DOCSLIB.ORG

Shark Bay World Heritage Property Strategic Plan 2008-2020

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Shark Bay World Heritage Property Strategic Plan 2008-2020 Shark Bay World HeritageShark World Bay Property 2008–2020 Plan Strategic Shark Bay World Heritage Property Strategic Plan 2008–2020 2007199-0408-20 SHARK BAY WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTY STRATEGIC PLAN 2008 - 2020 i ii Shark Bay is a place where World Heritage values are respected by all members of the local community and visitors, where people enjoy their experience, retain an appreciation of the natural and cultural heritage and scientific significance of the Property, and understand the need to protect the natural and cultural values for present and future generations through cooperative management and community involvement whilst allowing for ecologically sustainable activities. iii iv SHARK BAY WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTY STRATEGIC PLAN 2008 - 2020 2008 Department of Environment and Conservation Perth, Western Australia Prepared by Paul McCluskey for the Department of Environment and Conservation and Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Front cover photos: Main image: Big Lagoon, Francois Peron National Park (Rory Chapple/DEC). Other images, left to right: Shark Bay daisy (Ian Anderson/CALM), Shell Beach (John Cleary), 4WD on Dirk Hartog Island (Rory Chapple/DEC), Zuytdorp cliffs (Rory Chapple/DEC), black & white fairy-wren (Babs & Bert Wells/DEC). copyright Department of Environment and Conservation v Acknowledgments The draft strategic plan was initially prepared by Ron Shepherd of the former Department of Conservation and Land Management. The final strategic plan was prepared by Paul McCluskey of the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) with assistance from Planning Team members including Kelly Gillen, Sue Hancock, Dave Rose, Cheryl Cowell and Clare Anthony. Contributions were provided by several other staff of DEC’s Management Planning Unit and staff from the Department’s Midwest Region and Shark Bay district. The maps were prepared by Mark Laming, Melissa Robinson and Holly Smith of the DEC’s Information Management Branch. Comment has been provided by Government agencies, local Government authorities that have been identified as having primary or a supporting responsibility for the implementation of the strategic plan including: Department for Planning and Infrastructure Department of Agriculture Department of Environment Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (Commonwealth) Department of Fisheries Department of Indigenous Affairs Department of Industry and Resources Environment Protection Authority Shire of Carnarvon Shire of Shark Bay Tourism Western Australia Western Australian Museum In addition, comment has been provided by the Conservation Commission of Western Australia and the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. Nomenclature Inclusion of a name in this publication does not imply its approval by the relevant nomenclature authority. Aboriginal words can be spelt in numerous ways. Spelling should also be seen to encompass all other spellings. vi Executive Summary The Shark Bay World Heritage Property is located 800 kilometres north of Perth on Australia’s most westerly point (Map 1). The property encompasses about 22 000 sq km, is 66% marine and has about 1500 km of coastline. Shark Bay was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1991 on the basis of its “natural heritage” values. The Strategic Plan for the Shark Bay World Heritage Property provides a planning framework for managing the Property and meeting its international, national and State obligations. The Plan presents the World Heritage Convention requirements and the legislation framework that operates across the Property. The Plan will assist land and marine managers, World Heritage Property committees and community members in understanding the value of World Heritage and their roles and responsibilities in managing the Property. The purpose of the Strategic Plan is to satisfy Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention, to fulfil management planning requirements for the Property in accordance with the Australian World Heritage Management Principles established by Regulation under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), to satisfy the requirements of the 1997 State-Commonwealth Agreement, and to address the protection, conservation and presentation of the World Heritage values of Shark Bay. The Strategic Plan complements other planning documents produced for the Shark Bay area. The plan is a statement about what all levels of government and the community want the future of the Property to be (the vision statement), and how this can be achieved (goals, objectives and strategies). It provides management direction and guidance for those agencies, organisations, committees and individuals whose actions will determine whether the vision is reached. This includes all those with an interest in the Property; the local people, the wider community, industry, the researchers, educators, governments, and the decision makers. The Plan establishes a primary goal that is derived from the World Heritage Convention