Entirety | PANORAMA

Partnership and meaningful stakeholder engagement

During the first year of the project, we developed a partnership with a range of groups and individuals interested in economic valuation and marine conservation in Belize. Our core partners were WWF-Central America and World Conservation Society, but we also worked with more than 10 Belizean NGOs, MPA co-managing organizations, and government departments, as well as faculty at Belize’s universities. We held a workshop in Belize in 2007 to introduce economic valuation and held several follow-up workshops in the following year, focusing separately on shoreline protection, fisheries, and tourism in greater depth. The project partnership represented the views and expertise of a wide range of primary, secondary, and external stakeholders. The partnership was instrumental in helping design the valuation study, identify potential policy applications and outreach opportunities, collect data, and communicate results to decision makers.

• Time and resources dedicated to building and communicating with partnership • Previous experience and partnerships/relationships in Belize • Open communication and mutual respect

The positive results of working very closely with our partners on policy applications in Belize reinforced the lesson that early and frequent contact with knowledgeable partners is crucial to producing useful results and supporting conservation and sustainable development outcomes.

Coastal Capital Guidebook (See more about successful stakeholder engagement on …

Training in economic valuation

The bulk of our capacity building effort in Belize was aimed at enabling stakeholders to replicate our valuation methods. We focused at the MPA level, where we worked with a number of NGOs, as well as Hol Chan Marine Reserve and the Fisheries Department, to develop a template for applying the national valuation methods in MPAs. We worked with co-managers for several MPAs in Belize to compile data on use of the reserves for fishing and tourism. For many MPAs, this exercise highlighted gaps in current data collection, and drew attention to chronic undercounting of visitors and user fees. We produced preliminary valuations for all of the MPAs we worked with. We conducted a workshop summarizing our efforts in November 2008 and invited all organizations working on MPAs to attend. A great deal of interest was expressed in the economic valuation template. We have made it available electronically along with a detailed user’s guide. Several MPAs have already committed to adapting their current data collection efforts to better support economic analysis.

- Multiple training opportunities in different formats geared toward end users (workshops and one-on-one trainings)

The experience of training MPA managers in economic valuation drove home the important lesson that lack of time and high turnover rates make it especially difficult for many groups to replicate these studies; however, it did validate our belief that the method should be kept simple and straightforward, making it relatively easy to pass on the valuation techniques to new staff. We also feel that emphasizing collection of the relevant information for a valuation study (for instance, how many people are actually diving, snorkeling, or visiting the reef) can also lead to better management outcomes.

Valuation methods and tools (tourism, fisheries, and MPA-level) are freely down…

Detailed guidance on methods and data sources are in the appendices of the full…

Ecosystem Restoration and environmental education

Grootbos Foundation

Grootbos is situated in the endemic coastal Fynbos shrubland directly adjacent to the marine ecosystem surrounding Dyer Island and compliments the marine biosphere both from an ecosystem and touristically attractive landscape perspective.Since 1991, Grootbos has grown from a 123-hectare farm to now include seven farms totaling 2500 hectares of land under conservation. Much of this land had previously been poorly managed as cattle and flower harvesting farms to the detriment of the region’s biodiversity and provided few livelihood opportunities. Grootbos staff has cleared all alien vegetation from the property, restored damaged areas and now manages the land according to strict ecological principles. The Grootbos Foundation engages directly in rehabilitation and protection of flora and fauna on Grootbos and in the Walker Bay region. It provides education to 8-12 students per year by an adult education college , including on horticulture, conservation, ecotourism and life skills. All 100 students that have completed the course over the past 11 years have subsequently found employment. This is a key instrument for involving the local community and gaining its support to the overall objectives of linking tourism to conservation.

