THE COASTAL ZONE contains over half of the

Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 18, number 3, September 2000, pages 225 232, Beech Tree Publishing, 10 Watford Close, Guildford, Surrey GU1 2EP, UK. Coastal zones Strategic environmental assessment in coastal zones, especially Australia s Nick Harvey Intense resource use and development pressure on the world s coastal zone has prompted international calls for integrated coastal management programmes. Associated with increasing coastal development has been the uncoordinated use of project-based environmental impact assessment (EIA) applied to individual coastal projects. In Australia, there is a complexity of different pieces of EIA legislation at federal and state level, and little enthusiasm to adopt the more recently developed formal strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of policies, programmes and plans. Australian coastal management has a parallel complexity of state-level legislation, although day-to-day decisions are mostly taken by local coastal managers. This paper illustrates the inadequacy of project-based EIA for coastal developments with generic environmental issues, and gives an Australian example of an SEA approach to overcome these problems. Keywords: strategic environmental assessment; coastal management; Australia Nick Harvey is Associate Professor of Environmental Studies and Head of the Department of Geographical and Environmental Studies at The University of Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia; E-mail: nick.harvey@adelaide.edu.au. The author wishes to acknowledge some useful comments from Megan McCarthy on an earlier version of this paper. THE COASTAL ZONE contains over half of the world s population on 10% of the land mass, excluding the polar regions, and by 2030 the coastal zone is expected to contain three-quarters of a much larger population (Hinrichsen, 1998). This has significant implications for environmental impact and coastal management. On a global scale, the general lack of co-ordination of coastal development projects is linked to the international push for what has been termed integrated coastal management. The concept of integrated coastal or coastal zone management (ICM or ICZM) has been around for at least 30 years according to Sorensen (1997) and is also the subject of a recent text (Cicin-Sain and Knecht, 1998). Of the varying definitions of ICM, a useful one with significant international input comes from the 1993 World Coast Conference (IPCC, 1994, page 40) which defined it along with the key elements of integration necessary: Integrated coastal management involves 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. Some of the goals of ICM include: attaining sustainable development; reducing vulnerability from natural hazards; maintaining ecological processes and biological diversity; being multipurpose-oriented; analysing implications of development, conflicting issues and the interrelations between physical processes and human activities; and, promoting linkages Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2000 1461-5517/00/030225-8 US$08.00 IAIA 2000 225

and harmonisation between sectoral coastal and ocean activities. A good example of ICM and strategic planning is in the Great Barrier Reef region of Australia as discussed by Harvey (1999). Clearly, given the population pressure in the coastal zone, there is a need for better integration of resource use and development projects. One method of achieving this is through the use of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) as outlined by Thérivel et al (1992) and Thérivel and Partidário (1996), where SEA is applied to policies, plans and programmes. In particular, Thérivel et al (1992) examine the potential for SEA in coastal zones focusing on the UK, where they note that 14% of all environmental impact statements (EISs) between 1988 and 1992 were for coastal projects. They specifically comment on marina developments in the UK (Thérivel et al, 1992, page 98) which lack strategic planning for coastlines where individual proposals are addressed in isolation and without any consideration of the contribution they make to actual demand when set against proposals elsewhere. Whereas Thérivel et al s (1992) text on SEA devotes a chapter to the coastal zone, general coastal texts do not appear to make any reference to the use of SEA. Some of these (Carter, 1988; French, 1997; Viles and Spencer, 1995) make passing reference to the use of project-based environmental impact assessment (EIA), and a specialised coastal handbook (Clark, 1996) contains a detailed section on EIA as one of a number of methods used in coastal management. Cicin-Sain and Knecht (1998, page 187) in their discussion of ICM go further to outline some of the pitfalls of project-based EIA. Although the EIA should undoubtedly be part of an ICM process, it cannot by itself substitute for ICM. It tends to operate on a project-byproject basis and hence is not a good tool for comprehensive, area-wide planning or for the assessment of cumulative adverse impacts. It is for similar reasons that Thérivel et al (1992) suggest the use of SEA in the coastal zone. However, there is a lack of practical examples where coastal zone SEA has been successful. This paper examines the potential use of SEA in the coastal zone with reference