Part 1: The need for change
Figure 1. Land use map
Figure 1. Land use in the ACT. (Map: Territory and Municipal Services)
(Click on map for larger image. File opens in new window.)
Sustaining the Bush Capital
Canberra is a special place – being both a designed city and the national capital of Australia. Its site was chosen for its natural advantages – its good water supplies, land suitable for development and a natural backdrop of hills and mountains that are aesthetically pleasing.
Walter Burley Griffin’s original intentions continue to guide overall development, particularly in the parliamentary triangle, principal avenues and wooded urban hills. 1.
Canberra is also iconic. Its history and inland landscape setting – city and urban streets imposed on and interspersed with open grass and forested land (‘bush’), rivers, creeks and lakes – define it as the ‘bush capital’. Many Canberrans have developed a strong sense of place with the city and its environs. They also understand much more than previously about the impact that sprawling urban design and lifestyle choices can have on natural resources.
Canberra’s population and urban footprint has grown far larger than originally planned or imagined. As a consequence, the condition of the ‘bush’ that surrounds and intersects the city is deteriorating. The ‘bush’ in ‘bush capital’ is at risk.
The bush at risk does not consist of just the trees on the hills and mountains around the city. In the context of the bush capital and this natural resource management (NRM) plan, ‘bush’ includes all the natural assets of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) – its upland forests, woodlands and grasslands, soils, and waterways; and the organisms living in its landscapes.
These natural assets depend on each other for their health and long-term survival. The bush capital will only live up to its iconic status if all its natural assets are also in iconic condition.
This plan defines the natural resources of the ACT and brings together the aspirations for their retention in the landscape. It also links the future of natural resources to the people who live with them, who benefit from them, and who take care of them on behalf of all Australians.
- Roger Pegrum The bush capital: how Australia chose Canberra as its federal city 1983, National Capital Authority The Griffin Legacy 2004
Sustaining the Bush Capital - 2
Two natural assets that are under stress and need concerted attention if they are to measure up to Canberra’s iconic status are Lake Burley Griffin and its principal source of water, the Molonglo River, and the region’s lowland woodlands and grasslands.
Lake Burley Griffin and its principal source of water, the Molonglo River, are in poor ecological health 2. Both have high sediment and nutrient levels transported from land higher in the catchment that has been modified for farming, grazing, mining and forestry. High sediment and nutrient levels have encouraged and favoured alien fish species such as carp in the lake and algal blooms are common in the warmer months.
Although the Australian Government makes significant investments in the buildings and grounds of the parliamentary triangle, this is not matched by similar expenditure on the Mnatural assets at its centre (e.g. Lake Burley Griffin).
The lowland open woodlands and grasslands of the ACT favoured for agriculture in the 19th century and more recently for urban development are now seriously depleted. They continue to be depleted as the city expands to meet demand for housing.
Converting woodlands and grasslands into social and economic assets (new suburbs, larger houses, more amenities) has been generally considered a necessary tradeoff against their loss. However, these natural assets are a limited, non-renewable resource – few are increasing; most are diminishing, in poor health or disappearing. It is time to set limits, particularly where feasible alternatives still exist. For example, the density of Canberra’s population within existing boundaries can be increased – European cities have an urban population density double that of Australian cities and are still attractive places to live and visit.
- NLWRA 2002, Australian Catchment, River and Estuary Assessment 2002.
Sustaining the Bush Capital - 3
Ecological footprint
The average Canberran cast an ecological footprint of 8.5 global hectares (gha) on the Earth’s landscape 3. For a population of 311 800, as it was in 2004 when the footprint was calculated, this amounts to a total area of 2.65 million gha, or roughly 11 times the area of the ACT. It is a concern that it is growing (it has increased 15% since 1999) and that it is 17% larger than the average Australian footprint.
A measure of the sustainability of resource use and subsequent pollution expressed as the total amount of land (hectares) needed to support a community’s lifestyle. It includes the energy consumed in producing goods and the land needed to grow food, harvest water and sequester greenhouse gases produced by people’s lifestyle choices. It also takes account of actions taken to reduce emissions and enhance the environment.
