October 1997

Summary

The Lake Eyre Basin Steering Group was formed at a public meeting in Birdsville in 1995. The Steering Group's tasks include:

• preparing an information paper on the present management and resources of the Basin;
• consulting with the community and interested groups about options for catchment management; and
• preparing this discussion paper on those options.

This paper summarises the results of fourteen meetings held across the Basin, and discussions held with many individuals and within the Steering Group itself. The information paper is a set of brief issues papers covering topics such as weed and pest animal management, floodplain grazing, biological diversity conservation and background information about the Lake Eyre Basin.

At the public meetings participants were asked what they thought the major natural resource management issues are for the Lake Eyre Basin. They're responses help identify the issues to be considered in determining the most suitable option for future management of the Basin, whether this be catchment management, integrated resource management, or some other framework. Examples of major issues raised include: weeds and feral animals; surface water management; management of the Great Artesian Basin; uncontrolled tourism; and total grazing pressure/ pasture management.

People were asked their views about catchment management. Perceived positive aspects include: a community-owned management structure (ie. 'having a say'); improved communication and information; improved planning; and working together. Perceived negative aspects and concerns include: how to ensure even or fair representation; establishing commitment; potentially cumbersome and difficult with so many stakeholders; further time demands; and the inevitable need to compromise (some people might not be happy with decisions made).

Despite the negative points that were raised about catchment management, the response from the meetings has been overwhelmingly supportive of establishing a form of catchment management in the Basin - as long as it is community owned! People feel that there is a lot to gain, but emphasised several factors:

• the process must not become government driven;
• the 'grass roots' or community must have a voice;
• it must coordinate existing efforts rather than duplicate;
• there must be fair representation across the Basin and between interest groups.

Options raised during public meetings for establishing a catchment management framework in the Lake Eyre Basin include:

• Option Blue - Establish a Basin-wide group with membership from regional/ sub-catchment groups only.
• Option Green - Establish a Basin-wide group with a majority of members from regional groups and the remainder from peak bodies (such as the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Conservation Foundation).
• Option Yellow - Establish a Basin-wide group with membership directly from interest groups. This would be equivalent to the current Lake Eyre Basin Steering Group.
• Option Purple - Establish two catchment groups that cover the major river systems; one for the Diamantina and Georgina, and another for the Cooper. This option also suggests connections with a possible Lake Eyre Basin Ministerial Council.
• Option White - This option emphasises the regional groups and their planning role and suggests regular communication and cooperation between them, but on a more informal basis than a committee.
• Option Pink - The 'do nothing' option; allowing management to continue in its current form.
• Option ? - What other alternatives would you like to suggest?

These options have been identified by colours to prevent any implied preference. Possible strengths and weaknesses of the various options are raised later in this document.

The Steering Group will be holding a public meeting on November 14^th and 15^th in Birdsville to discuss possible options, and to make decisions about whether and how to proceed.

 

Acknowledgments

Thanks are due to everyone who has been involved in this process. Many busy people have contributed time and effort to get us this far. Thanks to those of you who attended the public meetings, who talked to us about catchment management and the Lake Eyre Basin, or commented on the draft options paper.

This work has been funded through the National Landcare Programme.

Introduction

This paper incorporates views offered at public meetings, by Steering Group members, during informal discussions, and in response to the draft options paper. While trying to keep the paper to a manageable length, it aims to summarise peoples' attitudes to catchment management and natural resource management issues that were raised during the consultation process. These views and attitudes have been distilled into a range of options for future management of the Lake Eyre Basin.

Background

The Steering Group

The Lake Eyre Basin Steering Group was initiated in 1995 at a public meeting held in Birdsville. The meeting was convened by the National Parks Far North Consultative Committee (South Australia) and attended by many different interest groups, including government and non-government people.

Concerned by conflict between different groups and the potential for World Heritage listing, community members wanted to do something constructive and bring together the different interests to work towards sustainable use and management of the natural resources in the Basin. Participants at the meeting collectively decided to establish the Lake Eyre Basin Steering Group.

The Steering Group brings together a diverse range of stakeholders and interest groups across State borders. It includes representatives from the pastoral industry, the Queensland and South Australian governments, conservation groups, mining industry, petroleum industry, Landcare groups, Aboriginal organisations and local government. The Group’s members are listed in Appendix E.

