Adaptive, Ecosystem-Based Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Reserve Network

A globally significant demonstration of the benefits of networks of marine reserves

Laurence McCook, Pew Fellow in Marine Conservation, ARC Centre of Excell. Coral Reef Studies

(& Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority), &

Very many GBR scientists

Pew Fellows Program in Marine Conservation

A science & management team effort & consensus statement • Tony Ayling • Mike Cappo • J. Howard Choat • Richard D. Evans • Debora M. De Freitas • Michelle Heupel • Terry P. Hughes • Geoffrey P. Jones • Bruce Mapstone • Helene Marsh • Morena Mills • Fergus Molloy • C. Roland Pitcher • Robert L. Pressey • Garry R. Russ • Stephen Sutton • Hugh Sweatman • Renae Tobin • David R. Wachenfeld • David H. Williamson

• GBRMPA & Pew Fellows Program • AIMS • ARC Centre of Excellence for Reef Studies • MTSRF & RRRC • JCU Marine & Tropical Biology &

JCU School of Earth & Environmental Sciences • CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Sciences

• FRDC; QFMA

• MANY GBRMPA STAFF; esp. • Mick Bishop, James Aumend, Reg Parsons, Mark

Read; Spatial Data Centre • James Innes, Ingrid van Putten & GBRMPA Social-

Economics team; • S. Gaines, J. Lubchenco, K Grorud_Colvert, S.

Lester; • N Stoeckl, J. Quiggan and G. Lange

Pew Fellows Program in Marine Conservation

Generous contributions of EXTENSIVE Unpublished data

Outcomes: a tribute to good process….

• “Overall, zoning of the GBR marine reserve network appears to be making major contributions to the protection of biodiversity, ecosystem resilience and social and economic values of the GBR Marine Park.”

• Overall, the available evidence suggests that the large-scale network of marine reserves on the GBR is proving to be an excellent investment in social, economic and environmental terms.

• “The breadth and extent of benefits reflect very well on the scientific and engagement processes involved in the development and implementation of the 2004 Zoning Plan, especially

• the value of larger reserve size and high proportion of overall area in reserves to provide margins of error.”

• Global best practice… significant demonstration of success$ • Tribute to collaboration between managers, team & leadership, scientists,

politicians & community.

Outline: • Background: EBM, Adaptive Management, etc • Results:

– Fish & sharks – direct effects (+/- 2004) – Corals & Foodwebs – indirect effects – Non-reef habitats & shoals; – Species of Conservation Concern:

Dugong & Turtles; – Compliance – Economics – Social impacts

• • Take Homes: Reef benefits…

GBR: A globally significant case study of paradigms of marine reserve networks

• Scientific significance: – LARGE, replication, before-after, no-entry zones; gradients, background

science. • Best practice implementation - CARR, Operating Principles etc; • Regional scale • Lots of results - new & old zoning; • Exceptional breadth: fish compliance $$ • (Not including process, governance, etc.) • Joint management integrated with GBR Coast Marine Park

Ecosystem-based

management

GBRMP Act now defines “ecosystem-based management” as:

“An integrated approach to the management of an ecosystem and of matters affecting that ecosystem with the primary goal of maintaining ecological processes, biodiversity and functioning biological communities”.

Spatial Management within Ecosystem Based Management:

• Fundamental component of effective ecosystem-based management BUT….

• Only 1 element of integrated package of management strategies used in the GBR to sustain biodiversity & different uses;

Management Approaches • Education & Community Partnerships • Water Qual Partnerships, incentives & regulations • Zoning; • Permitting; • Environmental Impact Management; • Compliance & Enforcement: • Dugong protection areas; • Fisheries Management Plans: Gear Restrictions

(Bycatch reduction); Size Limits; Bag Limits • Temporal closures (eg. fish spawning) • Economic instruments (eg. Environment

Management Charge) • Industry Codes of Practice • Assessment & Influencing activities outside jurisdiction (EPBC);

Many important „activities‟ NOT primarily managed by zoning :

• Defence • Shipping • High use tourism

areas • Research

• Indigenous use • Special Management

Areas • Spawning closures • World Heritage Area

These are better addressed by other planning approaches

More than just no-take zones

• 7 marine zones + Commonwealth Island zone,

• each clear objective to manage different aspects of use and conservation;

• challenge for monitoring...

