Representative freshwater reserves:
better late than never
Jon Nevill*, Ngaire Phillips**
* Only One Planet
** NIWA Australia
ABSTRACT
Representative reserves (protected areas) are an accepted component of terrestrial and
marine biodiversity conservation programs. Additionally, representative reserves have
important values in protecting ecosystems of special importance, and in providing
ecologically-based benchmarks useful in assessing the sustainability of management
programs. However, in spite of international and national commitments, Australian
State governments have been slow to establish systems of representative reserves in
freshwater environments.
A central recommendation involves the establishment of agreed national methods for
the classification of freshwater ecosystems into (‘representative’) categories which can
be incorporated into a comprehensive national inventory.
A second key
recommendation involves the development of a national approach to identifying gaps in
the existing reserve system relating specifically to freshwater ecosystems.
INTRODUCTION
Representative reserves
The term “protected areas” is preferred to “reserves” in general use; however the shorter “reserves”
is used throughout this paper for the sake of brevity. “Reserves” has a variety of restrictive and
legal connotations which can confuse lay readership. The term here is used to mean a defined area
subject to a particular management regime designed to protect the area’s ecosystems from threats.
The longer phrase “protected areas” thus is more self-explanatory, less threatening, and is in line
with international IUCN usage.
In arguing for the establishment of systems of representative freshwater reserves, we are not
suggesting that these reserves are all that is necessary to protect freshwater biodiversity: far from it.
As discussed below, the protection of biodiversity rests on two central platforms: the establishment
of special areas to protect representative examples of ecosystems, AND programs to protect
biodiversity values across the general landscape. This second platform includes both programs to
protect natural values within managed ecosystems (the installation of fishways on weirs and dams,
for example), as well as special purpose reserves to protect wilderness, recreational, scenic, cultural
or commercial values.
Representative reserves are areas selected to protect representative examples of natural ecosystems,
features or phenomena. They are established for the:

protection of biodiversity through preservation of representative examples of ecosystems,
and protection of the species and genotypes which depend on that ecosystem;

protection of threatened ecological communities and species;

preservation of unique, rare or outstanding botanical, zoological or geological phenomena;
1


the establishment of ecological benchmarks by which to evaluate long-term changes in
ecosystems subject to intensive modification (eg: through water abstraction, or the
harvesting of plants or animals);
protection of important landscape, wilderness, recreational, scientific, cultural and
educational values and uses associated with the natural environment, to the extent that such
activities are compatible with other objectives.
The development of comprehensive, adequate and representative reserves in terrestrial
environments is relatively well established. This terminology1 (and the process behind it) is
currently being applied to the marine environment, driven primarily by concerns relating to the
protection of biodiversity, and encompassing related secondary objectives (see discussion below).
Although most Australian states have made policy-level commitments to establish systems of
representative freshwater reserves, these commitments, for the most part, have not been
implemented (see discussion below).
With growing emphasis on biodiversity conservation and sustainable management, the concept of
representative freshwater reserves is becoming increasingly relevant. Moreover, the continuing
degradation of most of the nation's freshwater ecosystems makes the concept both more relevant
and more urgent.
Scope
The scope of the discussion paper includes all inland wetlands using the Ramsar Convention
definition of “wetland”. This definition2 (in brief) encompasses both fresh and saline, flowing and
still, and surface and subterranean ecosystems. In other words, the discussion paper covers rivers,
lakes, wetlands (using the more limited definition of wetlands current in Australia), aquifers and
karst systems, and estuaries whose ecosystems are significantly dependent on inflow from rivers,
streams and aquifers.
TERRESTRIAL RESERVES
The development of systems of representative freshwater reserves needs to be understood in light
of the development of representative reserves in terrestrial and marine environments.
The creation of terrestrial reserves preceded the creation of marine reserves by around one hundred
years. Freshwater reserves, in their own right, have been an even more recent development 3. For
most of the last century, terrestrial reserves were created for a variety of reasons, and were mostly
established by ad hoc or opportunistic pressures. Even though Australia made an international
commitment to the establishment of representative ecosystem reserves 20 years ago, it is only in the
last 10 years that most nature conservation agencies have embraced the goal of representing the
wide range of ecosystems within each jurisdiction in a system of protected areas.
Within the Australian context, both Commonwealth and State governments are now firmly
committed to the establishment of systems of representative terrestrial reserves, and these programs
have now been funded for the best part of a decade.