The Group is supported by a Project Officer, appointed in September 1996, and initially funded through member contributions. A successful funding application to the National Landcare Program has now ensured continuation of this position for up to 3 years.

The Steering Group's tasks include:

• preparing an information paper on the present management and resources of the Basin;
• consulting with the community and interested groups about options for catchment management; and
• preparing this discussion paper on those options.

The Group's terms of reference are reproduced in Appendix F.

Through consultation the group is finding out from people interested in the Basin whether they would like to set up a mechanism for community input into, and coordination of, natural resource management decision making. The term that was adopted at the first Birdsville public workshop to best describe this was "catchment management".

 

What the Steering Group is doing

Catchment management

The following information was outlined at the beginning of each consultation meeting to introduce people to catchment management.

So what is catchment management?

Another term we could use is integrated natural resource management. This term describes the fact that we are dealing with all resources - not just water.

Catchment management is based upon the boundary of a catchment or water drainage basin. The reason for having "catchment management", rather than just "management" of any region that can be drawn on a map, is that people living in a catchment are connected not only by social ties but by the relationships that connect upstream to downstream, and groundwater to bore. These connections mean that one person's consumption may be another's loss, and one person's waste disposal another's pollution. A form of integrated resource management can also be useful across borders where land types, and hence natural resource issues, may be shared.

The Lake Eyre Basin is made up of several major river catchments.

The fundamentals of catchment management are:

Managing all natural resources within an area, not just water. This is based on an understanding that all aspects of the environment are related - actions upon one element, such as vegetation, may have affects upon others, such as water flow and quality.

Bringing together all the different interest groups of a catchment to work together to reach an agreed position (See Figure 2). Rather than conflict, it is about creating a forum for different views and potential cooperation. Good catchment management does not push one point of view but considers the whole range of views

Establishing a partnership between community and government. Catchment management should be about community involvement in decision making rather than government imposed decisions. However, given the location of the Lake Eyre Basin across four state borders, it is important that any management plans or strategies agreed to at a catchment management level should incorporate a process by which state governments can agree to them and have them recognised under state legislation. It is also crucial that plans adopted by a state or regional group truly complement each other.

Long-term planning is a necessity. Any bad effects of past actions may be costly and take a long time to reverse, or may even be irreversible.

Catchment management has been around for a long time and in many countries, including the United States, Canada, Britain and New Zealand. One of the earliest related examples is the Tennessee Valley scheme established in 1933. New South Wales has established Total Catchment Management, and Queensland and Western

Australia have Integrated Catchment Management. (Some examples of catchment management are in Appendix B.)

Why would we need catchment management?

The final decision rests with you. The Steering Group has identified a range of benefits that catchment management could provide:

• encouraging sharing of information, ideas and resources;
• identifying problems, issues and priorities;
• planning for sustainable and balanced use of catchment resources;
• looking at a whole catchment, rather than just one administrative area;
• resolving conflicting demands; and
• pooling efforts to overcome obstacles.

Change is inevitable. It is something we all face whether we like it or not. But we do have the opportunity to decide how we deal with it. Do we just let it happen around us, or do we try and make sure it's positive for us, our community and the long term sustainability of the natural resources we rely on? There are many examples of change happening in the Lake Eyre Basin. These include more volatile commodity prices, increasing tourism, changing expectations about caring for and managing the environment, an increasing interest in alternative agricultural enterprises such as irrigated crops, a buoyant mining industry and growing petroleum industry.

There is a move towards regional strategies for natural resource management at the State and Commonwealth government level. The Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) funds (which now include the Landcare program) are likely to be directed through regional or catchment strategies. The NHT is not the only body thinking this way. In the future, communities will need to be ready and able to design and direct such strategies.

So how do you do catchment management?

Many communities around Australia have become involved in catchment management. Usually they form a catchment committee with representatives from all interest groups, and develop a catchment or regional strategy through community consultation.

At the first Birdsville workshop people were aware that the Lake Eyre Basin is a very different type of catchment. One of the tasks of the Steering Group was to consult with the community in the Basin about catchment management. We want to find out whether you think establishing a catchment management framework for the Lake Eyre Basin would be worthwhile and, if so, what form it should take.

