Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018 (Protected Zones) Declaration Instrument 2019

The instrument organises its legal effect around a small set of concepts drawn from the Act and specific geographic definitions inserted into the instrument.

• Protected zone: Each schedule entry is declared a "protected zone" by operation of the instrument (item 5). The protected zone is defined horizontally as a circle with a stated radius and centre point in latitude/longitude defined using the WGS84 datum (Schedule 1 entries). The instrument gives the vertical extent explicitly (airspace to 152 metres, waters, seabed and subsoil), thereby creating a three-dimensional regulatory envelope over the site (final paragraph of Schedule 1).

• Prohibited conduct: For each protected zone the instrument lists the specific conduct that is prohibited within that zone. The prohibited conduct is not uniform across all zones; the schedule uses a set of defined categories. Common prohibitions are: entry of persons or vessels; underwater activities; anchoring or mooring vessels; allowing a vessel to become stationary; fishing (with specific methods listed in some entries); release or deposit of objects or materials; and restrictions on underwater activities within 200 metres of the seabed for sites that are in deep water. The schedule therefore creates a menu of negative obligations tailored to individual sites rather than a single universal ban.

• Site identity: Each zone is linked to a historical wreck or aircraft by name and year (for example, "appear to be the HMAS Sydney II (1941)"). The instrument uses the language "appear to be", which signals that the identity of the material in situ is not stated as an absolute legal finding in the instrument itself but as the basis for protecting the area. The instrument therefore protects the area containing remains that are identified on the schedule as appearing to be particular items.

• Datum and precision: The schedule requires the use of the WGS84 datum for defining the coordinates (Definitions, item 4). That ensures a common geodetic reference for all the circular zones.

• Time limitation and ministerial authority: The instrument is time-limited to 12 years from commencement unless varied or revoked earlier (item 2) and is expressly made under subsection 20(1) of the Act (item 3). The Minister for the Environment is the decision-maker who made the declaration (first paragraph).

• Interaction with the Act: The instrument repeatedly ties back to the Act (for example, "Act means the Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018" in item 4). The definition "Australian waters" is expressly taken from section 11 of the Act, importing the Act's maritime geographic scope into the instrument. The instrument therefore operates as a delegated regulatory act dependent on the Act’s substantive and procedural frameworks.

Operationally these concepts mean the instrument creates legally enforceable no-go and no-disturb zones over named shipwreck and aircraft sites, with site-specific rules, a fixed geodetic basis, and vertical coverage that includes airspace and seabed/subsoil. The instrument does not itself define the enforcement architecture, remedial procedures for authorisation, or administrative processes for variation; those mechanisms will be governed by the Act and any associated regulations or instruments under the Act.

The instrument directly imposes prohibitions within defined three-dimensional areas, so it affects any person or entity whose ordinary activities would intersect those spaces. The instrument repeatedly uses the language "entry of persons or vessels" and references actions by vessels and persons, so the immediate affected classes include:

• Masters and operators of vessels, including commercial shipping, recreational craft, tourism operators, dive-charter vessels and others who navigate Australian waters; several zone items specifically prohibit "allowing a vessel to become stationary" or "anchoring or mooring vessels" within the zone, which directly constrains vessel operations in the defined circles.

• Persons engaged in underwater activities, which the schedule explicitly prohibits in all zones (words used are "underwater activities" and in several entries "underwater activities within 200 metres of the sea bed"). That language will directly affect diving operators, scientific divers, survey contractors, salvage companies, remotely operated vehicle operators and operators of other subsea work.

• Fishers and fishing operations where the schedule makes specific reference to "fishing including trawling, netting, dredging and pot or trap fishing". Those entries will affect commercial fishers using those methods, and fisheries managers will need to be aware of the geographic limits imposed in relation to their licensing and planning.

• Individuals or organisations that would otherwise deposit or release materials in those areas, since several zones prohibit the "release or deposit of objects or materials". That would directly affect seabed mining, dredging contractors, and any operation that disposes of objects or discharges materials into the sea.

• Aircraft operators, and pilots of low-flying aircraft or those operating drones, because the instrument expressly includes the airspace above the area to a height of 152 metres from mean sea level. The practical effect is that operators of aircraft and aerial devices that might otherwise fly low over these zones will be constrained where those operations would contravene the instrument. The instrument uses the term airspace and fixes a vertical dimension.

