[ ]

Publications

Search:

Analysis of outcomes from group and workshop sessions

Editor's note:

At various points in the Forum program, participants engaged in round table discussion on particular and predetermined aspects of the marine planning process. Except where otherwise indicated, the groups were formed without regard to any sectoral interest. The commentary that follows is based on transcripts from the group discussions, a distillation of the comments made by each group by way of flipcharts, and as recorded in the worksheets for each group. It is primarily an attempt to create a connected narrative that reflects the general tenor of the utterances made at the time. As far as possible, the original forms of words used were retained. Where direct quotations are used, they are indicated conventionally. Although an effort has been made to reduce duplication and redundancy, comments that were made in one context were often echoed in another. Where it was thought to add to clarity, or where multiple relevance emerged, the duplication was allowed to stand. It should also be noted that what is recorded here is what emerged in the Forum's deliberations, no more, no less: statements made, for example, about a particular sector's needs and fears may not reflect the official policy of that sector. Statements made at one point in the narrative may be contradicted or qualified elsewhere in it; the recognition and expression of differing views was encouraged by the Forum.

Day 1 Friday April 14 group discussion 1

Discussion of presentations, including the Hon Robert Hill's address to the Forum.

This session was designed to enable a discussion of the Minister's address, the opening remarks of the Chair of the National Oceans Group, Dr Russell Reichelt, the keynote paper by Mr Mike Young [CSIRO Land and Water Group] and the presentations by several members of the National Oceans Advisory Group. Participants were prompted by several questions posed by the Facilitator: What did they [the speakers] say?' 'What did you hear?' 'What, for you, are the key issues?' 'And what are the burning questions which arise? The headings that are used to punctuate the narrative were suggested by the form and direction of the discussions that took place.

Implications for regional marine planning

The National Oceans Forum is the first step in a marine planning process for the regions of Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone. Problems required definition, the issues were complex and the task enormous. Those involved would need to focus on the core principles of conservation and wealth generation whilst acknowledging existing property rights. The South-east Regional Marine Plan had no precedents, and was in effect an Australian interpretation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS]. The structural adjustments required in marine planning might be considerable, and Indigenous issues would be a major concern.

Management

Flexible, integrative approaches in a holistic context would be required, and motivation and the use of incentives would be essential. The responsibilities and rights of each stakeholder would require definition, as would the mechanisms to sustain their commitment.

The 'triple bottom line' of 'economy, society, environment' is central, and additional layers of regulation should be resisted. Management should be outcomes- and performance- based, and rest on an achievable time-frame.

Lessons from the land

Errors in the management of the resources of terrestrial Australia should be avoided. The relationship between land and ocean was inter-affective. A 'duty of care' would bear on the use of marine resources. Existing mechanisms relevant to the marine planning process should be applied where appropriate, rather than re-inventing the wheel with an increase in complexity. Processes should be 'taken to the players', using these mechanisms. If goals are too ambitious, they will not be achieved, and cynicism may result. There should be no surprises along the way.

Costs

Costs should be shared, and the efficiency of the private sector noted. How will costs be allocated? How will the process add value, and over what term? The costs of implementation will fall on industry, but eventually trickle down to the taxpayer and consumer by way of increased charges.

'Resource rents' should be addressed, and the cost of any variation in existing property rights considered; the principal beneficiaries of the process should underwrite the costs. 'Winners' should compensate 'losers'.

Cooperation and communication

Communication is a key element. Coordination across levels of government, between government and private sectors, and between different sectors was essential. The process should be open to all stakeholders.

Research based on the needs of stakeholders [not those of the bureaucracy] would reduce duplication of effort and 'turf' battles. If community stakeholders are to participate, they will need support. In trade-offs (say between environment and wealth generation), which 'bottom line' applies?

The process should rest on partnership, not regulation; 'selling' this concept would be a challenge. Genuine commitment by all sectors is essential. Negotiation should be 'horizontal' ie cross-sectoral, rather than vertical or 'top-down'. Some commented on the difficulty of consensus in such a diverse context. A shared language and agreed vocabulary might help in reaching understandings where communication will be critical.

Government

While government might wish to drive the process, stakeholders must be persuaded to join it. Regulation should be minimised, but in previous exercises this premise had been over-ridden. Government should raise awareness and educate [and inform] those involved in the process or affected by it.

Scientific issues

Much uncertainty exists in environment and the marine planning process; and the precautionary approach was endorsed. Incomplete knowledge might produce inappropriate solutions, and the traditional 'pragmatic' and expedient approach would not work.

Creation of a database about the Region and the process should be a priority, subject to commercial confidentiality. Much was not known about what is a complex Region. Of particular concern were estuarine and coastal marine systems; ecosystems were seen to have a terrestrial as well as a marine component

Day 1; Friday April 14; group discussion 2

'What are the benefits from south-east regional marine planning?

The groups addressed this core question. The intention was to catalyse the Forum processes by attempting to look at what benefits a marine plan might deliver, rather than focussing on costs and possible obstacles to the process. The groups were again asked to identify any 'burning questions'.

Benefits

Who will be the beneficiaries of the marine planning process? Biological diversity would be protected, and there would be increased certainty for users, if the shift from an ad hoc and fragmented system to a unified one could be achieved. Sustainability of the resource base and of the environment was achievable, but with some social, economic, cultural and perhaps environmental, costs.

Focussed effort and reduced duplication were attractive; the planning process would enable us to take stock. Indigenous communities would have an opportunity to engage, but the extent of their involvement could not be predicted. Without it, however, the process would not be valid but their participation would allow for a clearer understanding of Indigenous interests.

Planning would draw on the new databases that will be created, and should thus produce a more balanced system for managing the Region. It would result in a unified perspective of the aspirations of existing and potential users and a sounder basis for risk management within industry. The learning curves on all sides will be steep.

We might move to a genuinely sustainable ecology and an improved understanding of the need for a marine planning process. An improved awareness of the links between ecosystem health and wealth generation should result, with conflict being minimised through informed debate. Food might also be put on some tables.

The Plan should generate improved cooperation between governments and a sense of stewardship. It may provide focus and direction in the use of resources and a comprehensive scheme for marine reserves as well as allowing for economy of effort and a shared awareness.

The clearer profile of marine industries will be valuable and will allow identification of users [and abusers] of resources and the environment. It will help to predict and forestall degradation of the environment or the resource base. Competing interests will have a forum and mechanisms to address cross-sectoral and cross-jurisdictional matters. A cooperative approach to conflicting claims and the balancing of opposed interests has a chance to take place.

Intelligent and sustainable use and monitoring of ecosystems will generate wealth and employment, and an improved scientific base to monitor the effect of decisions over time will result. Many critical phenomena [ballast water discharge, coastal development] occur in the Region, and scrutiny of these developments in a specific context will be possible.

Marine planning

Infrastructure requirements should be identified, with a reduction in complexity: the Plan has the potential to be a blueprint for cross-sectoral and trans-jurisdictional cooperation and consistency of ecosystem management. Ideally, there should be a greater regulatory consistency across the jurisdictions involved; if state governments participate, a unique opportunity to develop complementary arrangements for the assistance of industry will be possible.

The Plan will have more chance of acceptance than a piecemeal process, particularly if it builds on existing systems and avoids re-invention of the wheel. Motivation will be a challenge: what mechanisms will persuade and enable interest groups to participate? Areas of agreement should be identified so as to throw into relief areas of conflict. The process will be incremental and allow for continuous improvement.

Priorities in the agenda and tackling the most important / highest payoff areas first will 'get some runs on the board'. Improvements should be made where they are most visible - in the estuaries and on the shorelines. Measures of success and evaluation of programs should be part of this process.

Some questions were raised: How will the Plan reach out and recognise existing frameworks, practices and 'rights'? How will it be 'sold' to the wider community? How might access to historical data be effected in the best interests of the Region?

Day 1; Friday April 14; group discussion 3

'Opportunities and issues in south-east regional marine planning'

Participants were now asked to shift their focus to the South-east Region, and to identify and discuss the opportunities and issues inherent in the regional marine planning process, and to come up with what they thought would be 'the burning questions' that arose as the process evolved.

Opportunities

Conflict resolution.

Reduction of conflict between sectoral groups, and the resolution of jurisdictional problems. There was an opportunity to 'escape the tyranny of small issues', bring into play cooperation between government, industry and the community, and to develop partnerships between industry, educators, local government, recreational boaters and fishers. Duplication of effort, roles and responsibilities would be reduced as 'people [came] together to talk, listen and implement'.

The Plan might 'develop vision and engagement between such seemingly opposed sectors as industry and Indigenous peoples; the Worldwide Fund for Nature and the fishing industry'. New bodies such as local government-based 'coastal councils' might emerge, and it should be possible for industry to work with community groups and individuals to establish and assess the impacts of, for example, mining, and to provide early warning of problems.

'Holistic' management of the region might permit consideration of areas outside the conventional jurisdictions, and neutralise 'the political knee-jerk' often used to deflect criticism or delay action. Once the nature of the 'whole' has been established, dissection of a large and seemingly intractable issue into manageable segments might occur.

In a whole-of-system perspective the 'chance to develop robust processes and plans to deal with future contingencies' emerged. 'All and different sectors É[might] be heard' with a shared awareness of problems.

The Plan would enable a 'comprehensive gap analysis' to be accomplished [in knowledge and understanding of the marine ecosystems]. There would be a chance to break down institutional barriers with a framework within which research could be coordinated, and understanding enhanced. In an ecosystem-based model, the integration of sectoral interests, including offshore constitutional agreements, should be facilitated.

