Institutional framework for Australian ocean and coastal management

Ocean and Coastal Management

Volumn 33, Issue 1-3, 1996, Pages 19-39

  Haward, Marcus ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; INTERGOVERNMENTAL ARRANGEMENTS;

COASTAL ENGINEERING; COASTAL ZONES; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS; HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEYS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION; MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC POLICY;

OCEAN ENGINEERING;

EID: 0030434111     PISSN: 09645691     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0964-5691(96)00043-9     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (45)

1. Bergin, A., Australian ocean policy: need for a comprehensive review? Marine Policy, 10(2) (1986) 155-158. As a federation Australian ocean (and particularly coastal) management is divided between the Commonwealth, six States and two Territories-a total of nine governments. The land-locked Australian Capital Territory has responsibility for coastal management in the Jervis Bay area. The development of extensive intergovernmental arrangements and the role of intergovernmental institutional arrangements in coordinating ocean and coastal policy provides an argument for a further sphere of government to be considered along with Commonwealth, State and local governments. The Commonwealth government has announced that it will proceed with a proposal to develop a national oceans policy
2. McKinnon, K. R., The law of the sea and Australian ocean policy. Maritime Studies, 79 (1994) 18-24.
3. Brown, V. A., Turning the Tide: Integrated Local Area Management for Australia's Coastal Zone. Canberra, Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra, 1994.
4. This critique is well developed in the Australian literature; see Maddox, G., Federalism or government frustrated. Australian Quarterly, 45 (September 1973) 92-100;
5. Brugger, W. & Jaensch, D., Australian Politics: Theory and Practice. Sydney, Alien and Unwin, 1985;
6. and Toyne, P., Reluctant Nation: Environment, Law and Politics in Australia. Sydney, ABC Books, 1994.
7. Kellow, A. J., The environment, federalism and development: overstated conflicts? In Australian Environmental Policy, ed. K. Walker. UNSW Press, Sydney, 1992.
8. For the classic explication of redundancy theory, see Landau, M., Redundancy, rationality and the problem of duplication and overlap. Public Administration Review (July-August 1969) 346-358.
9. This normative judgement can also be tested empirically; the success of local community groups in tackling problems in coastal Australian emphasises the significance of devolving responsibility, although its is recognised that such successes are not necessarily related to the effects of federalism.
10. See Rothwell's paper in this volume for more detail on constitutional and legal issues.
11. In November 1990 Australian announced that it was declaring a 12 nautical mile territorial sea, until then being one of only 11 countries not to take advantage of the provisions of the Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC) arising from the Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference (UNCLOS III). Australia declared an Exclusive Economic Zone in August 1994 (EEZ) under the provisions of LOSC Prior to this declaration Australia exercised EEZ rights and obligations, as well as recognising the evolution of customary international law over the oceans.
12. As graphically illustrated in the aftermath of the grounding of the Iron Baron on Hebe Reef off the Tamar River in northern Tasmania in July 1995.
13. See Haward, M., The Australian Offshore Constitutional Settlement. Marine Policy, 13 (1989) 334-348;
14. Opeskin, B. R. & Rothwell, D. R., Australia's territorial sea: international and federal implications of its extension to 12 miles. Ocean Development and International Law, 22 (1991) 395-431;
15. Rothwell, D. R. & Haward, M., Federal and international perspectives on Australia's maritime claims. Marine Policy, 20(1) (1996) 29-48.
16. A State can, however, legislate for activities such as fishing which may take place further offshore than 3 miles if they can show that such activities have a necessary connection with the 'peace order and good government' provisions of their constitution. The High Court of Australia has indicated in a number of cases that the extraterritorial extent of such powers does not depend solely on distance but on the existence and nature of the connection between the activity regulated and the interests of the State.
17. The Portfolio Review on Marine and Coastal Environmental Strategies lists 24 Commonwealth agencies with 'significant responsibilities or an interest in the marine or coastal zones' see Portfolio Review on Marine and Coastal Environmental Strategies (October 1994). Canberra, DEST. This inventory includes agencies such as Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Departments of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Primary Industry and Energy. Importantly the inventory also includes agencies such as Departments of the Treasury, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Defence and Foreign Affairs and Trade.
