Table Of ContentComments on the "Managing Multiple Use in the Coastal Zone -
A review of the Great Barrier Reef Park Authority"
by J. F. Whitehouse, 1993. Commonwealth of Australia 1993
Reviewed by Pat Hutchings
Vice-President of the Australian Coral Reef Society
A review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine c. the application of "user-pays" principle
Park Authority (GBRMPA) was included
d. the policies, goal and aims of GBRMPA
within the Annual Portfolio Evaluation Plan
of the former Portfolio of the Arts, Sport, the e. the need, if any, to amend legislation
Environment and Territories (now the Depart-
f. administrative and other working arrange-
ment of Environment, Sport and Territories).
ments
The programme of evaluation is designed to
provide an input into the decision making g. level and distribution of resources
process of government and agencies and to
h. any duplication and overlap between
provide a basis for determining their efficiency.
GBRMPA and other Commonwealth or
The GBRMPA review was preceded by a
Queensland agencies
review of Australian National Parks and
Wildlife Service (ANPWS, now Australian i. relevance and conduct of the management
National Conservation Agency, ANCA) by Mr programme in light of changing pressures
Bruce McDonald which was published in on the environment of the GBR region and
1989. It contained a range of recommenda- adjacent areas.
tions impinging on the GBRMPA.
Since the GBRMPA was established under
The review of the GBRMPA was begun in
the Great Barrier Reef Manne Park Act 1975
October 1991 and was undertaken by John
it has zoned all parts of the Park, and the
Whitehouse a solicitor and Partner in Dunhill
pressures on the area have escalated dramatic-
Madden Butler who was well acquainted with
ally as usage continues to increase.
the workings of the Authority.
The Australian Coral Reef Society (ACRS)
The terms of reference were to review the
which represents over 300 coral reef scientists,
role, operations, and management pro-
made a detailed submission to this review, as
gramme of the GBRMPA, having regard to:
did a wide variety of organizations at both
1. the objectives of the GBRMPA Act,
local, State and Federal level as well as various
2. the Commonwealth's national and inter- interest groups and individuals.
national responsibilities for protecting the
Whitehouse should be congratulated on
GBR region and adjacent areas,
producing a clear and comprehensive review
3. the Commonwealth's general environment,
and a series of recommendations, some of
heritage, administration and budgetary
which are already being implemented. The
policies,
review should be read by all those interested
4. alternative means of providing the in marine conservation in Australia not
required level of protection of the Great just those with interests in tropical reefal
Bamer Reef region and adjacent areas, systems. ACRS has no special expertise to
comment on parts of the review which
5. the appropriateness and need for extend-
deal with legislation and functions, financial
ing the role of GBRMPA in relation to
or organizational management hut takes
other Australian marine protected areas,
this opportunity to comment on sections
6. relevant recent reviews of other Common-
of the review addressing marine protected
wealth agencies.
areas and conservation in Australia, proposals
In particular the review was to address: for an Australian Nature Conservation
Authority and GBRMPA, conservation
a. the efficiency and effectiveness of GBRMPA
management, recreation, education and
in undertaking its statutory functions
use of management, community interactions,
b. the approval process for actions in the co+rdination and external liaison, future
Marine Park directions and recommendations.
December 1995 Australian Zoologist, Vol. 30(1) 113
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS AND 4. because of the open nature of marine
CONSERVATION IN AUSTRALIA systems the concept of buffer zones
protecting a core area of a MPA from
The rationale for the need to establish impact are particularly important.
marine protected areas (MPA's) is that Aust-
5. disturbances in MPA are generally dispersed
ralia's oceans are poorly known biologically
by currents predominantly in one direction,
but constitute areas of considerable biological
whereas in a terrestrial protected area
diversity, and that the marine environment
disturbances radiate from a point of
constitutes a new frontier where exploitation
impact.
of economically valuable resources has only
just begun. In general the major options for 6. while the removal of biota is generally
future use and management have not been precluded in terrestrial protected areas, in
MPAs, particularly large ones, controlled
compromised by previous actions, and the
exploitation of resources may be permitted.
