decisions on their neighbours. The catchment management approach is a
very effective way of engaging all the community including those involved in
land use planning, natural resource management, primary production and
conservation in working together to improve the overall management of their
local area. Indeed, introducing new management techniques and strategically
investing in wastewater reuse technology can create regional economic

8
drivers for agriculture and industry, thereby turning water quality problems
into economic resources.

There is a range of environmental issues, particularly related to water, where

catchments are clearly the most appropriate management or measurement
unit. The catchment management approach is particularly important when
dealing with aquatic and riparian (streamside) weeds and invasive freshwater
fish (eg carp) and invertebrates. Environment Australia recognises, however,
that there are other issues, for example in relation to weeds, feral animals,
migratory species and the like, where other boundaries may be more
appropriate. For example, when considering ecosystems or associations of
plants and animals which may occur across several catchments or only part of
a catchment, use of such boundaries as the Interim Biogeographic
Regionalisation for Australia (IBRA) is often more appropriate and useful.
The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity
recognises that regional planning, in which environmental characteristics are
the principle determinant of boundaries, is of major importance if biological
diversity conservation is to succeed. These bioregions must be based on
ecological parameters, vegetation types, catchment areas and climatic factors,
combined with the interests of those living and working in the area.'

Nevertheless, these considerations do not diminish the value of integrated

catchment management as a vital tool for effectively dealing with a large suite
of environmental and natural resource problems.

9
2. Best practice methods of preventing, halting and reversing
environmental degradation in catchments, and achieving
environmental sustainability.
Best-Practice Framework
A framework for a catchment management-based approach should include:

• Identification of the issues to be targeted within catchments.

• Information and education to assist stakeholders to understand issues
including the natural resource management issues
• Facilitation of the stakeholder communities’ (including local government,
community groups, individual landholders, industry groups and
corporations) participation in developing and refining catchment
strategies and implementation plan including on-ground works,
• Development of locally relevant incentives and removal of disincentives to
achieve sustainable land management and adjust planning objectives;
• Identification of an appropriate regulatory environment to ensure water
harvesting and land management controls result in best-practice
management and resource protection;
• Development, in consultation with the community, of equitable cost-
sharing arrangements within each catchment based on the best available
information on the costs and benefits of interventions;
• Development of opportunities to change environmental problems into
resource opportunities through creative management and technological
approaches to recycling;
• Provision of leading edge scientific and technical input to assist
communities to develop and implement the catchment strategy and
undertake effective on-ground works; and
• Facilitation of community based ongoing monitoring and evaluation to
ensure outcomes are identifiable and the strategy is adjusted whenever
necessary.

Policy Options
There is a wide range of policy options relevant to implementing such a
framework. They include:

Economic Incentive Initiatives

Conservation and appropriate management of native vegetation is essential to
proper catchment management. There is a wide range of incentives available

10
to encourage and assist both landholders and communities to adopt best-
practice techniques in conserving and managing native vegetation.

Incentives can be great ways to achieve conservation as they can assist to

empower local landholders and communities through a partnership approach
(reward-based) rather than a regulation approach (punishment-based).

There is a range of mechanisms to ensure conservation that could be

considered as incentives. These include management agreements, voluntary
conservation covenants, fencing assistance schemes, rate relief and differential
rating schemes and the Land for Wildlife extension schemes. They may also
include revolving funds, payments from vegetation management trust.

Management agreements
Management agreements are contracts between landholders and another
party regarding the use and management of their land. These agreements
secure vegetation objectives where site-specific management is required. They
can be established when renewing, amending or upgrading leases over
leasehold land and in local government development application processes.

Entry into management agreements is usually voluntary. These are

potentially very flexible contracts, which can be tailored to the needs of
individual sites and landholders and may involve a range of commitments
from landholders. The extent to which management agreements contribute to
long-term protection of native vegetation depends on the terms of the
agreement and the degree to which they are implemented.

Voluntary conservation covenants

Voluntary conservation covenants are legal instruments attached to land titles
for conservation purposes, binding current and all future owners. Covenants
registered on the title are seen to be the most secure form of long-term
protection for native vegetation.

Fencing assistance schemes

Fencing assistance schemes are established for the protection of areas of
remnant vegetation, strategic revegetation and habitat rehabilitation. Such
schemes often provide increased support for those who make the strongest
commitment to the long term, and for vegetation that meets regional
conservation priorities.

Rate relief and differential rating schemes

An important incentive for landholders to conserve native vegetation is to
have their efforts formally recognised. One way of doing this is by reducing

11
their council rates. Subsidised rate relief or differential-rating schemes may be
established by councils, making reduced rates conditional on land managers’
demonstration of commitment to ongoing native vegetation management. The
financial reward involved in receiving rate rebates is often very small, but the
acknowledgment the landholder receives is important.

Payments from vegetation management trust

Payments from vegetation management trusts are stewardship payments for
ongoing management needs of areas covered by in-perpetuity management
agreements or covenants. Such trusts provide payments to landholders based
on applications for funding linked to monitoring of management agreements.
The basis for calculating reasonable payments would be tied to the relative
significance of the vegetation being managed and the degree of long-term
security being offered.

Environmental levies
Environmental levies and charges are occasionally used by State and local
government or regional organisations to raise funds for specific
environmental initiatives. These schemes need to be publicly transparent and
connected with high profile environment projects like habitat management or
flagship species.

Tax Rebate
The Commonwealth has set aside $80M from the NHT to fund a tax rebate1 of
34 cents in the dollar, available to primary producers and businesses, for
works including the control of pest plants and animals. The rebate will help
reinforce landcare and related works as an important part of farm
management.

