Aligning public participation with local environmental knowledge in complex marine social-ecological systems

Marine Policy 82 (2017) 16–24

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Marine Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Aligning public participation with local environmental knowledge in complex marine social-ecological systems

MARK

Claudia F. Benhama,b a b

Division of Tropical Environments and Societies, James Cook University, Townsville QLD 4810, Australia Fenner School of Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra ACT 2600, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Water quality Great barrier reef world heritage area Port development Environmental impact assessment Marine ecology Participatory governance

The incorporation of local and traditional knowledges into environmental governance regimes is increasingly recognised as a critical component of effective and equitable conservation efforts. However, there remain significant barriers to integration of community-based knowledge within mainstream environmental governance. This paper explores community-based knowledge in the context of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), a widely-used governance tool designed to predict and manage the impacts of development. Drawing on a social survey and interviews, the paper documents local community knowledge of environmental changes associated with dredging and the construction of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) plants in a large industrial harbour located in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, and compares this knowledge with public consultation opportunities offered throughout the project lifecycle, including during assessment and after project approval. The findings highlight a misalignment between community knowledge of environmental change, which is acquired largely after impacts become apparent, and the public participation opportunities afforded through EIA, which generally occur before construction or dredging is undertaken.

1. Introduction Local and traditional knowledges play an important role in the governance of complex ecosystems. Local communities are often custodians of experiential knowledge about species distributions and life histories (see [68,85]); ecosystem dynamics, trends and threats; local values and resource use patterns; and how the environment can be managed sustainably ([47]; Robertson and McGee; [55]). Such knowledge is learned by experience or transmitted through social and cultural practices, sometimes over many generations [37]. For example, studies have recorded fishers’ understandings of the ecological role of coastal habitats including seagrasses and mangroves [30,43,96], and fish behaviour and distribution patterns [59,88]. Other research has highlighted the importance of traditional resource management practices (such as the establishment of taboo sites, or bans on fishing or collecting certain species) as examples of adaptive management critical to the successful protection of marine ecosystems [11,25,26]. The Great Barrier Reef, located off Australia's north-eastern coast, is an area of extraordinary biodiversity and ecological complexity, comprising intricate networks of interactions between the land-sea interface and the human communities that depend on coastal resources. In such complex social-ecological systems, local knowledge can inform innovative policy and management, and complement scientific information. Local knowledge and traditional practices can form the basis of self-managed resource systems, or in other cases can complement scientific understandings of marine ecosystems, ‘filling in the gaps’ http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.04.003 Received 17 August 2016; Received in revised form 7 April 2017; Accepted 7 April 2017 0308-597X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

where information may be missing from the scientific record, and strengthening mainstream governance approaches [4,80,83]; Fabricius et al., 2006; [36,62,69,70]. Community input is also critical to defining policy problems, ensuring equitable decision making, legitimating governance initiatives, and granting industry a social license to operate [76][67,86,91]. As [82] point out, “even when the scientific characterization of risk is thorough…what is ‘acceptable’ depends on more than scientific criteria; acceptability depends on public perception.” Participatory approaches have become increasingly embedded in environmental policy and management over recent decades, reflecting the importance of harnessing local community knowledge and generating broad-based support for public decisions [78]. Scholars and practitioners have sought to integrate traditional and scientific knowledges (see [2,39,77]), to improve the adaptiveness and responsiveness of marine governance initiatives to community concerns [94], and to create spaces for collective discussion and decision making [15]. However, there remain institutional, political and cultural barriers to effective integration of customary and local knowledges within contemporary governance practices [24], and there are concerns that participatory approaches frequently fail to meet community expectations of transparency, efficacy and fairness [35,91]. Barriers to the integration of local and traditional knowledge into mainstream governance can include: the capacity of local communities to engage with decision making processes which require an investment of time and, often, substantial technical expertise; the inability of local knowledges to keep pace with change in social-ecological systems

Marine Policy 82 (2017) 16–24

C.F. Benham

in two of Australia's eastern ports, Port Curtis and Abbot Point, have attracted substantial public scrutiny for their potential to affect water quality through the mobilisation of sediments, metals and other contaminants [33]. This research focuses on Port Curtis, also known as Gladstone Harbour, a large multi-commodity port that underwent dredging and construction works between 2010 and 2016 to facilitate the export of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Port Curtis is an estuarine system comprising rivers, creeks, inlets, shoals, mud banks, channels and islands. The port experiences naturally high sediment loads [50,54]. It has historically supported large sub- and intertidal seagrass meadows dominated respectively by paddleweed (Halophila ovalis) and eelgrass (Zostera muelleri subsp. Capricornii; see [21,28]). These species are highly sensitive to changes in water quality, light availability and local sediment dynamics [1,19,23]. Seagrass cover in Port Curtis has declined substantially over the past decade [18] and reporting indicates that seagrass meadows in the port are in poor condition [27,44,49]. The port and surrounds are also known to support populations of dugong (Dugong dugon), green turtles (Chelonia mydas), flatback turtles (Natator depressus), Australian humpback dolphins (Sousa sahulensis) and the Australian snubfin dolphins (Orcaella heinsohni; see [20,84]). Port Curtis is a major hub for the Australian coal, bauxite and gas industries, and undergoes periodic dredging to create and maintain shipping channels, swing basins and commodity export terminals. In addition to heavy industry, the port is used for recreational boating and fishing activities by residents from Gladstone, a small port city and industry service centre. The Traditional Owners of lands in the Gladstone Region are the Gurang, Gooreng Gooreng, Taribelang Bunda and Bailai peoples, sometimes collectively known as the Port Curtis Coral Coast peoples. Approximately 3.5% of the regional population identifies as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander [7]. Since 2010, three gas liquefaction plants (the Queensland Curtis LNG (QCLNG), Gladstone LNG (GLNG) and Australia Pacific LNG (APLNG) projects) have been constructed on Curtis Island (see Fig. 1). In association with these developments a dredging campaign, known as the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project (WBDDP), was conducted between 2010 and 2013. The WBDDP involved the removal and disposal of 22 million cubic metres of dredge spoil behind a bund wall in a land reclamation area within the port boundary [46,95]. In September 2011, dredge spoil was found to be leaking into Port Curtis through the bund wall, leading to localised increases in turbidity levels (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014). Remediation works on the bund wall were completed in August 2012 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014). Dredging and the inshore disposal of dredge spoil have been found to reduce water clarity in Port Curtis, with the extent and duration of dredging activities influencing the quantum and duration of impacts [65,75]. High turbidity levels were observed in Port Curtis in November 2010 and April-May 2011, and turbidity exceeded guideline limits at several monitoring sites in Port Curtis from 9 to 16 January 2012 [75]. Marine turtle strandings in the port have been linked to seagrass decline and dredging activities [16,42]. Commercial and recreational fishing in the port was impacted by the discovery of diseased and injured fish in 2011 [32].