• Any party contemplating exploration, survey or development activity that would impinge on seabed or subsoil rights in or beneath the zone. The instrument extends to the seabed and subsoil and therefore creates a layer of protection that engages activities touching those parts of the marine environment.

• Ports, pilots and shipping service providers who may need to route traffic around protected circles or provide advice to masters on compliance.

Because the instrument defines "Australian waters" by reference to section 11 of the Act (Definitions, item 4), the geographic reach is limited to the waters that the Act itself describes. The practical consequence is the zones are sited in the maritime jurisdiction described by the Act; the instrument does not purport to affect foreign waters or rights beyond that definition.

The instrument also has indirect effects. For example, insurers and risk managers for commercial vessels, dive operators and fishers will need to factor these zones into risk assessments and insurance underwriting. Operators reliant on anchoring, trawling, dredging or seabed work in proximity to any zone will face operational constraints and potential re-routing or re-scheduling costs. Researchers and museums who may wish to study or recover artefacts will be constrained by the prohibition on underwater activities and on release/deposit of materials and will need to determine whether any permit or authorisation process under the Act applies.

Finally, the instrument does not itself prescribe exemptions or authorisation processes in the schedule. Any person who believes they need to carry on otherwise prohibited conduct will need to look to the Act (and any regulations or administrative procedures thereunder) for mechanisms to seek permission, variation or revocation. The instrument therefore places the immediate compliance on those conducting activity in the listed spaces and places procedural expectations on persons who must engage with the Act to seek any relief.

The instrument creates negative obligations by specifying prohibited conduct for each protected zone, and thereby imposes duties on persons and vessels to refrain from those actions in the specified areas. The primary duty is compliance with the list of prohibited conduct in Schedule 1. Because the instrument prescribes different prohibitions for different sites, the specific duties vary by location; examples drawn from the schedule include duties to:

• Refrain from entering the area with persons or vessels where the schedule lists "Entry of persons or vessels" as prohibited.
• Not allow a vessel to become stationary where that particular prohibition is listed.
• Refrain from anchoring or mooring, where anchoring or mooring is listed as prohibited conduct.
• Not undertake underwater activities generally, or not undertake underwater activities within 200 metres of the seabed, where that narrower prohibition is specified.
• Refrain from fishing, including trawling, netting, dredging and pot or trap fishing, where those activities are expressly prohibited.
• Refrain from the release or deposit of objects or materials where that conduct is specified.

These duties arise on commencement and remain in force for the 12-year duration unless the instrument is varied or revoked earlier (item 2). The duties apply within the three-dimensional envelope described by each circular zone (Schedule 1: final paragraph).

On rights: the instrument does not lay out positive rights of access or a permit application procedure. It does not itself provide an express administrative right to apply for authorisation, nor does it describe the criteria for any exemption or the procedural steps to seek variation. Any right to apply for authorisation, exemption, variation or revocation must therefore be sought under the Act that empowers the Minister (the instrument is made under subsection 20(1) of the Act; item 3). Practitioners and affected parties must therefore consult the Act for procedural rights and remedies, because the instrument is purely declaratory and prescriptive in respect of prohibitions.

Other implied procedural matters emerge from the instrument's structure:

• The instrument identifies the Minister as the decision-maker who declared the zones (the instrument is signed by the Minister). Item 5 notes that each Protected Zone specified in a Schedule is declared as set out in the applicable items, which implies the schedule entries are the operative legal content.

• The schedule language "appear to be" when identifying wrecks or aircraft indicates that the instrument does not purport to make a final legal finding of identity in the instrument itself. That linguistic choice may affect the scope for administrative review or subsequent legal contest about the precise identity of the remains; however, the instrument does not set out any process for identity confirmation.

• The instrument includes an express temporal limit and a clause allowing earlier variation or revocation (item 2). Those express provisions create an implicit duty on the relevant administrative agency to manage renewals, variations or revocations consistent with the Act.

In short: the instrument creates a framework of negative duties (prohibitions) that operate within precisely defined three-dimensional zones for a time-limited period. Positive administrative rights and procedures to obtain permission are not contained in this instrument and must be found in the Act or subordinate instruments under the Act.

