Integrating knowledge systems in local coastal management; the case of an estuary entrance management support system (EEMSS) in Australia

The management of social, economic, and ecological assets in coastal zones is fundamental to the maintenance and sustainability of coastal resources. A significant issue in this discussion is the role of governance structures. In Australia the governance of the coastal zone includes a range of institutional authorities, processes, and procedures that set the context for decision making about coastal management. As well as the formal institutional arrangements there is also a maze of other interests such as development commissions, NGOs, Indigenous Native Title holders and other stakeholders including recreational interests. A major issue for governance arrangements is the considerable gap that often exists between how those interests interpret and develop their positions especially when the knowledge is derived from different systems – scientific, managerial, lay and indigenous. This paper will explore the development of an Estuary Entrance Management Support System (EEMSS) in south west Victoria Australia. The EEMSS is a decision support tool to assist estuary managers in determining whether to artificially open a river mouth. A significant part of the process adopted was community participation which involved a ‘steps’ approach to engage local community groups and landholders. It is the process of engaging different knowledge systems in a meaningful conversation that has led to a system that now gains support from all of the stakeholders in the management of different estuaries. The paper will discuss the processes that surround the EEMSS and outline some lessons that arise in context of the ‘project state’.

The politics of coastal policy, planning and governance in Canada and Australia : business as usual, at a distance, or collaborative?

Canada and Australia are countries with substantial coastal zones which provide significant economic, social and environmental benefits and opportunities. The coastal zones of Canada and Australia also share significant threats such as, pollution, loss of biodiversity, and climate change, while also facing different challenges that are unique to their particular contexts. Effective management of such zones therefore represents a considerable challenge because of the: complexity of biophysical processes; multiple threats faced; uncertainties associated with understandings of such processes and threats, and the multiple jurisdictions and stakeholder viewpoints as to how such environments should be managed. Further, coasts and the sustainability of coastal resources and ecosystems have been argued to represent ‘wicked problems’ such that their governability is called into question. Therefore drawing on recent experiences in coastal policy, planning and governance in Newfoundland, Canada, and Victoria, Australia, this paper assesses the adequacy of current approaches to coastal governance in the two jurisdictions. In doing so we draw on recent policy and governance literature to consider whether coastal policy, planning and governance in Newfoundland and Victoria, reflect a collaborative, neoliberal, or business as usual (ad hoc, top down) approach. Based on such an assessment we consider the prospects for more integrated coastal zone management in each jurisdiction, as well as broader implications for governance and the resilience of coastal systems. It is argued that while both jurisdictions would benefit from a more collaborative approach, the mechanisms for bringing about such an approach would vary and will not come easily in light of institutional and historic barriers.

Science into policy? Discourse, coastal management and knowledge

The world's coastal resources are under pressure, even more so under climate change with 90% of the world's population living near or along our coastal zone. Ecologically, this zone is also the most productive, and the mainstay of economic livelihoods on a global scale. Managing the coast effectively is crucial, but as an area it remains contested. Despite multiple efforts to manage the coast, it remains a contested space. This paper offers a reflection into the ways in which different discourses influence and impact on one specific dimension of coastal zone management-the transmission of science into the policy domain. Using historical and discourse analysis, we find that the science-policy interface is largely constructed within two knowledge discourses: (i) scientific knowledge and (ii) local knowledge. This arbitrary separation into a binary discursive landscape mitigates against science-policy integration in practice especially given each discourse in itself, encompasses multiple forms of knowledge. We argue that in order to better understand how to build scientific research outputs into policy, decision makers and researchers need to understand how knowledge works in practice, overcome this dichotomous construction of knowledge and specifically, re-construct or transition the notion of 'science as knowledge' into 'all knowledge types' into policy.

Integrated natural resource management in Australia: the opportunity offered by a national coastal policy

Under the Australian Constitution the management (and planning) of Crown Land is a State and Territory Government responsibility. When this is considered in conjunction with the Offshore Constitutional Settlement, which affirmed that coastal waters out to three nautical miles (in general) offshore were also the responsibility of State and Territory Governments, then clearly coastal management in Australia is largely a State/Territory responsibility.

Beyond three nautical miles it is a different story. Under the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS), which Australia ratified in October 1994, Australia claims jurisdiction out to 200 nautical miles and beyond (Wescott, 2000). These waters cover an area including the Antarctic claim of over 15 million square kilometres or twice the land area of Australia.

Hence in marine and coastal terms we have the national (Commonwealth) Government managing the oceans and seven State and Territory governments largely in charge of coastal management (coastal land and coastal waters). Heading "up river", State and Territory Governments plan and manage catchments.