Community management

The Lake Eyre Basin is a very large and thinly populated area. It contains areas of high environmental and economic value, and much cultural heritage. Managing the Basin involves complex issues and coordination of ideas from many individuals, agencies and non-government bodies. This means that being involved in management of the Lake Eyre Basin can be a bigger responsibility than in many other areas.

It can be difficult for the Basin community to spend the time and effort involved in travelling to meetings and reading material from many different sources. We need to think carefully about how people can be involved and about making communication and coordination work well. This is what the Steering Group means by setting up a catchment management 'framework'.

Towards a framework: Community consultation so far

This paper contains the outcomes of consultation with some of the communities within the Lake Eyre Basin. It summarises the results of 14 meetings held across the Basin, and discussions held with many individuals. Approximately 160 people have attended the meetings and about 50 people have been consulted outside of these meetings. The program of meetings held is provided in Appendix A and records from the meetings are available on request.

Advertisements about the Lake Eyre Basin Steering Group and consultation opportunities have been advertised through radio stations, newsletters, newspapers, mailouts, phonecalls, posters and talks to various community groups. Two information sheets have been produced and distributed outlining the consultation process and discussing catchment management.

A draft of this options paper was sent to those who attended the meetings, others involved in discussions, and to relevant organisations and interest groups for their comments.

The views of those who attended the meetings held within the Basin may not reflect the views of all interest groups. If workshops had been held in Adelaide or Brisbane we might have found that different issues were raised or emphasised. There was not a lot of involvement in the public meetings by Aboriginal groups, environmental groups or tourism groups.

Natural resource management issues

At the public meetings participants were asked what they thought the major natural resource management issues are for the Lake Eyre Basin. They're responses help identify the issues to be considered in determining the most suitable option for future management of the Basin, whether this be catchment management, integrated resource management, or some other framework.

Examples of major issues raised and how they relate to catchment management include:

• Weeds and pests. These were identified as issues at every meeting. Developing regional strategies could certainly help coordinate and implement on-ground work and activities, making individual efforts more effective.
• Surface water management. This was another major issue raised, particularly in Queensland and South Australia. Once again, catchment management may help by providing a process for: long term planning; ensuring all points of view are heard; that decisions are based upon adequate information; and avoiding multiple ad hoc decisions that result in long term negative impacts on the catchment and its people.
• Security of tenure. This is a vital issue to people in the rangelands and was voiced at meetings throughout the Basin. It is an issue that we are less able to deal with directly through catchment management. What we may be able to do is provide a forum for communication between groups.

Issues identified are not all specifically resource management issues. They also reflect social and economic concerns. Environmental, economic and social issues are interrelated, and in this process we will inevitably have to deal with all three. Any goals we may wish to set as part of a catchment management process will need to take account of environmental, economic and social issues and implications.

Table 1 summarises the major issues raised during consultative meetings (see Appendix A for details on the meetings program). A shaded box means that this topic, or one similar, was raised by someone at the meeting, not necessarily at the same frequency. The topics are listed in order of how frequently they were mentioned across all meetings. This is not an indication of priority. Nor does it necessarily mean that topics raised at a meeting cover all the issues relevant to that area.

In most discussions it was recognised that there are links between issues and that it is difficult to address some without the others.

Table 1: Major natural resource management issues within the Lake Eyre Basin, identified at consultative meetings

These issues and others raised during the consultation process can be categorised according to whether they are primarily of local, regional or basin-wide significance. The list is a summary only and the order does not reflect priority.

Basin-wide issues

• Ensuring fair representation in any catchment management process, between States and between interest groups
• Weeds and feral animals;
• Surface water management (including water extraction);
• Sustainable grazing practices;
• Education/ Awareness;
• Lack of existing data and information;
• Local knowledge;
• Uncontrolled tourism;
• Viability/economics;
• Diversification;
• Biodiversity conservation/ endangered species;
• Wildlife use/ harvesting;
• Management of the Great Artesian Basin.

Regional issues

• Potential and existing chemical usage and contamination;
• Mining and Petroleum;
• Vegetation management;
• Salt/ salinity.

