Stakeholder participation in estuary management: the ...

This article was downloaded by: [Deakin University Library] On: 15 April 2013, At: 20:02 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjem20

Stakeholder participation in estuary management: the development of Victoria's Estuary Entrance Management Support System a

b

c

M. Keneley , K. O'Toole , B. Coffey & A. MacGarvey a

School of Accounting Economics and Finance

b

School of Humanities and Social Sciences

b

c

Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia Version of record first published: 27 Feb 2013.

To cite this article: M. Keneley , K. O'Toole , B. Coffey & A. MacGarvey (2013): Stakeholder participation in estuary management: the development of Victoria's Estuary Entrance Management Support System, Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 20:1, 49-62 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2012.756379

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 2013 Vol. 20, No. 1, 4962, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14486563.2012.756379

Stakeholder participation in estuary management: the development of Victoria’s Estuary Entrance Management Support System M. Keneleya*, K. O’Tooleb, B. Coffeyc and A. MacGarveyb a

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 20:02 15 April 2013

c

School of Accounting Economics and Finance; bSchool of Humanities and Social Sciences; Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Deakin University, Victoria, Australia Stakeholder involvement in the management of estuaries is a necessary element of good environmental governance. In Victoria, Australia, a key challenge for estuary managers is whether or not estuaries should be artificially opened since many river mouths close ‘naturally’ from time to time. Estuary closure resulting in raised estuarine water levels leads to economic and social impacts on local communities. In the past these effects have been addressed by artificial river mouth openings, often without reference to associated environmental impacts. This article discusses the development and features of an Estuary Entrance Management Support System and considers its performance against principles of effective environmental management. It concludes that, in bringing together technical information with stakeholder input through a structured process, such a system makes a useful contribution to improving estuary entrance management. Keywords: coastal zone management; community participation; estuary management; decision support system

Introduction Estuaries are unique environments that provide habitat for fish, birds and other species, as well as being important sites for recreation, agriculture, fishing and urban and industrial development. Accordingly the integrated management of estuaries is important because of the significant ecological and ecosystem services that they offer (Barton & Sherwood 2004). Estuaries are also subject to the effects of numerous human activities, both directly and indirectly. Direct effects are associated with the establishment of settlements on estuaries to take advantage of sheltered harbours, closeness to fresh water, and proximity to arable land. Indirect effects are associated with catchment-based activities such as land clearing, dam construction, water extraction and waste disposal. Issues facing estuaries in Australia include excess nutrient loads and algal blooms, sedimentation, habitat loss, changes to flow and tidal flushing, pathogens and toxicants, introduced pests, catchment and foreshore development, resource exploitation, water extraction and acid sulphate soils (Commonwealth of Australia 2002). In addition, the diverse arrangements established to govern and manage estuaries make effective management more difficult. Sherwood et al. (2008, p. 257) sum up the position arguing that ‘estuaries have suffered a lack of integrated planning and management and that this has led to an ad hoc and individualistic approach to their management’. *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] # 2013 Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand Inc.


50 M. Keneley et al. In Victoria, Australia, estuary closure resulting in raised estuarine water levels leads to social and economic impacts on adjacent landholders and local communities. In the past, these effects have been addressed by artificial river mouth openings, usually with little reference to environmental impacts, or broader social and economic implications. The question of whether or not estuary entrances should be artificially opened is of particular interest as it is reported that ‘more than half of Victorian estuaries are naturally closed by sand bars from time to time’ (Barton et al. 2008, p. 2). Based on an analysis of such estuaries, Sherwood et al. (2008) have identified management implications that may arise, including increases in water levels leading to the flooding of agricultural land, buildings, roads and structures, such as jetties and boat ramps. The ecological risks of artificially opening estuary entrances include impacts on water bird habitat in fringing wetlands and fish kills through the lowering of dissolved oxygen levels in water following estuary opening, as well as degradation of estuarine catchments (Sherwood et al. 2008). In recent years, the issue of estuarine management has become more important as the impact of past practices has become more visible and a growing awareness of their environmental consequences spread. This article reports on the development of an estuary entrance decision support system in Victoria. The project was designed to facilitate the management of estuary openings in a manner that was acceptable to stakeholders whilst minimising environmental repercussions. Key features of the process were the inclusion of stakeholder input and the integration of their concerns with the views of scientific experts to develop a workable solution to a serious environmental problem. This article will proceed in the next section with a review of the approaches to developing environmental management strategies. The third section will consider the background to the development of, and describe the operation of, the Estuary Entrance Management Support System (EEMSS). The fourth section analyses the extent to which EEMSS represents elements of good coastal zone management.