An ecological footprint measures the area of land that is required to provide our food, clothing, housing, roads, freshwater, manufactured goods and energy, and to absorb our carbon dioxide emissions. Only 1.8 gha of bioproductive land are available on Earth for each person; Canberrans average of 8.5 gha is not sustainable at the global level.
Given the small area to large population of the ACT, the ecological footprint of the ACT must be considered at the local and regional level. The main ways for reducing the ACT’s ecological footprint are to reduce:
- consumption of goods and services brought into the ACT
- use of non-renewable energy and
- the occupation and use of land.
Tighter limits on urban expansion will increase sustainability of energy and water use as well as conserving biodiversity. The ACT Government has recognised this in principle in the Canberra Plan and the Climate Change Strategy, but without applying more specific limits on the growth of the physical size of urban Canberra it will be difficult to reverse or make gains on the current trend.
an interconnected nature reserve
within and around the city.
Photo Sarah Ryan
- Data from The 2003-4 ecological footprint of the population of Canberra, Centre for Integrated Sustainability Analysis, University of Sydney 2008.
An integrated solution
Planning in the ACT is complex because it is administered by both ACT and national governments – more than anywhere else in Australia, local community interests need to be considered within the context of the broader national interest. Integrating across natural assets is also complex because in the past government arrangements have often dealt with each natural asset separately. Sometimes, organising how to respond to the loss of resource sustainability is as great a challenge as knowing what to do.
Land tenure in the ACT is unique since planning is under both ACT and Australian government jurisdiction reflecting the Territory’s position as the national capital.
The National Capital Plan 2008 (Cwlth) sets out land use policies of areas designated to be special to the ACT and for the ACT as a whole. It covers the open spaces of Canberra – Lake Burley Griffin, hills, ridges and open spaces, river corridors and bushlands. This plan also provides an overall planning framework for the Territory.
The Territory Plan 1993 is the ACT Government’s key statutory planning document and provides the policy framework for planning administration. It directs management of land use change and development so that it is consistent with strategic directions set by the ACT Government, Legislative Assembly and the community, but so that it is not inconsistent with the National Capital Plan. The Territory Plan sets out zones and precincts in the ACT with their objectives and development tables. It includes structure and concept plans for development of future urban areas.
The Canberra Plan is a plan for the future of the ACT that addresses spatial, social and economic aspects of the city.
The ACT (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 provides for land within the ACT to be ‘national’ or ‘territory’ land. Section 29 of the Act states that the ACT executive is responsible for managing territory land on behalf of the Australian Government. Land not managed by either government is leased to individual people or organisations. Rural leased land is managed through land management agreements that aim to achieve productive capacity, conservation and protection of the land. Land management agreements are subject to formal review at least every five years (more often where particular problems are identified).
A planning approach that matches the complexity of the landscape and takes account of assets that are interconnected and linked to socioeconomic values is needed. Such integrated planning looks at multiple costs and benefits rather than single issues (e.g. by assessing the value of woodlands and grasslands against the need to re-establish burnt-out pine plantations and the pressure for urban expansion).
This plan for managing the natural resources of the ACT is overarching, integrating the variety of specific and special purpose natural resource management plans in the ACT (see Appendix 4). It provides an integrated approach across all the natural assets in the ACT and adds new objectives where gaps occur. This plan is consistent with the intent of the Canberra Plan, the Territory Plan and the National Capital Plan. Although the spatial plan embedded within the Canberra Plan incorporates some general natural resource management requirements, it may be appropriate to supplement these with the more specific targets and actions in this plan.
Repair and protect whole landscapes
Landscapes in the ACT refl ect the interaction between people and the natural environment. City and urban development have led to serious and sometimes irreversible damage to basic ecological functioning of the landscape.
Many ACT landscapes are not resilient. Plans for future development must ensure that continuing intervention in the ecological and hydrological functioning of the landscapes does not increase the risk of reduced ecosystem services. The effect is cumulative – as the resilience is lost, more ecological services are lost and social and economic costs increase. Future ACT landscapes need to have long-term resilience, be self-regenerating and deliver ecosystem services. They need people actively engaged in better understanding and caring for them for future generations.
