Title page
This page should include:



the report title, which states the report’s purpose
your name and the name of the person receiving the report (place in the bottom right-hand corner)
the submission date.
Executive summary
An executive summary is a paragraph that provides the reader with a quick overview of the entire report,
including its purpose, context, methods, major findings, conclusions and recommendations. It is often easier to
write the executive summary once the report has been completed.
This is placed on a separate page between the title page and the table of contents. This may often be the only
part of the report that is actually read.
Table of contents
The table of contents lists the main sections (headings) of the report, and the page on which each begins. If your
report includes tables, diagrams or illustrations, these are listed separately on the page after the table of
contents.
Introduction
The introduction should:




discuss the importance or significance of the research or problem to be reported
define the purpose of the report
outline the issues to be discussed (scope)
inform the reader of any limitations to the report, or any assumptions made.
Discussion or body
This contains the main substance of the report, organised into sections with headings and subheadings rather
than paragraphs. The body of a report can include the following:



A description of the issue or situation which is being reported on. This may include a literature review of
the research on that issue.
The method of data collection, if applicable — this should include what you did and why, such as a
survey or interview, and the size and selection criteria of the study sample
A discussion and analysis of the data collected — this should comment on the reliability and accuracy of
the data and relate the findings to your report’s purpose and current literature.
Conclusion
This summarises the key findings from the discussion section and may be numbered here for clarity. Relate your
conclusion to the objectives of the report and arrange your points logically so that major conclusions are
presented first. Some reports may require a discussion of recommendations, rather than a conclusion.
Recommendations
These are subjective opinions about what action you think could be followed. They must be realistic, achievable
and clearly relate to the conclusion of the report.
Reference list
This must contain all the material cited in the report. It must be accurate and consistent with a standard
referencing style. Refer to www.citewrite.qut.edu.au
Appendices
These contain extra supporting information that is put at the end of the report so as not to distract the reader from
the main issues. They contain detailed information, such as questionnaires, tables, graphs and diagrams.
Appendices should be clearly set out and numbered in the order they are mentioned in the text.
Title Page
Executive summary
Table of contents
1. Introduction - Letisha
1.1 Purpose of the report
1.2 Background
1.3 Background – Blue Flag
1.3 Vision and Objectives
2.0 Achievements and results - BEC
2.1 Environmental and economic impacts of program TOBES/BEC
2.2 International uptake of the program TOBES
2.3 Difficulties/challenges experienced in implementation TOBES
2.4 Tourism (Croatia) BEC
3.0 Contribution to a sustainable future
3.1 Effectiveness of eco-labelling - BEC
3.2 Changes in behaviour – recreational and economic uses BEC/LETISHA
4.0 Innovations BEC
5. Implementation in Australia LETISHA
4.1 Funding
4.2 Education awareness
6. Conclusions
7. Recommendations
Funding
8. References
Send your references to Letisha for compilation into APA format – make sure you include the website if it’s a
journal.
9. Appendices
Criteria
Application forms
Background, driving forces and commitment/implementation to the PPSPPI reducing
environmental impact from a lifecycle perspective.
Provide an introduction including your drivers, vision and objectives
How has the PPSPPI included sustainability principles in its design, manufacture, implementation
and end of life management?
Purpose of the Report
The Australian coast is a vital national asset. It holds great potential in terms of use for commercial,
recreational and settlement purposes. This report is to seek funding for the establishment of a notfor-profit organisation, Blue Flag Australia and the national implementation of the program.
Background – Australian Beaches and Marinas
According to the University of Sydney’s Coastal Studies Unit there are 10,685 beaches in Australia (Short, 2006)
that equates to more than 47,000kms of sandy beaches, mangroves and rocky cliffs. Approximately “85% the
Australians live within 50 kilometres of the coast”.
Outdoor living, the sand and surf play an integral role in the Australian lifestyle and it is something that should be
preserved for generations to come. Visiting beaches in Australia is a key activity by international visitors [quote
stats].
