Management Effectiveness Session
WPC Durban
Evaluating management effectiveness
of the GBR Marine Park.…
…& some lessons learnt
Jon Day
Director (Conservation, Biodiversity & World Heritage)
GBRMPA
September 2003
The Great Barrier Reef
GBR is not a typical MPA in terms of its size
or its complexity….
…..but some of the lessons learnt may be of
relevance to other MPAs.
Evaluating management
effectiveness in GBR
• A wide range of monitoring, research &
management tasks currently undertaken
• Address specific ecological, biophysical,
social or governance aspects
• Most can assist in evaluating
management effectiveness
Monitoring in the GBR
• Variety of monitoring - long-term (site specific & regional
scales); reactive/ impact assessment (generally site-specific);
compliance (issue-specific)
• Considerable other monitoring occurring:
• Day-to-day management monitoring
• Community/volunteer monitoring eg.
• COTSWATCH
• ‘Eye on the Reef ‘
Socio-economic
• Log book data for all fisheries
• Spatial/temporal changes in use patterns
• Value (eg. GVP, days of effort)
Vessel Monitoring System
Socio-economic (cont.)
• Permits issued – location, type
• Visitor use patterns
• EMC data sets
• Visitor surveys
• Community surveys
• Reef visitor perception surveys
Permission Type
1996–97
1997–98
1998–99
1999–00
2000–01
311
352
204
432
502
6
8
3
6
5
Offshore structures
17
14
3
8
8
Moorings
35
25
1
30
113
Research programs
160
152
105
170
114
Education programs
44
46
63
61
69
181
182
136
153
200
754
779
515
860
1011
Tourism programs
Tourist facilities
Other activities
Total permits
Governance
• 3Yr Rolling Programs & Annual reports for DDM
• Enforcement coverage – no. of patrols
• Enforcement statistics
• Education/interp programs
• Zoning Plans
• Level of public participation
• Stakeholder involvement
• Meetings of LMACs & RACs
• Outcomes
• Expenditure by mgt activity
Number of Submissions Received for GBRMPA Zoning
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
No. of Submissions
Cap
Central
1983
Cairns
1983
29
920
391
Far
Mackay/
Northern Cap
1986
1988
233
626
Far
Cairns Gumoo1
Northern
1992
998
2001
1,009
138
233
RAP
2002
10,191
Evaluating management
effectiveness in GBR
• Generally ‘stand-alone’ tasks
• Requirement arising from Audit review
• Only recently has integration
been considered
• Still viewed as an ‘add-on’, rather than
a key task or part of ongoing planning
cycle
Monitoring - lessons learnt
• No monitoring program is perfect when first set up
• Recognising both ‘natural’ & ‘human-induced’ changes
• Monitoring results/trends can sometimes take a long time
(often outside management & political timeframes)
• Report outputs/outcomes in simple formats if possible
• Value of quick, easily accessible results
• Monitor ‘outside the square’ (put MPA in broader context)
• Consider new technologies (c.f. destructive sampling)
• If possible, use field managers/users to assist with monitoring
• Problems of ‘shifting baselines’
“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 .…..”
Pauly 1995
Dugong in the GBR
Aerial surveys since mid 1980’s:
•
Recent increase represents
small fluctuation in a
population that is far fewer
than existed in the 1960s
60000
50000
40000
30000
GBR dugong population
(south of Cooktown) “is a
fraction (~ 3%) of what it
was decades ago”
20000
10000
0
19
60
19
70
19
80
19
87
19
92
19
94
19
99
•
Monitoring outside MPA
Indicators/triggers
Examples of indicators/triggers in GBRMP:
Water quality
•
Chlorophyll a concentration targets
•
End-or catchment discharge targets (sediment, N, P)
East Coast Trawl Management Plan
•
Decrease in level of effort in 1st year and subsequent years
•
Level of by-catch
•
No. of boats involved in illegal activities
Conservation – review of zoning (representative areas)
•
Biophysical Operating Principles
Trawl Audit Report
• 205 page report
• 40 specific & technical
recommendations
Ø
34 tables with data
Ø
24 graphs presenting
fishery trends
Ø
areas for improvement
Ø
further research req’d
• a public document on
GBRMPA’s website
www.gbrmpa.gov.au
Audit of the Management of the
Queensland East Coast Trawl Fishery
in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Report prepared by Dorothea Huber, Senior Project Manager
Fisheries Issues Group, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
May 2003
The Biophysical & SEC
Operating Principles
Biophysical principles (developed by tropical marine expert scientists)
1. Min. size 20km across
Problems if
percentages (eg
20%) applied in
isolation or as a
target
2. Larger is better
3. Replicate to reduce risk
4. Don’t split reefs (don’t split zone)
5,6. At least 20% per reef/non reef bioregion …
7. Consider cross-shelf & latitudinal diversity
8. Include eg.s of all community types & physical environments
9. Consider marine ‘connectivity’
10. Consider special & unique sites
11. Consider adjacent uses
Social, economic, cultural & management principles
1.