• Promotion of, training on environmental awareness and sustainable development was crucial for gaining community support for linking tourism and conservation o Training for unemployed persons: livelihoods opportunities directly linked to incentives for nature conservation Research on conservation and rehabilitation of environment is instrumental to safeguarding the natural capital of the tourism destination, gaining donor support o In-house nursery and landscaping business model to generate income for the Foundation ; use of donations to pursue above activities

From an early stage in the development of Grootbos, it became clear that effective conservation of the region’s biodiversity requires a look beyond our borders and developing partnerships with our neighbours. So in 1999 Grootbos became one of the first members of the Walker Bay Fynbos Conservancy. This role model public-private conservation partnership has brought together 22 landowners collectively owning 12,179 hectares of coastal and mountain fynbos, which is being jointly managed for conservation. In partnership with other conservancy members, conservation, fire reaction, alien clearing and tourism management plans have been developed. These will ensure continuity in the management, the creation of new tourism attractions and increased access to natural resources and local employment opportunities. The tourism development and associated non-profit programs of the foundation now employ in excess of 150 full time staff, some 80% of whom are from local disadvantaged communities.

Entirety

Local

Grootbos Foundation

Walker Bay Nature Reserve

Grootbos

Public-private collaboration for conservation

businesses. Together with the tourism partner companies, DICT conducts research, conservation and education in the marine environment of the Gansbaai district in the Western Cape. The commercial companies provide logistical and onsite support for biologists and the Trust to operate, while political support is provided by the Municipality and Cape Nature DICT projects are focused on the Marine Big 5 – African penguin, great white shark, Southern right whale, Cape fur seal, dolphins - surrounding Dyer Island. Dyer Island is a breeding colony for the endangered African penguin and an Important Bird Area. The successful collaboration in this public-private partnership has grown organically and is unique to the context and stakeholder landscape in this particular destination. However, there is clear scope for replicating this model, by identifying the key touristic value provided by a given ecosystem based attraction, creating broad awareness around it amongst all relevant parties in a destination and then build a commercially and environmentally successful strategy and multi-stakeholder governance body around it.

o Success of commercial businesses by constantly reinvesting profits into the companies: Monitoring research to enable conservation of coastal and marine ecosystems, which are the main asset of the business model on the Cape Whale Coast. Similarly, investing in bigger boats and other physical capital would be redundant if the natural capital assets were to erode further. o Partnerships with other businesses in the destination, tour operators, other non-tourism businesses; local government, non-profits such as Fair Trade Tourism and the general public

While the Trust has been instrumental in raising the profile of this incredible marine area, none of the conservation, research and education work would have been possible without successful commercial businesses. For example, the daily data capturing and observations of marine animals and seabirds have been instrumental in conclusions with regards to their behavior – and have led to important scientific publications. Funds toward the Trust are also raised by the companies, ensuring its financial stability. The Trust aims to protect the marine heritage and was able to submit a letter of concern regarding the proposed nuclear power plant at Bantamsklip, just over 22 km from their office in 2010. Based on the wealth of its own research findings and local knowledge it was possible to point out critical flaws in the Environmental Impact Assessment. As a result, the University of Pretoria will in future be consulted regarding the species of this area and any possible monitoring programs.

Entirety

Local

Dyer Island Conservation Trust

Cape Nature

BirdLife - Dyer Island Nature Reserve

Save Bantamsklip

Building Strong Partnerships with Regional Identity & GLISPA

The Micronesia Challenge spans 5 jurisdictions, thousands of islands and more than 650,000 people speaking 12 different languages. Many key partners (listed above) collaborate on the Micronesia Challenge to support and implement a joint commitment across the region. Using the shared regional and cultural identity of being Micronesian has been a powerful way to create lasting partnerships among local and grassroots organizations to share lessons learned and feel a sense of common cause. Moreover, the reliable and firm commitment of the highest political leaders draws international partners to invest time and resources in building new relationships, because investors and partners know conservation has the full support of the political leadership.

Shared cultural heritage allows for a regional identity as Micronesian, which helps unite diverse stakeholders and jurisdictions. The Global Island Partnership (GLISPA), led by the President of Palau alongside the President of Seychelles and Prime Minister of Grenada, plays an important role of showcasing the Micronesia Challenge on the international stage. This helped maintain momentum in implementation of the MC as well as inspiring other leaders to make similar commitments such as the Caribbean Challenge Initiative and Aloha+ Challenge.