While there are various Federal and State government and non-for-profit organisations dedicated to the
protection, management and improvement of our coastline there is no national program that recognises the
sustainable development and use of beaches and marinas. James (2000, p. 495) says that “there are signs that
the environment of Australian beaches is being degraded”. He also states that “water quality on beaches is an
ongoing problem near major cities due to (…) sewerage and stormwater disposal”.
Background – Blue Flag
The Blue Flag program promotes sustainable development through strict criteria in the categories of water quality,
environmental education and information, environmental management and safety and services. The Blue Flag
concept originated in France in 1985 and was quickly adopted by several European countries, including Denmark
until international demand led to its expansion beyond European borders in 2001. Since then the eco-label has
been adopted by 46 countries and awarded to approximately 3,650 beaches.
Vision
To be the leading national program promoting sustainable management of Australia’s beaches and marinas
Objective
To contribute to sustainable development by through:
-
encourage improvements to water quality and the coastal ecosystem;
create environmental education opportunities and programs
foster cooperation between health, environmental, tourism, education, and government sectors;
reassure both Australians and tourists who visit and enjoy our clean beaches and marinas, that the
highest environmental standards are being met and the entire coastal ecosystem is protected.
The integration of conservation and development
Sound environmental values and sustainable lifestyles
promote community stewardship
promote tourism
What are the sustainability principles in use?
Key human impacts and resultant environmental issues
Our coastal zone houses great potential in terms of its use for commercial, recreational and
settlement purposes. It also holds many social and cultural values for both Indigenous and nonIndigenous Australians alike. Sadly, human use and enjoyment of the coast over the past two
centuries have greatly disrupted the processes which form its intricate ecosystems.
Human activities have also reduced the biodiversity of our coastlines, which helps them to maintain
their health. Small organisms in coastal ecosystems are often the first link in large food chains. The
impact of their population reduction or extinction inevitably reverberates throughout the entire chain.
The most significant ways in which humans have impacted upon Australia's coastline are outlined
below.
Housing and development
The construction of houses around lagoons and swamps, the use of wetlands for landfills and the
development of sand dunes for 'prime' real estate and recreational purposes have all had negative
effects on Australia's coastal areas. The removal of vegetation has seen a significant reduction in
biodiversity and also disrupted the natural processes which form intricate coastal ecosystems. See
image 1
Beaches, for example, are formed by an ongoing cycle of erosion and deposition of sand. Storms
erode beaches of their sand, which is then re-deposited by large waves. When humans attempt to
use these areas for housing and recreation, this natural cycle is interrupted and sand banks become
depleted. Over time, this has destroyed many of Australia's beautiful beaches. Cliff-top housing,
although aesthetically pleasing for home-owners, is also dangerous because of its interference with
these natural processes. See images 2 and 3
Ports and marinas
In order to enhance the navigational potential of our coastline, natural channels are often widened or
deepened by removing earth from the bottom of waterways (a process known as dredging). This
destroys the habitats of benthic (bottom-dwelling) organisms that live in the sediment that is removed.
Stone breakwaters stretching far out to sea are also constructed around ports and marinas to reduce
the impact of waves and tidal fluctuations. This has the negative consequence of hindering natural
erosion and mineral deposition processes, similar to those described above.
Stormwater run-off and pollution
Vast areas of land covered in concrete and bitumen, particularly in large cities, generate an enormous
amount of contaminated stormwater and rainwater run-off. This pollutes our waterways and damages
fragile coastal ecosystems. Added to these contaminants are petroleum-related pollutants emitted
from motorboats, ferries and large ships, which account for about 20-30 per cent per cent of all
marine pollution.
Sand mining
In some parts of Australia particularly Queensland, northern New South Wales, parts of Western
Australia and South Australia, certain minerals found in beach sand are mined for the production of
paints and industrial tools. These sand minerals include zircon, ilmenite and rutile. In some areas of
WA, calcareous sand beneath seabeds is also mined for the production of limestone and cement.