Given the uncoordinated relationships between Australian coastal management policy and both catchment management policy and Australia's Ocean Policy (Commonwealth of Australia, 1998a and b), the Commonwealth Government's commitment to a "National Coastal Policy" presents an opportunity to progress the integration of natural resources management for the first time in decades.

Coastal state fisheries management : a review of Australian enforcement action in the Heard and McDonald Islands Australian Fishing Zone

In 1953 the Heard and McDonald Islands Act, which formalised the transfer of sovereignty over the two named sub-Antarctic islands from the United Kingdom, was passed by the Australian Government. For the ensuing 40 years, Australian management of the Islands was uneventful. The first subAntarctic scientific station was established at Atlas Cove, on Heard Island, in December 1947 following the initial indication by Britain of a willingness to transfer rights to the Islands. In 1987 the Islands, together with their 12 mile territorial sea, were proclaimed a wilderness reserve with a number of activities including fishing and mining prohibited. The same area was included on the WorId Heritage List in 1997. In 1979 a 200 nautical mile Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) was proclaimed around all Australian territories. In 1994 new terminology was embraced and the Exclusive Economic Zone was declared.

A preliminary examination of the diet and feeding of sea sweep Scorpis aequipinnis (Pisces: Scorpididae) from coastal waters of south-western Victoria, Australia

The diet and feeding of sea sweep (Scorpis aequipinnis) was investigated from 230 specimens collected from the south-western Victorian coastline between January and July, 2002. Stomach content analysis indicated that S. aequipinnis are browsing omnivores (55.6% algae, 25.4% animal, by dry weight), with rhodophytes found to be the most important component of their diet (93.5% frequency of occurrence; 42.6% dry weight; 45.5% prey-specific abundance). However, the relative proportions of the major dietary components differed significantly between size classes. The dietary composition of small individuals ( < 150 mm total length) was significantly different to larger individuals, primarily due to a higher degree of carnivory exhibited by the smaller fish. S. aequipinnis were found to be highly flexible feeders exploiting both benthic and pelagic food resources, characterised by irregular periods of selective carnivorous feeding.

Spatial ecology of sooty owls in south-eastern Australian coastal forests : implications for forest management and reserve design

We investigated the home-range size and habitat use of eight Sooty Owls (Tyto tenebricosa tenebricosa) in coastal forests in East Gippsland, Victoria, Australia, between November 2006 and January 2008. The size of home-ranges varied widely; based on 95% adaptive kernel estimates, the average size of home-ranges of males was 3025ha (±1194s.d., n=3), whereas that of females was 994ha (±654s.d., n=5). Sooty Owls utilised a broad range of ecological vegetation classes and topographical features for roosting and foraging at a greater scale than previously assumed. There was minimal selection for habitat types based on floristic composition, primarily only avoiding heathlands (for foraging and roosting) and selecting particular dense foliage (rainforest and riparian scrub) for foliage roosting. Two Owls maintained home-ranges close to logged areas, with logging regrowth (<45 years old) being strongly avoided by both individuals. We recommend that the size of individual reserves for Sooty Owls in commercial forests should be increased to more closely resemble the core spatial resource requirements needed by a pair. Reserves should be largest where they feed predominantly on hollow-dependent prey. Most importantly, rather than conservation measures just focussing on the spatial requirements of Sooty Owls, efforts should be directed towards retaining high densities of crucial resources, such as hollow-bearing trees and mammalian prey species throughout the landscape.

Home range, habitat use and movements by the little raven (Corvus mellori) in a coastal peri-urban landscape

Context In peri-urban environments, high availability of anthropogenic resources may result in relatively high abundances of some species, with potentially negative implications for other native biota. Effective management of such impacts requires understanding of the spatial ecology of problem species. However, home range and habitat use have not been described for the little raven (Corvus mellori), a superabundant native predator that occurs in urban and natural habitats, including those where threatened shorebirds breed. Aims The aim of this study was to provide basic information on little raven home range, habitat use and movements in a coastal peri-urban landscape. Methods Between October 2011 and January 2012 we radio-tracked 20 little ravens captured in a coastal wetland (near Melbourne, Australia). Key results Little ravens were highly mobile, moving up to 9.9km in an hour (median≤2km), and had large ranges: Minimum Convex Polygons were 1664-9989ha (median≤3362ha). Although most birds used both anthropogenic and natural habitats, some birds strongly selected for coastal wetland habitat. Birds used multiple roosts during the study period, most of which occurred in grassland (58.7%) or urban (22.3%) areas. Movement of up to 8.3km (median≤2.2km) between roosts during the night was also detected. Conclusions Ravens were highly mobile and used large home ranges and a variety of habitats, with habitat preferences varying between birds. Implications Considering the large home ranges and inter-individual variation in habitat preferences of little raven populations, localised management to reduce their impacts on breeding shorebirds is unlikely to be successful. Journal compilation