Local issues

• Sewerage systems;
• Contamination or point source pollution;
• Great Artesian Basin loss of pressure and local draw down.

We can see from this break down that many issues raised fall into the Basin-wide category, either because people in many different areas mentioned them or because they are relevant to large portions of the Basin. Such issues would therefore be managed most effectively through a catchment or Basin-wide framework.

What we'd like our descendants to say about us

At each meeting participants were asked, "In 25 years what would you like your children or grandchildren to be saying about what we are doing here and now?" The reason for asking this question was to encourage people to look past the pressures of today and consider how their current actions will affect those they care about in the future.

Responses people gave at the meetings included:

"Glad they had the vision to look to the future."

"The country is in better shape now than back then."

"They got it right so that we can make a sustainable living in primary production."

"Thank goodness they got past looking at State boundaries."

"They had the foresight to preempt problems and to think in the long term."

"They initiated a good structure for us to carry on with a long term process."

"That they gave us a voice."

"They had input into setting up a structure that preserved our heritage and culture and a healthy environment in an economically sustainable way."

"The Cooper is still flowing - thank you."

"Good on them for preserving the artesian pressure."

"We’ve learned the lessons from the mistakes of other places."

"Glad they changed the 1997 attitude of governments and people."

"We appreciate the change that they had to cope with."

"Thanks that we still have the bush lifestyle that is enjoyed."

"There is no more uncertainty and people are working together."

"We can still drink the river water."

"It is through their actions that I am able to be on the land."

"Aboriginal heritage places are still here for people and the stories that go with them are still in the community."

"A suitable, ongoing management plan was created so that we don’t have to reinvent the wheel."

"They brought recognition to the Lake Eyre Basin as a leader in environmental care, clean food and fibre production, and visitor enjoyment, with each facet complementing the other."

"Our previous generation were working together towards better land management."

"Look at the progress in land management practices."

"They moved beyond the rhetoric of sustainability and made it something meaningful for people on the ground."

It is interesting to see that despite the different places we all stand now, we are often looking towards a similar vision for the future. The responses above show that, no matter what our differences of opinion or background, we share a desire for a socially, environmentally and economically healthy future, and we value achieving this outcome for future generations.

Responses to catchment management - pros, cons and concerns

After discussing what catchment management is or can be, people were asked what they thought about it. What did they think were the good and bad aspects of catchment management? What were their concerns about it? This question aimed to help determine whether establishing a catchment management process would be worthwhile, and if so, how it could best be done.

Positives

• Community owned management structure:

- control of our own destiny

- having a say

- local control

- community empowerment

- being heard

- alternative to having something else imposed

- better than World Heritage listing.

• Improved communication:

- between regions

- between stakeholders

- between government departments

- to Ministers and government

- help alleviate negative perceptions of pastoralism

• Information:

- collecting, valuing and sharing local knowledge

- better information transfer

- more information eg. about whether a certain landuse is possible

- being able to learn from what other people have done

• Improved planning:

- Long-term planning

- Preempting problems; a chance for each group to have a look and see what their problems are

- More controlled tourism and tourist access

- Find compromises eg. peanuts instead of cotton

- Working out positives and negatives of an industry

- Minimise negative effects of decisions upstream

- Bring existing strategies together

- Identify issues that may be local but have potential to be regional

- Maintain water flow

• Working together

- help remove State boundary concept

- looking larger than individual problems

- pressure on uncooperative groups

- creates a body that can respond to issues

• Increased education/ awareness:

- of people outside the Basin

- of visitors to the Basin

- of politicians

- learning about different issues in different regions

• Higher profile and identity for the Basin:

- may lead to increased funding

- improve image of region

- gives more weight to Basin issues/concerns

- Lobbying for resources/ accessing resources

• Creating sustainable environment and economy:

- healthier environment

- balance

- won't end up like the Murray Darling Basin

Role, path and aim ...

These positive aspects of catchment management identified could be seen as the role, path and aim for a Lake Eyre Basin catchment management process - how we would like it to be and what we would like it to do.

The role of catchment management in the Basin, referring to the list above, could include:

• improving communication, cooperation and coordination
• collecting and distributing information
• long term and strategic planning
• education and awareness
• creating a higher profile for the Basin.