and is consistent with the management principles listed in the Regulations of the Commonwealth’s EPBC Act. The primary goal is: In accordance with Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention, to identify, protect, conserve, present and transmit to future generations and, if appropriate, rehabilitate Shark Bay’s World Heritage values. In achieving this primary goal, due regard will be given to: allowing for the provision of essential services to the communities within and adjacent to the area; allowing for uses of the area which do not threaten the World Heritage values and integrity; recognising the role of management agencies in the protection of the area’s values; and involving the local Shark Bay community in the planning and management of the World Heritage Property. The key requirements of the primary goal – identify, protect, conserve, present, rehabilitate and transmit – are used to provide the structure of the Strategic Plan. The Plan determines key goal statements for each of these requirements then several objectives for the key goals. Strategies and actions are then listed to meet these objectives. For each action statement, the organisation having primary responsibility is listed as is its priority. Finally the expected outcomes for the each objective are provided. vii Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. vii Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ viii 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................1 1.1 The Shark Bay World Heritage Property.......................................................................1 1.2 A Vision for Shark Bay......................................................................................................1 1.3 The Desired Future ...........................................................................................................1 1.4 Why have a Strategic Plan ............................................................................................3 1.5 Community Consultation Process.................................................................................4 2. Background........................................................................................................................6 2.1 What is World Heritage?.................................................................................................6 2.1.1 World Heritage Convention ...................................................................................6 2.1.2 International Obligations ........................................................................................6 2.1.3 World Heritage Criteria............................................................................................7 2.1.4 Shark Bay in Context................................................................................................8 2.2 Shark Bay’s World Heritage Values and Integrity.......................................................8 2.2.1 Values.........................................................................................................................8 2.2.2 Integrity ....................................................................................................................10 2.3 Shark Bay’s Other Values .............................................................................................12 2.3.1 Cultural heritage ....................................................................................................12 2.3.2 Population Centres ................................................................................................13 2.3.3 Economic Values ...................................................................................................13 3. Administration .................................................................................................................15 3.1 Ownership and Control ................................................................................................15 3.2 World Heritage Agreements and Legislation ...........................................................15 3.3 Shark Bay Committees .................................................................................................16 3.4 Native Title ......................................................................................................................17
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Gascoyne FAST FACTS 2017
    Gascoyne FAST FACTS 2017 Population As illustrated in figure 1, since 2001 the Gascoyne has exhibited significant depopulation, experiencing a net 4.3% decrease. Although there has been notable population growth between the With a population of approximately 10,000 people in 2015, the years 2007 and 2014 (6.1%), the Gascoyne has experienced a Gascoyne has the lowest estimated resident population of all the recent 0.2% population decrease between 2014 and 2015. regions in Western Australia. 10600 7000 10400 6000 10200 5000 10000 9800 4000 9600 3000 2005 9400 9200 2000 2015 9000 Population 1000 8800 Population 0 Carnarvon Exmouth Shark Bay Upper Gascoyne Year Local Government Area Figure 2: Estimated Resident Population for the Gascoyne’s Local Government Figure 1: Estimated Gascoyne Resident Population 2001 – 2015 (source: Australian Areas (source: ABS). Bureau of Statistics (ABS)). Gascoyne Fast Facts 2017 1 Age Structure The Shire of Carnarvon is the most populated of the Gascoyne’s 4 local government areas with a population of just over 6,000 in 2015. 