It requires continuous work to maintain the MC partnerships and coordinate conservation action in the region. The broad support from local and high levels, the ambitious targets, and the sense of common cause in the region motivate the partners to work together, learn from each other, and strive to live up to the Micronesia Challenge.
A strong network of partners inspires new and leverages existing regional opportunities to draw additional partners and funding to the region that go beyond the MC targets. Examples are the world’s first Regional Shark Sanctuary in Palau, the Micronesia Biosecurity Plan to address the risk of spread of invasive species, the Young Champions Internship Program, the German Lifeweb Support for community-based climate adaptation and resilience, the NOAA Partnership Agreements for coral reef conservation, and the RARE Pride Social Marketing Campaigns.

Entirety

Global

GLISPA Summary of CCI

GLISPA Summary of Aloha+ Challenge

Aichi Biodiversity Targets

Palau Shark Sanctuary

Regional Biosecurity Plan for Micronesia and Hawai'i

LifeWeb Partnerships for Financing Biodiversity

rare Pride (Micronesia)

High Level Political Leadership & Commitment

The announcement of the Micronesia Challenge in 2006 was the culmination of decades of work by Micronesian people and organizations to raise awareness and strengthen the capacity across this region to conserve and sustainably manage natural resources. In early 2006, the Chief Executives of each of the jurisdictions signed the Micronesia Challenge and presented it to the international community at a high level event at the 8th Conference of the Parties (COP8) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in March 2006 in Brazil. The decades of groundwork combined with the right timing and publicity at the COP8 created a moment when political leaders challenged each other to make this ambitious commitment. They were far more ambitious than even the Aichi Targets that would follow in 2011 (17% terrestrial and 10% marine by 2020). The fact that political leaders at the highest level and across the region committed to this target catalyzes both local implementation and international finance to conservation in Micronesia. Now the Micronesia Challenge has become an established institution, mainstreamed into government priorities and surviving turnover in administrations in every one of the five participating jurisdictions.

Political will and dedication of individual island leaders, who coordinate through the MC Regional Office (MC Regional Coordinator and the MC Steering Committee appointed by the chief executives of the jurisdictions)
Support from the Micronesia Challenge Regional Support Team (RST), which includes national and international partners, as well as local conservation NGOs in each island, and the Measures Working Group that develops indicators and tracks progress

Bringing dedicated and active leaders together at the highest level can create momentum for ambitious commitments that are more powerful than individual nations’ commitments
Strong partnerships at local to regional level to support accelerated progress toward the commitment.
Regional commitments like the Micronesia Challenge can be replicated in other regions that have strong leadership. Through the Global Island Partnership, the MC has inspired other challenges such as the Caribbean Challenge Initiative (CCI), the Western Indian Ocean Coastal Challenge (WIOCC), the Aloha+ Challenge, the Two Samoas’ Initiative, and the Coral Triangle Initiative.

Entirety

Multi-national

Micronesia Challenge website

Western Indian Ocean Coastal Challenge

Caribbean Challenge Initiative

Aloha+ Challenge

Two Samoas Initiative

Coral Triangle Initiative

Working with the best available information/knowledge

When undertaking a planning or zoning task, rarely does a planner have access to all the information or knowledge that they would like for the entire planning area. Whether it might be more consistent ecological data across the entire planning area or a more complete understanding of the full range of social and economic information, a planner is often faced with the following choices:

Waiting until they have more data (with the ultimate aim of accumulating ‘perfect’ information across all the required datasets); or
Working with the best available scientific knowledge and accepting that while it is not perfect, it is adequate provided the deficiencies of the data are understood (by the planners and the decision-makers) and clearly explained to the public and to the decision-makers. Insufficient knowledge about marine ecosystems can impede the setting of meaningful objectives or desirable outcomes when planning. David Suzuki in 2002 questioned how can we effectively plan and manage when “… to date all we have actually identified are ... about 10–20% of all living things”, and “… we have such a poor inventory of the constituents and a virtually useless blueprint of how all the components interact?’’

A good understanding of the wider context within which the MPA is situated is an important factor when planning. Due to the levels of ‘connectivity’ in the marine environment and the biological interdependency upon neighbouring communities, an MPA can only be as ‘healthy’ as the surrounding waters. Even a well-planned MPA will be difficult to manage if the surrounding waters are over-utilised, polluted or are themselves inadequately managed.