2.
3.
4.
Maximise complementarity with adjacent uses
Recognise social benefits / costs
Complement existing & future management
Maximise public understanding & enforceability
Indicators – lessons learnt
• Not practical/necessary to develop indicators for every
objective.
• Indicators must reflect changes at spatial and temporal scales of
relevance to management.
• Dynamic systems (= huge variability in nature)…. challenge is
to develop performance indicators that are robust to the many
sources of uncertainty
• Don’t create ‘sunset clauses’ that require demonstrable
conservation results after a fixed, and often short, time in
operation.
• Problems of targets, particularly if using simplistic formulae:
• spatial targets (what happens elsewhere?)
Monitoring in ever-changing environment
Need to be cognizant of changes in all MPAs:
•
•
•
•
•
rapidly changing patterns of use
technological change
social- economic changes
political change
dynamic systems
natural changes
Hence need for adaptive management
Adaptive management
“…..managing according
to a plan by which
decisions are made and
modified as a function of
what is known and
learned about the system,
including information
about the effect of
previous management
actions”.
Parma et al (1998)
Monitoring & adaptive management
Monitoring
Management decisions
For example
Dugong recognised as a special
value of the GBRWHA with worldwide declining populations
Monitoring of dugong
populations in the Marine
Park
Further
monitoring &
research
Management
Actions eg DPAs
Concern re. apparent decline
following 3 surveys (1986/87,
1992, 1994)
The complexities of evaluating
marine areas
• Extent of interconnectedness
• ‘downstream’ issues
• MPA affected by surroundings
• 3 dimensional
• not easily viewed, delineated
nor managed
• logistics to monitor/manage
• lack of knowledge &
understanding
Different priorities /different
agendas
• Managers, researchers, local communities and
politicians all have very different perspectives/
timeframes
• Differing views on what are appropriate indicators
Challenges
 need to clearly articulate
management issues & objectives
 work together to determine priorities
for monitoring/evaluation
 provide more effective and timely
information for managers
A picture paints a thousand words…..
1890
1994
Key Performance Indicators
Clear links to Authority’s Goal & Portfolio Budget
Statement
Evaluating mgt effectiveness lessons learnt
•
Most, if not all, management approaches need to be
periodically reviewed and updated.
•
No successful management regime can be inflexible to
new information.
•
Need to consider a wider context than just your MPA
•
Monitoring/evaluation should concentrate on the most
important issues affecting or potentially affecting your
MPA (eg WQ)
•
Aim to get monitoring & evaluation as part
of the management/planning cycle
Conclusions
• Recognition that monitoring, evaluation and
adaptive management are all fundamental
components for effective resource management.
• Reporting is now a requirement of Government.
• MPAs are dynamic – evaluation needs to determine
what change is ‘acceptable’ Vs what is ‘not
acceptable’
• Precautionary principle – can’t afford to wait for
perfect science before taking management action.
Conclusions (cont)
• Outcomes of evaluation must be presented in a manner
which is useable/understandable to those who were not
involved in developing the monitoring (if possible, use
pictures, graphs)
• Learn from previous management actions to improve
ongoing management (ie adaptive management).
• The main excuses for not evaluating performance ….
….. institutional barriers, high costs, concern about
‘what it might show’ & lack of political support.
THANK YOU
Particular thanks to my GBRMPA colleagues
For more information about GBRMPA’s activities:
www.gbrmpa.gov.au