10.00 9.00 As displayed in figure 2, the population in the Shire of Carnarvon has 8.00 remained fairly static between 2005 and 2015. 7.00 6.00 5.00 The greatest local population increase from 2005 to 2015 was 4.00 in the Shire of Exmouth (15.9%). 3.00 The local government area experiencing the greatest 2.00 Population (%) Population 1.00 population decrease from 2005 to 2015 was the Shire of 0.00 Upper Gascoyne (-20.5%). Shark Bay has experienced recent (2014 – 2015) population growth (1.4%), greater than the growth for Western Australia Age Cohort (1.3%) for the same time period.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Heritage Grants 2020- 21 Grant Opportunity
    Grant Opportunity Guidelines Australian Heritage Grants 2020- 21 Grant Opportunity Opening date: 9 November 2020 Closing date and time: 5.00pm Australian Eastern Daylight Time 7 January 2021 Please take account of time zone differences when submitting your application. Commonwealth policy Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment entity: Administering entity: Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources Enquiries: If you have any questions, contact us on 13 28 46 or [email protected] Date guidelines released: 9 November 2020 Type of grant opportunity: Open competitive Contents 1. Australian Heritage Grants processes...............................................................................4 2. About the grant program ...................................................................................................5 3. Grant amount and grant period .........................................................................................5 3.1. Grants available ......................................................................................................6 3.2. Project period ..........................................................................................................6 4. Eligibility criteria................................................................................................................6 4.1. Who is eligible? .......................................................................................................6 4.2. Additional eligibility requirements ..............................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • World Heritage Area at Risk? Resident and Stakeholder Perceptions of the Great Barrier Reef in Gladstone, Australia
    World Heritage Area at Risk? Resident and Stakeholder Perceptions of the Great Barrier Reef in Gladstone, Australia Professor Susanne Becken Dr Char-Lee McLennan Dr Brent Moyle Griffith Institute for Tourism Research Report Series Report No 2 May 2014 WORLD HERITAGE AREA AT RISK? Resident and Stakeholder Perceptions of the Great Barrier Reef in Gladstone, Australia Professor Susanne Becken Dr Char-Lee McLennan Dr Brent Moyle Griffith Institute for Tourism Research Report No 2 May 2014 ISSN 2203-4862 (Print) ISSN 2203-4870 (Online) ISBN 978-1-922216-36-6 Griffith University, Queensland, Australia Peer Reviewer - Dr Danny Stock, Griffith University Acknowledgement The researchers would like to thank Ms Rebecca Brown for her assistance with the data collection and preliminary analysis. © Griffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith University 2014 This information may be copied or reproduced electronically and distributed to others without restriction, provided the Griffith Institute for Tourism (GIFT) is acknowledged as the source of information. Under no circumstances may a charge be made for this information without the express permission of GIFT, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia. GIFT Research Report Series URL: www.griffith.edu.au/business-government/griffith-institute-tourism/publications/research- report-series ii Organisations involved Professor Susanne Becken, Griffith University Dr Char-Lee McLennan, Griffith University Dr Brent Moyle, Southern Cross University About Griffith University Griffith University is a top ranking University, based in South East Queensland, Australia. Griffith University hosts the Griffith Institute for Tourism, a world-leading institute for quality research into tourism. Through its activities and an external Advisory Board, the Institute links university-based researchers with the business sector and organisations, as well as local, state and federal government bodies.
    [Show full text]
  • Number of Total Fire Ban Declarations Per Fire Season