The reality is if you wait until you have ‘perfect’ information for planning, you will never start.
Recognise that marine areas are dynamic and are always changing; and with technological advances, the levels and patterns of use are constantly changing, as are the social, economic and political contexts, so having perfect data is realistically an impossible aim.
In virtually all planning situations, it is better to proceed with the best available information than to wait for ‘perfect’ data. However, if new data becomes available during the planning process, then incorporate it rather than ignore it.
Those who are frequently on the water (like fishers and tourist operators) often know as much (if not more) about the local environment than the researchers – so draw upon their knowledge and use it to augment the best available scientific data.
When resources are limited, seeking new data should focus on providing information that will be useful for ongoing management.

Coordinated-based zone boundaries

This map shows coordinate-based zoning for the Agincourt Reefs indicated by the blue doted lines. In the past, the NTZs covered just the reef tops. Nowadays, most NTZs around reefs extend out to encompass parts of the surrounding areas.

Boat-ramp signage includes zoning maps showing both federal and state zoning along with information for users.

Zone boundaries may be described as a specified distance from the edge of a geographical feature (e.g. ‘500 m from the reef edge’). This normally results in an irregular shaped zone boundary. Depicting a reef or a group of reefs in this way may look ecologically appropriate on a map, but using the edge of such features to draw zone boundaries has proven very difficult to interpret on the water. For example, many reef parts are fragmented or at times submerged, so it is difficult on the water to determine the reef edge, and then use that to estimate a distance. Furthermore it is not easy to estimate 500 m (or even 100 m) on the water. Coordinate-based zone boundaries, based on longitude/latitude and shown in degrees and decimal minutes were therefore introduced in the 2003 GBR Zoning Plan. These fully encompass ecological features (i.e. well outside the edge of entire reefs/islands). Zone boundaries are orientated north, south, east and west for ease of navigation or comprise straight lines between two easily determined coordinates. Straight lines look less ‘ecologically appropriate’, but they are easier to locate and enforce in offshore areas, especially if using electronic devices e.g. global positioning system GPS or plotter.

Building on the existing zoning, it is important that every zone has a unique number, referenced to a detailed description in the statutory Zoning Plan (see Resources) and with a unique zone identifier (e.g. MNP–11–031): a) MNP refers to the zone type (Marine National Park Zone) b) the first two numbers refer to its latitude (example shown above is at latitude 11°) c) The last number (031) enables a specific zone to be identified on the zoning maps and cross-referenced to the Zoning Plan.

Not every zone coordinate is shown on the freely available zoning maps; however the most important zone coordinates for most users are shown (e.g. no-fishing zones and no-access zones).
Recognizing that not everyone has a GPS, inshore zone boundaries, however, are aligned with recognizable coastal features or identifiable landmarks or boundary markers (e.g. ‘the zone extends north from the eastern extent of the headland at xxx’).
Signs showing the nearby zones are put at boat ramps along the coast (see Photos below).
All zoning coordinates are provided to commercial suppliers of electronic navigation aids, enabling zones to be loaded into a GPS.
In addition, all zone coordinates are freely available on the web or available as a CD to enable any user to plot the coordinates on their own navigation chart, or to locate a zone using their own GPS.
All coordinates must be referenced to a specified official Geocentric Datum for accuracy (e.g. GDA94 in Australia).

Entirety

Local

Subnational

The list of all zones in the GBR Marine Park can be found as a schedule to the …

Zone assignment by objective rather than by activities

Objectives of the zones.

