Wise use of wetlands under the Ramsar convention: A challenge for meaningful implementation of international law

Journal of Environmental Law

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 21-42

  Farrier, David ^a   Tucker, Linda ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; INTERNATIONAL LAW; WETLAND;

EID: 0034578580     PISSN: 09528873     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jel/12.1.21     Document Type: Article

References (129)

1. Originally the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat. Opened for signature 2.2.71, ATS 1975, No 0048 (entered into force 21.12.75).
2. G.V.T. Matthews, The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands: Its History and Development (Ramsar Convention Bureau, 1993) 1. Matthews also claims that the Convention is still the only worldwide treaty which restrains the countries joining it from the unthinking, selfish exploitation of their sovereign natural patrimony (p 1), but this seems to be an overstatement given the provisions of the UNESCO Convention on the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity.
3. Ramsar Secretariat Bulletin Board, URL .
4. Article 3(1).
5. D. Farrier and L. Tucker, 'Beyond a Walk in the Park: The Impact of International Nature Conservai Law on Private Land in Australia', 22(3) Melbourne University Law Review 564 (1998).
6. See Additional Guidance for the Implementation of the Wise Use Concept, fifth meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, Kushiro, Japan, 1993, Resolution RES C.5.6 (Annex), Introduction. Recommendations and resolutions agreed to at the meetings of the Ramsar contracting parties are all available at URL .
7. Article 1(2).
8. James comments that the Convention was developed in Europe and North America in response to dwindling waterbird populations resulting from loss of wetland habitat. R. James, A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia (2nd edn, 1996) 15.
9. The Ramsar secretariat notes: 'The official name of the treaty, the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat, reflects the original emphasis upon the conservation and wise use of wetlands primarily as habitat for waterbirds. Over the years, however, the Convention has broadened its scope to cover all aspects of wetland conservation and wise use, recognising wetlands as ecosystems that are extremely important for biodiversity conservation and for the well-being of human communities. For this reason, the increasingly common use of the short form of the treaty's title, the "Convention on Wetlands", is entirely appropriate.' V. Higgins and D. Peck, The Ramsar Convention Manual (2nd edn, 1997). Available at URL .
10. See also Article 2(6) which provides: Each contracting party shall consider its international responsibilities for the conservation, management and wise use of migratory stocks of waterfowl, both when designating entries for the List and when exercising its right to change entries in the List relating to wetlands within its territory.
11. See the site descriptions of the Ramsar wetlands in James, above n 8.
12. Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction and their Environment ('JAMBA', ATS 1981, No 0006), and Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People's Republic of China for the Protection of Migratory Birds and their Environment ('CAMBA', ATS 1988, No 0022).
13. See, for example, R.F. Noss and L.D. Harris, 'Nodes, Networks and MUMs: Preserving Diversity at All Scales', 10 Environmental Management 299 (1986); H. Recher, 'Why Conservation Biology? An Australian Perspective' in C. Moritz and J. Kikkawa (eds), Conservation Biology in Australia and Oceania 5 (1994).
14. See, for example, R.F. Noss and L.D. Harris, 'Nodes, Networks and MUMs: Preserving Diversity at All Scales', 10 Environmental Management 299 (1986); H. Recher, 'Why Conservation Biology? An Australian Perspective' in C. Moritz and J. Kikkawa (eds), Conservation Biology in Australia and Oceania 5 (1994).
15. Opened for signature 5.6.92, ATS 1993, No 0032 (entered into force 29.12.93).
16. Ibid, Article 8(c), emphasis supplied.
17. Ibid, Article 8(k).
18. Ibid, Article 8(d).
19. Ibid, Articles 7(c), 8(1).
20. Ibid, Article 1.
21. Ibid, Article 2.
22. Ramsar, Article 3(1). In practice, however, meetings of the Conference of the Contracting Parties have muddied this distinction. See, further, below in the text at 12-13. For example, the Guidelines for the Implementation of the Wise Use Concept explicate the concept of wise use in terms of conservation and sustainable development/utilisation of resources.