    NUMBER OF TOTAL FIRE BAN DECLARATIONS PER FIRE SEASON LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Christmas Island 2 1 0 0 1 0 City of Albany 2 1 2 3 10 1 City of Armadale 11 4 0 5 17 18 City of Bayswater 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Belmont 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Bunbury 7 1 0 2 5 7 City of Busselton 6 1 0 2 5 7 City of Canning 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Cockburn 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Fremantle 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Gosnells 11 4 0 5 17 18 City of Greater Geraldton 4 6 3 14 19 20 City of Joondalup 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Kalamunda 11 4 0 5 18 18 City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder 2 8 10 14 20 9 City of Karratha 1 1 2 7 10 2 City of Kwinana 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Mandurah 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Melville 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Nedlands 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Perth 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Rockingham 11 1 0 1 7 6 City of South Perth 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Stirling 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Subiaco 10 1 0 1 7 6 City of Swan 11 4 0 5 18 22 City of Vincent 9 1 0 1 7 6 City of Wanneroo 10 1 0 1 8 10 Cocos (Keeling) Islands 2 1 0 0 1 0 Indian Ocean Territories 2 1 0 0 1 0 Shire of Ashburton 1 2 4 11 11 3 Shire of Augusta Margaret River 7 1 0 0 6 3 Shire of Beverley 3 2 1 2 15 14 Shire of Boddington 6 3 1 0 7 11 Shire of Boyup Brook 6 3 0 1 6 7 Shire of Bridgetown- 6 3 0 1 6 7 Greenbushes Shire of Brookton 4 3 1 0 8 15 Shire of Broome 1 0 2 0 9 0 DFES – TOTAL FIRE BANS DECLARED PER YEAR PER LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA Page 1 of 4 NUMBER OF TOTAL FIRE BAN DECLARATIONS PER FIRE SEASON LOCAL GOVERNMENT 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Shire of Broomehill-Tambellup
    [Show full text]
  • Cape Range National Park
    Cape Range National Park Management Plan No 65 2010 R N V E M E O N G T E O H F T W A E I S L T A E R R N A U S T CAPE RANGE NATIONAL PARK Management Plan 2010 Department of Environment and Conservation Conservation Commission of Western Australia VISION By 2020, the park and the Ningaloo Marine Park will be formally recognised amongst the world’s most valuable conservation and nature based tourism icons. The conservation values of the park will be in better condition than at present. This will have been achieved by reducing stress on ecosystems to promote their natural resilience, and facilitating sustainable visitor use. In particular, those values that are not found or are uncommon elsewhere will have been conserved, and their special conservation significance will be recognised by the local community and visitors. The park will continue to support a wide range of nature-based recreational activities with a focus on preserving the remote and natural character of the region. Visitors will continue to enjoy the park, either as day visitors from Exmouth or by camping in the park itself at one of the high quality camping areas. The local community will identify with the park and the adjacent Ningaloo Marine Park, and recognise that its values are of international significance. An increasing number of community members will support and want to be involved in its ongoing management. The Indigenous heritage of the park will be preserved by the ongoing involvement of the traditional custodians, who will have a critical and active role in jointly managing the cultural and conservation values of the park.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Conservation Outlook Assessment (Archived)
    IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Purnululu National Park - 2017 Conservation Outlook Assessment (archived) IUCN Conservation Outlook Assessment 2017 (archived) Finalised on 08 November 2017 Please note: this is an archived Conservation Outlook Assessment for Purnululu National Park. To access the most up-to-date Conservation Outlook Assessment for this site, please visit https://www.worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org. Purnululu National Park SITE INFORMATION Country: Australia Inscribed in: 2003 Criteria: (vii) (viii) Site description: The 239,723 ha Purnululu National Park is located in the State of Western Australia. It contains the deeply dissected Bungle Bungle Range composed of Devonian-age quartz sandstone eroded over a period of 20 million years into a series of beehive-shaped towers or cones, whose steeply sloping surfaces are distinctly marked by regular horizontal bands of dark-grey cyanobacterial crust (single-celled photosynthetic organisms). These outstanding examples of cone karst owe their existence and uniqueness to several interacting geological, biological, erosional and climatic phenomena. © UNESCO IUCN World Heritage Outlook: https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/ Purnululu National Park - 2017 Conservation Outlook Assessment (archived) SUMMARY 2017 Conservation Outlook Good Purnululu National Park is a solid example of a site inscribed for landscape and geological outstanding value, but with significant biological importance, both at a regional as well as international scale. Thanks to a low level of threat and good protection and management including the creation of more conservation lands around the property, all values appear to be stable and some are even improving, given that the site was damaged by grazing prior to inscription. While there is always the potential for a catastrophic event such as uncontrolled fire or invasion by alien species, risk management plans are in place although in this case the relatively low level of funding for park management would have to be raised.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of World Heritage in Australia