(Fabricius et al., 2006); government reluctance to relinquish decision making power or to substantially amend or abandon projects in response to community concerns [73]; the perceived risk of political deadlock over highly complex and contested environmental issues [73]; and a mainstream environmental governance culture that has historically privileged expert advice over other forms of knowledge. For example, [40] writes, “not only are experts socially situated between the [decision making] elites and public but their technical languages provide an intimidating barrier for lay citizens seeking to express their [views] in the language of everyday life.” Community opposition to science-based conservation measures can be seen as unnecessarily obstructive from scientific perspectives (see [93]). In addition, there is ongoing debate among scholars about how scientific knowledge can best be integrated with community perspectives to achieve sustainable outcomes for complex coastal systems [15]. A number of studies have found limitations to the comprehensiveness and generalisability of local knowledge [4,45]. For example, Tibby et al. [87] examined local knowledge of salinity changes in a coastal lake over multiple decades, finding that collective memories of the timing and quantum of environmental changes did not align with the scientific record. Fabricius et al. (2006) recognise the value of local knowledge to science assessments while also acknowledging its limitations. Other scholars have cautioned against evaluating traditional knowledges in a western scientific context, emphasising that local and traditional knowledges are complementary to, rather than substitutable for, scientific enquiry [56,60]; Bohensky and Maru, 2012. This paper examines community participation and local knowledge in the context of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). First legislated by the United States National Environmental Policy Act 1969, EIA is a proactive governance tool designed to anticipate and manage the impacts of development at the project scale. Since its inception, EIA legislation has provided for some form of public engagement [74], although these opportunities vary across jurisdictions and projects. Recent scholarship has “demonstrated the importance of meaningful public participation both to ensure the integrity of the EIA process as well as to realize the potential for sustainable development” [97], while also recognising a democratic deficit associated with EIA [38]. In the United States, for example, legal action over EIA processes under the National Environment Protection Act 1969 (NEPA) has been ongoing issue since the inception of the Act more than 40 years ago (Baber and Bartlett, 2006). This paper begins by exploring local community understandings of environmental change through a case study of Port Curtis, an industrial harbour located on the continental margin adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. The recent expansion of heavy industry in the port and a major flooding event have been linked to short-term declines in water quality and health of the port environment and key species. The paper also critically assesses key barriers to public participation in EIA processes related to the recent expansion of heavy industry. In concluding, the paper discusses the benefits of aligning these processes with community knowledge and needs in the context of future coastal development and impact assessment practice. 2. Case study 2.1. Dredging and industrial development in Port Curtis, Australia

2.2. Impact assessment of the Gladstone LNG projects and Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project

Water quality and ecological health in ports along the Australian coast is determined by the interaction of a range of natural and human processes, including agricultural runoff, industrial development, flooding and extreme weather events such as cyclones [49,81]; 2013; [66]. In recent years, the expansion of ports to accommodate heavy industry such as coal and gas processing and exports, has raised concerns about the impacts of such development on water quality, seagrass and coral ecosystems in the World Heritage-listed Great Barrier Reef, located off the coast of Queensland (see Fig. 1). In particular, dredging operations

In the Australian federal system, decision making authority is shared between a central government (the Australian Government), eight states and territories, and more than 500 regional and local government authorities. Primary responsibility for impact assessment rests with state governments. However, the Australian federal government holds a constitutional mandate to intervene when a development is determined to be a ‘controlled action’ that may impact on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) under Part 2 of the 17

Marine Policy 82 (2017) 16–24

C.F. Benham

Fig. 1. Map of Port Curtis, Australia (adapted from Maritime [48,64]).

economic, social or environmental significance to the State of Queensland, and were declared ‘coordinated’ and ‘significant’ projects under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld). As a consequence, the Australian and Queensland Governments undertook parallel impact assessments of the WBDDP and three LNG projects. To simplify the process for proponents, there is a bilateral agreement in place that allows a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be prepared for both government approvals (see Fig. 2). Written public submissions were invited for each of the LNG terminals, as well as for other components of LNG production infrastructure (pipelines, laydown areas, gas fields) and the WBDDP. The EPBC Act establishes timelines for referral decisions (20 business days) and for public consultation on EIS documents (40 days for a draft EIS).

Environment Conservation and Biodiversity Act (EPBC Act) 1999. MNES include World Heritage Sites such as the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), listed threatened species and water resources in relation to coal seam gas or large coal mining developments, among other matters. The three Gladstone Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals and Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project (WBDDP), including the land reclamation area and bund wall, were deemed ‘controlled actions’. Part of the reclamation area intended for the WBDDP had previously been referred to the environment department under the EPBC Act a decade prior, and had been deemed a “non controlled action”, meaning that a federal impact assessment was not required. The WBDDP program may be considered an expansion of this prior project (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014). The WBDDP and three LNG terminals were also considered to be of

18

Marine Policy 82 (2017) 16–24

C.F. Benham

Fig. 2. Environmental Impact Assessment process for the QCLNG project, Gladstone.