The instrument itself does not set out penalties, fines, enforcement officers or enforcement processes. It is a declaration made under subsection 20(1) of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018 (item 3), and as such the instrument's prohibitions are implemented within the broader enforcement architecture of the Act. The instrument therefore creates prohibited conduct inside the listed zones, but it refers back to the Act for the legal consequences of contravention.

Because the instrument is silent on enforcement mechanics, the following points are drawn from the instrument’s structure and the relationship to the Act:

• The instrument makes the conduct described in the schedule "prohibited" within the corresponding protected zone; that is the operative legal effect (first paragraph). The instrument does not itself say what breach of those prohibitions constitutes (for example, whether it is an offence, a civil penalty, or an administrative contravention) , those are matters for the Act to determine.

• Enforcement and penalties therefore depend on provisions elsewhere in the Act and any regulations made under it. Persons seeking to understand sanctions, available remedies, enforcement agency powers (including powers to board vessels, seize equipment, or commence prosecutions), and procedural safeguards must consult the Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018.

• The instrument leaves open the ability to vary or revoke the protected zones before the 12-year term expires (item 2). That implies an administrative pathway for changing legal effect, but the instrument does not state who can request variation, what criteria will be applied, or what process will be followed; those procedural details will be in the Act or in administrative practice under the Act.

• Because the instrument extends to airspace (152 metres above mean sea level), seabed and subsoil, enforcement could in principle involve regulatory coordination across agencies responsible for maritime safety, fisheries, defence and aviation , but the instrument does not itself create inter-agency enforcement arrangements.

For practitioners advising clients or assessing compliance risk, the critical points are:

• Do not rely on this instrument alone to determine the punishment or enforcement tools for non-compliance; see the Act.
• Expect that contravention of the instrument’s prohibitions will have legal consequences under the Act, and prepare to consult the Act for the precise sanctioning regime and enforcement powers.
• Factor in the instrument’s temporal dimension (12-year term) for planning enforcement priorities and possible future changes.

In sum, this instrument is a declaratory instrument that prescribes prohibited conduct in defined areas; enforcement and penalties for contravention are matters for the Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018 and any subordinate instruments or administrative processes established under that Act.

The instrument is expressly made under the Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018 (item 3) and repeatedly ties back to that Act (Definitions, item 4). Consequently, its primary legal interactions will be with the Act and any regulations, policies or administrative instruments made under the Act. The instrument also intersects spatially and functionally with other regimes that govern maritime activity because it restricts navigation, fishing, underwater work and airspace above the zones. The instrument itself identifies a few specific interaction points:

• Jurisdictional scope: The instrument limits its operation to "Australian waters" as defined in section 11 of the Act (Definitions, item 4). The instrument therefore imports the Act’s geographical remit into its own effect. Any activity outside those waters will not be affected by this instrument.

• Overlap with maritime safety and navigation law: Several prohibitions affect vessel movement (for example, "allowing a vessel to become stationary", "entry of persons or vessels", and "anchoring or mooring vessels"). Those prohibitions overlap with maritime safety regimes and navigational rules under other maritime law instruments (not set out in this instrument). Operators subject to maritime safety obligations will need to account for the protected zones when planning voyages and complying with navigational rules.

• Fisheries law interaction: Several protected zones expressly prohibit fishing and list particular methods (trawling, netting, dredging, pot or trap fishing). That creates a point of intersection with fisheries management and licensing regimes. Fisheries agencies and licence-holders must recognise the instrument’s prohibitions where they fall within the geographic areas; the instrument does not itself amend fisheries licences but may render certain licensed activities unlawful within the zones.

• Seabed and resource development: The instrument extends to seabed and subsoil. That can constrain activities governed by seabed resource, petroleum, dredging or seabed mining legislation where those activities would otherwise be authorised or licensed. The instrument does not amend those other regimes, but it creates a legal constraint that proponents and regulators will need to consider.

• Aviation and low-altitude operations: The inclusion of airspace to 152 metres above mean sea level means low-flying aircraft, helicopters on approach, and drone operations may be affected. While aviation law and airspace control are not set out in this instrument, operators must be aware that the instrument prescribes protected airspace below the 152-metre threshold. Coordination between maritime and aviation regulators may be necessary where operations overlap.

• Defence and emergency exceptions: The instrument does not state any exceptions for defence or emergency operations; however, it is silent on whether other statutory powers (for example defence mobilisations, emergency responses or safety exceptions under other Acts) can lawfully occur in a protected zone. That is a point of potential legal interaction that requires reference to other statutes conferring overriding powers.

