Triggers for Late Twentieth Century Reform of Australian Coastal Management

Transcription

1 275 Triggers for Late Twentieth Century Reform of Australian Coastal Management B.G. THOM AND N. HARVEY This paper identifies four triggers that underpinned the late 20th century reform of coastal management in Australia. These have operated across federal, state and local levels of government. The triggers are global environmental change, sustainable development, integrated resource management, and community awareness of management issues and participation in decision making. This reform has been driven by international and national forces. A number of inquiries into coastal management in Australia culminated in the production of a national coastal policy in This has led to fundamental changes in coastal management and to the recognition of the inevitability of changes in coastal systems. Federal policies and programs are being translated into action at the state and local government levels through a variety of funding mechanisms and programs. These involve capacity building, a memorandum of understanding between all levels of government, an enhanced role for state advisory or co-ordinating bodies, and an increased role for public participation. Although recent reviews of Australian coastal management (Haward, 1995; Kay and Lester, 1997) have considered the historical context and national political framework within which changes to coastal management systems have occurred, several aspects, not least those with an international dimension, have been neglected in Professor Bruce Thom is Chair, New South Wales Coastal Council and Visiting Professor, School of Geography, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia. Associate Professor Nick Harvey is a Member, South Australian Coast Protection Board and Head of the Department of Geographical and Environmental Studies, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia. these works. The aim of this paper, therefore, is to examine four triggers that we suggest have stimulated reform of coastal management in Australia at the end of the 20th century (Figure 1). These are: 1. Global environmental change. 2. Adoption of the principles of sustainable development. 3. Application of strategic planning principles as a result of pressure for a more holistic or integrated approach to resource management. 4. Greater community awareness of management issues and greater community participation in decision making. Australian Geographical Studies November (3):

2 276 Australian Geographical Studies Figure 1 The triggers stimulating the late 20th century reform of Australian coastal management. Each factor is manifest in different ways at the federal, state and local levels of government and across community groups with interests in coastal management. This paper examines how these triggers have affected the changing roles and responsibilities of coastal managers in Australia. International dimensions In various ways and to different degrees, the four triggers identified as influencing coastal management permeated the management policies of coastal nations in the 1980s and 1990s (Hildreth, 1994). The trigger of global environmental change can be seen in the move towards sustainable development and the wise use of global resources. In part this is a consequence of the climatic change projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the debate over the enhanced greenhouse effect (Houghton et al., 1990; 1992; 1996). Whilst early projections added urgency to the push for a reduced output of greenhouse gases, they also created sometimes alarmist concerns about the impacts of potential sea-level rise, particularly for small island nations and heavily populated coastal deltas. In response, the IPCC

3 Triggers for Late Twentieth Century Reform of Australian Coastal Management 277 produced a Common Methodology for Assessing Vulnerability to Sea-level Rise (IPCC, 1991) (see also Harvey et al. [1999]). One result of this was the realisation by coastal nations that modifications to coastal management systems were necessary if they were to cope with the environmental changes projected by the IPCC. The trigger of sustainable development (ecologically sustainable development [ESD] in Australia) achieved global attention following the World Commission on Environment and Development and its publication of Our Common Future, also known as the Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). It was given further impetus at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janiero known as the Earth Summit (Robinson et al., ). The UNCED Rio Declaration recognised the necessity for new approaches to coastal management that are integrated in content, and precautionary and anticipatory in ambit (Knecht and Cicin-Sain, 1993). Section 17.5 of the Rio Declaration spelled out the need to... provide for an integrated policy and decision-making process, including all involved sectors, to promote compatibility and a balance of uses... (Hildreth, 1994, 106). There are similar objectives in the 1994 IPCC report:... the comprehensive assessment, setting of objectives, planning and management of coastal systems and resources, taking into account traditional, cultural and historical perspectives and conflicting interests and uses; it is a continuous and evolutionary process for achieving sustainable development. (IPCC, 1994, 40). The trigger of integrated resource management has given rise to the concept of Integrated Coastal Zone Management, more commonly called Integrated Coastal Management (ICM). This is regarded by many United Nations organisations and specialists in the field as the best approach to the management of coastal resources (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998). Although the ICM concept has been around for more than 30 years (Sorenson, 1997), it was the Earth Summit that created an international push for its adoption. In 1992, Agenda 21, the United Nations program of action for sustainable development (Robinson et al., ), encompassed the concept of integrated management; and recent international discussions of coastal management practices have supported the call for an integrated approach (Kay and Alder, 1999; Salomons et al., 1999). The concept has been accepted by many nations with coastal management programs and legislation. These include Australia, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Italy, Mexico, Nigeria, the People s Republic of China, Pohnpei State (Federated States of Micronesia), Sri Lanka, Turkey, the United States, the United Kingdom and Venezuela (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998). Chapter 17 of Agenda 21 (Robinson et al., ) is dedicated to the protection of the oceans, all kinds of seas (including enclosed and semi-enclosed seas) and coastal areas, and the protection, rational use and development of their living resources. It recognises the need for new approaches to marine and coastal area management and development at the national, subregional, regional and global levels. In 1993, the Council of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the first World Coastal Conference adopted and produced guidelines for the integrated management of coastal zones. These included institutional and general public roles and responsibilities for managing the use of coastal resources. In 1994, the Second International Conference on Oceanography: Toward Sustainable Use of Oceans and Coastal Zones, convened by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, reiterated the commitment of the international marine science community to the sustainable use of the ocean. In 1996, 38 countries met in Canada to discuss the theme

