- Email: [email protected]
Environmental sustainability and the public: responses to a proposed marine reserve at Jervis Bay, New South Wales, Australia
PII:
Ocean & Coastal Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 1-16, 1996 Copyright ~) 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Northern Ireland. All rights reserved S0964-5691196)00024-5 0964-5691/96$15.00 + 0.00
ELSEVIER
Environmental sustainability and the public: responses to a proposed marine reserve at Jervis Bay, New South Wales, Australia Morgan Sant School of Geography, University of New South Wales, Australia (Received 18 July 1995; accepted 8 February 1996)
ABSTRACT The establishment of a marine reserve at Jervis Bay was proposed in
1994. The aim of the proposal was to ensure the environmental sustainability of an important coastal resource which is subjected to multiple uses. However, there was not unanimous approval for the proposal. This paper describes the proposal and discusses the results o f a sample survey carried out to obtain information about peoples' use of the bay and their attitudes towards a marine reserve. A case is made for treating environmental management as conflict management and giving more attention to critics and opponents of the proposal. Copyright ~) 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd.
1. I N T R O D U C T I O N If the concept of sustainable development is to be meaningful it needs to be backed up by practical measures as well as by broad, wellintentioned policies. It needs, moreover, to be acknowledged in the actions of ordinary people. Despite being a global concept, it is at the local level that sustainability stands or falls. Application of sustainability at the local level is probably as difficult as acceptance of the global principle. After all, it costs nothing to embrace an idea--until one is required to act u p o n it. For example, we would all agree that overfishing is detrimental and should stop. But it is not so easy for a fish-dependent community to give up its livelihood, or even part of it, if there is no alternative means of support. Likewise, it is not difficult to support the principle of marine reserves--they appeal to our higher motives by protecting nature and conserving resources at 1
2
M. Sant
a time when both are under threat. However, even when it is obvious that conservation would ensure the long-term viability of a resource there is no guarantee that everyone would support such action. As Ricketts 1 argued with reference to proposed marine reserves, there are conflicts with residential and fishing activities. Much depends on: (a) what private interests have to be given up; (b) the equity of reduced resource consumption; and (c) the adequacy of compensation. Self-interest is not the only barrier. It may also be difficult to get a group of people who accept the need for conservation to agree on the m e a n s of achieving it. Consider what may be required: an agreed body of knowledge about the ecosystem (disagreement among scientists is not uncommon); acceptance of where lines defining conservation zones should be drawn; consensus about which bits of a renewable resource can be removed without causing irreversible damage; and so on. There is much room for debate about details, even when principles have been agreed. Hence the purpose of this paper. It is sometimes worthwhile stating the obvious, if only because the obvious is often overlooked. This is that environmental management almost inevitably requires conflict management. In turn, conflict management needs a clear understanding of the nature of opposition to a proposed action or plan of management. It is not sufficient to rely on reports, for example, that a majority favours a principle of conservation, especially if it costs them nothing to support it. What is more important is to look carefully at the motives for, and nature of the opposition who are more likely to hold stronger views than the supporters, because they have more to lose. How one deals with the opposition can have a profound bearing on the eventual effectiveness of environmental management. These days management increasingly involves dealing with multiple uses, which is likely to mean several dimensions of opinion among a wide variety of interests. It is to be hoped that the growing focus on integrated coastal zone management (see for example, Cicin-Sain 2 and O E C D 3) will lead to improved conflict management. At present, however, integrated management emphasises rational resource use and institutional integration, rather than the accommodation and resolution of conflict among interest groups. There is still, as White et al. 4 have argued, a strong need to develop community-based management. This paper examines an important case of a conservation policy proposed for an area of considerable environmental importance. Jervis Bay is located about 180 kilometres south of Sydney, putting it within a 3 hour travel time of about 4.5 million people (see Fig. 1). The bay is a large (124 km2), marine dominated, semi-enclosed water body, located
Environmental sustainability and the public
Le
~
/~ (
~
3
WoUongong
GoulbmJc~_...~j u ~f ~
~
N
-
° ~"~'Nowra 7,
~ /~'~(-~ Canbe~~.. ~/" of 'f,~JBayJervis ~ ---------c.J \~.a/ Shoalhaven ..~ NBraidw°°dl"~~/ ~'~'~~s ~' Bh°ur ~'~Uay c.,~'~'e ~" ~
3 hou
'~~ 051020304050 Ki-~omete='~
~ Connecti Highway(TR=Road nroad g No) 3hourS ~..... ~"Second graderoad Railway -"~Distancesinkm ~'~Traveltimecontours
Fig. 1. Regional location.
where the warm and cool eastern Pacific ocean currents meet. Ecologically it contains a number of different habitats: mangroves, sea grass, sandy and muddy sediments, rocky reefs, intertidal platforms, underwater cliffs. 5 As a result, the bay and its adjacent oceanic waters support a wide variety of marine life, including some 200 species of fish and a permanent population of dolphins (a tourist attraction in itself). Over the years there has been a small commercial fishery in the bay, including scallop dredging (now prohibited due to overfishing) and beach hauling for seasonally migrating species. The quality of the marine environment and the landscapes surrounding the bay have provided a rich amenity and attracted residential development in beach-front settlements and a fast growing recreational/tourist sector
4
M. Sant
based on the beaches and the water. Recreational line-fishing is a major activity from boats and shore. The catch is about half of that from the commercial fishing (65 tonnes compared with 126 tonnes) but the total economic value generated by the recreational activity is probably 3 or 4 times greater. The bay is also a leading site for scuba-diving, which now supports a growing number of jobs. The other prominent user of the bay is the Australian Navy, which has an officer training establishment there (HMAS Creswell) and also uses the bay for other training purposes. This, in fact, is a major consideration in resource management--uses of the bay have to be consistent with the Naval Waters Act (1918) and the Coastal Waters (State Title) Act of 1980. The significance of this legislation is that no development can take place in Jervis Bay if it interferes or is likely to interfere with naval uses. Thus there are likely to be limitations on such activities as commercial port development, mariculture or recreational boating infrastructure. In a general sense, restrictions for military purposes may assist conservation by keeping out some activities, but they do so at a cost of allowing other activities, such as bombing ranges or channel dredging. Interestingly, the literature on integrated coastal zone management has little to say about military uses. Not without some justification, Jervis Bay has been described by the Australian Conservation Foundation (and others) as the 'jewel in the crown' of coastal New South Wales. However, by the early 1990s the bay was beginning to exhibit signs of stress, leading the NSW Department of Fisheries to develop and publish (in mid-1994) a proposal to create a marine reserve. 6 The proposal then went through a public consultation process. Brochures were produced summarising the scheme (which could be read about in more detail in a two volume report produced by the Department of Fisheries) and the public was invited to respond to a set of questions (listed in the next section). During the consultation period a separate survey was carried out, using a quota sample, to gain opinions and information from about 250 residents of the area, most of whom had not responded (and did not intend to respond) to the brochure. The aim of the survey was to identify reactions to the proposed marine reserve. Did people support it? If not, why not? Were supporters and non-supporters significantly different kinds of people with different interests at stake? In other words, the study was concerned with how people respond to a proposal to enhance sustainability on their own doorstep. It has some similarities to a recent study conducted by Wolfenden et al. 7 in New Zealand, which also emphasised the importance of community participation in environmental planning and management.
