Christian du Saussay
CHRISTIAN DU SAUSSAY teaches international law at the Faculté de droit at the University of Nice. He has worked for numerous government and international agencies, including FAO, as a consultant for national parks and nature reserves legislation.
The sea is a world in itself. But in law the tendency has been to borrow from the land. The question is' should not the special character of the ocean be matched by a specific legislative system?
There is a painting by Salvador Dali which shows a young girl sitting on a beach by mirror-calm waters, lifting the "skin" of the sea to find out what goes on underneath. The picture is a perfect interpretation of the widely held feeling that the sea is a world unto itself.
The legislator must recognize this and develop laws specifically to regulate human activities that concern the sea, whether they be fisheries, hunting, mining or pollution. As for protecting certain sea areas, the tendency has been to transfer to them institutions originally conceived for land areas. Nature parks and reserves thus become marine parks and reserves. The question then arises as to whether the specific character of the ocean environment must be matched by a similarly specific legal system. The practices followed by the various countries that have created their own marine parks are infinitely varied.
We should begin by excluding a whole group of states which as yet have no all-embracing laws for protected or nature conservation areas and proceed in such cases through ad hoc enactments. Any attempt to bring this law or decree within a broader framework will inevitably have to borrow from legal provisions governing other matters. Thus, the National Park of the Los Roques archipelago (Venezuela) rests juridically on the Forest Act of that country, and the Tayrona Park in Colombia and the Cabo San Lucas "Submarine Refuge" in Mexico find their basic legislation in their own marine fisheries laws (1).
Among the countries that have adopted legislation on nature protection areas, one group has relied on texts containing no specific provision for the marine environment. This is so in France and also in Kenya and Seychelles (2).
A second group has laws applicable to land and sea, but take into account the development of marine areas. For example, Japan's Natural Parks Law of 16 May 19,'0 distinguishes between "special marine areas" and "marine park areas."
Countries which have introduced special legislation for marine parks and reserves make up a third group- New Zealand, with its Marine Reserves Act of 20 September 1971 and Trinidad and Tobago, with its Marine Areas (Preservation and Enhancement) Act of 11 February 1970.
Australia must be singled out for having a general law for these matters: the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act of 13 March 1975, with its provisions dealing with marine parks and reserves. And there is also a specific law-a special Commonwealth Act-the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, which was introduced on 20 June 1975, covering an entire coastline some 1500 km in length (3).
Faced with this range of possibilities, any attempt to set up a scale of values suggesting one solution as preferable to another would be somewhat rash. Besides, we should take into consideration the legislative techniques peculiar to each country. The Anglo-Saxon world on the whole is used to very precisely worded and very detailed laws. Accordingly, one expects rule-making for each and every subject matter and for marine parks as well. The tradition of legal doctrine in Latin countries prefers its texts short and limited to essential principles, which the administering authority will enforce through regulations. In this way, relatively distinct subject matters can be legislated for, and it may be less necessary to create a separate code of laws for marine areas.
While this is not the place for deciding in favour of one or the other approach, by analysing enactments peculiar to marine areas we may find some substance for an answer. The criteria concern two main themes: the legal status assigned to marine parks and that of the bodies that manage them.
In surveying these laws we are attempting to clarify the juridical concept of marine parks and to examine the protection measures which can be applied to them.
The concept of marine parks is the result of two converging approaches: the purpose attributed to such an area and its natural constitution.
The purposes assigned to marine parks, save in the case of Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, are in every way identical with those assigned to parks on land.
In their declarations of principles, the legislators express the intent to protect certain elements of the marine environment because of their unique nature or of their threatened survival, or of their importance to scientific research and, also, to allow the public to visit or observe them. Such differing purposes are not always easy to reconcile, and the tendency in protected areas has been toward specialization. This explains why the Council of Europe makes the distinction, in its well-known classification system, between four types of areas (designated A, B. C, D) according to whether stringent nature conservation or, at the other extreme, priority for leisure activities is envisaged. It is generally understood, though the denominations may differ in the various countries, that integral reserves are classified "A"; that the reserves designated "B" imply that effective protection of the natural environment may be compatible with regulated access by the public, while :national parks are obliged to grant access. Then, finally, there are the nature parks, areas classified "C" or "D" which accept extensive and constant human encroachment. All these categories exist in marine areas (4), but there ifs a certain shift in objectives. Nature parks were meant to bring town-dwellers closer to nature within a milieu where human settlements already existed and economic activities were kept as far as possible in a developed state. In other words, what emerges in the National Parks of the United Kingdom, in the German Naturpark formula and in the Regional Parks of France is territorial planning of a privileged kind. Now, it does not necessarily follow that the town-dweller's need for communing with nature will be satisfied in a marine park in the same way as in a forest and there is no question of having farming or small crafts activities there. If anything, it is rather a question of satisfying man's curiosity about the sea. Considering the most highly perfected model of the kind-the marine parks of Japan - one has the feeling of being in a sort of "anti-aquarium." The criteria guiding the selection of such areas are significant (5). They include:
-A characteristic marine bottom topography, with abundant fauna and flora.