• Charting and navigation: Because the schedule uses the WGS84 datum, which it defines in item 4, the instrument interacts with charting and navigation standards. Navigational chart providers, electronic chart systems, AIS, and vessel navigation protocols will need to incorporate the WGS84-based circles. The instrument’s choice of datum reduces the risk of positional mismatch but requires users to ensure chart datum consistency.

The instrument therefore sits as a site-specific overlay on top of the existing patchwork of maritime, fisheries, seabed resource, aviation and defence law. It does not itself resolve conflicts between those regimes; rather it imposes site-specific prohibitions that will need to be accommodated by other regulators, licence-holders and operators. For parties planning activity that could be affected, the necessary steps are to check the Act for enabling powers, consult relevant sectoral regulators, and consider administrative steps under the Act for permission or variation where appropriate.

The instrument’s dated signature is 26 June 2019 and, by item 2, the instrument commenced on 1 July 2019. Item 2 also provides the instrument remains in force for a period of 12 years unless earlier varied or revoked. The instrument explicitly states it is made under subsection 20(1) of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018 (item 3). Item 5 provides that each Protected Zone specified in a Schedule to this instrument is declared as set out in the applicable items, and that any other item in a Schedule has effect according to its terms.

Within the four corners of this instrument there are no recorded amendments, variations or revocations. The instrument contains an express self-limiting provision (12 years) and allows earlier variation or revocation (item 2). Practically that means the instrument will, by its own terms, expire 12 years after commencement (commencement 1 July 2019), unless the Minister or other authorised person varies or revokes it sooner. The instrument does not state the administrative procedure for variation or revocation, or the grounds on which a variation or revocation would be made; those procedural and substantive rules will be in the Act or in administrative practice.

For users tracking the instrument over time, relevant amendment-history items to monitor are:

• Any ministerial instrument or notice altering Schedule 1 by adding, removing or amending circle centres, radii, or prohibited conduct entries.
• Any formal variation or revocation instruments issued prior to the 12-year expiry that modify the zones or their prohibitions.
• Any subordinate instruments, regulations or statutory instruments made under the Act that articulate procedures for applying for permission to carry out otherwise prohibited conduct within a protected zone.
• Any administrative guidance, protocols or inter-agency memoranda that would have practical effect on how the instrument is enforced.

Because the instrument does not itself contain an amendment log or history, practitioners should assume that all modifications will be effected by separate instruments and check the official register for any subsequent instrument or gazette notice that varies or revokes this declaration. The instrument’s own text mandates checking the Act for the legal authority and the process for variation and revocation.

The instrument, as provided, contains no record of litigation. It is a ministerial declaration in exercise of the power in subsection 20(1) of the Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018 (see item 3). The instrument does not record any legal challenges, judicial review proceedings, or other litigation relating to the declaration.

Because the instrument is a delegated legislative instrument creating prohibitions in defined places, potential causes of litigation could include judicial review challenges to the validity of the declaration under administrative law, or prosecutions or civil enforcement proceedings arising from alleged contraventions. None of those possibilities are recorded in the instrument text provided.

Practitioners seeking litigation history must therefore consult court and tribunal databases, administrative law records, and official registers for any judicial review or other litigation that post-dates or pertained to the declaration. The instrument itself furnishes the factual basis for such litigation (centres, radii, prohibited conduct and the instrument’s temporal scope), but does not provide examples of actual enforcement actions or judicial decisions.

If a client requires an assessment of legal risks arising from potential enforcement or litigation, the next steps are:

• Check the Act for enforcement and penalty provisions likely to be applied in cases of contravention.
• Search federal court and tribunal databases for judicial review applications, statutory appeals or prosecutions that cite this specific instrument or one of the Schedule’s identified wrecks or aircraft.
• Monitor agency enforcement bulletins and maritime notices for notices of contravention, infringement notices, or public enforcement actions connected to these zones.

The instrument itself does not disclose any past litigation; ascertainment of litigation history therefore requires external legal research beyond the instrument.