Zoning Plan- pre 2004

Preservation Zone – ‘ no go’ 0.2% (0.1%)

Marine Nat’l Park - no-take 33.3% (4.6%)

Scient. Research 0.05% (0.01%)

Buffer Zone – trolling only 2.9% (0.1%)

Conservat’n Park – limited fishing 1.5% (0.6%)

Habitat Protect’n – no trawling (66%) 28.2% (15.2%)

General Use – all reasonable uses 33.8% (77.9%)

Revised ZP Old ZP

117,000 km2

Zoning Plan- 2004

2004 New Zoning Plan: A global standard for marine protection

• 33% protected in no-take areas;

• 20% of each of ~70 bioregions;

• ~66% no-trawl

Process: • 11 biophysical operating principles • 4 social & economic operating

principles • Community consultation – 31,500

submissions

B. Offshore Reefs Numbers Biomass

A. Inshore Reefs Numbers Biomass

Monitoring the zoning network- Target fish

2006 2007 2008

0

5

10

15

20

2006 2007 2008

0

10

20

30

40

50Mackay

2006 2007 2008

0

5

10

15

2006 2007 2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

2006 2007 2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

Cairns - Innisfail

Townsville

Swains

Capricorn - Bunkers

Abundance o

f cora

l tr

out

1,0

00m

-2

2006 2007 2008

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2006 2007 2008

0

5

10

15

20Mackay

2006 2007 2008

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2006 2007 2008

0

5

10

15

2006 2007 2008

0

5

10

15

Cairns - Innisfail

Townsville

Swains

Capricorn - Bunkers

Bio

mass o

f cora

l tr

out

(kg.1

,000m

-2)

Monitoring the zoning network Monitoring the zoning network- Target fish- Previous Zoning

Clear, widespread evidence for long-term benefits of no-take zones

• Unpublished data • ELF modelling of management • Depletion by 1984…

0

5

10

15

20

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Fis

h /

1000m

2

1984

D. Redthroat emperor catch surveys

0

1

2

3

4

Lizard Townsville Mackay Swains

Fis

h /

lin

e h

our

C. Coral trout catch surveys

0

4

8

12

Lizard Townsville Mackay Swains

Fis

h /

lin

e h

our

B. Coral trout visual surveys

0

0.5

1

Lizard Townsville Mackay Swains

Fis

h /

250 m

sq. Fished

No-take

Offshore Reefs: Effects of Line Fishing Experiment;

Inshore Reefs: Williamson et al. 2004; Evans & Russ 2004

Effects on ecosystem-wide fish populations: • Benefits to other reserves; to fished areas;

Effects on ecosystem-wide fish populations: • Benefits to other reserves; to fished areas; • Limited adult export (esp. coral trout); • Larval exchange & subsidies:

– Transport between reefs – Jones et al... ongoing – Relative reproductive output – reserves : fished reefs

Big fish -> disproportionate reproductive output; e.g. Green 2.5x blue zones; scaling by area => fished reefs no

loss of reproductive input (Evans et al 08); Russ et al ongoing; – Dispersal distances

Connectivity & mpa networks: Maintain range of dispersal distances

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 12-14 14-16 16-18 18-20 20-22 22-24 24-26 26-28 28-30 30-32 32-34 34-36 36-38 38-40

Nearest neighbour dis tance (km)

% o

f re

efs

All reefs

No-take to no-take

No-take to fis hed

F is hed to no-take

Outcome of OTHER design principles

99.5%

75% 90%

0

0.1

0.2

Whitetip Grey Blacktip All Sharks

Sh

ark

s / lin

e h

ou

rMonitoring the zoning network- Sharks

Catch Rates - Effects of Line Fishing Expt: Heupel et al. 2009

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Whitetip G rey

Sh

ark

s p

er

he

cta

re F is hed

F is hed

No-take

No E ntry

Monitoring the zoning network- Sharks

Visual surveys- Robbins et al. 2006

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Whitetip G rey

Sh

ark

s p

er

he

cta

reMonitoring the zoning network- Sharks

Visual surveys- Ayling & Choat 2008

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Whitetip G rey

Sh

ark

s p

er

he

cta

re F is hed

F is hed

No-take

No E ntry

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Serranids Redthroat Emperor Lutjanids

Fis

h p

er

hecta

re

Fished

No-take

No-entry

Monitoring - No-entry zones, wide-spread depletion & compliance

• (Pre-2004 zoning)

• Compliance problems • (no-entry easier to enforce) • Shifting baseline & depleted

stocks – 66% & 31% area??!!