4 278 Australian Geographical Studies Coastal Zones: Integrated Management and Sustainable Development. One of the objectives of this meeting was to encourage decisionmakers to incorporate the conference s recommendations into their strategies for integrated management and sustainable development of coastal regions (El-Sabh et al., 1998). World-wide, coastal managers are adopting an integrated approach, recognising the links between activities in coastal lands and coastal waters. International efforts, such as those of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, have attempted to develop guidelines for ICM. These stress the importance of strengthening and harmonising cross-sectoral management. Although the various guidelines differ in their approach to ICM, they all accept that horizontal and vertical integration and coordination must be part of any attempt at ICM. More recently, the need for integrating ocean and coastal management has been expounded by Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998). Traditionally, ocean management issues related to activities such as the determination of maritime boundaries, freedom of navigation and conservation of highly migratory species. Today, with the increased use of the ocean for activities such as mariculture and ocean mining, a new approach to ocean management has emerged, stressing the links between land, coast and ocean systems. As noted by Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, 18), the rationale for an integrated approach is twofold. First, integrated approaches consider the effects that ocean and coastal use, as well as activities further inland, can have on ocean and coastal environments. Secondly, they examine the effects ocean and coastal users can have on one another. Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998) regarded integration as involving: 1. Intergovernmental integration/vertical integration: integration between national, provincial and local governments. 2. Intersectoral integration/horizontal integration: integration between government agencies in different sectors, between different marine and coastal sectors (industrial, conservation, recreational, tourist, beach protection), and integration between coastal and marine sectors and land-based sectors. 3. Spatial integration: integration between the land, ocean and coastal zones. 4. Science-management integration: integration between different disciplines and between scientists and managers. 5. International integration: integration between nations when needed. The fourth trigger, community participation, awareness and contribution to decision making, has also become an accepted part of international declarations. One result of the recognition of cultural differences is an appreciation of the need to incorporate local, regional and national perspectives in the development of management policies and plans. The Rio Declaration has the clear aim of broadening participation by all stakeholders in determining how coastal resources are used. Historical domination of coastal management in Australia by the states Although the Commonwealth (the national government) has previously shown an interest in taking an active role in coastal matters in Australia (Kenchington, 1994), the management of the coast has historically been characterised by state domination. Several coastal inquiries have noted how state-based sectoral administration often leads to unco-ordinated and fragmented agency responsibilities. A major national survey of federal, state and local government managers identified a strong barrier to the formation of integrated policy and... the existence of closed communication circles within and between policy sectors. (Brown, 1995). The Commonwealth has historically played no significant role in coastal management, except in certain specific areas related to Commonwealth responsibility, such as the Great Barrier Reef or land used for defence purposes. Management of the Great Barrier Reef provides