Jon C. Day

The difference between zoning by objective rather than zoning by activity is best explained by example; a ‘no-trawling’ zone may indicate clearly one activity is prohibited (i.e. all trawling is banned in that zone), but it may not be clear as to what other activities may be allowed or not allowed. The objective of the Habitat Protection Zone enables a range of activities that have (relatively) minimal impacts on the benthic habitat(s) to occur within that zone; for example, boating, diving, and limited impact research are allowed, as well as allowing some extractive activities like line fishing, netting, trolling and spear-fishing (i.e. some but not all, fishing activities). However the zone objective and related zoning provisions clearly prohibit bottom trawling, dredging or any other activity that is damaging to the sensitive habitats in that zone. In most oceans there are many existing or potential marine activities that need to be managed but many of these activities are complementary and can occur within the same zone; if zoning is used to address all existing activities (and ocean zoning is certainly one important tool to do so), then it is preferable that zoning be by objective rather than by each individual activity.

The Zoning Plan is a statutory document that includes all the specific details of the zoning (e.g. Zone objectives (see Resources below), the detailed zone boundaries, etc.). The Act provides the ‘head of power’ to prepare a zoning plan and includes a section on the Interpretation of zoning plans (section 3A) and details about the objects of zoning, what a zoning plan must contain and how a zoning plan must be prepared (sections 32-37A).

If a zone objective has multiple parts, there must be a clear hierarchy within the objective. For example, if the objective is to provide for both conservation and reasonable use (as shown for most GBR zones - see Resources below), the second part is always subject to the first (i.e. reasonable use can only occur if it is subject to ensuring conservation).
The GBR Zoning Plan also has a special ‘catch-all’ permit provision in (“any other purpose consistent with the objective of the zone…”). This provides for new technology or activities that were not known when the Zoning Plan was approved. It provides an important ‘safety net’ enabling an activity which is not in one of the two lists explained in BB1 to still be considered for a permit provided it is consistent with the zone objective.

Entirety

Local

Subnational

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act, 1975

Multiple-use zoning

This activity/zoning matrix shows allowable activities in each of the seven marine zones in the GBR. A tick indicates the activity is allowed ‘as or right’, whereas a cross clearly shows that certain activities are not allowed in certain zones.

A schematic map of part of the 2003 Zoning Plan for the area of the GBRMP adjacent to the regional city of Townsville. Virtually all the zones occur in this area. Clearly apparent are the straight-line boundaries, which encompass whole ecological units.

In some parts of the world, zoning is based solely around allowing, or prohibiting, specific activities in specific areas. In the GBR a spectrum of zones exists, each with differing zone objectives; these zones allow a range of activities to occur provided each activity complies with the relevant zone objective. The provisions of the Zoning Plan apply to all users in the GBR. The Zoning Plan sets out in detail two specific lists of ‘use or entry’ provisions for each zone; these help determine the types of activities that are appropriate in that particular zone. 1. The first list indicates activities that are allowed to occur in that zone (‘as of right’) and which do not require a permit; 2. The second list stipulates which activities may occur in that particular zone but only after a permit has been assessed and, if the application meets all the necessary requirements, a permit has been granted. The regulations specify the assessment process and criteria for a permit; these vary depending on the proposed activity. Some zones may also stipulate restrictions on types of fishing gear which also provides differing levels of protection. If an activity is not listed in either (1) or (2) above, it is prohibited in that zone.

The 1975 legislation specified that a plan depicting spatially derived zones (i.e. zoning) was to be a key management tool for the GBR Marine Park, and zoning plans were required by the legislation to define the purposes for which certain areas may be used or entered. The objectives of zoning have ‘evolved’ since the 1975 version of the Act (refer Day 2015) recognizing a need today to protect the full range of the biodiversity of the GBR rather than just keystone species or habitats.

To assist public understanding, the allowable activities in the Zoning Plan have been summarized into a simple activity/zoning matrix (see Photos below). However, the statutory Zoning Plan (i.e. subordinate legislation under the Act) must be the legal basis for determining which activities are appropriate in a zone.
Zoning maps are a publicly-available form of the statutory Zoning Plan; however, to legally determine exactly where a zone boundary occurs, the actual zone descriptions detailed in the back of the statutory Zoning Plan must be used.
Just because the Zoning Plan states an activity is able to occur with a permit, it does not automatically mean a permit will always be granted; the application still needs to be assessed and only if it meets all the necessary criteria, is a permit granted.

Interpreting the different zones in the GBR

GBR Zoning Maps

Day, J.C. (2015). Marine Spatial Planning (MSP)