Australia has the world's largest Economic Demonstrated Resource (EDR) of these mineral sands
and they are an important source of export earnings. Their extraction, however, requires the quarrying
of beaches, which disrupts the natural cycles that form sand banks and destroys the habitats of many
plants and animals.
Recreation and tourism
Australians have also utilised the coastline for recreational and tourism purposes. The construction of
high-rise resorts, shopping esplanades, playgrounds, golf courses and beach car parks are a few
common examples. While this development has undoubtedly enhanced the lifestyles of residents and
the holiday experiences of domestic and overseas tourists, it has caused significant damage to
Australia's precious coastal areas. Even in less-frequented areas, the use of sand dunes for
recreational purposes (the now popularised four-wheel driving a prime example) damages sand dune
formation and scares away wildlife. See animation 1
Excessive boating activity in river mouths and estuaries has also led to extensive erosion of river
banks. It has also destroyed vegetation in these areas, which is important for the preservation of
biodiversity and maintenance of soil structure and composition.
Sustainable coastal management
The protection of Australia's coastline depends on our capacity to implement sustainable coastal
management initiatives. This will need to include such considerations as balancing competing uses of
the coast, increasing the amount of protected marine and estuarine reserves, restricting further
development in coastal areas and conducting research into making the most of coastal areas in an
ecologically sustainable manner.
One factor which has hindered the protection of Australia's coastline in the past has been a lack of
tight regulations placed on private sector developers. Another is that different levels of government in
Australia manage separate areas of the coastline. Broadly speaking, responsibility for the coastline
within three nautical miles (nm) of the shore rests with the local, State and Territory governments. The
federal government is responsible for the management of waters for 200 nm beyond this. This division
of powers can complicate matters because the environmental impacts of activities undertaken in
coastal zones do not follow this jurisdictional division.
On a positive note, in 2003 the federal government endorsed the 'Framework for a National
Cooperative Approach to Integrated Coastal Zone Management'. This initiative has been a key
milestone in addressing the need for coordinated efforts and tighter monitoring of development in the
area of coastal management.
2.0 Achievements and results
2.1 Environmental and economic impacts of program TOBES/BEC
2.2 International uptake of the program TOBES
Worldwide examples of Blue Flag
In January 2007 the International Blue Flag Coordination branch released its 20th Anniversary report
(http://www.blueflag.org/Materiale/Publication-downloads/20thAnnPublication.pdf). Within this report are a
number of country specific evaluations which show examples of Blue Flag’s achievements with Ireland, Finland,
Italy, Morocco and Slovenia.
In Slovenia the program has been focussed on implementing and e-application system which would allow
organisations to fill in appropriate paperwork online and this application would not only increase efficiency, and
could be modelled worldwide, it also reduces the consumption of ink and paper of each office.
In Morocco the Blue Flag’s programs have directly benefited those previously unable to access the beach by
providing disabled access ramps to the beach. Another initiative that they took on was at the beach of Essaouira
where a children’s park was created to encourage public use of the beach and through this initiative 5 permanent
jobs were created.
In Italy, the focus has been somewhat different. Blue Flag’s role in Italy has been to liase with local municipalities
and encourage them to implement initiatives that improve water quality and sustainable beach access such as
investigating methods of transport to the beach and demanding suitable water treatment plants be used in these
areas.
In Finland the issue that Blue Flag has been focussing on has once again been different. Here the problem is the
eutrophication of the Baltic Sea which affects water quality with algal blooms and the death of large areas of seabottom flora and fauna. The Helsinki Convention (HELCOM) aims to prohibit toilet waste discharges directly into
the sea as the is very little water exchange with the Atlantic. Finland is further along than any other countries on
the Baltic sea and here Blue Flag has obligatory requirements that its accredited Marinas install toilet water
pump-out facilities.