23. Traditionally in Australia, conservation has been interpreted narrowly so as to confine human use to limited forms of recreation and to exclude other uses. See for example, Woollahra Municipal Council v Minister for the Environment (1991) 73 LGRA 379 in which the NSW Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) authorised the grant of a licence for four years to use historic buildings within a national park as a business administration school. The buildings were to be restored at the expense of the licensee, who was also to provide funds for a recreation area on surrounding land. The Court held that the Act did not authorise the licence. Kirby P, for example, argued (at 393): 'The provision of such a facility for private profit in a national park, available to some members only of the public has nothing to do, as such, with the park's purposes. It is not a business carried out for conservation and recreation purposes. Nor is it a business incidental to the protection and maintenance of the park or the accommodation, enjoyment or recreation of members of the public in the park.'
24. Third meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, Regina, Canada, 1987. Recommendation REC C.3.3. Annex: Definition of wise use.
25. Article 3(2) of the Convention provides: 'Each Contracting Party shall arrange to be informed at the earliest possible time if the ecological character of any wetland in its territory and included in the List has changed, is changing or is likely to change as the result of technological developments, pollution or other human interference.' The fourth meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties at Montreux, Switzerland, 1990, adopted REC C.4.8: 'Recommendation on Change in Ecological Character of Ramsar Sites.' This emphasised the 'fundamental importance of maintaining ecological character of listed sites'. The Recommendation reinforced Article 3(2), requesting contracting parties to take 'swift and effective action to prevent or remedy' changes in ecological character. It instructed the Ramsar Bureau to establish 'a record of Ramsar sites where such changes in ecological character have occurred, are occurring or are likely to occur'. This became known as the Montreux Record.
26. In this environment, the danger is that contracting parties will react to individual conventions, as and when they become politically prominent, rather than taking a holistic approach to nature conservation. There is evidence of this in Australia's upsurge of interest in the Ramsar Convention following its hosting of the Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties in Brisbane in 1996.
27. Article 10(5), (6) bis.
28. Under Article 6(3) of the Ramsar Convention, parties are required to ensure that wetland managers are informed of recommendations of Meetings of the Parties dealing with the conservation, management and wise use of wetlands, and take them into consideration.
29. Guidelines for Implementation of the Wise Use Concept of the Convention (REC C.4.10 (Rev) and Annex), developed by the Working Group on Criteria and Wise Use, were recommended for adoption at Montreux, above n 24. At the Brisbane meeting in 1996, above n 25, the parties reconfirmed that 'the wise use concept extends to all phases of wetland conservation, including policy development, planning, legal and educational activities, and site specific actions' (Recommendation REC C.6.9).
30. Recommendation REC C.4-10 (Rev) and Annex. Montreux, above n 24.
31. Ibid, Introduction (emphasis supplied).
32. Resolution RES C.5.6 (Annex). Kushiro, above n 6.
33. Ibid, Introduction.
34. For a discussion of the parallel objectives and obligations of the two conventions see: 'Wetlands and Biological Diversity, cooperation between the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat and the Convention on Biological Diversity', November 1996, UNEP/CBD/COP/3/Inf.21, or at URL .
35. Sixth meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties, Brisbane, Australia, 1996.
36. Comprising four non-governmental organisations which provide assistance to the Ramsar secretariat: BirdLife International, IUCN - World Conservation Union, Wetlands International and World Wide Fund for Nature.
37. Bratislava, Slovak Republic, 4-15.5.98.
38. Diplomatic notification 1998/6: Cooperation between the Convention on Wetlands and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at URL .
39. The third Conference of Contracting Parties (COP3) to tne Biodiversity Convention adopted Decision III/ 21 in which Ramsar was given its 'lead partner' status. Available at URL.
40. Cooperation between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on Wetlands, Proposed Joint Work Plan, 1998-99. UNEP/CBD/COP/4/Inf.8.
41. See the Wetlands Policy of the Commonwealth Government of Australia (1997), which explicitly distinguishes 'conservation' ('management of a wetland in a way that protects its ecological processes and values') from preservation' ('management in a way that excludes consumptive or exploitative uses') (p 26). It states that the Commonwealth will strive 'to conserve Australia's wetlands' (para 2.4), not only Ramsar listed wetlands. Conservation is treated as being the same as 'wise use'.