based on the weighted sample unless specified otherwise, although differences between the responses of the weighted and non-weighted samples were minimal (up to 3% points). Chi square tests of association were used to investigate statistical relationships using the weighted dataset. An additional 43 stakeholders were recruited for interviews from within industry, government, local businesses, community services and not-for-profit organisations using a snowball sampling method [79]. Interviews and open response survey data were analysed using a qualitative open-coding approach involving the assignment of thematic category labels to passages of text from interview transcripts. Where possible, data were also analysed quantitatively (for example, to determine how many respondents reported using key sites in the port). The methodological approach is described in detail in Benham and Daniell [9] and Benham [10]. In addition, a search of peer-reviewed literature, government and industry publications and public submissions was conducted to identify participatory processes associated with the Gladstone LNG developments and WBDDP. These processes were then compared with survey and interview data to identify discrepancies. In this paper, the term “local community” refers to individuals who see themselves as belonging to a community with a specific geographic attachment to the coast or ocean, and who are living in that area on an ongoing basis. The local community in Gladstone includes both Indigenous Australians (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people) and non-Indigenous peoples. There was low representation of Indigenous Australians in the survey sample (< 1% compared to the

Additional opportunities for public participation are not mandated by the EPBC Act or State Development and Public Works Organisation Act. However, industry proponents provided a number of extra-legislative opportunities for public engagement, including: 1. Public meetings; 2. The establishment of consultative committees comprising industry representatives, local government, NGOs, indigenous groups and community services; 3. Face-to-face Question and Answer (Q & A) sessions outside local shopping centres; and 4. Ad hoc meetings with community groups or other organisations. 3. Methods The results reported in this paper are drawn primarily from a community survey and interviews conducted with local residents in the Gladstone Region over ten months from February 2014. In collaboration with the local government authority, a survey invitation was mailed to all households in the Region (N=19 500). Residents were asked to complete the survey online or in hard copy. A survey invitation was also broadcast on regional radio, and advertised in local newspapers and in libraries. The final sample of 297 respondents was weighted for age, ethnicity (Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, or non-Indigenous), gender and location of residence (within or outside the city of Gladstone) using demographic data from the most recent Australian census (ABS, 2012). The results presented in this paper are 19

Marine Policy 82 (2017) 16–24

C.F. Benham

regional average of 3.5%), and as such the views of Indigenous people in the Gladstone Region were primarily canvassed through face-to-face interviews. Local knowledge is sometimes discussed in terms of a return to “traditional” or pre-industrial understandings of relationships between humans and the environment. Berkes and Folke [12] call this “back to the future” thinking. Scholarship on local and traditional knowledge is comprised predominantly of case studies documenting micro-scale Indigenous Ecological Knowledge or Traditional Ecological Knowledge in a single context [92] generally with subsistence or semisubsistence resource users, although a number of authors have sought to develop frameworks that link micro-scale knowledge with macroscale understandings of social-ecological interactions (see for example Liu et al., 2007; Ostrom, 2009; [92]). While such scholarship is critically important for many ecological, social-cultural and political reasons (see [17]; Berkes, 2000; [60] for a discussion), indigenous and traditional knowledge in many parts of the world has been profoundly transformed in recent decades by the loss or decline of important species (Turner et al., 2008), a move away from traditional livelihoods towards a cash economy and formalised system of classroom-based education, ongoing government interventions and increased mobility of human populations [92]. The majority of Indigenous Australians now live in urban environments [5]. Growing coastal populations and urbanisation have also altered many coastal ecosystems [3,57], and consequently the socio-economic and cultural connections that bind human communities to those environments (see for example Benham, 2016). As a result, participatory governance processes are challenged to respond both to the complexities of rapidly changing coastal zones, including multiple values and knowledges [15,9,90].

Fig. 4. Top three signs of a healthy harbour, Gladstone community responses. *No. of responses =1365, No. of individual respondents =509 (weighted).

important sign of overall port environment health, followed by health of seagrass beds and clean, clear water (see Fig. 4). These findings reinforce the conclusions of a recent study that documented the values associated with ecosystems across the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, finding that highly visible, non-use values such as a lack of rubbish; healthy reef fish, healthy coral and mangroves, marine species and high underwater visibility were of greatest importance to local residents, exceeding use values associated with ports and shipping, fishing and tourism [61]. The importance of seagrasses to local residents in Gladstone warrants some particular attention. While some communities demonstrate finely-tuned knowledge of the ecological role of seagrasses [30,71],[89], in general the ecology of seagrasses and mangroves is less well studied than other marine ecosystems such as coral reefs, reflecting the perceived cultural, ecological and commercial values of such ecosystems [41]. Values associated with seagrasses were not reported in a recent study of values associated with the GBR [61]. However, in this case, it may be that the ecological role of seagrasses as fish nurseries, the importance of commercial and recreational fishing to local residents (historically, Gladstone had one of the highest rates of recreational vessel ownership in Australia, see Maritime [63]), combined with the relatively high visibility of these species to port users when meadows are exposed at low tide, contributes to public perceptions of their value and importance. Around one-third (35%) of respondents felt that ecological health within Port Curtis was declining, compared with 13% who felt the health of marine ecosystems within the port was improving, and 31% who reported no substantial change in the health of the port environment. Approximately two-fifths (43%) of respondents reported perceiving changes in the health of the port environment (including water quality, extent of seagrass beds and aquatic animal health) 1–2 years prior to survey in February 2014, while 18% reported seeing changes beginning 3–5 years prior. Dredging operations were conducted between December 2010 and February 2013. Major flooding occurred in January 2011 (approximately three years before survey), and smaller-scale flood events occurred in subsequent years. Some residents also drew a link between event-based impacts on water clarity and longer-term patterns or changes:

4. Local knowledge of environmental change and development impacts: what kinds of information can communities provide? Local and community knowledges can include both experiential (directly or socially learned) and values-based components [47]. This research revealed a rich and diverse body of both forms of knowledge among the local community in Gladstone, which accorded broadly with scientific understandings of local environmental change. Local residents reported experiencing a range of environmental changes in Gladstone Harbour in the five years before the survey was conducted. These included short term changes in the condition of the local marine environment such as hydrocarbon spills and increases in turbidity following dredging or flood events, as well as longer term changes such as decline of seagrass meadows, decline or change in fishing resources or fish aggregation sites, and decline in local populations of marine megafauna, such as dolphins, marine turtles and dugongs (see Fig. 3). Local knowledge of ecological change was primarily related to visible, rapid, recent changes (within the last five years) and species of high economic or cultural value to local communities, including key fish species such as barramundi (Lates calcarifer), mud crabs (Scylla spp.), marine turtles (unspecified species; C. mydas and N. depressus are known to utilise Port Curtis for foraging or breeding) and dugong (D. dugon). The majority of respondents cited fish health as the most

