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
www.onlyoneplanet.com.au
jonnevill@hotmail.com
Land and Water Australia
Improving
the
legislative
basis
for
river
management
in
Australia
–
Stage
2
Report
Mary Maher and Associates
www.users.bigpond.com/jon.nevill
/
mail@marymaher.com.au
jonnevill@hotmail.com
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:
http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/overview/principles.html
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:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/jon.nevill
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
Enter the password to open this PDF file:
File name:
-
File size:
-
Title:
-
Author:
-
Subject:
-
Keywords:
-
Creation Date:
-
Modification Date:
-
Creator:
-
PDF Producer:
-
PDF Version:
-
Page Count:
-
Preparing document for printing…
0%
Σχόλια 0
Συνδεθείτε για να κοινοποιήσετε σχόλιο