Coasts and Clean Seas: NHT Program 1999-2000

Coasts and Clean Seas: NHT Program 1999-2000

Many lament the absence of direct investment by the Australian Government in coastal management. We have a long history of our federal government taking an interest for a short period then “switching” off. I have discussed this rather sad story in a paper published in 2022 (Ocean & Coastal Management, vol. 223, 106098, p.1-26). However, there was a short period when stars aligned and direct federal investments were undertaken.

Sale of Telstra in 1996 made available $1.1billion to form the Natural Heritage Trust dedicated in legislation in 1997 to “repair and replenish Australia’s natural capital infrastructure”. The Coalition Government decided to fund a range of programs starting in 1996-7 to 2001-02 in what was the first NHT phase known as NHT Mk1. One was called Coasts and Cleans Seas with a budget of $116.8m over 6 years to “support strategic planning and management activities and community participation to address environmental problems of Australia’s coasts and oceans” (NHT Annual Report 1999-2000).

Coasts and Clean Seas (C&CS) was divided into eight separate programs: Marine  Species Protection, Marine Protected Areas, Introduced Marine Pests, Coastcare, Coastal and Marine Planning, Capacity Building, Coastal Monitoring, and  Clean Seas. They were largely grant based involving government authorities, regional organisations, community groups, NGOs, universities and scientific institutions. These programs were designed “to achieve conservation, sustainable use and repair of Australia’s coastal and marine environments”. A tri-partite arrangement was established between all three levels of government to deliver outcomes. This was unique to C&SC under NHT Mk1.

One of the “stars” that aligned took the form of the federal Minister for Environment: Senator Robert Hill. NHT programs were shared between Environment and Agriculture ministers, but Hill was responsible for C&CS. He had a powerful position in the Coalition Government as leader in the Senate. Hill took this responsibility very seriously visiting many sites, meeting with local communities and personally reading applications. I know this as I was tasked with chairing the NSW review committee on Clean Seas applications spending time with him at various sites. It is possibly no coincidence that once this “champion” of the coast and oceans left this portfolio federal engagement of the type and scale under NHT Mk1 lapsed.

There has been no comprehensive review of all eight C&CS  programs. The one that has received attention is Coastcare. We have Bev Clarke to thank for her brilliant PhD study which resulted in several articles: one on the purpose, components and outcomes in Geographical Research (2006, vol.44, p.310-322); another on the question whether the Coastcare program achieved “meaningful” community participation (Society & Natural Resources, 2008, vol.21. p.891-907). What was so fantastic about Coastcare under NHT Mk 1 was its national scope, engagement with local councils and extensive community participation.

Clean Seas had a different orientation. It sought to facilitate joint action mainly with public authorities  to address sources of pollution. The idea was to achieve improvements in water quality through reduction of litter, stormwater and effluent discharge into coastal and marine environments. The concept of catchment-wide stormwater pollution control was touted as “best practice” something that still resonates with coastal managers. More specifically, the  Cleans Seas program funded a wide range of projects such as gross pollutant traps (GPTs), artificial wetlands, improved effluent treatment, redirection of stormwater and treated effluent for beneficial reuse, and further investigations into sources of pollutants including acid sulfate soils.

The variety of projects funded in each state was extensive. NHT Annual Report 1999-2000 lists all projects under Coasts and Clean Seas for that financial year. It is the only year for which I have detailed data. Funds were allocated for 86 projects under the Clean Seas program (NSW 22, Vic 15, SA, 10, Qld 15, WA 9, Tas, 13, NT 2). They range from over $2m for a major Melbourne Water project to as little as $3000 to Lane Cove Council in NSW for “strategic reduction of pollution impacts” of a creek draining into Sydney Harbour. The variety highlighted a big demand for assistance especially in keeping our estuaries healthy.

There has never been a post NHT Mk1 review of the outcomes of  Clean Seas or any of the other  seven Coasts and Clean Seas programs. The so-called mid-term NHT Mk1 review in 1999 barely touched coastal programs. However, it was generally critical of the “load of small projects” across the whole gamut of funded NHT activities. More emphasis was recommended on strategic targeting of investment and on regional rather than local delivery. I recall being in a meeting discussing NHT Mk2  where more thought was being given to regional planning, market-based mechanisms and institutional reform, all quite worthy ideas. However, this did not go down well with like-minded coastal colleagues. We could hear other interests seeking to promote programs that would not suit the various scales of investment required by the multitude of coastal communities. There was no Coasts and Clean Seas in NHT Mk2.

In looking over the array of projects funded in 1999-2000 under the Coastal Monitoring Program, one can only feel very sad that few lasted more than a couple of years. There were 33 projects that financial year. All states and NT got funds except SA. They focused “on collection of data to assist in management of seagrass, water quality in bays, estuaries and coastal lakes, mangrove and salt marsh in developed areas, coastal reefs, and eutrophication where nutrient rich water cannot support animal life”. Whether it was assisting East Gippsland Waterwatch with a manual on how to sample for estuarine water quality, or funding the Whitsunday River Catchments Coastal Water Monitoring Study, there is no record of follow-up and assessing whether any demonstrated the declared intent of monitoring  to “assess the effectiveness of policies to protect coast environments and habitats”.

Not all was lost with the termination of Coasts and Clean Seas. Some projects had lasting effects especially where local councils were able to install permanent GPTs and other devices to manage pollution. My own local bay in Sydney Harbour, Parsley Bay, was successfully “remediated” allowing for great snorkeling involving federal, council and community funds. It would be great to undertake a thorough investigation of impacts in all states and NT some 20 plus  years post NHT Mk1. But one thing is clear in looking at the list of hundreds of projects under this scheme, most were for help with managing the health of our coastal rivers, estuaries and coastal lakes. Without doubt further help remains necessary as these environments are  vital to the livelihoods and lifestyles of so many Australians. More on this in the next blog.

Bruce Thom

Words by Prof Bruce Thom. Please respect the author’s thoughts and reference appropriately: (c) ACS, 2024. For correspondence about this blog post please email admin@australiancoastalsociety.org.au

#265