Target fish from Ayling & Choat 2008

Sharks- Robbins et al. 2006

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Whitetip G rey

Sh

ark

s p

er

he

cta

re

Visual surveys- Ayling & Choat 2008

Crown-of-thorns starfish, Corals & Reef Resilience: Indirect effects

Proportion of reefs with

COTS Outbreaks

• No-take zones appear to benefit coral abundance –very basis of physical habitat & reef construction

• 1st demonstration of indirect effects not herbivory/destructive

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Fished (24 reefs)

No-take (5 reefs)

Pro

po

rtio

n o

f re

efs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

% C

ove

r o

f c

ora

l

Fished reefs No-take reefs

Coral Cover

Fished

No-take

Southern regions shoals:

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Common

Coral Trout

Redthroat

Emperor

Red

Emperor

Venus

Tuskfish

Gray Reef

Shark

MaxN

Inter-reefal shoals:

• Results vary with region, sites, spp… • Central: more fish in open zones- confounded

• Lack of background knowledge for zoning: • Seabed biodiversity project: • Proportion in no-trawl zones (Pitcher et al. 2007).

Inter-reef seabed habitats: 95% of the Marine Park & “megadiverse”

• Lack of sufficient, detailed biodiversity knowledge for direct zoning: • i. Use of physical proxies; + ii. Seabed biodiversity study: • Proportion in no-trawl zones (Pitcher et al. 2007).

Biodiversity level Measure Pre-2004

2004 Zoning Average increase

850 Species > 20% of biomass 685 / 850

850 / 850 30%

38 Species . Groups

> 20% of biomass 28 / 38 38 / 38 27%

16 Species . Assemblages

> 20% area 9 / 16 16 / 16 36%

9 Seabed . Habitat Types

> 20% area 5 / 9 9 / 9 31%

Inter-reef seabed habitats: Retrospective accounting

• Outcome of good process- biodiversity proxies

Dugong (& turtles) in the GBR

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

1960

1970

1980

1987

1992

1994

1999

Aerial surveys since mid 1980’s:

• Dugong large, mobile, low reproduction: scale

• Major decline Sthn GBR • Dugong Protection Areas in key

habitats + No-take zones • Traditional Use agreements,

gear restrictions • Zoning beneficial

but not sufficient • Complementary spatial & non; • Risk assessment approach

estimated

Social & economic information: Failure of collapse in recreational fishery

50000

55000

60000

65000

70000

75000

80000

85000

Dec

-01

Jun-

02

Dec

-02

Jun-

03

Dec

-03

Jun-

04

Dec

-04

Jun-

05

Dec

-05

Jun-

06

Dec

-06

Jun-

07

Dec

-07

Jun-

08

Dec

-08

Jun-

09

2004

Zoning

Plan

Recreational vessel registrations:

Social effects of zoning: • 77% Qlders support no-take zones (2007) &

79% sthn Aust. capital cities ″ ″ ″;

• 59% recreational fishers support the zoning; 18% charter fishing operators ″ ″ ″ 7% commercial fishers ″ ″ ″

BUT • 77%, 85% & 65% agree:

protecting diversity of marine life most important goal for reef management…

• (What about ≠ fishers…?!)

Social effects, perceptions & engagement- a mismatch?… Lack of support & key beliefs:

i. Major rezoning unnecessary;

ii.Zoning had –ve effects on

fishing businesses; iii.Zoning has not reduced

fishing impacts on GBR; iv.Fishers not adequately

consulted

A serious mismatch: Clear evidence previous

zoning inadequate; Considerable structural

adjustment $ … n x estimates

It has (data) & not intended to manage fisheries… Extensive & meticulous

public consultation (31,500)

Redistribution of recreational fishing effort…

CapReef: • Only 1/9 preferred sites lost (7%); • Catch rates dipped & recovered- size limits • Rec fishing ~ commercial & unaffected by catch & bag

limits; De Freitas: • Compensation further inshore

(pending commercial & charter results); • Displaced effort? How much do no-take network subsidies balance displaced

effort?