“During…the dredging more turbidity was present more frequently in the harbour but during king tides and periods of winds and storms especially in summer this has always been present. It seems back to the normal patterns now the dredging is complete” (Survey respondent). The perceived causes of declining environmental health in Port Curtis were as follows: 1. Industrial development including LNG (13% of respondents) 2. Flooding (14% of respondents) 3. Flooding in combination with industrial development (14% of respondents) 4. LNG only (14% of respondents).

Fig. 3. Changes in environmental health observed in Port Curtis 2004–2014*No. of responses =944, No. of individual respondents =509 (weighted).

20

Marine Policy 82 (2017) 16–24

C.F. Benham

Table 1 Self-reported community use and impacts of dredging and construction on livelihoods, recreational and cultural usage of Gladstone Harbour (%)a. Activity

Usage of Harbour for specified activities (% of respondents)

Activities affected by dredging (% of respondents)

Activities affected by LNG construction (% of respondents)

Work Recreation Cultural activities

22 63 <1

7 22 <1

6 22 0

a

Weighted data.

Fig. 5. Forms of engagement with decision making processes, Gladstone LNG projects) *weighted data.

This diversity of views perhaps reflects the complex interaction of causal factors including that influenced water quality and fish health in Port Curtis in the five-year period leading up to the survey, during which scientific explanations for environmental change in the port were also debated in the news media (see Australian Bureau of Statistics ABS [6]; Berry [13,53] for a sample of media coverage). News media was the most widely used source of information on the Gladstone LNG developments and changes in the health of Port Curtis, with 63.5% of survey respondents reporting that they accessed information through the media. Other sources of information included industry publications, cultural knowledge and experiential knowledge, which relied primarily on visual signs of change:

5. Public participation in the Gladstone LNG EIA processes: opportunities and barriers Public participation is generally thought of as a spectrum of approaches, ranging from limited negotiation or dialogue between decision makers and the public, to highly collaborative methods such as deliberative democracy [38,52,8,9]. More intensive approaches such as citizen deliberation involve high degrees of power-sharing between government decision makers and the public (see). Just over one-third (37%) of survey respondents engaged with industry or government representatives through some form of participatory process. This engagement was concentrated primarily through industry information stalls or Question and Answer (Q & A) opportunities, as well as through public meetings and submissions to the Queensland Coordinator General or other agencies (see Fig. 5). In addition to public participation opportunities, a consultative committee, known as the Gladstone LNG Consultative Committee, was established to provide a forum for industry to liaise directly with key local stakeholders including local government and other community service providers. There were also a number of bilateral partnerships established between industry, government agencies and NGOs operating in Gladstone, which were established largely on an ad hoc basis in response to emergent needs. While all these processes involved community participation to a greater or lesser degree, only 31% of local residents felt that the LNG consultations were adequate. This research identified a number of political, structural and cultural barriers to fair and open community participation in impact assessment processes for the Gladstone LNG and dredging projects. These barriers relate to the scope, timing and mechanisms of participation, the perceived ability of local people to genuinely influence industry and government decision making, and the valuing of diverse knowledges by decision makers. Currently in Australia, public comment on new developments generally occurs after the scope of the impact assessment has been defined, initial ecological surveys are complete, and EIS has been drafted. While both state and federal government approvals for each of the Gladstone LNG projects and dredging included provisions for ongoing monitoring and reporting, there is currently no legislative requirement for citizens and communities to consider relevant facts and critically assess the options before them before projects progress through the construction and operational phases. A lack of opportunities for participation by the community during this critical pre-assessment phase can mean that emergent impacts are largely ‘invisible’ in the decision making process, and also obscure impacts that fall outside the pre-defined scope of the EIA. As this research demonstrates, local communities become aware of impacts through a variety of sources: direct observation and news media being the primary mechanisms. Impacts only become apparent once development commences, after which time it is largely too late for citizens to feed information on these social, economic and environmental impacts up to decision makers in ways that are likely to influence major project decisions.

“We’ve lived here for over 20 years and I could tell by the colour of the water when they had started to dredge that there was an effect on the environment” (Interviewee). Survey data also documented the effects of localised environmental change on local livelihoods and lifestyles (Table 1). In addition to heavy industry, Port Curtis is used for a range of commercial, recreational and cultural activities. Marine recreation is a popular activity in Gladstone, and personal boat ownership rates are among the highest in the state [34]. Residents cited a number of sites in the Harbour where access had been restricted by dredging or construction activities (see Table 2). Respondents who use the port for work were significantly more likely to be aware of changes in the environment (47.5763, p= < 0.05) than were recreational users (7.8203, p= > 0.05). Studies in other contexts have similarly documented the spread of knowledge within communities, and have highlighted the importance of identifying such “local experts” who can provide detailed knowledge of the local environment (see [22,29,31,37]). Table 2 Sites where access was restricted during LNG construction, Gladstone community responsesa. Site description

No. of responses

Sites on and around Curtis Island (includes China Bay, Graham's Creek, Turtle Street and crabbing mangroves from China Bay to Laird Point) Other Harbour Islands (such as Facing Island) Northern harbour including The Narrows Mainland sites adjacent within the Port Curtis estuary (includes Fishermans Landing) Seaward areas of LNG plants (including the GBR) Fishing/crabbing sites (unspecified) Whole Port Unspecified sites in the Port Total number of responsesa Total number of respondentsb

21

2 7 3 2 3 6 4 48 39

(Note: this data unweighted as drawn from an “open response” question). a Number of responses (unweighted). b Total number of respondents who answered this survey question.