5 Triggers for Late Twentieth Century Reform of Australian Coastal Management 279 a unique example of state and Commonwealth co-operation through an integrated approach to coastal management (Harvey, 1999). States are vested with powers to determine land use under the Commonwealth Constitution, with local councils delegated specific responsibilities by state governments. Until recently, many local councils brought a limited perspective to coastal management. For example, Murrell (1996, 24), after 20 years as a municipal councillor for the city of Portland in southwest Victoria, commented that there... was little strategic thinking, confusion occurred in terms of responsibilities and therefore community participation and planning was very fragmented, and there was no attempt at achieving catchment coordination or integrated coastal management. Domination of local coastal management by engineers often resulted in a focus on physical structures, short time frames and professional responsibility, precluding alternative perspectives and a broader interdisciplinary approach. Many examples of rigidity in thinking, turf wars, legal obstacles (given different responsibilities as defined in Commonwealth and state legislation) and other factors which have impeded effective coastal management have been identified (see Brown [1995] for specific details). Problems of overlapping or juxtaposed jurisdictions and indecision in coastal management have existed both within and between states (Cullen, 1982). Examples of intra-state issues include the River Murray mouth in South Australia (Harvey, 1988), where local boundaries, jurisdictions and management responsibilities have become confused by the rapidly moving nature of the river mouth. Interstate issues include the construction of the Tweed River breakwater (training wall) on the border of New South Wales and Queensland. The downdrift impact of the Tweed River training walls is well documented (see Gourlay [1996] for an historical summary). The recent partnership agreement between the two state governments here has paved the way for a long-term solution to the problem (see Lawson et al. [1996] for an outline of the sand bypassing project at the Tweed River Entrance). The 60 or so reports at Commonwealth or state government levels on coastal management, referred to by Kenchington (1994), have over the past two decades repeatedly called for better co-ordination and integration between the various levels of government. This point was made most forcefully by the Resource Assessment Commission (RAC) in its Coastal Zone Inquiry (RAC, 1993), the most recent national inquiry on the coast and the one to have had most impact. Australian coastal management inquiries since 1990 In Australia, coastal management underwent a period of extensive review in the early 1990s at both Commonwealth and state levels (see Haward [1995], Kay et al. [1995] and Kay and Lester [1997]). At the national level, this culminated in the production of the Resource Assessment Commission s Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report (RAC, 1993). This attempted to examine coastal management responsibilities across all three levels of government. The timing of the RAC report was important for a number of reasons. It was initiated soon after a federal parliamentary coastal inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and Arts (HORSCERA, 1991). National strategies on greenhouse gas emissions (Anon., 1992a) and ESD (Anon., 1992b) were also being developed around this time. The formulation of these strategies reflected a response to the twin triggers of environmental change and the principles of sustainable development. Also relevant was the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, drawn up between the Commonwealth, state, territory and local governments in 1992 (Anon., 1992c), and the fact that the Commonwealth s own environmental body was concurrently

6 280 Australian Geographical Studies developing its own coastal policy (Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment and Territories, 1992). The RAC Inquiry therefore worked within the context of these other national reports and agreements. The changes in coastal management policy in Australia arose in part from the Commonwealth government s response to international deliberations on the Brundtland Report (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987), coupled with its preparation for the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in The Commonwealth government released its ESD strategy in 1992 along with more than 600 recommendations dealing with both sectoral and inter-sectoral issues. The objective of the intersectoral section on coasts was to develop coastal policies, consistent with ESD principles, within each jurisdiction (Anon., 1992b, 70). The implementation of this strategy as it relates to coastal management is discussed in a report prepared by the Intergovernmental Committee for Ecologically Sustainable Development (1996, ). The notion of ESD was enshrined in the brief for the RAC Coastal Zone Inquiry. It was clear from the report of HORSCERA (1991), entitled The Injured Coastline, that the Australian coast had not been treated sustainably. Numerous examples of coastal pollution, inappropriate development, loss of coastal habitat and destruction of coastal ecosystems were cited. The RAC Inquiry stressed that the environment should be treated holistically rather than following the government s usual practice of splitting up authority for various elements of the environment amongst different agencies. The RAC recognised the necessity for integrated management at various levels of government that would cut across individual agency responsibilities for managing the various environmental attributes of the coastal zone. One of the major conclusions of the RAC Inquiry (RAC, 1993, 83) was that... there remains a plethora of Acts affecting coastal zone management... [There have been] recent improvements in the level of coordination among the large number of institutions involved in coastal zone management but coordination and integration between institutions remain inadequate... The RAC (1993, 83 84) identified five shortcomings in the systems of management applied to Australia s coastal zone: 1. Approvals systems differ and are usually unco-ordinated. 2. The management and use of resources in the coastal zone is impeded by a lack of coordination and integration of management systems. 3. Existing mechanisms do not allow effective long-term management of coastal zone resources. 4. Approval procedures are complex, timeconsuming and often sequential rather than concurrent, making them costly for applicants and governments. 5. Although some Commonwealth, state and local government agencies have developed policies to achieve coastal management objectives, the policies and objectives are not often implemented and they are rarely integrated with social, economic and environmental goals. The RAC recommended a national approach to coastal zone management because of the increase in both population and development along the coast. It proposed a Commonwealth Coastal Resource Management Act to incorporate the objectives and principles of coastal management agreed to by the states and the Commonwealth. However, the proposed Act, which was intended to link funding of activities in the coastal zone to nationally agreed objectives and principles, was rejected by the states, which saw it as a threat to state rights. The RAC did not propose any new bureaucracies, but it did propose a National Coastal Action Program. This was to have four main elements:

