Recommendation 1:
Due to the range of recreation uses in Darwin harbour and the diversity of the interest groups involved, management responsibilities should be defined and spread amongst many agencies. The roles of these agencies should clearly have determination if confusion is to be avoided. Two or more government agencies, spending their budgets on similar activities is surely wasteful of resources. The utilisation of many approach strategies could be achieved if government departments and agencies are given definite routes of inquiry.

A recommendation here is that an initial committee is formed to define the investigation parameters of each involved government department or agency. This way, financial resources would not be allocated to investigating research models, which could yield similar results. Research objectives would not be the same across different statutory bodies and would be the direct responsibility of the governing committee.

Recommendation 2:
There are few present models that can accurately access the impacts of the various recreational or leisure activities on Darwin Harbour. There is a need for these models to consider all aspects of human endeavour within these environs of the study area. Social; cultural; economic; work related; cultural relations; preservation issues and conservation ethics are all needs which should be considered relevant to the construction of models of inquiry. These models of research can define the [function of the] relationships between phenomenon such as skiing and mangroves in terms of the ski boats bow-wave; as well as the relationships between the taking of mud crabs, S. serrata, for non-commercial purposes and the availability of sufficient food sources for S. serrata within the original and any adapted food chain processes of the mangrove forests.

The ability of government and to a lesser extent non-government agencies, to compile and to integrate data and research results, is a role which should be developed to suit the particular circumstances. There is a general trend towards the lack of understanding of the certain issues related to the recreation values because these meanings have not been readily determined. If community members and their user groups do know what they want, these agencies should have the research models to find and identify these concepts as well as determining the relationships between the results of the research. Is there a relationship, for example, between the previously referred to feeding habits of S. serrata and the ski boats bow waves?

The recommendation here is that an overview be considered for the pooling of all research results into a central database, which can be accessed by all agencies, so that cross referencing and data sharing can take place.

Recommendation 3:
Historically, organisations and agencies responsible for the management of areas marked for preservation have found themselves in the role of overseeing research projects concerned with their particular area. Community and recreational user groups such as ski, fishing and other community clubs, should be encouraged to participate in the management of the environment, the infrastructure and statutory provisions provided for recreational activities. There has never been a report published that manages Darwin Harbour’s recreational activities. There has also never been published one, which determines any relationship between recreational users of the harbour and the affects on the foreshores.

However, it is certain that most of these groups will probably lack the skills, the understanding, the knowledge and the experience in managing harbour leisure environments. They will possibly also lack the financial reserves to participate wholly. They should therefore place themselves onto a learning program, which will gain them, the knowledge to meet their expectations and the community’s perceptions of how ecosystems should be preserved. If research does show that bow-waves does affect and harm food supplies for S. serrata then appropriate action should be taken by those concerned.

The recommendation here is that government agencies should have the roles, and be responsible for actively providing user groups with research results and to encourage these groups to carry out their own research programs. They should be instructed in ways that will possibly remedy or alleviate any problems and issues concerning the leisure activities, which stem from those results.

Recommendation 4:
All persons using Darwin harbour as a recreational venue is not however, represented by parent bodies or organisations. In fact it was found that most recreation seekers do not belong to any of these groups. The recommendation here is therefore submitted to suggest that the appropriate government agency act in accordance with the circumstances and the present time frame for the purpose of representing this sector of the recreation-seeking public.

Recommendation 5:
The Queensland Government through their agency the Department of Primary Industry (DPI) have published a list of publications on the Internet. These documents concern mangroves as an important habitat, the marine live and organisms residing within and the important effects that mangroves exert on primary industries such as fisheries. An Internet site achieves this with many hotlines to relevant documents and other material. Likewise, the Brisbane City Council (BCC) has a similar website which detail the Boondall wetlands and the invertebrates residents in Brisbane and gives further descriptions of the natural environments and the faunal habitants of this region.