In Ireland there has been strong growth in the Blue Flag eco-label and the Blue Flag Programme is funded by the
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Here the programme has been linked to good
beach guides, and is often integrated with other programmes from the Foundation for Environmental Education
(FEE) which runs Green School programmes. It also has been promoting individual boat registration whereby
boat owners commit to an environmental code of conduct.
These examples show the diversity of programmes, initiatives and outcomes that Blue Flag has produced around
the world. It should be noted that all participating countries follow the same International Blue Flag criteria for
both beaches and marinas, with some regional variations.
2.3 Difficulties/challenges experienced in implementation TOBES
2.4 Tourism (Croatia) BEC
3.0 Contribution to a sustainable future
3.1 Effectiveness of eco-labelling - BEC
The Blue Flag program is a voluntary eco-label. Eco-Labelling began in Germany in 1977 with the
scheme combining two initiatives; lifecycle analysis to trace environmental performance and third
party assurance. By 1986 a national eco-labelling scheme had started in Spain, moving forward to
1991 with Nordic Countries and France as well as Japan, New Zealand and Canada.
Corporate responses to the labelling have varied. An example of this is Hewlett Parack using
multiple standards to drive innovation and design and markets its products on this basis. MORE
INFO ABOUT HP sales increases. MacDonald’s for example publicised its recyclable plastic
clamshells in 1989 with the help of the Environmental Defence Fund.
By 1990 non-government eco-labels were coming of age. Blue Flag, although underdeveloped at
this stage was starting to be recognised in tourism industries around the world as a way of
promoting their environmental suitability and encouraging tourism.
One company, adopting eco-labeling in 1999 was home depot. Home Depot began giving
preferenctial treatment to FSC-certified wood in 1999. It was the fist Major US home
improvement retailer to do so and quickly became the largest. Seeing an increase in sales and
promotion of Eco-Friendly products, Home Depot has its own in-house label called Eco-Options to
flag 2500 products that it believe has the lowest environmental impact.
One of the earliest papers on environmental labeling is Henion (1972) who analyzes changes in the
market shares of various brands of detergent in response to the provision of information on each
product’s phosphate content. In the 1970’s, phosphates had been found to produce a negative
impact on the environment, primarily through over-fertilization of surface waters. Being a major
contributor to the release of phosphates into the ecosystems, detergents came under intense
public scrutiny, and a voluntary labeling scheme was devised to inform concerned consumers
about the phosphate content of some brands. Henion (1972) found that labeling detergents with
low phosphate counts had a positive effect on the market shares for these labeled detergents.
There is evidence that eco-promising can increase sales, and many environmentally based product
markets are growing rapidly. Mike Barry, head of corporate social responsibility at Marks &
Spencer, suggests that environmental messaging on clothing can offer competitive advantage and
price premiums. Across all retailers global sales of organic products have topped $40 billion,
growing at a rate of over 10 per cent each year.
The Blue Flag initiative shows an increase not only on environmental impacts, but also shows
consumers’ willingness to pay more for Marinas who ‘fly the flag’.
In 2010 a study carried out by Toni Sipic (PHD Candidate, Department of Economics, University of
Oregon) found that Blue Flag certified marinas enjoy an average premium between 6.6% and 22%
for daily slip rentals; 40% and 49% for monthly slip rentals; and 23% for yearly slip rentals.
Furthermore, within the sailboat charter sector, vessels whose home marina is awarded the Blue
Flag carried a price premium, on average, between 14% and 20% on a weekly sailboat rental.
When it comes to hotel accommodation, hotels managing a Blue Flag certified beach enjoy a price
premium between 45% and 270%.
Furthermore, such a profit incentive is leading to more marinas making and an effort to conform to
the requirements for Blue Flag certification, in the hope that they too might be eligible for Blue
Flag label.