Approaches to developing environmental management strategies in coastal zones Prior to the 1990s, the planning and implementation of strategies to manage the environment (particularly the coastal environment) were primarily the domain of government agencies on advice taken from experts in the field. In recent times, however, the need for greater stakeholder involvement in these processes has been increasingly acknowledged (Stojanovic & Barker 2008). A range of approaches, with varying degrees of participation, have been experimented with across a number of countries (Hildebrand 1997). Whilst there is general consensus that a participatory approach is preferred, there is no agreement on what form this participation should take (Ross et al. 2002). Traditionally, the limited management of coastal zones undertaken was directed from the top down. Decisions tended to be made at a planning level which largely excluded community consultation. However, this approach created problems which undermined effective implementation. Edwards et al. (1997) argue that lack of stakeholder consultation in the planning process creates suspicion and hostility amongst local stakeholders. This fosters conflict rather than cooperation. Similarly, Hegarty (1997) argues that top down approaches to coastal zone management can


Australasian Journal of Environmental Management

51

result in confusion, conflict and a lack of understanding between the parties involved. The opposite to the top down approach is to take a bottom up approach to decision making. This approach begins with the assumption that local stakeholders have the knowledge and vested interest in developing strategies which will ensure the effective management of the coastal environment. Hegarty (1997, p. 197) argues that there is a need to ‘start with what the people know’ and use this as the foundation to develop an integrated and coordinated approach. Berkes et al. (2007) argue that Indigenous observations cannot replace scientific measurements, but stakeholder participation brings a wider range of knowledge to integrated coastal management. An analysis of participatory processes for identifying sustainability indicators by Fraser et al. (2006) highlights further challenges for bottom up approaches. Some common problems identified included the process of stakeholder consultation, that can be time consuming and expensive. Data collection can be difficult to process and handle, and the scale at which stakeholder involvement is undertaken, if done at ‘too local’ a scale, can be difficult to manage. The lessons drawn from this analysis suggest that although it is not necessary to initiate strategies from the bottom up it is important that local stakeholders have significant input into the process. This highlights one of the key issues associated with a bottom up approach to developing coastal management strategies; namely, the interface between technical experts and local stakeholders. Renn (2006) argues that it does not make sense to replace technical expertise with public perceptions, nor is it justified to have experts impose their own value judgements. Processes are needed that enable integration of technical knowledge with public values. Hybrid approaches which attempt to combine elements of the top down and bottom up processes have been utilised in a number of instances. For example, Gregory and Wellman (2001) described the development of a community-based development tool that takes into account community responses to actions proposed to environmental problems in the Tillamook Bay estuary (Oregon, USA). The aim of that project was to develop a science-based and community-supported management plan for the estuary. Although local representation was involved in the construction of a management plan, the key role played by the community was in the evaluation of the strategy. The project was successful in encouraging public involvement. However, the linking of scientific input and local participation needed greater focus to better deal with trade-offs across multiple dimensions of value (Gregory & Wellman 2001). Approaches to coastal management are widely debated around the world. Hildebrand (1997) summarises a number of studies which evaluate approaches to coastal management in developed and developing countries. Stojanovic and Ballinger (2009) report on the wide range of coastal management initiatives that have been implemented in Britain. They highlight the way in which management practices have been transformed when a partnership approach has been taken to the development of schemes. A useful way to summarise the elements of effective coastal zone management systems is to adopt the nine factors of effective environmental management identified by Stojanovic et al. (2004; Table 1). The question for this article is how these principles might apply to the development of the EEMSS for Victorian estuaries. The EEMSS takes the expertise

