The original strategy (2003-2013) stated its overall goal “is to rehabilitate native fish communities in the MDB back to 60 per cent or better of their estimated pre-European settlement levels after 50 years of implementation” (Koehn & Clunie 2010). At that time populations were estimated to be at 10 per cent.
The first strategy lapsed in 2013 and the second, which came into effect in June 2020, concluded that fish populations had continued to decline over the intervening 17 years. This was despite more than $13 billion spent on the Murray-Darling Basin Plan since 2007.
The basin plan’s focus is on water recovery and not habitat restoration. Many scientists believe that the addition of more environmental water will not lead to recovery of species on its own and habitat restoration — for example, re-snagging and eliminating barriers to fish passage — is essential.
The actions of the Native Fish Recovery Strategy “are complementary to water recovery and contribute to the environmental objectives of the basin plan by providing greater benefits for native fish than water recovery alone” (NFRS 2020).
More than 20 years has elapsed since the first strategy was released with little or no improvement to native fish numbers.
I wish to argue for increased funding for habitat restoration and a resolution of the current impasse between the Commonwealth and states over cost sharing.
The Commonwealth contributed only $5 million for in-stream rehabilitation works between 2019 and 2024 under the recovery strategy. The Commonwealth has progressed the basin plan but done little for habitat even though the best science has determined that the ‘just add water’ approach is not working.
The South Australian Department of Environment and Water (DEW) believes the Murray River in SA is at its maximum carrying capacity. This means that without work to improve habitat, the river cannot sustain more fish.
The second Native Fish Strategy details that other river reaches within the basin are similarly at maximum carrying capacity. Assuming these conclusions are correct then native fish stocking and the addition of more environmental water will have no effect.
This begs the question: what is the point of environmental flow if the environment cannot be improved with water alone?
Basin communities need to ask why the expensive option of water recovery is preferred by the Commonwealth when the states and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority have demonstrated that lack of water is not the only issue.
DEW says more than a million snags were removed from the Murray in SA between 1858 and 1995, and has begun to replace in-stream habitat in the form of snags. Over the past two years, 47 snags have been placed in the river. SA’s actions should be applauded but with the river at maximum carrying capacity this effort is not enough.
There is evidence that improvement has occurred for species in areas where snags are present and fish passage has been improved. Murray cod, yellow belly and silver perch are more abundant in some places.
This evidence should be used to increase efforts in river reaches that are at maximum carrying capacity. $13 billion has been invested for water buybacks but the return on that investment is poor if native fish numbers are a measure of success. There needs to be a combined approach linking water recovery and habitat restoration.
Works need to be funded at a scale that reflects their importance in the order of billions and not millions of dollars. Successive governments have dammed rivers preventing fish migration and removed millions of snags from waterways.
It’s time to get serious about reversing what has occurred and provide appropriate long-term funding. The decline of our freshwater ecosystems and the removal of snags took about 140 years. It might take a similar period to reverse this destruction.
Governments committed vast resources to these destructive practices and it remains to be seen if we have the will and commitment to make things right.
The intent of the basin plan is not being realised and so significant funding must be provided over the next 30 years to recover native fish numbers.
I am not a fan of aspirational targets and the 60 per cent number certainly looks like an aspirational ‘pie in the sky’ target. We have made little progress in the first 20 years since the first Native Fish Recovery Strategy was released.
Let’s hope the next 30 years tells a vastly different story. The evidence is in — the current approach is not working.
Mark Lawlor, Merrigum
Mr Lawlor is a former Goulburn Valley Water director (1994-2000 and 2006-13) and chair (2008-13); and a Goulburn-Murray Water director (2001-04). He was a VicWater board member (2011-13) and chair (2012-13). VicWater represents Victoria’s 18 water corporations to government. He is a partner in the business, Aussie Habitat Solutions, which provides breeding hollows in river snags to assist native fish species to breed.
