The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area is 350,000 square kilometres in area and runs for over 2000 kilometres along the coast of North Queensland, Australia. It is managed by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) on the principle of ecologically sustainable multiple-use. The size of the area, the scale of threats to the region and the sheer number of important environments and organisms that are being protected makes the region an important management case study.

The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) is one of the world's great natural systems containing the largest coral reef community in the world as well as extensive mangrove forests( 54% of the world's mangrove species are found here) and seagrass communities. For many threatened and endangered species that range across international boundaries, such as dugong and turtle, the GBRWHA is a significant refuge.

For local communities the sea is often regarded as the last great "common". To many indigenous communities the GBRWHA contains areas of spiritual and subsistence value important to the integrity of their communities which have differing concepts of "right of access".

The GBRWHA also supports a $1 billion tourist industry, a $250 million commercial fishing industry (with a recreational fishing effort of equal size) and has major agricultural and urban expansion adjacent to its boundary. Use within and adjacent to the GBRWHA has increased considerably over the past 20 years. Major challenges facing the GBRMPA today are a large and growing reef based tourist industry (increasing from 186 000 visitors in 1988 to 1.5 million in 1995), commercial and recreational fishing pressures, shipping, rapidly growing urban areas, continued demand for integrated coastal and island based resorts, and the downstream effects of increasing land use for agricultural industries such as sugar cane and cattle grazing, and for residential development.

While the GBRMPA had established unprecedented levels of public participation in the initial phase of development of zoning plans for the GBRMP, by 1990 it was apparent to the author that more efficient mechanisms were needed to improve communication with stakeholders. Feedback from the Australian Resource Assessment Commission, Coastal Zone Inquiry in 1992/93 and The Burns Inquiry into Queensland Recreational Fishing, reported that many community groups were concerned at their lack of involvement in the management (as opposed to planning) of their local coastal areas. After the initial phase of establishment of the GBRMP, consultation was focused more on peak bodies based in major population centres and local input was limited to single events, such as the release of a plan of management. In response to these concerns a methodology has been developed for improved community input into the management of the GBRWHA.

The objectives of establishing new structures to involve the community in management of the GBRWHA was to provide local input into the management structure, increased compliance through ownership of decisions and forums to allow disputes between competing interests to be resolved within communities.

Twenty years ago marine parks were new to Australia and the world so much of the GBRMPA's early effort in public education and extension focussed on raising community awareness about the existence of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and its" values. Another major task in the early days (and still today) is overcoming deeply held cynicism about the extent to which public involvement was effective in or desirable in the planning process. Up until 1993 the GBRWHA was managed using a limited number of tools, such as marine park zoning and commercial activity permits. These were effective at meeting some objectives but were not effective in the light of exponentially increasing pressures.

Community input into the management of the GBRWHA generally only occurred as public meetings during reviews of the zoning plans (every 7-10 years) or, when objections were made to the issuing of permits. Consequently contact tended to be reactive and confused by a number of unrelated and unresolved issues that could not be dealt with by the process. In addition consultation, in some cases, tended to be with peak groups based in Brisbane, thousands of kilometres from local community groups. It was stated in many public meetings that peak bodies did not reflect local concerns either through ignorance of local climatic, environmental and economic imperatives or through lack of concern about branches far removed from the "centres of power" in Brisbane and Canberra.

In addition, some major stakeholders were disadvantaged by a system that relied on formal processes such as written responses and representations framed within a particular cultural framework. This disadvantaged some groups such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities where English may be a second, third or fourth language. Similar difficulties were apparent in the commercial fishing industry who were not accustomed to the formal bureaucratic process. The result being a lack of understanding and commitment of these groups to the management process.

The emphasis today is on more frequent, meaningful and ongoing public involvement. Groups that have an interest in the GBRWHA can contribute considerable information, experience and ideas to the development and management of the area. Community involvement leads to a better understanding by participants of issues and possible solutions. They are more likely to understand and accept management actions if they have been involved in the process.

Extension officers have developed new ways to explain management concerns and actions to these groups. This has involved extensive qualitative research to specifically target community groups using appropriate media and language. Priority was given to users that were most affected by decisions including commercial and recreational fishers, tourist industry, conservation groups, rural communities and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Communication between user groups was then facilitated by Extension Officers, leading to the comprehensive consultation processes we have today.

There are several elements essential to the community involvement process:

• Education of the interest groups so they have sufficient understanding of issues and management options, to ensure effective input;
• Education of the GBRMPA about interest groups needs and ideas;
• Conflict resolution between the GBRMPA and interest groups to achieve; mutual respect, understanding and acceptance of management decisions; and,
• Conflict resolution between interest groups to achieve mutual understanding of each others views.
• Commitment by agencies to encourage participation

This increased community involvement and support has been achieved in a number of ways using both a direct communication with, and conflict resolution between, competing interest groups.

In summary these methods include:

• Establishment of community based Regional Marine Resources Advisory Committees (RMRACs);
• Issue based workshops involving competing "interest" groups;
• Cross sectorial facilitation using forums and conflict resolution sessions;
• The establishment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Councils of Elders;
• Representations to zoning reviews and management planning processes;
• Continuous liaison with all affected groups; and
• Joint projects between users and the GBRMPA such as the development of the Cooktown Offshore Management Plan

In 1993/94 the extension unit established ten community based Regional Marine Resources Advisory Committees (RMRACs) at major centres along the Queensland Coast. They include representatives of groups interested in the management of the GBRMP such as commercial and recreational fishers, the tourist industry, conservation groups, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and local councils. The role of the RMRACs is to represent their interest groups and to provide advice to marine resource management agencies based on local expertise.