Given the slow start that these programs have had, it is understandable that priority has been given
to planning at the regional and landscape level. However, these broad-scale programs are now
sufficiently well established, we argue, for matters of finer detail to be considered - such as
freshwater ecosystems.
It is true that existing systems of terrestrial reserves protect many important freshwater ecosystems.
Probably the most impressive example is provided by the World Heritage Area in the Southwest of
2
Tasmania, where the two most westerly of the State’s nine IBRA regions are substantially
protected, including their small and medium-sized waterways (some of the larger waterways are
degraded by hydroelectric developments). Similar comments regarding the protection of small
rivers, lakes, wetlands and aquifers can be made for most other very large terrestrial reserves.
Moreover, in some States (see the discussion of the South Australian program below) reserve
acquisition programs are now targeting wetland acquisitions.
MARINE RESERVES
The development of marine reserves has lagged behind terrestrial reserves by about a century,
partly due to the incorrect perception that the sea was so vast it seemed improbable that humans
could cause significant long-term degradation. In addition, damage which was occurring was
invisible to most of the community with the result that marine conservation issues remained lowprofile with both politicians and conservation lobby groups.
National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas
The development of the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas
(NRSMPAs) was endorsed by Australian Governments under the InterGovernmental Agreement on
the Environment. There are commitments by all Australian Governments to its establishment in key
strategies such as the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (1992) and the
National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (1996) [Australia's
Oceans Policy 1998:Appendix 4].
Goals of the NRSMPA
The primary goal of the NRSMPA4 is to establish and manage a comprehensive, adequate and
representative system of MPAs to contribute to the long-term ecological viability of marine and
estuarine systems, to maintain ecological processes and systems, and to protect Australia’s
biological diversity at all levels.
The following secondary goals are designed to be compatible with the primary goal:
 to promote the development of MPAs within the framework of integrated ecosystem
management;
 to provide a formal management framework for a broad spectrum of human activities, including
recreation, tourism, shipping and the use or extraction of resources, the impacts of which are
compatible with the primary goal;
 to provide scientific reference sites;
 to provide for the special needs of rare, threatened or depleted species and threatened ecological
communities;
 to provide for the conservation of special groups of organisms, eg species with complex habitat
requirements or mobile or migratory species, or species vulnerable to disturbance which may
depend on reservation for their conservation;
 to protect areas of high conservation value including those containing high species diversity,
natural refugia for flora and fauna and centres of endemism;
 to provide for the recreational, aesthetic and cultural needs of indigenous and non-indigenous
people.

3
IMCRA: an ecosystem-based regionalisation of Australia’s oceans
The Interim Marine and Coastal Regionalisation for Australia (IMCRA) is an ecosystem-based
classification of Australia's marine waters. It describes regions at the meso-scale and macro-scale,
drawing on information about the biological, physical and chemical variability of the sea floor and
overlying waters. As is the case with IBRA, IMCRA seeks to establish regions containing
repeating patterns of similar ecosystems.
Preliminary work on a macro-scale regionalisation of the exclusive economic zone and the
continental shelf has also been completed. Regionalisations such as those used in IMCRA are
conceived and developed for specific purposes. Ecologically based regionalisations provide the first
layer in a broad ecological planning framework within which more detailed information on
ecosystems, communities and/or species distributions can be used to assist decision-making across
or within a region .
Reference: [Australia's Oceans Policy 1998:Appendix 4].
Implications for the development of representative freshwater reserves
There are obvious similarities between the objectives and processes of the NRSP and the
NRSMPA, and the possible development of a national system of freshwater reserves.
For example, given the fundamental similarities between management aims and processes relating
to both marine and freshwater environments, the goal statements could, for the most part, be
transferred directly from marine to freshwater.
The processes in developing such systems also appear to have obvious parallels. Thackway
(1996:5) describes five broad steps in the development of systems of representative terrestrial
reserves:
 identifying gaps in the current system of protected areas and setting priorities using a
bioregional planning framework;
 identifying representative ecosystem areas (ie. sites of key conservation significance);
 selecting potential reserve areas (ie. potential candidate protected areas);
 assessing the feasibility of potential reserve areas and negotiating new protected areas; and
 establishment and management (ie. implementation and acquisition).
These same steps could, broadly, form the basis of a national strategy aimed at establish systems of
representative freshwater reserves.
WHY DO WE NEED REPRESENTATIVE FRESHWATER RESERVES?