lack of private land tenure of marine
resources and the limited lack of established These differences between the manage-
exploitation, provides a unique opportunity to ment of terrestrial and marine protected areas
promote ecologically sustainable develop- were well accepted in submissions to the
ment. To date marine conservation and inquiry. The submission of the Queensland
management in Australia have lacked a co- Government encapsulated these comments
ordinated approach to planning and managing well in the following statement: "Worldwide
marine resources. For these reasons an there is now a well developed system of
enhanced role by the Commonwealth in terrestrial areas under some form of protective
marine conservation and management is management. Methodologies to determine
required. which terrestrial area should be preserved and
how large they should be are relatively
The ACRS strongly supports the enhanced
sophisticated. Because of the different
role of the Commonwealth in developing
characteristics of marine and terrestrial eco-
MPA's but this can only be effective if the
systems, methodologies and techniques
necessary resources are allocated. While this
developed for terrestrial systems are often
must not mean a reduced role for the states, inapplicable to marine systems and develop-
the current piecemeal approach by many ment of methodologies for marine conserva-
states is not working and a far more co- tion requires specialist knowledge, skills and
ordinated approach between states and the experience". ACRS strongly endorses this
Commonwealth is required for adequate statement and is aware of the expertise and
protection and management of the marine knowledge which has been progressively built
environment. up within the GBRMPA to make it a world
leader in protecting and managing large area,
While many of the principles of managing
tropical reefal systems.
terrestrial protected areas are applicable in
the management of marine and estuarine A dissenting view was put in a document
protected areas, many important differences prepared by the former ANPWS "Marine
occur. These include: Protected Areas: Guidelines and Recommenda-
tions for the Development of a National
1. the management paradigm is reversed. Representative System 1992". This suggested
The marine environment is a matrix of that generalizations about the sea as a semi-
naturalness impinged upon by areas of continuous open system dominated by down-
impact whereas terrestrial protected areas stream processes are oversimplifications. On
constitute a "closed cell of naturalness in a this basis it argued that because of the linkage
matrix of inputn. Managing a MPA between marine and terrestrial systems
requires the location and limitation of separate agencies should not be developed for
areas of impact. the management of marine and terrestrial
environments. Consequently it argued that
2. a MPA is an open system, where circulating
there should be one agency for the manage-
processes operate continuously and an event
ment of these areas together with estuarine
originating outside the MPA boundaries
environments. There were no other dissent-
may affect populations and ecosystems
ing views that marine and terrestrial areas
within it.
should be managed separately.
3. patterns of energy exchange alter rapidly The Australian Committee for the Inter-
across a MPA in contrast to a terrestrial national Union for the Conservation of Nature
protected area. (ACIUCN) in its submission further clarified
714 Australian Zoologist, Vol. 30(7)
the key issues in the conservation and importance; scientific importance; inter-
management of marine and estuarine areas national or national significance and the
(see pages 4142 of the report) and Whitehouse practicality and feasibility.
endorses these as does the ACRS. In essence,
While these criteria are reasonably well
what the ACIUCN submission seeks is for the
accepted, ANCA advocates a "scientific
adoption of an integrated approach to the
procedure'' in its brochure entitled "Marine
management and conservation of Australian
Protected Areas - Guidelines and Recommen-
waters and to seek co-operative government
dations for the Development of a National
action at local, state and federal levels to
Representative System" (1992). This is based
ensure the co-ordinated development of a
on the premise that MPA's have in the
national system of marine and estuarine
past been selected as zoned or managed
protected areas. Similar recommendations
opportunistically on an ad hoc or political
were made at the Fenner Conference (1993)
basis rather than on a scientific basis.
held in Canberra in 1991. The Resource
Assessment Commission into the Coastal Zone There are two questions at the core of the
Inquiry (1993) reached a similar conclusion. debate. 1. How much information is needed to
establish and start the management of MPAs?