Environmental sustainability and the public
5
2. T H E P R O P O S E D M A R I N E R E S E R V E The ecological importance of the bay and the threats coming from growing residential and recreational demands provided the Department of Fisheries with the justification for proposing a marine reserve. The objectJLves expressed in the plan were fundamentally geared to sustainability and could have come straight from an environmentalist's textbook. The primary objective was: to protect, conserve and manage Jervis Bay, and its adjacent waters, as an example of a unique combination of NSW's marine and estuarine ecosystems, and to maintain the Reserve's ecological diversity, productivity, integrity and significance. The two main features of the proposal were: (a) division of the Bay and adjacent waters into zones of permissible use--Sanctuary, Refuge and General Use (Fig. 2); and (b) specification of the permissible activities in each zone (Table 1). Together they provide a hierarchy of protection and this strategy is believed to allow for multiple use of the bay whilst protecting the critical habitats. Thus, for example, mangrove and seagrass habitats are mainly in the Sanctuary zone and would have the p~rotection of the buffer areas designated as Refuge zones. The General Use zone has few restrictions, except to exclude activities that would adversely affect the marine reserve. In the wider context of marine conservation regimes discussed by Stewart 8 the bay as a whole would remain as a 'high level human impact area', although parts of it would be more rigorously protected. Ex~tmination of Table 1 shows that restriction of permissible activities affects both recreational and commercial fishing. Dovers 9 has argued that both groups have contributed to the depletion of fish stocks around Australia and are naturally in conflict with each other. He also directs criticism at recreational fishing, despite its economic importance, on the grounds that many anglers are unable to relate their own catch to the total recreational catch. Underlying Table 1, however, is the notion that strong restrictions on both groups in the Sanctuary zone will enable each 'to maintain its activities in other zones. Following the usual procedures in NSW the proposal was put on public exhibition and submissions were invited from individuals and groups. To maximise publicity and encourage participation a summary brochure of the proposed zoning was printed, together with a set of questions. The brochure was freely available through local shops and clubs. The four questions printed with the summary were:
6
M. Sant
SCALE ( ~ e ~ ) 0
1
2
,ou.Cu*=~%o~
3
4.
5 WarramBeach
Wowly GuJ~y CaJlala Ck . c a l l a ~
k
OngBeach BEECROFT PENINSULA Drum & Orumstcks U a y
Ck.
MooctaMoona ~--Co~hng~ ~ ~ O O Beach Virlclnb+ pPlantationPt+ •.Nelsons Beach each i
-- --
~~lp.= = The +11 Po~ Longnose point
~=l~i~At£f~
Jet
Lighlhouse
perpendculat
ST.I;EOI~,ES .+-
TelegraphCkr '
/~
~llll II
BHERWERRE PENINSULA Sleamet WreckBay Be ch
~ C = Moes ~ Rock me SLGeorge
i*ssex ,
B
~
Relugezone Commonweatth
~
Waters
Fig. 2. Jervis Bay Marine Reserve.
• • • •
What activities do you undertake and what interests do you have in Jervis Bay? Where do you undertake these activities? What features of Jervis Bay and adjacent waters are most important to you? D o you think the proposed zoning is appropriate for the features that are most important to you?
Environmental sustainability and the public
7
TABLE 1
Zone use A ctivity a
General use zones
Refuge zones
Sanctuary zones
Recreational Line- fishing h Spear -fishing Lobster trapping Fishing competitions Diving Collecting
Yes Yes Yes Permit Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Permit Yes Yes c
No No No No Yes No
Commercial Line-fishing b Netting d Mollusc dredging Trapping Aquaculture Collecting Divinge Tourist activities ~
Yes Yes No Yes Permit Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes ~ No Yes Permi( No Yes Yes
No No No No No No Yes Yes
Collecting Scien tific research Educational
Permit Permit
Permit Permit
Permit Permit
Anchoring
Yes
Yes
Yes j'
Moorings
Yes
Permit ~
Permit'
NSW fisheries regulations for protected species, bag/size limits and fishing gear restrictions apply. h Use of set and drift lines is prohibited within Refuge zones. ' Collection of plants and invertebrates, other than abalone, turban shells, sea urchins, scallops, lobsters, mud oysters and squid is prohibited except for immediate consumption or use. Trawling and meshing is prohibited within the marine reserve. e Beach hauling and garfish netting is allowed during non-holiday week day periods only. Management arrangements to reduce possible public conflict with netting, including the purse seine netting fishery for pelagic species, will be developed with the industry. /Limited aquaculture only (e.g. no aquaculture that requires an artificial input of food). Commercial tourist operations including charter boats, dive tours and dive schools will require a permit. h Anchoring in seagrass areas of Sanctuary zones is prohibited. i Installation and/or removal of moorings requires a permit from MSB (Maritime Services Board) in consultation with NSW fisheries.
8
M. Sant
The last question invited people to elaborate on why they approved or disapproved of the proposal. By the closing date (about three months after the distribution of the summary) the Department of Fisheries had received around 300 individual and group submissions. Being voluntary submissions they tended to be from people with a strong personal interest in the region---either in its ecological values or in its recreational fishing resources. About three-quarters of the submissions expressed some degree of approval for the proposal. At the same time, however, it was felt that there are many other people in the region who do not normally respond to this kind of opinion-gathering exercise, but whose views could, nevertheless, be valuable if they represented a broad cross-section of the public. Consequently, a survey was carried out independently as part of a student field project by the School of Geography at the University of New South Wales (UNSW). The UNSW survey asked the same questions as the Department of Fisheries, plus others relevant to the proposal and some others that described the people who responded (e.g. their age, gender, occupation, and so on). The survey was carried out in all settlements adjacent to the proposed marine reserve and in an area on St Georges Basin, a water body close to Jervis Bay (see Fig. 1) but not covered by the proposal. The sampling strategy was based on the smallest units used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. These areas (called 'collection districts') typically contain between 100 and 200 households, and the area covered by the study contained a total of about 2500 permanently resident households. Each interviewer was assigned a quota based on the number of households in an area. The survey could not be random because it had to depend on who was present in the area at the time the interviews were being carried out, but comparison with regional population statistics shows that it was reasonably representative in terms of location, age structure, length of residence in the region and occupation. Altogether, about 250 interviews were conducted (covering about 10% of the households in the region) and these form the basis of the rest of the paper.
3. AWARENESS AND AFFINITY It is easy to establish that the bay is important to the lives of local residents. As Sant and Simons 1° have shown, most coastal dwellers have deliberately chosen to live there and the overwhelming factor in their
Environmental sustainability and the public
9
residential choice was the amenity offered by the local environment compared with where they lived previously (usually metropolitan Sydney). The image conveyed by developers in their advertising is one that already most people would want to hear: 'unspoilt, crystal-clear water', 'soft white sands', 'protected harbour', 'all-weather boat ramps', and so on. Now that environmental migration has become a major lifestyle preference for many people, these words convey a stark contra,;t with the perceived pathological conditions of big cities. Jervis Bay, like many other coastal regions, offers opportunities for preferred leisure lifestyles based on environmental resources. In this survey only a handful of respondents (fewer than 4%) did not claim to make some sort of recreational use of the area and most were involve.d in multiple activities. Almost 60% engaged in recreational fishing and even more (about 75%) used it for swimming, snorkelling or scuba-diving. About 15% were involved in boating or sailing. For those who p:referred land-based recreational pursuits, in the bush or on the beaches, the attraction of the marine environment might have been differe:nt (visual and conservationist rather than tactile and exploitative), but the bay still played an important part in their assessment of amenity values. As in the survey by the Department of Fisheries, respondents were asked where they undertook their activities. It is probably true to say that recreational activity does more than anything else to familiarise people with their environmental resources and in this survey it was clear tlhat the people in the sample ranged widely across the entire bay and it~ surrounds. Limiting attention just to water-based recreation, there are no parts of the bay and adjacent waters that do not get some use. However, one can also see from Table 2 that the proposed Sanctuary zone is not an obviously dominant focus for this activity.