42. Under Australia's federal system, the Commonwealth government represents Australia at international treaty making conferences and is responsible for the negotiation, signing and ratification of international instruments. Treaties are not self-activating in Australia and require legislation (at State or Commonwealth level) to become the law of the land. The treaty making process in Australia is set out in the Treaty Information Kit, available at URL . On the respective roles and responsibilities of the jurisdictions under Australia's Constitution see n 50 below.
43. National Report for Australia, 1996, para 3.4.
44. NSW Wetlands Management Policy (1996) 25, emphasis supplied. See Principle 8 which states: 'Wetlands of regional or national significance will be conserved.'
45. Ibid, 29.
46. Wetlands Conservation Policy for Western Australia (1997) 13.
47. Wetlands Policy of the Commonwealth Government of Australia (1997) 10.
48. Ibid, 30.
49. Ibid, 30.
50. Ibid, iii.
51. The Commonwealth Parliament has no environmental head of power but the constitutional validity of its legislation to implement international environmental treaties has been recognised (Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR 1). While welcomed by those who favour a more uniform approach to environmental management, Commonwealth legislative activism has been resisted by Australia's constituent States which can legislate broadly within their jurisdictions, but only in the absence of inconsistent Commonwealth legislation (Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, s 109). The States have jealously guarded their traditional role as land managers: while the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (IGAE), entered into by the States, Territories and the Commonwealth government in in 1992 recognises that the responsibilities and interests of the Commonwealth include 'negotiating and entering into international agreements relating to the environment and ensuring that international obligations relating to the environment are met by Australia' (cl 2.2.1 (i)), it also makes it clear that in practice each State is responsible for the policy, legislative and administrative framework for the management of its living resources.
52. These are Kakadu Stages I and II (separate listings), Hosnie's Springs and Pulu Keeling, which are both in the external territories, and Shoalwater and Corio Bays, which is a joint Commonwealth-Queensland listing.
53. Wetlands Policy of the Commonwealth Government of Australia (1997) para 1.4.
54. The legislation also contains provisions requiring management plans to be made for listed Ramsar wetlands in areas under Commonwealth control (s 328). Where listed wetlands are located in States, the only requirement is that the Commonwealth 'use its best endeavours' to ensure the preparation of plans (s 333), but it may provide financial assistance (s 336).
55. Section 16. Significant impact is not defined in the Act, but regulations can be made, prescribing matters to be taken into account (s 524B). 'Ecological character' has the same meaning as in the Ramsar Convention (s (6(3)).
56. Sections 17, 17A. The minister is effectively allowed 12 months to designate identified but unlisted wetlands for international listing (s 17A(6)). The Commonwealth must now use 'its best endeavours to reach agreement' with both the State in which a wetland is located and relevant land holders before it designates a wetland for Ramsar listing (s 326).
57. Chapter 3, Part 5.
58. Recommendation REC C.4.10 (Rev) and Annex. Montreux, above n 24.
59. Resolution RES C.5.6 and Annex. Kushiro, above n 6.
60. Recommendation REC 6.9. Brisbane, above n 34. The seventh meeting was held in San Jose, Costa Rica in May 1999. The decisions of this meeting appear to have addressed wise use in its application to other wetland issues, rather than continuing to examine the thrust of the wise use principle per se. They include: incentive measures (Resolution RES 7.15), river basin management (Resolution RES 7.18), intertidal wetlands (Resolution RES 7.21) and management of peatlands (Recommendation REC 7.1). The San Jose decisions are available at URL .
61. Recommendation REC C.3.3. Annex: Definition of wise use. Regina, above n 23.
62. Ibid.
63. This definition is clarified by Glowka et al: ' . . . use of the components of biological diversity . . . is only "sustainable use" if: (a) it can be sustained indefinitely - in other words it does not cause any significant decline in the resource, and (b) it does not harm other components of biodiversity (such as when the taking of one target species incidentally affects other species).' L. Glowka, F. Burhenne-Guilmin and H. Synge, A Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity (IUCN) (1994) 24.
64. Recommendation REC C.4.10 (and Annex.). Montreux, above n 24.
65. A.R.D. Taylor and P. Gumonye-Mafabi, 'Management of Wetlands for Sustainable Use' in C.M. Finlayson and D.E. Pomeroy (eds), Wetlands and Waterbirds in Eastern Africa (1991), Proc IWRB Workshop, Uganda 1990, 18.
