- Email: [email protected]
Decision making for marine environments
Volume 24/Number
2/February
1992 0025-326X/92 $5.00+0.00 © 1992 Pergamon Press plc
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 24, No. 2, pp. 69-76, 1992.
Printed in Great Britain.
Viewpoint is a column which allows authors to express their Own opinions about current events.
Decision Making for Marine Environments R. A. KENCHINGTON
R. A. Kenchington worked for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, before moving to the Coastal Zone Inquiry, Resource Assessment Commission, Locked Bag 1, Canberra ACT, Australia.
Although the management of marine environments has been practised in parts of Asia and other traditional societies for millenia (Ruddle & Johannes, 1985), it is a relatively recent and rapidly developing concept in developed countries. In the late 19th century, the concept of needing to manage marine environments belonged to science fiction. Authoritative figures such as T. H. Huxley considered it quite improbable that humans would ever have significant widespread impacts upon marine environments (Cushing, 1988). By the mid 20th century, the first of the United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea started the process of development of a new jurisdictional framework in the face of the limitations of established concepts of territorial seas. At the end of the 20th century, IUCN (the World Conservation Union) had published a guide for planners and managers of Marine Protected Areas (Salm & Clark, 1984) and the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) considered that "'sustainable development, if not survival itself, depends on significant advances in the management of the oceans. Considerable changes will be required in our institutions and policies and more resources will have to be committed to ocean management. Not surprisingly, humans approach the business of making decisions about marine environments on the basis of long traditions and history of regulating terrestrial activities. The object of this paper is to introduce and discuss some of the ways in which decision making for the management of marine environments requires the development of an integrated strategic approach in some ways broader than those developed to address terrestrial issues. The literature is widespread but for this paper the sources cited are, wherever practicable, reviews or texts which provide access and discussion of the broader fields.
T h e Background to Marine D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g There is a long history of management by nations of activities in marine environments on an activity by activity basis. Within the narrow limits of the territorial sea abutting their coasts, nations generally legislated to regulate their own nationals and the activities of other nations on a sectoral basis with respect to shipping, fishing, recreational boating, coastal engineering and other matters. Beyond territorial waters lay the high seas where nations regulated the activities of their own nationals and vessels registered in a port of their jurisdiction. Otherwise, the high seas were free to all, subject to assertion and interpretation of national interests backed by effective naval power. The underlying regulatory basis available to nations with legal traditions based on Roman Law relates to common resources in national territory. Under this basis no individual may own the resources but any individual may harvest resources or navigate within the waters of the national territory. Regulation generally involves restricting or limiting, in the wider public interest, the rights of the individual under the Roman Law basis; thus, fisheries regulations restrict access, equipment and permissible catch. Navigation regulations limit freedoms in the interests of safety and control of the operation of vessels. Internationally the concept of the commons extends to the high seas beyond national territorial waters. This has become an issue in the mid and late 20th century with increasing appreciation of the linkages between terrestrial and marine environments and within marine environments. It has been reinforced with appreciation of the actual and potential scale and range of impacts of newly applied technologies. Making and implementing decisions to address such issues reveals limitations in 69
MarinePollutionBulletin established concepts and practices of national and international jurisdiction and legislative capacity.
Some Marine Environment Management Problems Marine environment management problems may be considered in terms of impacts to structure, process or amenity (Kenchington, 1990; Kenchington & Agardy, 1990). Structural impacts arise from deliberate, planned gross modification or destruction of ecosystems in order to make different uses of the areas in which they occur. Process impacts arise from alteration of physical, chemical or biological factors, often as a result of indirect, incidental and unintended impacts. Amenity impacts arise where changes in use or management alter the range of current and future options for use of natural areas and resources for a wide variety of purposes, including those not currently anticipated. Amenity impacts may arise from structural or process impacts or from resource or amenity competition arising from expanded or new uses. Some marine areas, particularly shorelines, estuaries and shallow seas, are subject to structural threats since they are liable to alienation for the creation of land; thus coral reef, mangrove and saltmarsh environments have been greatly reduced by reclamation (Carpenter, 1983; Salvat, 1987; Hamilton et al., 1983). Despite this, the harsh and alien nature of most of the seas is such that, in the absence of very strong economic pressures, the incentive to impose the structural impact of alienation is limited by technical difficulties and expense. The recognition of process threats was the basis of most of the major management initiatives of the mid 20th century. Overfishing, point source, diffuse and cumulative pollution of the seas from land and from the operations and accidents of shipping have provided the chief focus of much national and international marine environment management. Amenity threats are becoming increasingly complex and major issues in many marine environments. Where historical amenity issues may have involved relatively few, remote communities in fierce disputes about access to fish stocks, new uses, and new users with new technology, have emerged to compete with and displace the old.
Decisions on Structural Protection Protected Areas As on land, realization of the capacity to cause gross environmental change led those concerned to identify the need to protect marine areas. Some marine sites have particular ecological, cultural or aesthetic values which merit protection in a manner analogous to National Parks or other terrestrial categories of protective land use allocation. Recognizing this, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) convened a conference in Tokyo in 1975 which identified the need for a global representative network of marine protected areas (IUCN, 1976). IUCN (now the World Conservation Union) has pursued this objective 70
in the intervening years, and most recently has adopted policies with resolutions at its 37th and 38th General Assemblies in 1987 and 1990 respectively. These have been accompanied by a process of development and consultation over draft guidelines for the establishment of such marine protected areas (Kelleher & Kenchington, 1990) which started before the 37th General Assembly. Some communications difficulties have arisen because of the range of interpretations of the term Marine Protected Area. Silva et al. (1986) identified some 80 different variants. In summary they cover a range from: • a scientific research area of a few hectares closed to access for other purposes; to • small areas managed to protect or enhance the amenity for a use such as SCUBA diving or tourism; to • large areas in which a wide range of human activity is allowed, provided it does not damage the fish habitat structure or processes of the environment; to • a large zoned area to provide for multiple, ecologically sustainable, use, including development, commercial shipping and trawl fishing, providing that such activities are established and managed in a manner consistent with achieving overall conservation goals for the. area as a whole. The first three categories are particularly concerned with structural protection. The fourth is a broader strategic approach. Marine protected areas have a role in the conservation of genetic diversity but the extent of this role depends upon the scale of reproductive strategy, dispersal and range of the species concerned. The matter of scale may be illustrated by a drifting larva carried for 28 days at a net speed of 1 knot which will travel over 1000 km. Kenchington (1990) discussed the impact of scale and linkage and the consequent limitations and opportunities of the protected area concept in marine environments. In terrestrial environments, many ecological communities can be addressed by scales of 102-104 m. Such scales are generally appropriate for fixed or territorial components of intertidal and benthic communities but for planktonic components scales of 104-107 m are appropriate. The range of life cycle strategies dictates a range of management scales. Kenchington (1990) identified four types relevant to protected area management strategies. Type A. A fixed or territorial adult phase with a strategy, such as brooding, viviparity, or attached yolky eggs which does not involve planktonic larvae. Such species may have a limited adult and larval range. Survey and management scales of 102-104 m are appropriate. Sitespecific area protection may be critical for species management in a strategy similar to the terrestrial national park. Type B. A fixed or site-dependent phase with planktonic larvae or a large migratory range. The site may be a distinctive benthic structure or community, such as a coral reef. It may then be the nesting site for turtles and birds, the calving area for whales or the spawning area for pelagic fish. Site-specific protection contributes to species management and may address a
Volume24/Number 2/February 1992 critical life-cycle stage but it will often need to be supported by other measures over the range of the species concerned. In some circumstances seasonal protection by closure at sensitive periods may be an effective management approach. Type C. A limited adult territory and a planktonic larval phase, e.g. shore crabs, lobsters and territorial reef fish, or a nursery area (generally inshore) for planktonic or benthic larvae of species with a large adult range. Scales of 102-105 m apply. Site-specific management is an effective approach where suitable areas for adult territory or larval nursery are limited or threatened. This may be the case for species that use estuaries, mangroves, coral reefs, seagrasses or salt marshes where structural preservation may be important if uses such as bottom trawling, dredging or alienation threaten the habitat. Otherwise, species management is largely a matter of conserving processes and environmental quality throughout a significant proportion of the distributional range. fype D. For species with a pelagic or nektonic adult with planktonic larvae, scales of 104-107 m apply. Site specific management is unlikely to make a substantial contribution. Conservation and management are process related. The implication of scale and linkage is that the structural role of protected areas in the terrestrial sense is particularly applicable in situations in which a site is of prime importance for Type A species. It has a major role for Type B species but may not be effective unless supported by broader management strategies. It may be applicable to Type C species if they are widely stressed elsewhere in their range. It has little relevance to the protection or management of Type D species. Conservation of Type C and Type D species requires a strategic approach which may include protected areas.