TABLE 2 Use of Jervis Bay and adjacent waters for water-based recreation, planning zone and activity (all figures are percentages)
Activity
Sanctuary zone
Refuge zone
Throughout bay
Total
Fishing Swimming Boating Total
3.5 3-0 -6.5
14.1 32.7 3-3 50.1
21.2 14.6 7.6 43.4
38.8 50.3 10.9 100.0
Source: 1994 UNSW survey.
10
M. Sant
Fewer than 7% of locations specifically identified are in this zone (which accounts for 9% of the water area of the proposed reserve) and half of them are by people swimming at the fringing beaches. In comparison, almost half of the specifically named locations are situated in the Refuge zone--in other words, seven times the usage rate of the Sanctuary zone. The remainder (43.5%) did not distinguish particular sites, but it is reasonable to suggest that most of them would have been in the Refuge and General Use zones (which cover, respectively, 40% and 51% of the water area). Given the high level and widespread distribution of use, one might infer that the majority of people are knowledgable about the bay and its ecology. For example, about 20% have scuba-dived in the bay at some time and about 40% have snorkelled, both of which activities develop an appreciation and knowledge of the marine ecosystem. Nearly all have at some time been on a dolphin-watching cruise, or visited the regional museum at Huskisson or made use of the visitor centre at Jervis Bay National Park. Also, recreational fishermen have their own specialised knowledge of when and where to go for different species. Some of them may deny that they might be responsible for resource depletion, but there is an almost universal understanding amongst them of the principles and benefits of conservation. The picture being drawn here is of a population that is well informed about, and makes substantial use of, its environmental resources. Not surprisingly, therefore, it was also well informed about the proposed marine reserve. Very few of the surveyed population were unfamiliar with it and about one-third had their own copies of the zoning summary, about 45% had seen it and over 80% had heard of it from friends or through the broadcasting media or newspapers. The community has also shown, in various ways, that it cares about maintaining the quality of its environment. One indication of this was the response to a survey commissioned by the local government in 1993 to determine which type of new waste treatment facility, among several alternatives, the community preferred. The alternatives varied in terms of cost and expected environmental impact. Pumping to ocean outfalls outside the bay was the cheapest method and creation of artificial wetlands was the most expensive. The preferred alternative was for the wetlands--the scheme that would add most to local taxes, but which would give the greatest protection to the bay. Another example of commitment to the bay's environmental quality is shown by the reaction to a proposal (in 1993) by the Department of Defence, a federal government department, to relocate the naval armaments depot and wharf from Sydney to the north side of Jervis Bay. Locally there
Environmental sustainability and the public
11
was division between those who anticipated a source of civilian jobs (important in an area of high unemployment) and those who supported the conservationist line. However, the ensuing debate involved much more than just local interests--national conservation bodies, for example, adopted a strong position against the Department of Defence. In the event, Defence bowed to public opinion and chose another location. Within the region, however, public opinion was not unanimous--about a quarter of those interviewed for this survey said that they regretted the decision not to build the depot and wharf. Generally, they were unconvinced that the environmental impact would be severe. Interestingly, the main group to feel this way were those most heavily involved in recreational fishing.
4. P E S P O N S E S TO T H E M A R I N E R E S E R V E PROPOSAL: W H O WANTS W H A T , W H E R E A N D WHY? A first count showed that three in five respondents in the survey regarded the proposed zoning favourably--it is appropriate for their use of the bay. The remainder (38%) apparently had a negative opinion. By itself this is neither surprising nor unsurprising. We have come to expect divisions of opinion as a matter of course in which no side gains unanimous support in the management of environmental resources. However, it is important to go beyond simply counting how many favour a proposal and how many oppose it. The UNSW survey also sought reasons for these opinions. People can disapprove (or approve) for different reasons. There may be, for example, an expected negative impact on personal enjoyment if the zoning were implemented, in other words, a real user cost. Alternatively, a respondent might have no particular reason for disapproval, just an innately conservative rejection of limits on freedom to do as one likes--a kind of 'frontiersman's' attitude to bureaucracy. Or, it might be that the respondent believes the plan should go further. All are valid reasons, but they each denote different levels and types of disagreement. Some are entrenched, as in the case where loss of personal enjoyment is involved. Nothing short of a major change in the proposal, or some form of significant compensation, will change the respondent's opinion. Others, like those who think it does not go far enough, might be brought round to approve if they can be given good reasons and patient explanations that the proposal at least goes in the right direction and that it might be strengthened at some future time.
M. Sant
12
Further analysis of the proposal was not that this does indeed proval was much less, • • • •
the 38% who expressed negative opinions--that appropriate for their use of the bay--indicates contain several sub-populations. The real disapas the following breakdown shows:
recreational fishing would be actually interfered with (12.0%) no reason given, implied loss of enjoyment (10.7%) does not go far enough to restrict commercial fishing (8.5%) do not like controls (6.8%).
One might therefore infer that only 12% of the total clearly perceives itself to be adversely affected. These are typified by such responses as 'the zoning is too restricted--why Honeymoon Bay and Crocodile Point?' or 'the plan should allow line-fishing in the Sanctuary zone'. Other data in the survey showed that these and similar statements were related to where the respondents actually fished and if their favoured areas were directly affected. The other openly specified reason, antipathy towards commercial fishermen, is much more widespread than implied by the figure (8.5%) above. Rightly or wrongly, many who approved of the plan expressed a dislike of commercial fishing. To some extent this is based on historical overfishing, such as that which led to the closure of the scallop fishery. There is also a mistrust of an industry that has a bad image problem throughout the South Pacific region, even though there are local regulations and quotas which now control the inshore fishery. Some respondents accepted this and were happy to compromise by maintaining quotas--'commercial fishermen should be restricted in number, but not from fishing', or by closer locational controls--'stop commercial netting all along the mouth of Jervis Bay'. Others took a much harder line--'the plan does not go far enough--it should ban all commercial fishing'. Perhaps, not surprisingly, the strongest feelings against commercial fishing were expressed by those most heavily involved in recreational fishing. This appears to be a case of competition for a relatively fixed resource--some commercial fishermen (not covered in the survey) probably have the same antipathy towards recreationalists. There is also a geographical dimension to the pattern of response. Looking at the zoning map, one can readily see that the location of Sanctuary and Refuge zones is mainly in the north of the bay where sea grass beds and mangroves give the richest habitats. The northern villages are also mainly where the recreational fishermen live and most of them prefer to fish locally in areas with which they are most familiar. Approval for the marine reserve is, therefore, partly reflected in this pattern of activity.