Using stricter criteria than previously recognised at program initiation, FEE expanded Blue Flag
beyond Europe to become internationally recognised. Recognition increased from 244.
3.2 Changes in behaviour – recreational and economic uses
Worldwide case studies
Welfare changes associated with two hypothetical scenarios were estimated, one of which (loss of
Blue Flag status), has since become reality. The estimated cost of this loss of Blue Flag status was
estimated to lie in the range of R17-R25 million p.a. (in terms of lost recreational value). Given the
lack of awareness regarding the meaning of Blue Flag status at the time of the survey, this is likely to
be an underestimate. Visit rates were found to be more responsive to a decline in water quality
described in terms of visual, odour and health effects, with an estimated loss under this scenario of
R70-R82 million p.a. However, with Blue Flag status subsequently withdrawn, awareness of the
relationship between Blue Flag status and water quality is likely to have increased markedly.
The magnitude of these estimated losses suggest that drastic action to ensure re-instatement of Blue
Flag status is warranted. Authorities have proposed construction of a new sewage pump station
costing approximately R8 million, and an investigation into unofficial and illegal sewage and
stormwater connections. The results of this study, where benefits of such action are estimated to be
at least R17-R25 million p.a. (valuing time costs at 30% of the wage rate), suggest that such action is
justified. Even ignoring time costs, benefits of restoring Blue Flag status range between R14 and R24
million p.a.
In interpreting these estimates, however, some caveats should be noted. First, the results are based
on a relatively small sample (274 households), and on data collected over 5 days, thus missing any
seasonal effects. Second, there were problems relating to awareness of Blue Flag status and
perceptions of the effects of a decline in water quality, which may have affected the welfare change
estimates. Finally, estimates are relatively high on a per hectare basis. However, estimates of the
benefits of ensuring Blue Flag status is restored are plausible in relation to the costs of the proposed
measures. A follow-up survey subsequent to actual withdrawal of Blue Flag status has not been
feasible to date, although additional information on changes in visitor rates and expenditure will be
sought to further investigate this issue.
4.0 Innovations BEC
5. Implementation in Australia
5.1 Funding TOBES
5.2 Implementation Process TOBES
The Process of Application for a new country is as follows.
The Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE) and the Blue Flag Coordination often receive requests about
how to implement the Blue Flag Programme in a new country. First of all, FEE and the Blue Flag Coordination
should be contacted in case of interest for starting up the Blue Flag Programme in a new country.
MEMBERSHIP OF FEE
In order for a new country to start up the Blue Flag Programme, a suitable organisation must be identified to carry
out the task as national Blue Flag operator. In order to be suitable, the organisation must be a non-profit, nongovernmental, independent organisation and it must have environmental education and protection as important
objectives. It is an obvious advantage if the organisation has a history of environmental work related to local
authorities and also experiences with national initiatives. If there is no suitable organisation, a new national
organisation can be founded.
Once such an organisation is found or founded, it must become a member of the Foundation for Environmental
Education (FEE). This in turn means that the organisation must be in accordance with the statutes of FEE, be
able to raise the necessary funds to pay the subscription fee, be able to run the Blue Flag Programme and lastly
be ready and willing to participate in the other activities of FEE as well. It is the FEE Executive Board and
General Assembly that consider and approve applications for membership and it puts a great deal of emphasis
on whether the organisation is generally sharing the objectives of FEE.
Can Blue Flag be implemented in Australia?
 It was recently implemented in New Zealand
 It is funded by Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in Ireland so it



follows that a similar government department in Australia could do this too.
We should actually contact old mate in Denmark and see if there are some information packs
that he could send on email?
There is a possibility of corporate partners
It is currently linked with Coast Care in Ireland as well
5.3 Education awareness - LETISHA
6. Conclusions
7. Recommendations
Funding
http://www.globalecolabelling.net/docs/documents/intro_to_ecolabelling.pdf
http://www.bsr.org/reports/BSR_Eco-Promising_April_2008.pdf