Planning, environmental impact management and compliance on the Great Barrier Reef

Transcription

1 Proceedings 9 th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia October 2000 Planning, environmental impact management and compliance on the Great Barrier Reef A. Skeat 1, A. Smith 1, J. Baldwin 1, M. Robinson, 1 P. McGinnity 2 and B. Nankivel 2 ABSTRACT The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is a multiple use marine protected area of some 343,500 km 2. Activity is controlled by legislation, spatial plans and permits. Spatial plans are of three types. Zoning Plans cover the entire Marine Park and are the primary control on use. Management Plans apply to smaller areas or to species requiring special protection. Management Plans not only provide additional protection for the environment, but also separate conflicting use. Site plans are prepared for areas of only several hectares when natural and cultural values need to be protected at a fine scale. Strategic planning is also conducted but is not discussed in detail in this paper. Environmental impact assessment is generally carried out before permits are issued. Major projects, involving significant infrastructure or disturbance to the environment, undergo rigorous assessment and associated monitoring. Routine activities such as tourism operations are assessed more quickly against criteria defined in legislation. Increased emphasis is being placed on compliance with legislation, plans and permits. A new risk based approach is described. Prosecutions have increased 42% since its implementation. This management system is applauded for its rigour, but does not ameliorate threats from overfishing or most land based activities. It also attracts criticism because of its complexity and high cost. Further details of these programs are available on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority s website at Keywords Great Barrier Reef, Planning, Environmental impact management, Enforcement and compliance Introduction The Great Barrier Reef is an icon the world s largest coral reef ecosystem and largest World Heritage area. Although protected by legislation which establishes a marine park, the Great Barrier Reef remains a fully functioning component of the Australian economy multiple use is legislated and reasonable use is a statutory right (McPhail 1997). Human use of the Great Barrier Reef is substantial and increasing. The gross financial value of tourism and fishing is approximately one billion Australian dollars (Driml 1999, Cadwallader et al. this volume). Along the coast are six of Australia s largest export ports and some 2000 commercial vessels transit the reef annually. To enable multiple use with minimal risk to the reef, a range of management tools are being used by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (the Authority). Primarily these are: Zoning Plans, Management Plans and Site Plans; environmental impact assessment; permits with their associated conditions; and a compliance program, which includes education and information. These tools implement policy developed by Critical Issues Groups in the Authority (Chadwick and Green this volume). More than ever these tools are being tested. This paper summarises current practice. Planning Planning in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park includes long term strategic planning (GBRMPA 1994, Chadwick and Green this volume) and spatial planning. The focus of this paper is the latter. There is nothing unusual about the fundamental process of planning for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Elements of the process are readily recognisable by terrestrial, aquatic, natural resource and urban planners alike. Planning strategies such as separating conflicting uses, providing opportunity spectra (often based on amenity and similar social parameters), consulting all sectors of the community and needing to provide for specific policy and legislative imperatives are all facets of Marine Park planning. The fundamental element of planning for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is the Zoning Plan. With its basis firmly established in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, the Zoning Plan enables policy implementation on the broadest spatial level. The use of Zoning Plans in marine ecosystem management has been extensively reported in the literature either in generic terms and involving a range of countries (e.g. Kenchington 1990) or more specifically relating to the Great Barrier Reef (e.g. Kelleher 1986). Always the product of the best current, albeit often incomplete, information, Zoning Plans are also the product of conciliation and compromise to arrive at the best environmental outcomes that provide for ecologically sustainable use. The Authority is conducting a major bioregional planning review in 2001/2002, known as the Representative Areas Program (Day et al. this volume). Zoning Plans are proposed to be amended to ensure a representative area of 1 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, PO Box 1379, Townsville Mail Centre, Queensland 4810 Australia 2 Marine Parks Management Coordination Unit, PO Box 6213, Townsville Mail Centre, Queensland 4810 Australia

