Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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Generous contributions of EXTENSIVE Unpublished data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