Removal of perverse incentives

Perverse incentives such as some taxation provisions, local government rating
systems and land development policies often have undesirable indirect effects
that promote inappropriate behaviour by landholders. Rural rating systems in
urban-fringe regions generally provide rating discounts for land used for
primary production, creating a perverse incentive to clear the land and get the
cheaper rates. These perverse incentives need to be identified and removed.

Market-based incentives
Indirectly, encouraging entrepreneurial approaches to addressing
environmental problems can create market-based incentives. Through

1
This will be available for the same type of expenditures, and over the same times, as the current tax
deductions for preventing and treating land degradation and for conserving or conveying water
(subdivisions 387-A and B respectively of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997).

12
wastewater reuse, for example, the market operates to generate a demand for
effluent and stormwater through industrial, agricultural and community uses.
Not only does this reduce polluting discharges to the water bodies, but, by
reducing pressure on potable supplies, it increases environmental flows and
reduces the need to construct dams.

Legislative reform
To allow for the broader delivery of the incentives discussed above by local
and regional organisations it may be necessary in some jurisdictions to enact
enabling legislation for covenanting, management agreements and revolving
funds.

In addition, some jurisdictions have legal restrictions placed on local

government, joint authorities and regional organisations which limit their
ability to raise revenue for environment programs. This acts as a significant
impediment to both the devolution of responsibilities to the local and regional
level and also on their ability to support innovative schemes in the long term.

Legislative and institutional reform should focus upon providing an arena

that fosters and advances the conservation of native vegetation.

Duty of Care
A relatively recent approach to encouraging best practice lies in the concept of
‘duty of care’. A duty of care "should require each duty holder, as far as is
reasonable and practical, to:
a. identify, assess and manage the risks of the duty holder causing harm to
the environment;
b. inform those directly at risk of foreseeable personal or financial harm
from the activities of the duty holder;
c. inform the regulating agency of the risk of foreseeable harm to the
environment from the activities of the duty holder; and
d. consult with those at risk of foreseeable harm.

The concept of duty of care can be built into legislation, but more importantly
it defines the expectations a society has in regard to the stewardship of land
that a land manager is responsible for. Adoption of a duty of care would lead
to a best-practice approach to catchment management.

‘Duty of care’ is being discussed in considerable detail as part of consideration

being given to the Productivity Commission’s Report recommendations
arising from its Inquiry into Sustainable Land Management.

13
Importance of Research for Best-Practice Methods
Many land degradation issues are insidious in nature – developing slowly
since European settlement and accelerating over the last four decades. Much
of the landscape is now in crisis - this is evidenced by, among other things, the
decline of bird numbers in woodlands, and the increasing threat of rising
watertable and algal blooms on the Darling River.

In addition to being a significant threat to economic production, the impacts

of invasive species of plants and animals have been identified as second only
to habitat clearance as a major threat to the conservation of native plants and
animals. While invasive species may be an obvious component of the
landscape in many areas, for many of these species it is often unclear whether
their presence is the cause of degradation in the systems, or a symptom of
degradation caused by another agent. In these circumstances, research is
critical to determine cause and effect relationships as well as to identify
effective control measures for those species that are identified as a known
threat to biodiversity or primary production.

Most of what we know about land management has come from research that
has focussed on understanding processes and developing understanding.
There is a need to apply this research at the property and catchment scale to
address the important issues such as loss of biodiversity and dryland salinity.

One of the priorities for the NHT’s Bushcare program (described in chapter 3)
is to develop best-practice approaches through research and development
activities to provide land managers with real options for vegetation
management and restoration.

Resources for research are scarce. Rather than doing new research in every
catchment it is important to apply knowledge and information gained from
areas where research has been undertaken to other areas. An adaptive
management approach can be used to facilitate this.

National Activities Encouraging Best Practice

National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS)

The importance of the NWQMS is recognised in the COAG Water Reform
Framework. The Strategy emphasises an integrated catchment management
approach to protecting water quality, and is examined more fully in
Appendix A.

The strategy’s major elements, which should encourage best practice, include:

• a process for water quality management involving the development and

implementation of State and regional goals and action plans. The
NWQMS’s Implementation Guidelines, which adopts a catchment
management approach, describes how local communities within the

14
 framework of State legislation and policies may use the documents to
produce water quality management plans. The Strategy envisages use of
both regulatory and market-based approaches; and
• national guidelines which are technical papers providing guidance on
many of the aspects of the water cycle. These guidelines are regarded as
“best practice” requirements that serve as performance benchmarks and
are not prescriptive. (Standards are presently being pursued for ambient
marine and estuarine waters. A further possible area for improvement
might be the development of national mandatory standards for fresh
(inland) waters. These standards should be developed through the
National Environmental Protection Council – NEPC).

Community views form a crucial part of the NWQMS and public comment is
sought during both the development and implementation of the strategy.

Under the National Strategy, several guideline documents are being

developed that have applicability to catchment management. These include:
• Guidelines for Groundwater Protection;
• Rural Land Uses and Water Quality - A Community Resource;
• Australian and New Zealand Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and
Marine Waters; and
• Australian Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting; and
• Implementation Guidelines.

The National Strategy guidelines provide guidance on important matters such

as stormwater management, groundwater protection, effluent management
and rural land and water use. Also, Environment Australia will be managing,
as part of the Living Cities Program, a Commonwealth Stormwater Initiative.
The cost of the program will be $10.3M and it will be run over three years,
from 1999 to 2002. This Initiative should encourage innovative best practice in
stormwater management. Stormwater management is an important
consideration in catchment management, particularly for urban
environments.