is rarely possible to achieve a comprehensive assessment of the status quo. Usage patterns are dynamic--activities expand, new technologies are introduced, new activities are introduced and economic pressures on user communities vary. If management is to respond to such dynamics the system must incorporate the flexibility of review and revision to take account of new information. Many of these problems apply as well to terrestrial decision-making but the scale and linkage of marine issues greatly increases the complexity. The concentration of human activity and impact in the coastal fringe, and the linkage of process and impact through terrestrial runoff, tides and ocean currents, can make apparently remote events major factors in decision-making. Decision-making is further complicated by the common property nature of most marine and many coastal resources. On land, impact and amenity issues are managed largely through controls deriving from ownership, or proprietary rights to land and resources. The owner or assignee has broad rights to use, exploit or modify the resources of an area. Those rights may be limited in the public interest if their exercise adversely affects the interests of neighbours or the more distant community. Where owners or assignees rights are so limited there may be entitlement for compensation. The underlying concept is that the owner has the right to do anything which is not specifically prohibited. The situation is reflected in the language of planning. The proprietor may propose an action and the community may lodge an objection. The onus is on the community to sustain an objection; not on the landholder to demonstrate that the proposed action is sound or consistent with community objectives. The onus on the decision-maker is to determine whether a case has been established for the proposed action to be rejected. In the common property environment of the coast and shallow sea, an individual may take or use resources Decisions for Ecologically Sustainable but generally not, without specific authority, use or Development modify an area in a way which restricts public access to Integrating Structure, Process and Amenily the commons. A decision to allow such a use or The logic of decision making for ecologically modification effectively allocates communal proprietary sustainable development is conceptually simple. There rights to an individual or sub-group of human society. are three phased component tasks. The first involves The underlying concept is that an individual may not assessing the consequences or risk of impacts to the do anything which alienates or restricts the commons structure, process and amenity of the environment and unless specifically allowed. If an individual proposes natural resources arising from operation and accident in an action which reduces the access and amenity of the conduct of existing activities. The second is to decide the community the onus is on the proponent to whether controls are needed to reduce existing impacts demonstrate that the action is reasonable. As a and risks. The third is to develop a strategic framework consequence the onus of decision-making would appear within which sustainability, benefits and risks from to be reversed. The decision-making process will expansion of existing uses or introduction of new generally not allow an activity to take place unless it can activities may be evaluated. be demonstrated that, on clear and convincing evidence, Decision making occurs in a complex dynamic it is consistent with environmental and social goals for environment where information is scarce and new the area. The onus is on the decision-maker to be clearly information is being acquired. Marine research is costly persuaded on the evidence, concerning the ecological, in comparison to equivalent terrestrial studies and the economic and social considerations, that the proposed dynamics of the natural system are poorly understood. activity should be allowed. There is typically little information on the impacts of Two problems arise from this. The first is the difficulty individual activities. Such information as exists is of the decision-making task with respect to a common difficult to interpret in the context of other activities or property area if there is no prior strategy to guide the the variable dynamics of the natural systems affected. It decision-maker concerning the balance of ecological, 71
Marine Pollution Bulletin
economic and community interests. The second is the complexity of approval situations involving many agencies at different levels of government in areas where terrestrial and marine common property jurisdictions meet. Decisions on Use or Development
Structural use or development decisions generally relate to deliberate human-induced disturbance. The costs of that disturbance must be evaluated in terms of their environmental sustainability and weighed against the benefits claimed to flow from successful execution of the proposal. They may relate to development, alienation, alteration or destruction of habitat in a project such as 'reclamation', or construction of a harbour, dredged channel or causeway in a previously undisturbed natural ecosystem. Such decisions may relate to the expansion of an activity or the introduction of new technology which is economically efficient at the cost of structural impacts to the environment. Increasingly, such decisions are subject to some form of predictive environmental, social and economic impact assessment which takes into account structure, process and amenity issues. In the case of marine areas, the setting for such a decision is broadened by the common property nature of the resource and by the linkage of activities to distant events in a dynamic, naturally variable system. Efficient and equitable operation of a decision mechanism for assessing environmental, social and economic impacts increasingly involves the development of criteria and guidelines which establish the operational framework for proponents, other interested parties and the decision-makers. Such criteria or guidelines can be expected to apply generally unless related to an overriding broader strategic setting. On land this setting is typically provided by land use planning and zoning. In the common property environment of the shore and shallow sea there may be no such strategic setting with the consequence that permit decisions are made in isolation. Decisions on Resource Harvest
The first major thrust of marine environment management concerned the process problems of localized overfishing; regulation of fisheries and the access to stocks of fish was practised in the Baltic by the Hanseatic League in the 14th century and probably earlier (Bautier, 1971). By the late 19th century, the apparent decline in North Sea British fish stocks following the industrialization of fisheries had been investigated by a Royal Commission in 1866 and a Parliamentary Inquiry in 1893 (Cushing 1988). Berkes (1985) has described the fundamental problem of fisheries management in terms of the "tragedy of the commons". Cushing (1988) has provided an authoritative account of the interaction of problem definition, research, institution building and regulation in the attempt to achieve and maintain sustainable fisheries. Much of the thrust of fisheries management may be considered tO relate to the amenity of maximizing the ability to harvest particular species of fish. Fisheries research and management have broadened from a focus of the biology and population dynamics of fished species 72
to address the habitat and the ecology of the communities within which the target species occur (Cushing, 1988). Increasingly this is seen to relate to the maintenance of the quality of the productive marine environment. In turn, this involves a strategic framework within which sites of particular biological or economic significance can be identified and protected from a wide range of effects. Decisions on Pollution
The second major thrust of management of marine process impacts concerned pollution from ships (Mankaby, 1984) and from the land (Institute of Sanitary Engineering, Milan, 1982). The wide distribution of the consequences of marine pollution became generally appreciated in the 1960s as a consequence of spectacular accidents with large volume tankers. The wreck of the Torrey Canyon off south west England in 1967 and a sequence of similar accidents involving very large oil carrying vessels made a public issue of a series of problems which had hitherto been largely the concerns of marine scientists and shipping managers. Much of the momentum of marine environment management in the 1960s was focused on the management of pollution, whether from ships (Mankaby 1984) or from the inputs through rivers of terrestrial pollution (Institute of Sanitary Engineering, Milan, 1982). There are solid and developing institutions for research and management to address issues, such as pollution and overfishing which affect ecological processes. Nevertheless, the scale and linkage of marine systems are such that a broader context is needed. The difficulty of addressing land sourced pollution of marine environments is that of achieving effective long-range management and regulation which can address the apparent benefits to the polluter in the context of the cumulative costs to the environment and human users downstream and down current. In the case of shipping related impacts, the International Maritime Organization of the United Nations (IMO) has recognized the need for a strategic framework to address differential sensitivities of structure and process through the designation of particularly sensitive sea areas. These are areas of recognized high biological significance which should be avoided by shipping, or, where entry is essential, vessels should operate at a standard in excess of the normal duty of care of the Ship's Master. Additional protective measures such as compulsory pilotage may be required by the Sovereign State. Current Specially Sensitive Areas include the northern Great Barrier Reef and the waters of the Galapagos archipelago. The IMO has also produced the London Dumping Convention which covers dumping of materials into the ocean from ships and the dumping of ships. This convention provides a framework within which signatory nations manage and regulate dumping in their national waters and the activities of their national and registered vessels in international waters. In essence this involves strategic zoning decisions which identify sites which may, subject to permit and attached conditions, be used for dumping.