-Limpid waters so located that they are protected from disturbance or pollution.
-An absence of too rapid marine currents or excessively high waves.
-Sufficient space on adjoining land for constructions- such as quays, restaurants, exhibition centres, car parks and the like.
-The absence of any risk of destruction of the under-water landscape by any sort of industrial installations.
In short, everything is laid on for the visitor travelling in his glass-bottomed boat or swimming over or through underwater galleries. Instead of bringing the fish on land, people are brought to - or under - the sea. Glass, on a face mask or on the bottom of a boat, is the linking element in this novel form of spectacle.
Lastly, we should note that one of the laws-from Colombia-studied here (6) cites as the reason for creating a marine national park the fact of its importance for the reproduction of species of high value for industrial fisheries. It is felt that hunting or fishing reserves on land do not come under nature protection areas - though even this view is a matter of controversy-because effective steps are taken to improve genetically or otherwise develop game species there. Could the same be said of fish-breeding establishments? Are these nature reserves in the true sense? The Colombian law makes no provision for feeding, restocking, repulsion of predators or selection of optimum breeding stock.
For true originality one must look to Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. As mentioned earlier, this park extends down the northeast coast of Australia from about the level of Torres Strait to Brisbane - some 1500 km in all. But the different zones of the park do not constitute, a single continuum. Simply, any land or sea area comprised within the park may be declared a park zone without being necessarily contiguous to other park zones. Furthermore, the park is under a separate authority distinct from services responsible for other parks and reserves in Australia.
The responsibilities of the authority, as stated in the Act (7), are to prepare and carry out an overall zoning plan consonant with the following objectives-we quote:
"(a) . . . the conservation of the Great Barrier Reef;(b) the regulation of the use of the Marine Park so as to protect the Great Barrier Reef while allowing the reasonable use of the Great Barrier Reef Region;
(c) the regulation of activities that exploit the resources of the Great Barrier Reef Region so as to minimize the effect of those activities on the Great Barrier Reef,
(d) the reservation of some areas of the Great Barrier Reef for its appreciation and enjoyment by the public, and
(e) the preservation of some areas of the Great Barrier Reef in its natural state undisturbed by man except for the purposes of scientific research."
The wording of these provisions shows that the park formula is employed not to protect this or that zone but to place under a single authority the planning of an entire sea frontage, and in a region that is by no means depopulated. Even a cursory glance at the map will show the presence of tropical crops, mining and some built-up areas.
But a marine park is not only an area given over to this or that specific purpose. There is also the question of the extent to which such a park is identifiable with the watery element or comprises portions of dry land as well.
Marine parks must be seen in their horizontal and their vertical components.
Horizontally, a park will extend, seaward, as far as the limits of state sovereignty into the territorial sea. Recent developments in the Law of the Sea and the extension by coastal slates of their exclusive economic zone to 200 miles raise the question as to whether parks may be established in such zones. On the one hand, the coastal state assumes the right to control the exploitation of natural resources; on the other hand, even for protection's sake it cannot oppose the free passage of shipping. In either event, the basic texts (with the exception of the New Zealand and the Trinidad and Tobago Acts) place no limits on the possibilities of the seaward extension of these parks.
Landward, the: New Zealand Act limits a park to the foreshore (8). But New Zealand is an exception. The Marine Areas Act 1970 of Trinidad and Tobago (9) specifies that marine areas include "any adjoining land or swamp areas which form within certain submarine areas a single ecological entity." The other enactments considered here speak of the shore (cf. Seychelles: National Parks and Nature Conservancy Ordinance 1979-1973, s. 2) or, in a more sweeping fashion, of (land) areas as parts of marine parks as in Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, s. 31 (10). Apart from the convenience to management, the advantage of extending the area of a marine park landward lies, as the Trinidad and Tobago Act suggests, in the control of terrestrial phenomena having any incidence on the adjacent marine environment. But another solution to their problem, as we shall see, consists in extending beyond its own limits the scope of the rule-making powers needed for protecting a park. As for the actual demarcation of park areas, it is left to the declaration acts and proceeds by reference to geographic points-in particular, longitude and latitude coordinates.