Enhanced communications between states and the Commonwealth would occur, and existing strategies and regimes reviewed. With a chance to consolidate and housekeep, the Commonwealth and States 'might learn something from each other'.

The knowledge base required and the opportunities for education, understanding, research and innovation

The consultation processes inherent in the South-east Regional Marine Plan would result in more widely shared information.

The process would be educative for those involved; the inclusion of oceans issues in curricula at all levels might assist awareness and understanding in the community over the Plan's life. More effective management of resources and environment might result. It would encourage research into the dynamics and structures of ecosystems and the establishment of a 'knowledge base' about the region. The networking of such knowledge bases and 'pools of knowledge', along with the opportunity to combine traditional and sectoral knowledge was possible.

Clear articulation of the cause and effect relationship between marine and terrestrial environments, and development of a context in which to argue for the application of water catchment management approaches might also result.

Native title and indigenous considerations

Native title, sea rights and other Indigenous issues are a thread in the discussion. These will be brought into sharp focus; the question of royalties for the resources extracted or derived from the oceans is an unaddressed issue, and one of considerable complexity. Indigenous people, with their long connections with the marine environment and the management and use of it, have much to offer to the marine planning process.

Community interests and inputs

One of the benefits will be increased community awareness of marine issues, enhanced by local or regional advisory committees. Some communities may have difficulty in accommodating the concept of marine protected areas, presenting both a challenge and an opportunity. The prospects for eco-tourism would be improved, as well as appreciation of the marine environment.

Local government, too long the bridesmaid in relations with state and federal entities, would have an important role. Synergy in planning and management, the development of unity of purpose, and the evolution of productive inter- and cross-sectoral learning have their roots at local levels.

Economic opportunities

Commercial competitiveness would be enhanced if a full inventory of resources were taken, predictions made, and actions set afoot regarding sustainability. Reductions in marginal costs of management and access should occur. The regional marine plan will reduce uncertainty, and allow for the processes involved in sustainable wealth generation to be evaluated.

General management considerations

Management would have to be flexible regarding existing arrangements whilst embracing new strategic objectives. 'Get it [the regional marine planning process and oceans policy] right', develop and test new ideas, and simplify existing organisational / regulatory arrangements.

Any international obligations should be complied with. There should also be compliance with Australian regulations. Australia had an opportunity here to 'showcase oceans policy and oceans planning best practice to the rest of the world'. The Plan should rely on systems-based research to achieve genuinely sustainable development in the ecological, economic, social and cultural spheres. The relationship to a national representative system of marine protected areas and the management of the environments and fisheries of the seamounts within Australia's extended jurisdictions constituted a challenge.

Issues

Participants grappled with real issues with genuine optimism. Many referred to the management of the regional marine planning process. The now-consolidated legal acceptance of 'a duty of care' in any human activity, and its coincidence with an increasingly litigious society emerged.

What's wrong with the existing system? And who will make the hard decisions, and by what process? How would progress be measured, audited, and reported across the Region? What performance indicators would be applied across the system? were some of the questions asked.

How could all views be represented adequately and with accountability and transparency? How would the planning and regulatory framework be managed? How would conflict be resolved, and trade-offs established? How prescriptive would the Regional Marine Plan be?

How do we encourage and negotiate participation by all levels of government and simultaneously preserve states' rights? How do we recognise existing arrangements across the five applying jurisdictions? How, given the nexus between them, will any regional marine plan manage or control sources of land-based pollution?

The allocation of resources exercised many: how would it be done? How would the resources be accessed, and by whom? How visible or transparent would the process be? Would long-term funding be available, and on what basis, and would it be sufficient to enable consistent attainment of the 'triple bottom line'? How will the benefits of the Plan be 'captured'?

The process would need to be owned by the community, and industry and Indigenous communities must be convinced that it is genuine; trust in the process would be critical. Increased participation regarding native title matters would be essential. People will have to be persuaded to leave entrenched positions: how to do this? How will stakeholders' diverse priorities be accommodated? How do we specify conditions for the sustainable development and equitable use of resources?

The creation of information, and access to it were again major considerations. Sectors differed on the sharing of information: such current knowledge as existed was fragmentary. There was no process for the exchange of information. Getting the 'right' information at the right time, a standardised terminology and effective communications across the system was essential, as was the consistent interpretation of data. How do we build on what is known already?

The need for education at levels ranging from the ministerial to primary school was a key factor. The introduction of the concept of ocean care into curricula of schools and universities was necessary to long term success.

The 'burning questions'

Editor's note: the questions that arose in the above discussion of the issues attaching to regional marine planning did so spontaneously. Here, the working and discussion groups had been prompted to identify the 'burning questions'; they are reported here in no particular order. What is worth noting is the way in which the groups accepted that the responsibilities and tasks identified were shared ones; there was no tendency to polarise the discussion into 'we' and 'they'.

The role of government

How will the Commonwealth bring the states on board, and how do we set priorities? What strategies would ensure that the process continues with vigour after a change of federal government? How do we neutralise political whim and ensure long-term funding?

Many property rights exist in the Region along with authorised or recognised practices. If impingement on these to the disadvantage of any individual occurs, how are they to be compensated? Does the possibility of litigation exist, what would trigger it, and how can we avoid or deal with it?

The process.

How can we improve land use and management practices to reduce impact on marine resources? How can we integrate policies and deal with the existing often overlapping and inconsistent regulation?

The ecosystem

Is it useful to think in terms of zones, such as off-shore and in-shore? How might we connect ecosystem management to socio-economic considerations in micro- and macro-contexts, and get to the 'triple bottom line'? In moving from a sector-specific to an ecosystem management framework, how will we assess impacts on the ecosystems? Is there a need for a cooperative research centre, or something similar, in the Region?

Questions of attitude and perception

Is there a perception that the Minister is driving the process? How is this to be offset? How do we overcome cynicism? How will we sell the concept of a balanced outcome? If any sector concludes that the Oceans Policy and the marine planning process will somehow threaten their interests, how will we deal with this?

The question to end all questions

How do we achieve all this in just three years, given that we are attempting to do that for which there is no precedent?

Day 1 Friday April 14 group discussion 4

Sectoral concerns in south-east regional marine planning as reflected in expressed needs and fears.

This session was designed to allow participants with particular interests or viewpoints and from both the private and public sectors to convene as discussion groups and to bring out into the open their needs and fears.

Participants with indigenous interests

Fears

If Indigenous people were to participate effectively, support would be needed from sources additional to ATSIC.

There had been a tendency to exclude Indigenous people altogether, or to consult them but ignore their input; this must not occur here. Further, there must be no erosion of existing Indigenous rights or any diminution of their representation in respect of the marine planning process. Indigenous people ask: "How would security of Indigenous interests and continuity of involvement after the initial processes of consultation be obtained, given the already demonstrated tendency for states and territories to over-ride Indigenous interests and to fail to follow due process in respect of Indigenous rights?" Indigenous people would need clarity regarding ownership of and access to, any data collected.

Needs

Indigenous people needed to be involved in the process, including research and surveys, especially those relating to their communities. Particular concerns included negotiations for clear and enforceable definitions of Native Title and Sea Rights, including confirmation of the rights to hunt, fish and gather. Where state and territory advisory committees were established as part of the process, Indigenous people ask to be represented. A 'peak Indigenous advisory body' might also be needed.

The 'burning issue'

Adequate funding to ensure full participation of Indigenous communities and individuals in the regional marine planning process.

Participants from the fishing sector

Fears

Participants feared a process of selective consultation with no transparency, and that decisions might be made expediently or on perceptions, not facts. Where many micro-enterprises operate - a single boat, operated by a husband and wife team is quite common - marine planning may result in increased costs and demands on very small businesses with no defined or perceptible return.

The industry is also sceptical that regulation could be either manageable or enforceable, and fears the reduction of existing rights without adequate compensation. It sees no scientific basis for the claim that 15% of any region should be 'no take'.

Needs

Guaranteed long-term security of access to productive areas of water, minimum disruption to operations and adequate compensation for any disruption. There should be recognition of the current processes for the development of fisheries, and of previous programs to achieve sustainable practices in all waters.

Existing management arrangements and property rights should stand, and there should be no excessive regulation. Long- term access to a sustainable resource should be guaranteed, with integration of monitoring systems and the work of appropriate agencies involved in the maintenance or upgrading of water quality.

The 'burning issue'

A clear and unambiguous promise from government that there would be no resource rent, generally, and specifically in relation to implementation of its Oceans Policy. The industry also asks 'how can we afford the time and money to be properly involved in the process?'

Participants with interests in the oil, petroleum and gas industry

Fears

The industry fears a precautionary freeze on development, exploration and extraction, and is concerned that outcomes may be driven by emotion, not evidence. It is also wary about existing property and other rights, and concerned about pressure from minority groups, which may result in ad hoc change, and which is environment-driven rather than reflecting the multiplicity of interests involved. The lack of appropriate skills, competencies, capacities - and resources - in the responsible agencies may adversely affect the process.

Needs

Genuine consultation with effective follow-up, a balance of inputs and outputs, workable time lines and effective regulation. An integrated legal regime which accepts the current system, plugs the gaps in it, and which is not amended retrospectively. 'Home grown expertise' should be used; innovation in marine industry development should be supported.

The 'burning issue'

Will there be genuine non-partisan whole- of-government advice to the Ministerial Board?

Participants from the tourism and recreation sector

Fears

Additional fees, charges and regulations; increased costs, and the considerable inconsistency where government interfaces with the industry, ranging from a lack of policy and what were referred to as 'government inequities' [Tasmania] to 'over-regulation' [Queensland].