Initially the running of the RMRACs was shared by the GBRMPA extension staff and consultants until the appointment of a full time Coordinator. The Coordinators role is to ensure that two-way information flows are maintained between GBRMPA and the RMRAC and between the RMRAC and the community. Coordination between various RMRACs occurs at an annual workshop attended by key GBRMPA staff and the chairs and deputy chairs of all RMRACs. Similar workshops are organised regionally with larger attendance when issues affect two or more RMRACs.

Specific benefits to the managers of the GBRWHA from RMRACs include:

• Having representatives of all the marine user and interest groups at a regional level in a single forum to discuss issues;
• Identification of regional issues that need to be addressed at both a local and regional level;
• Encouraging the exchange of information both ways, giving managers opportunities to develop greater rapport with clients;
• Well informed committee members that are prepared to respond to new planning initiatives and understand the informational requirements of management agencies;
• Agreement on acceptable levels of change

When issues are raised by community groups the most appropriate approach is used to ensure effective and timely communication. If an issue affects only one group then it is necessary to only deal with that group. Using communication strategies the degree of impact and the geographic spread of interest is identified. Opinion "leaders" and "formers" in each group are identified as is their information needs. Using a variety of media together, where possible, with "Face to Face" contact, the scientific basis for the management decision and extent of problem is explained. A series of possible solutions are put forward and discussed in the context of impact on the interest group. Where possible Memorandums of Understanding are developed to establish an agreed process for moving forward. To be effective a policy of maintaining frequent face to face or phone contact between an extension officer and key interest group members, together with attendance at regular meetings is essential to the establishment of trust and understanding.

If the issue or the management solution affects more that one group and there is conflicting views, a cross-sectoral approach is used. A workshop, involving key players from respective interest groups, is organised to present issues identified by GBRMPA (or another interest group). Technical/scientific staff are available to clarify issues and concepts together with identifying optimum situations. Conflict resolution skills are then employed to identify areas of agreement between interest groups and methods for resolving areas of disagreement. This may be facilitated at local level through the RMRACs or involve peak bodies

Representations to zoning reviews and management plans provide a formal input into the planning process that is laid down in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. To ensure equity of process, systems have been developed to allow groups to make representation either verbally or in languages other than English. The public review period of the planning process is also a valuable time to identify whether the consultation process is correctly identifying all issues.

A number of joint projects have been carried out with volunteer and community groups to increase involvement in the management of the GBRWHA. These include the "Eye on the Reef" Program; The Low Isle Preservation Society Aboriginal Ranger Training Program; Community surveys run by four RMRACs in conjunction with local government; the development of the Off Shore Cooktown Plan of Management by isolated communities in the Far North of the Park; Memorandums of Understanding with the Darumbal People and other indigenous groups to protect dugong populations; community awareness projects and volunteer placement of marker buoys to protect fringing reef from anchor damage; and the development of Codes of Best Environmental Practice with the tourism industry and recreational fishers

A measure of the success of the program and the trust established is illustrated in a few examples:

• the request by the Cairns and Whitsunday communities for a Moratorium on the issuing of new tourism permits until GBRMPA completed a plan of management ( this corresponds to the previous anti regulation philosophy previously held);
• support from local communities for the protection of wetlands, adjacent to but impacting on the GBRWHA;
• the signing of Memorandums of understanding with a number of indigenous communities to suspend hunting of dugong until numbers rose;
• strong general support for a series of recently released Plans of Management even though they introduce the strongest controls yet proposed on activities in the GBRWHA.

It is apparent to the author that previous consultation processes were not effective in involving communities in the growing number of issues and pressures affecting a multiple use marine park.

All communities are unique and should be treated as such. The process of consultation is as important as the outcome and should be aimed directly at the needs of the affected community and the sub groups therein. It is this philosophy that has provided a more receptive and supportive public. In many previously hostile communities there is now ownership of the process with acceptance of a Statutory Body (GBRMPA) that has ultimate responsibility (and liability) but can and does learn and benefit from the knowledge of locals. Feedback to communities on how their concerns and input are being dealt with is also critical to ensure trust in the process. The increased involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities is especially gratifying.

The process is replaceable as has been evidenced by the work of the author in developing and reviewing consultation and communication strategies for other management agencies in other Australian States, and Pacific and Asian Nations. The tools, however differ between areas as each community is unique. Often as unique as the natural areas that are being managed.

A general lesson is that it is important to design a process so that practitioners don't enter the process locked into a predetermined model. Many practitioners have a mental model relevant to the management of a traditional national park where users are generally on side; where visitors come to visit through choice, and are receptive to messages about protection, conservation and the need to protect some areas of this planet free from exploitation, free from the influence of man.

In marine and natural area management we are dealing with a totally different and often entrenched belief system: freedom of access; the (perceived) economic benefit of tapping (perceive) unlimited resources and overcoming a hostile environments; and a belief in a common resource available to all for the taking. The existence of a system such as the GBRWHA inevitably leads to the need to address complex resource allocation issues and powerful political vested interests. The challenges of providing ecologically sustainable fishing and tourism industry while maintaining values for indigenous and recreational interests, means that sooner or later the system has to address the issues of limits to particular activities. It is only through the extension role of taking science to communities and giving ownership of important natural areas that we can change the "mind-set" from hunter (take what I can now before it runs away or someone else gets it) to husbander where a stable system is seen as having value in its own right and in maintaining other qualities valued by the community, such as clean water, biodiversity and alternative income through tourism and sustainable harvesting.