In the vertical dimension, one finds the most detailed provisions in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, which prescribe for the subsoil beneath the sea-bed extending to such depth as is specified in the proclamation, for the airspace above the area extending to such height above the surface as is similarly specified, together with the land, the waters of any sea within the area and the seabed there. Other countries' texts are far less specific but even these ensure a de facto control over park areas by means of protection measures.
Protection measures for marine parks are described at length in the basic texts of the common-law countries. Some of these regulate the subject matter directly by defining a whole series of offences (11). Others assign the task to the rulemaking authority. However, in the latter case the legislator lists with a similar degree of detail the things that are prohibited or subject to restriction (12). It is usual to add a provision empowering the administering authority to take any measures it sees fit to ensure that the principles invoked and the directives issued by the lawgiver are respected -this, to preserve freedom of action for prescribing enforcement measures.
Considerable space is given to the punitive aspect of protection. All the texts studied confer on the rangers, wardens, or whatever the park police are called, powers to inspect bags, containers and vehicles and to seize any suspect thing. Penalties, which often carry short terms of imprisonment, include many provisions for restitution, such as the forfeiture to the park of specimens, objects, vehicles, or the payment of the full market value of the natural element (animal, rock, etc.) illicitly taken, or payment for the restoration of any damaged site.
But in all these provisions there is nothing peculiar to the marine park, except the power to stop vessels to inspect them and, whenever necessary, seize them.
Environmental laws for protecting nature from the onslaught of man are practically the same everywhere: they all forbid killing, injuring, capturing, collecting, damaging or disturbing any animal, plant or mineral formation, including by means of introducing alien species (13).
Specific protective measures apply to the waters of the sea. Thus, the New Zealand Act makes it an offence if a person "discharges or causes to be discharged, directly or indirectly, any toxic or polluting substance damaging animal or vegetal life" (13b). Japanese law makes it an offence "to pour into the sea any liquid from the surface or to cause it to flow from the shore or, again, to capture sea water on the surface or from landward by channelling" (14). Other texts go further and seek to prevent the possibility of spoiling the marine environment from points lying outside the park. Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act has an enabling clause for "regulating or prohibiting acts (whether in the Marine Park or elsewhere) that may pollute water in a manner harmful to animals or plants in the Marine Park" [s. 66 (2) (e)].
More limited in scope, the Japanese law prohibits acts resulting in the raising or lowering of the level of rivers and lakes within the limits of a special marine area or of the amount of the waters contained therein. In adjacent areas but again, outside the limits of the park, it is forbidden to alter the aspect of the sea-bed within a 1-km-wide belt circling the entire park perimeter (15).
While it is quite easy to enact interdictions of the most absolute kind, we know that, in fact, the protection of nature seeks to achieve a harmonious regulation of human activities pursued there.
Regulating the activities of man is the chief problem in dryland parks, at least in Europe. In the case of marine parks, the task comes up against highly specific situations.
In the first place, most, if not all, of these areas fall within the public domain. Private ownership of land has little more than a residual place there - on minuscule islands. Accordingly, it is easy, once private property proves irksome, to buy it out or expropriate it without putting excessive strain on the budget. As a general principle, the state enjoys eminent domain over the bed and the surface of the sea. Besides, access to marine areas, which requires the use of boats, is less easy than access to land spaces-and this reduces the flow of visitors and facilitates surveillance.
Sea coasts are, however, the site of a range of interests which the legislator cannot ignore - for instance, the living necessities of people residing within the park, water sports and associated leisure pursuits, economic interests and navigation.
The moment private persons are authorized to reside permanently on this or that island in a marine park, they must be allowed to live the sort of life they are used to. This implies a relaxation of otherwise excessively strict rules. as is done in parks on land, for, say, picking fruit. Leaving aside the highly special case of measures in favour of the aborigines in Australia or the Maoris in New Zealand, we find only one country dealing with this problem - Seychelles, with the Ste-Anne Marine National Park Regulations. Here the rules do not prevent residents on private land from having "reasonable access by boat to their property", and it is no offence if a resident "beaches, careens, cleans, scrapes or points any craft or vessel" there. Within the limits of the park he may also obtain his sustenance from the sea. The Commission may "license families for the taking of fish by nets or on hand-lines or for collecting shellfish." Strict conditions attach to these activities, which remain at all times under the Commission's control (16).