Australian freshwater ecosystems
By way of national overview, Australia, by virtue of its size, contains a large variety of different
freshwater ecosystems. Broadly, the north of the continent has a monsoonal rainfall pattern, while
the south generally has a temperate, winter-rainfall pattern. In the far south, Tasmania (the smallest
State) captures more than half of Australia’s total annual surface runoff. The eastern seaboard and
the extreme south west of the continent are reasonably well-watered, while the arid interior is
characterised by rainfall which is extremely variable.
By world standards, Australia has only one large river system, the Murray-Darling, whose
catchment drains the western slopes of the Great Dividing Range. The Murray-Darling Basin
4
covers an area in excess of a million square kilometres (over one sixth of the entire continent) and
occupies large areas of southern Queensland, inland NSW, and northern Victoria, as well as South
Australia's south east. The Murray-Darling is also one of Australian’s most degraded river basins,
an issue of special concern to South Australia – the State at the “bottom end” of the basin
catchment.
Threatening processes
Threats to freshwater ecosystems are discussed in a variety of references, including the 1996 State
of the Environment Report (refer also to the Report's technical background papers), and wetland
strategies and policies developed by States. Major problems affecting many remaining rivers,
wetlands and aquifers includes the following (not in order of importance):
 extraction of surface or groundwater flows;
 alterations to flow volumes, timing, temperature and quality stemming from stream regulation
(dams and weirs) and levee bank construction;
 water pollution from agricultural, urban and industrial sources;
 habitat degradation, including: (a) degradation of riparian vegetation by grazing and altered fire
regimes, (b) weed infestation, (c) changed river morphology associated with erosion and
sediment deposition, (d) recreational activity impacts, including destruction of vegetation,
destructive litter such as nylon fishing lines, and poisoning of soils and biota with lead shot, (e)
river de-snagging, and (f) drainage, infilling or channelisation for agricultural purposes;
 structures impeding the passage of fish on life-cycle journeys;
 introduced aquatic pests species (including plants, animals and micro-organisms);
 disturbance of wildlife by recreational and urban encroachment, powerlines (causing birdstrike)
and predation by feral animals such as cats, foxes and dogs; and
 the direct and indirect effects of mining operations, including: (a) the mining of materials
associated with water systems, such as peat, sphagnum moss, gold, certain gemstones, tin, sand
and river gravel, (b) water pollution resulting from mining operations, especially sediment and
acidic wastes, and (c) altered groundwater regimes resulting from mine dewatering or process
water extraction.
The role of representative freshwater reserves
As is the case in terrestrial and marine environments, there are a number of roles that representative
freshwater reserves could play. These include:
 protection of biodiversity against threatening processes through the establishment of a
comprehensive, adequate and representative system of reserves;
 provision for the conservation of special groups of organisms – for example, species with
complex habitat requirements, or mobile or migratory species, or species vulnerable to
disturbance and which may depend on reservation for their conservation;
 provision for the special needs of rare, threatened or depleted species, and threatened
ecological communities;
 provision of biodiversity ‘banks’ to recolonise damaged or degraded environment, whether
such degradation has occurred by natural disaster, bad long-term management practices, or
by accident;
 provision of scientific reference sites, either for research, or to provide benchmark
indicators by which sustainable management may be judged; and
 protection of areas of high conservation value including those containing high species
diversity, natural refugia for flora and fauna, and centres of species endemism;
 within the constraints of the above, provision for the recreational, aesthetic and cultural
need of indigenous and non-indigenous people.
5
Protection of biodiversity
All major biodiversity strategies worldwide are based on the principle of protecting biodiversity
"in-situ". Biodiversity is generally defined at three levels: genes, species and ecosystems5. There
are species which can be maintained by captive breeding programs, and to this extent these species,
and their genes, could in theory be maintained without the existence of reserves protecting their
habitat. These species represent, however, only a tiny fraction of the total number of species in
existence. A huge proportion of invertebrate and microbial species remain unidentified and
undescribed to science. Estimates of the total number of species in existence range from 10 million
to 100 million.
While most vertebrate and plant species have almost certainly been identified, full knowledge of
their ecological requirements is available for comparatively few, and for most of these captive
breeding programs are impractical or uneconomic. There are many species where captive breeding
programs are impossible.
At the third level of biodiversity, 'captive breeding' programs for entire ecosystems is impractical or
uneconomic (if not impossible). Even attempts to create simplified ecosystems to support small
numbers of humans (biodomes) have been unsuccessful, although conducted at great expense.