The full list of documents and their current status, together with other
information are on the National Strategy website at
http://www.affa.gov.au/nwqms.

Implementation of the NWQMS policies and processes by jurisdictions is well

advanced. Progress in finalising the series of documents under the Strategy
has been slow, however. At present, 15 of the 21 documents have been
finalised. The remaining documents are at various stages of development,
with some still to be released for public comment. In order for the strategy to

15
be completed and fully implemented, there needs to be increased
commitment by jurisdictions.

Environment Australia Activities Encouraging Best Practice

Bushcare
The NHT’s Bushcare program (described in chapter 3), in conjunction with
the Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation
(LWRRDC) has jointly funded six pilot projects to demonstrate best practice
within a catchment and regional planning process. The projects aimed to
demonstrate integration of national and local perspectives - how local
conservation goals and specific on-ground activities can specifically
contribute to national objectives.

Each project aimed to:

i) Assist government agencies, community and rural industry groups and
researchers to develop and test methods for planning and implementing
vegetation management at catchment or regional scales;
ii) Encourage the use and uptake of research results and knowledge, to help
establish programs of sustainable vegetation management that meet the
aims of Bushcare; and
iii) Provide a series of documented case studies, with written records of both
processes and outcomes, which can be used by others in preparing
regional vegetation plans, including proposals for Bushcare funding.

The projects have provided a solid basis for regional conservation planning.
Actions resulting from the plans will assist communities in their quest for
sustainable land management and the continued conservation of Australia’s
biodiversity.

Bush for Wildlife

To achieve best practice in catchment management an integrated approach is
required. Bushcare is currently developing Bush for Wildlife which
recognises the importance of wildlife and habitat protection as a major part of
an integrated approach.

In 1998, the Commonwealth Government made a commitment to place

greater emphasis on wildlife and habitat protection through the Bush for
Wildlife initiative. The national approach of Bush for Wildlife further
strengthens Australia’s off-reserve conservation of biodiversity in both rural
and urban areas. The initiative will bring together a number of existing
Commonwealth Government Natural Heritage Trust programs such as

16
Bushcare, the Endangered Species Program and the National Reserve System
Program.

Bush for Wildlife has three mechanisms for bringing about change:
1. National Coordination to improve access to information about wildlife
habitat management and protection by existing urban and rural
conservation groups and programs throughout Australia. This will
provide the opportunity for highlighting and sharing best practice, and
coordinating communication activities. One important example of the
national coordination is working with state based Land for Wildlife
schemes.

2. Bush for Wildlife Revolving Fund(s) – to be established nationally,

modelled on the Victorian Trust for Nature fund. These will be managed
by organisations that will identify and purchase land containing
significant native vegetation, place a covenant on the title to the land to
protect it in perpetuity, and then resell the land to sympathetic owners.
Funds from property sales will be returned to the Revolving Fund(s) for
further property purchases. The areas of native vegetation protected
through Revolving Funds will complement and extend existing State
reserves systems, including those established with the assistance of the
National Reserve System Program. Revolving funds can provide an
avenue for protecting significant native vegetation that fails to meet the
strict criteria of more formal reservation processes.

3. Refocussing existing Natural Heritage Trust grant guidelines – to place a

greater emphasis on wildlife and habitat protection and management
within existing Natural Heritage Trust programs including through the
One-Stop-Shop grant funding process.

Coastal and Marine Programs

As discussed earlier, catchment management is an important element in
coastal zone management. Environment Australia’s marine group manages a
number of programs aimed at improving management of coastal zones and
reducing levels of marine pollution. These include the NHT Coast and Clean
Seas and programs under Australia’s Oceans Policy. These are discussed
fully in the next chapter.

Other issues

Invasive Species
Invasive species are a significant cross-sectoral issue. This has been
recognised in the National Weeds Strategy which was jointly endorsed by
ARMCANZ, ANZECC and the Forestry Ministers.

17
The impact of invasive species on primary production is difficult to estimate,
but weeds are estimated to cost agricultural industries alone over $3.3 billion
per annum.

The significant damage caused to Australia’s biological diversity by plants,

animals and micro-organisms that have been introduced into Australia over
the last 200 years is recognised in The National Strategy for the Conservation of
Australia’s Biological Diversity. Introduced species that have a deleterious
impact on conservation of biological diversity range from disease-causing
organisms (eg Phytophthera cinnamomi - an introduced fungus responsible for
dieback of native vegetation) to higher vertebrates (eg foxes and feral cats).

While there has been general recognition of the threats posed by a number of
invasive species to primary production, there is considerable room for
improvement in the recognition of the threat posed to the conservation of
biodiversity within catchments by invasive species. Effective management of
invasive species issues requires improved coordination of activities within
catchments. In addition, action against invasive species needs to be
coordinated between catchments, whether they are a threat to primary
production values or a threat to biodiversity and environmental values.

Acid Sulphate Soils

One of the major management issues in coastal catchments concerns acid
sulphate soils. Appendix B sets out a discussion of strategies and programs
aimed at developing a best-practice approach of addressing these issues.

Dryland and In-Stream Salinity

The integration of biodiversity conservation perspectives in dryland and in-
stream salinity management could be improved. A more thorough
understanding of the impacts of salinity on biodiversity, and particularly of
how current salinity mitigation methods impact on biodiversity, is required
with some urgency. Work along these lines has commenced at State and
Commonwealth levels.

Flood Warning Systems

Environmental changes within a catchment can greatly effect the likelihood of
an area flooding. Obviously this can greatly impact the sustainability of an
area. A flood warning system could, if used to its full potential, reduce flood
impacts.