Matters affecting water sports and leisure activities are normally provided for by establishing appropriate areas in the parks and through the right to regulate the movement of persons. The Ste-Anne Park Regulations make it an offense to bring into, or cause to bring into, or to use in the National Park, any surf-board or to water-ski (Art. 5).
Two diametrically opposed attitudes exist where economic activities such as aquaculture or mining are concerned In New Zealand, the legislation allows these interests to prevail aver those of conservation of the marine environment. Areas given out on lease or under licence for the establishing of marine farms may not be legally proclaimed marine reserves. The declaration of marine reserve does not of itself terminate existing mining permits or prevent the grant of new authorizations. In principle, the use of such licences, whether old or new, must be compatible with the regulations in force in the reserve. In fact, since this is impossible without the cessation of all mining activities, the Act itself provides for an exception to the general ruling, granting in specified cases "the right to do anything in a marine reserve by virtue of a mining interest." These exceptional provisions are established jointly by the Mines and Marine Ministries.
Finally, the lawmaker invites the Ministry of Marine to refuse to declare a marine reserve if the declaration would "interfere unduly with any estate or interest in land in or adjoining the proposed reserve... with any existing right of navigation,... with commercial fishing ... [or] with any existing usage of the area for recreational purposes..." (17). To appreciate the full force of these provisions, we must underline the fact that the right to set in motion the administrative procedure for declaring a marine reserve belongs, in New Zealand, to other entities besides the State and even, though indirectly, to the ordinary citizen. The minister's role in this case is to use his power to prevent such an action by upholding objections to it, stating the ground for his decisions. The lawmaker has supplied him with a collection of legal weapons to this effect. Clearly, the purpose was to prevent ill-advised proposals of the kind and not to settle conflicts systematically in favour of economic interests. In countries where this concern is less felt, the laws simply forbid mining. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 also provides powers for "regulating or prohibiting the carrying on of any trade or commerce in the Marine Park" (18).
All the laws considered here deal with problems raised by marine navigation. For the Australian Act a "vessel" means a "ship, boat, raft or pontoon or any other thing capable of carrying persons or goods through or on water, and includes a hovercraft" (19). There is no distinction -and this is a feature common to all these laws-between leisure and commercial activities or between wind-propelled and engine-driven craft. The general principle is that of free passage of vessels in conformity with the rules of maritime law-passage which may be regulated whether to preserve certain areas or to impose certain courses and speed limits. Navigation of the kind may also be subject to the payment of dues. Mooring and landing rights are also recognized, subject to observance of police regulations. The danger to the natural environment represented by the use of ships' anchors is common knowledge, in particular where marine herbariums are concerned. Anchoring is expressly prohibited by the New Zealand and the Seychelles enactcments. ID Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, anchoring comes under the general powers to regulate shipping there (20).
In this attempt to define the characteristics of marine parks, we have focused our attention on those of the areas themselves -the purpose assigned to them, the nature areas which they may encompass and the protection measures entailed. We must now find out to what extent these aspects are dealt with by specific administrative institutions.
By "institution" we commonly mean what is created as well as the creative act itself. The term thus covers two distinct sets of questions -the administration of marine parks and their creation.
The administration of marine parks is often indistinguishable from that of protected areas on dry land - the contrary being somewhat exceptional.
Australia, Seychelles and Japan have administrative bodies common to both types of parks, with laws dealing with the whole of the protected areas, while including provisions specific to marine parks; but neither special administrative structures nor special management techniques are envisaged for them.
These three countries have adopted a centralized administrative approach in the sense that their parks do not have an autonomous corporate status. However, they are not administered directly by the state but by fully fledged agencies or corporations - -the Environment Agency in Japan, -the National Parks and Nature Conservancy Commission in Seychelles and the Director (sic) of National Parks and Wildlife in Australia (21). The laws specific to national parks, in Australia and Seychelles, are the same which established those agencies whose terms of reference seem limited to the management-and the creation-of parks and reserves, under the supervision of the ministries concerned.