Whitehouse noted that there had been a
2. Is it appropriate to consider political and
spirited debate as to the best means to achieve
administrative information on the practicality
an integrated approach to the management
or feasability of establishing successful
and conservation of Australian waters. He
management?
observed that: "Much of it reflects attempts
by rival agencies to stake out the terrain and Mr Kelleher, the foundation Chairman of
augment bureaucratic power rather than to the GBRMPA, has commented that the
dispassionately analyse the advantages and practicality of a solely science-based approach
disadvantages, the costs and consequences, to the development of a national representative
and the likely achievability of the varying system of MPAs has yet to be demonstrated.
options". He further suggest that: "the Such a methodology does not allow for
continuing nature of the debate on manage- adequate input of sociological and political
ment models for marine protected areas has feasability into the decision making process
perhaps constituted a substitute for more which is essential for establishing an operational
decisive action in implementation". Such system of MPAs. The GBRMP Act requires
attitudes are to be deplored and the environ- the Authority to take such factors into
ment must not be used as a political football. consideration.
On the evidence presented in this report, A related question is whether it is preferable
or known to ACRS, GBRMPA is an agency to have a series of small MPAs managed in
which is working well and fulfilling its charter. isolation for protection or preservation of
There is no evidence to support the need for biological diversity or whether it is more
a major reorientation of the Authority or its effective to have multiple use resource
incorporation into any other agency. management strategies which contain a variety
of zones with varying levels of protection as
THE METHODOLOGY OF occurs in the GBRMP. Whitehouse argues for
SELECTING MPAs the latter strategy resulting in a Marine Park
representing a system of regional zones.
The ACRS now takes the opportunity to
These have no real equivalents in Australian
explore the methodology of selecting MPAs
terrestrial parks. The regional zones having
as discussed by Whitehouse. While the GBR
levels of protection equivalent to terrestrial
is enclosed within the GBRMP, many reefal
national parks through to zones with a high
areas in NW Australia have little or no
level of recreational and commercial extractive
protection. Similarly, many inter-reefal
activities. These activities may occur provided
habitats and adjacent wetland habitats in
that they are consistent with the principles of
northern Australia need to be managed and
ecological sustainability. Variants of this
protected.
approach have now been adopted in Belize,
The "Guidelines for Establishing Marine Indonesia and the UK. The approach provides
Protected Areas" by Kelleher and Kenchington, a greater assurance that zones requiring high
published by IUCN in 1992, discuss the process protection will actually receive it because the
of selection of MPA's and these are: the factors surrounding less protected areas function as
which should be taken into account; natural- buffers. In addition, activities within all zones
ness; biogeographic importance; ecological can be regulated and changed should the
importance; economic importance; social need be demonstrated.
December 1995 Australian Zoologist, Vol. 30(1) 115
In the marine environment there can rarely management of temperate reefs. Whitehouse's
be a physical buffer between highly protected views are supported by several government
and less protected areas. Much of the fauna Departments and also by the Chairman of the
migrates in and out of the protected zone. In GBR Consultative Committee. Also at risk in
contrast, terrestrial protected areas rarely modifying substantially the role of the
have buffer zones and park authorities do not GBRMPA is the considerable tourist $ which
have control over activities occurring adjacent is steadily increasing. We, as biologists, would
to park boundaries. This raises the question as hate to see the $ drive the management of the
to the efficacy of small isolated MPAs which Authority. However, as long as the Authority
have been established in some states. They may continues in its current acceptable direction,
be important in protecting only a few species the scientific community should strongly
rather than a viable marine ecosystem if continue to support the Authority and work
surrounding areas are polluted or over exploited. with it to improve management. In conclud-
They may be subsequently incorporated into a ing this section, Whitehouse suggests the
broader marine management strategy. This development of a separate "National Marine
raises the issue of the relative merits of a Resources Conservation and Management
regional planning authority with responsibility Authority" using the Resource Assessment
for ensuring ecologically sustainable develop- Commission Inquiry into the Coastal Zone as
ment as opposed to one with a more single providing the documentation on which to
focus on the preservation of biological diversity provide a national strategy to ensure the co-
and natural processes. Stripped of the tension ordinated management and ecologically
of current agencies and individuals, the sustainable development of Australia's coastal
question is whether an agency with a zone. This Authority would encourage the
responsibility for multiple use can pay development of joint CommonwealthlState
adequate attention to the issues of biodiversity? (or Territory) arrangements to ensure a co-
Whitehouse's report indicates that the ordinated approach. However, Whitehouse
GBRMPA has been successful in achieving recommends that GBRMPA should remain
multiple objectives. Some protection has been separate and distinct given the very special
given to the entire reef with high levels to importance of the GBR. Also GBRMPA
particular areas. In addition, the manage- should retain the special features relating to
ment regime enables the Authority to deal the constitutional arrangements between the
directly and authoratively with users including Commonwealth and Queensland related to
shipping, fishing, and tourism interests. I the coastal and territorial waters of the GBR
region. In other states they have been trans-
think it is clear that this is the correct strategy.