Priority needs to be given to conserving ecological processes of the more natural landscapes and mimicking them in highly modified areas. Even natural assets in poor condition may have enough potential and perceived value to warrant investment in their repair, particularly where they join fragments of better preserved bush to form larger-scale natural landscapes.
Landscapes at the boundaries that connect where people live with more natural places are particularly vulnerable to damage: they are the places where bushfires most threaten, weedy garden plants escape, cats prey, rubbish is dumped, and tracks made by bikes and people lead to compaction and erosion.
ACT residents appreciate the green corridors between and within their suburbs as open space, but many do not recognise that these open woodlands and grasslands can be valuable in other respects. ACT woodlands and grasslands comprise resilient communities of plants and animals evolved and suited to this region (e.g. native grasses resist erosion, persist longer under drought conditions, have good carbon sequestration values and are more fire resistant in summer than introduced grasses). The need to maintain integrity of the ‘bush’ is a strong reason for minimising the spread of urban areas, placing them carefully in the landscape, and limiting the length of their external boundaries.
Photos Micheal Schultz
Repair and protect whole landscapes - 2
This means that development decisions need to be less fragmented and incremental: just one more ecologically insensitive development is one too many. Development choices must reflect the collective choices of the whole community rather than just sectional interest groups or governments.
Decisions taken by individual citizens, and their families and diverse communities of interest need to be ecologically sound. The capacity for this to occur must be developed and given priority so that people:
- generally better understand the interaction between human activity and the natural environment
- better understand the real impacts and costs of development
- have a better appreciation of the intergenerational benefits of development decisions and the need to adaptively absorb any necessary costs
- are able to take more informed action in their daily lives and
- are able to generate creative ideas and innovation, beyond governments and their agencies.
LAND KEEPERS
Addressing the recovery of fire-damaged landscapes, enhancing biodiversity on rural and non-urban land and building strong partnerships between community and government
Land Keepers is addressing the recovery of fire-damaged landscapes, particularly in the Lower Cotter River catchment as well as protecting and enhancing remnant native vegetation and riparian zones. People across the ACT are being enlisted to work on the landscape restoration task. Over 2500 people have signed up so far. The target is 10 000 by 2010.
Land Keepers has also set up a network of community nurseries to grow locally indigenous plants for their restoration activities. Most rural landholders are also engaged in the program.
Photos Micheal Schultz
Good neighbours make good friends
The ACT is located in the upper catchment of the Murrumbidgee River and is a part of the Murray–Darling Basin. As the largest city in the basin and a significant economic and educational centre, Canberra draws NSW residents towards its borders, increasing the density of settlement in the area. At the same time, some Canberra residents are relocating to NSW to enjoy semi-rural lifestyles not permitted in the ACT. This congregation of small-scale rural lifestyle properties around the ACT border has the potential to impact negatively on biodiversity, land and water values both inside and outside the ACT.
The border between NSW and the ACT is a political rather than a catchment boundary. Rivers such as the Molonglo and Murrumbidgee start in NSW, flow through the ACT and then back into NSW. ACT reserves such as Namadgi and Goorooyarroo stop at the border and do not extend into NSW. The challenge is for people to work together across these boundaries so that both ACT and upper Murrumbidgee catchment natural resources are well sustained.
Uses only 0.3% of total diversions of basin water
Provides jobs for a number of people who live outside the ACT
Has a responsibility not to impact thoughtlessly on the rest of the basin
Management of natural resources in the ACT needs to minimise impact on the surrounding region and elsewhere. Although this plan is concerned only with ACT resources, it acknowledges the place of the ACT in the Murray–Darling Basin, and aligns and works with with other Murray–Darling Basin plans, particularly the Murrumbidgee Catchment Action Plan. In recognition of this, in 2006 the ACT Natural Resource Management Council and the Board of the Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority signed an agreement to work together on issues of mutual interest.
WORKING WITH OUR NEIGHBOURS
Building better relationships with neighbouring local governments and catchment authorities to address natural resource management issues at the right scale
This program provides for sharing of natural resource management expertise with neighbours in the Murrumbidgee River catchment. Working with our neighbours conducted an initial forum on shared natural resource management in the Upper Murrumbidgee region in 2006. A second forum will take place during 2008.
Murrumbidgee River.
Photo Michael Schultz
Photo Sarah Ryan