In this category, the Australian experience with the Great Barrier Reef offers the greatest interest. The Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 has, in effect, withdrawn the northeastern coastal reaches of Australia from the jurisdiction of the general law on protected areas and entrusted it to an autonomous authority.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park authority consists of a chairman and two other counsellors appointed by the Governor-General (one of whom is nominated by the Queensland government). It has a consultative committee, with a membership of not less than thirteen, including the chairman (nominated by the authority itself). One third of the membership is nominated by the Queensland government, the rest being appointed by the federal ministry. Each member represents a ministerial department or other federal authority having; interests in the reef or the Great Barrier Reef region. No doubt universities and scientific bodies may belong in the latter category, though the act is noncommital on this point (22).
The main purpose is to secure the cooperation of the federal government services and those of the State of Queensland. No mention is made of the inhabitants of the area or of associations for the protection of nature, or of interested private groups or of any scientific council. The authority has an administrative structure and a police force, the corps of park inspectors. Its budget funds are directly appropriated by parliament. The authority's functions are on two levels: first, it frames policy for the management of the Barrier Reef. It holds the exclusive power of initiative for recommending areas for inclusion in the Marine Park, for drafting plans for these areas and relative regulations. Such proposals and plans must then be submitted to the minister and to parliament for approval; regulations are enacted by the Governor-General who may, however, delegate the rule-making powers to the authority (23).
In the second place, the authority is responsible for the management of the park zones, with full powers of decision. At the same time, it must follow the directives of the minister, who has supervisory control. Under the Act, the authority is empowered to cooperate with other public authorities, in particular with the Queensland government. There is also express provision for cooperation with the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. This means that the authority may propose the declaration of certain parts of the park as "special areas," to be managed by the Director under the terms of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975.
One final original feature to be found in the laws studied here -though :not exclusive to marine parks - concerns the procedures followed in declaring or designating these parks.
With the possible exception of Trinidad and Tobago, where a "restricted marine area" may be so designated simply by ministerial order without further ado, the other laws studied prescribe procedures of a greater or lesser degree of complexity and involving even the participation of the public.
In countries where marine parks are managed by a self-governing authority, it is the latter that initiates procedures. From then on, several possibilities are open, all of them leading up to the stage of government approval, following the holding of public hearings. In Seychelles, the procedure is by an order issued by the commission itself, following government approval. In Australia, within the general scope of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1975, the proclamation by the Governor General will take place after consideration by the Executive Council and the report of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife. The authority, meanwhile, must prepare a management plan for the areas concerned which must be approved by the minister who then lays it before both Houses of Parliament. Within 20 days, either House may pass a resolution disallowing any such plan, which otherwise is deemed to be tacitly approved. What is interesting about these procedures is not so much the levels of authority they engage as the degree of participation offered to the public and other interested parties.
Public participation and that of the park authorities is achieved through the usual type of public hearing. The New Zealand Act, however, goes further than the procedure of merely consulting the public, and grants it full rights of initiative in these matters.
Consultations are governed by rules concerning publicity and proper delays to ensure the regularity of these procedures. They would not deserve attention were they not accompanied, under Australian law, by the obligation for the administrative authority to examine the objections raised and to give these objections proper consideration. This obligation applies at all stages of the procedure. The authority must submit to the minister a complete file containing the objections in writing formulated during the public hearings, together with its own replies. Whenever the minister elects to alter the plan he must notify the authority. The latter's objections to the amendments made by the minister and the reasons why he nevertheless stands by his decision must then be presented to parliament. In this the practical usefulness of the consultation is ensured at all stages, irrespective of any future action taken to contest the final decision.
The New Zealand Act goes to much greater lengths in associating the public with the decision-making process - by granting it the right to take the initiative. Thus: "No Order in Council [declaring a marine reserve] shall be made . . . unless (a) Application for the Order in Council is made to the Secretary for Marine by any university. . . or the National Parks Authority, or a body appointed to administer land subject to the Reserves and Domains Act 1953 where such land has frontage to the seacoast, or any incorporated society . . . having as one of its objects the scientific study of marine life or natural history" (24). Given the ease with which it is possible to form an "incorporated society," even for the study of mar-ire life, and in the absence of any other specification, the only conclusion is that the legislator has here recognized the right of any citizen to set in motion the declaration procedure. After consultation with the Secretary for Marine, the applicant for an Order in Council must provide for the publication of his intention to apply and must call upon ''persons wishing to object" to send in their comments within a specified time limit and in the prescribed form. Objections are addressed to the Secretary for Marine, who transmits a copy to the applicant, so that he may be in a position to answer. Proposals, objections, and the applicant's answers are then forwarded to the Minister of Marine, who may send the project over to the Council of Ministers for action or reject it. Such procedures are interesting but they are not, in New Zealand, peculiar to marine reserves. No conclusions can be drawn from this limited review on the specific juridical character of marine parks. We may simply observe that the laws making express reference to marine parks apply certain original provisions to their definition and to the protection measures to be adopted. The same laws, however, do place these parks under the management of a national parks authority, unless the area is to be made into a marine park comprising such an extensive coastline that it obviously necessitates being put under a separate authority or under an agency that normally deals with marine matters.
