Evaluating management effectiveness Evaluating management effectiveness of the GBR Marine Park.…of the GBR Marine Park.…

…& …& somesome lessons learntlessons learnt

Jon Day Director (Conservation, Biodiversity & World Heritage)

GBRMPASeptember 2003

Management Effectiveness Session WPC Durban

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.

The Great Barrier Reef

• 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

Evaluating management effectiveness in GBR

Monitoring in the GBR

• Variety of monitoring - long-term Variety of monitoring - long-term (site specific & regional (site specific & regional scales)scales); reactive/ impact assessment ; reactive/ impact assessment (generally site-specific); (generally site-specific); compliance (compliance (issue-specificissue-specific))

• Considerable other monitoring occurring:Considerable other monitoring occurring:• Day-to-day management monitoringDay-to-day management monitoring• Community/volunteer monitoring egCommunity/volunteer monitoring eg..

• COTSWATCHCOTSWATCH• ‘‘Eye on the Reef ‘Eye on the Reef ‘

Socio-economicSocio-economic• Log book data for all fisheries

• Spatial/temporal changes in use patterns • Value (eg. GVP, days of effort)

Vessel Monitoring System

Socio-economic Socio-economic (cont.)(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

Tourism programs 311 352 204 432 502 Tourist facilities 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 Other activities 181 182 136 153 200

Total permits 754 779 515 860 1011

GovernanceGovernance

• 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 0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

Number of Submissions Received for GBRMPA Zoning

No. of Submissions 29 920 391 233 626 1,009 138 233 10,191

Cap Central 1983

Cairns 1983

Far Northern

1986

Mackay/Cap 1988

Cairns 1992

Gumoo1998

Far Northern

2001

RAP 2002

• 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

Evaluating management effectiveness in GBR

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

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000• Recent increase represents

small fluctuation in a population that is far fewer than existed in the 1960s

• GBR dugong population (south of Cooktown) “is a fraction (~ 3%) of what it was decades ago”

Aerial surveys since mid 1980’s:Aerial surveys since mid 1980’s:

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 activitiesConservation – review of zoning (representative areas)• Biophysical Operating Principles

Trawl Audit ReportTrawl Audit Report• 205 page report• 40 specific & technical

recommendationsØ 34 tables with dataØ 24 graphs presenting

fishery trendsØ areas for improvementØ further research req’d

• a public document on GBRMPA’s websitewww.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 & SECThe Biophysical & SEC Operating Principles Operating Principles

Biophysical principles (developed by tropical marine expert scientists)1. Min. size 20km across2. Larger is better3. Replicate to reduce risk4. Don’t split reefs (don’t split zone)5,6. At least 20% per reef/non reef bioregion …7. Consider cross-shelf & latitudinal diversity8. Include eg.s of all community types & physical environments9. Consider marine ‘connectivity’10. Consider special & unique sites11. Consider adjacent uses

Social, economic, cultural & management principles 1. Maximise complementarity with adjacent uses2. Recognise social benefits / costs3. Complement existing & future management4. Maximise public understanding & enforceability

Problems if percentages (eg 20%) applied in isolation or as a

target

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?)

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

Monitoring in ever-changing environment

Hence need for adaptive management

Parma et al (1998)

Adaptive managementAdaptive 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”.

Monitoring & adaptive managementMonitoring & adaptive management

Monitoring Management decisions For example

Monitoring of dugong populations in the Marine Park

Concern re. apparent decline following 3 surveys (1986/87, 1992, 1994)

Management Actions eg DPAs

Further monitoring & research

Dugong recognised as a specialvalue of the GBRWHA with world-wide declining populations

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 Different priorities /different agendasagendas

• 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…..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

ConclusionsConclusions

• 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 Conclusions (cont)(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