A path we could take, if we develop a catchment management framework in the Basin, would be to ensure that it is community-owned and that different voices can have a say.

The aim could be to create a sustainable environment and economy ("so that we don't end up like the Murray Darling Basin").

Negatives and Concerns

Participants discussed potential negatives of catchment management and concerns or fears they held about it. If catchment management is to go ahead, what do we need to think about and work out? It was felt that taking into account the possible pitfalls of catchment management would help us avoid them. Or, you may feel that these concerns are too great to proceed with catchment management.

• Involvement and representation:

  - It could be dominated by one group

  - Won't necessarily change power balance - may widen gap if it was dominated by particular groups rather than involving everyone

  - How do you involve everyone?

  - How to ensure even or fair representation - it could become top-end driven as the majority of people live in northern area yet it is most fragile in the south

  - Ensuring commitment; potential lack of involvement; apathy

  - Cumbersome and logistically difficult to have all stakeholders at meetings

• Time: - Meetings

  - Burnout of community representatives

  - Maintaining involvement

• Compromise - some people won't be happy with decisions (eg. no cotton)
• Giving false hope
• Higher profile: - being told what to do

- more interference

- more uncontrolled tourism

• Government role - Will the government listen anyway?
• Over managed/ bureaucratic
• Duplication/ linkages with other processes
• Ability to take into account diversity in environment, issues, economic situations, tenure and legislation across the Basin
• May add financial burden
• Features of the Basin:

- Size of area

- Low population density

- Multiple administrative boundaries

• Transience of key personnel

Feedback on a catchment management framework for the Basin

Do we want catchment management in the Lake Eyre Basin?

Despite the negative points raised about catchment management, the response from the meetings has been overwhelmingly supportive of establishing a form of catchment management in the Basin - as long as it is community owned! People feel that there is a lot to gain but emphasised:

• The process must not become government driven;
• The 'grass roots' or community must have a voice;
• It must coordinate existing efforts rather than duplicate;
• There must be fair representation across the Basin and between interest groups.

Who fits into the framework and where?

At the public meetings across the Basin participants were asked to design a framework for catchment management in the Lake Eyre Basin that they believed would be appropriate. Given only a short period of time, participants willingly grappled with this question.

A cross-Basin committee with a majority of community representatives was included in almost every option suggested by participants at the meetings.

Most felt that interest groups should be involved at the regional level and that regional groups should elect representatives for the Basin-wide committee (see option Blue).

There were some suggestions that peak interest groups be represented on the Basin-wide committee. They would have a few positions with the majority of representatives coming from regional groups (see option Green).

It was seen that regional groups would, through community consultation, produce regional strategies. Their work would be more specific than the Basin-wide group.

There were some different suggestions about how to make up the regional groups. Most people stated that if there was already a relevant regional group it could take on this role, for example the Soil Boards in South Australia. Other groups, such as local Landcare groups, may be willing to expand the diversity of its membership and its role to take on such a role. In some instances, regional groups may need to be formed, perhaps as sub-catchment groups. Others suggested basing regional groups on bioregions. In some arid or semi-arid areas this may be a more appropriate way of determining regional boundaries than sub-catchments.

Others felt that electing a representative from a regional group would not ensure fair representation. They felt that the representative may present their interest group position, not that of their regional group. To address this, they suggested cutting out the middle layer by having interest groups organise representation for the Basin committee (see option Yellow).

Two additional options have been included in this document, arising from responses to the draft options paper. One of them, option purple, does not have a cross-Basin process or group, but two catchment groups that cover the major river systems - one for the Diamantina and Georgina, and another for the Cooper. This option also suggests connections with a possible Lake Eyre Basin Ministerial Council.

The next option, white, emphasises the regional group level and their planning role. It suggests regular communication and cooperation between them but on a more informal basis than a committee or group. This option involved establishing groups such as the Desert Uplands Buildup and Development Committee in the other parts of the Lake Eyre Basin in Queensland, and in other States as necessary (where nothing appropriate already exists).

A number of people have suggested that phone or video conferencing may be a useful way of running meetings while saving on travel time and cost. This is something to take into account when considering the options.

