In the early 1970s Australia (and many other nations) made 
commitments to protect its important and representative ecosystems. The 
two key documents in this regard are the United Nations Stockholm 
Declaration, and the Ramsar Wetlands Convention. These commitments were 
later reinforced through the 1982 World Charter for Nature (an agreement
 by the UN General Assembly) and the 1992 Convention on Biological 
Diversity – one of the most widely supported of all international 
agreements. The CBD is particularly important as national programs 
continue to be guided by resolutions of the Conference of the Parties.
               Under
 the guidance of these agreements, Australia and other nations commenced
 programs aimed at the protection of biodiversity in terrestrial, 
freshwater and marine ecosystems. These programs had two main thrusts. 
First, the single most important strategy world wide is the creation of 
networks of protected areas – permanent reserves where at least some 
threats to biodiversity are effectively managed or eliminated. However, 
it was immediately recognised that such reserves could never contain 
more than a small percentage (10 or 20 percent at most) of the world’s 
ecosystems and habitats, so the second major program is to protect as 
far as practical biodiversity across broad landscapes. This is achieved 
through a variety of legislative and incentive programs (pollution 
controls and land use planning, for example).
           My work 
since the year 2000 has focused on evaluating just how effective 
Australia’s programs have been in the areas of protecting aquatic 
biodiversity.
Considerable progress was made in the area of 
terrestrial biodiversity in the 1980s, as the Commonwealth Government, 
in cooperation with the States, developed the National Reserve System. 
In the 1990s attention moved to marine ecosystems, as Australia 
commenced a program to develop ‘comprehensive, adequate and 
representative’ protection for marine ecosystems through a network of 
marine protected areas in Commonwealth and State waters. Australian 
scientists, like Jamie Kirkpatrick and Bob Pressey, became world figures
 through their work on the theory and practice of systematic 
conservation planning (see the landmark paper by Margules and Pressey).
              However
 little systematic attention was given to freshwater ecosystems. Each 
Australian State did declare reserves under the Ramsar Convention, 
however these were not developed under a systematic national plan, and 
to this day no national evaluation has been undertaken to identify areas
 which meet the Ramsar criteria. The Ramsar reserves which were 
developed in response to local initiatives do protect important lentic 
ecosystems, however water of course moves through reserve boundaries, 
and all too often no management steps were taken to protect the water 
which sustains these ecosystems. In many cases rivers and streams 
flowing towards the reserves where dammed and harvested, and 
groundwaters drained.
            The terrestrial NRS reserves 
were often established with little regard for the conservation needs of 
riverine ecosystems. Today, four decades after Australia’s initial 
commitments, there has been no conservation status assessment to 
determine whether riverine ecosystems are adequately protected within 
terrestrial reserves. Dr Janet Stein of the Australian National 
University has recently published an analysis which found that of 
Australia’s 2,900,000 kilometers of mapped streams, only 12,334 km, or 
less than half of one percent, fell into what might be described as a 
“fully protected” category within terrestrial reserves. Her paper 
concludes: “Owing to a variety of pervasive threats, a more 
comprehensive conservation status assessment of these ecosystems would 
undoubtedly yield an even more pessimistic result. Such an assessment is
 recommended”.
                It should be noted that New Zealand has undertaken a comprehensive 
national assessment of its freshwater ecosystems. It should also be 
noted however, that in New Zealand, as in Australia, action to protect 
freshwater on the ground has lagged far behind both policy and science.
One
 of Australia’s best known freshwater conservation biologists is 
Professor Richard Kingsford of the University of New South Wales. In 
2006 he and fifty other prominent scientists published a paper calling 
for urgent action. Unfortunately, this call remains as urgent today as it was then:
The
 need to establish comprehensive and representative freshwater protected
 areas is urgent, given increasing concerns about limited water 
availability for Australia’s cities, industries and agriculture – and 
the ongoing degradation of aquatic ecosystems. This should be 
accompanied by effective land and water management that pays more than 
lip service to the environmental requirements of aquatic ecosystems. 
State governments should act with the support and collaboration of the 
Commonwealth.
              The most urgent initiative appears to be a 
national reserve system ‘gap analysis’ which would identify those 
ecosystems most at risk. A comprehensive national assessment of the 
conservation status of freshwater ecosystems should be undertaken 
immediately. Such a study would provide a platform for the systematic 
expansion of the nation’s freshwater protected areas, as well as a 
catalyst for innovative ‘bottom-up’ conservation approaches driven by 
local stakeholders.
                   In other countries there have been important 
practical initiatives with regard to protecting river and stream 
ecosystems. Canada’s ‘Heritage Rivers’ and the USA’s ‘Wild and Scenic 
Rivers’ provide important models for other countries. However in 
Australia, Victoria’s ‘Heritage River’ management plans, prepared over a
 decade ago, were never finalized or implemented. The current Queensland
 State government, newly elected, came to power on a platform which 
included the roll-back of designated ‘Wild Rivers’. In the marine area, 
newly declared Commonwealth protected areas are a travesty of the 
original vision on which the program was founded in the 1990s.
                  We 
live in disturbing times. The sixth major global biodiversity extinction
 event, this time under the hand of mankind, has commenced, with the 
science increasingly clear. The threats to biodiversity from escalating 
inroads into natural habitats, as well as the effects of a warming 
climate and increasingly acidic oceans, are again clear from a 
scientific perspective. Yet, in Australia as globally, politicians, 
elected on short-term policy platforms, seem unable to understand, let 
alone act on, the damage which confronts us, damage which is already 
undermining the life support systems of Planet Earth.
Reference: 
 




