Maritime Studies
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Maritime Studies |
|
The Forum brought together 200 participants with an interest in the South-east Regional Marine Plan, one of the primary outcomes from the Federal Government’s Oceans Policy. Australia is responsible for managing oceans equivalent to twice the area of its landmass and a planning process has begun for marine areas around Australia, beginning with the South-east Regional Marine Plan, which would be a world first. The Region is defined by an initial assessment of large-scale ecosystems in Australia’s marine jurisdictions. It includes:
• marine ecosystems within a 200 nautical mile limit (Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone) from latitude 35.5oS off the westernmost point of Kangaroo Island to latitude 36oS off southern New South Wales
• the large marine ecosystem off Macquarie Island.
The Region will also cover areas of continental shelf beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Australia can claim rights to the seabed resources of these areas.
The participants were welcomed by the Forum host and Chair of the National Oceans Advisory Group, Dr Russell Reichelt, and listened to an address by the Minister for the Environment, The Hon. Robert Hill, which established the origins and context for the South-east Regional Marine Plan.
This was followed by a keynote address by Mr Mike Young of CSIRO’s Land and Water Group and a paper by the Director of the National Oceans Office, Ms Veronica Sakell, on the Regional Marine Planning Process. Participants then moved into 20 working groups to discuss the first of what would be a series of seven issues papers relating to the marine planning process; these were interspersed with focus papers by each member of the National Oceans Advisory Group, and punctuated by two plenary sessions. The full account of the working group discussions will appear in the Proceedings of the Forum, which will be published in June.
The following is a selective summary of the matters that were raised. All participants were clear about the implications of the marine planning process. Many of them had had previous experience with government agencies, which often surfaced in responses to the issues raised but did not diminish their good will and willingness to engage in the process. Concerns included funding, the regulatory burden [the temptation of adding to which, they said, should be resisted], and ecologically sustainable development.
Many matters of importance to Indigenous Communities, such as sea rights and resource rents also surfaced. The core elements in the Plan were seen as conservation (in the broadest sense) and wealth generation. The close link between coastal, estuarine and marine systems was noted, as was the fact that ocean ecosystems could have a terrestrial component. The relationship between land and sea was obviously an inter-affective one, and it follows that what happens in the oceans will impact what occurs on the land, and vice-versa.
Participants thought the management approach in regional marine planning should be holistic, employ motivation rather than enforcement, and incentives rather than penalties. They also asserted that the role of stakeholders and the mechanisms to sustain their commitment were important. The ‘triple bottom line’ of ‘economy, society, environment’ was significant. The approach to marine planning should be outcomes- and performance-based, and occur within a pre-determined time frame. A ‘duty of care’ applied, and management must be adaptive and consultative. Re-invention of the wheel and increased complexity should be avoided, goals set should be achievable, and the processes should be ‘taken to the players’, with no surprises along the way.
Resources will be limited, and costs should be shared; in this connection, the efficiency of the private sector was noted. Participants asked: ‘how will the costs of the process be shared or allocated? How will the process add value, and over what term?’ They thought that the costs of implementation would in the first instance fall on industry, and then trickle down to the taxpayer and consumer. ‘Resource rents’ and existing property rights should also be considered and perhaps the ultimate beneficiaries of the marine planning process should meet some of the costs.
Cooperation and collaboration would be important. That between tiers of government was essential, as was that between the government and private sectors, and between different sectors. Government should not drive the process; and stakeholders must be persuaded to join it. Government should raise awareness and inform those involved in the process, which should be open to all stakeholders, although some will need funding to participate. Effort and inputs could be optimised through research, which would also tend to avoid duplication of effort.
Partnership, not regulation is the key, and balance and negotiation between the sectors is essential. Negotiation should be horizontal, not top-down; even so, consensus across such a diverse context will be difficult. Accessible databases, and an agreed vocabulary would be useful. Much uncertainty existed and many decisions might have to be made in a climate of uncertainty and consequently the use of the ‘precautionary approach’ was endorsed. Establishment of an accessible database of information should be an early priority, because knowledge about the region was fragmentary and scattered.