 Return to Top

 

Options for a catchment management framework in the Basin

The options that follow have been distilled from the outcomes of the 14 meetings and other discussions. (The drawings and descriptions that people came up with for possible frameworks are recorded in full and available on request.)

Each option is on a separate page and is described with a diagram, followed by possible pros and cons of the option and some questions it raises.

NOTE: The arrows in the following diagrams only illustrate representation, or movement of people. If they were to illustrate more, such as flow of information, they would point in both directions.

POSSIBLE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

• Geographic representation
• Encourages interest groups to get involved regionally in order to gain presence on Basin-wide group
• Greater community ownership and motivates community involvement
• Less duplication of resources
• Interested people at local level can be involved.
• Probably won't get all stakeholders or interests represented (Not all interest groups are able to attend regional group meetings)
• Regional bias of opinions, potentially misses the 'big picture'
• Some views/opinions may be filtered out by the time reaches Basin wide group.

QUESTIONS

1. How will regional boundaries be determined - by sub-catchments, biogeographic regions or other ways?
2. Which existing groups could take on the roles of regional groups?
3. Where there are no existing groups suitable for the role, how will they be formed?
4. What should be the role of State agency representatives - as technical advisors or involvement in decision making or both?

POSSIBLE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

• Includes geographic and interest-based representation
• Better chance of industry representation, maximises involvement of peak industry bodies
• Broad range/diversity of stakeholders involved and working together.
• Allows interest groups to be involved in Basin-wide decisions
• Brings in more knowledge from outside
• There are people involved at the Basin-wide level who are not involved at the regional or community level.

QUESTIONS

1. Which peak bodies should be represented?

[Other questions in relation to regional groups, as for Option Blue]

 

 

OPTION YELLOW

Establish a Basin-wide group with membership directly from interest groups. This would be equivalent to the current Steering Group.

 

POSSIBLE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

• Only those groups that showed an interest would be involved
• A competency based selection for the group may encourage a process focused on outcomes not politics
• Interest groups and opinions not filtered out through regional groups but goes directly to basin-wide group
• Basin-wide issues are best discusses/resolved by the interest groups without parochial involvement
• No geographical representation
• Doesn't encourage regionalisation and regional strategies, no mechanism for carrying decisions through to on-ground level eg regional strategies
• Basin-wide group may be unwieldy and cumbersome
• May not encourage community involvement or ownership
• May not be as connected to what's happening on the ground

QUESTIONS

1. Which interest groups or stakeholders should be represented?

POSSIBLE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES:

• The basin is broken up into more manageable and more similar entities.
• Scarce human resources are focused on locally relevant matters.
• Locally living people (those most able to implement on ground resolutions) comprise the coordinating committees
• Annual interaction between committees ensures a whole of basin coordination where this is required.
• Not as politically and administratively attractive as a single point of contact/consultation.
• Interest groups not living in the basin not directly represented within the process.
• Large parts of the Basin (eg Finke Catchment) not involved.

QUESTIONS

1. Would this framework help deal with the different expectations of natural resource management of the various interest groups?
2. Would sub-catchment committees be required to deal with local issues and on-ground work? Or to develop regional strategies?

One suggestion for regional boundaries in Queensland included the Channel country, the upper Georgina and Diamantina, the Desert Uplands and the black soil/ downs area. The Desert Uplands already has an appropriate regional group established for this role - the Desert Uplands Buildup and Development Committee.

POSSIBLE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

• This framework could be less costly and less time-demanding than others
• Regional groups alone would not have the lobbying power or identity of a larger group
• With no set communication between these groups this framework may rely too heavily on the goodwill and ability of members to coordinate and cooperate n shared issues
• Interest groups not living in the basin will not be represented

QUESTIONS

1. How will regional boundaries be determined?
2. Which existing groups could take on the roles of regional groups?

POSSIBLE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

• No pressure to create consensus or to compromise
• Time to think further about it
• No further demands on time
• Loss of momentum gathered so far
• Contrary to opinion of most people involved so far
• Loss of opportunity for further community involvement in natural resource management
• Loss of opportunity for funding from Natural Heritage Trust
• No integrated basin-wide process
• There are enough committees already enough in place
• There is the potential for an externally motivated management process to be imposed

Where to from here?