2 each of the Great Barrier Reef bioregions is incorporated in a no take zone. Complementary to and consistent with Zoning Plans, the Authority has developed area-based Management Plans. While Zoning Plans provide broad-scale planning (areas up to 100,000 km 2 ), Management Plans deal with much smaller areas (thousands of square kilometers). The focus of these planning instruments is to fine tune both environmental protection and provisions for human use. Some 85% of tourism activity in the Great Barrier Reef occurs on and around the reefs offshore from Cairns and in the Whitsunday Islands group, a combined area covering only around 5% of the Marine Park. Experience has shown that management of this intensity of activity can not be effectively undertaken by applying specific conditions on each tourist operator s permit. The blend of flexibility and certainty afforded by the policy direction in the Management Plans helps foster a positive approach to ecologically sustainable development of tourism in the Marine Park. Management of tourism is discussed in detail by Ilett et al. (this volume). Despite its size and complexity the Great Barrier Reef can pose local scale planning challenges. Just as National Park planners wrestle with fine scale management of particular terrestrial sites, so is there requirement from time to time for site planning on the Reef. Typically, site planning seeks to refine separation of use issues, allocate space for activities such as anchoring, snorkelling and diving and position moorings or reef visitor infrastructure such as pontoons. The scale is generally a single bay, island or reef. Meaningful involvement of concerned stakeholders is pivotal to the success of any site planning exercise. Planning has been underway as a dynamic process in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park for over 20 years. So, what lessons have we learned? Clearly the most significant lesson has been the need to plan and manage this huge area through the positive engagement of all people who have an interest in the area. In particular, successes in managing the impacts of burgeoning growth of a dynamic Great Barrier Reef tourism industry in the late 1990 s would not have been possible without the involvement of that industry in the development and refinement of management strategies. Managers must constantly be alert to this need for continual engagement and to accept the resource cost it may involve. In addition, the changing patterns of use of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and our increasing knowledge of the ecological process requires us to be evolutionary (e.g. reviewing zoning provisions) and, in some cases, revolutionary (e.g. Management Plans and the introduction of industryderived management standards and techniques) in our approaches to management. However, perhaps the most rewarding lesson we have learned is that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is not alone! Through national and international networks such as the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), advances in coral reef and related ecosystem management are being shared throughout the world coral reef community (e.g. Dight et al. 1998). It is therefore incumbent on the Authority to work in cooperation with other agencies and community groups to both lead and learn from the experiences of others. Environmental Impact Management The objective of Environmental Impact Management within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is to provide ecologically sustainable management of the impacts of human use. Key management tools include international conventions, legislation, policy, guidelines, plans, permits and education. Conditions are often applied to permits including the requirement for environmental impact management plans, site supervision, bonds, deeds and monitoring. When considering an application to undertake activities in the Marine Park, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983 specify that the Authority must undertake an assessment. In addition to assessing activities undertaken inside the Marine Park, recent legislation requires assessment of proposals to discharge aquaculture waste into the Marine Park or adjacent streams. Environmental impact assessment is undertaken for all major and routine permit applications and follows specific requirements included in legislation (sub-regulation 18 (4) of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations). These regulations specify that in considering an application, the Authority shall have regard to 12 criteria including the objective of the zone, cultural and heritage values and amenity. This process is described in detail on the Authority s web site at The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority adopts a risk assessment approach to assessing permit applications and categorises activities as major projects or routine activities. The former require detailed assessment, while routine activities generally have lower risk and a lesser assessment requirement. Examples of major projects include marinas, pontoons, dredging and reclamation, sewage outlets and aquaculture. The Authority assesses approximately 50 major projects each year and large projects may require ongoing management over years or even decades to modify permit conditions, review monitoring and ensure compliance. Examples of routine activities include tourist programs, research and traditional hunting. Approximately 800 applications for routine activities are assessed each year. The type and number of permissions issued by the Authority in the last two years is shown in Table 1. There are a number of new issues affecting impact assessment on the Great Barrier Reef. New Australia-wide legislation (the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999), provides additional capacity to manage threatening activities occurring outside the Marine Park. Other recent legislation provides indigenous Australians with additional rights with respect to their potential Native Title rights (rights to ownership and use of