Needs

A coherent and credible [tourism] industry-wide peak body; and more opportunity to participate in processes such as regional marine planning. Discussion of the possibility of cooperative management by government and the industry ie the owners.

The 'burning issue'

Who is going to pay for oceans management: the government, the consumer or the tourist operator?

Participants representing government agencies with interests in the environment and fisheries

Fears

A final decision based on ideology not principles. The exercise is large; will 'they' be able to deliver in / on time? How will the close involvement of government agencies be assured? Will funding shortages hinder the process?

Will the incoming flow of information to the planning process be absorbed effectively and at optimum times? Will agencies convey the need for marine planning, and in general, communicate and listen, effectively? There is a very real fear of failure.

Needs

Transparency and the cooperation of state governments; the chance to engage in the process early. To determine what information is needed by each agency, locate and obtain it. Effective two-way communication, with clear messages. Appropriate resources.

Participants from the government sector [Group 9]

Fears

Changes in government or minister; the possible derailment of the process and loss of investment in resources. As in other government sectors, they worried about their capacity to deliver, and over the possibility of perceived failure. They feared over-regulation and the imposition of 'inappropriate time frames'.

Needs

A legislative sub-frame for policy, effective means of implementation and the cooperation of other stakeholders. A national representative system of marine protected areas, with assessments of existing fisheries. Regional marine plans should have a life sufficient for achievement of the ends envisaged, and allow for any international obligations within their jurisdictional scope.

Participants from the government sector [Group 10]

Fears

Irrational outcomes based on arbitrary claims and non-scientific approaches. Excessive compromise with a failure to agree on values, resources and priorities - and all under the shadow of changes in political commitment and ownership. Apprehensions that the process and its outcomes may not add value.

Needs

A commitment to the vision by all stakeholders and a willingness to 'make it happen' through belief in agreed process with both expert and representative inputs. The process would need to be dissected into manageable components and supported by relevant and timely information.

The 'burning issue'.

How? Where to from here?

Participants from the government sector [Group 11]

Fears

Planning is merely a means: of itself it will change nothing. Processes may bog down in detail with a loss of vision and still-born outcomes; state processes may be over-ridden or duplicated by the Commonwealth. Management within state jurisdictions is thus made more complex. That the 'final solution' would be a Commonwealth 'Oceans Act'. That the process would be exclusively science-based with no outcomes which address the critical management issues.

Needs

For each participant to 'come to the table' with an open mind to engage in a debate which adds value to existing processes, with genuine consultation and transparency. There should be adequate resourcing and the expertise of all participants should be recognised and acknowledged.

The 'burning issue'

Do we believe that this can work?

Participants from the government sector [Group 12]

Fears

Insufficient incentives for the states to participate; conflict between states and the Commonwealth will preclude anything constructive from occurring. The states' perspective is that Oceans Policy and marine planning is a Commonwealth initiative. Others may think that it is owned by the 'green' sector. If the underlying legal issues are not addressed no part of the system will work.

Large scale plans may emerge which are full of principles, but with no capacity for action.

Needs

An effective monitoring system; integration of data and information and a portfolio of effective strategies and tools; a capacity for acceptable trade-offs and a well-defined process for the allocation of resources. Strong leadership and a widely-accepted policy statement.

The 'burning issue'

How are the outcomes going to be accommodated by each jurisdiction's statutory arrangements?

Participants from the government sector [Group 13]

Fears

That a lack of hard information when decisions are made to capture or manage data will result in illogical or inappropriate databases. Local government only gets token recognition and new processes may cut across, weaken or invalidate existing regulation. Vital defence considerations may be overlooked or ignored. The Plan may not be adequately resourced. Native title issues may intrude.

Needs

The needs of members of this group were the obverse of their fears: efficient and effective data and information management; full consultation of local government authorities; recognition and accreditation of existing processes, and defence to be given the widest possible consideration.

Participants from the research sector [3 groups]

Fears

The political process reduces the time available for research: science planning and funding will be neglected, and 'you can't manage what you don't know'. Meantime, stakeholders will be pushing for immediate answers while the bureaucratic processes consume the resources.

There may be no wish for the clarity that results when research fits into planning; the process may become one-dimensional with a lack of discussion and interaction. Money may be spent on research that doesn't contribute to outcomes, and the process may in any case not respond effectively to new information. Unrealistic expectations may lead to diminished confidence in the process; if the debate is driven by policy or politics, research outcomes may not be incorporated where they should be.

Needs

Equitable contributions by users of the marine resource to meet marine science and technology research and development needs and parallel grants scheme. There was also a need for an open and accountable structure to address priorities for research and development. The scale of research investment should match that of the problem.

Operational objectives and the interaction between scientists and policy makers required definition; expectations should be clarified. There should be a coordination of research effort and the development of databases [although confidentiality in relation to certain data may be a prerequisite], with adequate resources and facilities and linkages established between relevant institutions. Zones within the Region should be defined in spatial and temporal terms.

We should develop a predictive capacity to answer questions about the consequences of different policies and strategies, define what we mean by ecosystem management and build a time frame for the achievement of goals. Suitably defined performance and monitoring measures will assist in assessing progress.

Websites recording the progress of research will facilitate 'access to data'. There should be ready accessibility to scientific information, communication and education, with a financial commitment to long term strategic research.

The 'burning issues'

What management mechanisms will be employed to take account of uncertainty, and how will marine planning interact with science in the setting of operational objectives, the development of predictive capabilities, risk assessment, the installation of monitoring programs and the introduction of performance mechanisms?

Participants representing the environment sector

Fears

That the Plan will lead to the environment 'being shafted' in the absence of political will to deliver the best environmental outcome. That industry will capture the research agenda and process, and public property will be privatised. That we will miss the opportunity to build a regional identity. The National Oceans Office may fail due to the lack of statutory authority, or its remoteness or lack of resources. This may result in state-based processes being stalled: the environmental movement will be unable to engage in the process, and there will be no funding for community education.

That sectoral and state interest groups will not participate. The process will not deliver 'comprehensive, adequate and representative' [CAR] reserves; the communication and dissemination of data will be neither timely nor equitable and will be distorted by sectoral stakeholders.

Needs

The relevance of the Marine Plan needs to be established, including the marking out of the 'level playing field' and provision for access to the necessary information. The process will need bi-partisan support. Environmental groups retain the right to campaign whilst engaging in the process and asserted that they don't have a 'user's' focus but reflect a wider and less aggressive involvement with the marine region.

The process must be transparent and accountable. The environment movement may seek alliances with other key interests. Data should be organised on an ecosystem basis, including credible indicators of sustainability. In an environment rich in uncertainty, the precautionary approach should predominate. Included in the Plan should be provision for CAR Marine Protected Areas with a substantial proportion [no less than 15% of total area] being no-take areas.

The 'burning issues'

Funding for the regional marine planning process, and representation of the environment movement. What can the environment movement do to assist the development and implementation of the Plan? Will the environment have the highest priority? And: will engagement in the process 'be fun'?

Participants representing the legal, policy and education sectors

Fears

That the process will turn in on itself and lose sight of the bigger picture. That the process will be too short-term, with displacement of goals and the means becoming more important than the ends. Concern that the Plan will become an end in itself, and be reduced to 'muddling through with knee-jerk reactions'.

Needs

'The establishment of a framework for meaningful research ie education' with adequate funding and infrastructure was a primary need. An independent cooperative research centre, with funding for research in the social [as well as the physical] sciences was desirable, and there should be an interdisciplinary mode of operating, including science, law and policy. For public education the approach should be a 'feet on the ground' one. A formal 'capacity-building plan' to implement oceans policy, including human resources, institutional arrangements, legal frameworks and information flows should underpin the process.

The 'burning issue'

Are we going to be marginalised in this process?

Day 2; Saturday April; workshop 1

The need to negotiate outcomes for the south-east regional marine plan

In this workshop, participants were asked to indicate where they thought there might be 'common ground' and where they thought there might be 'differences'. They were asked that if they could make one request in relation to the planning process, what would it be?

Common ground

Integration, participation and sharing

There was a requirement for action, integration, communication and education, and a need for linkages between the terrestrial and marine zones, and across state and Commonwealth, industry and community boundaries. Governmental agencies should be aware of the perception that they do not operate in an integrated manner.

Industry, government and the community had a chance to share their knowledge. A wish for genuine participation in the process and its decision-making was manifested, as was a desire for a clean and healthy ocean, and a commitment to economically sustainable development and holistic regional planning. Agreed standards and definitions of sustainability were central.

Consultation should be genuine, sustained and with generous feedback. Indigenous groups should be included whether or not questions of native title arose. Shared concerns included the need for involvement, levels of regulation and funding and regarding guarantees for extant rights of access. Effective arrangements should be sustained, with no additional regulatory layers or costs, and no change merely for its own sake.

The planning process

The Oceans Policy was the foundation of the South-east Regional Marine Plan, the implementation of which should be inclusive with engagement at the local level in a transparent, rational and accountable manner. It should prevail over changing political priorities, and the shifting agendas of sectoral groups. The outcome should reflect a 'negotiated consensus'.

There was a level of uncertainty regarding the outcomes that the Plan can deliver. Many wanted a common understanding of 'sustainability'. Land-based inputs to the marine environment should be mapped and reviewed. Pollution from the land should be controlled and eventually eliminated. Irreversible actions should be avoided, but change and uncertainty was inevitable and we will need to accept this. The process should simplify, not complicate, and reduce conflict, not enhance it.