66. L.J. Bren, 'Riparian Zone, Stream and Floodplain Issues: A Review' 150 Journal of Hydrology 277 at 278 (1993).
67. See C.M. Finlayson, 'Australian Wetlands: The Monitoring Challenge'. 7 Wetlands Ecology and Management 105 (1996).
68. See discussion on the impact of grazing on wetlands, below.
69. The buffaloes were introduced from Timor and India from the 1820s to the 1880s as rations for the early military settlements along the northern coast but those which escaped or were released formed free range herds. Buffalo were originally hunted for their hides but since the early fifties they have been slaughtered mainly for pet food and for human consumption. S. Murti, Pastoral Industry Portrait (NT Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, 1998), URL .
70. Environmental Research Institute of the Supervising Scientist: correspondence with members of the Ramsar email Forum, 27.3.98.
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid.
73. This was the case in Keoladeo National Park, a World Heritage Area and Ramsar site in Bharatpur, northern India. The area was closed to use by local people living around it, despite their protests, in 1982. According to Indian environmentalist Anju Sharma, some local people were even shot at that time for protesting. The closure was intended to protect the significant migratory bird population but since 1994, the park's 'star winter visitors', the Siberian crane, have failed to arrive. The Bharatpur forest authorities found that the ban on local people had had a negative effect, since their buffaloes which used to graze in the park had helped control the growth of the weed Paspalum, which has since taken over the park and made it difficult for the Siberian cranes to feed. A. Sharma, Centre for Science and the Environment, New Delhi. Communication to the Ramsar email forum, 24.3.98. A discussion of grazing and wetlands is on the Ramsar forum website, URL .
74. Annex to Resolution RES C.6.1. Brisbane, above n 34.
75. Ibid.
76. Ibid. The annex defines 'processes', 'functions', 'values', 'products' and 'attributes'.
77. See, for example, Guidelines for the Implementation of the Wise Use Concept, above n 28, which recognises 'support for fisheries, grazing and agriculture' as benefits of wetlands, and accepts 'regulated utilisation of the natural elements of wetland systems such that they are not over-exploited'. See also Additional Guidance for the Implementation of the Wise Use Concept, above n 6, III.2: 'Wise use activities therefore can be varied in nature, ranging from very little or no resource exploitation, to active resource exploitation as long as it is sustainable. It must be recognised, however, that there are very few wetlands that are not currently being utilised by local populations in some way.' Consequently, 'management should be adapted to specific local circumstances, sensitive to local cultures and respectful of traditional uses'.
78. See, for example, Guidelines for the Implementation of the Wise Use Concept, above n 28, which recognises 'support for fisheries, grazing and agriculture' as benefits of wetlands, and accepts 'regulated utilisation of the natural elements of wetland systems such that they are not over-exploited'. See also Additional Guidance for the Implementation of the Wise Use Concept, above n 6, III.2: 'Wise use activities therefore can be varied in nature, ranging from very little or no resource exploitation, to active resource exploitation as long as it is sustainable. It must be recognised, however, that there are very few wetlands that are not currently being utilised by local populations in some way.' Consequently, 'management should be adapted to specific local circumstances, sensitive to local cultures and respectful of traditional uses'.
79. For example, Lake Albacutya, a Ramsar site in Victoria, Australia, only receives water in exceptionally wet years (about every 20 years). Lake Albacutya last filled in mid-1974 and has been dry ever since 1983: Ramsar Information Sheet, at URL .
80. See R. Kingsford and R. Thomas, 'The Macquarie Marshes in Arid Australia and their Waterbirds: A 50-Year History of Decline', 19(6) Environmental Management (1995) 867-78; Bren, above n 65; and Finlayson, above n 66.
81. NSW State Rivers and Estuaries Policy (1993) 26.
82. NSW Wetlands Management Policy (1996) 16.
83. Ibid.
84. K. Jenkins, 'Growing Crops on the Land of the Fairy Shrimps', 166 Rural Research 7 (1995).
85. Resolution RES C 6.1, para 2.7. Brisbane, above n 34.
86. Finlayson, above n 66, 6.
87. Ibid, 5.
88. Annex to Resolution RES C.6.1. See also Additional Guidance for the Implementation of the Wise Use Concept, above n 6, II.2.