The instrument is precise in many respects but contains several practical ambiguities and operational traps that are consequential for operators and advisers. The following are concrete “gotchas” drawn from the instrument’s text and structure:

1. Datum precision and positional risk: The schedule requires use of the WGS84 datum (Definitions, item 4). While many modern navigation systems use WGS84 by default, marine charts and some older systems may use different datums. Failure to convert to WGS84 could lead to inadvertent entry into a protected circle. Operators should ensure their charts, ECDIS, GPS units and plotting software consistently use WGS84.

2. “Allowing a vessel to become stationary” ambiguity: Several entries prohibit "allowing a vessel to become stationary". That phrase can be operationally ambiguous: does it prohibit stopping for emergency reasons, drifting as a result of engine failure, or required halts for safety? The instrument contains no express exception for emergencies. Practitioners should advise vessel masters to prepare evidence of emergency necessity and to notify authorities if stopping occurs to reduce compliance risk.

3. “Underwater activities” undefined: The phrase "underwater activities" is used throughout but is not defined in the instrument. It could cover diving, submersible operations, ROV/AUV survey work, seabed sampling, and even recreational snorkelling depending on interpretation. The lack of definition creates legal uncertainty for surveyors, divers and scientific teams; those parties should seek clarification from the administering authority or seek permits under the Act where necessary.

4. Differential prohibitions and operational complexity: The prohibited conduct is not uniform across zones. For example, some sites prohibit entry of persons or vessels while others prohibit only anchoring, or prohibit underwater activities only within 200 metres of the seabed. That creates a patchwork of restrictions that complicates voyage planning and operational compliance, particularly where multiple zones are in proximity or where a vessel’s normal operating pattern overlaps several zones.

5. Airspace inclusion: The instrument explicitly includes airspace above the zones to 152 metres (final paragraph of Schedule 1). That can affect drone operations and low-flying aircraft. Aviation operators may not ordinarily check a maritime instrument for airspace restrictions; this instrument requires cross-domain awareness.

6. Vertical measurement issues: Several prohibitions refer to "underwater activities within 200 metres of the sea bed". This raises technical questions about how distance is measured,vertical separation to the seabed, slant ranges in sloping seabed, and precision of depth measurements. For deep-water wrecks, the practical meaning of "within 200 metres of the seabed" may be different in a survey or ROV context. Operators should document measurement methodology and obtain technical advice if planning operations near the threshold.

7. Identity phrase “appear to be”: Each site is described as containing remains that "appear to be" a specific named vessel or aircraft. That language leaves open the possibility that further investigation might show a different identity. Parties who wish to challenge a declaration on the basis that the remains are otherwise identified will need to refer to the Act’s mechanisms for variation or revocation; the instrument does not itself provide a process.

8. Overlap with other statutory permissions: The instrument does not state how it will be reconciled with other statutory licences or authorisations (for example, fisheries licences, petroleum permits, defence directions). Practical conflict may arise if a licensee under another statute contends it has permission to operate in the area. The instrument provides no express carve-out for prior authorised activities and leaves resolution to the Act and inter-statutory coordination.

9. Duration expectations: The instrument lasts 12 years unless varied or revoked earlier (item 2). Parties planning long-term projects must account for the instrument’s time limit; conversely, heritage interests should note that the protected status is not permanent under this instrument alone.

10. No administrative procedure in the instrument: The instrument contains no application, exemption or permit procedure. Parties cannot rely on the instrument for a mechanism to seek permission , they must consult the Act. Practically, that can result in delay if the Act’s administrative mechanisms are not well publicised or are resource-constrained.

These are not theoretical pitfalls: they are concrete operational issues embedded in the instrument’s wording. Advisers should map their clients’ activities against the exact coordinates, check the prohibited conduct for the specific zone, ensure datum consistency, build emergency procedures that document necessity, and open communications with the administering authority to seek clarity or permission where needed.

Compliance with this declaration instrument requires a practical, site-specific and documentary approach. The instrument prescribes prohibited conduct within specified circles; it does not provide on its face an authorisation pathway. The following compliance checklist is anchored to the instrument’s terms and to pragmatic implementation steps.

1. Map the zones precisely using WGS84:

   • Obtain the list of coordinates from Schedule 1 and input them into navigation systems and charting software that use WGS84 (the instrument defines WGS84 in item 4). Confirm ECDIS, GPS units and paper charts are consistent with WGS84 to avoid positional error.
   • Plot the circles at the exact radii stated in the schedule (e.g. 500 m, 800 m, 2,000 m, 3,200 m, 50 m) and overlay on planned routes and operational areas.