Volume 24/Number 2/February 1992
Developing a Co-ordinated Strategic Framework In the seas, the common property nature of most resources can expose them to rapid degradation (Berkes, 1985). This adds urgency to the need to develop a strategic framework for the protection, management, and sustainable use of marine resources and environments. Within the sphere of influence of a nation this requires an ability to regulate or avoid crossboundary influences. A consequence of management developments in recent decades is that several strategic frameworks are likely to apply within the waters of any nation. Typically they will address sectoral issues of fisheries, dumping, protected areas, tourism and recreation, coastal development, navigation aids and structures, and shipping lanes. What may be needed is a unifying strategic framework which co-ordinates the various policy objectives and provides a system for avoiding or settling inter-sectoral disputes. Such a framework may be conferred by a designated Marine Environment and Resource Management Commission (MERMC) approach which establishes very large areas managed for conservation and sustainable multiple use. In such areas the full range of ecologically sustainable activities may take place, subject to terms and conditions established openly by the MERM strategic planning process. The establishment and operation of Marine Protected Areas within the MERM area would be a usual component of management. The alternative is to address environment and resource management through a less structured process of co-ordination which addresses cross boundary concerns. Under this strategy, the formally designated protected areas, Marine National Parks, may be relatively small sites in which independent management concentrates on the functions of preservation, research and recreation which are the more familiar responsibilities of terrestrial National Park managers. Provided there is a competent and effective strategic planning mechanism which takes specific, and generally public, account of the activities, impacts and functions of all interests in the marine environment, there is little practical difference between the two approaches. Nevertheless, where a single user group such as fishing or marine transport has legislative or bureaucratic veto over the consideration of other interests, effective management for conservation and sustainable use is unlikely. An apparently unique example of the MERM ~tpproach is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Kelleher, 1986) which has been identified as demonstrating the potential of integrated marine resource management (Kenchington & Agardy, 1990). It provides an example of a framework for strategic planning and management of ecologically sustainable development of a marine area.
use", or sustainable development of a large area of recognized conservational significance. In this it anticipated the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN 1980). A unique feature was that the Act established legislative precedence over all Commonwealth and State legislation with the exception of some aspects of the regulation of shipping and transport which are subject to international agreements. A number of general accounts of the approach and extent of the GBRMP have been published (Kelleher & Kenchington, 1982; Kelleher, 1985, 1986), and most recently Kenchington (1990). The basic instrument of management strategy is a zoning plan, which is implemented through regulations. The zoning plan is prepared by a process which involves extensive consultation with the public and interest groups, which is adopted by the Parliament. The planning procedure is described in more detail by Kenchington (1990). Great Barrier Reef Marine Park zoning plans use a combination of areal, temporal, permit, equipment and quota controls. The provisions of the zoning plan establish purposes for which zones may be used or entered: • A use or purpose of entry may be specified as 'of right': any person may, without further permission or notification, undertake that use or purpose of entry subject to any condition specified in the plan; or • a use or purpose of entry may be specified as allowed only after prior notification of the Authority or its delegate; or • a use or purpose of entry may be specified as allowed only with a permit; or • a use or purpose of entry not specified as of right, after notification or by permit is not allowed except by a permit under the category of a use "consistent with the objectives of the zone". The effect of a zoning plan upon users is best illustrated by Table 1 which lists the objects of zones, TABLE 1 Objectives of zones of the central section, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. General Use 'A' Zone
To provide opportunities for reasonable general use consistent with the conservation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. General Use 'B' Zone
To provide for the conservation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park while providing opportunities for reasonable general use in areas that are free from trawling and generally free from shipping. Marine National Park 'A' Zone
To provide for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park while allowing opportunities for their appreciation and enjoyment by the public, including limited removal of natural resources. Marine National Park 'B' Zone
To provide for the protection of areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park while allowing opportunities for their appreciation and enjoyment by the public free from activities that remove natural resources. Scientific Research Zone
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act (1975) established a multiple use management approach providing specifically for conservation and "reasonable
To provide for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park while allowing opportunities for authorized research to be carried out free from disturbance from other human activities. Preservation Zone
To provide for the preservation of areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in their natural state undisturbed by human activities.
73
Marine Pollution Bulletin
o
0
~< (uo!lmado u! UOqA~/~IUO) osn polo!~ls~2 ~!pop~d to s~o~V -x-"
g O0
0
0 0 0 0
0
ZZ
Z
ZZZZ
Z
~z
z
zzzz
z
0
0
0
zzzzz
0
0
E
o
o .~ s
e,i
c~
_a
g,m
NN
2
.E
z
e~
.~
"N -~.