3 land). The Authority is in the process of developing satisfactory procedures to take the interests of potential Native Title holders into account before decisions are made. A further major challenge is the streamlining of procedures so that permit applications can be processed cheaper and faster. In the future we intend to place more emphasis on major threats and fewer resources on management of routine activities. We intend to devote more attention to development and implementation of strategic policies for environmental impact assessment, aquaculture, structures and dredging. We also plan to introduce standard permits for routine activities rather than continuing to issue specific, complicated permits. Table 1 Permissions granted in the last two years for activities in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Number Granted Permission Type Tourism programs Research programs Education programs Moorings 1 30 Collecting Traditional hunting Aquaculture 1 1 Sea dumping 2 2 Offshore structures 3 8 Removal of dangerous animals 5 23 Waste discharge 1 2 Tourist facilities 3 6 Other activities Total permissions granted Compliance When the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was established in 1975, strong emphasis was placed on education rather than enforcement of the new laws. While education and public information remain key strategies, a broader and more structured approach to compliance with legislation has recently been adopted. A Compliance and Enforcement Plan has been prepared in cooperation with relevant Australian enforcement agencies. The plan seeks to ensure that there is a coordinated and cost-effective approach to compliance and enforcement and that resources are focused on the priority compliance risks. Optimal compliance is to be achieved through: maximising voluntary compliance (encouraging and educating commercial and recreational users to voluntarily comply with legislation); and providing an effective deterrent capability (detection, prosecution and administrative sanctions) against non-compliance, ensuring that the deterrence offsets the gains of non-compliant activity. A comprehensive assessment of compliance risks has been developed for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The assessment comprises a matrix of risk and impact and a sample of this assessment is given in Table 2. The matrix identifies types of illegal activities expected to be conducted in the Marine Park and indicates the probability of occurrence, level of impact and a resultant level of priority for compliance resources. The assessment was based on the judgement of officers from relevant enforcement agencies. Three levels of impact were defined, as follows: High Impact Expansive (large/wide scale) habitat or environmental destruction. Extensive requirement for management and financial resources. Endangering of a species. Critical depletion of a natural resource/ commercial species. Medium Impact Significant (localised) habitat or environmental damage or disregard for management principles. Moderate increase or normal requirement for management. Significant reduction in population size of a species. Significant reduction in natural resource/ comercial species. Low Impact Less than Medium/High. No additional requirement for management. Natural recovery is likely. Priority for allocating resources to compliance tasks is determined by considering both probability and impact. A numerical scale is achieved by allocating a number to each impact and probability (High 3, Medium 2, Low 1) and multiplying the two. The risk assessment has identified the following activities as the priority compliance risks: Cumulative activities (i.e. intensively used locations where the cumulative effect of a number of lesser incidents magnifies the impacts of the individual incidents). Commercial line fishing and trawling. Taking of protected species. Netting in Dugong Protection Areas. Shipping and maritime pollution (vessels greater than 50 metres and/or discharges greater than 1000 tonnes). Specific strategies were developed to target each of the priority compliance risks. Broadly these strategies involve: maximising the presence in the field of Marine Park Inspector, with additional vessel and aerial patrols targeted

