Maritime Studies
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Maritime Studies |
|
Supplementary Submissions by the
Australian Association for Maritime Affairs
Issue 147 of Maritime Studies carried the submission made by this Association to the Senate Inquiry into the management of Australia’s national marine parks. Two of our Board members, Mr Harold Adams and Dr Richard Kenchington, subsequently appeared before that Committee. In support of their appearance before that Committee, the Association expanded on its original paper with a Supplementary Submission – Paper A. A series of questions and answers followed and these, together with the Supplementary Submission, were incorporated in Hansard.
Following that appearance before the Committee the Association was invited to expand on certain points raised in the Q&A session. These were subsequently submitted to the Committee as a further Supplementary Submission – Paper B. It also has now been incorporated in Hansard.
Our Association is grateful for the opportunity to appear before your Committee, specifically in relation to the management challenges involved in the management of Australia’s national marine parks. This is a very significant inquiry in that one third of the world’s national marine parks are to be found in Australia’s sovereign ocean areas. It is therefore an area of national administration that if we get it right has the potential to become a blueprint for the world.
Before summarising the thrust of our submission it is appropriate to point out that our Association does not represent any vested interests. Our Association, formerly the Australian Centre for Maritime Studies, was established 28 years ago and is incorporated in the ACT as a not-for-profit organisation whose objectives can be summarised as promoting the national interest in all aspects of maritime affairs. It is on this basis that our submission was made since the establishment, management and monitoring of marine protected areas is seen as a national undertaking which involves coordination and input from many agencies.
As detailed in our submission, this inquiry is an opportunity to highlight the management needs of marine protected areas in the context of our responsibilities as a party to the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea and our obligations under that convention and under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in accordance with the Djakarta Mandate. Under Australia’s international obligations Australia is committed to implementing a national representative system of marine protected areas as a component of a global system. It is also working with Pacific and Indian Ocean Island States committed to establishing representative marine protected areas in their jurisdictions.
In 2002 Australia was one of 189 countries at the World Summit of Sustainable Development that called for the establishment of the Global Representative system of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) by 2012.
In relation to marine protected areas in the Australian EEZ the Association is aware that the Government has recently established new and important marine protected areas in the southeast. With your permission, Mr Chairman, I would like to distribute the most recent copy of the Australian Maritime Digest which not only shows where the new marine protected areas are but gives you an insight into the sort of information service we provide to the marine community. The Digest, which has been published by our Association for the past 15 years, is but one vehicle we distribute Australia-wide to a range of marine authorities in the Commonwealth. With the establishment of the new marine protected areas goes an obligation to manage these areas: this involves ‘enforcement’ of regulations in respect of seabed exploration, fishing and shipping, as well as the scientific understanding of the particular marine areas and the adjacent seas.
The challenge of conserving marine diversity and in measuring changes in the marine biosphere is a challenge of major proportions. The issues are set out in our submission and, having regard to the unique features and structure of Australia’s marine environment, will require significant resources to be marshalled for this task. Furthermore this is an expanding area of science since there are untold discoveries yet to be made in respect of the world’s marine biosphere. For instance, it is estimated that only 50 per cent of the microbial structure of the ocean has been identified. Furthermore the changing nature of the world’s oceans as they absorb more and more carbon from the atmosphere is already impacting on the marine biodiversity of the oceans. Any MPA management system will need to be structured on the basis of determining the extent of ocean change so that its impact on the marine structure of MPAs can be assessed.
MPAs are therefore a core component of marine management.
The extent and importance of biophysical linkages in marine systems should be reflected in the policy and administrative systems established to manage them. The IUCN system of Protected Area categories applies in marine environments.
There are three essential elements in a comprehensive strategy for management of marine biodiversity and ecosystem processes.
• STRICT PROTECTION – incorporated within the strategy, the establishment of site scale management through strictly protected areas, national parks or no-take reserves in which no harvesting of resources is permitted at any time.
• HABITAT PROTECTION – establishment of habitat and species management areas where a range of activities including some harvesting of marine species may occur provided they do not damage or destroy habitat or the survival of species.
• SUSTAINABILITY – large area ecosystem scale management of resources, uses and impacts to ensure that they are sustainable.
Effective management in a range of portfolios and agencies must address the issues facing marine ecosystems and resources but these cannot be effectively addressed in circumstances of sectoral competition. The management of Marine Protected Areas, Fisheries and other uses of marine resources and impacts on them should be addressed together.
Planning and management processes should provide for open and accountable oversight of the activities of all the various specialist agencies under a national plan.
The parallel component of marine park management is that of surveillance and enforcement. In this area Australia has developed a world class capability under its Joint Offshore Protection Command (JOPC) which is an amalgam of resources tasked and controlled from Canberra and centred on the Navy’s 16 offshore patrol vessels. These resources are focussed almost exclusively on the north and northwest offshore areas where foreign fishing vessels are placing great pressure on our northern fisheries. The availability and disposition of patrol and enforcement vessels appears to provide inadequate capacity for oversight of the substantial network of offshore marine protected areas and fisheries south of the Tropic of Capricorn. To meet the national requirement for surveilling and patrolling marine parks which extend from the tropics to the Antarctic will require additional resources, working in conjunction with marine science missions.