The GBRMPA model is interactive hut it must ferred to the respective State and Temtorial
Governments. This does not preclude the
be stressed that management of large scale,
Authority providing some of its expertise on
multiple use marine park requires significant
a consultancy bases to other Statememtory
and ongoing allocation of funding and
or Commonwealth agencies which are
resources.
developing management plans for the coastal
Whitehouse then considered whether the
environment. In fact, this is already happen-
scope of the Authority should also cover other
ing with GBRMPA playing a key role in the
areas of Australia, as there is almost universal
marine protected areas component of Ocean
agreement that the model which GBRMPA
Rescue 2000 and it is extensively liaising with
has developed and implemented is working. the States and ANCA in developing a national
There are arguments for and against but system of marine protected areas.
basically he concludes the model could be
used elsewhere and that the GBRMPA should
PROPOSALS FOR AN AUSTRALIAN
retain its current identity and one of the
NATURE CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
reasons that it works well is that it is located
AND GBRMPA
in Townsville close to its area of operation.
Whitehouse considers that the Authority has The McDonald Report (1989) recommended
developed the expertise for the region and a the development of ANCA which would
good working relationship with the users of include GBRMPA and ANPWS, however it
the park. If the Authority was to be extended appears that the report did not consider the
to other parts of Australia it would have to be current performance of GBRMPA. Following
based in Canberra away from the actual parks on from this report ANCA was created but
it was trying to administer. Also, the Authority without GBRMPA. Whitehouse supports this
could not focus entirely on the GBR but at arrangement and concludes that strong and
times would be considering for example the widespread support for the continual separate
116 Australian 2001ogist. Val. 30(1)
existence of GBRMPA in the light of the 2. consideration given to increasing the
recommendations of the McDonald Review duration of permits to generally 5-10 years;
constitutes a ringing public endorsements 3. the Authority should continue its efforts to
of the existing organizational arrangements prepare information packages specific to
and of the general community satisfaction particular types of uses and activities to ensure
with the performance of GBRMPA from that permit applications contain all the
the Queensland Government, the tourism necessary information when they are lodged;
industry, the fishing industry, conservationists 4. the Authority needs to address the implica-
and scientists. tions and consequences of project interruptions
due to financial difficulties of the permittee,
CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT so as to ensure that the Authority has a
guaranteed access to sufficient funds to
Whitehouse suggests that areas of the GBR
undertake clean up, and where possible,
region which are not included in the Park
rehabilitation in the event of project collapse;
(areas along parts of the Queensland coast)
5. GBRMPA should develop and publish
should be regularly reviewed to ensure that
special guidelines for the implementation of
appropriate management regimes operate in
environmental surveys of coral and marine
these areas so that no adverse effects occur
environments (this has been progressing for
within the Park.
some time and is to be welcomed); 6. where
Whitehouse reviews the sections of the Park GBRMPA is relying on insurance to provide
and how some of the original ones have been security for site rehabilitation, the Authority
amalgamated to form four sections, with should seek independent advice from insurance
revised names to be incorporated into the brokers to ensure that adequate coverage has
zoning plans. He discusses the development been provided; and finally that GBRMPA
of specific management plans and area state- should regularly review the fees charged for
ments in areas of high or potentially high permit applications so that the processing of
usage. Statutory recognition should be given permits is on a full cost recovery. I presume
to these management plans and they should that this refers to all permits, except research
be enforced by legal requirements much as permits, which are currently free and hope-
zoning plans are. The GBRMPA has from its fully will remain free.
very inception been totally committed to
The Society has major reservations about
public participation in all stages of develop-
point 1. Also, many of the issues raised by
ment of zoning and management plans. While
points 1 4 c ould he resolved for standard
this increases the time taken to complete
activities by the development of management
zoning plans, the final outcome is more likely
and Area statements. Permits would be
to obtain public acceptance and recognition.
needed for special cases only; releasing staff
It also means that most people accept the
for the resolution of permits for non standard
legislation. Law enforcement because of the
activities. Points 6 and 7 are to be welcomed
sheer size of the area is, in reality, limited.
and could be of great use to other coral reef
Whitehouse discusses the Permit and areas.