7 Triggers for Late Twentieth Century Reform of Australian Coastal Management Adoption by the Council of Australian Governments of a set of common national coastal zone objectives. 2. The establishment of arrangements for implementing and managing the program. 3. Greater community and industry consultation in coastal management (for example, the proposed Coastcare program). 4. Wider and better use of modern management and economic tools. To support this program there was to be a National Coastal Management Agency and a National Consultative Council (a part-time body drawn from business, industry, tertiary and research institutions, and community groups). The RAC suggested a set of objectives be adopted for the National Coastal Action Program, to be consistent where appropriate with ESD principles. It proposed that these objectives should also recognise the consequences of the dynamic nature of the coast as well as the need to maintain the biological diversity of marine and terrestrial ecosystems. It is clear that the apparent success of the Commonwealth s role in the management of the Great Barrier Reef guided the RAC in developing its final report (see also Whitehouse [1993], Bowen [1994] and Harvey [1999]). Commonwealth coastal policy, Following the RAC Inquiry, which reflected the impact of the triggers discussed above, a foundation existed for Commonwealth action. The government was in a position by 1995 to respond to the recommendations of the Ecologically Sustainable Development Working Groups and RAC coastal reports, in addition to the growing community concern about the magnitude of coastal problems. These problems included increasing vegetation destruction and threats of pollution (for example, from sewer outfalls), the insidious spread of urban areas, tourist developments perceived as destroying coastal values, and frustrations flowing from fragmented decision-making. The Keating Labor government released its landmark Commonwealth Coastal Policy in May 1995 (Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, 1995). As cautiously noted by Morvell (1966, 301),... it is the Commonwealth s blueprint for achieving integrated coastal management in Australia... There have also been major advances in the policy framework for coastal management by the States. Nevertheless, good policy has often sat on shelves across Australia and gathered dust, and the formulation of good policy has often proved a less demanding task than its implementation. The new role for the Commonwealth was timely because it made it clear to all levels of government, the community and industry that it was taking global change, ESD, integrated management principles and the need for more community participation all very seriously. The Policy was to be backed with guidelines, new programs and funds. The health of our coast was seen as crucial to the economic health of our tourism, fishing and aquaculture industries, as well as important to human health (Morvell, 1996, 303). The Keating government established a set of objectives covering sustainable resource use, resource conservation, public participation, and the use of improved knowledge on climate and sea level change. These objectives clearly embraced the triggers listed on Figure 1. The first initiative in 1995 was the Coastal Action Program (CAP). A key component of this was Coastcare, the coastal equivalent of Landcare, which was directed towards community participation. According to Morvell (1996, 303) it was the... flagship of CAP because it is the public profile of the Commonwealth actions, and embodies the principle of integrated and participative decision making. Another major thrust of the CAP involved capacity building. This is the provision of decision makers with training, skills, knowledge, and access to data bases and networks in an effort to improve their ability to tackle coastal issues. Local governments

8 282 Australian Geographical Studies require technical support and assistance to cope with the isolation, pressures and need for personal professional development faced by many planners, engineers and other officers who are in direct contact with the public and industry. A further initiative involved the provision, from a national source, of data and information of value to local governments and the community. The result of this was CoastNet, an online support service using the resources of the Environment portfolio. The Keating government saw the success of the CAP as dependent on co-operation between all three levels of government. Although the Commonwealth agreed to make A$53.5M available over four years, the states were required to match the Commonwealth s financial contribution for Coastcare and several other programs. The acceptance of a Commonwealth role through a memorandum of understanding involving all states and representatives of local government was a major achievement. This role was formalised by the new Commonwealth government in The new Howard Coalition government continued the commitment to many programs, albeit in a modified form (Hill, 1996). For instance, it has not established a National Consultative Council as recommended by the RAC (1993), nor did it see the need to push for coastal resource management legislation. Instead, in 1997, the Howard government established the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) designed... to help restore Australia s precious natural capital... in the context of an ecologically sustainable future. The Trust aims to provide mechanisms to protect the environment... through a partnership between community organisations and the three tiers of government... (Hill and Anderson, 1998, 2). A Coasts and Clean Seas program is one of five major capital components of the NHT, involving expenditure of A$125M over five years. This particular program was established as an integral part of the Trust because it was recognised that protecting our coastline and oceans is a goal that all Australians share. In introducing the guide to Coasts and Clean Seas funding applications for , the two Ministers responsible for the NHT stated As an island nation with a population that primarily lives around its edges, the future of our marine environment is indisputably of national importance. (Hill and Anderson, 1998, 2). Coasts and Clean Seas comprises several separate programs including: 1. Coastcare: community-based care of the coastal environment. 2. Clean Seas: to reduce marine pollution. 3. Introduced Marine Pests: to reduce the impact of marine pests. 4. Marine Species Protection. 5. Monitoring: to help identify threats to the coastal and marine environments. 6. Coastal and Marine Planning. 7. Marine Protected Areas. 8. Capacity Building. Several of these programs commenced in 1997 and 1998 in association with state and local governments which provided support in cash or kind for many projects. Elaborate assessment processes involving state-based assessment panels have been established to ensure local and regional identification of projects to be recommended to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage for approval. Change in state government policies, Statutory responsibilities for coastal management in Australia are vested in state governments, including, by agreement with the Commonwealth, an area extending three nautical miles seaward of the low water mark. These responsibilities have been recently revised in many states (Table I). Local governments are empowered by state legislation to exercise certain planning and management controls in coastal areas. Amendments to state and local government powers partly reflect the need to translate national policies and international protocols and agreements into outcomes supportive of programs of environmental protection and enhancement