o
N
0
74
g E
Volume 24/Number 2/February 1992
and Table 2 which summarizes a range of activities under categories, "as of right" and "by permit" or "not allowed" as they apply in the zones and periodically restricted areas of the Central Section Zoning Plan. Where a permit is required, the decision-maker is required by regulation to have regard to particular criteria listed in Table 3. Permit decisions may be appealed. The net effect of the zoning plan, permit provisions, and regulations is to establish a defined resource conservation and use strategy over a large area. An important aspect of the approach is that uses are also subject to regulations under other laws where compliance with those regulations is not inconsistent with the provisions of the zoning plan. This has the effect that fisheries continue to be managed by fisheries managers within the framework established through the development of the zoning plan and regulations. The provisions of the Act make the zoning plan an inflexible instrument which cannot be readily altered. This is deliberate for the purpose of ensuring that the management strategies approved by the legislature are not altered by executive government or its officials without consideration by the legislature. This also protects officials from possible political pressure to make changes. Nevertheless the inflexibility limits freedom of action in daily management. Immediate management response is provided by the permit system which enables case-by-case consideration and control of new, major or sensitive activities. The demands upon this system are unpredictable and usually urgent. Longer-term management response to changes in use, in community attitudes and particularly to increased understanding of the ecosystem understanding is provided by a policy of reviewing zoning plans once they TABLE 3
Matters to be addressed by the decision-maker in considering an application for a permit: from Great Barrier Reef Marine Park regulations 13(AC)(4). (a) The objective of the zone; (b) the need to ensure the orderly and proper management of the Marine Park; (c) the likely effect of granting permission on future options for the Marine Park; (d) the conservation of the natural resources of the Marine Park; (e) the nature and scale of the proposed use in relation to the existing use and amenity, and the future or desirable use and amenity, of the relevant area and of nearby areas; (f) the likely effects of the proposed use on adjoining and adjacent areas and any possible effects of the proposed use on the environment and the adequacy of safeguards for the environment; (g) the means of transport for entry into, use within or departure from the zone or designated area and the adequacy of provisions for aircraft or vessel mooring, landing, taking off, parking, loading and unloading; (h) in relation to any structure, landing area, farming facility, vessel or work to which the proposed use relates: (i) the health and safety aspects involved, including the adequacy of construction; and (ii) the arrangements for removal upon expiration of the permission of the structure, landing area, farming facility or vessel or any other thing that is to be built, assembled, constructed or fixed in position as a result of that use; and (i) the arrangements for making good any damage caused to the Marine Park by the proposed activity.
have been in effect for about 5 years. There is, however, nothing to prevent the Authority deciding to review a zoning plan earlier. The approach is reinforced in the requirements which flow from the inclusion of the Great Barrier Reef on the World Heritage List and the Register of the National Heritage of Australia. The provisions of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act and the Australian Heritage Act bind the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority as the decision maker in permit applications. The Authority may not make a decision which introduces an adverse impact into the World Heritage area unless persuaded that the activity as proposed will not cause significant impacts to the World Heritage area and that there is no prudent or feasible alternative.
Discussion This paper argues that the introduction of a largescale overarching strategy is a necessary component for management of Ecologically Sustainable Development in coastal and marine areas. It provides some examples of sectoral strategic approaches and suggests that there are benefits in an interactive framework within which the component activities of fishing, shipping, coastal development, tourism and recreation, conservation, and dumping can be co-ordinated. The need for a strategic framework may be all the greater because the jurisdictional common property view of the seas and marine resources does not readily permit the operation of customary terrestrial methods of management of amenity by ownership or title to a site or area. The introduction of new, and the expansion of existing, uses leads increasingly to actual or potential conflicts of interests which cannot be resolved without some form of strategic framework. The establishment of such a framework is no easy matter because it is seen as restricting the independent powers of customary and established sectoral managers. In practice, the restriction of powers may have no impact on their ability to address their sectoral role; indeed co-ordination may make their activity more efficient by reducing inter-sectoral issues. Nevertheless, it must be expected that, at the very least, the process of establishing the co-ordinating framework will be viewed with considerable suspicion by a cautious sectoral manager. It is perhaps unsurprising that the first large-scale MERM approach was established in an area recognized beyond dispute as of overriding national and international environmental significance. It can reasonably be argued that, because of high recognized values and relatively low use and impact, the conditions for establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park were extremely favourable. Further, through section 38 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Act (1975), mineral exploration and extraction are not permitted in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Despite the special setting, it is suggested that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park management arrangements incorporate basic strategic mechanisms for 75
Marine Pollution Bulletin
ecologically sustainable management of the range of interests which can apply to a wide range of coastal and marine areas. The model would need to be revised to address other geographic, social usage, environmental, and legal situations including the emotive issue of mineral exploration and extraction, but it contains the necessary elements. These include a structured consultative framework for allocating activities to areas and a regulatory basis for establishing processes and guidelines for applicants, interested parties and decisionmakers concerning activities which may be allowed by permit. Most importantly, it establishes a body with the specific function of providing for conservation and reasonable use, or ecologically sustainable development. In the absence of so specific an assignment of responsibility, those long-term and underlying issues are typically submerged by the short-term urgency of consideration of sectoral demands. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Tundi Agardy (WWF-US), Professor Richard Hildreth (University of Oregon Ocean and Coastal Law Center), Dr. Arthur Gaines, (Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) and Graeme Kelleher (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority) for their contribution to various discussions which helped me to appreciate the linkage between some key themes from management, ecology, and the law relating to the coastal zone. Bautier, R. H. (1971). The Economic Development of Mediaeval Europe (translated from the French by Heather Karolyi). Harcourt Brace Javonevich, New York. Berkes, E (1985). Fishermen and the Tragedy of the Commons. Environ. Cons. 12, 199-206. Carpenter, R. (ed.) (1983). Natural Systems for Development. MacMillan, New York. Cushing, D. (1988). The Provident Sea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hamilton, L. S. & Snedaker, S. C. (eds). (1983). Handbook for Mangrove Area Management. United Nations Environment Program and East West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1976). Proceedings of an International Conference on Marine Parks and Reserves, Tokyo, 12-14 May 1975. IUCN Publications New Series 37. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1980). World Conservation Strategy: Living Resources Conservation for Sustainable Development. IUCN: Morges, Switzerland. Institute of Sanitary Engineering, Milan (1982). Waste Discharge into the Marine Environment. Polytechnic of Milan, Milan. Kelleher, G. (1985). The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In Marine Conservation: Challenge and Promise (J. Lien & R. Graham, eds), pp. 17--28. Marine Resource Institute, St. John's Newfoundland and Provincial Parks Association of Canada. Kelleher, G. (1986). Managing the Great Barrier Reef. Oceanus 29(2), 13-19. Kelleher, G. G. & Kenchington, R. A. (1982). Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: Making Development Compatible with Conservation. Ambio 11,262 267. Kelleher, G. & Kenchington, R. A. (1990). Draft Policy for Marine Conservation and Guidelines for the Establishment of Marine Protected Areas. In Marine EcologicalAreas in Canada (R. Graham, ed.), pp. 119-176. Canadian Council on Ecological Areas, University of Waterloo, Canada. Kenchington, R. A. (1990). Managing Marine Environments. Taylor and Francis, New York. Kenchington, R. A. & Agardy, T. (1990). Achieving Marine Conservation through Biosphere Reserve Planning and Management. Environ Cons. 17, 39-44. Mankaby, S. (ed.) (1984). The International Maritime Organisation. Croom Helm, London. Ruddle, K. & Johannes, R. E. (1985). The Traditional Knowledge and Management of Coastal Systems in Asia and the Pacific. UNESCO, Jakarta. Salm, R. V. & Clark, J. R. (1984). Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland. Salvat, B. (ed.) (1987). Human Impacts on Coral Reefs: Facts and Recommendations. Antenne Museum E.EH.E., French Polynesia. Silva, M. E., Gately, E. M.. & Desilvestre, I. (1986). A Bibliographic Listing of Coastal and Marine Protected Areas: A Global Survey. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
"But I couldn't possibly kiss you--there's no telling where you've b e e n .