Environment Assessment provisions of the
It has long been the policy of GBRMPA to
Act and identifies the substantial number of
be strongly committed to applied research to
permits which are given and how the process
support the management process and it is
has been changing. While accepting,t he need
reassuring that expenditure on research
for permits, the processing of permits should
activities (almost 15% of its total budget) is
not dominate the activities of GBRMPA. The
the second largest component after day to day
time devoted should be equal to the benefits
management. Whitehouse then goes onto
accruing to the GBRMP in terms of protection
reviewing the principles which the Authority
and management. The lack of management
has with regard to funding research which is
plans for many areas is creating and confound-
mainly directed to principal progTamme areas
ing the permit process.
in which it needs information for its manage-
Whitehouse then summarises the Magnetic ment. The review suggests that the Authority
Quay Marina Proposal which has already been has been quite successful in the management
the subject of a detailed inquiry by Whitehouse of scientific research. While ACRS would have
(1992). In the light of this failed development no arguments with the areas highlighted by
Whitehouse makes some recommendations for the Authority as needing research, or in the
future permitting. These are: 1. increased general conclusions by Whitehouse, it would
public involvement in permit applications strongly support the need for additional fund-
except in the case of research permits; ing for research and the constant awareness
December 1995 Australian Zoologist, Vol. 30(1) 7 17
of other areas to be included as priority as the our submission, as we could not afford it,
need arises, such as the effects of fish farming and presumably there were other organiza-
using cages and potential introductions of tions who made a similar decision. The
exotic species from the discharge of ballast Society would therefore strongly support the
water. The Society would also support the recommendations of Whitehouse on this
recommendation that further efforts be made matter.
to communicate and implementate the
The final part of this section deals with
findings to the day to day management staff
whether or not the area over which the
and, where appropriate, involve such staff in
Authority has jurisdiction should be
the research programme. However, we would
extended. There appears to be little support
like to see this point expanded to include user
for it to be extended to include the Torres
groups and the general public. The newly
Strait as this would involve the Authority in
created CRC for Reef Research is heavily
the complexity of managing an area of inter-
involved in this process.
national responsibility. However, there are
Whitehouse then discusses the day to day valid reasons for extending the mandate to
management including funding. This process include the Coral Sea reefs. These are probably
has recently been reviewed by Gilmour et al. connected to the GBR and certainly the
and summarized in the report (p. 123). The expertise of the Authority encompasses these
Society endorses the suggested changes to reefs. Currently, only two of these reefs
procedures. It should create greater communi- are protected as National Nature Reserves.
cation between the Authority and QDEH They are Koringa Herald and Lihou and
(Queensland Department of Environment administered by ANCA.
and Heritage - the Queensland Government
Department responsible for this) for better RECREATION, EDUCATION AND
day to day management. USE OF MANAGEMENT
Whitehouse discusses the procedure It is questionable whether any one foresaw
whereby the granting of permits is subject to the tremendous increase in tourism to the
review by the Commonwealth Administrative GBR region since the declaration of the Park
and how this would impact on the manage-
Appeals Tribunal (AAT). To date, only two
appeals have been lodged, an appeal by Island ment of the area. It has resulted in a major
effort by GBRMPA to determine the impact
Voice against the permit given for the
construction of a tourist resort/marina complex of tourism on the reef, not only with regards
to the development of resorts and on reef
by Magnetic Keys at Nelly Bay, Magnetic
facilities but the varying requirements and
Island and an appeal by Dallhold Nickel
expectations of the various sorts of tourists
Management Pty Limited against a refusal to
coming to the reef. GBRMPA co-ordinates the
grant a permit to offload nickel ore at Halifax
development of the coastal area adjacent to
Bay. ACRS was involved in the second appeal.
the GBRMP with the development on reef
Both appeals were subsequently withdrawn
islands by regarding the area as a single unit.
but only after considerable expenditure by the
All this needs to be done while maintaining
Authority, mainly with regard to legal advice.