9 Triggers for Late Twentieth Century Reform of Australian Coastal Management 283 Table I Coastal management arrangements in Australia s states and territories. State or territory Dedicated coastal legislation Lead agency Strategic document South Australia Coast Protection Act 1972 Coast Our Seas & Coasts: a Marine & Protection Board Estuarine Strategy for South Australia (non-statutory) (Marine and Estuarine Steering Committee, 1998) New South Wales Coastal Protection Act 1998 New South Wales NSW Coastal Policy 1997 Coastal Council (statutory) (New South Wales Government, 1997) Queensland Coastal Protection and Coastal Protection State Coastal Management Plan draft Management Act 1995 Advisory Council due August 2000 (statutory) (Queensland Government, in preparation) Victoria Coastal Management Victorian Coastal Victorian Coastal Strategy (statutory) Act 1995 Council (Victorian Coastal Council, 1997) Tasmania (no specific legislation) State Coastal Advisory Tasmanian State Coastal Policy 1996 Committee (statutory) (Tasmanian Government, 1996) Western Australia (no specific legislation) Coastal Zone Council Coastal Zone Management Policy (in preparation) (Western Australian Government, in preparation) Northern Territory (no specific legislation) Northern Territory Northern Territory Coastal Management Coastal and Marine Policy, 1985 (Northern Territory Co-ordination Group Government, 1985) whilst permitting various types of commercial developments and improvements to recreational amenities. For the purpose of illustration we shall comment briefly on the influence of the four triggers listed on Figure 1 in two states, New South Wales and South Australia. The global environmental change trigger is significant in both states. In New South Wales, the issue of sea-level rise as a consequence of global warming is raised as a matter of concern in the Coastline Management Manual (New South Wales Government, 1990) and is incorporated into the state s 1997 Coastal Policy (New South Wales Government, 1997). In South Australia, the potential for sea-level rise as a result of global warning is taken into consideration in the 1991 Hazards and Flooding Policy (Coast Protection Board, 1992). The fact that this policy is based on earlier IPCC estimates of greenhouse-induced eustatic sea level rise (Houghton et al., 1990) rather than on more recent (and lower) estimates is evidence of the use of the precautionary principle in preparing the South Australian policy. The role of the second trigger, ESD, is more evident in New South Wales than in South Australia. The New South Wales 1997 Coastal Policy is based on the principles of ESD and states that the new Coastal Council... will have a review role in ensuring that major rezonings and major new developments in the coastal zone are consistent with the ESD principles on which the policy is based... (New South Wales Government, 1997, 25). The amended Coastal Protection Act 1998 also involved introducing ESD provisions into the legislation. In South Australia, apart from the use of the precautionary principle noted above, there is not much evidence for ESD as a direct

