Management of the Great Barrier

Reef World Heritage Area

… and lessons learned relevant to the
application of benchmarks

WH Benchmarks
Workshop
Paris, April 2007

Jon Day
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
 16 World Heritage properties
currently inscribed in Australia
1. Great Barrier Reef (1981) 9. Shark Bay (1991)
2. Willandra Lakes (1981)
10. Fraser Island (1992)
3. Kakadu National Park
(1981; 1987; 1992) 11. Australian Fossil Mammal
4. Tasmanian Wilderness Sites (1994)
(1982, 1989)
12. Sub-Antarctic Islands (1997)
5. Lord Howe Group (1982)
6. Central Eastern 13. Macquarie Island (1997)
Rainforest Reserves 14. Greater Blue Mountains (2000)
(1986)
15. Purnululu National Park (2003)
7. Uluru-Kata Tjuta (1987)
8. Wet Tropics, Qld (1988) 16. Royal Exhibition Building &
Carlton Gardens (2004)
 O N
ER
EV
T Y
ER ST
P
O R L I
PR E
AN N G
L I DA
RA IN-
S T H
AU W
NO
 Great Barrier Reef WHA
•Federal Marine Park up to low
water mark
• complementary State Marine
Park in inter-tidal waters

Over
2,000 km
long

250 km
offshore

AUSTRALIA
GBRWHA is
bigger than many
countries… and
would stretch the
entire west coast
of USA
The Great Barrier Reef is not a typical marine
protected area or WHA in terms of its size or its
complexity…. but the experience gained in the GBR
over 30 years is useful for ecosystem-based management
and World Heritage management at large-scales
elsewhere….

W
HA
bo
un
da
ry
The Great Barrier Reef WHA
• It’s a lot more than just coral reefs…
• …only 6% of the WHA is coral reef
• Six of the world’s 7 species of marine turtle ; also largest green
turtle breeding area in the world
• A significant dugong population by world standards
• 54% of world’s mangrove diversity
• ~ 3000 separate reefs containing over 1/3 of all the world’s soft
coral and sea pen species
• 13% of world’s species of echinoderms (eg. sea stars) (= 800
species)
• > 5000 species of molluscs (one of the most diverse cuttle bone
faunas in the world)
• Over 1500 species of fish
 The Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage Area
• Inscribed representing 4 natural criteria (vii) (viii) (ix) & (x)
• is the World’s largest WH property (~ two million times
larger than the smallest natural World Heritage site ie
Seychelles?)
• comprises (arguably) the world’s largest and most
complex ecosystem (GBR is visible from outer space)
• GBR is unique in its size and includes an extensive
latitudinal and cross-shelf range of biodiversity
• One of few places in the world where two WHAs abut…
 Wet Tropics WHA

Great Barrier Reef WHA

Great Barrier Reef – worth AUD $7 billion p.a
 GBR World Heritage Area

• The Australian Government’s approach to all

Australian World Heritage areas has been one of
allowing exploitative activities to continue
“… as long as they do not threaten World Heritage
values, are sustainable, are backed up by research
and monitoring, and come under a planning and
management umbrella” (Turner 1990)

• In very large WH areas like the GBR there really is

no other option than a multiple-use approach.
 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park –
a multiple use Marine Park

Most reasonable activities are allowed

in certain zones, including:
• commercial fishing, • aquaculture
including bottom • defence training
trawling in some
areas • indigenous hunting
• recreational fishing • research/monitoring
• shipping/ports • permitted works,
• tourism including dredging
All
Ocean Zoning

ow
sa
ll r
ea
s on
ab
le
u
= spectrum enabling multiple use

ses

Sc
ien
tifi
c ‘ba
sel
ine
’
A range of management ‘tools’
are used in GBR Marine Park
• Zoning Plan (7 marine zone types)
• Plans of Management
• Permits
• Special Management Areas
• Other spatial management tools
• Temporal closures (eg. reef spawning closures)
• Economic instruments (eg. Environment
Management Charge)
• Other environmental legislation (eg World
Heritage provisions)
• Codes of Practice
‘Outstanding universal value’ of GBR

• “While specific attributes of OUV can be identified (eg

world’s largest green turtle aggregation), the OUV of the
GBRWHA is dependent on:
• the scale of the GBR WHA
• the potential for effective conservation management”
(Lucas et al, 1997)

IUCN commented at time of nomination “.. Australian

Govt is to be congratulated for including virtually the
entire GBR.. This is clearly the only way to ensure the
integrity of the coral reef ecosystems in all their
diversity..” (IUCN 1981)
 Criteria for assessment of OUV
criterion (vii) – exceptional criterion (ix) – significant on-going
natural beauty & aesthetics… ecological/ biological processes…

criterion (viii) – significant criterion (x) – significant natural

geomorphic/ physiographic features… habitat for in-situ conservation
Who’s ‘Outstanding universal value’ ?