76
"
2/February
1992 0025-326X/92 $5.00+0.00 © 1992 Pergamon Press plc
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Volume 24, No. 2, pp. 69-76, 1992.
Printed in Great Britain.
Viewpoint is a column which allows authors to express their Own opinions about current events.
Decision Making for Marine Environments R. A. KENCHINGTON
R. A. Kenchington worked for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, before moving to the Coastal Zone Inquiry, Resource Assessment Commission, Locked Bag 1, Canberra ACT, Australia.
Although the management of marine environments has been practised in parts of Asia and other traditional societies for millenia (Ruddle & Johannes, 1985), it is a relatively recent and rapidly developing concept in developed countries. In the late 19th century, the concept of needing to manage marine environments belonged to science fiction. Authoritative figures such as T. H. Huxley considered it quite improbable that humans would ever have significant widespread impacts upon marine environments (Cushing, 1988). By the mid 20th century, the first of the United Nations Conferences on the Law of the Sea started the process of development of a new jurisdictional framework in the face of the limitations of established concepts of territorial seas. At the end of the 20th century, IUCN (the World Conservation Union) had published a guide for planners and managers of Marine Protected Areas (Salm & Clark, 1984) and the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) considered that "'sustainable development, if not survival itself, depends on significant advances in the management of the oceans. Considerable changes will be required in our institutions and policies and more resources will have to be committed to ocean management. Not surprisingly, humans approach the business of making decisions about marine environments on the basis of long traditions and history of regulating terrestrial activities. The object of this paper is to introduce and discuss some of the ways in which decision making for the management of marine environments requires the development of an integrated strategic approach in some ways broader than those developed to address terrestrial issues. The literature is widespread but for this paper the sources cited are, wherever practicable, reviews or texts which provide access and discussion of the broader fields.
T h e Background to Marine D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g There is a long history of management by nations of activities in marine environments on an activity by activity basis. Within the narrow limits of the territorial sea abutting their coasts, nations generally legislated to regulate their own nationals and the activities of other nations on a sectoral basis with respect to shipping, fishing, recreational boating, coastal engineering and other matters. Beyond territorial waters lay the high seas where nations regulated the activities of their own nationals and vessels registered in a port of their jurisdiction. Otherwise, the high seas were free to all, subject to assertion and interpretation of national interests backed by effective naval power. The underlying regulatory basis available to nations with legal traditions based on Roman Law relates to common resources in national territory. Under this basis no individual may own the resources but any individual may harvest resources or navigate within the waters of the national territory. Regulation generally involves restricting or limiting, in the wider public interest, the rights of the individual under the Roman Law basis; thus, fisheries regulations restrict access, equipment and permissible catch. Navigation regulations limit freedoms in the interests of safety and control of the operation of vessels. Internationally the concept of the commons extends to the high seas beyond national territorial waters. This has become an issue in the mid and late 20th century with increasing appreciation of the linkages between terrestrial and marine environments and within marine environments. It has been reinforced with appreciation of the actual and potential scale and range of impacts of newly applied technologies. Making and implementing decisions to address such issues reveals limitations in 69
MarinePollutionBulletin established concepts and practices of national and international jurisdiction and legislative capacity.
Some Marine Environment Management Problems Marine environment management problems may be considered in terms of impacts to structure, process or amenity (Kenchington, 1990; Kenchington & Agardy, 1990). Structural impacts arise from deliberate, planned gross modification or destruction of ecosystems in order to make different uses of the areas in which they occur. Process impacts arise from alteration of physical, chemical or biological factors, often as a result of indirect, incidental and unintended impacts. Amenity impacts arise where changes in use or management alter the range of current and future options for use of natural areas and resources for a wide variety of purposes, including those not currently anticipated. Amenity impacts may arise from structural or process impacts or from resource or amenity competition arising from expanded or new uses. Some marine areas, particularly shorelines, estuaries and shallow seas, are subject to structural threats since they are liable to alienation for the creation of land; thus coral reef, mangrove and saltmarsh environments have been greatly reduced by reclamation (Carpenter, 1983; Salvat, 1987; Hamilton et al., 1983). Despite this, the harsh and alien nature of most of the seas is such that, in the absence of very strong economic pressures, the incentive to impose the structural impact of alienation is limited by technical difficulties and expense. The recognition of process threats was the basis of most of the major management initiatives of the mid 20th century. Overfishing, point source, diffuse and cumulative pollution of the seas from land and from the operations and accidents of shipping have provided the chief focus of much national and international marine environment management. Amenity threats are becoming increasingly complex and major issues in many marine environments. Where historical amenity issues may have involved relatively few, remote communities in fierce disputes about access to fish stocks, new uses, and new users with new technology, have emerged to compete with and displace the old.
Decisions on Structural Protection Protected Areas As on land, realization of the capacity to cause gross environmental change led those concerned to identify the need to protect marine areas. Some marine sites have particular ecological, cultural or aesthetic values which merit protection in a manner analogous to National Parks or other terrestrial categories of protective land use allocation. Recognizing this, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) convened a conference in Tokyo in 1975 which identified the need for a global representative network of marine protected areas (IUCN, 1976). IUCN (now the World Conservation Union) has pursued this objective 70
in the intervening years, and most recently has adopted policies with resolutions at its 37th and 38th General Assemblies in 1987 and 1990 respectively. These have been accompanied by a process of development and consultation over draft guidelines for the establishment of such marine protected areas (Kelleher & Kenchington, 1990) which started before the 37th General Assembly. Some communications difficulties have arisen because of the range of interpretations of the term Marine Protected Area. Silva et al. (1986) identified some 80 different variants. In summary they cover a range from: • a scientific research area of a few hectares closed to access for other purposes; to • small areas managed to protect or enhance the amenity for a use such as SCUBA diving or tourism; to • large areas in which a wide range of human activity is allowed, provided it does not damage the fish habitat structure or processes of the environment; to • a large zoned area to provide for multiple, ecologically sustainable, use, including development, commercial shipping and trawl fishing, providing that such activities are established and managed in a manner consistent with achieving overall conservation goals for the. area as a whole. The first three categories are particularly concerned with structural protection. The fourth is a broader strategic approach. Marine protected areas have a role in the conservation of genetic diversity but the extent of this role depends upon the scale of reproductive strategy, dispersal and range of the species concerned. The matter of scale may be illustrated by a drifting larva carried for 28 days at a net speed of 1 knot which will travel over 1000 km. Kenchington (1990) discussed the impact of scale and linkage and the consequent limitations and opportunities of the protected area concept in marine environments. In terrestrial environments, many ecological communities can be addressed by scales of 102-104 m. Such scales are generally appropriate for fixed or territorial components of intertidal and benthic communities but for planktonic components scales of 104-107 m are appropriate. The range of life cycle strategies dictates a range of management scales. Kenchington (1990) identified four types relevant to protected area management strategies. Type A. A fixed or territorial adult phase with a strategy, such as brooding, viviparity, or attached yolky eggs which does not involve planktonic larvae. Such species may have a limited adult and larval range. Survey and management scales of 102-104 m are appropriate. Sitespecific area protection may be critical for species management in a strategy similar to the terrestrial national park. Type B. A fixed or site-dependent phase with planktonic larvae or a large migratory range. The site may be a distinctive benthic structure or community, such as a coral reef. It may then be the nesting site for turtles and birds, the calving area for whales or the spawning area for pelagic fish. Site-specific protection contributes to species management and may address a
Volume24/Number 2/February 1992 critical life-cycle stage but it will often need to be supported by other measures over the range of the species concerned. In some circumstances seasonal protection by closure at sensitive periods may be an effective management approach. Type C. A limited adult territory and a planktonic larval phase, e.g. shore crabs, lobsters and territorial reef fish, or a nursery area (generally inshore) for planktonic or benthic larvae of species with a large adult range. Scales of 102-105 m apply. Site-specific management is an effective approach where suitable areas for adult territory or larval nursery are limited or threatened. This may be the case for species that use estuaries, mangroves, coral reefs, seagrasses or salt marshes where structural preservation may be important if uses such as bottom trawling, dredging or alienation threaten the habitat. Otherwise, species management is largely a matter of conserving processes and environmental quality throughout a significant proportion of the distributional range. fype D. For species with a pelagic or nektonic adult with planktonic larvae, scales of 104-107 m apply. Site specific management is unlikely to make a substantial contribution. Conservation and management are process related. The implication of scale and linkage is that the structural role of protected areas in the terrestrial sense is particularly applicable in situations in which a site is of prime importance for Type A species. It has a major role for Type B species but may not be effective unless supported by broader management strategies. It may be applicable to Type C species if they are widely stressed elsewhere in their range. It has little relevance to the protection or management of Type D species. Conservation of Type C and Type D species requires a strategic approach which may include protected areas.