The success of the planning process would rest in large measure on the communication processes which developed; these must reach all those within the ambit of the South-east Regional Marine Plan, and must be conveyed in terms appropriate to each of the intended audiences. Development of an effective communications strategy was a very early priority.
Throughout the discussions and regardless of their background, members of the working groups were totally constructive in their contributions, even when expressing their concerns. The dominant note was one of optimism and goodwill. Many participants expressed a desire that the process should succeed and wished it well. A number complimented their hosts on the organisation of the Forum, expressed their appreciation of the opportunity to be part of it, and looked forward to being involved in the process as it unfolded.
Courtesy: BBC News Online
Australia’s seagrass beds must be protected for the sake of fisheries and other industries, a major R&D review recommends.
The nation’s estimated 51,000 square kilometres of seagrass was the biggest and most diverse resource of its kind in the world, said review chairman Alan Butler, leader of the CSIRO’s marine biodiversity group.
But if beds continued to disappear there would be a commensurate economic and ecological impact, he said.
The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation- (FRDC) funded review team comprised 17 marine scientists from the CSIRO, universities, State agencies and industry.
Their assessment of current knowledge confirmed that the ecological role of seagrasses and their importance to commercial fish species were not well understood. Nor were the changes currently occurring to the beds themselves.
‘We need to identify activities that seriously harm seagrasses and work out how to rehabilitate damaged beds,’ Alan Butler said.
‘The whole community is a stakeholder. We have a national opportunity to rebuild a resource that is one link in a critical chain of habitats important to fisheries, aquaculture, tourism and the healthy functioning of near-shore marine ecosystems,’ he said.
The committee recommends a collaborative approach by managers and users to establish the required research priorities, particularly the links between seagrass and healthy, productive fisheries. Its R&D plan calls for:
• More research on links between finfish and seagrass, particularly in tropical waters;
• Understanding the link between near-shore seagrass beds and commercially-important fish species in other habitats;
• Mapping the distribution of seagrasses, especially in the tropical north and north west;
• A national action plan for seagrass understanding and management;
• A review of the implications of human activities such as nutrient loadings, the influence of introduced pests and impacts, if any, of trawling and aquaculture; and
• Implementation of research on seagrass biology to develop seagrass restoration techniques.
Seagrass in Australia: Strategic Review and Development of an R&D Plan is available from CSIRO Publishing, free call 1800 645 051, for $59.95. It is also at www.publish.csiro.au/seagrass. A summary booklet is available free from FRDC, phone (02) 6285 0400.
Courtesy: Fisheries R&D News
Shipping is a significant user of the waters of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and several major routes intersect at Torres Strait at the northern Boundary of the Marine Park.
Ships transiting the inner shipping route between the Queensland coast and outer reefs carry a wide range of cargoes, including bauxite and alumina, manganese, iron ore, coal, sugar, general container freight and oil.
The ships transiting the inner route fall into several categories:
• International through traffic not visiting Australian ports (a proportionately small group);
• Foreign-flagged trading vessels visiting Australian ports;
• Australian-flagged overseas trading vessels;
• Australia coastal traders;
• Australian fishing vessels; and
• International and Australian non-commercial traffic, such as yachts, motor cruisers, and tourist and naval vessels.
Accurate knowledge of the types, cargoes and movements of ships using the Great Barrier Reef routes has been difficult to obtain in the past. However, the Ships reporting System (REEFREP) has provided managers with the first complete picture of the numbers and type of vessels using the inner route and, more importantly, entering and departing the Reef through Hydrographers, Palm and Grafton Passages.
There are about 3000 shipping movements (vessels in excess of 50 metres in length) within the Great Barrier Reef every year. Two-thirds of these use the inner shipping route with the rest entering or departing through Hydrographers, Palm and Grafton Passages.
Bulk carriers comprise the largest proportion of the shipping, which is consistent with the large amount of trade through the bulk ore ports of Hay Point, Abbot Point and Gladstone. Only five per cent are oil tankers with most on northerly transits, which indicates that most of the oil cargo carried through the reef is refined product.
Courtesy: Reef Management News
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MarStudies/2000/15.html