18. A short note is necessary recognising the involvement of Australia's Territory governments in ocean and coastal management. Territories do not have the constitutional recognition of States, with administrative responsibilities conferred to them through Commonwealth legislation. The Northern Territory has significant responsibilities in ocean and coastal management in its adjacent waters. The Northern Territory was, however, included in all negotiations over the OCS, with this agreement treating it in the same manner as the States. Australia's other mainland territory, the Australian Capital Territory has some responsibilities within Jervis Bay, although Commonwealth retains a major interests through HMAS Creswell, a naval training base. The Commonwealth retains responsibility for ocean and coastal management in the external territories, although the Norfolk Island Assembly has extensive autonomy and manages local issues. Management of sub-Antarctic Territories (Heard Island and MacDonald Islands) are a Commonwealth responsibility, although Tasmania retains jurisdiction over sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island, see Burmester, H., Island outposts of Australia. In Australia's Offshore Maritime Interests, ed. W. S. G. Bateman & W. Ward. Occasional Papers in Maritime Affairs, 3, Centre for Maritime Studies, Canberra, 1985, pp. 54-64.
19. Resource Assessment Commission Coastal Zone Inquiry Final Report. AGPS, Canberra, 1993, p. 361.
20. Resource Assessment Commission Coastal Zone Inquiry Final Report Ibid., p. 359.
21. Resource Assessment Commission Coastal Zone Inquiry Final Report Ibid., p. 367.
22. The IGAE is not without its critics, see, for example, Toyne, P., Reluctant Nation: Environment, Law and Politics in Australia. Sydney, ABC Books, 1994. It should be noted that the IGAE has rarely been tested in the period since the agreement was concluded.
23. Ecologically Sustainable Steering Committee, National ES D Strategy. Canberra AGPS, 1992, p. 2.
24. National ES D Strategy Ibid., p. 116.
25. Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, May 1992.
26. The ESD process emerged as part of Australia's response to the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, 1987. This report, released in 1987, introduced the concept of sustainable development into the lexicon of international and domestic politics.
27. Australia. Our Country Our Future. Prime Ministerial Statement, July 1989. Canberra, AGPS, 1989.
28. Australia, Ecologically Sustainable Development: A Commonwealth Discussion Paper. June 1990, Canberra, AGPS, 1990.
29. The key Australian environmental groups (the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF); The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF); The Wilderness Society (TWS) and Greenpeace) had differing responses to the proposed discussions over ESD. TWS and Greenpeace withdrew from the process following disputes with the Commonwealth over forest management. The ACF and WWF, having successfully argued for funding to enable them to participate fully in the process, remained within the working groups, see Haward, M., Institutional design and policy making 'Down Under': developments in Australian and New Zealand coastal policy. Ocean & Coastal Management, 26(2) (1995) 87-117.
30. See Jones, M., Fishing Debris in the Australian Marine Environment. Canberra, Bureau of Resource Sciences, 1994.
31. ESD Chairs, Intersectoral Issues Report. Canberra, AGPS, 1992.
32. For details of the RAC Inquiry see Haward, M., note 24.
33. The terms 'rods of iron' and 'threads of gossamer' is taken from Warhurst who surveryed inter and intra governmental linkages. See Warhurst, J., Intergovernmental managers and cooperative federalism: the Australian case. Public Administration 61 (Autumn 1983), 308-317.
34. See Haward, M., note 24.
35. The development of education programs and an information strategy is part of the OR 2000 program. This has involved community service announcements screened in prime-time, high rating, television programs, as well as input into science and environment programs on television. On World Environment Day in 1993, a national newspaper, the Australian, carried a feature on OR 2000. A range of community-based activities have been held around Australia and in New Zealand focussing on 'caring for our coast' through 'seaweeks' and 'ocean care days'. Seaweek was also held in New Zealand which focused on an active schools program on marine protected areas. Ocean Care Days were held in December between 1993 and 1996.
36. See Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Ocean Rescue Update, September 1993.
37. Department of Environment Sport and Territories, State of the Marine Environment Report. Canberra, AGPS, 1995.
38. A major component of OR 2000 is the development of a national system of marine protected areas, and in assisting State and Territory governments develop projects to enhance the development and management of these areas. See Kriwoken, L. K., this volume. ANZECC has established an Advisory Committee on Marine Protected Areas to facilitate the development of a national representative system of marine protected areas. This advisory committee includes the key OR 2000 agencies.
39. Review Committee on Marine Industries, Science and Technology, Oceans of Wealth. Department of Industry Science and Technology, Canberra, AGPS, 1989.
40. See Australian Maritime Digest, No. 24 (April 1995) 1.
41. Commonwealth of Australia, Review of Marine Research Organisation. The McKinnon Report. Department of Science, Canberra, 1993.
42. See Australian, 3 August 1995.
43. This section is derived from an analysis of Living on The Coast: The Commonwealth Coastal Policy. Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra, May 1995.
44. Landcare is a Commonwealth government program aimed at addressing the problems of environmental degradation through positive action by community groups and primary producers. It was initiated through a joint submission to the Commonwealth by the Australian Conservation Foundation and the National Farmers Federation in February 1989. Landcare was included in the range of initiatives established through the Prime Ministerial Statement on the Environment of July 1989. Funding of $320 million was allocated to the program and hundreds of community-based groups have been established throughout Australia. See Mercer, D., A Question of Balance. Sydney, Federation Press, 1991, p. 273.
45. Kay, R. What will happen to coastal planning and management when the federal dollar hits the table? Western Planner, 12 (1995) 3-4.