12 – Planning and Managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
119
N COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The extensive public consultation program during the
RAP included some 1000 formal and informal meetings
and information sessions involving engagement with
people in over 90 centres along and beyond the GBR
coast. This included local communities, commercial
and recreational fishing organisations, traditional owners, tourism operators, conservation groups, and so on.
Meetings were held with representative organisations
such as Sunfish, the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators, World Wildlife Fund Australia, and all
branches of the Queensland Seafood Industry Association within the GBR catchment area.
As required by the relevant legislation, there were
two formal phases of community participation during
the RAP; the first calling for input into the preparation
of a new zoning plan, and the second providing the
draft zoning plan for public comment. The resulting
31 690 public submissions (10 190 in the first formal
phase; 21 500 in the second phase), many of which included maps, were unprecedented compared to previous planning programs in the GBR. They necessitated
the development of new, fast and effective processes
for analysing and recording the range of information
that was received by the GBRMPA.
A large number of the submissions included spatial
information, including approximately 5800 maps in the
second formal phase alone. All submissions, including
this spatial information, were considered, coded and
analysed, and the maps were digitised and/or scanned.
Many modifications were made to the Draft Zoning
Plan as a result of the detailed information provided in
submissions and other information received; however,
in some locations there were limited options available
to modify proposed No-Take Areas, particularly in inshore coastal areas and still achieve the minimum levels of protection recommended by the scientists.
The significant changes between the initial zoning,
the Draft Zoning Plan and the final Zoning Plan, as accepted by Parliament, are readily seen in the ‘Review of
the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975’ – Review
Panel Report, released in 2006. Maps 9, 10 and 11 on
pages 69–71 of that report highlight the differences.
Report available at http://www.environment.gov.au/
coasts/publications/pubs/gbr-marine-park-actchapters-5-6.pdf [Verified 21 March 2008]. Many of the
aspects outlined in this chapter are illustrated in the
Capricorn-Bunker case study shown in more detail in
the same report (i.e. pp. 78–90 of the same webpage).
In accordance with the legislation, the Zoning Plan
was submitted to both Houses of Federal Parliament in
December 2003. Following a statutory review period,
the Minister announced that the new Zoning Plan
would be implemented on 1 July 2004.
In November 2004, the Queensland Government
‘mirrored’ the new zoning in most of the adjoining
State waters (i.e. intertidal waters and some other areas
deemed to be State waters), so now there is complementary zoning for virtually all the State and Federal
waters within the entire GBR World Heritage Area.
Table 12.1 indicates the area of each zone type in effect
today (2008).
In conclusion, the approach that was undertaken in
the RAP is now recognised as one of the most comprehensive global advances in the protection of marine
biodiversity and marine conservation in recent decades. The final outcome, including the increase in NoTake Zones to more than 33% (over 115 000 km
2 ) and
including representative examples of every habitat, today comprises the world’s largest systematic network
of No-Take Zones.
The rezoning efforts alone will not ensure the future
or sustainability of the GBR, however, they do provide
a fundamental component for effectively conserving
habitats, biological communities and ecosystem processes for future use.
Other spatial management ‘tools’ include statutory
Plans of Management, permits, agreements with traditional owners and industry-specific accreditation.
These have been found to be more effective for managing specific industries or activities such as tourism,
shipping, ports, traditional use of marine resources, defence training and some fisheries regulations.
Similarly, a variety of temporal management tools are
now applied in the GBRMP, including Special Management Areas, GBR-wide closures at specific fish-spawning
times and a range of other fisheries regulations.
119
N COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
The extensive public consultation program during the
RAP included some 1000 formal and informal meetings
and information sessions involving engagement with
people in over 90 centres along and beyond the GBR
coast. This included local communities, commercial
and recreational fishing organisations, traditional owners, tourism operators, conservation groups, and so on.
Meetings were held with representative organisations
such as Sunfish, the Association of Marine Park Tourism Operators, World Wildlife Fund Australia, and all
branches of the Queensland Seafood Industry Association within the GBR catchment area.
As required by the relevant legislation, there were
two formal phases of community participation during
the RAP; the first calling for input into the preparation
of a new zoning plan, and the second providing the
draft zoning plan for public comment. The resulting
31 690 public submissions (10 190 in the first formal
phase; 21 500 in the second phase), many of which included maps, were unprecedented compared to previous planning programs in the GBR. They necessitated
the development of new, fast and effective processes
for analysing and recording the range of information
that was received by the GBRMPA.
A large number of the submissions included spatial
information, including approximately 5800 maps in the
second formal phase alone. All submissions, including
this spatial information, were considered, coded and
analysed, and the maps were digitised and/or scanned.
Many modifications were made to the Draft Zoning
Plan as a result of the detailed information provided in
submissions and other information received; however,
in some locations there were limited options available
to modify proposed No-Take Areas, particularly in inshore coastal areas and still achieve the minimum levels of protection recommended by the scientists.
The significant changes between the initial zoning,
the Draft Zoning Plan and the final Zoning Plan, as accepted by Parliament, are readily seen in the ‘Review of
the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975’ – Review
Panel Report, released in 2006. Maps 9, 10 and 11 on
pages 69–71 of that report highlight the differences.
Report available at http://www.environment.gov.au/
coasts/publications/pubs/gbr-marine-park-actchapters-5-6.pdf [Verified 21 March 2008]. Many of the
aspects outlined in this chapter are illustrated in the
Capricorn-Bunker case study shown in more detail in
the same report (i.e. pp. 78–90 of the same webpage).
In accordance with the legislation, the Zoning Plan
was submitted to both Houses of Federal Parliament in
December 2003. Following a statutory review period,
the Minister announced that the new Zoning Plan
would be implemented on 1 July 2004.
In November 2004, the Queensland Government
‘mirrored’ the new zoning in most of the adjoining
State waters (i.e. intertidal waters and some other areas
deemed to be State waters), so now there is complementary zoning for virtually all the State and Federal
waters within the entire GBR World Heritage Area.
Table 12.1 indicates the area of each zone type in effect
today (2008).
In conclusion, the approach that was undertaken in
the RAP is now recognised as one of the most comprehensive global advances in the protection of marine
biodiversity and marine conservation in recent decades. The final outcome, including the increase in NoTake Zones to more than 33% (over 115 000 km
2 ) and
including representative examples of every habitat, today comprises the world’s largest systematic network
of No-Take Zones.
The rezoning efforts alone will not ensure the future
or sustainability of the GBR, however, they do provide
a fundamental component for effectively conserving
habitats, biological communities and ecosystem processes for future use.
Other spatial management ‘tools’ include statutory
Plans of Management, permits, agreements with traditional owners and industry-specific accreditation.
These have been found to be more effective for managing specific industries or activities such as tourism,
shipping, ports, traditional use of marine resources, defence training and some fisheries regulations.
Similarly, a variety of temporal management tools are
now applied in the GBRMP, including Special Management Areas, GBR-wide closures at specific fish-spawning
times and a range of other fisheries regulations.