52 M. Keneley et al. Table 1.


Factors

Factors determining successful environmental strategies. Explanation

Comprehensiveness Incorporates a wide range of views on issues and brings together a range of stakeholders. Participation Processes which engage communities of interest and the public in the planning and management of the coast. Cooperation Creation of opportunities for cooperation and collaboration between organisations and individuals. Contingency A flexible and locally specific approach which takes into account local circumstances. Precaution The ability to take action in advance against possible danger or failure. Long-termism The ability to take a long-term approach to change and to planning for change. Focus The ability to prioritise actions and focus on specific goals. Incrementalism Management is seen as an iterative process. In this context it is important to be pragmatic and make detailed assessments of important issues Adaptability The capacity to adjust to new situations and incorporate past learning. Note: Compiled from Stojanovic et al. 2004 and Stojanovic & Ballinger 2009.

generated in government agencies and educational facilities and melds it with local community knowledge to provide a tool for assisting in the making of estuary entrance management decisions. The process allows the flow of information from the top down and bottom up to become integrated through agency and community interaction. The support system produced represents the values put on natural and constructed assets by both experts and community. The following section investigates the development of this system in more detail.

The management of estuaries in southwest Victoria In many areas, estuarine catchments have been the focus of land settlement which has seen the landscape cleared and altered to support farming and agricultural pursuits, as well as urban and industrial uses. Alteration to the topography of the land through the draining of ‘swamps’ and clearing of native vegetation has altered the natural cycle of estuary openings. Inundation and flooding have become increasingly acute problems leading to management strategies which have had serious repercussions for the ecology and environment of estuary ecosystems. Artificial openings of estuaries in Victoria have been occurring since early settlement by Europeans. Usually mouth openings were undertaken by local landowners with little thought to the environmental consequences. In the 1990s, an attempt to manage this practice through a licensing system was introduced. However, estuary management continued to be problematic. The introduction of a formal licensing system did little to abate the problems associated with intermittent river mouth closures and associated artificial openings. There was a lack of consistency in approaches which used a trigger level mechanism to form the basis of the decision-making process. Moreover, the process was overly bureaucratic, involving input from several government agencies before action could be taken. The practice was not flexible enough to take into account specific ecological and land use factors impacting on the river system at the time.



53

More importantly it did not encourage a partnership between local stakeholders and estuary managers. In this sense it did not promote sustainable outcomes or encourage the development of practices which would foster a greater understanding of estuary ecosystems and the need for effective management strategies in the future. Continuing controversy surrounding artificial estuary openings in the late 1990s led to the growing recognition of the need for a consistent approach to estuary management. The Victorian Coastal Strategy released in 2002 recommended the development of guidelines for estuary openings which incorporated environmental, social and economic factors (Victorian Coastal Council 2002). It was within this context that the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority (GHCMA) developed a decision support tool which would provide a mechanism for determining the viability of river mouth openings. The stated aims of the EEMSS were to develop a tool to assist in the making of decisions which would protect the cultural, socioeconomic and environmental assets of the estuary, and improve public and agency understanding of estuary entrance management issues (Arundel 2006). Four southwestern Victoria estuaries were chosen as pilot studies for the development of the decision support system. These were the Aire, Anglesea, Eumeralla (Yambuk) and Glenelg river systems (Figure 1). Selection was based on their ecological and environmental significance, and the fact that they had a history of active community debate over issues concerning estuary mouth openings. The development and implementation of the decision support tool, which formed the basis of estuary management, occurred in four stages. Each stage involved a link to the community either through direct inputs or through reporting processes. Figure 2 outlines the process of development. Community awareness and involvement in the project was encouraged in a number of formal and informal ways. However, the use of workshops provided the main connection between the project team and stakeholders in each of the pilot estuaries. During stage 1 and stage 2 a series of publicly advertised workshops was held which were open to all interested parties. Stages 1 and 2 allowed for the direct contribution of the local stakeholders to the construction of the decision support

Figure 1.