10 284 Australian Geographical Studies trigger for coastal reform. Attempts to review the outdated Coast Protection Act 1972 have been unsuccessful (Ministerial Review Committee, South Australian Coast Protection Board, 1992; 1993), although the adoption of ESD principles for coastal management is evident in internal reports and coastal strategy reviews. In some policy areas, such as those dealing with such issues as coastal shacks and aquaculture, ESD principles appear to be ignored. The third trigger, that of the integration of resource management, appears stronger in New South Wales than South Australia. The principle of Integrated Coastal Zone Management is enshrined in the New South Wales Coastal Policy (see Goal 9: To provide for integrated planning and management [New South Wales Government, 1997, 65]). The New South Wales Coastal Council is charged with specific responsibilities for the implementation of this Goal (see Strategic Actions 9.2.2, [New South Wales Government, 1997, 65]). State agencies and local councils are all obliged to collaborate, exchange information and jointly use funds to implement the Coastal Policy. In South Australia, Caton (a former Chair of the South Australian Coast Protection Board) stated in 1994 that:... there is no agenda or priority for Integrated Coastal Zone Management... [and]... when State government asked the CPB [Coast Protection Board] to look radically at coastal management in the State, it was clear that this did not mean considering a wider, co-ordinating role within an integrated approach. (Caton, 1994, 33). However, integration has been actively pursued at the local government level in South Australia, particularly since local councils were forced to take on a greater funding role for coastal management after the state government reduced its support in the early 1990s. There has also been a move toward resource management integration as a consequence of legislative changes in the related area of catchment management. The fourth trigger, that of community participation in resource management, is significant in both New South Wales and South Australia. The New South Wales Coastal Policy recognises the importance of community participation (New South Wales Government, 1997, 66). Government agencies provide advice to the community and involve the community in certain advisory bodies. Local councils encourage community participation in committees (such as the Estuary Management Committees) and help to fund Coastcare groups. By 1999, there were approximately 400 Coastline, Estuary, Dunecare and Coastcare groups and projects in New South Wales, all involving widespread community support (Chapple et al., 1999). In South Australia, the increased role of local government in coastal management has helped in meeting the demand for greater community participation in coastal resource management in the 1990s (the Coast Protection Board was active in this area during the 1970s and 1980s before its funds were cut). Local government together with the Coast Protection Board provided the driving force for South Australia to became the first state to sign the memorandum of understanding that initiated the CAP in This provided a significant step towards increasing community participation in coastal management. The effects of the four triggers are therefore less evident in South Australia than in New South Wales. This is partly because of the lack of an integrated coastal policy in South Australia and partly because its coastal legislation has been revised less recently than in New South Wales. Global change shows the strongest influence on state government coastal management. The influence of ESD is direct in New South Wales, but less so in South Australia where these principles have been adopted solely in new or amended legislation and strategies that only indirectly affect coastal management. The two factors of integration and community participation have had a strong influence on

11 Triggers for Late Twentieth Century Reform of Australian Coastal Management 285 coastal management in both states, but in South Australia the driving force for change in this area has come largely from local rather than state government. Discussion This focus of this paper is on changes in Australian coastal management, particularly during the 1990s, in relation to the four triggers of global environmental change, ESD principles, ICM practices and community participation in coastal management. Various inquiries in the 1990s, highlighting deficiencies in state and local government administration, provided the impetus for increased Commonwealth involvement in coastal issues. Most states have introduced a combination of new and amended coastal legislation and policies, and have undertaken collaborative programs with local government supported by the Commonwealth. However, it is still unclear how much progress has been made in addressing the systemic deficiencies identified by the RAC (1993). The first area of concern relates to the translation of scientific knowledge into new policies and management practices. Much scientific information on global warming and climatic change has entered the public domain, providing a broadened understanding of phenomena such as the enhanced greenhouse effect and the operation of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation. The widespread impacts of coastal storms along the New South Wales coast in the 1970s heightened awareness of the planning issues associated with coastal erosion (New South Wales Government, 1990). Further erosion since 1996 has demonstrated that personnel changes have reduced the technical capacity of decision makers to respond to local wave erosion except in an ad hoc, uncoordinated manner. This has led to a review of emergency management of beaches, focusing on the long-term protection of the beach amenity where seawalls have been constructed. The review, which is still in progress, has noted that some of the rapid response measures used for emergency works are not necessarily appropriate in the light of our current understanding of beach dynamics. Scientific bodies such as the IPCC play a significant policy role in alerting governments and societies to the potential impacts of global warming. Many governments have taken the threat of sea-level rise seriously and have used development control mechanisms to alleviate its potential impact (for example, in wharf building design and in widening set-back zones behind beaches as outlined by the Natural Research Council [1987]). Professional bodies such as the Institution of Engineers, Australia (IEA), have introduced codes that recognise the need to design for uncertainties of environmental change in coastal areas (IEA, 1991). Nevertheless, convincing bureaucrats and politicians of the necessity of maintaining investment in environmental change research remains a continuing challenge. In parallel with this, it is important to persuade them of the need to appoint staff who can listen and communicate with scientists and who can in turn help translate scientific knowledge into management plans and actions. The second trigger shown on Figure 1 is that of the application of ESD in coastal management. At the national level, the discussion about the application of ESD principles under the Hawke ( ) and Keating ( ) Labor governments was quite intense, culminating in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment of 1992 (Anon., 1992c). These principles were built into subsequent agreements, including the coastal Memorandum of Understanding establishing principles of partnership between all three levels of government for the Coasts and Clean Seas Program (finalised in 1998). The states have embraced the principles in somewhat different ways, with Tasmania, for instance, stressing sustainable development, whilst New South Wales apparently places more emphasis on ecologically sustainable activities. But the real question remains. How seriously will ESD principles be applied when confronted with

