Australian Government
The key piece of legislation that upholds protection of Australia’s biodiversity and environment is the EPBC Act. The EPBC Act provides a national scheme under which matters of national environmental significance are directed to the Australian Government; the states and territories are responsible for environmental matters of state and local significance.
There are 9 matters of national environmental significance, 6 of which are relevant to the marine environment:
- World Heritage properties
- National Heritage places
- listed threatened species and ecological communities
- migratory species protected under international agreements
- Commonwealth marine areas
- the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
Approval under the EPBC Act is required if an activity is likely to have a significant impact on any of these. Key criteria are identified in determining what a significant impact is in relation to each of the matters of national environmental significance, and a precautionary approach is taken when determining whether a significant impact is ‘likely’ (DoE 2013). Activities carried out under the EPBC Act include:
- protection of listed threatened species and communities
- protection of species under international agreements to which Australia is party
- assessment of activities that are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, such as fisheries, energy production and defence activities
- marine bioregional planning and, in association, implementation and management of Australian marine areas
- management of World Heritage places.
A wide range of species and species groups are protected under the EPBC Act (Table MAR4). In some cases, this is because their populations are identified as being threatened and requiring protection, whereas, in others, it is because they are listed under international agreements to which Australia is a signatory. For example, under the EPBC Act, all marine mammals in Australian waters are listed as either cetaceans or marine species, and several species identified as being migratory (e.g. seabirds, sharks, rays, marine turtles) are also listed. Since 2011, no species has been removed from the list; 2 sea snakes, 2 seabirds, 2 sharks, 1 sawfish and 1 fish have been listed; and 2 fish species have been reclassified as critically endangered. The east coast and west coast Australian populations of humpback whales remain listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act, although they have increased substantially from pre-whaling levels, with the eastern population considered to be close to carrying capacity (Noad et al. 2011) and no longer at risk of extinction. Their reclassification under the EPBC Act to reflect the increase in populations would highlight a conservation success (Bejder et al. 2016).
Table MAR4 Number of marine threatened species listed under the categories of the EPBC Act in the marine environment jurisdictions covered by this report
Species group
|
Extinct
|
Critically endangered
|
Endangered
|
Vulnerable
|
Conservation dependent
|
Whale, dolphin, porpoise
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
3
|
0
|
Seal, fur seal, sea lion
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
0
|
Marine turtle
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
3
|
0
|
Sea snake
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Seabird
|
0
|
2
|
10
|
24
|
0
|
Shark, skate, ray
|
0
|
2
|
2
|
6
|
3
|
Fish
|
0
|
2
|
0
|
2
|
4
|
Seastar
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
1
|
0
|
Seaweed
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
EPBC Act = Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Note: Species do not include shorebirds (refer to the Coasts report), or subantarctic or Antarctic species (refer to the Antarctic report).
Source: EPBC Act List of Threatened Flora and Fauna
In response to the listing of species, conservation advice is developed that provides guidance on immediate recovery and threat abatement activities that can be undertaken to ensure the conservation of a newly listed species or ecological community. For some species and ecological communities, recovery plans may also be developed, although they do not provide a mechanism for subsequent implementation. Adopted recovery plans generally span 5 years, but this may be shorter or longer, depending on the requirements of the species or ecological community. At the end of the period of the plan, progress against the plan’s objectives is reviewed. Further recovery plans may be put in place following the review. Recovery or management plans are in place for 42 species, and a further 8 have been identified as requiring plans to be prepared. A recovery plan for giant kelp forests of south-eastern Australia is yet to be prepared.
The EPBC Act identifies a number of key threatening processes to the environment and coordinates responses to these through threat abatement plans. In the marine environment, 3 key threatening processes have been identified:
- incidental catch of marine turtles by trawling operations
- incidental catch of seabirds by longline operations
- entanglement or ingestion of marine debris by marine vertebrates.
Threat abatement plans have been developed for the impacts of marine debris on vertebrate marine life (DEWHA 2009a) and the incidental catch (or bycatch) of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations (DoE 2014). The threat abatement plan for the entanglement or ingestion of marine debris by marine vertebrates was recently reviewed (DoE 2015b). The review concluded that, despite progress, particularly in clean-up efforts, it was not possible to state that criteria for success had been met during the life of the plan, and the plan should be revised. In addition, the Australian Senate referred an inquiry into the threat of plastic pollution in Australia and Australian waters to the Environment and Communication References Committee in 2015, and the report detailing the Committee’s findings was released in 2016 (ECRC 2016; see also Marine debris).
The EPBC Act provides for the proclamation and management of marine reserves, with reserves managed in accordance with principles prescribed for the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s internationally recognised set of protected area management categories. An NRSMPA has been developed for Australian marine waters—it was first identified by the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment 1992, and agreed to by the Australian and state and territory governments in 1998. The marine bioregional planning process provides the support framework for implementing the NRSMPA in the Commonwealth marine area, with the aims that the NRSMPA be comprehensive, adequate and representative, and, among other criteria, minimise socio-economic costs arising from displacing activities and resource access (National Principle 9; DEWHA 2009b).