21

Marine Policy 82 (2017) 16–24

C.F. Benham

6. Conclusions

The timing and chosen mechanism of participation plays an important role in channelling knowledge flows between local communities and decision makers, and influencing community perceptions of air decision making [51,72]. Reliance on written submissions can marginalise already-disadvantaged stakeholder groups, such as those with low literacy or limited understanding of the assessment process [40,91], or indigenous groups whose knowledge may not be readily translated to a western governance context [92]. Impact Assessment documentation is generally written in technical language, and can be many hundreds of pages in length, not including technical appendices and supporting materials. A brief comment period may further limit the capacity of citizens to engage with the process within the required timeframes. In Gladstone, the complexity of EIA documentation was compounded by the number of projects undergoing assessment in parallel. As one senior industry manager noted:

It is now widely accepted that incorporating community perspectives and indigenous knowledges into public decision making can strengthen and democratise the governance of complex social-ecological systems. This research finds that members of the local community in Gladstone, including indigenous and non-indigenous respondents, can provide understandings about environmental changes that are highly relevant and timely. Local knowledge of environmental change was found to be reliable for visible, recent and rapid changes that affect species or ecosystems with high economic, social, or cultural value. Such changes include short-term declines in water clarity, health or abundance of local populations of fish and marine megafauna. Citizens in Gladstone are also an important source of information on the human impacts of environmental change and industrial development. The experiences of the local community in Gladstone highlight the need for ongoing community participation as a means of improving the quality of policy and resource decision-making in Australia. However, public participation opportunities are largely concentrated during the project assessment phase, before many impacts become apparent to local communities. Community participation on a periodic, ongoing basis throughout the project lifecycle offers a framework for governments, communities and industry to adaptively assess and reconsider project approvals in light of new information, including cumulative impacts. These innovations would allow EIA to better respond to changing needs of communities, and the rapidly changing environments in which they live.

“a community of this size, that was dealing with nearly 20 major pieces of communications work at that stage including the EIS, Supplementary EISs and other communication strategies…it’s just overwhelming.” (Senior industry manager). Public participation initiatives that occur late in the decision making process or require extensive community resources in terms of time or technical expertise can fail to provide genuine opportunities for dialogue and decision making. This democratic deficit is keenly perceived at the local community level. In general, major decisions about the Gladstone LNG projects were thought to be largely predetermined by industry financing arrangements, global markets and government decision making at the state level, leading to lack of confidence in the legitimacy of participatory processes. This perception was reinforced when industry contractors were observed to commence preparations for construction before the impact assessment had concluded. As one local resident remarked, “[The proponents] had pipe on the ground before [the EIS process was complete]. They knew they were going to get their EIS through.” A local scientist and NGO representative said of meetings with a port representative “he did take note of what our concerns were but really it was [a conversation about offsetting impacts rather than preventing them]…it was going to go ahead, it doesn't (sic) matter what concerns there were for environment, it would have gone ahead.” A final barrier to effective participation relates to the valuing of community-based knowledges by key decision makers. As described above, recent decades have seen a move towards increasing participation by local Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in the governance of large industrial projects. However, in the context of current decision making processes there remain challenges to ensuring community perspectives and opinions are widely valued and accepted in natural resource management [14]. Conceptual tools which have been able to bridge indigenous and western scientific worldviews are rare, although there have been a number of important recent innovations (see [92]). In the context of EIA and development approvals, the input of indigenous peoples is often limited to commenting on cultural heritage issues (see for example [58]). Speaking about his experience of the Gladstone LNG governance processes, one Indigenous representative commented:

Acknowledgements This research was supported by CSIRO Energy, the Australian National University (ANU) and the Royal Commonwealth Society Phyllis Montgomerie Award 2015. The author would like to thank the residents of Gladstone and Gidarjil: Indigenous Organisation Queensland, who contributed their insights to this work, and the Gladstone Regional Council, which provided in-kind support for the survey. The author also thanks Clive Hilliker (ANU) for assistance with graphics, Dr Teresa Neeman (ANU) for advice on statistical analysis, and Professor Karen Hussey (University of Queensland), Dr Katherine Daniell (ANU), Dr Sara Beavis (ANU), Professor Damian Barrett (CSIRO) and Dr Zsuzsa Banhalmi-Zakar (James Cook University) for their constructive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. References [1] E.G. Abal, W.C. Dennison, Seagrass depth range and water quality in southern Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia, Mar. Freshw. Res. 47 (1996) 763–771. [2] A. Agrawal, Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge, Dev. Change 26 (3) (1995) 413–439. [3] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 1370.0 - Measures of Australia's Progress (Coastal Development), 2010 Australian Government, Canberra, 2010. [4] S. Aswani, R.J. Hamilton, Integrating indigenous ecological knowledge and customary sea tenure with marine and social science for conservation of bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum) in the Roviana Lagoon, Solomon Islands, Environ. Conserv. 31 (01) (2004) 69–83. [5] Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), In pictures: Mystery marine disease off Gladstone. 10 November 2011. 〈http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-09/ gladstone-harbour-in-pictures-and-quotes/3650296〉, 2011. [6] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 3238.0.55.001 - Estimates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, Australian Government, Canberra, 2011, p. 2011. [7] Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Gladstone (R) (LGA), Australian Government, Canberra, 2015. [8] O. Barreteau, P. Bots, K. Daniell, A framework for clarifying “participation” in participatory research to prevent its rejection for the wrong reasons, Ecol. Soc. 15 (2010) 2. [9] C.F. Benham, K. Daniell, Putting transdisciplinary research into practice: a participatory approach to understanding change in coastal social-ecological systems, Ocean Coast. Manag. 128 (2016) 29–39. [10] C.F. Benham, Community perspectives on gas development in the Great barrier reef world heritage area: do the environmental impacts outweigh the economic benefits at the local scale? UN Nat. Resour. Forum 41 (1) (2017) 42–54. [11] F. Berkes, J. Colding, C. Folke, Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge as

“Traditional knowledge is starting to [be] listened to but it will be a long learning curve. When I first started going into some of the board rooms, into some of the meetings, hardly anyone would talk to me…It still happens today. I’ll go into a meeting and I’ll be treated as tokenistic. That it ticks a box, having a Traditional Owner in there. [The implication is] Because I don't (sic) come from a scientific background, I don’t really know anything. And some of the conversations I’ve had, the topic has got relatively technical and then I will have comments thrown at me about the topic and how little I would know about it.”

