Implications for sustainability, social justice and equity

Introduction

The Port Hinchinbrook case study exemplifies the complicated nature of issues related to the management of tourism in Australia's coastal zones. Since the controversy began in the late 1980s, it has warranted and attracted the involvement of the federal government, the Queensland Government, the local Cardwell Shire Council, numerous NGOs, scientific bodies, individual scientists, local residents and the development companies who have owned the Port Hinchinbrook development site at various stages. The differences in the viewpoints of these stakeholders often became the topic of intense controversy, meaning negotiations between them were at times also very heated.

As discussed in the previous chapter, the issue was taken to the Federal Court by a
non-government organisation, Friends of Hinchinbrook, and also became the subject of a Senate Inquiry in 1998-99. In terms of drawing attention to the often convoluted decision-making processes involved in managing issues of environmental concern in Australia, the Port Hinchinbrook development therefore provides a fitting example. It also raises important issues regarding the sustainability of the tourism industry in Australia and highlights the problems which arise when processes of management are not equitable for all interest groups. This chapter will explore some of these important issues in more detail. 

Implications for sustainability

The controversy over developing Port Hinchinbrook reflects the difficulties involved in balancing the often competing interests and priorities of tourism development and the environmental conservation movement. Perceptions towards what constitutes the 'middle ground' between the social and economic benefits of tourism and its potentially costly environmental impacts, invariably attract differing opinions from each stakeholder involved in the issue (refer to Chapter Two). While the development companies, the local councils, the Queensland Government and many locals believed that the advantages of tourism far outweighed the negative (and in their opinion, minimal) environmental impacts, representatives of the scientific community, the environmentalist movement and many local residents argued otherwise. See image 1

With specific reference to the Port Hinchinbrook development, the full environmental impact of the resort, and hence its implications for sustainability, may not be known for some time into the future because no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was initially carried out. Although the majority of the construction site was technically located outside of the GBR, and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the GBR Marine Park Authority, activities such as dredging in the Hinchinbrook Channel, that formed part of the proposal, did directly involve disruption of areas that are considered part of the GBR Marine Park. Even foreshore activities that were completed in areas under Queensland State jurisdiction were within such close proximity to the GBR that they were bound to have some impact on the World Heritage area. This is especially true when one considers that the environmental effects of activities undertaken in one place usually cannot be isolated to the site's immediate surroundings. See image 2

Implications for social justice and equity

The Port Hinchinbrook case study highlights the often complicated overlap of State and federal responsibilities in coastal management issues. The lack of a clear understanding of who was ultimately responsible for management processes meant that certain groups were able to avoid their responsibility to include all stakeholders. The 1994 'Deed of Agreement' signed between the Queensland Government, the Cardwell Shire Council and Cardwell Properties (CP), for example, was not inclusive. Nor was the 'Deed of Variation', which came into being in 1996 when the federal government joined the signatories of the previous deed. These agreements excluded various interest groups and could not, therefore, be classified as a socially just or an equitable approach to environmental management.

Lack of Environmental Impact Assessment

The problems caused by a lack of thorough Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Port Hinchinbrook development also highlighted the long-term consequences of poor environmental management. This was a clear finding presented in the 1998-99 Hinchinbrook Channel Senate Inquiry. EIAs are an extremely important part of the management process because they assess the significance of any changes that may occur to the environments surrounding a development site. They also provide a platform for discussion between stakeholders.

Replacing a full EIA with a private 'Deed of Agreement' and Environmental Review Report, as was the case in the early 1990s, was seen as inadequate environmental management by many people concerned over Port Hinchinbrook. Whereas an EIA is an effective tool that can be used to inform decision-making processes and expose the nature of proposals to the public, the documents that were used as replacements essentially represented attempts to control something that had already begun.

When the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) came into effect in July 2000, it became mandatory for full EIAs to be conducted before any actions that may have an impact on World Heritage areas could be approved by the federal government. Although this Act would have applied to the Port Hinchinbrook development, by the time it was passed it was too late for this legislation to change the course of management. Construction of the resort was already too far in progress. See image 3

Had an EIA been completed initially, it would have given the public a much greater insight into the possible environmental ramifications of the development. It also may have provided them with evidence from which to base their appeals against the development. The failure of the relevant governments to provide this information reflects the unjust nature of the management process from its beginnings in the late 1980s. Indeed, the Port Hinchinbrook case is an example of one reason why EIAs did eventually become a legal requirement in 2000.

Inadequate management agreements

Another finding of the Hinchinbrook Channel Senate Inquiry was that terminology used at various stages of the management process was often vague and therefore open to interpretation. In 1996, when Senator Hill reversed the 1994 proclamation against dredging and mangrove removal for example, he stated that it was necessary for 'best practice engineering' to be employed to minimise the environmental impacts of the development. This phrase was also used in the 'Deed of Agreement' that had been signed two years earlier, but its precise meaning was not clearly defined by any parties, at any stage of the management process. Essentially, this means that it was left open to the interpretation of CP, which again worked to the development company's advantage.

Inequitable decision-making processes

As a coastal management issue, the development of Port Hinchinbrook provides an example of how governments with ultimate control over the processes of management, placed the interests of the tourism industry before those of environmental conservation, without talking into serious consideration the views of their opponents. This indicates that the outcome achieved cannot be considered socially just or equitable, at least not for the environmental conservationists, scientists and members of the local community who opposed the development and who were excluded from the important management processes that decided its eventual fate.