18
Emergency Management Australia in association with the Bureau of
Meteorology has produced the document Flood Warning - An Australian Guide
in 1995. An overview of this “best-practice” guide is included in appendix A.

The Subcommittee on Water Resources’ Floodplain Management Committee

has recently completed a similar “best-practice” guide for Floodplain
Management.

19
 3. The role of different levels of government, the private
sector and the community in the management of catchment
areas (including planning, resourcing, implementation,
coordination & cooperation)
This section includes a discussion of the roles of the different stakeholders in
catchment management, and their involvement in its planning, resourcing,
implementation, coordination and coordination.

As has been discussed previously, for integrated catchment management to

be successful, joint action is required from all levels of government, together
with stakeholders and the community. Under the Australian Constitution,
the primary responsibility for land use and management resides with State
and Territory governments, which administer specific legislation within their
jurisdictions. The Commonwealth Government must consider any approach
to catchment management in terms of its roles and responsibilities under the
Constitution, (especially in relation to the governments of the States and
Territories of Australia who have the prime responsibility for land and
natural resource management issues).

The following table represents an indication of the various levels of

responsibility for natural resource management in catchment areas. This can
only be an indication; the particular responsibility will vary according to the
legislative environment and the administrative arrangements within a
particular region.

Adherence Leadership Administer Undertake Support for Developmnt NRM On-ground On-ground
Activity to and Land and regional Research of National Extension mngmnt mngmnt
Internationa catalysing water and local and NRM and (except for (Crown
l/National change Legislation Planning developmnt Policy community crown lands)
conventions and capacity lands)
Jurisdiction regulation building

Commonwealth *** *** * * *** *** * - ***

State ** *** *** ** *** ** *** - ***
Region (eg Catchment * *** - *** * * ** ** **
Management Authority)
Local government * *** ** *** * * ** ** *
Individuals/corporations * * - * - * * *** -

Levels of responsibility
- Not relevant
* Low
** Medium
*** High

It can be seen from the table that local and state agencies generally have high
levels of responsibility for natural resource management (NRM) in catchment
areas. Indeed, it could be said that, as development consent and construction
authorities, local councils have the greatest influence on catchment
management effectiveness. The evolution of community participation in the
last two decades has broadened management responsibilities by bridging

20
bureaucracies with other stakeholders. Nevertheless, local and state agencies
remain the main decision-making powers.

National Initiatives

Basin Management
A number of initiatives are proving effective in achieving an integrated
approach to catchment management at the river basin scale. The river basin
commissions, for example, have developed significant expertise in bringing
together governments and communities to work on major natural resource
management issues through ICM. The role of the Commonwealth in
promoting ICM for these areas (Murray Darling Basin, Lake Eyre Basin and
Great Artesian Basin) is through a cooperative approach between
governments, involving the community and landholders.

Lake Eyre Basin

A Heads of Agreement relating to the sustainable management of the Lake
Eyre Basin was signed by the South Australian Minister for Environment and
Natural Resources, the Queensland Ministers for the Environment and
Natural Resources and the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment in
May 1997. The Heads of Agreement provides, inter alia, for the development
of a formal inter-governmental Agreement and associated institutional
arrangements for the integrated catchment management of the water and
related natural resources of the Basin.

In line with the Natural Heritage Trust objectives, the proposed formal
Agreement will facilitate the establishment of a cooperative approach by
relevant governments to the sustainable management of the Basin, and, in
particular, the management of cross-border river systems. On May 14 1999
the Commonwealth, South Australian and Queensland Governments released
a Discussion Paper that canvasses opinion for the proposed formal
Agreement and associated institutional arrangements. The Lake Eyre Basin
Agreement also provides a framework for ensuring that the community
remains actively involved in the sustainable management of the Basin.

The local communities in the Lake Eyre Basin are responding positively to
this. In 1997 the Lake Eyre Catchment Protection Group and other interested
members of the local community resolved to set up a number of community-
based Catchment Management Committees and a Lake Eyre Basin
Coordinating Group.

Commonwealth funding has been provided under the NHT to support the
development of a community-based regional initiative to ensure the

21
sustainable management of the Lake Eyre Basin and the protection of related
biodiversity values. Under the Lake Eyre Basin Catchment Management
Regional Initiative, catchment committees are currently developing
management plans for major catchments within the Basin.

Murray Darling Basin (MDB)

The Murray-Darling Basin is the largest of Australia’s major drainage
divisions, covers about one seventh of the continental land mass, and includes
areas of NSW, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and the Australian
Capital Territory. The Commonwealth and all four States and the ACT are
signatories to the 1992 Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, which is overseen
by the MDB Ministerial Council. The Council is chaired by the
Commonwealth Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry. A
Community Advisory Council provides a formal body for community input,
and operates through the Council, and the MDB Commission.

The MDB Commission is the executive arm of the Council, and is the primary
agency involved in Basin planning and management. The six governments
through the Ministerial Council, their agencies through the Commission, and
communities through the Community Advisory Committee, make up the
Murray-Darling Basin Initiative. The Commission is advised by four technical
committees and several Working Groups.

The Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Strategy (NRMS)

provides the framework to coordinate integrated natural resources
management within the Initiative. The NRMS is delivered through the Basin
Sustainability Program (BSP). Funding is provided from the Council through
the BSP, from the Natural Heritage Trust (through Landcare, Murray-Darling
2001 and the National Landcare Program), through State government
programs, and community investments.