2. Identify which prohibited conduct applies to the site(s) relevant to your operations:

   • For each zone your vessel or activity might encounter, read the schedule entry to determine whether the prohibitions are entry of persons or vessels, allowing a vessel to become stationary, anchoring or mooring, underwater activities, release/deposit of materials, fishing by specified methods, or restrictions on underwater activities relative to the seabed.
   • Document the specific obligations for each site in operational checklists and SOPs.

3. Update operational plans and procedures:

   • Navigation plans and pilot orders should include avoidance paths for protected circles. Ensure passage plans include buffer distances and contingency routing.
   • For voyage planning, set automatic alerts on navigation systems for proximity to protected circles.
   • For vessels that routinely anchor or drift (e.g. fishing boats, survey vessels), revise standard operating procedures to prevent stopping within the areas where "allowing a vessel to become stationary" or "anchoring or mooring" is prohibited.

4. Drill emergency protocols:

   • Because the instrument does not spell out exceptions for emergencies, implement a clear emergency response protocol to record reasons for any necessary stopping or entry into a zone (for example, engine failure, medical emergency). Ensure masters immediately notify the administering authority (contact details to be found via the Act’s administration) and retain logs, timestamps, communication records and evidence of necessity.

5. For underwater operations, define technical thresholds and measurement methods:

   • For sites that prohibit "underwater activities within 200 metres of the sea bed", determine depth and vertical separation measurement methods, and design operations to maintain clear margins or obtain prior approval.
   • Ensure ROV/AUV and dive teams maintain altitude sensors and record logs confirming they remained outside prohibited ranges.

6. Address airspace and drone operations:

   • Ensure that drone pilots and helicopter operations are aware of the instrument’s vertical coverage up to 152 metres and plan flights accordingly. Confirm compliance with any aviation rules that may apply and coordinate with aviation authorities where necessary.

7. Fisheries and seabed operations:

   • Commercial fishers should cross-check fishing plans against the schedule and refrain from prohibited methods within the applicable circles.
   • Contractors proposing seabed work, dredging, or material release must consult the Act and the administering agency to confirm whether additional permissions are required and whether an operation may be authorised despite the instrument’s prohibitions.

8. Seek authorisation or clarification under the Act where necessary:

   • The instrument makes no permit procedure explicit. Parties who require an exception or authorisation should refer to the Underwater Cultural Heritage Act 2018 for mechanisms to seek permission, variation, or revocation. Start that process early and gather supporting technical, safety and heritage-engagement materials.
   • If the identity of a wreck is relevant to your operation, be prepared to engage with the administrative process to seek variation, noting the instrument’s wording that the remains "appear to be" a particular vessel or aircraft.

9. Record-keeping and compliance evidence:

   • Maintain navigation logs, AIS tracks, depth-sounder records, dive logs, ROV/AUV telemetry, communication records and any permits or correspondence with the administering authority. In the event of an enforcement inquiry, contemporaneous records will be central to the factual narrative.

10. Insurance and contractual steps:

• Notify insurers and ensure policies account for restrictions imposed by the instrument. Consider contractual clauses that allocate risk for delays or route changes resulting from protected zones.
• For charter operators and tour operators, update client-facing materials and waiver language to avoid offering access to prohibited areas.

11. Inter-agency coordination:

• Where operations implicate fisheries, aviation, defence or seabed rights, contact the relevant regulators early. The instrument does not itself resolve inter-regulatory issues; practical compliance will often depend on coordination between agencies.

12. Public notification and signage:

• Where appropriate, erect or request maritime notices to mariners and publish avoidance information on company notices and industry bulletins to ensure all masters and operators are aware.

13. Legal advice:

• Because the instrument defers to the Act for penalty and enforcement mechanisms, seek legal advice on the Act’s provisions if there is a planned operation near a protected zone or if seeking authorisation. Obtain counsel before taking actions that could be characterised as prohibited conduct.

Following these steps will position an operator to comply with the instrument’s prohibitions and to manage risk arising from the declaration. The central compliance tasks are precise geodetic mapping (use WGS84), operational planning to avoid prohibited conduct, documentation in case of emergencies, and proactive engagement with the Act’s administrative processes where an authorisation or variation is needed.