22

Marine Policy 82 (2017) 16–24

C.F. Benham

Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 2000. [41] R. Fisher, N. Knowlton, R.E. Brainard, M.J. Caley, Differences among major taxa in the extent of ecological knowledge across four major ecosystems, PLoS One 6 (11) (2011) e26556. [42] M. Flint, P.A. Eden, C.J. Limpus, H. Owen, C. Gaus, P.C. Mills, Clinical and Pathological Findings in Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas) from Gladstone, 12 Investigations of a Stranding Epidemic, Queensland, 2015, pp. 298–309. [43] C.G. García-Quijano, Fishers' knowledge of marine species assemblages: bridging between scientific and local ecological knowledge in Southeastern Puerto Rico, Am. Anthropol. 109 (3) (2007) 529–536. [44] Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership (GHHP), Gladstone Harbour Report Card2015: Technical Report. Gladstone Health Harbour Partnership. Gladstone, Queensland, 2015. [45] G. Gilchrist, M. Mallory, F. Merkel, Can local ecological knowledge contribute to wildlife management? Case studies of migratory birds, Ecol. Soc. 10 (1) (2005) 20. [46] Gladstone Ports Corporation Ltd, Western Basin PortDevelopment [Online] 〈http:// www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/〉 (accessed 12 February 2015), 2015. [47] J. Glicken, Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: a discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls, Environ. Sci. Policy 3 (6) (2000) 305–310. [48] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2014. Townsville, Queensland, 2014. [49] A. Grech, R. Coles, H. Marsh, A broad-scale assessment of the risk to coastal seagrasses from cumulative threats, Mar. Policy 35 (5) (2011) 560–567. [50] D. Griffin, J. Middleton, L. Bode, The tidal and loner-period circulation of capricornia, southern great barrier reef, Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 38 (1987) 461–474. [51] C. Gross, Community perspectives of wind energy in Australia: the application of a justice and community fairness framework to increase social acceptance, Energy Policy 35 (5) (2007) 2727–2736. [52] J. Hartz-Karp, A case study in deliberative democracy: dialogue with the City,", J. Public Délib. 1 (1) (2005) 6. [53] K. Helbig, AAP, Cause of sick fish in Gladstone Harbour remains unknown. 6 January 2012. The Courier Mail < 〈http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/ queensland/cause-of-sick-fish-in-gladstone-harbour-remains-unknown/storye6freoof-1226238239812〉 > , 2012. [54] M. Herzfeld, J.S. Parslow, J.R. Andrewartha, P.V. Sakov, I.T. Webster, Hydrodynamic modelling of the Port Curtis region. Project CM2.11. Technical report. Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management. Indooroopilly, Queensland, 2004. [55] R. Hill, C. Grant, M. George, C. Robinson, S. Jackson, N. Abel, A typology of indigenous engagement in Australian environmental management: implications for knowledge integration and social-ecological system sustainability, Ecol. Soc. 17 (2012) 1. [56] H.P. Huntington, Using traditional ecological knowledge in science: methods and application, Ecol. Appl. 10 (2000) 1270–1274. [57] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Available at: 〈https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch6s6-3-1. html〉, 2007. [58] S. Jackson, Compartmentalising Culture: the articulation and consideration of Indigenous values in water resource management, Aust. Geogr. 37 (1) (2006) 19–31. [59] R.E. Johannes, E. Hviding, Traditional knowledge possessed by the fishers of Marovo Lagoon, Solomon Islands, concerning fish aggregating behaviour. In SPC Traditional Marine Resource Management and Knowledge Information Bulletin 12, Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), Noumea, 2000. [60] R.W. Kimmerer, Weaving Traditional Ecological Knowledge into Biological Education: a Call to Action, BioScience 52 (5) (2002) 432–438. [61] S. Larson, N. Stoeckl, M. Farr, M. Esparon, The role the Great Barrier Reef plays in resident wellbeing and implications for its management, Ambio 44 (3) (2015) 166–177. [62] J. Le Fur, A. Guilavogui, A. Teitelbaum, Contribution of local fishermen to improving knowledge of the marine ecosystem and resources in the Republic of Guinea, West Africa, Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 68 (8) (2011) 1454–1469. [63] Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ), Queensland’s Recreational and Light Commercial Marine Industry. Brisbane, Queensland, 2012. [64] Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ), Port Limits Gladstone (Map: S8po-5-2). Prepared 7 November 2013. Queensland Government Transport and Main Roads, Brisbane, 2013. [65] L. McCook, B. Schaffelke, S. Apte, R. Brinkman, J. Brodie, P. Erftemeijer, B. Eyre, F. Hoogerwerf, I. Irvine, R. Jones, B. King, Synthesis of current knowledge of the biophysical impacts of dredging and disposal on the Great Barrier Reef: report of an Independent Panel of Experts, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, 2015. [66] S. McKenna, J. Jarvis, T. Sankey, C. Reason, R. Coles, M. Rasheed, Declines of seagrasses in a tropical harbour, North Queensland, Australia, are not the result of a single event, J. Biosci. 40 (2) (2015) 389–398. [67] K. Moffat, A. Zhang, The paths to social licence to operate: an integrative model explaining community acceptance of mining, Resour. Policy 39 (2014) 61–70. [68] H. Moller, F. Berkes, P.O.B. Lyver, M. Kislalioglu, Combining science and traditional ecological knowledge: monitoring populations for co-management, Ecol. Soc. 9 (2004) 3. [69] S. Momtaz, W. Gladstone, Ban on commercial fishing in the estuarine waters of New South Wales, Australia: community consultation and social impacts, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 28 (2008) 319–342. [70] A. Morrison-Saunders, G. Early, What is necessary to ensure natural justice in