Great Artesian Basin (GAB)

The GAB is over 1.7M square kilometres in area and underlies four States and
Territories of Australia. Its management therefore requires a coordinated
approach. Primary responsibility for regulating and managing the use of
water resources rests with State and Territory governments. The
Commonwealth Government provides leadership, in consultation with the
States, in developing strategic national approaches and principles, and
ensures that matters of national interest relating to environmental protection,
sustainable agriculture and natural resources management are appropriately
addressed.

The basin-wide management of the GAB is facilitated through the Great

Artesian Basin Consultative Council (GABCC) established by agreement of
the relevant Ministers in Qld, NSW, NT, SA and the Commonwealth in 1997.

22
The GABCC comprises representatives of key industry, environmental,
Aboriginal and community groups, and the State and Commonwealth
governments. Each of the States and the Northern Territory has a
community-based committee with an advisory role to the GABCC (the South
Australian committee has a statutory role). State Advisory Committees are
responsible for regional coordination and implementation of the strategies
and actions in the draft GAB Strategic Management Plan (SMP) which was
released by Ministers in November 1998. Preparation of the SMP involved
extensive consultation with representatives of key sectors of the community,
industry and government in the Basin. The draft plan (which is currently
being finalised) provides a framework for the integrated sustainable
management of the water resources of the GAB and the protection of
associated groundwater-dependent ecosystems.

The SMP aims to reduce waste and associated land degradation, and to make
water resources available for higher value uses. The Plan will guide
Government investment in infrastructure rehabilitation programs, including
bore capping and piping works, which are required to increase artesian
pressure and realise opportunities for new uses. The Plan also provides for
targeted research into bore corrosion, recharge estimation, guidelines for
recharge area management, piping technology, a range of biodiversity issues
and economics of GAB water use.

In the 1999-00 Federal Budget, the Commonwealth Government committed

an amount of $31.8 M over five years towards implementation of the SMP,
with the bulk of this assistance being directed to the infrastructure renewal
components of the SMP. This assistance is to be complimented by matching
State funding.

National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS)

Another national initiative important in catchment planning is the NWQMS.
This adopts a catchment management approach and describes how local
communities within the framework of State legislation and policies may use
the documents to produce water quality management plans. This strategy
was discussed more fully in chapter 2.

Environment Australia Initiatives

Natural Heritage Trust (NHT)

The Commonwealth Government has a wide range of catchment-related
investment. The Commonwealth’s role is to ensure landholders have the
necessary knowledge and skills, with appropriate support to enable them to
invest in NRM activities.

23
The NHT, through its Trust Partnership Agreements with the States, is the
Commonwealth Government’s major contribution to NRM. The NHT funds
projects intended to catalyse landholder, industry (which includes vessel
users and those involved in aquaculture), council and community action
addressing NRM issues. The Trust helps increase communities’ effectiveness
through such activities as planning, trialing new techniques, skills
development and group coordination.

Bushcare
The Bushcare program, the largest NHT program, aims to reverse the long-
term decline in the quality and extent of Australia's native vegetation
communities by working with community groups, land managers, industries
and government agencies at all levels. Bushcare gives priority to projects at a
regional or catchment scale which integrate management of remnant
vegetation with extensive revegetation. The Bushcare program will invest
more than $350 million over the life of the Trust in three main areas:
1. to conserve, enhance and sustainably manage remnant native vegetation;
2. to greatly increase and improve revegetation activities; and
3. to encourage the integration of native vegetation into conventional
farming systems.

Approximately 92% of the projects funded, and 80% of the funding allocated
in 1998-99 went directly to community-based groups such as landcare,
Bushcare groups and total catchment management groups. Some major
regional projects funded by Bushcare at the catchment and regional scales are
presented in appendix D.

Bushcare has funded a number of devolved grants projects, where the

Commonwealth devolves some financial responsibility for project approvals
and administration to a regional organisation or local government, under
certain conditions.

To be eligible for a devolved grants project, regional organisations or local

governments must demonstrate community and stakeholder support for the
regional strategy and action plans underpinning the regional application.
Ideally devolved grants will be based on a proactive process in which the
community is approached with the regional goals and asked to submit
projects specifically directed toward regional priorities.

Typical devolved grants projects are the remnant vegetation fencing incentive
schemes established in a range of regions around Australia. These projects
offer flat rates per kilometre for fencing vegetation remnants consistent with
catchment strategies and an ecological assessment of the vegetation. Every
site protected is subject to a management agreement, and involves site visits
and technical advice. Vehicle sponsorship and subsidies from fencing
suppliers support some of these fencing incentive schemes.

24
These schemes are very popular with landholders because they can apply at
any time of year with a one or two page expression of interest, they get
technical advice in their own paddock about how to manage each site, they
see a direct and quick connection between expressing interest and getting
support (subject to the site being assessed as of high public benefit) and they
often decide to do more (at their own expense) than they originally received
assistance for. Devolved grants provide the opportunity for timing of
applications and funding to be more appropriately matched to regional
circumstances, for example, to reflect planting seasons or adverse weather
conditions, and be on an ongoing basis, rather than one annual application
opportunity. This type of approach clearly links on-ground-action to a
regional strategy and is a demonstration of a successful and workable
partnership.

Coast and Clean Seas

Coast and Clean Seas is a major component of the NHT. The goal of Coast
and Clean Seas is to accelerate activities in the national interest to achieve the
conservation, sustainable use and repair of Australia’s coastal and marine
environments. There are a number of Coasts and Clean Seas programs. The
main programs involved in efforts to improve catchment management are the
Clean Seas Program (CSP), Coastal and Marine Planning Program (CMPP)
and the Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP).