to Australia which has the majority of its population living near the coast in the major cities, together with a rapidly expanding non-metropolitan coastal population (Commonwealth of Australia, 1993a). Australia has a complexity of EIA legislation with a 25-year history and a similar complexity of coastal legislation which has an even longer pedigree. Both EIA and coastal legislation have recently undergone major reform in Australia in an attempt to achieve wider goals of sustainable development and as a result of the need to reduce overlap and lack of co-ordination between the various states and territories. The paper first provides an overview of recent legislative reform and then presents an Australian case study to illustrate the potential for SEA in the coastal zone. Recent changes to legislation Underpinning recent changes to Australian environmental, resource management and planning legislation is a commitment to adopt the principle of sustainable development. Australia s approach to sustainable development is encapsulated in its strategy (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992a) on what is uniquely termed ecologically sustainable development (ESD). The linkages between the ESD strategy and EIA in Australia have been analysed by Harvey (1992a). Elsewhere, there has been discussion on the general relationship among sustainability, project-based EIA and a broader-based SEA (Glasson et al, 1994). In particular, Glasson et al note the difference between a trickle down SEA approach, from policies to plans and then programmes, driven by an overriding sustainability objective, and a trickle up approach, which is more reactive and often relates to problems arising with project-based EIAs. In Australia, there is a complexity of different pieces of EIA legislation at federal and state levels of government (Harvey, 1998). In the 1990s, there was a national attempt to provide some co-ordination of EIA with a National Approach on EIA (ANZECC, 1991), an Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992b), Guidelines and Criteria for EIA (ANZECC, 1995) and a National Agreement on EIA (ANZECC, 1997). There was also an attempt to make these documents consistent with the National Strategy for ESD (Commonwealth of Australia, 1992a). Unlike project-based EIA in Australia, there has been little enthusiasm to adopt the more recently developed formal SEA of policies, programmes and plans. Australian coastal management has a parallel complexity of different pieces of legislation at state level, although day-to-day decisions are mostly taken by local coastal managers. Recently there has been greater The EIA process has been able to demonstrate an integrated approach to environmental issues for major coastal development proposals: also environmental impact statements provide an important information base for local coastal managers 226 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2000

co-operation in coastal management across all levels of government and the community since the federal government introduced its Commonwealth Coastal Policy (Commonwealth of Australia, 1995) and Coasts and Clean Seas Program (Commonwealth of Australia, 1997) which also has an underlying goal of ESD. One of the most important roles for the EIA process in Australian coastal management has been its ability to provide an integrated approach to environmental issues for major coastal development proposals. It has also been demonstrated that environmental impact statements provide an important information base for local coastal managers (Brown and Burke, 1993). This paper examines the importance of the EIA process in effecting sustainable outcomes for decision-making on major coastal development proposals. Also it comments on the manner in which this has created an informal SEA for specific coastal development. Project-based EIA in coastal projects In a recent analysis of EIA practice and procedures in Australia, Harvey (1998) provides detailed discussion of eight project-based case studies of EIAs subject to eight different pieces of EIA legislation in the various Australian states and territories plus the Australian Commonwealth EIA legislation. Of these case studies, four were coastal development projects from New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria, comprising one coastal runway extension and three marinas respectively. Each provided real examples of EIA in practice for the different pieces of legislation in the respective states, although the EIA of the Sydney runway extension was actually conducted under Commonwealth of Australia rather than New South Wales EIA legislation. Each of these projects was linked to wider strategic planning implications than the immediate environmental impact issues at the specific project site. The New South Wales case study of the Sydney Harbour runway extension was subject to a High Court challenge over whether it should be assessed under the New South Wales state EIA legislation, in addition to the Commonwealth EIA legislation (Harvey, 1998). In this case, the need for strategic assessment related more to the Commonwealth s national plans for its airports, in terms of location and expansion, than to coastal strategic planning issues for the state of New South Wales. Unlike most other Australian airports, this project happened to have coastal