The list of what one can find on issues concerning Queensland mangroves is impressive in that this is freely available to anyone who has access to a modem and other computer technology. The recommendation here is that a comprehensive Website is initiated by an NT Government agency and/or by the Darwin City Council (DCC) and that research and all aspects of Darwin Harbour mangroves and recreational pursuits are published. Consequently the publications would act as an educational medium for the tourist population on a worldwide scale. Reserves presently administered by the DCC are on the Internet in this regard but two green groups place them there. Greening Australia NT and the Australian Trust for Conservation Volunteers have information about the boardwalk and a map of how to get there. The DCC and the NT Government could very well place their attractions on WebPages in a similar fashion. Likewise, educational Websites on Darwin Harbour mangroves could inform, educate and shoe viewers about and where to find these monsoon forests.

Recommendation 6:
During my wanderings to collect information and data for this report, I couldn’t help but notice the lack of signs and directions telling just what is available in whatever area. A sign at the East Point Aquatic Reserve was vandalised and it looks like it was shot at with a shotgun. The signs I noticed that were most prominent were the ones telling of dangers because of constructions. Recommendations here are that more signs be strategically placed in and around Darwin telling of the area's benefits and attractions. Signs such as these can add to the particular area's aesthetics qualities and are relatively low in cost and maintenance.

Recommendation 7:
The Northern Territory Government presently has a policy of developing at least 20% of Darwin Harbour mangroves. This report being reviewed supports the objectives of reassessing the activities, which will impact on Darwin Harbour. This is therefore, a strategy, which should still be active today, given that the report was published in 1991. Although it should have been reviewed in 1996, following an initial five-year period. Under the present legislation of the Northern Territory, it is recognised that developments within Darwin Harbour and those which are likely to have significant impact on mangrove resources will have to be assessed under the Environmental Assessment Act, NT. (1994).

According to this report a 1991 objective was to conserve 80% of the then existing productivity of harbour mangroves systems. Harbour mangroves were categorised into four sections for this purpose. Two of these areas were categorised as Preservation and Conservation and these totalled 50% of Darwin Harbour mangrove communities. These areas were not to be touched and therefore to be left unmodified and undeveloped. Of the remaining 50% of the combined mangrove productivity, the Purpose and the Development areas, it was decided that 40% could be destroyed and compromised without harming the remainder of the 60% of harbour ecosystems.

The 20% of the total of Darwin Harbour mangrove production, which is earmarked for expansion, is therefore being dispersed and concentrated into the 50% development proposal. Almost half of the area earmarked for development or for modification. The current understanding of the 20% to be developed will therefore be noticed markedly because it is the areas in and around where humanity resides that will be developed. It is 40% of Darwin mangroves, which will be developed not 20%. Although, those mangroves removed are being classed as only a portion of the 20% of Darwin Harbour mangroves. This report is only a draft copy and was published almost ten years ago.

The recommendation here is that certain areas of Darwin harbour be recognised as relevant to people’s leisure habits and that these areas be conserved within the 80% range of the proposal. However, it is rather difficult to nominate any areas worthy of protection, as all sites on the harbour foreshores are worthy of protection. The map of Darwin Harbour, which is included with this report, maps mangrove areas, which are worthy of preservation, as defined by the NT Fish Finder 2. These sites are important for the success of fishing the waterways and are some of the sites which NT fishermen would prefer to be retained. These areas are not however, in the zones of the harbour around Darwin. Mostly, they would already be in the aforementioned areas, which are already earmarked for preservation because of their distance from human habitat. They should be mentioned here because future construction models and/or development programs may affect some of them. It is therefore recommended that these sites be considered especially for preservation and conservation.

Recommendation 8:
The functions of most government agencies rely on the existence of a clean healthy waterway system within Darwin Harbour. It is imperative that the individuals working within these agencies know this and act accordingly. It is therefore recommended here that all government employees and Public Servants be advised that their jobs are reliant on the policies and actions they take with regard to the harbour. This would endure that they are well aware of the consequences of their actions when formulating their policy of plan of action. This may prevent further degradation or compromise for the harbour ecosystems and environments.

Recommendation 9:
A map of Darwin cycle paths and cycle ways appears on the Internet at http://www.darcity.nt.gov.au/html/maps.html This page is made possible by the complements of the Darwin City Council. This is a very impressive map but it is difficult to print because the map spans four pages. This recommendation therefore suggests that the WebPage be constructed in such a way that printing of the map is a relatively easy exercise so that these maps are more accessible to those on the Inernet.