Environmental sustainability and the public
13
TABLE 3 Relatic,nships between approval of the proposed marine reserve and anticipated impact of the reserve on selected criteria (numbers of responses)
Do you approve of the proposed marine reserve? What impact do you expect it to have?
Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact
on on on on on on
commercial fishing tourism jobs threatened species recreational opportunities marine life
No
Yes
Negative impact
Positive impact
Negative impact
Positive impact
35 22 20 3 26 8
20 30 13 49 25 46
69 14 15 0 34 6
19 59 30 109 50 87
Note: figures do not include 'don't know' and other neutral responses.
Finally, there is an important link between approval/disapproval and the anLticipated impact on a range of social and environmental conditions. The metaphor of the half-full/half-empty glass is relevant here. Given the same set of 'facts', some people will interpret them optimistically and others pessimistically. The survey asked people to say what effect they thought a marine reserve would have on a number of criteria: commercial fishing, jobs, tourist development, threatened species and recreation opportunities. The responses (positive impact, neutral, negative) were then cross-tabulated against approval/disapproval of the proposed reserve (see Table 3). Not surprisingly, approval tended to be linked to an anticipated positive impact, except in the case of expected impact on commercial fishing. For example, two-thirds of those who expected it to be good for tourism approved of the proposed reserve; if the anticipated effect was negative, it was disapproved by almost two-thirds. The results were just as strong for the expected impacts on jobs. When people see a link between employment and conservation they are more likely to support projects which enhance sustainability. It is not unreasonable to suggest that increasing numbers are making this link, but there are still many who are sceptical and those who think that conservation will reduce jobs will continue to oppose conservation. Moreover, there is also evidence of disapproval of the proposal despite acknowledgment that it would have positive impacts, especially in relation to the marine environment and threatened species. By implication, these respondents put greater priority on other things, such as jobs or their own recreational amenity.
14
M. Sant
5. W H A T S H O U L D WE M A K E OF T H E S E FINDINGS? The survey cannot be taken as a 'vote' for or against the proposal. Even though a clear majority favoured it, the sample represented only about 10% of households in the region and, in any case, the creation of marine reserves, like national parks, is a matter for executive decision rather than a referendum. Nevertheless, passionate and vocal minorities can often determine an outcome. This is not necessarily unreasonable if it reflects a small minority having to bear the burden, without being compensated, so that the wider community can get a thinly spread, hardly noticeable gain. Such a situation is inequitable and deserves to be rejected. There are several ways in which information about the negative responses can be put to good use. Firstly, when marine reserves involve drawing boundaries identifying where certain activities are permitted or not permitted, then there is inevitably a cost of ensuring compliance through policing the use of the resource and prosecuting offenders. The cost can be quite high if the public is either not clear about where those lines are or if a significant proportion is unsympathetic towards the zoning of permissible uses and likely to contravene the rules. Moreover, the cost is not just monetary expenditure--there is also the goodwill of the public and its active involvement in maintaining the environment. Thus one should balance against the enforcement costs the possible costs and benefits of three additional lines of action: education, compromise and compensation. The education process has two aspects. The more immediate one is to combat misconceptions arising from the initial proposal. There is no reason to expect that everyone will have the same level of knowledge and understanding as the original proposers of the plan and some may oppose it for the 'wrong' reasons. As our figures above showed, the original 38% apparent opposition can be reduced to a 'real' opposition of somewhere between 12 and 20%. However, this requires that the rest have it explained to them why they should turn their 'vote' around. The longer term educative process is to supply a continuous stream of information aimed at influencing behaviour---in effect, making people more sensitive to the objectives of environmental management. The second line of response to opposition, compromise through amendment of the proposal, needs to be done carefully. In the Jervis Bay study criticisms of the proposal were of two main kinds. Some asserted that the restrictions were too strict (arguing, for example, that line-fishing should be allowed in the Sanctuary zone). Others were concerned with where the boundaries were drawn and what was
Enoironmental sustainability and the public
15
included in the Sanctuary zone. Particular places mentioned included places in the bay (Green Point, Chinaman's Beach, Honeymoon Bay) and some outside in adjacent waters (Moes Rock, Crocodile Head). The fact that they were mentioned, sometimes by several respondents, testifies to their importance as recreation areas. To lose them would probably mean a significant reduction in amenity. It is, of course, possible to ignore such criticisms and to implement a proposal regardless of them. To do so, however, would firstly invite 'illegal' activity which, in turn, would require greater policing of the marine reserve and secondly, risk losing goodwill among a group of people with a great deal of knowledge and expertise on the Bay. In this case, the Department of Fisheries showed flexibility by expressing willingness to reinstate some of the traditional recreational fishing sites. The other possible response, compensation, also comes from knowing why (and how strongly) people oppose the plan. Loss of amenity or enjoyment is no less real than losing a source of income. However, the question of compensation is rarely dealt with adequately in texts on resou~rce management, despite it being crucial to the resolution of conflicts. There may be times when direct monetary compensation is appropriate, b u t - - a n d this is an unproven assertion--there are probably many more cases where compensation could more effectively take some other form. For example, in the case of marine reserves one might consider improved access elsewhere, or better launching facilities, or the creation of enhanced fish habitats in another place. To conclude, the lesson for this, and other similar plans for improving sustainability, is to look at the nature of criticism and opposition. It might be heart-warming to get the support of three-quarters of the region's population (and all of the environmental movement), but the crucial factor for success is how one handles the other quarter. These are likely to include the people who believe (rightly or wrongly) that they have the most to lose. They are also likely, by virtue of their assoc!iation with the area, to have a close knowledge of its resources. One can never hope to meet all demands, but one should work on the princiLple that environmental management has to accommodate as many conflicting demands as possible. 11 REFERENCES 1. Ricketts, P. J., Use conflicts in Canada's national marine park policy. Ocean and Shoreline Management, 11 (1988) 285-302. 2. Cicin-Sain, B., Sustainable development and integrated coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 21 (1993) 11-43.
16
M. Sant
3. OECD, Coastal Zone Management: Integrated Policies. Paris, 1993. 4. White, A. T., Hale, L. Z., Renard, Y. & Cortesi. L., Collaborative and Community-Based Management of Coral Reefs. Kumarian Press, West Hartford, Connecticut, 1994. 5. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Jervis Bay, Kowari Series 5. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1995. 6. New South Wales Department of Fisheries, Proposed Jervis Bay Marine Reserve: Draft Management Plan. Sydney, 1994. 7. Wolfenden, L., Cram, F. & Kirkwood, B., Marine reserves in New Zealand: a survey of community reactions. Ocean & Coastal Management, 2S (1994) 31-51. 8. Stewart, M. C., Sustainable tourism development and marine conservation regimes. Ocean & Coastal Management, 20 (1993) 201-217. 9. Dovers, S., Recreational fishing in Australia: review and policy issues. Australian Geographical Studies, 32 (1994) 102-114. 10. Sant, M. E. C. & Simons, P. L., Counterurbanization and coastal development in New South Wales. Geoforum, 23 (1993) 291-306. 11. As this paper was being prepared there was an election in New South Wales which led to a change of government and a new policy. The incoming Minister for Environment announced her support for the protection of Jervis Bay, but in the form of a marine national park. Details are not clear, although it appears that the bay would be part of the system of parks existing across the state but administered by the Fisheries Department, rather than the National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Ocean & Coastal Management, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 1-16, 1996 Copyright ~) 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Northern Ireland. All rights reserved S0964-5691196)00024-5 0964-5691/96$15.00 + 0.00
ELSEVIER
Environmental sustainability and the public: responses to a proposed marine reserve at Jervis Bay, New South Wales, Australia Morgan Sant School of Geography, University of New South Wales, Australia (Received 18 July 1995; accepted 8 February 1996)
ABSTRACT The establishment of a marine reserve at Jervis Bay was proposed in
1994. The aim of the proposal was to ensure the environmental sustainability of an important coastal resource which is subjected to multiple uses. However, there was not unanimous approval for the proposal. This paper describes the proposal and discusses the results o f a sample survey carried out to obtain information about peoples' use of the bay and their attitudes towards a marine reserve. A case is made for treating environmental management as conflict management and giving more attention to critics and opponents of the proposal. Copyright ~) 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd.