89. National Report for Australia, above n 42, para 6.2. The comments are attributed to New South Wales.
90. The Commonwealth Wetlands Policy does in fact include a commitment to ensuring a sound scientific basis for policy and management as one of its strategies. The strategy comprises: monitoring the state of the wetland resource; developing and supporting a strategic and coordinated wetlands research effort; and supporting mechanisms to encourage the understanding and application of research findings: Wetlands Policy of the Commonwealth Government of Australia (1997) 19-20. However, only $200,000 has been set aside under the National Wetlands Programme for promoting the monitoring of wetland health: National Wetlands Programme 1996/97, Priorities and Funding Guidelines.
91. Ibid, para 2.5.
92. Ibid, 28.
93. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, signed at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio De Janeiro, 1992.
94. See D. Farrier, 'Factoring Biodiversity Conservation into Decision-Making Processes: The Role of the Precautionary Principle' in R. Harding and E. Fisher (eds), Perspectives on the Precautionary Principle (1999) 99-121.
95. Established by Recommendation REC C.3.1. Regina, above n 23.
96. Recommendation REC C.4.10 (Rev). Montreux, above n 24.
97. Emphasis supplied. Additional Guidance for the Implementation of the Wise Use Concept, above n 6, Introduction.
98. Ibid.
99. S. Briggs, 'Wise Use of Wetlands', 4 Wetlands Australia 8 (1996).
100. National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (1992) 6.
101. State of the Environment Report 1996, Ch 7, p 26. The Report also notes that 'water storages and associated channels in Australia create a substantial amount of artificial wetland habitat, which is often of low ecological value and has an unnatural water regime. It usually also represents lost natural river or wetland habitat'. Ch 7, p 27. Australia's National Report for the 1996 Brisbane meeting of the Ramsar parties, above n 42, also referred 'a continuing concern over the rate at which wetlands are being lost or degraded in Australia' (para 6.1).
102. (1995) 183 CLR 273.
103. Ibid, per Mason CJ and Deane J at 364-5.
104. On 10 May 1995, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General made a statement purporting to be an executive indication to the contrary, but the validity of these actions is questionable. See M. Allars, 'One Small Step for Legal Doctrine, One Giant Leap Towards Integrity in Government: Teoh's Case and the Internationalisation of Administrative Law', 17 Sydney Law Review 204 at 237 ff (1995); P. Alston, 'Reform of Treaty-Making Processes: Form over Substance?' in P. Alston (ed), Treaty Making and Australia at 19-24 (1996). A bill overriding this aspect of the High Court decision was thereafter introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament: Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1995. It lapsed with the change of government in 1996. The new Coalition government issued a similar statement to that of the Labor government in 1997. In reference to the Teoh decision it states: 'The purpose of this statement is to ensure that the executive act of entering into a treaty does not give rise to legitimate expectations in administrative law.' Joint statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, 25.2.97, 'The Effect of Treaties in Administrative Decision-Making'. Legislation to the same effect has been enacted in South Australia: Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Act 1995. The recently enacted Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth), discussed above at pp 9-10, has partially incorporated the Convention but it is difficult at this stage to determine how the new Act's explicitly narrow application of the treaty would be interpreted by the Australian courts. A possible interpretation might be that the Act's narrow response to the Convention constitutes a 'statutory indication to the contrary' in relation to Ramsar's wise use obligations, and therefore precludes an expectation that a decision-maker would act in conformity with them.