A cornerstone of biodiversity protection (first articulated in the international context in the World
Charter for Nature 1982) is the tenet that, where ecosystems are subject to significant modification
by humans (through harvesting, pollution, resource extraction, or the introduction of new species,
for example) it is necessary to set aside representative examples of these ecosystems to provide
biodiversity “banks”, and benchmarks against which human management of the ecosystems can be
measured in the long term.
The “mirror” of this tenet states that actions should also be taken in managed ecosystems to
minimise impact by protecting natural values (including biodiversity) as far as practicable.
Threatening processes need to be identified and managed.
Where reserves are created to protect representative ecosystems, such reserves should be
ecologically viable. They should be large enough to support species at the top of the food chain,
such as the peak predators, and should be of sufficient size to permit ongoing evolutionary
processes to occur. In the words of the International Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP
1992) they should be comprehensive, adequate and representative.
The above cornerstone is one of the key foundations of the International Convention on Biological
Diversity, and has been broadly adopted by all national biodiversity strategies developed by
signatory-nations to the Convention, including Australia's strategy. The Australian biodiversity
program was established by the National Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Diversity
1996, to which all Australian States are signatories. This is referred to below in shorthand form as
the national biodiversity strategy.
In summary, the development of systems of representative reserves, protecting viable examples of
all major ecosystems, is fundamental to the conservation of biodiversity. Where samples of
ecosystems cannot be viably protected in the long-term, biodiversity losses will inevitable occur, as
human use of these ecosystems modifies and simplifies their characteristics.
6
Protection of other ecological values
A recent publication by Phillips et al6 reviews existing principles and tools associated with the
protection of the ecological values of rivers. Ecological value can be considered the natural
significance of ecosystem structures and functions, expressed in terms of their quality, rarity and
diversity. Significance can arise from individual biological, physical or chemical features or a
combination of features. Dunn7 surveyed a range of river researchers/managers to determine the
key criteria which define the aspects of rivers that should be protected. A summary of criteria
identified by the survey recipients is listed below.
 rarity - what is the relative occurrence of river features?
 naturalness - how much has human occupation affected the river?
 diversity - what is the range of biological and physical features which define the river?
 representativeness - how well does the river reflect its type?
 special features - are there distinctive features of a river which require specific management?
Effective river protection or conservation must involve both ‘conservationists’ and those who
exploit natural resources, together with researchers, planners, educators and the general public8.
There is very little direct protection of rivers being undertaken in Australia. This situation is not
dissimilar to that in other countries. For example, Collier9 reported that, in New Zealand,
conservation efforts had historically focussed largely on preserving fisheries values. Allan and
Flecker10 claim that the strong global interest in biodiversity has concentrated efforts into
ecosystems such as tropical moist forest, to the detriment of other systems such as aquatic
environments, with perceived lower biodiversity levels.
Dunn11 describes the current status of river protection in Australia, with mostly indirect protection
being achieved through compliance with the COAG water reform framework agreed between State
and Federal governments (this incorporates the National Water Quality Management Strategy12).
This agreement commits all Australian jurisdictions to the protection of the aquatic environment,
explicitly including the provision of water allocations for maintenance of these values - where
they are flow-dependent. Protection of water quality is another indirect instrument for the
protection of ecological values. Direct protection instruments, for example through protection of
representative river ecosystems by special designation, are not generally applied. Historically, a
good deal of river protection has been achieved as a secondary outcome of the need to prevent the
erosion of farmland, or the need to implement sustainable land use practices etc (Penn, pers comm,
Sep 2000).
Provision of benchmarks
Representative reserves provide benchmarks against which environmental changes in managed
ecosystems can be measured. Benchmarks are also necessary to assess the value and condition of
impaired ecosystems13.
For example, the AusRivAS macroinvertebrate sampling program provides important benchmarks
and indicators for the measurement of river condition. In the long term, such benchmarks may be
altered by aspects such as climate change. Without reference areas, there will be no reference
standard by which to judge the implications of such long term changes.
Sustainable management programs cannot be validated without benchmarks. Without
representative reserves, programs aimed at achieving sustainability become vacuous attempts at
window-dressing.
7
COMMITMENTS, PROGRAMS AND DIFFICULTIES
State commitments and programs: representative reserves
The following table lists State commitments to the development of systems of representative
freshwater reserves, and the programs developed to put these commitments in place (extracted from
Nevill 2001).
Summary tabulation:
Representative freshwater reserve commitments and programs
Commitment contained in:
Implementation
program
Wetlands Conservation Policy 1997
None.