1. I N T R O D U C T I O N If the concept of sustainable development is to be meaningful it needs to be backed up by practical measures as well as by broad, wellintentioned policies. It needs, moreover, to be acknowledged in the actions of ordinary people. Despite being a global concept, it is at the local level that sustainability stands or falls. Application of sustainability at the local level is probably as difficult as acceptance of the global principle. After all, it costs nothing to embrace an idea--until one is required to act u p o n it. For example, we would all agree that overfishing is detrimental and should stop. But it is not so easy for a fish-dependent community to give up its livelihood, or even part of it, if there is no alternative means of support. Likewise, it is not difficult to support the principle of marine reserves--they appeal to our higher motives by protecting nature and conserving resources at 1
2
M. Sant
a time when both are under threat. However, even when it is obvious that conservation would ensure the long-term viability of a resource there is no guarantee that everyone would support such action. As Ricketts 1 argued with reference to proposed marine reserves, there are conflicts with residential and fishing activities. Much depends on: (a) what private interests have to be given up; (b) the equity of reduced resource consumption; and (c) the adequacy of compensation. Self-interest is not the only barrier. It may also be difficult to get a group of people who accept the need for conservation to agree on the m e a n s of achieving it. Consider what may be required: an agreed body of knowledge about the ecosystem (disagreement among scientists is not uncommon); acceptance of where lines defining conservation zones should be drawn; consensus about which bits of a renewable resource can be removed without causing irreversible damage; and so on. There is much room for debate about details, even when principles have been agreed. Hence the purpose of this paper. It is sometimes worthwhile stating the obvious, if only because the obvious is often overlooked. This is that environmental management almost inevitably requires conflict management. In turn, conflict management needs a clear understanding of the nature of opposition to a proposed action or plan of management. It is not sufficient to rely on reports, for example, that a majority favours a principle of conservation, especially if it costs them nothing to support it. What is more important is to look carefully at the motives for, and nature of the opposition who are more likely to hold stronger views than the supporters, because they have more to lose. How one deals with the opposition can have a profound bearing on the eventual effectiveness of environmental management. These days management increasingly involves dealing with multiple uses, which is likely to mean several dimensions of opinion among a wide variety of interests. It is to be hoped that the growing focus on integrated coastal zone management (see for example, Cicin-Sain 2 and O E C D 3) will lead to improved conflict management. At present, however, integrated management emphasises rational resource use and institutional integration, rather than the accommodation and resolution of conflict among interest groups. There is still, as White et al. 4 have argued, a strong need to develop community-based management. This paper examines an important case of a conservation policy proposed for an area of considerable environmental importance. Jervis Bay is located about 180 kilometres south of Sydney, putting it within a 3 hour travel time of about 4.5 million people (see Fig. 1). The bay is a large (124 km2), marine dominated, semi-enclosed water body, located
Environmental sustainability and the public
Le
~
/~ (
~
3
WoUongong
GoulbmJc~_...~j u ~f ~
~
N
-
° ~"~'Nowra 7,
~ /~'~(-~ Canbe~~.. ~/" of 'f,~JBayJervis ~ ---------c.J \~.a/ Shoalhaven ..~ NBraidw°°dl"~~/ ~'~'~~s ~' Bh°ur ~'~Uay c.,~'~'e ~" ~
3 hou
'~~ 051020304050 Ki-~omete='~
~ Connecti Highway(TR=Road nroad g No) 3hourS ~..... ~"Second graderoad Railway -"~Distancesinkm ~'~Traveltimecontours
Fig. 1. Regional location.
where the warm and cool eastern Pacific ocean currents meet. Ecologically it contains a number of different habitats: mangroves, sea grass, sandy and muddy sediments, rocky reefs, intertidal platforms, underwater cliffs. 5 As a result, the bay and its adjacent oceanic waters support a wide variety of marine life, including some 200 species of fish and a permanent population of dolphins (a tourist attraction in itself). Over the years there has been a small commercial fishery in the bay, including scallop dredging (now prohibited due to overfishing) and beach hauling for seasonally migrating species. The quality of the marine environment and the landscapes surrounding the bay have provided a rich amenity and attracted residential development in beach-front settlements and a fast growing recreational/tourist sector
4
M. Sant
based on the beaches and the water. Recreational line-fishing is a major activity from boats and shore. The catch is about half of that from the commercial fishing (65 tonnes compared with 126 tonnes) but the total economic value generated by the recreational activity is probably 3 or 4 times greater. The bay is also a leading site for scuba-diving, which now supports a growing number of jobs. The other prominent user of the bay is the Australian Navy, which has an officer training establishment there (HMAS Creswell) and also uses the bay for other training purposes. This, in fact, is a major consideration in resource management--uses of the bay have to be consistent with the Naval Waters Act (1918) and the Coastal Waters (State Title) Act of 1980. The significance of this legislation is that no development can take place in Jervis Bay if it interferes or is likely to interfere with naval uses. Thus there are likely to be limitations on such activities as commercial port development, mariculture or recreational boating infrastructure. In a general sense, restrictions for military purposes may assist conservation by keeping out some activities, but they do so at a cost of allowing other activities, such as bombing ranges or channel dredging. Interestingly, the literature on integrated coastal zone management has little to say about military uses. Not without some justification, Jervis Bay has been described by the Australian Conservation Foundation (and others) as the 'jewel in the crown' of coastal New South Wales. However, by the early 1990s the bay was beginning to exhibit signs of stress, leading the NSW Department of Fisheries to develop and publish (in mid-1994) a proposal to create a marine reserve. 6 The proposal then went through a public consultation process. Brochures were produced summarising the scheme (which could be read about in more detail in a two volume report produced by the Department of Fisheries) and the public was invited to respond to a set of questions (listed in the next section). During the consultation period a separate survey was carried out, using a quota sample, to gain opinions and information from about 250 residents of the area, most of whom had not responded (and did not intend to respond) to the brochure. The aim of the survey was to identify reactions to the proposed marine reserve. Did people support it? If not, why not? Were supporters and non-supporters significantly different kinds of people with different interests at stake? In other words, the study was concerned with how people respond to a proposal to enhance sustainability on their own doorstep. It has some similarities to a recent study conducted by Wolfenden et al. 7 in New Zealand, which also emphasised the importance of community participation in environmental planning and management.