EEMSS pilot estuaries in southwest Victoria.

54 M. Keneley et al. STAGE 1: DEVELOPMENT Input from stakeholders on the use of the estuary and the impact of openings and closures. Determine stakeholder perceptions of estuary management. Provide an opportunity for stakeholder input on suggested means of improving management.

STAGE 2: DATA COLLECTION AND ASSET VALUATION


Collect data on assets of each estuary. Explain database to stakeholders and indicate how the information provided in stage 1 was incorporated. Use stakeholder input to assign values to assets. Use stakeholder input to assign scores to threats.

STAGE 3: IMPLEMENTATION Utilise local stakeholder observations as a method of collecting data. Collect and store data. Refine scores assigned to threats of opening or not opening estuary mouth.

STAGE 4: DECISION-MAKING AND REPORTING Manager makes decision regarding opening or not opening estuary mouth. Manager required to generate an impact report and an assessment report. Reports made available to the public.

Figure 2.

Stakeholder engagement in EEMSS.

tool. The implementation phase (stage 3) facilitated further stakeholder involvement in the collection of data on water levels and the condition of the estuary mouth, with local community members engaged to observe and report on river conditions. This information was then used to determine the threat status of the estuary. In stage 4 there was no specific stakeholder involvement with the decision-making process. However, stakeholders were made aware, through the reporting mechanism, of the steps taken to assess and respond to estuary conditions. The decision to open an estuary mouth rested with the nominated catchment management authority representative. The decision taken was informed by the information available through the EEMSS database. The manager was then required to produce an impact assessment report. These reports were made publicly available to ensure that the decision-making process was open and transparent. The EEMSS formed following the processes outlined in stages one and two, was based on the conceptual model outlined in Figure 2. Several key concerns had to be



55

addressed in its construction. It had to be transparent, user friendly and scientifically defensible. Moreover, it had to be applicable in the management of all intermittently closed estuaries across southwest Victoria. In this context it was important to ensure that the decision-making system was capable of incorporating the features of each estuary in terms of its unique assets, be they cultural, socioeconomic or environmental, as well as providing a methodology which could be applied more widely. The model (Figure 3) highlights the process. There are three components that input into the decision-making process. These are: data collection and the establishment of rules guiding overall procedure; the construction of an impact assessment taking into account local environmental and community considerations; and the utilisation of the impact assessment to a specific flood event subject to particular requirements, as laid out in a decision-making checklist. The central point of the platform is the impact assessment which uses an assets and threats approach to provide input into the decision-making process. Three types of assets are assessed,*environmental, socioeconomic and cultural (including Indigenous cultures). Each asset is ranked using a scoring methodology which determines the significance of the asset to the environment or the community which utilised that environment. Panels of experts (technical advisory groups) were established to determine the environmental assets of the particular estuary and identify the threats to these assets from opening or not opening the estuary.

Figure 3.

The conceptual model of EEMSS. Source: Arundel 2006.


56 M. Keneley et al. Socioeconomic and cultural assets were identified and scored in consultation with community stakeholders (Arundel 2006). Each asset was assigned a score by the relevant interest group. Each score reflected the importance of that asset to either the ecological function or the physical use of the estuary. The asset and threat scores were combined to produce an impact score which indicated the likely effects of opening or not opening the estuary. This information was then used to generate an impact assessment report that informed the estuary manager’s decision on whether or not to open a river mouth. The final decision was not taken until a manager’s checklist was completed. This checklist is designed to ensure that action to open a river mouth is effective. It takes into account sea state, tidal and weather conditions at the time of the proposed opening. The estuary entrance decision support tool forms a structure for the integration of the essential knowledge systems that inform our understanding of complex ecosystems. It represents a mechanism that encourages the interaction of the various stakeholder groups at both the development and implementation stages. The roles assigned to each group in this process are clearly defined. Whilst there is an acknowledged respect for expert scientific opinion, it is not the only driver of the decision-making process. The input of local stakeholders is also a factor in contributing to the impact assessment.