impacts. However, the three marina case studies from Victoria, South Australia and Queensland illustrate, for different reasons, the need for a broader strategic assessment. For example, in addition to the project-based EIA, the Victorian marina proposal was subject to an inter-departmental investigation to identify appropriate projects and sites for coastal development, including a survey of four potential marina sites in Port Philip Bay (Harvey, 1998). The South Australian marina proposal raised broader strategic planning issues related to vehicular access and subsequent potential for increased housing development on the island where the marina was to be constructed. The issue of demand for marina berths in the region prompted the government to conduct a strategic planning report after the project-based EIA had been completed (Harvey, 1996). The Queensland case study involved state and federal government EIA legislation together with federal marine park legislation. The complexity of the overlapping and juxtaposed jurisdictions together with some poor documentation resulted in numerous EIA documents and an incomplete project with significant environmental impact adjacent to a marine park (Harvey, 1998). The need to respond to a site-specific project proposal driven by local development interests overtook the need for strategic planning. It is clear that generic coastal developments in Australia such as marinas are likely to benefit from strategic planning because of issues such as demand for marina berths, and increased marina-related housing development. Many Australian marina projects are linked to waterfront or canal estate housing developments which provide greater financial return than the marina itself. This type of planning issue, along with boating demand, has impacts beyond the immediate project site and is often not adequately dealt with in the EIA process (Harvey, 1998). Apart from the Victorian case study with its preliminary strategic investigation, the examples demonstrated a number of inadequacies of the project-based EIA approach for this type of development. Similar problems occurred for a number of South Australian marina proposals using project-based EIA in the 1980s. This prompted a detailed, broader-scale environmental assessment which provides the focus for the rest of this paper. However, before examining the detailed marina study it is necessary to provide a background to the legislative framework under which the EIAs were conducted. South Australian legislative framework Environmental impact assessment became part of the planning and development control process in South Australia by the inclusion of legislative powers within the Planning Act, 1982 (South Australia Government, 1982) and the regulations under the Act. Under the Act, EIA of projects was dealt with at two levels, minor and major. The EIA of major developments or projects was dealt with largely through the EIS process, although there were no clear cut criteria for defining a major as opposed to a minor project. An EIS could be called under the Act where a person proposes to undertake a development or project that is, in the opinion of the Minister [for Environment and Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2000 227

Table 1. EISs required for coastal developments in South Australia under the Planning Act, 1982 Type of project Marinas Tourist Power Transport Urban Defence Arno Bay Garden Island Glenelg Ferry Glenelg Harbour Glenelg/West Beach Hindmarsh Island Holdfast Quays Inman Jubilee Point Kingston Lincoln Cove II Marino Rocks Moonta Port Hughes Port Vincent Porter Bay Sellicks Stansbury Tumby Bay Wallaroo Westcliff Whyalla Granite Island North Power Station PASA pipeline Spencer Gulf Ferry Multi Function Polis Thompsons Beach Pt Wakefield Source: Harvey (1995) Proponent Local government Local government Local government Planning], of major social, economic or environmental importance. The Planning Act was subsequently superseded by the Development Act, 1993 (South Australia Government, 1993) which contained revised EIA provisions. In particular, all decisions on developments subject to EIS requirements are made by the governor and there is no appeal. In addition, a semi-independent body, the major Developments Panel, was created to determine the level of assessment for major projects (see Harvey, 1998). Coastal development proposals in South Australia are currently processed through the Development Act but some may require approval for prescribed works (such as the removal of sand from the coast) under the South Australian Coast Protection Act, 1972 (South Australia Government, 1972). This does have provision for coastal management plans but it is more concerned with the protection of the coast than with coastal development regulations. In practice, major coastal developments subject to an EIS have significant input from the Coast Protection Board, which is a statutory body providing advice to the Environment Minister. A number of management plans were completed under the Coast Protection Act but these had limited usefulness because they lacked legislative power. If this had been redressed, the plans would have been useful for developing a strategic approach to coastal development. However, they are now used only for background material in baseline studies for different coastal