Environmental sustainability and the public
5
2. T H E P R O P O S E D M A R I N E R E S E R V E The ecological importance of the bay and the threats coming from growing residential and recreational demands provided the Department of Fisheries with the justification for proposing a marine reserve. The objectJLves expressed in the plan were fundamentally geared to sustainability and could have come straight from an environmentalist's textbook. The primary objective was: to protect, conserve and manage Jervis Bay, and its adjacent waters, as an example of a unique combination of NSW's marine and estuarine ecosystems, and to maintain the Reserve's ecological diversity, productivity, integrity and significance. The two main features of the proposal were: (a) division of the Bay and adjacent waters into zones of permissible use--Sanctuary, Refuge and General Use (Fig. 2); and (b) specification of the permissible activities in each zone (Table 1). Together they provide a hierarchy of protection and this strategy is believed to allow for multiple use of the bay whilst protecting the critical habitats. Thus, for example, mangrove and seagrass habitats are mainly in the Sanctuary zone and would have the p~rotection of the buffer areas designated as Refuge zones. The General Use zone has few restrictions, except to exclude activities that would adversely affect the marine reserve. In the wider context of marine conservation regimes discussed by Stewart 8 the bay as a whole would remain as a 'high level human impact area', although parts of it would be more rigorously protected. Ex~tmination of Table 1 shows that restriction of permissible activities affects both recreational and commercial fishing. Dovers 9 has argued that both groups have contributed to the depletion of fish stocks around Australia and are naturally in conflict with each other. He also directs criticism at recreational fishing, despite its economic importance, on the grounds that many anglers are unable to relate their own catch to the total recreational catch. Underlying Table 1, however, is the notion that strong restrictions on both groups in the Sanctuary zone will enable each 'to maintain its activities in other zones. Following the usual procedures in NSW the proposal was put on public exhibition and submissions were invited from individuals and groups. To maximise publicity and encourage participation a summary brochure of the proposed zoning was printed, together with a set of questions. The brochure was freely available through local shops and clubs. The four questions printed with the summary were:
6
M. Sant
SCALE ( ~ e ~ ) 0
1
2
,ou.Cu*=~%o~
3
4.
5 WarramBeach
Wowly GuJ~y CaJlala Ck . c a l l a ~
k
OngBeach BEECROFT PENINSULA Drum & Orumstcks U a y
Ck.
MooctaMoona ~--Co~hng~ ~ ~ O O Beach Virlclnb+ pPlantationPt+ •.Nelsons Beach each i
-- --
~~lp.= = The +11 Po~ Longnose point
~=l~i~At£f~
Jet
Lighlhouse
perpendculat
ST.I;EOI~,ES .+-
TelegraphCkr '
/~
~llll II
BHERWERRE PENINSULA Sleamet WreckBay Be ch
~ C = Moes ~ Rock me SLGeorge
i*ssex ,
B
~
Relugezone Commonweatth
~
Waters
Fig. 2. Jervis Bay Marine Reserve.
• • • •
What activities do you undertake and what interests do you have in Jervis Bay? Where do you undertake these activities? What features of Jervis Bay and adjacent waters are most important to you? D o you think the proposed zoning is appropriate for the features that are most important to you?
Environmental sustainability and the public
7
TABLE 1
Zone use A ctivity a
General use zones
Refuge zones
Sanctuary zones
Recreational Line- fishing h Spear -fishing Lobster trapping Fishing competitions Diving Collecting
Yes Yes Yes Permit Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Permit Yes Yes c
No No No No Yes No
Commercial Line-fishing b Netting d Mollusc dredging Trapping Aquaculture Collecting Divinge Tourist activities ~
Yes Yes No Yes Permit Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes ~ No Yes Permi( No Yes Yes
No No No No No No Yes Yes
Collecting Scien tific research Educational
Permit Permit
Permit Permit
Permit Permit
Anchoring
Yes
Yes
Yes j'
Moorings
Yes
Permit ~
Permit'
NSW fisheries regulations for protected species, bag/size limits and fishing gear restrictions apply. h Use of set and drift lines is prohibited within Refuge zones. ' Collection of plants and invertebrates, other than abalone, turban shells, sea urchins, scallops, lobsters, mud oysters and squid is prohibited except for immediate consumption or use. Trawling and meshing is prohibited within the marine reserve. e Beach hauling and garfish netting is allowed during non-holiday week day periods only. Management arrangements to reduce possible public conflict with netting, including the purse seine netting fishery for pelagic species, will be developed with the industry. /Limited aquaculture only (e.g. no aquaculture that requires an artificial input of food). Commercial tourist operations including charter boats, dive tours and dive schools will require a permit. h Anchoring in seagrass areas of Sanctuary zones is prohibited. i Installation and/or removal of moorings requires a permit from MSB (Maritime Services Board) in consultation with NSW fisheries.
8
M. Sant
The last question invited people to elaborate on why they approved or disapproved of the proposal. By the closing date (about three months after the distribution of the summary) the Department of Fisheries had received around 300 individual and group submissions. Being voluntary submissions they tended to be from people with a strong personal interest in the region---either in its ecological values or in its recreational fishing resources. About three-quarters of the submissions expressed some degree of approval for the proposal. At the same time, however, it was felt that there are many other people in the region who do not normally respond to this kind of opinion-gathering exercise, but whose views could, nevertheless, be valuable if they represented a broad cross-section of the public. Consequently, a survey was carried out independently as part of a student field project by the School of Geography at the University of New South Wales (UNSW). The UNSW survey asked the same questions as the Department of Fisheries, plus others relevant to the proposal and some others that described the people who responded (e.g. their age, gender, occupation, and so on). The survey was carried out in all settlements adjacent to the proposed marine reserve and in an area on St Georges Basin, a water body close to Jervis Bay (see Fig. 1) but not covered by the proposal. The sampling strategy was based on the smallest units used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. These areas (called 'collection districts') typically contain between 100 and 200 households, and the area covered by the study contained a total of about 2500 permanently resident households. Each interviewer was assigned a quota based on the number of households in an area. The survey could not be random because it had to depend on who was present in the area at the time the interviews were being carried out, but comparison with regional population statistics shows that it was reasonably representative in terms of location, age structure, length of residence in the region and occupation. Altogether, about 250 interviews were conducted (covering about 10% of the households in the region) and these form the basis of the rest of the paper.
3. AWARENESS AND AFFINITY It is easy to establish that the bay is important to the lives of local residents. As Sant and Simons 1° have shown, most coastal dwellers have deliberately chosen to live there and the overwhelming factor in their
Environmental sustainability and the public
9
residential choice was the amenity offered by the local environment compared with where they lived previously (usually metropolitan Sydney). The image conveyed by developers in their advertising is one that already most people would want to hear: 'unspoilt, crystal-clear water', 'soft white sands', 'protected harbour', 'all-weather boat ramps', and so on. Now that environmental migration has become a major lifestyle preference for many people, these words convey a stark contra,;t with the perceived pathological conditions of big cities. Jervis Bay, like many other coastal regions, offers opportunities for preferred leisure lifestyles based on environmental resources. In this survey only a handful of respondents (fewer than 4%) did not claim to make some sort of recreational use of the area and most were involve.d in multiple activities. Almost 60% engaged in recreational fishing and even more (about 75%) used it for swimming, snorkelling or scuba-diving. About 15% were involved in boating or sailing. For those who p:referred land-based recreational pursuits, in the bush or on the beaches, the attraction of the marine environment might have been differe:nt (visual and conservationist rather than tactile and exploitative), but the bay still played an important part in their assessment of amenity values. As in the survey by the Department of Fisheries, respondents were asked where they undertook their activities. It is probably true to say that recreational activity does more than anything else to familiarise people with their environmental resources and in this survey it was clear tlhat the people in the sample ranged widely across the entire bay and it~ surrounds. Limiting attention just to water-based recreation, there are no parts of the bay and adjacent waters that do not get some use. However, one can also see from Table 2 that the proposed Sanctuary zone is not an obviously dominant focus for this activity.