Clean Seas Program (CSP)

The CSP finances capital works that:
• create opportunities for wastewater reuse
• improve water quality through the construction of pollution control
infrastructure
• spread the benefits of practical and/or innovative technologies and
management techniques
• involve waste management techniques in the maritime, aquaculture,
urban development and rural industries
The CSP works with institutions associated with urban catchments. It focuses
on business and community empowerment, encouraged through strategic
allocations of NHT funds. CSP works with a range of urban communities to
target their particular problems, encouraging innovative solutions to
problems where there are barriers to conventional approaches (low ratepayer
bases or large seasonal tourist fluxes, for example).

CSP also targets the source of problems. This can involve on-site audits at
industrial and commercial premises to inform specific pre-treatment
technologies which need to be installed (for ‘dirty’ urban industries such as

25
bus and truck depots and vehicle washing). CSP has also taken a lead in
promoting wastewater reuse as a tool in reducing catchment, coastal and
marine pollution. Such initiatives require full commitment from enforcing
authorities and the clients within their jurisdiction.

Employing a budget of $51M, 72 locally significant projects and 16 nationally

significant projects are already being implemented to improve water quality
in the lower parts of the catchments. Examples of CSP projects can be found
at appendix A.

Coastal and Marine Planning Program (CMPP)

The CMPP plans to engender integrated approaches to management by:
• coordinating independent authorities into regional and sub-regional teams
and;
• addressing coastal planning and management deficiencies.

CMPP emphasises plan making. As integrated planning (catchment/

estuarine) mostly relies on partnerships, project success requires agreement at
each stage in the planning process. This represents agency and public
commitment to apply prescribed actions. The program encourages agency
integration rather than the creation of additional management structures such
as authorities and commissions. Agencies maintain jurisdictional
independence but agree to apply respective laws and policies complementary
to other CMPP partners. Agreements encourage horizontal and vertical
integration within and between agencies by resolving general policy conflicts.
General agreement provides a platform for more complex negotiations over
subsequent detailed planning and management decisions.

CMPP cultivates an increased awareness and capacity for integrated coastal

and marine planning at all stages. Further details of the program are at
appendix A.

With a budget of $5.5M, the program has so far initiated 10 Steering

Committees with an average of 10-15 representative interests on each
Committee. At full capacity (estimated 45 projects) CMPP will engage
between 450 and 700 coastal and marine management agencies and
participants from government, the community and industry into its
integrated planning process.

CMPP’s 41 projects extend over 35% of Australia’s coastline covering more

than 90% of Australia’s coastal population (by Local Government Association
- LGA). This includes 4 planning “hotspots” (Botany Bay, Port Phillip Bay,
Derwent Estuary and Perth Coastal Waters) characterised by large numbers of
interests, managing agencies and intense environmental, economic and social
issues. With its remaining funds CMPP will now target selected locations and

26
regions to increase its effectiveness in other planning “hotspots” and existing
coverage gaps.

Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP)

The Coastal Monitoring Program (CMP) promotes projects that identify
threats to coastal and estuarine environments and relate management and
planning actions to address those environmental threats. For example, the
CMP has funded several projects around Australia to address the important
issues of water quality and habitat decline in estuaries. Results from
monitoring projects can contribute a reduction in threats by influencing
changes in management practices and planning.

Capacity Building Program for Coasts and Clean Seas

A Capacity Building Program, designed to support, resource and provide
impetus to stakeholders and encourage them to create the necessary change to
improve their management approaches and reduce their impact on the coastal
and marine environment, has been running for 3 years. The program is aimed
at managers from all spheres of government, resource extraction or resource
management sectors, recreational user groups, tourism industry, scientific
institutions, and community interest groups. It supports a range of education,
training and information exchange initiatives ranging from development of
national codes of practice and guidelines with key industry and professional
associations, to the establishment of a series of short courses around Australia
to enable professional development and training specifically designed for
local managers.

Coast Care Program

Under the Coast care Program many local community groups have become
increasingly involved in repairing damaged coastal environments. Groups
undertake many types of projects including remediation of catchments. An
example of the type of work that can be undertaken is the Swan Bay
Rehabilitation Project (see appendix F).

Other Activities

Flood Warning
A further example of successful involvement of all levels of government in a
catchment-based approach is the Flood Warning Consultative Committees
that operate in all States and Territories. Represented in these committees is
the Bureau of Meteorology, the State Emergency Services and water-related
organisations, Local Government, and in some instances local community
groups. The committees set the priorities for flood warning system

27
enhancements in each State and identify the roles of the relevant
organisations in the provision of the Total Flood Warning Service. The
committees have been so successful that in some States they have evolved into
Floodplain Management Committees, taking a wider interest in catchment-
based floodplain management activities.

The existing flood warning arrangements are tenuous, however. The current
political and economic environment is one where the role of Government in
the provision of services is being closely scrutinised and many agencies are
not identifying the provision of flood warning services (or general community
service obligations) as being part of their core business activities. The 1995
Portfolio Review of the Flood Warning Program Upgrade recognised this,
recommending that any arrangements involving the coordination of all levels
of government be formally ratified.

Data and Indicators

Effective planning and management requires good information to form the
basis of sound decision-making. The role of state of the environment
reporting (SoER) is to assist in providing such information. Indicators from
the land, inland waters, biodiversity and estuaries and sea themes are
particularly relevant to catchment management (see
http://www.erin.gov.au/environment/epcg/soe.html). However, national
state of the environment reporting may provide information more relevant to
policy development as the scale of information provided may not be
sufficiently detailed for local management decisions. A set of core indicators
have been developed in conjunction with the ANZECC SoE Taskforce which
are intended for use at all scales. A number of these indicators, relating to the
land and inland waters, are relevant to catchment management. For example,
the inland waters indicator relating to nutrient loads and concentrations will
help identify sources of nutrients, thus indicating areas that require improved
management.