It will be important to explain the process before it starts, and to scope the Plan as soon as possible, indicating the questions to be addressed and the information that was needed. The South-east Regional Marine Plan will generate, manage and disseminate information as an integral part of its evolution, and cannot proceed without it.

While it is desirable that there be a common information base, adequately resourced and continually updated, some information relating to the Region will have the attributes of intellectual property, and should be treated accordingly; ownership of and access to it may be one of the several sectoral rights requiring recognition.

Differences

It is clear, as the following part of the narrative will show, that many participants were sensitive to the differences of attitude, approach and perception that would affect and colour the process, and the deliberations of the Forum reflect this. One participant thought that the differences were incapable of accommodation as things presently stood, and that a fresh approach, such as that represented by Oceans Policy, was needed to break the deadlock.

It was thought that there are many differing perceptions regarding the Regional Marine Plan, beginning with estimates of the likelihood of its success. Each contributor would have a different agenda and expectations, and an individual perception of the Plan and of Oceans Policy. Understandings, values, concerns and orders of priority would vary greatly, and there would be marked differences in language and concepts. Careful and continuous explanation would be needed, as individuals grappled with fresh and sometimes not clearly understood or defined phenomena. Interpretations of words such as 'guarantee' vary from person to person, as do perceptions as to who should pay for or underwrite the process.

Clarification will be needed on such issues as the extent to which the process will rest on a prescriptive or performance-based approach, while some would question whether or not any change is required, given differing views about the effectiveness of current arrangements.

One questioner asked who would 'drive' the process, the National Oceans Office or the 'stakeholders'? Another thought that not everyone would agree on a science-based approach, nor on the actions required to protect ecosystems. The application of 'the precautionary principle' and the concept of sustainability might also be subjected to differing views; there was a need for an agreed vocabulary to reduce accidental differences of interpretation.

It was clear that differing views were held on such questions as access conditions and rights to marine resources, native title, whether the process should rest on a regulated, self-regulated or [continuously] negotiated base. Comments were offered on the way in which access to resources might be allocated; the functions, locations and roles of Marine Protected Areas and the order of priorities regarding economic, social, environmental and industry impacts. All reflected differing views.

Some expressed doubts about the marine planning process and its 'ability to deliver', and some thought that there existed a degree of cynicism regarding the capacity or willingness of some stakeholder groups to participate equitably. There is no question but that the expectations of stakeholders operating within the Regional Marine Planning area will vary markedly and that different mechanisms will be needed to secure their involvement; different industries have differing, sometimes conflicting, interests. Some sectors will enter the process with a belief that treatment will be unequal; others have expressed the view that different sectors had different 'rights' and needs, or that community groups would not be adequately represented in the process.

There is a need to establish what is meant by 'the onus of proof'' and whether or not it is universally applicable within the context of marine planning. The treatment of any Indigenous rights; the distribution of costs; whether the ecosystems-based approach is best, and the conflict between property rights and the 'commons' are all 'differences' which will need to be addressed in the evolution of the South-east Regional Marine Plan.

Requests

• We need a clear set of objectives and mechanisms, broadly defined, perhaps in legislation which will connect to other legislation where appropriate, and provide 'a context for negotiation'.
• The state and local governments should be brought on board as quickly as possible if each is to give the policy fair consideration, but 'don't kill us with lots of processes at state and Commonwealth levels'.
• Provide the resources to match the expectations, and 'give us a process that is transparent, rational and accountable'.

Not all of the requests were addressed to the National Oceans Office: stakeholders were requested to 'please avoid fixed positions'.

• They, in their turn, asked to be treated fairly and equitably, for access to information generated in and bearing on, the planning process.
• They also requested clarification as to who the stakeholders actually were, and looked forward to a plan 'based on consultation of all groups using consistent definitions of all terms and agreed performance measures'.

Others sought information regarding the boundaries of and intersections between the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and Oceans Policy. A wish to see all of the legislative and regulatory boundaries redefined was expressed.

Day 2 Saturday April 15 workshop 2

Integrating objectives in south-east regional marine planning

Participants were asked to suggest mechanisms for integrating objectives in South-east regional marine planning, to articulate one request for action in relation to the process and to identify ['hand a bouquet to'] any sector or individual who they thought might have made a significant contribution to oceans health.

Mechanisms

Communication

The development of a communications strategy was urged as an immediate priority and as a mechanism for education and communication allowing feedback and broadcast and 'narrowcast' diffusion of information. Many of the mechanisms proposed related in some way to the issue of communication, including the management of information. The plea for 'Direct communication and improved access to information (reporting mechanisms)' is a characteristic request.

Other mechanisms proposed were wide-ranging, and included proposals for the 'recovery of all existing data' which should be freely available to all involved or interested in the planning process. The use of focus groups to examine particular issues was favoured as part of a continuing process of 'genuine (iterative) consultation' in raising awareness, communicating with and educating those involved.

The use of cross-jurisdictional and sectoral advisory groups as a source of input and advice was advocated, based on specific interest areas and with a view to closing gaps in coverage. Sectoral leadership and forums would improve knowledge and understanding in a bi-directional flow of information and advice. Indigenous input was essential and whatever was needed to facilitate this should be applied.

The development of appropriate information channels including scientific and technical material 'in an accessible form' with strategies agreed for closing gaps was important. Data coordination and accessibility was a corollary, combined with low-cost methods of recovery.

The scoping paper

This was a priority in identifying issues, setting guidelines and priorities and providing a clear outline of the planning process. It should set out the rules for regional marine planning including those which would deal with spatial and interest overlaps such as fisheries and petroleum extraction, both current and prospective, areas of high biodiversity and concentrations of pollution. It should acknowledge sectoral aspirations, map existing knowledge and identify gaps in it. Existing baselines should be defined, and future action options outlined; current processes and mechanisms should be evaluated, and a means for effecting a 'reality check' on the scoping paper itself instituted.

The scoping paper should be available by the end of 2000 and should clearly identify existing problems and the operational outcomes that the Plan seeks to achieve. Stakeholder forums would provide valuable input, and statements of sectoral issues as well as allowing information to flow out, and would help to identify interests and overlaps across sectors by 'audit and evaluation'.

The scoping paper should review 'institutional infrastructure' and processes for bringing stakeholder interests and information to the table; process here, as elsewhere, should rest on evidence. Assistance should be provided where necessary to enable access to the discussion.

The planning process

There should be a regional steering committee with a 'high profile independent chair' to facilitate consultation with stakeholders. It should have an 'issues-based focus' and should 'recognise the need to take a flexible approach to recognise sectoral interests and access É expertise'. It might draw on related processes and identify the lessons to be learned from similar activities, for example in the negotiation of the Regional Forest Agreements.

The ability to point to examples of similar processes that have worked would be useful. Since there will often be opposing views on issues such as property rights, markets and social impact assessments, processes to handle conflict should be established as a priority. Actions should be commenced on points of agreement including agreed actions and options. Here, as elsewhere, facilitators would have a key role to play, and the National Oceans Advisory Group could be accessed 'on pertinent issues'.

The planning process should move on the 'integration and coordination of current legislation (no increase in regulation, just streamlining of current regulations É)' and might use the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 as a mechanism. All negotiations for permits to access the oceans should contain a requirement to lodge data relating to the application and the resource in a 'national public database (subject to confidentiality / commercial restrictions)'. It might also be useful to develop a consolidated list of 'existing mechanisms for integrating cross-sectoral interests' in planning.

Legislative and regulatory mechanisms

There were gaps in the existing regulatory structure; whilst additional burdens should be avoided, the gaps should be filled and the framework completed, in order to arrive at a binding and coordinated legislative base. There were however differing views as to whether new legislation was needed; transparency in the existing process might be sufficient.

'Self-regulatory incentives' should also be considered. Scenarios 'to develop and apply decision rules, É [apply] best available information on [oceans] use' and to develop rapid solutions might be useful. If 'duty of care' was a consideration, the implications for each sector should be documented. Economic instruments such as resource allocation decisions and an equitable 'user pays' system might be invoked when appropriate.

Requests

An opportunity for stakeholders to have input into the drafting of the Scoping Paper: it is important to start the process 'on the right foot' - this is not a trivial consideration.

The setting of 'staged targets' for demonstrating progress must be considered.

In acknowledgment of the need to underline the concept of partnership, interest groups of appropriate size and representation should be brought together at the 'right time and in the right place' to enable genuine consultation.

Could the process include accountability, monitoring and transparency as integral elements, and could there be adequate resourcing for this?

Under-represented sectors such as shipping and defence should be identified and brought into the planning mainstream.

It should also be noted that there were marked differences between fisheries: these would need to be considered in all stages of the planning process.

Stakeholders were appealed to 'not take up fixed positions' provided that the process allowed consideration of their views in ways that were fair, transparent and genuine.

Existing mechanisms that worked should be used, rather than spending time in pursuit of the perfect instrument

'Please build on existing knowledge and processes, rather than starting over from the ground up'.

One observer commented: 'organisations and governments [should] develop mechanisms to ensure public availability of nationally significant data sets'.

If it did not already exist, however, a means of applying standards across sectors and jurisdictions would be needed.

'Sectorally representative groups' at bioregion levels would provide a means of continuity; the Steering Committee, the National Oceans Advisory Group or the National Oceans Ministerial Board would handle trans-sectoral issues.

Interest groupings should be identified and overlaps between these determined by audit and valuation.

A final request

'We recognise that funding is limited, and in the end, we would prefer a Volkswagen that works, rather than a Rolls-Royce that doesn't!'