As set out in our submission, our Association recommends that the Committee support:
1. Urgent action to meet obligations of ecosystem-based management with clear objectives and verifiable performance criteria, to ensure protection of marine biological diversity, maintenance of ecosystem processes, and ecological sustainability of human uses and impact including:
2. Urgent action to establish Australia’s components of the Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas by the target date of 2012
3. Incorporation of mandatory ‘no-take’ protected areas covering a minimum of 10% of each marine bio-region in the Australian maritime jurisdiction
4. Identification of substantial areas to be managed by exclusion of uses that destroy habitat.
5. Development of airborne and surface surveillance and patrols and remote marine and satellite-based supporting technologies to ensure that Australia is capable of managing and enforcing its regulations with respect to marine protected areas and other elements of ecosystem-based management in its offshore jurisdiction.
With me, Mr Chairman, is Dr Richard Kenchington, a marine scientist who practises in marine science and maritime administration as a consultant to authorities world-wide. He is a Professorial Fellow at the Centre for Maritime Policy at the University of Wollongong. He is a former Executive Director of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, member of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, and Board Chair of the International Coral Reef Action Network.
I am a former naval officer and have been associated with the Australian Association for Maritime Affairs for 18 years.
Finally, with your permission Mr Chairman, I would like to provide to each member a copy of our flagship journal – Maritime Studies – which is indicative of the material published by our Association and which has a worldwide audience.
In our supplementary submission [Paper A] to this Inquiry we drew the Committee’s attention to the need to address the problem of surveillance, enforcement and response to MPAs located south of the tropic of Capricorn (last paragraph, page 2) recognising that the pressure from numerous FFVs in our northern waters was the principal focus for surveillance and enforcement at this time.
In response to a question from Senator Wortley as to how this task might be met in respect of areas south of the tropic of Capricorn it was suggested that the Joint Offshore Protection Command (JOPC) should be tasked to address this issue.
Since the hearing we have given further consideration to this important national task since it is recognised in many quarters that the challenge of oceans governance in its widest sense is assuming greater importance both nationally and internationally.
Therefore, to assist the Committee in reaching a conclusion in respect of this important matter the following points are made:
a. Marine Protected Areas and fishery management in the 200nmz needs UNCLOS-compliant management which in turn requires a comprehensive and responsive system of surveillance, monitoring and enforcement capacity to support the assertion of claim.
b. Arguably, current arrangements are inadequate to assert sovereignty or management of claims in the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone (AEEZ) and thus there is a need to strengthen the JOPC to provide capacity offshore and south of the tropic of Capricorn for this task.
c. The JOPC should be developed also to provide data collection capability for monitoring offshore resources as required under UNCLOS obligations. This might be done by modifying offshore patrol vessels to accommodate a marine science module with a data stream capability and capable of deploying remote observation vehicles (ROVS) for data collection such as sea-bed and seamount scanning and water column sampling.
d. It is important to address the strategic need and opportunity to strengthen links with neighbouring countries in developing capacity to manage, and conduct surveillance and enforcement operations within the 200nm EEZ, MPAs and fisheries and beyond in the high seas.
e. It is important to address the need to apply best available technology to monitor positions of vessels in the EEZ, for purposes of national security, MPA management and fisheries regulation: similar information is also required to meet Australia’s international obligations under the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) Convention.
f. The capabilities provided by States and Territories for surveillance and enforcement arrangements within the three nautical mile (Offshore Constitutional Settlement) boundary and in respect to vessels proceeding beyond 3nm are variable and fuzzy. It is arguable that states have inadequate capacity for nearshore maritime enforcement of MPAs involving, inter alia, recreational boating and fisheries. Also it appears that offshore drops and retrievals of illegal drugs and firearms caches are often done within three miles of the coast. This suggests that there should be a serious review of existing arrangements and resources provided under the Offshore Constitutional Settlement.
g. The storm-riven seas south of the tropic Capricorn, especially areas like the Great Australian Bight, Bass Strait, and the Great Southern Ocean, demand that vessels operating in these areas have particular sea-keeping qualities enabling them to survive and operate in these dangerous waters and provide a presence in NMPs.
These are complex issues involving both international and national law leading to a national obligation involving, at the Federal Level, 10 Departments of State and government institutions – Prime Minister & Cabinet; Foreign Affairs and Trade; Transport and Regional Services; Attorney General (Customs); Immigration; Defence (Navy, Air Force, DSTO, etc.); Industry, Tourism and Resources; Environment and Heritage; Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Education, Science and Training.
All these Departments of State have a primary interest in achieving a coordinated national approach to oceans governance including the effective management of National Marine Parks. Furthermore, there is a pressing need for this issue to be addressed now as a whole-of-government task. One of the outcomes of this inquiry should be a recommendation as to how this is best done. Moreover there is, to our knowledge, no Western government which has produced a system of management which addresses all the issues set out above in a comprehensive manner. If Australia can get this right it could prove to be a template for other nations and one which could be used by our important Pacific, Indian Ocean and SE Asian neighbours.
Logically the first step will be to define the task and secondly identify the resources needed to meet the task in terms of surveillance, law enforcement, science and audit.
The magnitude of the task as we see it is beyond the capacity of the JOPC which is essentially an operational command involved with the day-to-day and medium-term planning of offshore operations primarily directed towards surveillance, law enforcement and sovereignty assertion.
It is the view of this Association that the issue should be addressed by a separate Task Force set up along the lines of the McKinnon Inquiry in 1989. Such an inquiry would be able to draw on expertise in both government and the private sector. If such an approach were taken by government, our Association is well placed and would be keen to run a two-day conference to support the inquiry.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MarStudies/2006/25.html