• Not everyone agrees with our westernised, ‘euro-centric’

way of looking at OUV of the Great Barrier Reef
• Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders have been living
along the GBR coastline for 10,000’s of years
• Today some some 70 Traditional Owner groups are
recognised along the GBR; they all have a very different
way of looking at what we have called the Great Barrier
Reef – most Indigenous people don’t distinguish between
land and sea – they talk about ‘their country’
which incorporates both.
 GBR World Heritage Area

• Given that the OUV should be assessed in sum

(not a narrow focus on individual values),
protection and management should focus upon
the WHA as a whole.
• With smaller WH areas, the whole site can be
managed as a single highly protected area
• In focussing on very large WH areas like the
GBR, the question of scale is important… the
same level of high protection for the entire area
is not possible
 GBR World Heritage Area

• “One position might place any impact on the

WH Area as inconsistent with its World
Heritage status. Such a position of not
allowing, say, any impact on a single blade of
seagrass, whilst ideologically appealing, is
unachievable” (Lucas et al, 1997)
• The Australian Government clearly recognises
there are a number of issues facing the
GBRWHA, and is addressing them all…
The Great Barrier Reef Region
is ‘under pressure’…
Pressures include:
• Downstream effects of landuse (water quality issues)
• Increasing fishing effort and impacts
• Increasing coastal developments
• Shipping & pollution incidents
• Increasing tourism and recreation
• Climate change, incl. coral bleaching
 World trends with coral reefs

• 10% of world’s reefs destroyed or severely

degraded
• 58% of world’s reefs potentially threatened
• 70% reefs already degraded in Indonesia &
Philippines
• On current trends, 70% of the world’s reefs
will be gone in 40 years
 Four critical issues … and key
strategies to increase the resilience
of the GBR
• Improving biodiversity protection
(Rep. Areas Program & rezoning)
• Improving water quality
(Reef Water Quality Protection Plan)
• Promoting sustainable fisheries
(Queensland Fisheries Management
Plans)
• Developing sound policy re effects
of climate change (Climate
Change Action Plan)
Zoning - progressively developed
since 1980s…
By the late 1990s, marine zoning in
WHA looked like …

Preservation Zone – ‘ no go’

Marine National Park - no-take
Scientific Research
Buffer Zone – trolling only
Conservat’n Park – limited fishing
Habitat Protection – no trawling
General Use – all reasonable uses
 Revised ZP Old ZP
Revised Preservation Zone 0.2% (0.1%)

Marine Nat’l Park 33.3%

Zoning (4.6%)

Scient. Research 0.05%

Plan (0.01%)

Buffer Zone 2.9% (0.1%)

1 July 2004 Conservat’n Park 1.5% (0.6%)

Habitat Protect’n 28.2% (15.2%)

General Use 33.8% (77.9%)

Area shown in detail

in subsequent slides
Draft Zoning Plan – mid 2003
Revised & final Zoning Plan 2004
 GBR management approach has
included….
• 25 Year Strategic Plan for GBRWHA
• Reactive monitoring reports (1998, 1999, 2000)
• WH Periodic Report (2002)
• Periodic assessments of management
effectiveness
• On-going monitoring programs
• State of Reef Report (1998, now on-line)
• Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) – reported in
Annual Report to Parliament
• New statutory requirement for ‘Outlook Report’
– 5 yearly
 Key Performance Indicators

Clear links to Authority’s Goal

Goal: To provide for protection, wise use and enjoyment of the GBR in
perpetuity through care and development of the GBR Marine Park.
 Monitoring in the GBR

• Huge variety of monitoring

• long-term (site specific & regional scales);
• reactive/ impact assessment (generally site-specific);
• compliance (issue-specific)
• Some 50+ monitoring projects currently underway
(biophysical, biological, social)
• Formal monitoring programs
• Day-to-day management monitoring
• Volunteer monitoring eg.
• Seagrass Watch
• ‘Eye on the Reef ‘
• CAP Reef
• Other external monitoring programs
 Examples of specific monitoring
Issue Management Natural Science Social & Economic sciences
Initiative monitoring monitoring
Biodiversity Zoning Plan • LTMP - mid & outer-shelf Periodic phone surveys;
reefs (AIMS) Environmental Management
• Inshore reefs (JCU) Charge data
Water Reef Water • Marine water quality Productivity Commission Rpt;
Quality Quality monitoring Regional social & economic
Protection Plan • Chlorophyll a profiling
Climate Climate Change •Bleach Watch; Eye on the Productivity Commission Rpt;
change Action Plan Reef; GBR fine scale Regional social & economic
Vulnerability bleaching surveys; SST profiling
assessments monitoring
Tourism Permits; • COTS monitoring Productivity Commission Rpt;
COTS control • Eye on the Reef Environmental Management
Charge data
Fishing Fisheries • QDPI&F data National recreational &
pressure management • CRC EoLF experiment indigenous fishing survey
plans; Zoning • LTMP

Threatened DPAs; • Dugong aerial surveys National recreational &

species Recovery Plans • Turtle nesting surveys indigenous fishing survey
 What is a‘ benchmark’ ?