is rarely possible to achieve a comprehensive assessment of the status quo. Usage patterns are dynamic--activities expand, new technologies are introduced, new activities are introduced and economic pressures on user communities vary. If management is to respond to such dynamics the system must incorporate the flexibility of review and revision to take account of new information. Many of these problems apply as well to terrestrial decision-making but the scale and linkage of marine issues greatly increases the complexity. The concentration of human activity and impact in the coastal fringe, and the linkage of process and impact through terrestrial runoff, tides and ocean currents, can make apparently remote events major factors in decision-making. Decision-making is further complicated by the common property nature of most marine and many coastal resources. On land, impact and amenity issues are managed largely through controls deriving from ownership, or proprietary rights to land and resources. The owner or assignee has broad rights to use, exploit or modify the resources of an area. Those rights may be limited in the public interest if their exercise adversely affects the interests of neighbours or the more distant community. Where owners or assignees rights are so limited there may be entitlement for compensation. The underlying concept is that the owner has the right to do anything which is not specifically prohibited. The situation is reflected in the language of planning. The proprietor may propose an action and the community may lodge an objection. The onus is on the community to sustain an objection; not on the landholder to demonstrate that the proposed action is sound or consistent with community objectives. The onus on the decision-maker is to determine whether a case has been established for the proposed action to be rejected. In the common property environment of the coast and shallow sea, an individual may take or use resources Decisions for Ecologically Sustainable but generally not, without specific authority, use or Development modify an area in a way which restricts public access to Integrating Structure, Process and Amenily the commons. A decision to allow such a use or The logic of decision making for ecologically modification effectively allocates communal proprietary sustainable development is conceptually simple. There rights to an individual or sub-group of human society. are three phased component tasks. The first involves The underlying concept is that an individual may not assessing the consequences or risk of impacts to the do anything which alienates or restricts the commons structure, process and amenity of the environment and unless specifically allowed. If an individual proposes natural resources arising from operation and accident in an action which reduces the access and amenity of the conduct of existing activities. The second is to decide the community the onus is on the proponent to whether controls are needed to reduce existing impacts demonstrate that the action is reasonable. As a and risks. The third is to develop a strategic framework consequence the onus of decision-making would appear within which sustainability, benefits and risks from to be reversed. The decision-making process will expansion of existing uses or introduction of new generally not allow an activity to take place unless it can activities may be evaluated. be demonstrated that, on clear and convincing evidence, Decision making occurs in a complex dynamic it is consistent with environmental and social goals for environment where information is scarce and new the area. The onus is on the decision-maker to be clearly information is being acquired. Marine research is costly persuaded on the evidence, concerning the ecological, in comparison to equivalent terrestrial studies and the economic and social considerations, that the proposed dynamics of the natural system are poorly understood. activity should be allowed. There is typically little information on the impacts of Two problems arise from this. The first is the difficulty individual activities. Such information as exists is of the decision-making task with respect to a common difficult to interpret in the context of other activities or property area if there is no prior strategy to guide the the variable dynamics of the natural systems affected. It decision-maker concerning the balance of ecological, 71
Marine Pollution Bulletin
economic and community interests. The second is the complexity of approval situations involving many agencies at different levels of government in areas where terrestrial and marine common property jurisdictions meet. Decisions on Use or Development
Structural use or development decisions generally relate to deliberate human-induced disturbance. The costs of that disturbance must be evaluated in terms of their environmental sustainability and weighed against the benefits claimed to flow from successful execution of the proposal. They may relate to development, alienation, alteration or destruction of habitat in a project such as 'reclamation', or construction of a harbour, dredged channel or causeway in a previously undisturbed natural ecosystem. Such decisions may relate to the expansion of an activity or the introduction of new technology which is economically efficient at the cost of structural impacts to the environment. Increasingly, such decisions are subject to some form of predictive environmental, social and economic impact assessment which takes into account structure, process and amenity issues. In the case of marine areas, the setting for such a decision is broadened by the common property nature of the resource and by the linkage of activities to distant events in a dynamic, naturally variable system. Efficient and equitable operation of a decision mechanism for assessing environmental, social and economic impacts increasingly involves the development of criteria and guidelines which establish the operational framework for proponents, other interested parties and the decision-makers. Such criteria or guidelines can be expected to apply generally unless related to an overriding broader strategic setting. On land this setting is typically provided by land use planning and zoning. In the common property environment of the shore and shallow sea there may be no such strategic setting with the consequence that permit decisions are made in isolation. Decisions on Resource Harvest
The first major thrust of marine environment management concerned the process problems of localized overfishing; regulation of fisheries and the access to stocks of fish was practised in the Baltic by the Hanseatic League in the 14th century and probably earlier (Bautier, 1971). By the late 19th century, the apparent decline in North Sea British fish stocks following the industrialization of fisheries had been investigated by a Royal Commission in 1866 and a Parliamentary Inquiry in 1893 (Cushing 1988). Berkes (1985) has described the fundamental problem of fisheries management in terms of the "tragedy of the commons". Cushing (1988) has provided an authoritative account of the interaction of problem definition, research, institution building and regulation in the attempt to achieve and maintain sustainable fisheries. Much of the thrust of fisheries management may be considered tO relate to the amenity of maximizing the ability to harvest particular species of fish. Fisheries research and management have broadened from a focus of the biology and population dynamics of fished species 72
to address the habitat and the ecology of the communities within which the target species occur (Cushing, 1988). Increasingly this is seen to relate to the maintenance of the quality of the productive marine environment. In turn, this involves a strategic framework within which sites of particular biological or economic significance can be identified and protected from a wide range of effects. Decisions on Pollution
The second major thrust of management of marine process impacts concerned pollution from ships (Mankaby, 1984) and from the land (Institute of Sanitary Engineering, Milan, 1982). The wide distribution of the consequences of marine pollution became generally appreciated in the 1960s as a consequence of spectacular accidents with large volume tankers. The wreck of the Torrey Canyon off south west England in 1967 and a sequence of similar accidents involving very large oil carrying vessels made a public issue of a series of problems which had hitherto been largely the concerns of marine scientists and shipping managers. Much of the momentum of marine environment management in the 1960s was focused on the management of pollution, whether from ships (Mankaby 1984) or from the inputs through rivers of terrestrial pollution (Institute of Sanitary Engineering, Milan, 1982). There are solid and developing institutions for research and management to address issues, such as pollution and overfishing which affect ecological processes. Nevertheless, the scale and linkage of marine systems are such that a broader context is needed. The difficulty of addressing land sourced pollution of marine environments is that of achieving effective long-range management and regulation which can address the apparent benefits to the polluter in the context of the cumulative costs to the environment and human users downstream and down current. In the case of shipping related impacts, the International Maritime Organization of the United Nations (IMO) has recognized the need for a strategic framework to address differential sensitivities of structure and process through the designation of particularly sensitive sea areas. These are areas of recognized high biological significance which should be avoided by shipping, or, where entry is essential, vessels should operate at a standard in excess of the normal duty of care of the Ship's Master. Additional protective measures such as compulsory pilotage may be required by the Sovereign State. Current Specially Sensitive Areas include the northern Great Barrier Reef and the waters of the Galapagos archipelago. The IMO has also produced the London Dumping Convention which covers dumping of materials into the ocean from ships and the dumping of ships. This convention provides a framework within which signatory nations manage and regulate dumping in their national waters and the activities of their national and registered vessels in international waters. In essence this involves strategic zoning decisions which identify sites which may, subject to permit and attached conditions, be used for dumping.