regions. Analysis of all the EISs completed under the South Australian Planning Act (Harvey, 1995) show that a total of 60 were required for various development proposals between 1982 and 1994. About half (48%) of those required were for coastal developments (Table 1). This is significantly higher than the 14% of projects quoted by Thérivel et al (1992) for the UK. In South Australia, the marina group of projects is the largest (22) and contains a relatively high proportion of rejected EIS projects in South Australia. Although the reasons for this are quite complex, it is in part related to the Government s policy on coastal marina development and the need for a more strategic approach instead of the numerous project-based EISs for individual marina proposals. In addition to the marinas, there are a number of other major coastal development proposals which have been subject to EIS requirements. These are tourist developments, power facilities, urban developments and a defence facility. Each of these have specific coastal impacts but none was linked to broader environmental assessment strategies. As noted by Harvey (1993), it is apparent that there is a difference in the types of coastal projects dependent on whether they have direct or indirect impact on coastal processes, and the type, scale and location of the project. In terms of impact on coastal processes, there appear to be two major issues that are relevant in most of the EISs. First, there is the question of determining wave heights and maximum water levels to establish low-risk environments for site and building levels, and/or breakwater design purposes. Second is the issue of sand management and the calculation of littoral drift, sediment accumulation and sediment erosion (in particular the risk of storm erosion). Associated with the issue of site levels is the need for accurate calculation of wave heights, wave set up, tidal predictions and estimates of longer-term relative sea-level rise related to either local subsidence and/or eustatic changes such as potential greenhouse- 228 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2000

induced rise. In 1991, the Coast Protection Board developed a specific policy to deal with the issue of sea-level rise, particularly for new coastal development proposals. At the same time as there has been an increasing concern with issues of flooding and sea-level rise over the last ten years, there has also been a reduced emphasis on the design detail of coastal structures as part of the EIS. There has been a reluctance on the part of South Australian coastal or port authorities to be an approving body for components such as breakwater design because of the time involved in checking design details and the risk of liability. There is also a variation in coastal processes for the different projects. These in turn will affect factors such as the physical impact of construction (in terms of coastal modification), the littoral drift and consequent sediment erosion/accretion, tidal exchange and integrity of adjacent coastal ecosystems. Approaches toward a more strategic EA Wood (1992; 1995) and Thérivel and Partidário (1996) comment on the lack of SEA at the Commonwealth level in Australia although there is potential for its implementation. McCarthy (1996) discussed the potential for SEA in South Australia but the only examples in practice appear to come from Western Australia, New South Wales and perhaps Victoria (Stone, 1997; Krohn, 1997). In addition, there have been moves to implement SEA in Tasmania (Harvey, 1998). In a discussion of the potential for SEA of energy policy in South Australia, Harvey (1994) notes that there has been no provision for EIA of plans, policies or programmes but there have been less formal environmental assessments of broader strategies or development plans. For example, the development of the South Australian government s coastal marina strategy in 1989, discussed below, examined the environmental and strategically preferred locations for marina development along the 4,000 km South Australian coastline. Elsewhere, there are many examples of Australian approaches to strategic planning which incorporate SEA principles but do not have the SEA tag (Harvey, 1998). These include the integrated approach to developing management strategies for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the Murray Darling Basin (Commonwealth of Australia, 1993b), both of which required detailed environmental assessment and involved both the Commonwealth and State jurisdictions. South Australian marina strategy example As a result of a plethora of individual marina proposals in South Australia, in the 1980s, it was clear that Figure 1. South Australian Marina Strategy Source: MAAC (1989) Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2000 229