adaptive management, Ecol. Appl. 10 (2000) 1251–1262. [12] F. Berkes, C. Folke, Back to the future: ecosystems dynamics and local knowledge, in: L.H. Gunderson, C.S. Holling (Eds.), Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, 2002, pp. 121–146. [13] P. Berry, Dredging, not floods, behind Gladstone’s sick fish: Scientist. Brisbane Times, 19 April 2012. < 〈http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/dredgingnot-floods-behind-gladstones-sick-fish-scientist-20120419-1x8vm.html〉 > , 2011. [14] E. Bohensky, Y. Maru, Indigenous knowledge, science, and resilience: what have we learned from a decade of international literature on “integration, Ecol. Soc. 16 (2011) 4. [15] S. Bremer, B. Glavovic, Mobilizing Knowledge for Coastal Governance: re-framing the Science–Policy Interface for Integrated Coastal Management, Coast. Manag. 41 (1) (2013) 39–56. [16] J. Brodie, E. Ariel, C. Thomas, D. O’Brien, D.K. Berry, Links between water quality and marine turtle health A Technical Report to the World Wildlife Fund. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic EcosystemResearch (TropWATER), James Cook University Townsville, 2014. [17] R.L. Bryant, Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: a review, Progress. Phys. Geogr. 22 (1998) 79–94. [18] C.V. Bryant, M.A. Rasheed, Gladstone permanent transect seagrass monitoring monthly report December 2013 (Update Report, Centre for Tropical Water and Aquatic Ecosystem Research Publication 13/50), James Cook University, Cairns, 2013. [19] S. Cabaço, R. Santos, C.M. Duarte, The impact of sediment burial and erosion on seagrasses: a review, Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 79 (3) (2008) 354–366. [20] D. Cagnazzi, Review of Coastal Dolphins in central Queensland, particularly Port Curtis and Port Alma region, Gladstone Ports Corporation, Gladstone, 2013. [21] A.B. Carter, J.D. Davies, C.V. Bryant, J.C. Jarvis, S.A. McKenna, M.A. Rasheed, Seagrasses in Port Curtis and Rodds Bay 2014: annual long‐term monitoring, biannual Western Basin, and updated baseline survey (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research )(TropWATER) (Publication 15/06), James Cook University, Cairns, 2015. [22] N. Chalmers, C. Fabricius, Expert and Generalist Local Knowledge about Land-cover Change on South Africas Wild Coast: can Local Ecological Knowledge Add Value to Science? Ecol. Soc. 12 (1) (2007) 10. [23] K.M. Chartrand, P.J. Ralph, K. Petrou, M.A. Rasheed, Development of a Light-Based Seagrass Management Approach for the Gladstone Western Basin Dredging Program, DAFF Publication. Fisheries Queensland, Cairns, 2012. [24] J.E. Cinner, S. Aswani, Integrating customary management into marine conservation, Biol. Conserv. 140 (3) (2007) 201–216. [25] J.E. Cinner, C. Huchery, M.A. MacNeil, N.A. Graham, T.R. McClanahan, J. Maina, E. Maire, J.N. Kittinger, C.C. Hicks, C. Mora, E.H. Allison, S. D’Agata, A. Hoey, D.A. Feary, L. Crowder, I.D. Williams, M. Kulbicki, L. Vigliola, L. Wantiez, G. Edgar, R.D. Stuart-Smith, S.A. Sandin, A.L. Green, M.J. Hardt, M. Beger, A. Friedlander, S.J. Campbell, K.E. Holmes, S.K. Wilson, E. Brokovich, A.J. Brooks, J.J. Cruz-Motta, D.J. Booth, P. Chabanet, C. Gough, M. Tupper, S.C.A. Ferse, U.R. Sumaila, D. Mouillot, Bright spots among the world's coral reefs, Nature (2016) (15 June 2016). [26] J. Colding, C. Folke, Social taboos: “invisible” systems of local resource management and biological conservation, Ecol. Appl. 11 (2001) 584–600. [27] R.G. Coles, M.A. Rasheed, L.J. McKenzie, A. Grech, P.H. York, M. Sheaves, S. McKenna, C. Bryant, The Great barrier reef world heritage area seagrasses: Managing this iconic Australian ecosystem resource for the future, Estuar., Coast. Shelf Sci. 153 (2014) A1–A12. [28] J.D. Davies, C.V. Bryant, A.B. Carter, M.A. Rasheed, Seagrasses in Port Curtis and Rodds Bay 2015: Annual Long-term Monitoring (Report), James Cook University, Cairns, QLD, Australia, 2016. [29] A. Davis, J.R. Wagner, Who Knows? On the Importance of Identifying “Experts” When Researching Local Ecological Knowledge, Human. Ecol. 31 (3) (2003) 463–489. [30] M. de la Torre-Castro, P. Rönnbäck, Links between humans and seagrasses—an example from tropical East Africa, Ocean Coast. Manag. 47 (7–8) (2004) 361–387. [31] M. de la Torre-Castro, L. Lindström, Fishing institutions: addressing regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive elements to enhance fisheries management, Mar. Policy 34 (1) (2010) 77–84. [32] Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP), Gladstone Fish Health Scientific Advisory Panel Final Report 5 January, Queensland Government, Brisbane, 2012, p. 2012. [33] Department of Environment, Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone - Report on Findings, Australian Government, Canberra, 2013. [34] Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR), Recreational Vessel Census June, Queensland Government, Brisbane, 2014, p. 2014. [35] M. Doelle, A.J. Sinclair, Time for a new approach to public participation in EA: promoting cooperation and consensus for sustainability, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 26 (2) (2006) 185–205. [36] M. Dowsley, Community clusters in wildlife and environmental management: using TEK and community involvement to improve co-management in an era of rapidenvironmental change, Polar Res. 28 (2009) 43–59. [37] J.A. Drew, Use of traditional ecological knowledge in marine conservation, Conserv. Biol. 19 (4) (2005) 1286–1293. [38] A.M. Esteves, D. Franks, F. Vanclay, Social impact assessment: the state of the art, Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 30 (1) (2012) 34–42. [39] L. Failing, R. Gregory, M. Harstone, Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: a decision-focused approach, Ecol. Econ. 64 (1) (2007) 47–60. [40] F. Fischer, Citizens, experts, and the environment: the politics of local knowledge,