The options above have raised a number of questions:

• Do we want to establish a framework?
• If so - do we want a basin wide group of some sort? And what role do we want it to play?
• If so, or if not - do we want smaller regional or catchment groups? And what role do we think they could play?
• If so - what areas have suitable groups already and what areas would need to establish them

- what boundaries are most appropriate for these groups?

- who should be involved in these groups? should representation be on a geographic, interest group or skills/ competency basis?

The rest is up to you. The Steering Group will be holding a public meeting on November 14^th and 15^th in Birdsville to discuss these options and others that are raised, and to decide how to proceed.

Come along and be involved!

The Steering Group has also produced a set of issues papers. Please contact us if you would like a copy.

 Appendix C: Some Related Processes and Groups in the Lake Eyre Basin

South West Strategy (Queensland)

Launched in 1994 the strategy has three components - integrated regional development, enterprise reconstruction and natural resource management. It is steered by a community-based advisory group.

The natural resource management component aims to:

• promote property management principles to ensure long-term sustainability of natural resources and profitability of the grazing industries
• reduce resource degradation through improved water, stock, pest and pasture management by better planning and infrastructure development
• promote and encourage nature conservation principles at a regional, catchment and property level
• promote maintenance of the great Artesian Basin water resource through converting bore drains to piped systems, minimising water wastage
• ensure that management options developed are cost effective, both on properties and regionally

 

Desert Uplands Build Up and Development Committee DUBDC (Queensland)

The desert uplands is a biogeographic region which covers about 75,000 km². The main population centres, Barcaldine, Aramac, and Alpha, are located on the margins of the region. The committee formed to investigate methods of increasing the viability and sustainability of the people and land within the desert uplands.

Issues identified at the public meetings to instigate the DUBDC included: land degradation; property build-up; economic issues; carrying capacity; water management; nature conservation; pest flora and fauna; social and education issues; property development; and alternative enterprises. The DUBDC applied for the region to be declared a designated area under the PIPES Landcare Property Build-up and Development provision in August, 1996. This was approved in September, 1996. The DUBDC will be developing a comprehensive strategy which may include an element similar to the enterprise restructuring available under the South West Strategy.

 

Great Artesian Basin Consultative Council

The following information has been extracted from the document "Great Artesian Basin Consultative Council Operating Arrangements - June 23, 1997"

In November 1995 a forum of some 60 stakeholders in the Great Artesin Basin was held in Brisbane. Delegates represented industry and community groups as well as water management and other government agencies. The forum met to discuss ways of improving the management of the Basin and community input to that management. The forum recommended the formation of the Great Artesian Basin Consultative Council (GABCC) with the purpose, role, and membership as set out in the above document. The relevant Government ministers of the States overlying the Basin agreed to form the Council, in accordance with the recommendations of the forum.

The purpose of the council is to coordinate the management of the whole of the great Artesian Basin groundwater resource to achieve use of the resource in line with the principles of sustainability of the resource and related biodiversity.

The principal role of the GABCC is to advise State and Commonwealth Governments on the strategic direction for the management of the water resources of the GAB for all uses, and on resource management issues in relation to the GAB on a whole of Basin basis. Community consultation will be done by the GAB State Advisory Committees. Decisions and recommendations of the Council will be developed in consultation with the GAB State Advisory Committees

Representation on the council is by nomination as follows:

Nominating group Members

State Advisory Bodies (Community members)

QLD GAB Advisory committee 1

NSW GAB Advisory Committee 1

SA Arid Areas Water Resources Committee 1

NT GAB Advisory Committee 1

Governments

QLD Dept Natural Resources 1

NSW Dept Land and Water Conservation 1

SA Dept Environment and Natural Resources 1

NT Dept Lands Planning and Environment 1

C’lth Dept of Primary Industries and Energy 1

C’lth Environment Australia 1

Sectors

National Farmers Federation 1

Australian Conservation Foundation 1

Australian Local Government Association 1

Minerals Council of Australia 1

Australian Petroleum Producers and Explorers Association 1

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission 1

Technical Support Link

Interstate Working Group on GAB 1

Total 17

The Great Artesian Basin Interstate Working Group is the primary technical support group for the Council. Through that working group, Council may form links with other existing technical groups to obtain advice in related technical areas, and may establish additional ad hoc or standing working groups as required to support the Council.