there were some generic issues which required a strategic approach with the following main elements. First, there was the formation of a Marina Assessment Advisory Committee (MAAC) in 1987. The MAAC was given a brief to produce guidelines for the planning and development of coastal marinas, co- ordinating government advice to prospective marina developers, and developing a government strategy on coastal marina development, including an assessment of demand. This specifically addresses the type of comments made by Thérivel et al (1992) in relation to the lack of SEA for such developments in the UK. Second, the MAAC produced marina guidelines (MAAC, 1988a) as an environmentally sustainable policy for marina development. In the absence of any existing government marina policy, these guidelines were taken to a core committee of the South Australian Cabinet and endorsed by government. The design of the guidelines involved formal consultation between government departments, the conservation movement and the boating community. Third, a metropolitan marina site suitability study (MAAC, 1988b), and a marina demand study (MAAC, 1988c) were produced, followed by an integrated marina strategy (Figure 1) for the whole of the South Australian coast (MAAC, 1989) which was released by the Minister for Environment and Planning in July 1989. As with the guidelines document, there was extensive consultation and there was an appraisal of alternative marina locations based on the environmental objectives and criteria specified in the guidelines. The SEA of both the policy (guidelines document) and the plan (strategy document) stages of the process are consistent with the SEA definitions given by Thérivel and Partidário (1996, page 4). The strategic planning and environmental issues underpinning the marina strategy have been discussed in detail by Harvey and Swift (1990) and the success of the strategy as a planning process has been examined by Harvey (1992b). The marina strategy is based on: the projected demand for marina berths; the identification of strategic locations related to cruising circuits, existing facilities and safe harbours; and the application of the marina guidelines to specific locations (Harvey and Swift, 1990). The strategy identifies four preferred coastal locations for marina development. The first and most important is the metropolitan coast where four preferred sites were identified in the earlier study (MAAC, 1988b) at Mutton Cove, Marino Rocks, Old Maslin Quarry and Wirrina. A fifth site at Glenelg, which was excluded from the earlier study, was added to the strategy by the Government which saw the opportunity to attract development at the same time as addressing some of the environmental problems at the site (Harvey, 1992b). Three other preferred coastal locations were identified in the strategy on the non-metropolitan coast. These were on the lower eastern Yorke Peninsula The 1989 marina strategy represents a strategic approach to environmental assessment but was never formalised as a specific SEA study: this type of ad hoc study has become more common in Australia under the banner of strategic planning than SEA around the towns of Port Vincent, Stansbury and Edithburgh; the upper western Yorke Peninsula around the towns of Moonta, Wallaroo and Port Hughes; and on the north-eastern coast of Kangaroo Island around the towns of Kingscote and American River (Harvey, 1992b). No sites were identified on either the far west coast or the south-east coast because of limited demand for recreational marina berths. The marina strategy was released in 1989 as a government initiative to give some guidance to prospective marina developers. However, it was not incorporated within planning legislation, specifically the Development Plan which provides development control guidelines pursuant to the Planning Act, 1982 (South Australia Government, 1982). The reason for this was that each of the identified marina locations required the development of marina concepts and feasibility studies and further environmental evaluation of the specific site. The Government was not prepared to commit resources for these investigations which it considered were the responsibility of the private developer. In addition, the marina strategy recognised that only a limited number of marinas was likely to be viable. Therefore there was not a strong argument for creating a specific marina zone for each of the two or three marina sites in each coastal section. The number of marinas was left to the market-place provided that they were environmentally suitable and economically viable. It was assumed that most proposals would be also be subject to project-based EIS requirements. Although the marina strategy does not have legislative status it does have government endorsement. In addition, a number of the key issues from the marina guidelines have been incorporated into the Development Plan. Notwithstanding the marina strategy s apparent lack of legislative teeth as a planning document, it appears to have acquired its own teeth because of general acceptance of the strategy by developers, conservationists, the general public and bipartisan political support (Harvey, 1992b). The marina strategy released in 1989 is interesting as it represents a strategic approach to environmental assessment but was never formalised as a specific SEA study. In fact it was not until the 1990s that formalised SEA studies became popular (Thérivel et al, 1992; Thérivel and Partidário, 1996). The MAAC approach can be seen as a type of ad hoc SEA study 230 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2000