Bouquets

To:

• all the stakeholders who have participated in this meeting
• the Western Rock Lobster Fishery for their environmental accreditation as a sustainable fishery by the Marine Stewardship Council
• the Shipping Industry for its work on ballast water issues
• the Fishing Industry for progress towards sustainability and for the ways in which it is addressing by-catch issues
• the Offshore Gas and Oil industry for the standard of its operations
• those involved in the Tasmanian Seamounts Marine Protected Area for a small scale example of a good process and appropriate outcome
• National Oceans Advisory Group members for their continued positive efforts
• volunteers in non-government organisations
• those in Western Australia responsible for the regulation and planning of activities on the North-west Shelf
• the marine life of the South-east Region for enduring our existence and surviving our actions thus far
• the non-destructive presence of the Aboriginal Communities in the South-east Region for thousands of years
• the National Oceans Office

Day 2 Saturday April 15 workshop 3

Effective participation in the south-east regional marine plan

In this session, workshop participants were asked to identify appropriate methods for participation in regional marine planning and to make one 'request', positive satisfaction of which might be expected to enhance the process. On analysis, the majority of responses tended to divide into two categories: those relating to communication and those focussed on participation. Some more general issues were, however, identified.

General

The issues of the legislative framework, the implications of multiple and sequential use and the assessment [of that use] against ecologically sustainable development were central, as was access to shared data and the application of an adaptive management approach. Of prime importance would be the identification, at the outset and during the process, of 'added value' in the shape, for example, of potential savings or financial assistance for new programs emerging during the marine planning cycle. The representation of 'reference groups' on the Steering Committee would enhance communication and participation as would the supply of 'appropriate data to all stakeholders via the central system'. However, not all stakeholders will be able to participate equally in the process and 'care must be given to the levels of difficulties that will arise for some stakeholders'. Adequate warning and lead times for specific opportunities to make input, including 'prompts' where necessary, should be standard practice.

Communication

In the words of one response: 'Facilitate communication strategies!' Another [tersely]: 'Communications strategy National Oceans Office'. Another was more measured: 'Communication strategy with well-defined communication mechanisms to feed information through stakeholder networks'. The spectrum ranged from a request that the process should facilitate 'existing community networks (eg the Marine and Coastal and Community Network) without building new ones' to perhaps the most succinct proposal of the Forum: 'Roadshows!'

In a variety of ways the theme of communication was manifest and several comments argued that it was a multi-directional process. Individual communities and their perceptions should be polled and refined by using focus groups. The development of 'structured information' with clear avenues for input, dissemination. Devise methods for input [such as] oral consultations' was advocated as part of the community-outwards flow of communication.

In the other direction, clear definitions of agendas, issues and players were called for, together with a plea that the National Oceans Office or the Commonwealth government should give a clear lead as to what is wanted. The latter should effectively communicate positive outcomes and agreed targets for the process to all stakeholders.

The 'active solicitation of views' would assist in this process, chasing up opinion on an issue- or regional-specific basis. Where views were offered, but not acted on, there should be feedback explaining why this occurred. It might be useful to combine these two latter into a database so that people could keep track of aspects of the debate.

'Non-traditional means of expressing views: visual/poetry telephone transcripts, Internet questionnaires' were advocated as a means of broadening the basis for input. A diverse [communications] strategy would be required: different groups would need a different approach: all recipients might not read a given message and derive the same meaning from it.

The general use of discussion papers as a means of stimulating and focussing responses and inputs was proposed, as well as using 'existing communication channels within sectors themselves'. As the planning process got under way 'a series of open public forums around the É region' with trained facilitators from both the government and the private sectors would be useful.

The Steering Committee was clearly seen as a valuable instrument of communication if it had the 'right size, right people, good communicators, [and used] issue focus groups'. The focus groups should be cross-sectoral 'all stakeholders, [and] absolutely inclusive for Indigenous peoples.' 'Adequate access to resources ie funding and data É [would] allow everyone to participate in the process'. There should be a website for information dissemination and input, with the 'Printed and electronic dissemination of information targeted for specific audiencesÉ'

Communications protocols for both electronic and other means should be developed, with 'key participants' being identified and engaging via 'mailing, email and focus-group work'. There should be 'time-line triggers to stimulate feedback'. Information dissemination should be directed towards those who will be affected by any marine planning process.

Participation

Participation was seen as an important mechanism in securing acceptance of the marine planning process and its outcomes. 'Stakeholder representation' in this process would be critical, as would be their direct participation. However, there might well be stakeholders outside industry frameworks or contexts who should also be involved in the process. 'Peak representational bodies' should nominate their spokespersons.

Participation might be devolved to state officers and offices so as to coordinate participation and 'provide for jurisdictional involvement'. The use of the 'planning expertise of other agencies on an advisory basis: they can learn as well' was seen to have the advantage of keeping them in the planning/communication loop.

The costs [real and opportunity] of participating were not lost sight of: it was argued that these costs should be acknowledged and reduced as much as possible by identifying consultative groups and sending staff out to meet them on site, rather than requiring attendance at 'central meetings'.

Meetings could also be dovetailed and occur back to back. The National Oceans Office should 'find ways to involve groups that may be unable to participate through financial constraint'. It would need to be ensured that the costs of stakeholder participation are not prohibitive, especially for under-resourced groups.

Finding 'champions' and fostering them would enhance the process in general and particularly in terms of communication. Recognition of achievement was also an effective way of encouraging involvement, as was the clear and early definition of players, agendas and issues.

In the decision-making process there would need to be a 'strong link between stakeholders and decision makers' and to 'demonstrate [the] gains to be had from participation' in 'a stable and bi-partisan, Commonwealth / State process, vide The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority'.

Requests

Early and continuous feedback from the National Oceans Office, which should also 'provide for region-wide consultation by Oceans Office staff in all jurisdictions, particularly on key decisions'.

• The skill base [in the National Oceans Office and across the system] should increase proportionate to the demands of the process, with a budget to match.
• Any 'Regional Reference Groups' should be resourced at an appropriate level.
• There was a special request to Senator Hill: give us 'a clear indication that he is prepared to underwrite the process'.
• Please define tangible benefits as early as possible in the planning process 'to ensure [that] stakeholders see it as worthwhile to participate'.
• Assuming that there is adequate funding, the most important factors are commitment, will and energy: 'just do it!'
• And there should be a 'direct phone / hotline to a named person within the National Oceans Office (1800) to ask questions at any time about issues and submissions'.

Finally:

'[Please] provide feedback at the end of this Forum about what happens next: what are the time lines for action and when can we expect to hear [about] moves?'

Appendices

Appendix 1

'An invitation to participate' in the marine planning process for the South-east Region. This document was designed as an introduction and background to the region and the processes that would be involved in the South-east Regional Marine Plan. It is designed for a lay audience and is intended to have a wide distribution over the period during which the Plan is developed and introduced.

Appendix 2

List of registrants

Delegates to the Forum requested that this list should be published as part of the Proceedings.

An invitation to participate

Australia's south-east marine region

Regional marine planning

Australia is responsible for managing oceans equivalent to twice the area of its landmass. To implement Australia's Oceans Policy the Federal Government has begun a planning process for marine areas around Australia, beginning with the South-east Regional Marine Plan.

Australia's south-eastern oceans overlie a complex seafloor and form a rich cold-temperate region subject to competing demands.

National Oceans Office

The south-east region

Competing priorities for marine resources

The South-east Region includes waters off Victoria, Tasmania, Macquarie Island, southern New South Wales and eastern South Australia.

The Region will also cover areas of continental shelf beyond the Exclusive Economic Zone. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Australia can claim rights to the seabed resources of these areas.

Its story

Sea levels in the Region have fluctuated with major changes in climate and some 60 periods of glaciation over the past three million years. The seafloor of Bass Strait was repeatedly exposed, providing a land bridge for Tasmania's first human inhabitants

For the last 40-60,000 years humans have influenced this ancient coastline and have been nourished by its waters. The first people in the area subsisted off its bountiful marine life, leaving behind enormous shellfish middens. Post-contact industries exploited seals, right whales, sperm whales and finally the humpback whales. The Region has a rich and well-documented maritime history.

Regional marine planning will need to account for heritage issues such as the preservation and management of Indigenous sites, island settlements, sealing and whaling centres and the many shipwrecks of historical and archaeological interest.

Catchments and coastlines have changed over time as settlements, industries and the variety of marine uses expanded. Today, these include fishing, oil and gas production, offshore mineral exploration, port development and shipping, tourism, holiday resorts, whale watching and coastal development.

The region's coastline constitutes a major recreational area for over 3 million people whose leisure activities include surfing, sailing, recreational fishing and ornithology (the Region includes important migratory bird sites). There is keen interest in and awareness of environmental issues.

Its ecosystems

The region is defined by an initial assessment of large-scale ecosystems in Australia's marine jurisdictions. It includes:

• marine ecosystems within a 200 nautical mile limit (Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone) from latitude 35.5^oS off the westernmost point of Kangaroo Island to latitude 36^oS off southern New South Wales
• the large marine ecosystem off Macquarie Island.

The seafloor of the South-east Region has peaks higher and valleys deeper than those on the land. At Bass Strait the narrow continental shelf off eastern Australia widens into a shallow basin. From its eastern end plunges the Bass Canyon, carrying a cascade of cold, saline water deep into the Tasman Sea.

Further offshore volcanic seamounts punctuate the abyssal plain of the Tasman Basin. On the deep seabed, animal life is diverse but sparse, and adapted to high pressures, low temperatures, and an intermittent food supply of detritus raining down from nearer the surface. The only light is the weak bioluminescence of other creatures.

Deep Antarctic waters, cold and rich in nutrients, slowly infiltrate northwards and nourish ecosystems isolated on the summits of seamounts and rises. These shallower waters are also host to species that migrate daily up and down the water column to feed or to escape predators.

