Archived page, Submission Report of the Ministerial Task Force: Review of the Structural Arrangements for Coastal Planning and Management in Western Australia.

Submitted to the Department for Planning and Infrastructure 13th August 2002

INTRODUCTION

Recfishwest welcomes the opportunity to submit comment on this Ministerial Task Force Report.

Recfishwest is the peak representative body for Western Australia's estimated 600,000 recreational fishers. The scale and diversity of recreational fishing in this state is enormous making it one of the most significant activities utilising coastal and marine resources. Recreational fishing is worth over $500 million dollars to the Western Australian economy, making it a significant contributor to the overall gross domestic product of this state.

Whilst we represent the interests of recreational fishers, we also recognise the legitimate needs of other community interests to share the benefits of coastal and marine usage. Commensurate with this recognition we understand the importance of transparent, fair and inclusive coastal resource planning and decision-making processes that are firmly founded on community driven values and principles.

Our primary interests in considering this report are to ensure that coastal planning processes have the capacity to deliver fair and reasonable access to coastal and marine resources for recreational fishers and that those resources are managed sustainably. In addition Recfishwest is vitally interested in ensuring that quality recreational fishing will be available for current and future generations.

Understandably then, the report of this Ministerial Taskforce is of particular interest to Recfishwest.

GENERAL

Recfishwest has over recent years made a variety of comprehensive submissions to Government on a wide variety of proposals; for example, the HIsmelt Kwinana, Jurien Bay Marine Park, Catherine Point, Lancelin Defence Training Area, Cottesloe Fish Habitat Protection Area, and many others.

In so doing, we have been struck by the underlying ad-hoc nature of the originating process for the various developments, noting the plethora of statutory and administrative frameworks. As well, it often seems to us that proposals are not always generated from a 'best usage of land or resources' process, but are a consequence of inappropriate historical land zoning decisions.

It is conceded that with the benefit of hindsight the original decisions, for example, to provide extensive tracts of coastal freehold land, might well not be taken today. However, we now live with the legacy of inherited vested interests that are often not aligned with modern planning principles. This is in a context of a greatly expanded population with its contingent demands on resources.

It is in this context that Recfishwest is pleased to endorse the broad thrust of the Ministerial Taskforce report. We particularly endorse the recognition it gives to the current unsatisfactory state of coastal zone planning and its resultant advice, through the recommendations, to implement a much more consistent structure and framework for decision making. We also fully support the emphasis that the report places on the need for planning guidance based on the key principles of ecologically sustainable development and the 'precautionary principle'.

Notwithstanding this there are recommendations within the report that we consider to be less than optimal and we offer constructive suggestions that we believe will enhance the outcomes following implementation of the report.

Because Recfishwest is a stakeholder group our comments do not provide an appreciation of the whole report but concentrate on those issues of importance to us. We have used the Recommendations Section 6.2 as the structural framework for our comments.

As has been pointed out in 2.2.1 on p18 there is a different approach between the well developed framework for strategic planning of coastal land and the lack of any integrated arrangements for planning of coastal marine areas. The marine area is of particular importance to Recfishwest and we have made comments on this topic. This is the final part of our submission.

REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS

6.2.1 Coastal values

We are sure the whole community agrees with the need to recognise the high value of the coast.

6.2.2 Objectives of coastal planning and management

We generally agree with these recommendations. Environmental sustainability is an objective that can be ensured, given sufficient priority and proper community participation in planning will ensure that social and economic objectives meet community objectives. However it should be accepted that non-indigenous as well as indigenous Australians also have strong cultural links to the sea. We believe that, rather than identifying any specific ethnic/cultural groups, it may be preferable to recognise the generic spiritual and cultural links that all Australians have with the sea and the coast.

6.2.3 Principles of coastal planning and management Recfishwest agrees with the proposed hierarchy of planning instruments for the coast. We agree that it is highly desirable to have these processes to integrate the work of government agencies towards rational, sustainable development.

However, it is not practical to expect the population as a whole, or even well informed segments of it, to give very serious attention to a theoretical plan. It must be recognised that it is only when the impacts of planning outcomes are imminent that the population will give the matter their full attention. For this reason there should always be a final approval process just before any development.

Depending on the outcome of community input to this final approval process, the plan may have to be changed. Although this may be upsetting to planners and administrators, community input at this stage of the process is surely going to increase rather than reduce in importance.