Volume 24/Number 2/February 1992
Developing a Co-ordinated Strategic Framework In the seas, the common property nature of most resources can expose them to rapid degradation (Berkes, 1985). This adds urgency to the need to develop a strategic framework for the protection, management, and sustainable use of marine resources and environments. Within the sphere of influence of a nation this requires an ability to regulate or avoid crossboundary influences. A consequence of management developments in recent decades is that several strategic frameworks are likely to apply within the waters of any nation. Typically they will address sectoral issues of fisheries, dumping, protected areas, tourism and recreation, coastal development, navigation aids and structures, and shipping lanes. What may be needed is a unifying strategic framework which co-ordinates the various policy objectives and provides a system for avoiding or settling inter-sectoral disputes. Such a framework may be conferred by a designated Marine Environment and Resource Management Commission (MERMC) approach which establishes very large areas managed for conservation and sustainable multiple use. In such areas the full range of ecologically sustainable activities may take place, subject to terms and conditions established openly by the MERM strategic planning process. The establishment and operation of Marine Protected Areas within the MERM area would be a usual component of management. The alternative is to address environment and resource management through a less structured process of co-ordination which addresses cross boundary concerns. Under this strategy, the formally designated protected areas, Marine National Parks, may be relatively small sites in which independent management concentrates on the functions of preservation, research and recreation which are the more familiar responsibilities of terrestrial National Park managers. Provided there is a competent and effective strategic planning mechanism which takes specific, and generally public, account of the activities, impacts and functions of all interests in the marine environment, there is little practical difference between the two approaches. Nevertheless, where a single user group such as fishing or marine transport has legislative or bureaucratic veto over the consideration of other interests, effective management for conservation and sustainable use is unlikely. An apparently unique example of the MERM ~tpproach is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Kelleher, 1986) which has been identified as demonstrating the potential of integrated marine resource management (Kenchington & Agardy, 1990). It provides an example of a framework for strategic planning and management of ecologically sustainable development of a marine area.
use", or sustainable development of a large area of recognized conservational significance. In this it anticipated the World Conservation Strategy (IUCN 1980). A unique feature was that the Act established legislative precedence over all Commonwealth and State legislation with the exception of some aspects of the regulation of shipping and transport which are subject to international agreements. A number of general accounts of the approach and extent of the GBRMP have been published (Kelleher & Kenchington, 1982; Kelleher, 1985, 1986), and most recently Kenchington (1990). The basic instrument of management strategy is a zoning plan, which is implemented through regulations. The zoning plan is prepared by a process which involves extensive consultation with the public and interest groups, which is adopted by the Parliament. The planning procedure is described in more detail by Kenchington (1990). Great Barrier Reef Marine Park zoning plans use a combination of areal, temporal, permit, equipment and quota controls. The provisions of the zoning plan establish purposes for which zones may be used or entered: • A use or purpose of entry may be specified as 'of right': any person may, without further permission or notification, undertake that use or purpose of entry subject to any condition specified in the plan; or • a use or purpose of entry may be specified as allowed only after prior notification of the Authority or its delegate; or • a use or purpose of entry may be specified as allowed only with a permit; or • a use or purpose of entry not specified as of right, after notification or by permit is not allowed except by a permit under the category of a use "consistent with the objectives of the zone". The effect of a zoning plan upon users is best illustrated by Table 1 which lists the objects of zones, TABLE 1 Objectives of zones of the central section, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. General Use 'A' Zone
To provide opportunities for reasonable general use consistent with the conservation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. General Use 'B' Zone
To provide for the conservation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park while providing opportunities for reasonable general use in areas that are free from trawling and generally free from shipping. Marine National Park 'A' Zone
To provide for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park while allowing opportunities for their appreciation and enjoyment by the public, including limited removal of natural resources. Marine National Park 'B' Zone
To provide for the protection of areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park while allowing opportunities for their appreciation and enjoyment by the public free from activities that remove natural resources. Scientific Research Zone
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act (1975) established a multiple use management approach providing specifically for conservation and "reasonable
To provide for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park while allowing opportunities for authorized research to be carried out free from disturbance from other human activities. Preservation Zone
To provide for the preservation of areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in their natural state undisturbed by human activities.
73
Marine Pollution Bulletin
o
0
~< (uo!lmado u! UOqA~/~IUO) osn polo!~ls~2 ~!pop~d to s~o~V -x-"
g O0
0
0 0 0 0
0
ZZ
Z
ZZZZ
Z
~z
z
zzzz
z
0
0
0
zzzzz
0
0
E
o
o .~ s
e,i
c~
_a
g,m
NN
2
.E
z
e~
.~
"N -~.