12 286 Australian Geographical Studies economically significant projects that may involve environmental degradation, such as the development of the Hinchinbrook Island National Park in north Queensland? At an international level, Bryant (1998) noted that whilst the sustainable development concept of the late 1980s offered a guiding vision, via the Earth Summit of 1992, that has produced official environmental initiatives in many countries, there is less evidence of these being translated into actions. He concluded that many of... these initiatives have failed to alter the policies and practices that are linked to various environmental problems. Indeed, a business-as-usual approach has been adopted by political and business leaders seemingly intent to avoid making the tough choices that a transition to sustainable development would appear to necessitate. (Bryant, 1998, 80). Although Bryant s analysis relates to the third world, Cocks (1999) has advanced similar arguments revealing the myth of sustainable development in Australia. Yet ESD principles offer an opportunity for stakeholders to communicate and negotiate resource management outcomes. The question is how to implement what is to many a quite difficult concept in natural resource management, distinct from the pioneering ethic of taming, controlling and exploiting these resources (see the discussion by Frawley [1994, Figure 4.2]). In New South Wales, local councils are assisted by the Coastal Council in the interpretation and application of ESD principles to coastal rezoning and in their assessment of new developments. At the same time, the State Assessment Panel for NHT coastal projects is encouraged by the Federal Minister responsible for the Coasts and Clean Seas Program to fund on-ground works that produce rapid and visible results which superficially accord with the idea of government accountability. Such works are not necessarily directly aligned with ESD principles. There is a distinct lack of research support for many projects under this program, even in cases where long term impacts on biodiversity, for instance, are little understood. Vigilance on the part of fund administrators is therefore required in order to ensure that the ecological integrity of coastal environments is preserved as works proceed. The third trigger for reform is the drive for the application of integrated coastal management practices. Much has been written on the need for more effective integration across agencies of government and between levels of government (see, for example, Kay and Alder [1999]). Sectoral management remains dominant in a state like New South Wales, which possesses highly fragmented megaagencies such as the Department of Land and Water Conservation. Recent (1997) restructuring within this agency has separated the management of estuaries from coasts and floodplains. Ironically, this occurred at the same time as the state s Coastal Policy was released, bringing together both coasts (the littoral coastal zone) and estuaries under an expanded definition of the coastal zone. Another example of the problems associated with integration is the plan by the Commonwealth to set up a Federal Trust to manage as open space land formerly used for defence purposes around Sydney Harbour (Totaro, 1998). This will further add to the number of Commonwealth, state and local government entities with responsibilities for managing this significant natural resource. It is possible that the Commonwealth government will try to operate its own land management agency alongside that of the state at a time when the state government is seeking to rationalise harbour management through the establishment of a Foreshore Authority and a Harbour Manager. There are various examples of integrative agencies and processes in operation in coastal Australia. They appear to function with varying degrees of success. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is the most well known and its recent review points to both