6.2.4 Decision-making processes and structures

Recfishwest has had some difficulty understanding how the proposed "Coastal Council" is expected to work and we do not agree that this body should be strictly limited to having advisory powers only.

The Council suggested under the heading of decision-making structures but it really appears to be an advisory body to the WAPC. With such a large and diverse membership, and a statewide role it will be difficult to maintain interest and high-level representation if its function is purely advisory.

We are already experiencing something of this with respect to the Cockburn Sound Management Council. This Council was established two years ago to provide advice to Government on Sound environmental matters. The Recfishwest representative on this body reports that the Council has been working well to date because it has been charged with a key specific task; the production of a management plan.

However, this task is nearly at an end and it is not clear, without some level of statutory powers to effect decisions, whether the Council will have any real future role. Stakeholder representatives on the Council will likely view it as adding little value to the current parallel approval process for development proposals.

Accordingly Recfishwest very strongly recommends that this body be given a real 'gate-keeping' function, even if this function is limited to aggrieved proponents having to provide argument as to its decisions.

We note with some concern that despite recreational fishing being one of the most significant coastal activities it is not proposed to be represented on the Coastal council. We believe that this oversight should be corrected with the addition of a recreational fishing representative to the Council's membership.

6.2.5 Community participation in coastal planning and management

Recfishwest believes that this is the level at which a very useful function can be achieved by establishing a chain of local planning and management groups as suggested in Recommendation 15.

These groups would have links with the WAPC for planning oversight and with their local authority with respect to the management function. They could actually make decisions (with the concurrence of the local authority and the Coastal Council) which would assist in maintaining members interest and therefore high quality membership.

Such decisions may deal with issues of coastal access and provision of management functions. Recfishwest is particularly interested in this function as it could provide a way of dealing with coastal access issues that arise in respect to Pastoral Lease areas. Clearly, both pastoralists and recreational fishers would be among the stakeholders to be included in such groups.

6.2.9 Coastal lands

Recfishwest considers that access to, and the management of coastal lands to be an extremely important issue.

Recfishwest believe that there should be a reserve the whole way along the coast of Western Australia. This reserve should be wide enough, allowing for local topography, to enable an access track or road along the coast.

Whilst we recognise that due to some current land holding and various agreements this is not possible at present, we believe that it should be as policy to work towards this principle. The achievement of such a reserve in pastoral areas needs attention now so that it can be finalised by year 2015.

The vesting of this reserve could vary according to location; but in general we believe it should be vested with the local authority, or with CALM in nominated conservation areas. Where pastoralists wish to be involved in management of facilities on the coastal strip as a sensible supplement to other activities, this could be done through a lease with the local authority. The local community planning and management group (Rec 6.2.5) would participate in such arrangements.

Coastal land in remote areas would generally be open for four-wheel drive access. Management control of this access would be provided by the local authority on the advice of the community management group. Such management would, of course, include the prevention of access where low use and high management difficulty made such a course prudent for the time being.

Therefore whilst Recfishwest supports recommendations 24-6 we urge that our specific suggestions which carry recommendation 25 further than described in the report are fully considered. A copy of the Recfishwest position in respect to pastoral lease access is attached for further information.

6.2.10 Coastal funding and resources

Recfishwest supports the recommendations under this heading.

PLANNING FOR COASTAL MARINE AREAS

Recfishwest has long considered that one of the most serious deficiencies in Western Australian government structures is the lack of coordination between marine functions of government agencies.

This deficiency is highlighted by is the overlap and competition which exists between Fisheries and CALM, and to a lesser extent the DPI, in respect to marine management and conservation. Recfishwest suggests that there should be a 'coastal waters coordinating committee' established at a senior level which should meet at least monthly - or perhaps even fortnightly. This committee should be established under a Ministerial Council that in practice should only be required to meet infrequently.

We envisage that the function of such a committee would be ostensibly to consider cooperation in use of facilities and to ensure that cross-authorisations were established that enabled more efficient use of resources, in particular sea-going staff and vessels. By insisting on senior level membership the government could be confident that the departments were communicating sufficiently enough to ensure that improved cooperation was taking place.

CONCLUSION

While, as above, we are very happy with the thrust of the report, we note that any benefit will only flow from implementation. Accordingly we strongly urge that Government acts on the recommendations as soon as practicable.



This page last updated on 30 December 2003.