The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park - A Bold Experiment

Simon Woodley, S&J Woodley Pty. Ltd.

Simon Woodley is a freelance environmental consultant in marine and coastal ecosystem management, particularly tropical marine protected area management. From 1978-1998 he was involved in the establishment and management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The views in this paper are his. He can be contacted at simon@magwood.com.au .

Introduction
In 1975 the Australian Government established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park with specific and innovative legislation. At the time this was an unprecedented approach to the management of natural resources in Australia and the world. Even today it is regarded by many as a benchmark for ecologically sustainable use of marine resources.

Political and Social Context
The genesis of the Marine Park can be found in the social dynamism of the 1960’s in the Western world. Along with the revolutions in thought and political values and the challenge to accepted conventions, people were becoming increasingly aware and concerned about environmental issues, globally and nationally. Concerned scientists talking or writing publicly about environmental issues, for example, pesticide use (Carson 1962) and pollution issues (Commoner 1966) fueled these concerns. The first World Conference on National Parks held in Seattle in 1962 recommended that countries with coastal boundaries should give priority to the establishment of marine protected areas (Adams 1962).

At the same time, increased awareness of the richness and beauty of the underwater environment was reaching the living rooms of citizens through the technological advances of SCUBA diving, underwater films and television. Coincidentally, catastrophic marine disasters such as oil well blowouts at Santa Barbara in 1969 and the break-up of the oil tanker Torrey Canyon in the English Channel in 1967 added to unease about human impacts on the marine environment. On the Great Barrier Reef, the first recorded outbreak of crown-of-thorns starfish (a coral-eating predator) was found at a popular tourist site in 1965, and was attributed by some to human impacts.

In Queensland, Australia, a pro-development government was intent on expanding investment in tourism, agriculture (mainly beef cattle and sugar cane in coastal catchments adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef) and exploiting the State’s mineral resources. Plans in 1969 to prospect for oil on the Great Barrier Reef and mine coral reefs for limestone were the trigger for intense public concern and debate in Australia and overseas.

Because of these threats, concerned citizens joined together in the late 1960’s to form conservation movements and to launch a “Save the Reef” campaign. Protest rallies were held, bumper stickers were printed and politicians lobbied. Scientific organizations such as the Great Barrier Reef Committee brought their scientific knowledge to bear on the problem and lobbied vigorously for conservation of the Reef. National media editorialized about the need to save the Reef. Trade unions became involved by banning the unloading of ships carrying oil drilling equipment. The public concern eventually became such a political issue that the national government of the day and the opposition both pledged to protect the Reef. The highest level of public inquiry available in Australia, a Royal Commission, was established in 1970 to look into the proposal to drill for oil on the GBR and subsequently reported that there should be a moratorium on drilling. The governments of the day supported this recommendation.

In 1972 a new federal Labor government with a social democratic reform agenda was elected. It immediately set about implementing one of its electoral promises to establish the Great Barrier Reef as a national park. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (GBRMP Act) was then passed in 1975 to put the policy into practice. Although there was bipartisan support for the legislation in federal Parliament, it was strongly resisted by the State of Queensland which felt that the federal government was intruding on an area of “States’ rights.”

The Constitutional Setting
There is no specific head of power in the Australian Constitution that grants the federal government the right to legislate on environmental matters within the States, nor to exercise environmental protection powers within the three mile territorial sea. The High Court, however, in 1975 upheld the Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973 that claimed national sovereignty over offshore areas from low water. This ruling was derived from the constitutional power of the federal government to enter into treaties and conventions on behalf of the nation; in this case, the international convention on the continental shelf developed under the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975
The GBRMP Act was innovative and unprecedented in scope and direction. When enacted, the Act was one of the most powerful on the Australian Government’s statute books. It prevailed, in the event of conflict, over all other laws of Australia (Federal and State) with the exception of legislation related to defense, the right of innocent passage of shipping and shipping in distress. Rather than adopt an approach similar to that of national parks on land (nature based recreation and no extractive use) the GBRMP Act took a town planning approach. The GBRMP Act established a Federal statutory authority with sweeping powers to develop a marine park over the whole of the Great Barrier Reef Region, an area of approximately 350,000 square kilometers (see figure 1). Commonwealth or federal power extended to low water mark on the coast and around the 962 islands most of which belonged to the State of Queensland. The legislators saw that cooperation between the federal government and Queensland State government was essential to be able to plan and manage the whole area on an ecologically sustainable basis. To attempt to manage the reefs and surrounding waters without due regard for the activities that occurred under State jurisdiction (e.g. fisheries and management of islands) would have been costly and inefficient. Co-operation with Queensland was essential and this was mandated in the legislation, through membership of the governing board and an advisory committee, as well as through agreements to provide funding to assist in the management of the area.

The legislation also established the concept of a multi-use park within which “reasonable use” could co-exist with conservation. The guiding philosophy in the legislation was to establish a marine park while providing for “protection, wise use, understanding and enjoyment.” Spatial zoning plans that provided for a gradation of uses from “general use” to “preservation” were mandated as the main management tool. Public consultation was required by law. Research, education and day-to-day field management in the form of surveillance, enforcement and education was also mandated.

Conclusions
The policy and enabling legislation to protect the Great Barrier Reef was a political response to public concerns that were based on emotions, perceptions and values rather than hard science or facts demonstrating risk to the Reef environment. At the time, the Great Barrier Reef was relatively lightly used and in excellent condition overall. The primary threats of oil drilling and extraction of minerals, which were the major trigger for the establishment of the Marine Park, were immediately dealt with in the new GBRMP Act by prohibition. This gave the new management agency, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the time and space to establish the marine park without the intense use pressures that are characteristic of marine conservation efforts in developing countries.

After 25 years of management, the legislative framework is still the most appropriate for providing for “protection, wise use, understanding and enjoyment” even though the issues that confront the managers have changed in scope and intensity. The main issues facing the management agency and reef users today are ecologically sustainable and economically viable reef-based tourism, improving water quality and the impacts of coastal agriculture and urban development, ecologically sustainable fishing, conservation of the biodiversity of the Reef at different scales and finding acceptable ways of meeting the rights and aspirations of indigenous communities.

Although the GBRMP Act provides the framework for management, it is not sufficient by itself. Ultimately, changes in human use are needed to ensure that the impacts of such use on biodiversity are within sustainable limits. The most lasting changes occur where reef users accept the need to change their behavior where it is not compatible with the long-term conservation of the Reef. Without community support and co-operation (and through it the support of politicians) the task of managing the Reef would be almost impossible.

References and Additional Reading
• Rachael Carson, Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin, Boston 1962).

• Barry Commoner, Science and Survival (Gollanz, London 1966).

• Richard A. Kenchington, Managing Marine Environments (Taylor & Young, New York 1992).

• David Lawrence, Richard A. Kenchington, & Simon J. Woodley, The Great Barrier Reef - Finding the Right Balance (Melbourne University Press, Australia 2001).

• National Parks Service, First World Conference on National Parks: Seattle (A.B. Adams ed., 1962).

• Judith Wright, The Coral Battleground (HarperCollinsPublishers Australia 1996).

• Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority website at http:// www.gbrmpa.gov.au/ .

University of Mississippi