The continental shelf continues south, closely skirting Tasmania before widening again east of Kangaroo Island. High ridges south of Tasmania and at Macquarie Island define the southern edge of the Tasman Basin; beyond them the Southern Ocean extends away towards Antarctica.

Fisheries

The Region's fisheries are of major importance and include the South East, Southern Bluefin Tuna and Southern Shark Fisheries, abalone, rock lobster and other valuable resources.

The fisheries are at a critical point in their long history, and there is action being undertaken by the industry to re-appraise catch levels to ensure sustainability. It is likely that major new fisheries will be identified and located as methods for detecting and exploiting deep water resources evolve.

Aquaculture

Species under cultivation include Atlantic salmon, blue mussels and Pacific oysters. The experimental farming of new species is proceeding, including abalone, flounder and snapper.

Aquaculture holds great promise, with State governments moving to improve coastal zone management, and the industry seeking to improve its practices.

Petroleum and minerals

The Gippsland Basin is a world-class petroleum province; considerable potential exists in the Otway, Bass and Duntroon Basins. Preliminary surveys also suggest possible deposits of valuable petroleum in the Sorell Basin off Western Tasmania, in small basins east of Tasmania, and on the South Tasman Rise. Long-term potential may exist for placer minerals and deepwater polymetallic nodules and crusts. Overall there are strong prospects, which should be developed for increased yields and growth in employment and infrastructure and in a manner that preserves environmental values.

Environmental issues

The future of the region lies in the limitation and repair of environmental damage both past and future. Marine protected areas are a major tool for conserving and managing the marine environment. They protect biodiversity and habitat at all levels. The Region's marine protected areas cover 526 square kilometres of State waters and 160 370 square kilometres of Commonwealth waters (mainly around Macquarie Island). Reduction in habitat loss and marine species protection is also important for the region.

However vessel pollution such as oil spills and waste disposal is also of concern. Control measures in both cases are improving but much needs to be done.

Introduced marine pests continue to be a problem in the South-east. The management of ballast water, hull fouling and other sources of pests is a priority.

Indigenous interests

Coastal communities retain strong associations with the sea, including the use of resources such as shellfish and mutton-birds. The marine farming of traditional species is being explored.

Continued access to resources by Indigenous communities will be important in regional marine planning, including the issue of sea rights which is currently before the courts.

Transport

Shipping has figured largely in the history of the South-east Region and the cities of Melbourne, Devonport and Hobart grew alongside major ports. Today the Region's shipping industry encompasses design innovation, export manufacture and maritime training as well as freight, ferries and cruise ships. Shipping, ports and their associated infrastructure are major employers and essential to trade. Strategic management issues include meeting shipping industry needs and community expectations while continuing to address the environmental impacts of port development, dredging, antifoulants and introduced marine pests.

Coastal development

While some development is desirable, coastal ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to increased sediment and nutrient levels, and inappropriate development continues to threaten mangroves, salt marsh, estuaries, seagrass, and kelp.

Recreational Interests

The region lends itself to a wide range of maritime pursuits. Fishing - including game fishing - surfing, diving, ocean racing and cruising, sailing, motor boating and sea kayaking all take place in or on its waters.

The context

Regional marine plans will ensure that development of our oceans is sustainable

To preserve maritime industries and the natural environment in which they operate, Australia's Oceans Policy commits the Federal Government to developing its oceans sustainably through regional marine planning.

Interactions

There are no lines in the water and the interactions between the natural features of the coastal zone, the seabed, ocean movements and marine life disregard artificial boundaries, as do some human uses. The South-east Regional Marine Plan will need to recognise this.

Inter-governmental partnerships

There is some blurring of Federal and State government responsibilities in the South-east Region despite the existence of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement. To support the South-east Regional Marine Plan, the Federal Government is seeking partnerships with the State governments involved.

Oceans planning guidance

Australia's Oceans Policy states that the regional marine planning process will:

• complement and integrate existing management arrangements
• retain the Offshore Constitutional Settlement as the basis for managing specific sectors across jurisdictional boundaries
• apply the minimum regulation necessary to meet environmental, economic, cultural and social objectives
• establish clear lines of accountability for implementation
• comply with relevant international agreements.

Managing the process

Regional marine planning is a new venture with new administrative elements. These include a National Oceans Ministerial Board, a National Oceans Office, the National Oceans Advisory Group and regional marine plan steering committees (see back cover).

The Steering Committee

The Ministerial Board will establish a Steering Committee to oversee development of the South-east Regional Marine Plan as it is prepared by the National Oceans Office. The Committee will:

• advise the Ministerial Board on key issues in the development of the Plan
• work towards consensus-based options for integrated planning and management
• encourage partnerships in the planning process across the spectrum of interests within the Region.

It's in everyone's interests

Regional marine planning is an inclusive process - it will affect you

Regional marine planning aims to maintain ecosystem health, while enhancing economic development and employment for each Region.

The benefits of regional marine planning

The Plan will result in:

• agreed regional outcomes
• increased certainty and long-term security for maritime industries
• improved community understanding and appreciation of the value of the marine environment
• maintenance of environment health
• the development of an improved sense of ownership and responsibility for sustaining marine ecosystems.

Why it's important to get involved

The Plan will address all ocean uses, the links within marine ecosystems and those in the coastal zone. It will monitor Australia's environmental, economic, social and cultural interests in the South-east Marine Region.

The Plan will affect all Federal Government marine responsibilities (including waters within the three nautical mile limit) and bind all Federal agencies.

For State governments, partnership offers joint participation in developing and implementing the Plan and engagement in the process of consulting and balancing the needs of interest groups and in developing regional objectives for sectoral interests.

For community groups and industry bodies alike, involvement offers the opportunity to identify and establish interests in the region and into the future.

Individual involvement will allow the identification of interests and issues that may not be apparent to organisations and interest groups.

How to have your say

You can help create the South-east Regional Marine Plan

Regional marine planning is a cooperative process. If it is to succeed, planning for the South-east Marine Region must be participative, equitable, objective and transparent.

While the focus will be on the South-east Marine Region, consultation processes will also reflect national interests in this Region.

Which of these interest you?

• resource planning and management?
• equitable and secure access to resources?
• conservation of the oceans and their resources?
• formal recognition of existing or traditional patterns of resource management?
• access to genetic resources, intellectual property and ownership?
• other aspects of the region or the process?
• new development opportunities?

The process will need broad input to reach agreement on shared aims for the Region.

Ways to participate

The National Oceans Ministerial Board believes that wide participation is essential to define the outcomes for the Region.

At any point in the process you can get involved by contacting the National Oceans Office and other relevant marine agencies (See back cover).

The National Oceans Office will publish a sequence of documents as avenues for input, including:

• an initial scoping paper
• assessments of regional values, ecosystem health and impacts
• options papers
• a draft plan for final public comment

Other ways to participate include:

• community representation on advisory panels
• involvement in regional meetings, consultative groups, presentations and workshops
• subscribing to the mailing list
• input to the development and evaluation of the Plan by responding to discussion papers and fact sheets
• participation in briefings and reviews of the operation and effectiveness of the Plan
• meeting with representatives from the National Oceans Office and other relevant marine agencies.

What's next?

The next step in the planning process is to define the scope of the Plan. This scoping phase may further define regional boundaries. It will include preliminary assessments of regional environmental, economic, cultural and social interests. The result will be a scoping paper for public comment.

Contacts

Commonwealth Government Agencies

The National Oceans Office

80 Elizabeth St Hobart Tasmania 7000. GPO Box 2139 Hobart Tasmania 7001
Phone 03 6221 5000 Fax 03 6221 5050 http://www.oceans.gov.au

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australia.

Fisheries and Aquaculture Branch

GPO Box 858, Canberra ACT 2601
Phone 02 6272 5536 Fax 02 6272 4215 http://www.affa.gov.au/

Department of Environment and Heritage - Marine Group

GPO Box 787, Canberra ACT 2601
Phone 02 6274 1111 Fax 02 6274 1123 http://www.ea.gov.au/mawd/

Department of Industry Science and Resources

Petroleum Industry Branch

GPO Box 9839, Canberra ACT 2601
Phone 02 6213 7973 Fax 02 6213 7950

Department of Industry Science and Resources

Sport and Tourism Division

GPO Box 9839, Canberra ACT 2601
Phone 02 6213 7088 Fax 02 6213 7097

Department of Transport and Regional Services

Cross-Modal and Maritime Transport

GPO Box 594, Canberra ACT 2601
Phone 02 6274 7336 Fax 02 6257 2505 http://www.dotrs.gov.au

List of Participants

Ms

Linda

Addison

Commonwealth Dept Of Transport & Regional Services

GPO Box 594

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Joseph

Agius

Indigenous, Fishing Aquaculture And Sea Management Forum

P.O. Box 36

MAITLAND

SA

5573

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Sandy

Allan

NSW Cabinet Office

GPO Box 5341

SYDNEY

NSW

2001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Tim

Allen

Marine Network (MCCN)