WA
The commitment has
not been re-stated in the
recent Waterways WA
Policy,.
A Strategy for Conservation of the
None
NT
Biological Diversity of Wetlands, 2000
Wetlands Strategy 1999
None
Qld
None
NSW Rivers and Estuaries Policy 1993;
Wetlands Management Policy 1996;
Biodiversity Strategy 1999;
Nature Conservation
ACT Nature Conservation Strategy 1998
Program
Nature Conservation Strategy 1987;
Heritage Rivers
Vic
Biodiversity strategy 1997
Program
wetlands component
incomplete
Developing Tasmania’s nature conservation
None
Tas
strategy; 2000 (- commitment in draft form).
SA is developing a draft wetlands policy (no
No commitment made
SA
commitment to representative freshwater reserves at this stage.
at this stage).
In summary: all States are committed to the national biodiversity strategy (where the development
of representative reserves covering all ecosystems is a key commitment). All states, except South
Australia, have amplified this comment by specific policy statements relating to the development of
systems of representative freshwater reserves, although the Tasmanian commitment remains in
draft form as of June 2001.
All States have programs in place designed to meet Ramsar commitments - these commitments
include the development of ecosystem inventories, and the establishment of systems of reserves
covering the full range of wetlands included in the Ramsar definition of the term. In no case are
these programs complete.
The only jurisdiction to establish a reasonably comprehensive freshwater ecosystems inventory is
the Australian Capital Territory, and the ACT is the only jurisdiction to establish a reasonably
comprehensive system of freshwater reserves. The ACT and Victoria are, in fact, the only
8
jurisdictions to attempt to directly action their "representative reserve" commitments. The
Victorian program, while ambitious, has not been completed, and is now in urgent need of review.
In all other jurisdictions, action has not been taken to put in place either comprehensive inventories,
or systems of representative freshwater reserves. Instead, these States have concentrated on the
broader bioregional framework of the NRS, which itself has not highlighted the freshwater reserve
issue. Moreover, no action has been taken within the NRS to establish a national agreed approach
to the classification of freshwater ecosystems into categories or types which could provide a
framework for the long-term development of a national system of representative freshwater
reserves.
Difficulties in managing aquatic reserves
The fundamental element of representative reserve management is the separation, as far as possible,
of the protected ecosystem from the processes which threaten it. The issue of how the catchment of
a reserve might be protected provides an obvious complication with regard to freshwater reserves
that does not generally apply to terrestrial or marine reserves14. The use of land and water upstream
of the reserve will affect the viability of the reserve itself. The existence of downstream dams and
weirs will inhibit or prevent fish passage.
This aspect means that creation and management of the reserve must bear catchment issues in mind
– and in some cases, seek to influence activities within the catchment in order to protect values of
the reserve. This complication is just that: a complication. It does not imply that the concept of a
representative freshwater reserve is somehow different in principle to a terrestrial or a marine
reserve. The essence of all reserves is that boundaries can be drawn, and management plans and
programs prepared, to effectively protect the target ecosystem.
CONCLUSIONS
It is clear that freshwater ecosystems are under increasing threat. Many of the threats are pervasive
and intractable. Systems of terrestrial reserves have been established, and the largest of these, and
those specifically targeted at wetland areas (such as Ramsar sites) undoubtably protect some
representative samples of major freshwater ecosystems.
However, in spite of international, national and State-level commitments to the establishment of
representative systems freshwater reserves, only Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory have
made serious attempts to establish such reserves. The Australian Capital Territory has inherent
advantages due to its small size, and the large amount of public land within its jurisdiction, and here
some impressive reserves have been created. Victoria led the nation with it's 1987 Nature
Conservation Strategy, the subsequent Rivers and Streams Investigation by the Land Conservation
Council, and the eventual passage of the Heritage Rivers Act 1992. However, the initial vision of
the Victorian program has not been realised, and the issue is now in need of urgent review in that
State (discussed above).
Australia's remaining six jurisdictions have not moved to implement their commitments (Nevill
2001). This delay should be seen within the perspective of the need to establish the broader
bioregional National Reserves System, which has occupied most Australian nature conservation
agencies over the last decade. This has, by necessity, focussed attention at the bioregional and
landscape level. Most freshwater ecosystems exist at a finer level of detail, and have so far escaped
priority attention within the National Reserves System.