The first network of 14 Commonwealth marine reserves (CMRs) was proclaimed in the South-east Marine Region in 2007, before the start of the marine bioregional planning program. Draft marine bioregional plans and marine reserve network proposals were produced for each of the remaining marine regions in 2011–12. The proposed network was reported to include areas accounting for 1 per cent (by value) of Australia’s annual commercial catch, and would have closed 4 per cent of Commonwealth waters within 100 kilometres offshore to recreational fishing. The plans were contentious among stakeholders and the public; after 245 public meetings, involving about 2000 people, an additional 566,377 written submissions were received, most focusing on the draft marine reserves network proposals. A further approximately 80,000 submissions were received focusing on the final network proposals. In November 2012, 40 CMRs were proclaimed in the South-west, North-west, North, Temperate East and Coral Sea marine regions, completing the NRSMPA in the Commonwealth marine area. Following continuing disquiet from some stakeholders, the CMRs were reproclaimed in December 2013, and the management plans for all regions except the South-east were set aside. The 10-year South-east Management Plan came into effect in 2013, with management under the Director of National Parks in accordance with the EPBC Act. A review of the new CMRs and how they are to be managed started in August 2014, with further extensive stakeholder consultation. Two reports (a review by a scientific panel and a review by a bioregional advisory panel) were released in August 2016.
Reviews of the CMRs identified that there was a general lack of coordination across the network, and inconsistencies in zoning and allowable uses, particularly with the remainder of the NRSMPA. These inconsistencies could result in complexities in management across the network, making varying compliance and enforcement across the network difficult for users to understand (Buxton & Cochrane 2015). It was also identified that a robust adaptive management approach based on well-targeted long-term monitoring and evaluation would be required if management of the CMRs was to be effective and efficient. There would need to be significant investment in new infrastructure and capability beyond that currently provided, to provide adequate coverage of the CMRs in support of adaptive management of the CMRs and Australia’s marine estate in general (Beeton et al. 2015). Continuing support for IMOS and the Australian Ocean Data Network was identified as a vital part of the monitoring process. Overall lack of clarity around the conservation objectives of the CMRs was highlighted as needing to be addressed, to identify and address potential risks and impacts of activities, and to assist in the development of performance indicators that could be measured (Buxton & Cochrane 2015). Greater consultation of stakeholders in the development, management, monitoring and reporting of the CMRs through the implementation of robust, sustainable and effective mechanisms for engagement was also highlighted as a requirement. In particular, involvement of Indigenous communities in the planning and management of the CMRs, particularly where land and sea Country rights and responsibilities extend into the CMRs, was needed (Buxton & Cochrane 2015). The recommendations made by the reviews are currently being taken into consideration in the preparation of draft management plans for the CMRs.
The iconic nature of Australia’s marine environment and the need to protect the environment is recognised internationally; the Great Barrier Reef, the Lord Howe Island Group, the Ningaloo Coast and Shark Bay have all been listed as World Heritage Areas under the World Heritage Convention. As a party to the convention, Australia has committed to implementing management plans, and a system that ensures the effective protection of each site for present and future generations, with the Australian Government having primary responsibility for these. Management of World Heritage Areas varies—some are managed by the Australian Government and some by relevant state agencies. The Great Barrier Reef is managed by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which is tasked with managing the marine park under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975.
A joint monitoring mission by the World Heritage Centre and the IUCN visited the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) in 2012 amid concerns of increasing impacts from ongoing environmental pressures. In 2015, and following announcement of the Reef 2050 Long-term Sustainability Plan (Australian Government & Queensland Government 2015), the World Heritage Committee determined that it would not list the GBRWHA as ‘in danger’. It requested a state of conservation report in 2019 and an update on progress with implementation of the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan to be submitted in December 2016.
Beyond the EPBC Act, the Australian Government has a complex set of policies and legislation in place to regulate and manage use of the marine environment (Table MAR5). Key Acts include:
Legislated pressure or item
|
Australian Government
|
NSW
|
NT
|
Qld
|
SA
|
Tas
|
Vic
|
WA
|
Threatened species
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Climate change (greenhouse gas emissions reduction)
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
Fishing
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Traditional use of resourcesa
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Oil and gas exploration and production
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Marine mining and industry
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Marine renewable energy generationb
|
Yes
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
No
|
Yes
|
No
|
Vessel activity
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Pollutants, debris and wastes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
Yes
|
NSW = New South Wales; NT = Northern Territory; Qld = Queensland; SA = South Australia; Tas = Tasmania; Vic = Victoria; WA = Western Australia
a In the Northern Territory, the Indigenous Fisheries Development Strategy 2012–14 aims to review and update the definition of ‘customary fishing’ in the Northern Territory Fisheries Act 1988, so customary fishing rights are enshrined in the Act. In NSW, the Aboriginal Cultural Fishing Interim Access is in place until an amendment of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 is enacted. In Victoria, amendments to fisheries legislation and regulations are being developed to remove inconsistency with the Native Title Act 1993 under the Victorian Aboriginal Fishing Strategy.
b Most jurisdictions do not have legislation specific to renewable energy; however, electricity generation from renewable sources is incorporated into legislation regulating electricity generation.