the long term viability of the reef. In order to
Whitehouse accepts that it is essential that an
do this the Authority has embarked on pro-
appeal system exists but considers the AAT is
grammes to evaluate the impact of tourists on
not the appropriate forum. This has now been
the reef and how these can be either managed
accepted by GBRMPA. He suggests that the
or minimized. In addition monitoring pro-
recent review of the failed Magnetic Island
grammes are being implemented to assess
Marina Development is a more appropriate
visitor impact and the results will need to be
forum as it emphasized an informal and non-
incorporated into future plans. Perhaps a
legalistic approach rather than the legalistic
point to make here is that the Authority has
approach of AAT. For example, ACRS was
no other points of reference elsewhere in the
able to present a submission to the inquiry on
world to draw from, rather, the Authority
the failed Magnetic Keys Development in a
must develop its own data base and methods
relaxed informal meeting whereas although
of implementing it. Whitehouse stresses that
the Society felt very strongly about the
the Authority is at the forefront of tropical
Dallhold Nickel proposal and had many valid
marine park management.
points to make, it was advised very early on
that unless we employed legal counsel we Whitehouse suggests that, with regard to
could not tender such information to the shipping, legislation should be modified to
AAT. At a Council meeting of ACRS it was require ship's masters to sign a written agree-
obvious that we could not go ahead with ment to agree to. participate in any inquiries
1 Australian Zoologisf, Vol. 30(1)
regarding the discharge of oil or other be implemented. He suggests that "Aboriginal
pollutants from their vessel within the area of Marine Management Areas" be established
the GBR this agreement would authorize a and managed by a "Management Board con-
ship's agent to act on the master's and the sisting mainly of Aboriginal representatives.
owner's behalf in the event of legal proceed-
ings. Currently it is possible for ships' masters CO-ORDINATION AND EXTERNAL
to ignore requests to participate in such LIAISON
inquiries because of resource limitation, time
Basically this stems from the recognition
or distance problems. It would also allow a ship
that the GBRMPA provides a leading example
to sail rather than wait for the proceedings.
of the management of a large multiple use
The role of the aquarium is discussed and marine protected area. Such requests have
Whitehouse endorses its continued role which been received from numerous agencies both
he regards as primarily educational. He in Australia as well as overseas to provide
suggests that the Authority must accept the advice and expertise. In addition GBRMPA is
need to run the Aquarium on a subsidized playing a major role in contributing to the
commercial basis because of its educational international debate on the management of
role. coral reefs and marine resources. While
Whitehouse wonders about the long-term
viability of this section of GBRMPA it seems
COMMUNITY INTERACTIONS
to me as that it is an area of considerable
The role and membership of the Great potential for growth and source of funding.
Barrier Reef Consultative Committee is However, this must not occur at the expense
discussed and certain recommendations are of the management of the GBR. Although one
made. These are that the Queensland Marine could imagine that at times the experience
Parks Consultative Committee for areas other acquired overseas may be directly relevant to
than the reef should function separately from the GBR.
the GBR Consultative Committee. The GBR
Whitehouse notes that the GBRMPA has
Consultative Committee should play a major
good working relationships with a variety of
role in providing lines of communication
government departments and agencies at all
between the GBRMPA and the major groups
levels, except notably with ANCA. The
of users of the Park. More interaction should
resolution of this conflict will require a clear
occur between members of the Authority and
determination of the respective roles and the
the members of the Consultative Committee,
limits of responsibility of each agency and a
currently most of the communication occurs
resolution generally of the appropriate
at the Executive levels of GBRMPA. Perhaps
management arrangements for the Common-
rhc most i~nportantr etomrnc~~dationasrc fill-
wealth's marine responsibilities. Hopefully
lhc. Consult~rive( :I)IIIIII~II~a~n d GIIRhlP.1 to
this will occur in the near future.
work together on developing a forward pro-
gramme of issues and problems to be dealt
with by the Consultative Committee. FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Secondly, the Consultative Committee needs
The key strategic issues which the Authority
to interact with user groups and stakeholders
will face in the future are the management of
and to be seen as independent of GBRMPA.
an increasing number of tourists wishing to
Such actions could well defuse potential
experience the reef at a variety of levels.
conflict.