13 Triggers for Late Twentieth Century Reform of Australian Coastal Management 287 administrative strengths and weaknesses (Whitehouse, 1993). Developments involving local governments include formally established entities such as the Lake Illawarra Authority in coastal southern New South Wales. In 1999, a place manager was installed at Lake Macquarie in east-central New South Wales to integrate the activities of two local councils and several state agencies. Another example involving the Commonwealth, various state agencies and Shoalhaven City Council is under way at Jervis Bay in coastal southern New South Wales. This aims to ensure that conservation principles are integrated with other management considerations, with community participation a key factor in reaching solutions acceptable to all concerned. It remains to be seen whether bureaucratic resistance within the context of defined sectoral powers will limit the effectiveness of these examples. The fourth trigger promoting coastal management reform is the role of community participation in coastal management. This has been an area of considerable change over the past 10 to 15 years (Wescott, 1998). Coastcare now involves a wide cross-section of community interests and projects (Williams and Tainsh, 1998). In addition, there are community groups supporting catchment management, estuarine management and coastline management. Community expectations and aspirations regarding coastal management are now quite high, and continued Commonwealth and state funding is required to sustain and boost those interests. However, it is unclear what will happen if and when the NHT funding is reduced, particularly as local governments are being asked to carry more of the funding load in many states. Local communities and staff in local councils may not be in a position to handle the many responsibilities of natural resource management that have been devolved from state agencies. This highlights the need for local capacity building when technical support from many state agencies declines with downsizing and outsourcing. As we consider the future of coastal land and sea management in the next millennium, our inheritance from past and present public administrative structures and practices cannot be overlooked. Unless there is radical reform of government in Australia we shall continue into the 21st century with governance based on a myriad of separately constituted houses of parliament and local governments, and a vast array of bureaucratic entities with legislated interests in coastal management. Some would argue that for our size and population we are over-governed and over-regulated (Hall, 1997), and that many coastal problems will not be overcome until there is a rationalisation of the governance and administrative arms of the Commonwealth and states (Kay and Lester, 1997). Local, and perhaps some state, governments may not be able to carry the burden of managing coastal areas under conditions of increased population growth and development pressure. Coastal management in Australia continues to be predominantly the responsibility of state and local governments. In the early 1990s, they accounted for 95% of all expenditure on coastal management (RAC, 1993). This is one reason for the wide range of management practices that exists, varying according to the political nuance of whoever holds power at different levels of government. The behaviour of Queensland and Tasmania as pro-development states in the 1970s and 1980s shows the ability of state governments to generate policies at the expense of environmental protection (see discussions in Dovers [1994]). There are also examples of local councils where the encouragement of development has overwhelmed the power of the environmental lobby or even state government policy. One argument, therefore, is that, without a change in governance and in administrative structures (including a limited role for the Commonwealth), the future of coastal zone management will not differ much from that of the past (see also RAC [1993, 83 84]). The anticipated population growth in nonmetropolitan coastal areas (Burnley, 1996) may

14 288 Australian Geographical Studies result in further pressure for development. This growth, particularly in southern coastal Queensland and northern coastal New South Wales, will generate strong pressures for land rezoning, new development applications and the degradation of scenic and natural heritage values. In particular, local governments will be greatly tested as they seek to maintain healthy rivers, lagoons, wetlands, canals and nearshore waters. The extent to which planning authorities can contain urban sprawl, including the spread of mobile homes, in order to limit cumulative coastal impacts, will test the political wills of state and local governments. If the Commonwealth retreats from its current relatively active role of using NHT funds to support environmental and conservation programs, there could be a return to the sort of situations that prompted the RAC (1993) and other inquiries. Notwithstanding this, the responses across all levels of government in Australia to the triggers discussed in this paper clearly indicate that the increased levels of awareness of these factors are influencing policy formulation. For example, there is growing international and national understanding of the potential impacts of global warming. Secondly, it is widely acknowledged that federal governments must use their constitutional, fiscal and persuasive powers to guide and drive state and local governments into maintaining consistent and responsible policies and actions in coastal management (Huggett, 1998). Thirdly, governments have recognised the benefits of seeking common ground between the forces of developmentalism and environmentalism through applying the principles of ESD (Frawley, 1994). Fourthly, governments are aware of the efficiencies in public administration that result from the application of the ICM practices articulated by Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998), Kay and Alder (1999), Salomons et al. (1999) and others. Finally, governments have provided avenues for community participation in decision-making, and have improved the educational opportunities for those who desire more knowledge of environmental systems in coastal areas, especially in those areas affected by human activities. The key issue, however, is whether the trends established by these responses can be sustained. And is it possible to achieve management regimes capable of providing for the needs of growing coastal populations whilst ensuring that those attractive, and environmentally significant, habitat values are retained for the benefit of current and future generations? ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the anonymous referees who offered useful criticisms on an early draft of this paper, and Kris James who assisted in the editing of the text. ABBREVIATIONS CAP Coastal Action Program ESD ecologically sustainable development HORSCERA House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment, Recreation and Arts ICM Integrated Coastal Management IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change NHT Natural Heritage Trust RAC Resource Assessment Commission REFERENCES Anon., 1992a: National Greenhouse Response Strategy. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Anon., 1992b: National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Anon., 1992c: Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Bowen, J., 1994: The Great Barrier Reef: towards conservation and management. In Dovers, S.R. (ed.) Australian Environmental History: Essays and Cases. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Brown, V.A., 1995: Turning the Tide: Integrated Local Area Management for Australia s Coastal Zone. Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra. Bryant, R.L., 1998: Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: a review. Progress in Physical Geography 22, Burnley, I., 1996: Migration, well-being and development in coastal New South Wales Australian Geographer 27, Caton, B., 1994: Coastal management arrangements: a state s perspective. In Kriwoken, L. and McAdam, S. (eds) Proceedings of Coast to Coast 94 a National