Contribution to coastal management practice In order to evaluate the effectiveness of EEMSS we now turn to the nine factors of effective environmental management provided by Stojanovic et al. (2004): comprehensiveness; participation; cooperation; contingency; precaution; long- termism; focus; incrementalism and adaptability.

Comprehensiveness The approach to the development and application of EEMSS is comprehensive in that the management tool is sufficiently wide in scope to incorporate a full view of the issues relating to the surrounding coastal and inland environment. A range of experts were sought to analyse the impact of river openings on estuary assets and technical advisory groups were employed to assess specific environmental assets such as fish, birds and vegetation. Consultants were employed to assess issues related to agricultural land, roads, stormwater, septic systems and human health (Arundel 2006). In addition, processes were made available for local stakeholders to have input into the assessment of socioeconomic assets. This approach assisted in building an awareness of the interconnectedness of the ecology of the estuary and its socioeconomic value. Stojanovic et al. (2004) identify boundary setting as an issue which may impact on the comprehensiveness of policy initiatives. They found that a comprehensive approach usually bases boundaries on an ecosystem rather than administrative boundaries; the EEMSS is no exception, using the estuary as the relevant boundary. This often entailed bridging several local government jurisdictions and increasing the number of agencies involved in the decision-making process.


57


Participation Studies on the value of participation in management processes suggest that communities that participate in the formation of coastal management strategies and plans are more likely to support their implementation (Stojanovic et al. 2004). Stakeholder engagement was an important component in the construction of the EEMSS. The use of workshops was an integral part of the process. Workshops were used to assess the importance of assets and threats, improve communication between researchers, community and managers of EEMSS, and convey information about the operation of the decision tool. Involvement in data collection and monitoring of estuaries also assisted in fostering a greater understanding of the ecology of estuarine systems (for example through community-based monitoring when particular estuaries closed). Reporting requirements included making impact and assessment reports available to the public, ensuring the decision-making process was transparent. There were, however, limitations to participation in certain specified areas. In determining the value of environmental assets, groups of experts (technical advisory groups) were the acknowledged authority. The rationale was to ensure that the environmental assessment was based on the current scientific knowledge and judgements about good practice. This provided a foundation upon which other knowledge of the history of the estuary could be built.

Cooperation Cooperation has been found to raise awareness between different groups of stakeholders, lead to further collaborative projects, and deliver more effective management outcomes (Stojanovic & Ballinger 2009). The EEMSS both fostered and relied on a number of levels of cooperative practices. Participation engendered cooperation as the various stakeholders worked towards a common outcome. Cooperation was required with related government agencies who either had jurisdiction over, or an interest in, the various estuaries. These agencies included local councils, catchment management authorities, and state and commonwealth government departments. The protocols developed with EEMSS had to fit within the established processes in which these agencies operated.

Contingency Models of contingent management argue that effective management comes about when the context of the local environment is clearly understood (Stojanovic et al. 2004). EEMSS takes a contingent approach in two key respects. In the initial formulation of an impact assessment structure, the various types of assets (environmental, socioeconomic and cultural) are determined with reference to scientific and community knowledge of the local estuary. The assets and threats to these assets (socioeconomic and cultural) are scored on the basis of local input. These scores are further adapted to take account of varying water levels and times of the year. In the application of the decision tool, current conditions are accounted for by applying ‘threat modifiers’. These factors allow estuary managers to assess the threats associated with artificial estuary opening in light of prevailing tidal and

58 M. Keneley et al. weather conditions. In this respect the decision tool incorporates a high degree of flexibility enabling estuary managers to specifically take account of local factors.