1. Venezuela: Decree No. 1061, 9 August 1972. G.O. No. 29 883, 18 August 1972, p. 223.
Colombia: Resolution No. 903 of 21 October 1969, D.O. No. 32958, 16 December 1969, p. 629.
Mexico: Decree published in D.O. No. 20, 29 November 1973, p. 6.
2. Kenya: The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Act 1976, and The Wildlife (Conservation and Management) Regulations 1976.
Seychelles: The National Parks and Nature Conservancy Ordinance 1969-1973.
3. We are referring here to Commonwealth legislation only. However, we should mention that in Queensland national parks come within the purview of the Forestry Act 1959-1971. When Queensland sought to provide a statutory foundation for its marine parks it relied on this Forestry Act for the purpose, introducing amendments referring to the marine environment: "Act to amend the Forestry Act 1959-1968 in certain particulars with a view to providing for the establishment of Marine National Parks, 22 April 1971" (Short title: Forestry Amendment Act-1971).
4. One rarely finds mention of strict reserves. An example may be seen, however, in section 32 (7) (e) of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, which calls for "the preservation of some areas of the Great Barrier Reef . . . undisturbed by man except for the purposes of scientific research."
5. Criteria for selection of Marine Park Areas. In Marine Parks in Japan, May 1975, published by the Marine Parks Center of Japan, Environment Agency, p. 4.
6. Colombia: Resolution No. 903 of 21 October 1969, prescribing rules governing fishing in the maritime zone of the Tayrona National Park. D.O. No. 32 958, 16 December 1969, p. 629.
7. Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, s. 32 (7).
8. New Zealand: Marine Reserves Act 1971, s. 2 provides that marine reserve areas are part of the "territorial sea of New Zealand as defined by section 3 of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zone Act 1965" or of the internal waters of New Zealand.
9. Trinidad and Tobago: Marine Areas (Preservation and Enhancement) Act, 1970, s. 2 provides that marine areas are comprised within the territorial sea.
10. The schedule to this Act defines the boundaries of this park. Landward this is specified as being along the coastline at mean low water, which means that the only "land" in the park will consist of islands.
11. Cf. New Zealand: Marine Reserves Act 1971 (s. 19)-Offences within a reserve.
12. Cf. Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, s. 66.
13. a) Section 19 (1) (e) of New Zealand's Marine Reserves Act 1971 declares it to be an offence if a person "wilfully digs, cuts, or injures the sea-bed, or leaves any rock, stone or boulder overturned." b) Ibid, s. 19 (1) (b). Cf. also art. 11 c) of decree No. 58 of 10 July 1973 related to the Ste-Anne Marine National Park Regulations, 1973 (Seychelles).
14. Japan: Natural Parks Law 1970, article 27 (3) (4) and article 182 (3) (3)
15. Ibid., article 20 (l) (2) and (5).
16. The Ste-Anne Marine National Park Regulations, 1973, regulations 3 (1) (b), 11 (b), 12, 13, 14 and 18.
17. Marine Reserve Act 1971, s. 3 (1), (5), (6) and 5 (6).
18. Cf. s. 66 (2). As regards prohibitions on mining and similar activities cf. s. 38, ibid. and Japan's Natural Parks Law 1970, articles 20-1 (5) and 27-2 (3).
19. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, s. 4.
20. Cf. New Zealand: Marine Reserves Act 1971, s. 23; Seychelles: the Ste-Anne Marine National Park Regulations, article 10; Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, s. 66 (2) and (7).
21. Cf. National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, s. 15: 1) "There shall be a Director of National Parks and Wildlife who shall be a corporation with perpetual succession", and 2) "The corporation shall have a seal and may sue or be sued in its corporate name . . ."
22. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, s. 22 (b) (6).
23. Ibid., s. 66 (2) (a).
24. Marine Reserves Act 1971, s. 5 (1) (a).