TABLE 2 Use of Jervis Bay and adjacent waters for water-based recreation, planning zone and activity (all figures are percentages)
Activity
Sanctuary zone
Refuge zone
Throughout bay
Total
Fishing Swimming Boating Total
3.5 3-0 -6.5
14.1 32.7 3-3 50.1
21.2 14.6 7.6 43.4
38.8 50.3 10.9 100.0
Source: 1994 UNSW survey.
10
M. Sant
Fewer than 7% of locations specifically identified are in this zone (which accounts for 9% of the water area of the proposed reserve) and half of them are by people swimming at the fringing beaches. In comparison, almost half of the specifically named locations are situated in the Refuge zone--in other words, seven times the usage rate of the Sanctuary zone. The remainder (43.5%) did not distinguish particular sites, but it is reasonable to suggest that most of them would have been in the Refuge and General Use zones (which cover, respectively, 40% and 51% of the water area). Given the high level and widespread distribution of use, one might infer that the majority of people are knowledgable about the bay and its ecology. For example, about 20% have scuba-dived in the bay at some time and about 40% have snorkelled, both of which activities develop an appreciation and knowledge of the marine ecosystem. Nearly all have at some time been on a dolphin-watching cruise, or visited the regional museum at Huskisson or made use of the visitor centre at Jervis Bay National Park. Also, recreational fishermen have their own specialised knowledge of when and where to go for different species. Some of them may deny that they might be responsible for resource depletion, but there is an almost universal understanding amongst them of the principles and benefits of conservation. The picture being drawn here is of a population that is well informed about, and makes substantial use of, its environmental resources. Not surprisingly, therefore, it was also well informed about the proposed marine reserve. Very few of the surveyed population were unfamiliar with it and about one-third had their own copies of the zoning summary, about 45% had seen it and over 80% had heard of it from friends or through the broadcasting media or newspapers. The community has also shown, in various ways, that it cares about maintaining the quality of its environment. One indication of this was the response to a survey commissioned by the local government in 1993 to determine which type of new waste treatment facility, among several alternatives, the community preferred. The alternatives varied in terms of cost and expected environmental impact. Pumping to ocean outfalls outside the bay was the cheapest method and creation of artificial wetlands was the most expensive. The preferred alternative was for the wetlands--the scheme that would add most to local taxes, but which would give the greatest protection to the bay. Another example of commitment to the bay's environmental quality is shown by the reaction to a proposal (in 1993) by the Department of Defence, a federal government department, to relocate the naval armaments depot and wharf from Sydney to the north side of Jervis Bay. Locally there
Environmental sustainability and the public
11
was division between those who anticipated a source of civilian jobs (important in an area of high unemployment) and those who supported the conservationist line. However, the ensuing debate involved much more than just local interests--national conservation bodies, for example, adopted a strong position against the Department of Defence. In the event, Defence bowed to public opinion and chose another location. Within the region, however, public opinion was not unanimous--about a quarter of those interviewed for this survey said that they regretted the decision not to build the depot and wharf. Generally, they were unconvinced that the environmental impact would be severe. Interestingly, the main group to feel this way were those most heavily involved in recreational fishing.
4. P E S P O N S E S TO T H E M A R I N E R E S E R V E PROPOSAL: W H O WANTS W H A T , W H E R E A N D WHY? A first count showed that three in five respondents in the survey regarded the proposed zoning favourably--it is appropriate for their use of the bay. The remainder (38%) apparently had a negative opinion. By itself this is neither surprising nor unsurprising. We have come to expect divisions of opinion as a matter of course in which no side gains unanimous support in the management of environmental resources. However, it is important to go beyond simply counting how many favour a proposal and how many oppose it. The UNSW survey also sought reasons for these opinions. People can disapprove (or approve) for different reasons. There may be, for example, an expected negative impact on personal enjoyment if the zoning were implemented, in other words, a real user cost. Alternatively, a respondent might have no particular reason for disapproval, just an innately conservative rejection of limits on freedom to do as one likes--a kind of 'frontiersman's' attitude to bureaucracy. Or, it might be that the respondent believes the plan should go further. All are valid reasons, but they each denote different levels and types of disagreement. Some are entrenched, as in the case where loss of personal enjoyment is involved. Nothing short of a major change in the proposal, or some form of significant compensation, will change the respondent's opinion. Others, like those who think it does not go far enough, might be brought round to approve if they can be given good reasons and patient explanations that the proposal at least goes in the right direction and that it might be strengthened at some future time.
M. Sant
12
Further analysis of the proposal was not that this does indeed proval was much less, • • • •
the 38% who expressed negative opinions--that appropriate for their use of the bay--indicates contain several sub-populations. The real disapas the following breakdown shows:
recreational fishing would be actually interfered with (12.0%) no reason given, implied loss of enjoyment (10.7%) does not go far enough to restrict commercial fishing (8.5%) do not like controls (6.8%).
One might therefore infer that only 12% of the total clearly perceives itself to be adversely affected. These are typified by such responses as 'the zoning is too restricted--why Honeymoon Bay and Crocodile Point?' or 'the plan should allow line-fishing in the Sanctuary zone'. Other data in the survey showed that these and similar statements were related to where the respondents actually fished and if their favoured areas were directly affected. The other openly specified reason, antipathy towards commercial fishermen, is much more widespread than implied by the figure (8.5%) above. Rightly or wrongly, many who approved of the plan expressed a dislike of commercial fishing. To some extent this is based on historical overfishing, such as that which led to the closure of the scallop fishery. There is also a mistrust of an industry that has a bad image problem throughout the South Pacific region, even though there are local regulations and quotas which now control the inshore fishery. Some respondents accepted this and were happy to compromise by maintaining quotas--'commercial fishermen should be restricted in number, but not from fishing', or by closer locational controls--'stop commercial netting all along the mouth of Jervis Bay'. Others took a much harder line--'the plan does not go far enough--it should ban all commercial fishing'. Perhaps, not surprisingly, the strongest feelings against commercial fishing were expressed by those most heavily involved in recreational fishing. This appears to be a case of competition for a relatively fixed resource--some commercial fishermen (not covered in the survey) probably have the same antipathy towards recreationalists. There is also a geographical dimension to the pattern of response. Looking at the zoning map, one can readily see that the location of Sanctuary and Refuge zones is mainly in the north of the bay where sea grass beds and mangroves give the richest habitats. The northern villages are also mainly where the recreational fishermen live and most of them prefer to fish locally in areas with which they are most familiar. Approval for the marine reserve is, therefore, partly reflected in this pattern of activity.