An example of the State Advisory Bodies is the Queensland Great Artesian Basin Advisory Committee (QGABAC) which was established in April 1997. The Committee is made up of representatives from various industries including pastoral and mining and government agencies.

The vision of the QGABAC is to ensure the sustainable use of the Great Artesian Basin (GAB) for future generations. To achieve this vision the QGABAC endeavours to consult with the public to identify issues in relation to the GAB and provide input into management policies and options. The QGABAC reports to the Great Artesian Basin Consultative Council.

 

Soil Conservation Boards (South Australia)

The SA Soil Conservation and Landcare Act 1989 provides for the division of South Australia into Soil Conservation Districts, each having a Soil Conservation Board. Within the South Australian portion of the Lake Eyre Basin there are two (?) Soil Boards, the Marree and the Marla-Oodnadatta. The division of the districts takes into account similarity of land-use and land type. Members of the soil boards are ministerially appointed. The Act requires the development of a district plan with a three year work program. The Plan is a strategic document that is required to be revised every three years.

Other functions of the Soil Conservation Boards include:

• developing community awareness and understanding of land conservation issues;
• promoting the principle that land needs to be used within its capability;
• promoting the principle that forward planning, on the basis of land used within its capability, must become standard land management practice;
• developing and supporting programs for land conservation and rehabilitation in which members of the community may participate;
• providing advice and assistance on land conservation and rehabilitation to landholders, and also, when needed, advising the relevant Minister (in this case, Primary Industries);
• implementing the provisions of the Soil Conservation and Land Care Act 1989;
• assisting the development of individual property plans.

Two boards in the Lake Eyre Basin portion of South Australia are the Marree Soil Board and the Marla-Oodnadatta Soil Board.

 

Arid Areas Water Resources Committee (South Australia)

The task of the AAWRC under the Water Resources Act is to assist in the management of the water resources in the outback areas of South Australia. This involves all surface waters, streams, catchments, underground waters, associated lands and structures.

Membership of the AAWRC is by appointment from the minister for the department of Environment and natural resources. Membership of the committee is through private, pastoral, mining, commercial, conservation and government sectors.

 

(Relevant Issues - 1. Water sharing, both surface and GAB; 2. Land Management; 3. Biodiversity; 4. Pest plants and animals; 5. Mining; 6. Tourism; 7. Cultural, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.)

 

Appendix F: Some relevant legislation and committees

LEGISLATION AND POLICIES	COMMITTEES
Federal COAG (1,2) National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (1-7) Natural Heritage Trust (1-4) Wetlands Policy for the Commonwealth Government (1-4) Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (3) Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974 Cross State borders Lake Eyre Basin Heads of Agreement (Qld and SA)	National Wetlands Advisory Committee Wild Rivers Committee (1-4) Biological Diversity Advisory Board Great Artesian Basin Consultative Committee Cooper Creek Advisory Group (formed by Qld DNR, now disbanded?)
South Australia Water Resources Act 1997 Environment Protection Act 1979 Pastoral and Land Conservation Act 1989 Native Vegetation Act 1991 Soil Conservation and Landcare Act 1987 Wilderness Protection Act 1992 Petroleum Act Mining Act National Parks and Wildlife Act 1991 Animal and Plant Control Act Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988	Pastoral Board Arid Areas Water Resources Committee Water Resources Council Soil Conservation Boards/Landcare Soil Council Environment Protection Authority MESA joint management operations group Native vegetation council NPWS Consultative Committee NPWS Council Wilderness Advisory Committee Animal and Plant Control Commission Great Artesian Basin Advisory Committee
Queensland Environment Protection Act 1994 Forestry Act 1959 Land Act 1994 Nature Conservation Act 1992 Plant Protection Act 1989 Queensland Heritage Act 1992 Soil Conservation Act 1986 Gas Act 1965 Water Resources Act 1989 Rural Lands Protection Act 1985 Mineral Resources Act	Great Artesian Basin Advisory Committee Landcare Groups Catchment Committees (none in the LEB portion)

 

 Return to Top