Secondly the management of external impacts
With regards to public participation and inter- on the reef, such as pollution from nearby
action with stakeholders, Whitehouse stresses coastal areas, run off and excess nutrients
this must continue and he recognizes the good entering the system etc. These two factors are
working relationship between the Authority likely to substantially increase the require-
and research institutions involved in the GBR ments for day to day management of the reef
as well as with individual researchers. It is which will become more complex as pressure
essential that this be continued and expanded. on the resources increases. The Queensland
He also notes that to date communication with Government in its submission to the Inquiry
indigenous groups has not been as wide- is confident that the Authority has the necessary
spread as it should be, and he recommends capacity to meet future needs without any
that an active programme of training significant changes. Let us hope that this is
indigenous people for employment both correct. However, to date the Authority has
within the Authority and in QDEH as well as shown a willingness to adapt as shown in its
improving communication with local groups recent Corporate Plan and the development
Australian Zoologist, Vol. 30(1) 119
of a Strategic plan for the Management of the Finally the Society believes that
GBR for the next 25 years. Hopefully, Whitehouse's review addressed well the
through its close working relationships with terms of reference and enforces the widely
the users of the Park, signs of deterioration or held belief that the Authority is fulfilling
changes in the marine communities will its responsibility to the management and
quickly filter back to the Authority in time for protection of the Great Barrier Reef.
action to be taken. The reef, as demonstrated
by its World Heritage status, should be ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
protected and managed for time immemorial. I should like to thank Professor Chris
ACRS supports the context and recommen- Crossland and Mr Richard Kenchington for
dations of the Whitehouse report on critically reading the manuscript and Dan
GBRMPA and recognizes that steps have Lunney for editorial advice.
been taken to implement a number of the
REFERENCES
recommendations and to review direction and
policy in light of the review. The new Chair- Proceedings of the fourth Fenner Conference on the
man Dr Ian McPhail is taking on a series of environment, Canberra, S l l October 1991, ed by
A. M. Lvanowitci, D. Tarte and M. Olsen. Occasional
new challenges for the Authority and has a papen no 4. Australian Committee for IUCN, Sydney.
track record for achievement in the community
Resource Assessment Commission, Coastal Zone Inquily,
interests. 1993, Canberra.
A review of the. review
To: Pat Hutchings and Dan Lunney existing government agencies for performing
its technical and administrative functions.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment
on your review of the Whitehouse review of Both Mr Whitehouse and Dr Hutchings
GBRMPA. support increased attention to the involve-
m&t of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders
The report by John Whitehouse on the
in the management of the Great Banier Reef
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
Marine Park (GBRMP). The GBRMPA has
and the review of that report by Dr Pat
had such a policy for many years, but has
Hutchings are in my opinion very fair and
never had the human resources to apply the
competent documents. I have three comments
policy to its satisfaction. It should he recognized
which address both reports.
that the meaningful involvement of these
I believe that Australia needs a more communities in complex, technical issues,
efficient co-ordinating system for managing using analytical and decision making processes
that have not traditionally been used by them,
its coastal waters than presently exists. By
"coastal waters", I mean all the waters within requires special, additional resources provided
the jurisdiction of the state, territory or explicitly and exclusively for that purpose.
federal governments. My recommendation is Finally, it might be noted that, in addition
that an Australian Coastal Waters Authority to the areas noted in Dr Hutchings' report as
(ACWA) should be established, to be chaired by having adopted variants of the GBRMP
the Chair of the Great Barrier Reef Marine model, the USA (in Florida and California)
Park Authority (GBRMPA), with a representa- and Western Australia have acted similarly.
tive of each state and territory government.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment
This Authority should have the function of
on these two reports.
co-ordinating the investigation, planning,
management and monitoring of our coastal Graeme Kelleher
waters, with the explicit mandate of ensuring Vice-Chairman (Marine)
that use of those waters is ecologically sustain- IUCN, The World Conservation Union
able. The ACWA should have a small Commision on National Parks and
secretariat and should rely to the maximum Protected Areas (CNPPA)
extent practicable on the expertise within 12 Marulda Street, Aranda, ACT
120 Australian Zoologist, Vol. 30(1)