105. On 10 May 1995, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General made a statement purporting to be an executive indication to the contrary, but the validity of these actions is questionable. See M. Allars, 'One Small Step for Legal Doctrine, One Giant Leap Towards Integrity in Government: Teoh's Case and the Internationalisation of Administrative Law', 17 Sydney Law Review 204 at 237 ff (1995); P. Alston, 'Reform of Treaty-Making Processes: Form over Substance?' in P. Alston (ed), Treaty Making and Australia at 19-24 (1996). A bill overriding this aspect of the High Court decision was thereafter introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament: Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1995. It lapsed with the change of government in 1996. The new Coalition government issued a similar statement to that of the Labor government in 1997. In reference to the Teoh decision it states: 'The purpose of this statement is to ensure that the executive act of entering into a treaty does not give rise to legitimate expectations in administrative law.' Joint statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, 25.2.97, 'The Effect of Treaties in Administrative Decision-Making'. Legislation to the same effect has been enacted in South Australia: Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Act 1995. The recently enacted Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth), discussed above at pp 9-10, has partially incorporated the Convention but it is difficult at this stage to determine how the new Act's explicitly narrow application of the treaty would be interpreted by the Australian courts. A possible interpretation might be that the Act's narrow response to the Convention constitutes a 'statutory indication to the contrary' in relation to Ramsar's wise use obligations, and therefore precludes an expectation that a decision-maker would act in conformity with them.
106. Native Vegetation Act 1991, s 3(1).
107. Ibid, s 29(2)(b).
108. The only qualification to this is that the Council does not have to follow this very restrictive approach where 'isolated plants' have an economically detrimental impact upon primary production. Even here, a condition must be attached requiring the establishment of native vegetation on other land specified by the Council and the Council must be satisfied that the environmental benefits provided by this will outweigh those now provided by the vegetation to be cleared.
109. Section 29(3).
110. NSW Wetlands Management Policy (1996) 17.
111. Ibid, 22.
112. Ibid, 21.
113. Ibid, 22. This commitment to wetland compensation in fact goes further than obligations under Ramsar, Article 4(2) of which only requires compensation when a party deletes or changes the boundaries of a listed wetland, and then only 'as far as possible'. For a discussion of some of the problems associated with wetland creation and rehabilitation, see D. Farrier, 'Conserving Biodiversity on Private Land: Incentives for Management or Compensation for Lost Expectations', 19 Harvard Environmental Law Review 303 at 369-71 (1995).
114. 33 USC § 1344(b) (1988).
115. 40 CFR § 230.10(a) (1993).
116. An area not currently owned by the applicant can be considered as a practicable alternative if it 'could reasonably by obtained, utilised, expanded or managed in order to fulfil the basis purpose of the activity': 40 CFR § 230.10(a)(2) (1993). The issue is whether there was an alternative site available at the time that the developer entered the market to look for a site, not the time that it applied for a permit: Bersani v Robichaud 850 F.2d 36 (2nd Cir 1988).
117. 40 CFR §230.10(a)(1) (1993).
118. Where a project is water dependent, the burden of proof lies on the Corps or the EPA: James City County, Virginia v United States Environmental Protection Agency 955 F.2d 255 (4th Cir 1993).
119. CFR § 230.10(a)(3) (1993). The EPA issued a memorandum to its field officers in March 1995, in which it stated that small projects in low value wetlands were exempt from rigorous permit review. Where there is a proposal for 'discharges of dredge or fill material affecting not more than two acres of non-tidal wetlands for construction of home or farm building, it is presumed that alternatives located on property not currently owned by the applicant are not practicable under the [CWA] Section 404(b)(1) guidelines'. Cited in Environmental Reporter, April 1995.
120. The South Australian Native Vegetation Act 1991, discussed above at p 18, represents a significant exception.
121. NSW Wetlands Management Policy (1996), 22.
122. State Environmental Planning Policy 14, Coastal Wetlands.
123. Environmental Planning and Assessment Regulation 1994, cl 53C and Sched 3.
124. Wetlands Conservation Policy for Western Australia (1997) 10.
125. Above n 6, I.2.
126. See D. Farrier and L. Tucker, above n 5. A recent exception to the public land emphasis has been the 1999 listing of the Gwydir wetlands in NSW. The listed site spans parts of four farming properties and is subject to a Memorandum of Understanding between the land holders and the State and Commonwealth governments. See URL and the report by the coordinator of the negotiations at URL .
127. See D. Farrier and L. Tucker, above n 5. A recent exception to the public land emphasis has been the 1999 listing of the Gwydir wetlands in NSW. The listed site spans parts of four farming properties and is subject to a Memorandum of Understanding between the land holders and the State and Commonwealth governments. See URL and the report by the coordinator of the negotiations at URL .
128. Additional Guidance for the Implementation of the Wise Use Concept, above n 6.
129. Ibid.