10 Parliament Place

EAST MELBOURNE

VIC

3002

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Gordon

Anderson

National Oceans Office

GPO Box 2139

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Leanne

Armand

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Sam

Baird

Oceans Directorate - Pacific Region

Pacific Region , Dept Of Fisheries & Oceans

555 West Hastings Street

VANCOUVER

BC

V6B 5G3

CANADA

Dr

Elaine

Baker

Ocean Drilling Program

University Of Sydney

School Of Geosciences F05

SYDNEY

NSW

2006

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Sam

Bateman

University Of Wollongong

Centre For Maritime Policy

WOLLONGONG

NSW

2500

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Robin

Beaman

IASOS University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Christian

Bell

Marine & Coastal Community Network

GPO Box S67

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Miss

Jacquelyn

Bennett

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Elizabeth

Bensz

Royal Australian Planning Institute

39 Alexander Street

SANDY BAY

TAS

7005

AUSTRALIA

Mr

David

Biwer

Tasmanian Seafoods Pty Ltd

General Manager

69 Gemalla Road

MARGATE

TAS

7054

AUSTRALIA

Mrs

Kristy

Blackburn

D P I W E

P.O. Box 444

HOBART

TAS

7000

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Evan

Boardman

Local Government Association Of Tasmania

GPO Box 1521

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Kerry

Boden

Australian Yachting Federation

33 Perr Street

KIRRIBILLI

NSW

2061

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Craig

Bohm

Marine & Coastal Community Network

C/- UTS (CSB)

Westbourne Street

ST.LEONARDS

NSW

2065

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Camille

Boxall

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Roger

Bradbury

Bureau Of Rural Sciences

Dept Of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry Australia

P.O. Box E11

KINGSTON

ACT

2604

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Nan

Bray

CSIRO Marine Research

Castray Esplanade

GPO Box 1538

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Michael

Burgess

Quicksilver Connections & NOAG

P.O. Box 171

PORT DOUGLAS

QLD

4871

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Phillip

Burgess

Environment Australia

John Gorton Building

GPO Box 787

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Richard

Burgess

P & O Marine Science & Research

Level 7

1 Franklin Wharf

HOBART

TAS

7000

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Alan

Butler

CSIRO Marine Research

Castray Esplanade

GPO Box 1538

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Prof

Colin

Buxton

Tasmanian Aquaculture & Fisheries Institute

Nubeena Crescent

TAROONA

TAS

7053

AUSTRALIA

Mr

David

Campbell

DCafe

P.O. Box 228

KIPPAX

ACT

2615

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Sue

Chapple

Dept. Premier & Cabinet

7/15 Murray Street

HOBART

TAS

7000

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Harrison

Clark

University Of Tasmania

School Of Government

P.O. Box 252-22

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Brian

Cogan

Howard Smith Towage

10 Scott Street

NEWCASTLE

NSW

2300

AUSTRALIA

Miss

Jennifer

Collins

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

John

Connor

Australian Conservation Foundation

340 Gore Street

FITZROY

VIC

3065

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Andrew

Constable

Australian Antarctic Division

Channel Highway

KINGSTON

TAS

7050

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Christine

Coughanour

D P I W E

Derwent Estuary Program

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Christine

Crawford

Tasmanian Aquaculture And Fisheries Institute

Marine Research Laboratories

Nubeena Crescent

TAROONA

TAS

7053

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Katrina

Davey

Australian Marine Conservation Society

P.O. Box 3139

YERONGA

QLD

4104

AUSTRALIA

Comm

Ian

Delaney

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission

Commissioner

Rodney

Dillon

A T S I C

LEVEL 2

21 Kirksway Place

BATTERY POINT

TAS

7004

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Andrew

Dragun

Australian Maritime College

PO Box 986

LAUNCESTON

TAS

7250

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Mike

Drynan

Dept Of Agriculture Fisheries Forestry

GPO Box 858

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Peter

Dundas-Smith

Fisheries Research & Development Corporation

25 Geils Court

DEAKIN

ACT

2600

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Stephen

Dunn

NSW Fisheries

Locked Bag 9

PYRMONT

NSW

2009

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Colin

Dyke

Tasmanian Aquaculture Council

PO Box 83

TRIABUNNA

TAS

7190

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Graham

Edgar

Tasmanian Aquaculture Fisheries Institute

Department Of Zoology

Box 252-05

HOBART

TAS

7000

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Roger

Edwards

Seafood Council (SA)

Level 1

16 Unley Road

UNLEY

SA

5061

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Susan

English

Australian Institute Of Marine Science

PMB No 3

Townsville Mail Centre

TOWNSVILLE

QLD

4810

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Nathan

Evans

Dept Of Agriculture Fisheries Forestry

GPO Box 858

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Chris

Fandry

WA Dept Environmental Protection

Westralia Square

141 St.Georges Terrace

PERTH

WA

6000

AUSTRALIA

A1Ms

Suzanne

Ferguson

Environment Australia

Marine Group

GPO Box 787

CANBERRA CITY

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Simon

Firth

Seacare Inc

11 Kelly Street

BATTERY POINT

TAS

7004

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Melanie

Fisher

Dept Of Agriculture Fisheries Forestry

GPO Box 858

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Anthony

Flaherty

Marine & Coastal Community Network

C/- University Of South Australia

Holbrooks Road

UNDERDALE

SA

5032

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Stewart

Frusher

T A F I

Marine Research Laboratories

Nubeena Crescent

TAROONA

TAS

7053

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Henry

Garnier

Torres Strait Regional Authority

PO Box 261

THURSDAY ISLAND

QLD

4875

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Colin

Gibbs

Environment Australia

605 Banks Road

Marcus Hill RSD

DRYSDALE

VIC

3222

AUSTRALIA

Prof

Alistair

Gilmour

W W F/ N O A G

Graduate School Of The Environment

Macquarie University

SYDNEY

NSW

2109

AUSTRALIA

Mr

John

Ginivan

Victorian Coastal Council

4/240 Victoria Parade

EAST MELBOURNE

VIC

3002

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Aaron

Gladki

Dept Of Industry, Science & Resources

GPO Box 9839

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Peter

Gooday

A B A R E

GPO Box 1563

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Andrew

Goulstone

N S W Fisheries

P.O. Box 21

CRONULLA

NSW

2230

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Rod

Gowans

Department Of Natural Resources & Environment

Level 16, 8 Nicholson Street

EAST MELBOURNE

VIC

3002

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Alistair

Graham

Tasmanian Conservation Trust

102 Bathurst Street

HOBART

TAS

7000

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Peter

Graham

National Oceans Office

GPO Box 2139

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Julia

Green

Institute Of Antarctic & Southern Ocean Studies

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7000

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Krystina

Green

Aust Local Govt Association

8 Geils Court

DEAKIN

ACT

2600

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Malcolm

Haddon

Tasmanian Aquaculture & Fisheries Inst.

Nubeena Cresc

TAROONA

TAS

7053

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Peter

Harris

Australian Geological Survey Organisation (AGSO)

Antarctic CRC

GPO Box 252-80

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Marcus

Haward

Institute Of Antarctic & Southern Ocean Studies

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7000

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Linda

Hay

National Oceans Office

GPO Box 2139

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Miss

Leonie

Hennessy

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Paul

Herman

Tasmanian Seafoods Pty Ltd

Manager, Boat Operations

15-17 Redgum Drive

DANDENONG SOUTH

VIC

3175

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Marcus

Herold

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mrs

Janalie

Hetherington

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

John

Hirst

Association Of Australia Ports & Marine Authority

Mr

William

Hirst

Auslig

P.O. Box 2

BELCONNEN

ACT

2616

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Ross

Hodge

Seafood Industry Victoria Inc

Level 2

177 Toorak Road

SOUTH YARRA

VIC

3141

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Martin

Holtz

WA Fishing Industry Council

P.O. Box 55

MT HAWTHORN

WA

6016

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Angus

Horwood

Recfish Australia

Dr

William

Howard

Antarctic CRC / IASOS

P.O. Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Bernard

Huchet

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission

PO Box 17

WODEN

ACT

2606

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Bruce

Hull

Australian Antarctic Division

Channel Highway

KINGSTON

TAS

7050

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Tony

Ibbott

Tony Ibbott & Associates

Ms

Susan

Ingram

National Oceans Office

GPO Box 2139

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Rosh

Ireland

Queensland Environmental Protection Agency

160 Anne Street

BRISBANE

QLD

4000

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Kieran

Jacka

Antarctic CRC & Bureau Of Meteorology

GPO Box 252-80

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Steve

Jackson

Environment Australia

GPO Box 787

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Michelle

Jenkins

Department Of Natural Resources & Environment

Level 16,

8 Nicholson Street

EAST MELBOURNE

VIC

3002

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Barry (Jack)

Johncock

Wangra Wilurrara Regional Council

P.O. Box 396

CEDUNA

SA

5690

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Tony

Johnston

Tasmanian Seafoods Pty Ltd

General Manager

69 Gemalla Road

MARGATE

TAS

7054

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Barbara

Jones

Environment Australia

John Gorton Building

GPO Box 787

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Barry

Jones

Australian Petroleum Production Exploration Assoc.

Level 3, 24 Marcus Clarke Street

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Stuart

Kaye

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-89

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Jock

Keene

University Of Sydney

School Of Geosciences F05

SYDNEY

NSW

2006

AUSTRALIA

Dr

John

Keesing

Australian Marine Sciences Association

Mr

Richard

Kenchington

RAC Marine Pty Ltd

PO Box 588

JAMISON

ACT

2614

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Michael

Kienzle

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Martine

Kinloch

Bureau Of Rural Sciences

Dept Of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry Australia

P.O. Box E11

KINGSTON

ACT

2604

AUSTRALIA

Miss

Joanna

Krasnicki

University Of Tasmania

School Of Government

GPO Box 252-22

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Sarojini

Krishnapillai

Victorian National Parks Association

10 Parliament Place

EAST MELBOURNE

VIC

3002

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Lorne

Kriwoken

University Of Tasmania

Centre For Environmental Studies.