28
4. Mechanisms for monitoring, evaluating and reporting on
catchment management programs, including the use of these
reports for state of the environment reporting, and
opportunities for review and improvement.

Assessing catchment-based responses to natural resource management issues

requires consistent monitoring of terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity and
water quality. Data must be collected and managed at an appropriate scale to
ensure effective catchment planning and local action.

To be of any real use to stakeholders, who manage the land and water
resource data must be available to catchment planning and implementation
organisations. These organisations need to be aware of all the data available
within the catchment and the means to address any significant data gaps.

Any approach to monitoring within catchments needs to include the full

range of local organisations and groups to ensure local ownership therefore
averting the risk of local catchments developing parallel systems and
collecting data that they feel meets their needs.

There are great differences across Australia in the levels of data and the ability
to manage this. Overall there are likely to be more data poor areas than data
rich ones. It is important to identify where these data poor/data rich areas
are and which are the missing data layers. In determining what data to collect
to fill gaps, an assessment of the need for the data, the collection methods and
the data's usefulness in addressing environmental or natural resource issues
needs to be balanced against the cost of collecting and maintaining in the
long-term.

Nationwide Initiatives

Australian River Assessment Scheme (AusRivAS)

Nationally consistent methods for monitoring river health are being
implemented Australia-wide using the Australian River Assessment Scheme
(AusRivAS). In addition, significant resources are being devoted to
improving, upgrading, and refining existing methods. By the end of 2000 the
Assessment will have measured river condition by taking approximately 8548
samplings at approximately 3810 sites throughout Australia.

These sites were selected by State and Territory water agencies in consultation
with regional catchment and water managers, and with local community
groups. Initial assessments, based on early outputs of the AusRivAS tools, are
progressively being incorporated into State of the Environment reporting in
most States and Territories and are progressively being made available via the
World Wide Web. Final results covering all of Australia will be available in

29
late 2000 and will be reported in the next national State of the Environment
Report and in the National Land and Water Resources Audit. It is also
anticipated that the results of the Assessment will be available electronically
via the World Wide Web from Environment Australia (EA).

Australian Rivers and Catchment Condition Database (ARCCD)

The Environmental Resources Information Network (ERIN) is the custodian
for the ARCCD (previously known as the Wild Rivers Database). This is a
product of the Wild Rivers Program initiated by the Australian Heritage
Commission in 1992. This database is useful for monitoring, evaluating and
reporting on catchment management programs, and for developing such
programs.

Environment Agencies in each State collaborated in the data gathering and

the identification of rivers to be managed for natural values.

The database is provided to Commonwealth and State agencies. Most State

agencies continue to update information in their State’s domain, and provide
the updated material to the Commonwealth under reciprocal arrangements
with the supply of the collated database.

The intention is to make this information available via the “Australian Atlas”.
A prototype of this on-line mapping facility is on Environment Australia’s
Internet site, with the complete application forming part of the National Land
and Water Resources Audit.

Database
The ARCCD has defined sub-catchments based on elevation and flow
properties of continental drainage lines. These can be used to create
geographically accurate catchment boundaries at a useful scale for
management purposes. The data can also provide information on disturbance
levels and river condition within catchments.

The data was collected by relevant Commonwealth and State agencies, and
derived from other programs such as the National Wilderness Inventory
(which generated the Australian Land Disturbance database).

River Disturbance Index (RDI)

The goal of the original Wild Rivers Project was to identify "wild" rivers.
These are rivers for which the biological, geomorphological and hydrological
processes of river flow have not been significantly altered by colonial or
modern society. The River Disturbance Index, a rating on a zero-to-one scale,

30
provides a comparative measure of wild river potential along the continuum
from undisturbed or "wild" (RDI=0) to grossly disturbed (RDI=1).

It includes two components, measuring disturbance within the catchment

(Catchment Disturbance Index (CDI)) and to the flow regime (Flow Regime
Disturbance Index (FRDI)).

A Sub-catchment Disturbance Index (SCDI) is first derived by rating small

sub-catchments using data on the location of settlements, infrastructure, point
sources of pollution (including extractive industries), landcover and dominant
landuse. CDI then combines the SCDI values for all upstream sub-catchments
weighted according to an estimate of their relative contribution to total runoff.
Thus the wild river potential of a sub-catchment may be enhanced by
'dilution' from less disturbed confluent tributaries or diminished by upstream
disturbances. FRDI is derived using data relating to flow impediments
(dams, weirs, locks), flow diversions, channels and levees. All component
factor and index scores for each stream section are stored in a GIS database
which can be readily interrogated or displayed allowing closer examination of
individual rivers and the factors affecting their RDI.

State of the Environment

The first independent national State of the Environment Report was
published in 1996 (see
http://www.erin.gov.au/environment/epcg/soe.html). This assessed the
condition of terrestrial environments in Australia. National SoE reports must
now be produced every five years as a requirement of the recently enacted
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. These
reports will thus provide ongoing monitoring of the state of catchments in
Australia and provide an indication of the success of ICM programs.

Monitoring of catchment management programs will be required to assess

their effectiveness. Information generated as part of this assessment could be
highly useful for SoE reporting, particularly if similar indicators are used.
There is a great opportunity for the environmental indicators developed for
SoE reporting to be used as performance indicators for catchment
management programs if appropriate.