which has become more common in Australia under the banner of strategic planning rather than SEA. Apart from the marinas, it was also clear that there was a need for a more co-ordinated assessment of coastal environmental issues for a range of both minor and major development proposals. Although there was a lack of legislative power contained within the coastal management plans, it was clear that they contained some important principles and objectives for development in the coastal zone. It was also clear that there needed to be state-wide adoption of the sea-level rise policy. In response, the general principles and objectives for coastal development, including sea-level rise issues, were incorporated into the State s Development Plan which provided a regulatory method for ensuring that there was a consistent approach to these important coastal environmental issues. Discussion This paper illustrates the inadequacy of project-based EIA for coastal developments with generic environmental issues. Although some of the inadequacies of project-based EIA have been used previously as one of the arguments for SEA, there do not appear to have been many detailed studies focusing on project-based EIA developments in the coastal zone. The coastal zone is particularly important on a global scale because it contains the majority of the world s population which is creating an intensity of resource use and pressure for development in this zone. To some extent the development pressure is reflected in the number of EIS-related proposals in those countries which have a well developed EIA legislative framework. As noted by Thérivel et al (1992), 14% of all the EIS proposals examined in their UK study were coastal developments. This figure is significantly higher (48%) for the EIS proposals from South Australia, as outlined in the current paper. However, there is agreement from both these studies that marinas as specific types of coastal development warrant the use of SEA. It is also clear from the international coastal management literature that coastal planning has often been hampered by a lack of co-ordination or a sectoral approach to development in the coastal zone. The resultant problems have led to a call for a more holistic method of coastal planning through what has been called integrated coastal management (ICM). Although ICM provides for much better co-ordination of coastal management issues, it does not eliminate the role of environmental assessment of development projects but points toward the need for a broader, more integrated assessment than provided by project-based EIA. The case study presented in this paper has two important characteristics. First, it has a trickle up approach to SEA as described by Glasson et al (1994). Inadequacies of project-based EIAs for individual marina projects in the 1980s demonstrated the need for a broader strategic approach before the individual project-level assessment could be undertaken. In this case, there was no marina policy, plan or programme in existence let alone one which could be subject to an integrated environmental assessment. While this reactive approach, driven by inadequate project-based EIA, is less desirable than a trickle down approach focusing on the overriding sustainability objectives of a marina policy, it does serve as a useful example of how SEA can be used to solve some of the generic problems relating to a number of complex but generically similar coastal projects. Second, neither the marina guidelines (MAAC, 1988b) nor the marina strategy (MAAC, 1989) were described as a formal SEA, although they contained many attributes of more recent formal SEA studies. The marina guidelines essentially created the government s marina policy through an ad hoc SEA approach. Similarly, an ad hoc SEA was used at the plan level to develop the marina strategy, using methodologies such as comparison of alternatives, conflictresolution approaches between stakeholders (for instance, boat users and conservationists) and scope of analysis (environmental, cultural and economic). The inclusion of such SEA methodologies within the physical planning procedures of a number of countries, including Australia, is noted by Thérivel and Partidário (1996, page 17), who suggest that in these cases the application of specific EA mechanisms, such as SEA, to plan and policies would hence be superfluous. Finally, it is clear that both project-based EIA and coastal management have experienced problems where the focus has been too project specific or sectoral in its analysis. In response to this, both these environmental management methodologies have searched for broader more holistic approaches resulting in SEA and ICM. While the global extent of their formal adoption remains to be seen, there appears to be a strong argument for their use in the coastal zone. References ANZECC, Australian and New Zealand Conservation Council (1991), National Approach on EIA (AGPS, Canberra). ANZECC, Australian and New Zealand Conservation Council (1995), Guidelines and Criteria for EIA (AGPS, Canberra). ANZECC, Australian and New Zealand Conservation Council (1997), National Agreement on EIA (AGPS, Canberra). V A Brown and G Burke (1993), Between the Devil and the deep Blue Sea: The Information and Research needs of Australia s Coastal Managers (Commonwealth of Australia, AGPS, Canberra). R W G Carter (1988), Coastal Environments: An Introduction to the Physical, Ecological and Cultural Systems of Coastlines (Academic Press, London). B Cicin-Sain and R W Knecht (1998), Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Concepts and Practices (Island Press, Washington DC). J R Clark (1996), Coastal Zone Management Handbook (Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton). Commonwealth of Australia (1992a), National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, (AGPS, Canberra). Commonwealth of Australia (1992b), Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (AGPS, Canberra). Commonwealth of Australia (1993a), Resource Assessment Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2000 231

