Participation, collaboration or management?
A key factor in the nature of the community's role in coastal management is the power of the community within all stages of the planning and management process. Arnstein (1969) and Hale (1996) have produced similar graded scales of citizen control over planning and management, varying from complete community control over process and management to powerlessness (table 4.3).
Today most community activity in coastal management appears to fall into the areas of collaborative management and participation, as the following two examples illustrate.
Box 4.4 Collaborative management: foreshore committees of management In Victoria
The national Coastal Zone Inquiry recommended the more widespread use of local residents committees to manage small areas of coastal Crown land (RAC 1993a, p. 147). In Victoria such committees have been in operation for some time, maintaining reserves and raising money for this purpose by charging for the use of facilities, such as camping sites. In 1997 there were about a hundred committees managing foreshore reserves comprising 20% of the Victorian coast (Wescott 1998), although 60% of these were actually the local council acting as a committee of management and 40% were composed of members of the public. Wescott (1993) reported that between 1985 and 1992 the number of public committees directly managing coastal reserves dropped from 58 to 38, a decline he ascribed to the lack of support from state agencies and the lack of opportunity for the committees to have input to planning decisions affecting the reserves. While some of these committees were seen as having problems such as over-parochialism, under-resourcing, a lack of expertise, and confusion over the extent of their powers, the RAC (1993a) wrote positively on their contribution to management.
The revision of coastal management arrangements for Victoria is leading to a re-examination of the role of the committees of management within a system placing far more emphasis on community involvement than previously. Under the Coastal Management Act 1995, the Victorian government has set up a lead agency, the Victorian Coastal Council, to prepare a coastal strategy and to advise the Minister on coastal matters. Three Regional Coastal Boards prepare coastal action plans and report to the Coastal Council. The community' is strongly represented on the Council and the three Boards, and so has attained a voice within the revised system. Local Committees of Management are given a new role in preparing local management plans, consistent with the regional action plans. The Victorian Coast Action and Coastcare programs have given the opportunity for the committees of management to obtain resources for works, together with help through facilitators (six for the state). Wescott (1998) noted the continued need for support and technical input from state agencies.
The committees of management carry out their works on coastal reserves through authority delegated by the state Minister; the public is involved collaboratively throughout the revised coastal management process, though the extent of community power will depend upon the way the system is implemented. The design of the revised system has the potential to allow a working partnership with government and its agencies.
Box 4.5 Participation: the case of the Trinity Inlet Management Program
Trinity Inlet is a mangrove-lined estuary, bay and wetland complex adjacent to the rapidly growing and dynamic city of Cairns. The Inlet is a visual backdrop and a vital component of the central business district. The important tourism and fishing industries depend upon the health of the inlet.
The Trinity Inlet Management Program (T1MP) commenced in 1992 with widespread consultation for the development of a management plan by an independent consultant. The aim of the program reflects the strong public desire, expressed in the consultation, to ensure the maintenance of Trinity Inlet as an ecologically viable and sustainable ecosystem. The basis of the program is a contractual agreement between state government agencies and local government. These groups and local parliamentarians make up the steering committee, which gives overall and political direction to the program. The role of the community is to provide input to a consultative committee and to the program office and staff, who run a public contact process.
T1MP is a large program, regional in scale with state-wide ramifications. It involves a range of technical skills, is serviced by a professional staff, and has significance for the regional economy. The ongoing role of the community is to comment upon the direction of a program, which has largely been set out following technical and political deliberation. Processes for this community input were set out as a part of the ongoing program and have been resourced in the annual budgets. Within T1MP, public education and capacity-building are seen as an ongoing part of the program. The public is informed and has its concerns taken into account; it is not involved in delegated authority or ongoing partnership arrangements within the scale described by Hale (1996). (Sources: Kristensen 1996, RAC 1993a, p. 146.)