Environmental sustainability and the public
13
TABLE 3 Relatic,nships between approval of the proposed marine reserve and anticipated impact of the reserve on selected criteria (numbers of responses)
Do you approve of the proposed marine reserve? What impact do you expect it to have?
Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact Impact
on on on on on on
commercial fishing tourism jobs threatened species recreational opportunities marine life
No
Yes
Negative impact
Positive impact
Negative impact
Positive impact
35 22 20 3 26 8
20 30 13 49 25 46
69 14 15 0 34 6
19 59 30 109 50 87
Note: figures do not include 'don't know' and other neutral responses.
Finally, there is an important link between approval/disapproval and the anLticipated impact on a range of social and environmental conditions. The metaphor of the half-full/half-empty glass is relevant here. Given the same set of 'facts', some people will interpret them optimistically and others pessimistically. The survey asked people to say what effect they thought a marine reserve would have on a number of criteria: commercial fishing, jobs, tourist development, threatened species and recreation opportunities. The responses (positive impact, neutral, negative) were then cross-tabulated against approval/disapproval of the proposed reserve (see Table 3). Not surprisingly, approval tended to be linked to an anticipated positive impact, except in the case of expected impact on commercial fishing. For example, two-thirds of those who expected it to be good for tourism approved of the proposed reserve; if the anticipated effect was negative, it was disapproved by almost two-thirds. The results were just as strong for the expected impacts on jobs. When people see a link between employment and conservation they are more likely to support projects which enhance sustainability. It is not unreasonable to suggest that increasing numbers are making this link, but there are still many who are sceptical and those who think that conservation will reduce jobs will continue to oppose conservation. Moreover, there is also evidence of disapproval of the proposal despite acknowledgment that it would have positive impacts, especially in relation to the marine environment and threatened species. By implication, these respondents put greater priority on other things, such as jobs or their own recreational amenity.
14
M. Sant
5. W H A T S H O U L D WE M A K E OF T H E S E FINDINGS? The survey cannot be taken as a 'vote' for or against the proposal. Even though a clear majority favoured it, the sample represented only about 10% of households in the region and, in any case, the creation of marine reserves, like national parks, is a matter for executive decision rather than a referendum. Nevertheless, passionate and vocal minorities can often determine an outcome. This is not necessarily unreasonable if it reflects a small minority having to bear the burden, without being compensated, so that the wider community can get a thinly spread, hardly noticeable gain. Such a situation is inequitable and deserves to be rejected. There are several ways in which information about the negative responses can be put to good use. Firstly, when marine reserves involve drawing boundaries identifying where certain activities are permitted or not permitted, then there is inevitably a cost of ensuring compliance through policing the use of the resource and prosecuting offenders. The cost can be quite high if the public is either not clear about where those lines are or if a significant proportion is unsympathetic towards the zoning of permissible uses and likely to contravene the rules. Moreover, the cost is not just monetary expenditure--there is also the goodwill of the public and its active involvement in maintaining the environment. Thus one should balance against the enforcement costs the possible costs and benefits of three additional lines of action: education, compromise and compensation. The education process has two aspects. The more immediate one is to combat misconceptions arising from the initial proposal. There is no reason to expect that everyone will have the same level of knowledge and understanding as the original proposers of the plan and some may oppose it for the 'wrong' reasons. As our figures above showed, the original 38% apparent opposition can be reduced to a 'real' opposition of somewhere between 12 and 20%. However, this requires that the rest have it explained to them why they should turn their 'vote' around. The longer term educative process is to supply a continuous stream of information aimed at influencing behaviour---in effect, making people more sensitive to the objectives of environmental management. The second line of response to opposition, compromise through amendment of the proposal, needs to be done carefully. In the Jervis Bay study criticisms of the proposal were of two main kinds. Some asserted that the restrictions were too strict (arguing, for example, that line-fishing should be allowed in the Sanctuary zone). Others were concerned with where the boundaries were drawn and what was
Enoironmental sustainability and the public
15
included in the Sanctuary zone. Particular places mentioned included places in the bay (Green Point, Chinaman's Beach, Honeymoon Bay) and some outside in adjacent waters (Moes Rock, Crocodile Head). The fact that they were mentioned, sometimes by several respondents, testifies to their importance as recreation areas. To lose them would probably mean a significant reduction in amenity. It is, of course, possible to ignore such criticisms and to implement a proposal regardless of them. To do so, however, would firstly invite 'illegal' activity which, in turn, would require greater policing of the marine reserve and secondly, risk losing goodwill among a group of people with a great deal of knowledge and expertise on the Bay. In this case, the Department of Fisheries showed flexibility by expressing willingness to reinstate some of the traditional recreational fishing sites. The other possible response, compensation, also comes from knowing why (and how strongly) people oppose the plan. Loss of amenity or enjoyment is no less real than losing a source of income. However, the question of compensation is rarely dealt with adequately in texts on resou~rce management, despite it being crucial to the resolution of conflicts. There may be times when direct monetary compensation is appropriate, b u t - - a n d this is an unproven assertion--there are probably many more cases where compensation could more effectively take some other form. For example, in the case of marine reserves one might consider improved access elsewhere, or better launching facilities, or the creation of enhanced fish habitats in another place. To conclude, the lesson for this, and other similar plans for improving sustainability, is to look at the nature of criticism and opposition. It might be heart-warming to get the support of three-quarters of the region's population (and all of the environmental movement), but the crucial factor for success is how one handles the other quarter. These are likely to include the people who believe (rightly or wrongly) that they have the most to lose. They are also likely, by virtue of their assoc!iation with the area, to have a close knowledge of its resources. One can never hope to meet all demands, but one should work on the princiLple that environmental management has to accommodate as many conflicting demands as possible. 11 REFERENCES 1. Ricketts, P. J., Use conflicts in Canada's national marine park policy. Ocean and Shoreline Management, 11 (1988) 285-302. 2. Cicin-Sain, B., Sustainable development and integrated coastal management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 21 (1993) 11-43.
16
M. Sant
3. OECD, Coastal Zone Management: Integrated Policies. Paris, 1993. 4. White, A. T., Hale, L. Z., Renard, Y. & Cortesi. L., Collaborative and Community-Based Management of Coral Reefs. Kumarian Press, West Hartford, Connecticut, 1994. 5. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Jervis Bay, Kowari Series 5. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1995. 6. New South Wales Department of Fisheries, Proposed Jervis Bay Marine Reserve: Draft Management Plan. Sydney, 1994. 7. Wolfenden, L., Cram, F. & Kirkwood, B., Marine reserves in New Zealand: a survey of community reactions. Ocean & Coastal Management, 2S (1994) 31-51. 8. Stewart, M. C., Sustainable tourism development and marine conservation regimes. Ocean & Coastal Management, 20 (1993) 201-217. 9. Dovers, S., Recreational fishing in Australia: review and policy issues. Australian Geographical Studies, 32 (1994) 102-114. 10. Sant, M. E. C. & Simons, P. L., Counterurbanization and coastal development in New South Wales. Geoforum, 23 (1993) 291-306. 11. As this paper was being prepared there was an election in New South Wales which led to a change of government and a new policy. The incoming Minister for Environment announced her support for the protection of Jervis Bay, but in the form of a marine national park. Details are not clear, although it appears that the bay would be part of the system of parks existing across the state but administered by the Fisheries Department, rather than the National Parks and Wildlife Service.