Compliance

0

200

400

600

800

1999 -

2000

2000 -

2001

2001 -

2002

2002 -

2003

2003 -

2004

2004 -

2005

2005 -

2006

2006 -

2007

2007 -

2008

2008 -

2009

Foreign Fishing

Recreational Fishing

Commercial Fishing

Commercial Trawling

Commercial Line

Total

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Serranids Redthroat Emperor Lutjanids

Fis

h p

er

hecta

re

Fished

No-take

No-entry

• “There seems a strong case for increasing investment in compliance to protect such a valuable asset & revenue source…”

Recorded Offences:

New evidence: fishing line in green zones; removed line & it returned…

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

$ B

illi

on

s

2004-05 2005-06

Revenue

2006-07

Tourism

Commercial

Fishing

Recreational

Use

Revenue Cost Cost Cost Revenue

2004

Zoning

Plan

Social & economic information invaluable for community/political concerns.

0.704% 0.850% 0.755% 0.270% 0.260% 0.242%

36.6x 36.8x

31.7x

• Income $5.5b & ~53,800 full time jobs; increasing

• Enforcement expenditure <0.3% ↓

• Total GBRMPA <0.9% ↓ • Structural adjustment:

$211m- ~ 3.9 % of 06-07 revenue;

• Strategic investment?

• Tourism = 32-36x fishing

0

10

20

30

40

$ M

illio

ns

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2002-03 2003-04

2004

Zoning

Plan Other

Management

Costs

Field

Management

• Compliance -25%/7 fold

Take Home messages- Benefits to the GBR • Powerful, scientifically credible consensus statement • GBR Marine reserves have significant

ecosystem benefits – Fish, sharks, corals, even dugong…

• Probable fisheries benefits: (watch this space)…

• Not enough for dugong, sharks (need more, not less!);

• Complementary EBM • No-entry zones: compliance issues & shifted baseline; • Social information as basis for engagement: fishers are

concerned about conservation- direction… • Marine reserves cost-effective… cf. popular commentary

Take Homes & challenges for monitoring & science.

• Value of social & economic data & analyses (c.f opinion); • Many aspects of biodiversity not amenable to simple

fished-reserve comparisons. E.g. Ecosystem wide biodiversity; better for ecosystem, worse for accountability…

• Many knowledge gaps; risk assessment analyses; • Community input produces engagement - & data biases:

preferred locations are different biologically... • Baseline calibration & enforcement: no-entry zones; • Extensive unpublished & grey literature; • Monitoring & agency performance & scope for adaptation

Take Home messages- Adaptive Management perspective Science to management transfer & partnership +ve & -ve… • Process success:

General principles + imperfect knowledge ~ good outcomes.

• GBR Monitoring Management: Good, room for improvement

• Outlook Report..

• Documenting decline of reefs?

Adaptive Management & monitoring “structured, iterative process of optimal decision making in the face

of uncertainty, with an aim to reducing uncertainty over time via system monitoring.” (learning from doing…)

Conceptualize

Plan actions & Monitoring

Implement Actions & Monitoring

Analyze & Review (audit)

Adapt & Revise Actions

& Monitoring Capture & Share

Learning

“Active" vs “Passive" adaptive management- ELF

Zoning history & adaptive management:

Date Management Monitoring 1975 GBRMP & GBRMPA created; Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS); 1988 Implementation of initial zoning

schemes; 1980, 1990s

Range of surveys of biodiversity distributions, espec. corals & fish;

1986 Crown-of-thorns starfish surveys begun (AIMS); 1993/4 25 Yr Strategic Plan- “Representative AIMS GBR Long Term Monitoring Program begun; 1990s-early 2000s

Biological Communities” Effects of trawling study; Effects of line fishing study; Monitoring of inshore fish;

1998 Representative Areas Program for new zoning commenced;

2003-2006 GBR Seabed Biodiversity surveys; 2004 New Zoning Plan implemented;

Education & surveillance/ enforcement programs;

Initial monitoring;

2006-2008 Post-zoning monitoring; 2009 GBR Outlook Report 2009 → Parliament.

2010 This review