Commission, Coastal Zone Inquiry, Final Report (AGPS, Canberra). Commonwealth of Australia (1993b), Resource Assessment Commission, Coastal Zone Inquiry, integrated resource management in Australia, information paper no 6 (AGPS, Canberra). Commonwealth of Australia (1995), Commonwealth Coastal Policy, Living on the Coast (AGPS, Canberra). Commonwealth of Australia (1997), Coasts and Clean Seas Program (AGPS, Canberra). P W French (1997), Coastal and Estuarine Management (Routledge, London). J Glasson, R Thérivel and A Chadwick (1994), Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment (UCL Press, London). N Harvey (1992a), The relationship between environmental impact assessment and ecologically sustainable development in Australia: a critique of recent national reports, Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 9(4), pages 265 273. N Harvey (1992b), South Australia s Coastal Marina Strategy: planning success or recession victim?, Australian Planner, 30(1), pages 4 7). N Harvey (1993), Variability of coastal engineering data in South Australian environmental impact assessment 1982 93, Proceedings of the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Coastal and Ocean Engineering, Institution of Engineers, Australia, pages 487 494. N Harvey (1994), Energy related projects and environmental impact legislation in South Australia, Energy and Environment, 5(4), pages 285 303. N Harvey (1995), Environmental impact statements for major projects in South Australia; 1982 to 1994, South Australian Geographical Papers, no 4 (refereed monograph series), The Royal Geographical Society of Australasia (SA Branch) Inc. N Harvey (1996), Public involvement in the environmental impact assessment process: the Hindmarsh Island Bridge case, Australian Planner, 33, pages 36 43. N Harvey (1998), Environmental Impact Assessment: Procedures, Practice and Prospects in Australia (Oxford University Press, Oxford). N Harvey (1999), Australian integrated coastal management: a case study of the Great Barrier Reef, in W Salomons, K Turner, L D Lacerda and S Ramachandran (editors), Perspectives on Integrated Coastal Zone Management (Springer Verlag, Berlin) pages 279 296. N Harvey and M McCarthy (editors) (1997), Environmental Impact Assessment for the 21st Century, Conference Proceedings (University of Adelaide, Adelaide) N Harvey and P Swift (1990), Coastal marinas in South Australia: environmental issues and strategic planning, Australian Geographer, 21(2), pages 141 150. D Hinrichsen (1998), Coastal Waters of the World: Trends, Threats and Strategies (Island Press, Washington DC). IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1994), Preparing to Meet the Coastal Challenges of the 21st Century. Conference Report, World Coast Conference 1993 (Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management, National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management, Coastal Zone Management Centre, The Hague). J Krohn (1997), Current EIA practice in Victoria, in Harvey and Mc- Carthy (1997), pages 93 94. MAAC (1988a), Guidelines for the Planning and Development of Coastal Marinas in South Australia (Marina Assessment Advisory Committee, Department of Environment and Planning). MAAC (1988b), Marina Site Suitability Study for the Coast between Port Gawler and Cape Jervis (Marina Assessment Advisory Committee, Department of Environment and Planning). MAAC (1988c), Coastal Marina Demand for Recreational Boats in South Australia (Marina Assessment Advisory Committee, Department of Environment and Planning). MAAC (1989), Coastal Marina Strategy for South Australia (Marina Assessment Advisory Committee, Department of Environment and Planning). M McCarthy (1996), Strategic environmental assessment: the potential for development in South Australia, Project Appraisal, 11(3), pages 146 152. J Sorensen (1997), National and international efforts at integrated coastal management: definitions, achievements and lessons, Coastal Management, 25, pages 3 41. South Australian Government (1972), Coast Protection Act. South Australian Government (1982), Planning Act. South Australian Government (1993), Development Act. Y Stone (1997), Current EIA practice in New South Wales, in Harvey and McCarthy (1997), pages 83 84. R Thérivel and M R Partidário (1996), The Practice of Strategic Environmental Assessment (Earthscan, London). R Thérivel, E Wilson, S Thompson, D Heaney and D Pritchard (1992), Strategic Environmental Assessment (Earthscan, London). H Viles and T Spencer (1995), Coastal Problems: Geomorphology, Ecology and Society at the Coast (Edward Arnold, London). C Wood (1992), Strategic environmental assessment in Australia and New Zealand, Project Appraisal, 7(3), pages 143 149. C Wood (1995), Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review (Longman, London). 232 Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal September 2000