GPO Box 252-78

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Mfodwo

Kwame

Law School, University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 242-45

HOBART

TAS

7000

AUSTRALIA

Mr

James

Larcombe

Fisheries & Forestry Sciences Division

Bureau Of Rural Sciences

P.O. Box E11

KINGSTON

ACT

2604

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Brian

Lassig

Erin Ea

Erin Environment Australia

PO Box 787

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Anne

Law

National Oceans Office

GPO Box 2139

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

John

Levett

National Oceans Office

GPO Box 2139

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Miss

Megan

Linwood

Ministry For The Environment New Zealand

P.O. Box 10362

WELLINGTON

NEW ZEALAND

Mr

Robert

Lister

Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council

P.O. Box 878

SANDY BAY

TAS

7005

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Chris

Lloyd

Commonwealth Dept Of Industry Science Resources

GPO Box 9839

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Geoff

Love

Bureau Of Meteorology

GPO Box 1289K

MELBOURNE

VIC

3001

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Katrina

Maguire

Australian Fisheries Management Authority

Box 7051

CANBERRA MAIL CENTRE

ACT

2610

AUSTRALIA

Miss

Natalie

Martin

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Angus

McEwan

Bureau Of Meteorology

GPO Box 727G

HOBART

VIC

7001

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Astrida

Mednis

Environment Australia

John Gorton Building

GPO Box 787

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Felicity

Menzies

Bellerive Coastal Care

30 Beach Street

BELLERIVE

TAS

7018

AUSTRALIA

Miss

Sasha

Migus

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

John

Milham

Boating Industry Association Of SA

318 Young Street

WAYVILLE

SA

5034

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Margaret

Moore

W W F Resource Conservation Office

1st Floor

9 Church Street

HAWTHORN

VIC

3122

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Terry

Moran

Australian Seafood Industry Council

Ms

Janet

Morgan

C S I R O

GPO Box 1538

HOBART

TAS

7000

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Bob

Muir

South Great Barrier Reef Sea Forum Working Group

PO Box 28

EMU PARK

QLD

4702

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Gary

Myors

Eaglehawk Dive Centre / Dive Tasmania

178 Pirates Bay Drive

EAGLEHAWK NECK

TAS

7179

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Russ

Neal

Australian Seafood Industry Council

PO Box 533

CURTIN

ACT

2605

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Paul

Nelson

Australian Maritime Safety Authority

GPO Box 2181

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Bernadette

O'Neil

National Oceans Office

GPO Box 2139

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Warren

Papworth

Antarctic Division

Channel Highway

KINGSTON

TAS

7050

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Jacqui

Parker

National Oceans Office

GPO Box 2139

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Lachlan

Payne

Australian Shipowners Association

Ms

Stephanie

Pfenningwerth

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Greg

Phillips

University Of Tasmania

Centre Of Environmental Studies

GPO Box 252-78

HOBART

TAS

7000

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Stefanie

Pidcock

Environment Australia

Marine Group

GPO Box 787

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Rebecca

Pirzl

National Oceans Office

GPO Box 2139

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Tavis

Potts

Antarctic CRC / IASOS

P.O. Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Trevor

Powell

Australian Geological Survey Organisation (AGSO)

GPO Box 378

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Tony

Press

Antarctic Division

Dr

Jeremy

Prince

Biospherics Pty Ltd

P.O. Box 168

SOUTH FREMANTLE

WA

6162

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Nicola

Quin

Dept Of Premier & Cabinet, Victoria

2/1 Treasury Place

MELBOURNE

VIC

3000

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Chris

Rees

Coastal & Marine Program, DPIWE

GPO Box 44A

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Prof

Russell

Reichelt

Australian Institute Of Marine Science

Mr

Doc

Reynolds

Goldfields Land Council

C/- P.O. Box 1547

ESPERANCE

WA

6450

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Gail

Richey

South East Trawl Fishing Industry Assoc

P.O. Box 69

SHEARWATER

TAS

7307

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Stuart

Richey

Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council (TFIC)

P.O. Box 69

SHEARWATER

TAS

7307

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Kathryn

Ridge

Nature Conservation Council Of NSW

L5/362 Kent Street

SYDNEY

NSW

2032

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Les

Roberts

Australian Fisheries Management Authority

Box 7051

CANBERRA MAIL CENTRE

ACT

2610

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Lorraine

Rosenberg

South Australian Fishing Industry Council (SAFIC)

22 The Parade

NORWOOD

SA

5067

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Rob

Royle

Tasmanian Abalone Council

15 Hasters Street

NEWSTEAD

QLD

4006

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Keith

Sainsbury

C S I R O

GPO Box 1538

HOBART

TAS

7000

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Rocky

Sainty

Tasmanian Regional Aboriginal Council

Aboroginal & Torres Strait Islander Commiddion

Level 2 Kirksway House

BATTERY POINT

TAS

7004

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Veronica

Sakell

National Oceans Office

GPO Box 2139

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Chester

Sands

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Alex

Schaap

Dept Of Primary Industries Water & Environment

Marine Board Building

1 Franklin Wharf

HOBART

TAS

7000

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Rodney

Short

Australasian Maritime Education Services Pty Ltd

PO Box 104

LEGANA

TAS

7277

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Valerie

Short

Australasian Maritime Education Service Pty Ltd

P.O. Box 104

LEGANA

TAS

7277

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Karenn

Singer

Commonwealth Dept Of Transport & Regional Service

GPO Box 594

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Janet

Slater

National Oceans Office

GPO Box 2139

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Nadine

Smith

Dept. Industry Science & Resources

Sport & Tourism Industry

G .P.O. Box 9839

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Rick

Smith

Australian Geological Survey Organisation (AGSO)

Antarctic CRC University of Tas

P.O. Box 252-80

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Tony

Smith

C S I R O Marine

Mr

Jim

Stoddart

Minerals Council Of Australia

GPO Box A42

PERTH

WA

6837

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Rupert

Summerson

Bureau Of Rural Sciences

Dept Of Agriculture Fisheries & Forestry Australia

P.O. Box E11

KINGSTON

ACT

2604

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Michael

Sumner

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Phil

Symonds

Australian Geological Survey Organisation

GPO Box 378

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Mr

John

Tanzer

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

P.O. Box 1379

TOWNSVILLE

QLD

4810

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Diane

Tarte

Australian Marine Conservation Society

8 Grevillea Street

REDLAND BAY

QLD

4165

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Peter

Taylor

Environment Australia

P.O. Box 787

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Deborah

Thiele

School Of Ecology & Environment

Deakin University

WARNAMBOOL

VIC

3280

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Richard

Torelli

Tasmanian Seafoods Pty Ltd

General Manager, Dandenong

15-17 Redgum Drive

DANDENONG SOUTH

VIC

3175

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Rodney

Treloggen

Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fishermans Assoc

78 Quail Street

ST.HELENS

TAS

7215

AUSTRALIA

Prof

Martin

Tsamenyi

University Of Wollongong

Centre For Maritime Policy

WOLLONGONG

NSW

2522

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Ian

Tucker

Goldfields Land Council

192 Onslow Street

MENZIES

WA

6436

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Sonja

Van Hoof

National Oceans Office

GPO Box 2139

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Miss

Caitlin

Vertigan

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Cmdr

Niel

Wark

Royal Australian Navy

Ddem-N, R1-4-B133

Navy Headquarters Russell Offices

CANBERRA

ACT

2600

AUSTRALIA

Miss

Anna

Wassman

University Of Tasmania

School Of Government

P.O. Box 252-22

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Assoc Prof

Geoffry

Wescott

Marine & Coastal Community Network

Marine & Coastal Community Network Deakin University

662 Blackburn Road

CLAYTON

VIC

3168

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Leigh

West

National Oceans Office

GPO Box 2139

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Martijn

Wilder

Baker & McKenzie

AMP Centre

50 Bridge Street

SYDNEY

NSW

1223

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Leanne

Wilks

Environment Australia

John Gorton Building

GPO Box 787

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

Miss

Angela

Williamson

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Lynda

Wilson

BHP Transport & Logistics

P.O. Box 86A

MELBOURNE

VIC

3001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Murray

Worner

BHP Transport & Logistics

P.O. Box 86A

MELBOURNE

VIC

3001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Stanley

Wright

Torres Strait Regional Authority

P.O. Box 261

THURSDAY ISLAND

QLD

4875

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Donnalee

Young

Coastcare Tasmania

P.O. Box 21

ST.HELENS

TAS

7216

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Mike

Young

C S I R O

Mr

Peter

Yuile

Dept Of Agriculture Fisheries Forestry

GPO Box 858

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

REGISTERED BUT DID NOT ATTEND FORUM

RAPI National Planning Congress 2000

1st Floor, Construction House

217 Northbourne Avenue

TURNER

ACT

2612

AUSTRALIA

Mr

Jamie

Bayly-Stark

Dept. Primary Industries Water & Environment

Lands Dept Building

134 Macquarie Street

HOBART

TAS

7000

AUSTRALIA

Dr

Rosemary

Gales

Tasmanian Parks & Wildlife Services

P.O. Box 44A

HOBART

TAS

7000

AUSTRALIA

Barbara

Heide

I A S O S

University Of Tasmania

GPO Box 252-77

HOBART

TAS

7001

AUSTRALIA

Mr

George

Mure

Mures Fish Centre

Victoria Dock

HOBART

TAS

7000

AUSTRALIA

Ms

Alison

Penfold

Agriculture, Fisheries And Forestry

Adviser, Office Of The Hon Warren Truss MP

Parliament House

CANBERRA

ACT

2601

AUSTRALIA

contents > previous