Precaution Precaution refers to lack of certainty not being an excuse for taking actions in advance to protect against future incidents. Anticipating and acting on likely problems is thought to reduce the costs of rectifying environmental damage after it has occurred (Stojanovic et al. 2004). The structure of EEMSS does not encourage pre-emptive action. Artificial estuary openings cannot be approved until the three steps in the decision process are undertaken. Initially, managers make an evaluation based on information provided in the impact assessment report. They are then required to fulfil the condition stipulated in the manager’s checklist. These include the notification of estuary users and cultural heritage representatives, as well as the relevant consents required under legislation (Arundel 2006). Finally, permit holders responsible for the physical opening of the river must undertake a feasibility assessment. Although precautionary action is not facilitated under the decision support system the necessity of such action is moderated. A key reason for taking precautionary action is lack of accurate data and uncertainty (Stojanovic & Ballinger 2009). The EEMSS attempts to address this issue by using estuary monitoring systems to encourage a regular and effective flow of information to estuary managers. The presentation of data in the impact assessment report is displayed over a range of estuarine water levels, which allows managers to make a more accurate evaluation of potential future threats. In this respect there is a monitoring process that reduces the need for precautionary action by ensuring that the flow of information provides managers with accurate knowledge of current conditions.

Long-termism It is generally accepted that environmental management requires a long-term approach (Stojanovic & Ballinger 2009). Prior to the introduction of EEMSS, decisions to artificially open river mouths were ad hoc and reactive to particular situations; there was little long-term oversight of estuary ecosystems. EEMSS encouraged a longer-term perspective in two ways. The collection and storage of data, which is an integral part of the process, improves long-term knowledge surrounding not only the ecology of estuaries but also their socioeconomic value. The systems approach applied by EEMSS means that managers are not reacting to single issues in an ad hoc manner as they arise. However, to take a truly longterm approach, EEMSS must necessarily be incorporated into the broader portfolio of integrated coastal zone management. As yet EEMSS has not been fully integrated into either a Victorian or federal coastal strategy (Victorian Coastal Council 2008; Gippel et al. 2009). The slow recognition of EEMSS in the broader strategic framework is characteristic of the ‘project state’ where a fixed time schedule and dedicated budget usually means that projects have a limited life (Sjo¨ blom 2009).


59


Focus ‘Focus’ refers to a structured approach that considers all elements contributing to an environmental problem and allows managers to determine and attend to critical issues. In this context managers must be aware of the interconnectedness of environmental issues (Stojanovic et al. 2004). The EEMSS specifically targets the issue of estuary entrance management. In doing so, however, it takes into account issues associated with the whole estuary ecology and its human usage. In this sense it represents a focused approach to an environmental issue. The use of an assets register provides a mechanism through which environmental and socioeconomic impacts can be identified and prioritised. The use of various groups of stakeholders to determine the value of specific assets is a common tool used in the development of integrated coastal management strategies (Gregory & Wellman 2001; Hoare 2002; Stojanovic & Ballinger 2009). The EEMSS formalised this strategy in its initial workshops in which particular stakeholder groups were invited to make a complete assessment of estuarine assets. However, as discussed above, the focus shifted back to management control once the initial system was developed.

Incrementalism An incremental approach to environmental issues allows managers to build on other experiences to gain a greater understanding of specific environmental issues. The assumption is that managers have to deal with suboptimal information and need to rely on other means to fill information gaps. This may involve taking a more pragmatic approach to environmental management (Stojanovic & Ballinger 2009). The EEMSS addresses the problem of information gaps in its data collection and storage processes. In building a bank of knowledge pertaining to specific estuaries, the system reduces the issues associated with inadequate information. The structured nature of the decision-making process, however, does not encourage informal decisions based on pragmatic experiences. This was a trade-off to ensure that processes were transparent and scientifically defensible. This does not mean that managers are totally constrained in their approach to estuary management. The use of threat modifiers allows a degree of flexibility to account for current conditions in compiling an impact assessment report on the state of an estuary. What is required is a continual monitoring and evaluation of the decision process that is recorded for future analysis so that the corporate knowledge of individual managers is not lost.