• ‘… a static ‘reference point’ showing the

desired protection or recovery of the OUV,
authenticity and/or integrity of the WHA’.
• Indicators will refer to these benchmarks
when measuring progress towards this
‘desired state’.
• A fundamental requirement is to know
what is your OUV (…unfortunately very few
WHAs have a statement of significance or OUV)
Natural WHAs are always changing

Egs. of changing circumstances:

• changing patterns of use
• technological change
• social change
• political change
• dynamic systems natural changes
 Problems with the term ‘targets’

Egs. of targets and implications:

• ‘20 people doing mgt’ (what about the 21st person?)
• ‘30% should be no-take’ (management of the
remaining 70% also important)
• Cumulative impacts (Failure to achieve a target may
be due to other external factors completely outside mgrs
control)
• Some targets have become ‘millstones around mgrs
necks’ in light of new information

[In GBR, we stressed minimum levels based upon best available

knowledge]
So what should a indicator be?

• Representative?: is it representative of the WHA

as a whole or the relevant issue/value?
• Responsive?: will it change according to change
in the health of the WHA?
• Effective?: can it be measured accurately and
relatively simply?
• Meaningful?: espec to managers & community.
Need also to be aware of cumulative impacts.
• Threshold?: is there a level at which concern will
be raised in time to take action?
• Relevant? is it ecologically, socially &
economically relevant
 Benchmarks/indicators –
some lessons learnt…
• Clear policy objectives will help develop good benchmarks &
indicators. Strong links between policy and benchmarks provide a
sound basis for monitoring, evaluation and communication.
• Need for complementary benchmarks or measurable aspects for
area outside WHA (ie. to assess the broader context and understand
whether management actions inside WHA are working).
• Challenge is to develop benchmarks and indicators that are robust
to the many sources of uncertainty inherent in managing natural
systems – SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and
Time-Specific) … as well as consistent, sensitive to changes being
measured, cost effective
• Problems of targets, espec. spatial targets (what happens in the
remaining areas?)
Benchmarks - lessons learned

“Shifting baselines”
“Each generation accepts the species
composition and stock sizes that they first
observe as a natural baseline from which to
evaluate changes. This ignores the fact that
this baseline may already represent a
disturbed state. The resource then continues
to decline, but the next generation resets their
baseline to this newly depressed state. The
result is a gradual accommodation of the
creeping disappearance of resource species,
and inappropriate reference points ... or for
identifying targets …..”
Pauly 1995
 Dugong in the GBR

Aerial surveys since mid 1980’s:

60000
• Recent increase represents
small fluctuation in a 50000

population that is far fewer 40000

than existed in the 1960s
30000
• South of Cooktown, GBR
dugong population “…is a 20000

fraction of what it was 10000

decades ago”
0
 Other proposed tasks for this
workshop….
1. Develop criteria for ‘adequate protection & management’…..
suggest ‘checklist’ approach with clear ‘best practice’
examples providing benchmarks
2. Review format for State of Conservation reports
…. suggest looking at the format used in GBR?
3. Review standards for establishing benchmarks
…. suggest this can only be done when a specific threat is
affecting a specific WHA (very much site-specific)
4. Review criteria for removal of properties from ‘In Danger-
list’….???
------------
5. Standardised list of ‘factors affecting WH’ … suggest the list
developed for Periodic Reporting, as it takes into account spatial
and temporal scales, capability to manage etc, and will produce a
prioritised list of factors
Excerpt from ‘State of Conservation’ report 2002 - GBRWHA
Reasons behind effective
management of the GBRWHA?
 a sound legislative and regulatory framework
 ecosystem-level management … including management
influence over a wider context than just the Marine Park

 national consensus and international recognition that the

GBR is ‘iconic’ and worth conserving

 well developed institutional arrangements with the adjacent

jurisdiction (Queensland) including complementary
legislation

 ongoing research and monitoring programs, prioritised to

provide information for management
 What does the future hold for
the GBR World Heritage Area?
“GBRMPA is cautiously optimistic
about the GBR. Although there are
some organisms and environmental
attributes which require further
monitoring or even management
action to address human impacts,
virtually all of these potential
problems are currently being
addressed.”

(excerpt from the Foreword , State of the GBRWHA 1998

report).
 THANK YOU

For more information about GBRMPA’s activities:

www.gbrmpa.gov.au