    Keeping the Outstanding Exceptional: The Future of World Heritage in Australia Editors: Penelope Figgis, Andrea Leverington, Richard Mackay, Andrew Maclean, Peter Valentine Editors: Penelope Figgis, Andrea Leverington, Richard Mackay, Andrew Maclean, Peter Valentine Published by: Australian Committee for IUCN Inc. Copyright: © 2013 Copyright in compilation and published edition: Australian Committee for IUCN Inc. Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Citation: Figgis, P., Leverington, A., Mackay, R., Maclean, A., Valentine, P. (eds). (2012). Keeping the Outstanding Exceptional: The Future of World Heritage in Australia. Australian Committee for IUCN, Sydney. ISBN: 978-0-9871654-2-8 Design/Layout: Pixeldust Design 21 Lilac Tree Court Beechmont, Queensland Australia 4211 Tel: +61 437 360 812 [email protected] Printed by: Finsbury Green Pty Ltd 1A South Road Thebarton, South Australia Australia 5031 Available from: Australian Committee for IUCN P.O Box 528 Sydney 2001 Tel: +61 416 364 722 [email protected] http://www.aciucn.org.au http://www.wettropics.qld.gov.au Cover photo: Two great iconic Australian World Heritage Areas - The Wet Tropics and Great Barrier Reef meet in the Daintree region of North Queensland © Photo: K. Trapnell Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the chapter authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the editors, the Australian Committee for IUCN, the Wet Tropics Management Authority or the Australian Conservation Foundation or those of financial supporter the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Place Names (Harrison) Determination 2006 (No 2)
    Australian Capital Territory Public Place Names (Harrison) Determination 2006 (No 2) Disallowable instrument DI2006 -96 made under the Public Place Names Act 1989— section 3 (Minister to determine names) I DETERMINE the names of the public places that are Territory land as specified in the attached schedule and as indicated on the attached plan. Neil Savery Delegate of the Minister 31 May 2006 Page 1 of 8 Authorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au SCHEDULE Public Place Names (Harrison) Determination 2006 (No 2) Division of Harrison: Natural Geographical Features of Australia District of Gungahlin: Gungahlin Pioneers NAME ORIGIN SIGNIFICANCE Bungle Bungle Bungle Bungles The Bungle Bungle Range is within the 45 000 Crescent Western Australia hectare Purnululu National Park, in the Kimberley region of north-eastern Western Australia. The Park is 260km south of Kununurra and 110km north of Halls Creek. The Bungle Bungles consists of a group of rounded beehive-shaped domes of horizontally-stratified sandstone and conglomerate which were deposited in the Ord Basin about 375 to 350 million years ago. The range is 578m above sea level, and rises 200 - 300m above the surrounding plain. It covers an area of about 35km by 24km. Combo Waterholes are situated on the Diamantina Combo Court Combo Waterholes River south-east of Kynuna. They are believed to Queensland be the site that inspired Banjo Paterson to write Waltzing Matilda while on a visit to Dagworth Station in 1895. Combo Waterhole Conservation Park contains a string of semi-permanent coolibah-lined lagoons in outback Queensland.
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage Coral Reefs a First Global Scientific Assessment Coordinating Lead Authors: Scott F
    NIO M O UN IM D R T IA A L • P • W L O A I R D L D N H O E M R I E TA IN G O E • PATRIM United Nations World Educational, Scientific and Heritage Cultural Organization Convention Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage Coral Reefs A First Global Scientific Assessment Coordinating Lead Authors: Scott F. Heron1,2, C. Mark Eakin1, Fanny Douvere3 Contributing Authors*: Kristen Anderson4, Jon C. Day4, Erick Geiger1,2, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg5, Ruben van Hooidonk6,7, Terry Hughes4, Paul Marshall8,9, David Obura10 *listed in alphabetical order Suggested citation: Heron et al. 2017. Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage Coral Reefs : A First Global Scientific Assessment. Paris, UNESCO World Heritage Centre. © UNESCO, 2017. CLT-2017/WS/12 All pictures in this assessment may not be used or reproduced without the prior permission of the copyright holders. This assessment aims to make available the most current knowledge regarding the impacts of climate change on World Heritage properties as requested by the World Heritage Committee Decision 40 COM 7 (Istanbul/UNESCO, 2016). Photo cover: © The Ocean Agency, XL Catlin Seaview Survey, Christophe Bailhache Great Barrier Reef, Lizard Island © The Ocean Agency, XL Catlin Seaview Survey, Richard Vevers Great Barrier Reef © NOAA An artist’s rendering of America’s next-generation geostationary weather satellite 1Coral Reef Watch, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA 2Global Science & Technology, Inc., USA 3World Heritage Centre, Marine Programme, UNESCO, Paris, France 4Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia 5Global Change Institute, University of Queensland, Australia 6NOAA Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, Ocean Chemistry and Ecosystems Division, 4301 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economic, Social and Icon Value of the Great Barrier Reef Acknowledgement