The monitoring of catchments also provides opportunities for cooperation

and coordination between agencies or projects. For example, the SoER Unit
and the National Land and Water Resources Audit are cooperating in a
project to examine the occurrence of exceedances of water quality guidelines.
This project will provide information for the 2001 State of the Environment
Report. The SoER Unit has also commissioned a project to identify the extent
of the occurrence of algal blooms that will provide information for the inland
waters theme of the SoE report.

31
National Land and Water Resources Audit
The Commonwealth Government policy documents Sustainable Agriculture
and Saving Our Natural Heritage included a commitment to a National Land
and Water Resources Audit at a cost of $32M over five years. The Audit is
intended to address the need for a nationwide appraisal of the state of
Australia’s natural resources base. The Commonwealth Government’s policy
documents indicated that the Audit would include a National Water
Resources Assessment (NWRA). This Assessment will be carried out as an
integral part of the Audit and focus on the extent, supply capabilities and
demand for water, including environmental needs. As an initial step in the
NWRA, the Sustainable Land and Water Resources Management Committee
(SLWRMC) Subcommittee on Water Resources agreed to organise a
workshop among the key players in the Commonwealth, States and
Territories. The workshop’s task was to scope the NWRA and to ensure that
the objectives can be met in a manner which recognises the practicalities of
using existing data sets and the limits on the resources available. The
workshop was held in August 1997. The National Land and Water Resources
Audit (NLWRA) Management Unit has now identified seven major themes
that the Audit will address. The first of these themes - Surface and
Groundwater Management - Availability, Allocation, Use and Efficiency of
Use – is especially relevant to catchment management.

Surface water resources assessment

The Bureau of Meteorology has responsibility for the measurement and
assessment of meteorological elements such as precipitation and evaporation
in support of the measurement and assessment of Australia’s surface water
resources. Activities in the area of water resources assessment include the
upgrade of climate monitoring networks to meet the needs of the water
industry, the identification of a network of benchmark streamflow gauging
stations for monitoring the effects of climate variability and change on water
resources, and the compilation of a national catalogue of gauging stations
operated by the various water-related agencies.

Waterwatch Australia
Waterwatch Australia was initiated by the Federal Government in 1992 in
recognition of a growing concern for water quality by the Australian people.
It recognises that a community-driven approach to catchment management
and improving the health of our waterways is of utmost importance.
Successful and effective community involvement can only be achieved by
raising the knowledge and skill-base of the community and through the
creation of effective partnerships between community, all spheres of
government and the private sector. The primary strategy for achieving this
has been to assist the community to establish waterway-monitoring networks.
These networks collect meaningful information about the environment, which

32
they share with catchment managers and other sectors of the community.
Information collected about environmental issues catalyse community groups
to take action to address such issues. Further information about Waterwatch
is at appendix A.

Program Evaluation
Evaluation and review of the programs/initiatives that look to address
catchment management issues is also vital. The NHT and its component
programs are currently undergoing an externally conducted mid-term review.
The report, due in November 1999, will assess the progress of the Trust
towards attaining its objectives, and will recommend measures for ongoing
monitoring of Trust outcomes. Regional and catchment issues are one of the
key themes being reviewed.

Coast and Clean Seas, one of the NHT’s programs, is also subject to
evaluation at a different level. Each of its funding programs and their
derivative initiatives has a particular set of evaluation measures relating to
funding, coverage and effectiveness. At the project level, each set of
management and planning activities has an evaluation component designed
to feed back into that activity and make on-going changes as required.

Future monitoring Responsibilities and Opportunities for Review and

Improvement

To ensure effective catchment planning and local action, data must be

collected and managed at an appropriate scale and must be easily available to
those with the responsibility for managing catchments. Currently, data loss is a
considerable issue across Australia. Many individuals and organisations
collect and analyse relevant data that never sees the light of day, or they move
on, and another group or individual later repeats their effort. One way of
preventing data loss and ensuring data is available to those who need it, is to
establish and maintain regional meta-databases, located within the catchment
organisation. These databases would list the type, location and parameters of
all data sources within the catchment. Clearly the National Land and Water
Resources Audit would be important in the development of such databases.

Work is already well underway to establish a national meta-database that

includes such information on water quality monitoring programs.
Environment Australia’s Environmental Protection Group, in partnership
with the National Land and Water Resources Audit, is currently developing
the Water Quality Monitoring in Australia database. This database will contain
listings of water quality monitoring programs throughout Australia. The
database is expected to be available on the Internet in mid-2000 and should
facilitate improved water quality monitoring throughout Australia.

33
The Australian River Assessment Scheme (AusRivAS) could also be useful in
the development of such meta-databases. As already explained, by the end of
2000, the Australian River Assessment Scheme will be able to provide an
Australian-wide perspective on the current status of river health. However,
the data set obtained will not, in most cases, be able to provide information on
trajectories in river health at a particular site. To determine whether
management actions are required, what type of action is required and the
necessary intensity of management, this information is vital. It would
therefore be useful to continue running a scheme like the Australian River
Assessment Scheme after the year 2000, to undertake repeat sampling the sites
sampled during the present program and thereby provide the essential
information about the stability of river health.

Given its national and international roles in hydrology and water resources
and the monitoring of Australia’s weather and climate, the Bureau of
Meteorology is another essential component of any future mechanism for
monitoring the impacts of water resources management practices. In some
states, the last ten years has seen an increase in project-specific data collection,
at the expense of a decline in the amount and quality of hydrological data
collected for resource management purposes. Background information on
climate variability, in particular temperature, rainfall and evaporation are
essential to the interpretation of hydrological records impacted on by both
catchment management policies and natural climate variability.

34