Adaptability The ability to adjust and accommodate new knowledge, new situations and new issues is an important part of sustainable environmental practice. In developing the EEMSS it was recognised that an adaptive approach, which would allow for the incorporation of changing parameters in the future, was needed. However, external constraints have been an issue in this process. A lack of coordination between government agencies, and a lack of funding, have not allowed the program to be fully implemented. This has meant that the processes of growth and refinement that would usually be a part of such strategies have been unable to occur.


60 M. Keneley et al. The issue of adaptability highlights some of the constraints associated with this approach to estuary management. A key problem was that there was no specific government agency responsible for the implementation of the support system. The EEMSS was developed at a regional level where the local agency (the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority) saw a need for a more coordinated and collaborative approach to estuary entrance management. However, there appeared to be a lack of systematic coordination between the trials and full implementation, with development of the EEMSS across various stages being opportunistic rather than planned. Further, while participation and cooperation were high during trials, this commitment fell when full implementation did not follow. Implementation failure was further compounded by a lack of ongoing funding. This impacted on the continued development of the decision support system, as well as creating staffing and data storage issues. Lack of long-termism has meant the project has continued to operate on a short-term horizon as, at this stage, it has been unable to fully translate into a long-term program for all estuaries across the state. These issues point to the blocks to effective coastal zone management that impede the development of such projects. They suggest that fuller integration into broader coastal planning initiatives at the state and national level will ensure more effective outcomes in the future. Conclusion Estuary management is a challenge in many countries where the interests of local communities and stakeholders have to be weighed against the effect on the ecology of these complex river systems. Approaches to the issue have varied, but experience suggests that neither top down nor bottom up strategies are totally effective. What is needed is some type of synthesis of both processes. Moreover, it is recognised that participatory programs which involve a degree of stakeholder participation are required to ensure a broad acceptance of management plans. Renn (2006, p. 40) summarises the issue in arguing that ‘discursive processes need a structure that assures the integration of technical expertise, regulatory requirements and public values’. The EEMSS represents an example where a process of agency and stakeholder interaction has combined to produce a decision support tool which takes account of those three factors*science, regulatory provisions and public values. In evaluating the soundness of this approach it would appear that EEMSS fulfils many of the criteria that other studies have determined make for sound environmental practice. It takes a comprehensive approach incorporating a range of issues that relate to an estuary’s ecology and its socioeconomic value. It encourages participation but sets clear boundaries to the inputs of stakeholders. In particular, it starts with a base of expert information which establishes the science behind the operation of an estuary. This forms a platform from which other types of knowledge can be incorporated. However, the existence of identifiable characteristics of effective environmental management within a project does not necessarily equate to the generation of successful outcomes. Preliminary assessment of the project suggested a positive acceptance of this approach by local stakeholders (Arundel 2006). Other positive outcomes have included a greater understanding by local stakeholders of the complex issues and processes involved in estuary management, and a reduction in complaints from those local landowners involved in the consultation process.



61

A number of more practical outcomes have also accrued from the development of the estuary management system. Of particular note has been the reduction in fish kills due to artificial openings of river mouths in the local area (H. Arundel, 2011, pers. comm. 15 March). Whilst benefits have accrued from the EEMSS project, incorporating this type of grassroots initiative into broader integrated coastal strategies and processes remains a considerable challenge. Stojanovic and Ballinger (2009) argue that agreed goals for sustainable development can be established through integrated coastal management measures at the local level. Implementation failure is a common event across many coastal jurisdictions. The experience of the development and implementation of the EEMSS would suggest that governments, in developing future coastal management strategies, would do well to take heed of local initiatives and support them more fully. Acknowledgements The authors are indebted to Helen Arundel for advice on the operation of EEMSS, and to the anonymous referees of this journal. This research was undertaken within the CSIRO Flagship Coastal Collaboration Cluster with funding from the CSIRO Flagship Collaboration Fund.