23

Marine Policy 82 (2017) 16–24

C.F. Benham

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78] [79]

[80]

[81]

[82] [83] [84]

environmental impact assessment decision-making? Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 26 (1) (2008) 29–42. A. Newmaster, K. Berg, S. Ragupathy, M. Palanisamy, K. Sambandan, S. Newmaster, Local knowledge and conservation of seagrasses in the Tamil Nadu State of India, J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 7 (1) (2011) 1–17. C. O'Faircheallaigh, T. Corbett, Indigenous participation in environmental management of mining projects: the role of negotiated agreements, Environ. Polit. 14 (5) (2005) 629–647. C. O'Faircheallaigh, Public participation and environmental impact assessment: purposes, implications, and lessons for public policy making, Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 30 (2010) 19–27. J. Petts, Public Participation and Environmental Impact Assessment, in: J. Petts (Ed.), 2003. Handbook of Environmental Impact Assessment, 1 Blackwell Science, London, 2003. C. Petus, M. Devlin, Using Satellite Maps to Document the Extent of Sediment Plumes Associated with Dredging Activity in Gladstone Port's Western Basin, Queensland (ACTFR Research publication number 12/02. Catchment to Reef Research Group, TROPWATER), James Cook University, Townsville, Qld, 2012. J. Prno, D.S. Slocombe, Exploring the origins of ‘social license to operate’ in the mining sector: perspectives from governance and sustainability theories, Resour. Policy 37 (3) (2012) 346–357. C.M. Raymond, I. Fazey, M.S. Reed, L.C. Stringer, G.M. Robinson, A.C. Evely, Integrating local and scientific knowledge for environmental management, J. Environ. Manag. 91 (8) (2010) 1766–1777. M.S. Reed, Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review, Biol. Conserv. 141 (2008) 2417–2431. J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, J. Elam, Designing and Selecting Samples, in: J. Ritchie, J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers, Sage, London, 2003, pp. 77–108. H.A. Robertson, T.K. McGee, Applying local knowledge: the contribution of oral history to wetland rehabilitation at Kanyapella Basin, Australia, J. Environ. Manag. 69 (3) (2003) 275–287. B. Schaffelke, J. Mellors, N.C. Duke, Water quality in the Great Barrier Reef region: responses of mangrove, seagrass and macroalgal communities, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 51 (1–4) (2005) 279–296. A. Shepherd, C. Bowler, Beyond the requirements: improving public participation in EIA, J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 40 (6) (1997) 725–738. R.A.M. Silvano, A. Begossi, Ethnoichthyology and fish conservation in the Piracicaba River (Brazil), J. Ethnobiol. 22 (2002) 285–306. S. Sobtzick, A. Grech, R. Coles, D. Cagnazzi, D. and H. Marsh, Status of the dugong population in the Gladstone area. A Report for Gladstone Ports Corporation Limited

[85] [86]

[87]

[88]

[89] [90] [91]

[92]

[93]

[94]

[95]

[96]

[97]

24

for Project CA 120017: monitoring of Dugongs (Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic EcosystemResearch )(TropWATER) (Publication), James Cook University, Townsville, 2013. W.R. Telfer, M.J. Garde, Indigenous knowledge of rock kangaroo ecology in western Arnhem Land, Australia, Human. Ecol. 34 (2006) 379–406. T.F. Thornton, A.M. Scheer, Collaborative engagement of local and traditional knowledge and science in marine environments: a review, Ecol. Soc. 17 (3) (2012) 8. J. Tibby, M.B. Lane, P.A. Gell, Local knowledge and environmental management: a cautionary tale from Lake Ainsworth, New South Wales, Australia, Environ. Conserv. 34 (04) (2007) 334–341. M. Valdés-Pizzini, C. García-Quijano, Coupling of humans, habitats and other species: a study of the fishers' traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in La Parguera, Caribb. J. Sci. 45 (2–3) (2009) 363–371. I. Vandebroek, V. Reyes-García, U.P. de Albuquerque, R. Bussmann, A. Pieroni, Local knowledge: who cares? J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 7 (1) (2011) 1–7. L. Visser, Coastal zone management from the social scientific perspective, J. Coast. Conserv. 5 (2) (1999) 145–148. M. Voyer, W. Gladstone, H. Goodall, Methods of social assessment in Marine Protected Area planning: is public participation enough? Mar. Policy 36 (2) (2012) 432–439. F.J. Walsh, P.V. Dobson, J.C. Douglas, Anpernirrentye: a framework for enhanced application of indigenous ecological knowledge in natural resource management, Ecol. Soc. 18 (3) (2013) 18. K.D. Warner, F. Kinslow, Manipulating risk communication: value predispositions shape public understandings of invasive species science in Hawaii, Public Underst. Sci. 22 (2) (2013) 203–218. D.C. Wilson, J. Raakjær, P. Degnbol, Local ecological knowledge and practical fisheries management in the tropics: a policy brief, Mar. Policy 30 (6) (2006) 794–801. C. Witt, I. Teakle, P. Ryan, P. Guard, Gladstone Harbour Numerical Modelling Calibration and Validation (EIS Appendix J1), BMT WBM Pty Ltd, Brisbane, QLD, 2009. S. Wyllie-Echeverria, K. Gunnarsson, M. Mateo, J. Borg, P. Renom, J. Kuo, A. Schanz, F. Hellblom, E. Jackson, G. Pergent, C. Pergent-Martini, M. Johnson, J. Sanchez-Lizaso, C. Boudouresque, K. Aioi, Protecting the seagrass biome: report from the traditional seagrass knowledge working group, Bull. Mar. Sci. 71 (2002) 1415–1417. M.H. Zuhair, P.A. Kurian, Socio-economic and political barriers to public participation in EIA: implications for sustainable development in the Maldives, Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 34 (2) (2016) 129–142.