4 Table 2 Examples from Compliance Risk Assessment Matrix CATEGORY OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY (Risk description) PROBABILITY IMPACT Low - 1 Medium - 2 High - 3 Low - 1 Medium - 2 High - 3 PRIORITY Low (1:2:3) Medium (4:5:6) High (7:8:9) Collecting (recreational, shells) High (3) Low (1) Low (3) Dredging Low (1) High (3) Low (3) Netting (in dugong priority areas) Medium (2) High (3) Medium (6) Diving, and Boating Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Line Fishing (licensed, demersal) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (6) Research (manipulative) Low (1) Low (1) Low (1) Spearfishing Medium (2) Low (1) Low (2) Structure Low (1) Medium (2) Low (2) Tourism and Education Programs Medium (2) Low (1) Low (2) Traditional Activity (hunting) High (3) Medium (2) Medium (6) Traditional Activity (fishing and gathering) Low (1) Medium (2) Low (2) Trawling High (3) High (3) High (9) Protected Species Medium (2) High (3) Medium (6) Shipping Incident (Cooktown North) Medium (2) High (3) Medium (6) Shipping Incident (vessels < 50 m in high use areas) Medium (2) Medium (2) Medium (4) Discharges (less than 1000 tonnes) Medium (2) Medium (2) Medium (4) Environmental Management Charge Medium (2) Medium (2) Medium (4) Littering High (3) Low (1) Low (3) Historic Wrecks Medium (2) Medium (2) Medium (4) Cumulative Activities (high use areas) High (3) High (3) High (9) at priority enforcement actions; maximising use of intelligence information and analysis; ensuring the most effective integration of inter-agency surveillance and enforcement programs; and investigating the application of advanced technology. With regard to the latter, all trawlers in the Marine Park have been fitted with a Vessel Monitoring System that tracks their movements in real time. Although increased emphasis is being placed on enforcement and prosecution, education is still seen as the most effective compliance tool. Strategies being implemented include distribution of products such as maps, brochures and tide tables that incorporate relevant information; a media program to increase general public awareness and to encourage the reporting of illegal activity, oil spills or stranded animals; the publicising of successful prosecutions; and the raising of awareness within the Judiciary of the impact of illegal activities in order to encourage stronger penalties. The new approach to compliance within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has achieved valuable results. There has been a 42% increase in Marine Park prosecutions since its introduction in 1999/2000. In the absence of any reason or evidence for increased noncompliance, it is believed this is the direct result of the larger and more targeted enforcement programs. Closer cooperation has been established between enforcement agencies, including jointly staffing patrols and sharing of intelligence information. The public is increasingly reporting illegal activities. Conclusion Planning, environmental impact assessment and compliance remain the primary tools for managing human impact on the Great Barrier Reef. These tools have been refined since declaration of the Marine Park in They have proven effective at managing a range of activities, particularly tourism and physical structures. A recent review of impact monitoring for tourist developments (Warnken and Buckley 2000) found the Authority s model significantly better than others and recommended its wider adoption. However, cumulative impacts, particularly from land based activities and fishing, remain a threat. Responses by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to these threats are described by Brodie (this volume) and Cadwallader et al. (this volume).

5 Acknowledgements The assistance of Stefanie Myers in managing this manuscript is gratefully acknowledged. The comments of the two anonymous referees have improved this paper. References Brodie J (this volume) Keeping the wolf from the door: managing land-based threats to the Great Barrier Reef. Proc 9th Int Coral Reef Symp, Bali, October 2000 Cadwallader P, Russell M, Cameron D, Bishop M, Tanzer, J (this volume) Achieving ecologically sustainable fisheries in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Proc 9th Int Coral Reef Symp, Bali, October 2000 Chadwick V, Green A (this volume) Managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and World Heritage Area through critical issues management: Science and management. Proc 9th Int Coral Reef Symp. Bali, October 2000 Dight I, Kenchington R, Baldwin J (eds) (1998) Proceedings: International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposium Driml S (1999) Dollar values and trends of major direct uses of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Research Publication No. 56, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville GBRMPA (1994) Keeping it great: the Great Barrier Reef. A 25 Year Strategic Plan for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area , GBRMPA, Townsville Ilett A, Skeat H, Thomas C, Bonanno V, Green E, Smith A (this volume) Managing tourism sustainably lessons learned on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proc 9th Intn. Coral Reef Symp., Bali, October 2000 Kelleher G (1986) Managing the Great Barrier Reef. Oceanus 29(2): Kenchington RA (1990) Managing Marine Ecosystems. Taylor and Francis, New York Inc McPhail I (1997) Partnerships and collaboration: management of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, past present and future. Proceedings 1: The Great Barrier Reef: science, use and management, a national conference, CRC Reef Research Centre and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville: 5 8 Warnken J, Buckley R (2000) Monitoring diffuse impacts: Australian tourism developments. Environmental Management 25(4):