    At what price? The economic, social and icon value of the Great Barrier Reef Acknowledgement Deloitte Access Economics acknowledges and thanks the Great Barrier Reef Foundation for commissioning the report with support from the National Australia Bank and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. In particular, we would like to thank the report’s Steering Committee for their guidance: Andrew Fyffe Prof. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg Finance Officer Director of the Global Change Institute Great Barrier Reef Foundation and Professor of Marine Science The University of Queensland Anna Marsden Managing Director Prof. Robert Costanza Great Barrier Reef Foundation Professor and Chair in Public Policy Australian National University James Bentley Manager Natural Value, Corporate Responsibility Dr Russell Reichelt National Australia Bank Limited Chairman and Chief Executive Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Keith Tuffley Director Stephen Fitzgerald Great Barrier Reef Foundation Director Great Barrier Reef Foundation Dr Margaret Gooch Manager, Social and Economic Sciences Stephen Roberts Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Director Great Barrier Reef Foundation Thank you to Associate Professor Henrietta Marrie from the Office of Indigenous Engagement at CQUniversity Cairns for her significant contribution and assistance in articulating the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander value of the Great Barrier Reef. Thank you to Ipsos Public Affairs Australia for their assistance in conducting the primary research for this study. We would also like
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2018
    ANNUAL REPORT 2018 ANNUAL REPORT 2018 1 ANNUAL REPORT 2018 Vision, Aims 2 Article: Tiny Coral Paradise in the Great Barrier Reef Reckons 37 with Climate Change Mission 3 National Priority Case Study: Impacts of Climate Change on Overview 3 World Heritage Coral Reefs 38 Director’s Report 4 Article: Shark Bay: A World Heritage Site at Catastrophic Risk 40 2018 Research Impact and Engagement 6 Graduate and Early Career Training 43 Centre Expertise Contributes to Latest IPCC Report Calling for 8 Graduate Profile: Claire Ross 51 Swift Response to Climate Change Digital Data: Managed, Connected, Discoverable, Reusable 52 Global Recognition of Coral Reef Scientist 9 National and International Linkages 54 Recognition of Excellence of Centre Researchers 10 Communication, Media and Public Outreach 59 CONTENTS Centre Researchers Recognised in Young Tall Poppy Awards 11 Governance 64 Research Program 1: People and Ecosystems 12 Honorary Doctorate Punctuates an Extraordinary Career 67 Research Profile: Michele Barnes 18 Membership 68 Article: The Majority of People Who See Poaching in Marine Parks 20 Say Nothing Publications 71 Research Program 2: Ecosystem Dynamics: Past, Present and Future 22 2019 Activity Plan 84 Research Profile: Nils Krueck 28 Financial Statement 85 Article: Jurassic-Era Piranha is World’s Earliest Flesh-Eating Fish 29 Financial Outlook 86 Research Program 3: Responding to a Changing World 30 Key Performance Indicators 87 Research Profile: Malcolm McCulloch 36 Acknowledgements 89 At the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies we acknowledge the Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of this nation. We acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the lands and sea where we conduct our business.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Statistics 30/09/2020 As At
    Local Government Statistics as at 30/09/2020 001 City of Albany Ward # Electors % Electors 01 Breaksea 4239 15.61% 02 Kalgan 4721 17.39% 03 Vancouver 4727 17.41% 04 West 4604 16.96% 05 Frederickstown 4435 16.34% 06 Yakamia 4421 16.29% District Total 27147 100.00% 129 City of Armadale Ward # Electors % Electors 01 Heron 6904 12.31% 02 River 7709 13.75% 03 Ranford 9016 16.08% 04 Minnawarra 7076 12.62% 05 Hills 7917 14.12% 06 Lake 9615 17.15% 07 Palomino 7842 13.98% District Total 56079 100.00% 105 Shire of Ashburton Ward # Electors % Electors 01 Ashburton 44 1.50% 03 Tom Price 1511 51.48% 04 Onslow 398 13.56% 06 Tableland 87 2.96% 07 Paraburdoo 615 20.95% 08 Pannawonica 280 9.54% District Total 2935 100.00% 002 Shire of Augusta-Margaret River Ward # Electors % Electors 00 Augusta-Margaret River 10712 100.00% District Total 10712 100.00% 130 Town of Bassendean Ward # Electors % Electors 00 Bassendean 11119 100.00% District Total 11119 100.00% Page : 1 Local Government Statistics as at 30/09/2020 003 City of Bayswater Ward # Electors % Electors 01 North 12100 25.99% 02 Central 11858 25.47% 03 West 13381 28.74% 04 South 9217 19.80% District Total 46556 100.00% 116 City of Belmont Ward # Electors % Electors 01 West 9588 37.68% 02 South 8348 32.80% 03 East 7513 29.52% District Total 25449 100.00% 004 Shire of Beverley Ward # Electors % Electors 00 Beverley 1317 100.00% District Total 1317 100.00% 005 Shire of Boddington Ward # Electors % Electors 00 Boddington 1179 100.00% District Total 1179 100.00% 007 Shire of Boyup Brook Ward # Electors
    [Show full text]