It is time for this approach to change. Sufficient progress has been made at broad planning levels
now to justify turning attention to ecosystems of finer detail - in particular, rivers, lakes, wetlands
9
and aquifers. Freshwater ecosystems should now be highlighted within the National Reserve
System framework.
No Australian State has met its full Ramsar Convention obligations in relation to the preparation of
comprehensive wetland inventories, using the Ramsar definition of "wetlands" (Nevill 2001).
Partial inventories have been established, and these are valuable. They must now be expanded,
using nationally agreed classification methods, to encompass all major freshwater ecosystems.
These inventories can then be used to identify gaps in the existing reserve system. It is to be
expected that the most significant gaps, and those which will be most difficult to fill, will relate to
large midland and lowland rivers, and possibly aquifers. Classification and assessment methods of
potential relevance to the development of comprehensive freshwater inventories are set out in
Appendix 4 of Nevill (2001).
There will be obvious difficulties involved in management issues due to the dependence of
freshwater ecosystems on the condition and management of the wider catchment; however, just
because something is difficult does not mean that it can't be done.
Successful implementation of national and State commitments to reserve systems rests on two
fundamental premises. First, that Australia needs to establish a bioregional planning and
management framework capable of operating across all scales and which is accepted by all sectors
of government, industry and the wider community. Second, that in planning the National Reserve
System it is essential to involve the wider community and all stakeholders earlier in the process of
identifying and selecting areas for reservation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
No comprehensive evaluation has been carried out by any Australian jurisdiction to assess the
degree to which freshwater ecosystems are in fact represented in existing reserves, it must be said
that the commitments15 made by Australian State governments have not been met.
We believe that Australian nature conservation programs are now at the point where consideration
needs to be re-directed toward programs to protect ecosystems at a finer scale. Given the
continuing and intractable decline of freshwater ecosystems over much of the Australian continent,
it is now urgent that the development of representative freshwater reserves no be elevated,
nationwide, to the highest priority.
Our two central recommendations are that:

agreed National methods for the classification of freshwater ecosystems into (‘representative’)
categories should be established, which can be incorporated into a comprehensive national
inventory; and

a national approach should be developed to enable the identification of gaps in the existing
reserve system relating specifically to freshwater ecosystems.
These, we believe, should be initiated within the cooperative frameworks of the NRS and
ANZECC, assisted by agencies such as AFFA, EA (wetlands program), the National Audit, and
Land and Water Australia (including involvement by the National Rivers Consortium).
REFERENCES
Please refer to the ASL representative reserves bibliography at
http://www.onlyoneplanet.com/ASL_bibliography.htm .
10
The terms “comprehensive, adequate and representative” were adopted by the International
Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP 1992), and have subsequently been incorporated into
the National Reserves System Program, and the Marine Protected Area National Reserve System
Program.
2
Ramsar Convention: at http://www.ramsar.org/ .
3
With the exception of rivers protected under the USA’s Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 1968.
4
Reference: [Guidelines for establishing the National Reserve System of Marine Protected Areas;
ANZECC 1998:s1.3web].
5
These levels can be expanded, however. Refer Commonwealth of Australia 1997b: 7.
6
Phillips, N. Bennett, J and Moulton D (2001) Principles and tools for protecting Australian
rivers. Land and Water Australia.
1
7
Dunn, Helen (2000) Identifying and protecting rivers of high ecological value; LWRDDC
Occasional Paper 01/00. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation,
Canberra
8
Boon P J and Baxter J M (1999) Issues in aquatic conservation: past, present and future. An
introduction. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecology 9: 495 – 496.
9
Collier, K.J., (1993) Towards a Protocol for Assessing the Natural Value of New Zealand Rivers.
Science and Research Series No.58 Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
10
Allan, J.D.and Flecker, A.S. (1993) Biodiversity Conservation in Running Waters: Identifying
the major factors that threaten destruction of riverine species and ecosystems. Bioscience, 43(1) 3243.
11
Dunn, Helen (2000) Identifying and protecting rivers of high ecological value; LWRDDC
Occasional Paper 01/00. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation,
Canberra.
12
ARMCANZ & ANZECC (1994)
13
Reynoldson, TB; Norris, RH; Resh, VH; Day, KE; Rosenberg, DM (1997). The reference
condition: a comparison of multimetric and multivariate approaches to assess water-quality
impairment using benthic macroinvertebrates. Journal of the North American Benthological
Society 16, 833-852.
14
With the obvious exception of marine reserves encompassing estuaries.
15
That is, commitments to establish representative systems of freshwater reserves.
11