o
N
0
74
g E
Volume 24/Number 2/February 1992
and Table 2 which summarizes a range of activities under categories, "as of right" and "by permit" or "not allowed" as they apply in the zones and periodically restricted areas of the Central Section Zoning Plan. Where a permit is required, the decision-maker is required by regulation to have regard to particular criteria listed in Table 3. Permit decisions may be appealed. The net effect of the zoning plan, permit provisions, and regulations is to establish a defined resource conservation and use strategy over a large area. An important aspect of the approach is that uses are also subject to regulations under other laws where compliance with those regulations is not inconsistent with the provisions of the zoning plan. This has the effect that fisheries continue to be managed by fisheries managers within the framework established through the development of the zoning plan and regulations. The provisions of the Act make the zoning plan an inflexible instrument which cannot be readily altered. This is deliberate for the purpose of ensuring that the management strategies approved by the legislature are not altered by executive government or its officials without consideration by the legislature. This also protects officials from possible political pressure to make changes. Nevertheless the inflexibility limits freedom of action in daily management. Immediate management response is provided by the permit system which enables case-by-case consideration and control of new, major or sensitive activities. The demands upon this system are unpredictable and usually urgent. Longer-term management response to changes in use, in community attitudes and particularly to increased understanding of the ecosystem understanding is provided by a policy of reviewing zoning plans once they TABLE 3
Matters to be addressed by the decision-maker in considering an application for a permit: from Great Barrier Reef Marine Park regulations 13(AC)(4). (a) The objective of the zone; (b) the need to ensure the orderly and proper management of the Marine Park; (c) the likely effect of granting permission on future options for the Marine Park; (d) the conservation of the natural resources of the Marine Park; (e) the nature and scale of the proposed use in relation to the existing use and amenity, and the future or desirable use and amenity, of the relevant area and of nearby areas; (f) the likely effects of the proposed use on adjoining and adjacent areas and any possible effects of the proposed use on the environment and the adequacy of safeguards for the environment; (g) the means of transport for entry into, use within or departure from the zone or designated area and the adequacy of provisions for aircraft or vessel mooring, landing, taking off, parking, loading and unloading; (h) in relation to any structure, landing area, farming facility, vessel or work to which the proposed use relates: (i) the health and safety aspects involved, including the adequacy of construction; and (ii) the arrangements for removal upon expiration of the permission of the structure, landing area, farming facility or vessel or any other thing that is to be built, assembled, constructed or fixed in position as a result of that use; and (i) the arrangements for making good any damage caused to the Marine Park by the proposed activity.
have been in effect for about 5 years. There is, however, nothing to prevent the Authority deciding to review a zoning plan earlier. The approach is reinforced in the requirements which flow from the inclusion of the Great Barrier Reef on the World Heritage List and the Register of the National Heritage of Australia. The provisions of the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act and the Australian Heritage Act bind the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority as the decision maker in permit applications. The Authority may not make a decision which introduces an adverse impact into the World Heritage area unless persuaded that the activity as proposed will not cause significant impacts to the World Heritage area and that there is no prudent or feasible alternative.
Discussion This paper argues that the introduction of a largescale overarching strategy is a necessary component for management of Ecologically Sustainable Development in coastal and marine areas. It provides some examples of sectoral strategic approaches and suggests that there are benefits in an interactive framework within which the component activities of fishing, shipping, coastal development, tourism and recreation, conservation, and dumping can be co-ordinated. The need for a strategic framework may be all the greater because the jurisdictional common property view of the seas and marine resources does not readily permit the operation of customary terrestrial methods of management of amenity by ownership or title to a site or area. The introduction of new, and the expansion of existing, uses leads increasingly to actual or potential conflicts of interests which cannot be resolved without some form of strategic framework. The establishment of such a framework is no easy matter because it is seen as restricting the independent powers of customary and established sectoral managers. In practice, the restriction of powers may have no impact on their ability to address their sectoral role; indeed co-ordination may make their activity more efficient by reducing inter-sectoral issues. Nevertheless, it must be expected that, at the very least, the process of establishing the co-ordinating framework will be viewed with considerable suspicion by a cautious sectoral manager. It is perhaps unsurprising that the first large-scale MERM approach was established in an area recognized beyond dispute as of overriding national and international environmental significance. It can reasonably be argued that, because of high recognized values and relatively low use and impact, the conditions for establishment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park were extremely favourable. Further, through section 38 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Act (1975), mineral exploration and extraction are not permitted in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Despite the special setting, it is suggested that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park management arrangements incorporate basic strategic mechanisms for 75
Marine Pollution Bulletin
ecologically sustainable management of the range of interests which can apply to a wide range of coastal and marine areas. The model would need to be revised to address other geographic, social usage, environmental, and legal situations including the emotive issue of mineral exploration and extraction, but it contains the necessary elements. These include a structured consultative framework for allocating activities to areas and a regulatory basis for establishing processes and guidelines for applicants, interested parties and decisionmakers concerning activities which may be allowed by permit. Most importantly, it establishes a body with the specific function of providing for conservation and reasonable use, or ecologically sustainable development. In the absence of so specific an assignment of responsibility, those long-term and underlying issues are typically submerged by the short-term urgency of consideration of sectoral demands. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Tundi Agardy (WWF-US), Professor Richard Hildreth (University of Oregon Ocean and Coastal Law Center), Dr. Arthur Gaines, (Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) and Graeme Kelleher (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority) for their contribution to various discussions which helped me to appreciate the linkage between some key themes from management, ecology, and the law relating to the coastal zone. Bautier, R. H. (1971). The Economic Development of Mediaeval Europe (translated from the French by Heather Karolyi). Harcourt Brace Javonevich, New York. Berkes, E (1985). Fishermen and the Tragedy of the Commons. Environ. Cons. 12, 199-206. Carpenter, R. (ed.) (1983). Natural Systems for Development. MacMillan, New York. Cushing, D. (1988). The Provident Sea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hamilton, L. S. & Snedaker, S. C. (eds). (1983). Handbook for Mangrove Area Management. United Nations Environment Program and East West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1976). Proceedings of an International Conference on Marine Parks and Reserves, Tokyo, 12-14 May 1975. IUCN Publications New Series 37. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1980). World Conservation Strategy: Living Resources Conservation for Sustainable Development. IUCN: Morges, Switzerland. Institute of Sanitary Engineering, Milan (1982). Waste Discharge into the Marine Environment. Polytechnic of Milan, Milan. Kelleher, G. (1985). The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In Marine Conservation: Challenge and Promise (J. Lien & R. Graham, eds), pp. 17--28. Marine Resource Institute, St. John's Newfoundland and Provincial Parks Association of Canada. Kelleher, G. (1986). Managing the Great Barrier Reef. Oceanus 29(2), 13-19. Kelleher, G. G. & Kenchington, R. A. (1982). Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: Making Development Compatible with Conservation. Ambio 11,262 267. Kelleher, G. & Kenchington, R. A. (1990). Draft Policy for Marine Conservation and Guidelines for the Establishment of Marine Protected Areas. In Marine EcologicalAreas in Canada (R. Graham, ed.), pp. 119-176. Canadian Council on Ecological Areas, University of Waterloo, Canada. Kenchington, R. A. (1990). Managing Marine Environments. Taylor and Francis, New York. Kenchington, R. A. & Agardy, T. (1990). Achieving Marine Conservation through Biosphere Reserve Planning and Management. Environ Cons. 17, 39-44. Mankaby, S. (ed.) (1984). The International Maritime Organisation. Croom Helm, London. Ruddle, K. & Johannes, R. E. (1985). The Traditional Knowledge and Management of Coastal Systems in Asia and the Pacific. UNESCO, Jakarta. Salm, R. V. & Clark, J. R. (1984). Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for Planners and Managers. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland. Salvat, B. (ed.) (1987). Human Impacts on Coral Reefs: Facts and Recommendations. Antenne Museum E.EH.E., French Polynesia. Silva, M. E., Gately, E. M.. & Desilvestre, I. (1986). A Bibliographic Listing of Coastal and Marine Protected Areas: A Global Survey. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
"But I couldn't possibly kiss you--there's no telling where you've b e e n .
76
"