References Arundel, H 2006, EEMSS background report and user manual, GHCMA, Hamilton, viewed 10 August 2011, Bhttp://www.ghcma.vic.gov.au/media/uploads/1_EEMSS_booklet_a3.pdf. Barton, J & Sherwood, J 2004, Estuary opening management: information analysis, Parks Victoria Technical Report No. 11, Melbourne. Barton, JL, Pope, AJ, Quinn, GP, Sherwood, JE 2008. Indentifying Threats to the Ecological Condition of Victorian Estuaries, Department of Sustainability and the Environment Technical Report, Melbourne. Berkes, F, Berkes, M & Fast, H 2007, ‘Collaborative integrated management in Canada’s north: the role of local and traditional knowledge and community-based monitoring’, Coastal Management, vol. 35, pp. 1431162. Commonwealth of Australia 2002, Australian catchment, river and estuary assessment 2002: assessing the aggregate impact of resource use on key natural ecosystems, National Land and Water Resources Audit, Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Edwards, SD, Jones, PJS & Nowell, D 1997, ‘Participation in coastal zone management initiatives: a review and analysis of examples from the UK’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 36, pp. 143165. Fraser, EDG, Dougill, AJ, Mabee, WE, Ree, M & McAlpine, P 2006, ‘Bottom up and top down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environment management’, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 78, pp. 114127. Gippel, C, Anderson, B, Harty, C, Bond, N, Sherwood, J & Pope, A 2009, Gap analysis and strategy development for national level estuary environmental flows, National Water Commission Waterlines Report Series 17, Australian Government, Canberra. Gregory, R & Wellman, K 2001, ‘Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study’, Ecological Economics, vol. 39, pp. 3752. Hegarty, A 1997, ‘Start with what the people know: a community based approach to integrated coastal zone management’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 36, pp. 167203. Hildebrand, LP 1997, ‘Introduction to the special issue on community based coastal management’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 36, pp. 19.


62 M. Keneley et al. Hoare, AG 2002, ‘Natural harmonies but divided loyalties: the evolution of estuary management as exemplified by the Severn estuary’, Applied Geography, vol. 22, pp. 125. Renn, O 2006, ‘Participatory processes for designing environmental policies’, Land Use Policy, vol. 23, pp. 3443. Ross, H, Buchy, M & Proctor, W 2002, ‘Laying down the ladder: a typology of public participation in Australian natural resource management’, Australian Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 9, pp. 205217. Sherwood, J, Mondon, J & Fenton, C 2008, ‘Classification and management issues of estuaries in Western Victoria, Australia’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, vol. 120, pp. 257276. Sjo¨ blom, S 2009, ‘Administrative short-termism: a non-issue in environmental and regional governance’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, vol. 11, pp. 165168. Stojanovic, T & Ballinger, RC 2009, ‘Integrated coastal management: a comparative analysis of four UK initiatives’, Applied Geography, vol. 29, pp. 4962. Stojanovic, T, Ballinger, RC & Lalwani, CS 2004, ‘Successful integrated coastal management: measuring it with research and contributing to wise practice’, Ocean and Coastal Management, vol. 47, pp. 273298. Stojanovic, T & Barker, N 2008, ‘Improving governance through coastal partnerships in the UK’, The Geographical Journal, vol. 174, pp. 344360. Victorian Coastal Council 2002, Victorian Coastal Strategy 2002, Victorian Coastal Council, Melbourne. Victorian Coastal Council 2008, Victorian Coastal Strategy 2008, Victorian Coastal Council, Melbourne.