Planning phase | PANORAMA

Conducting formal risk assessment

The building block aims to help communities identify their risks. Risk scenarios and the action plan are developed. Complimentary surveys from biodiversity, environmental quality, fishery, and social economic studies are included into the risk assessment.

Availability of data in the literature, from local governments. Qualified technical staff to analyze results from scientific monitoring on local climate change, biodiversity and livelihoods.

Scientific information and community knowledge are necessary input data to produce a complete risk assessment.

Planning phase

Local

Use and limitations of decision support systems/tools

Figure from the paper by Lewis et al. (2003). Use of Spatial Analysis and GIS techniques to Re-Zone the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Lewis et al. (2003)

A diagram showing one of the ‘final’ outputs of Marxan (A) in the GBR which met the planning principles, and how much that differed from the draft plan (B) and the final Zoning Plan (C), both of which had to consider other social and political inputs.

Pressey et al.2012

Decision-support systems (DSS) or analytical tools, such as Marxan or SeaSketch, are often promoted as a pre-requisite for effective marine spatial planning, providing a quick and reliable solution to a planning problem. It is natural for DSS users to hope that using the DSS will generate ‘the answer’ and hence provide the solution to their planning problem. More often than not, DSS produce simplistic results which need to be modified using other planning methods. All DSS tools have limitations and cannot compensate for missing or incomplete data. They can produce unintended side-effects and often are unable to match the complexity of real-world planning problems. Planning outcomes are of little practical value if social, cultural and economic values are not considered – however rarely is such data readily available in a form amendable to a DSS or at the an appropriate spatial resolution. In the GBR, the DSS generated a ‘footprint’ of various ‘no-take’ zone options, but it could not cater for the eight zone types, so other planning methods needed to be applied. However the real benefit was the ability to generate metrics to inform the development of the best possible no-take zoning network.

Marxan was developed by the University of Queensland as a modified version of SPEXAN to meet the needs of the GBRMPA during the Representative Areas Program and the development of the 2003 Zoning Plan. The images below show that Marxan did not produce the final zoning network in the GBR, but it did provide invaluable decision support through post-hoc accounting of various options, enabling a rapid assessment of the implications of each option in terms of each of the planning objectives.

In reality a DSS cannot undertake the fine scale tuning and political trade-offs that inevitably occur in the final stages of planning, so it can never produce the final pragmatic solution for any planning task. Some shortfalls of DSS are:

Some planning information, especially socio-economic data, may not easily be applied into a DSS.
While a DSS may generate a ‘solution’, it is inevitably refined if/when socio-economic values are introduced. These values are often not represented in the data yet are often some of the most fundamental values for a socially-acceptable outcome.
Poor data will always lead to a poor result.
Most contemporary DSS tools are unlikely to meet all the needs of a user; in the GBR planning program even simple ‘rules’ such as ‘all reserves should be no smaller than ...’ were not able to be directly implemented by a DSS.
Some stakeholders are wary of ‘black-box’ models or DSSs (e.g. Marxan or Seasketch) that they do not understand.

Planning phase

Local

Subnational

Use of Spatial Analysis and GIS techniques to Re-Zone the Great Barrier Reef Ma…

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

Biophysical, socio-economic & management planning principles

The new network of no-take zones (NTZ) in the GBR was guided by 11 Biophysical Operational Principles developed using general principles of reserve design and the best available knowledge of the GBR ecosystem (see Resources). They included:

Have a few larger (rather than many smaller) NTZs
Have sufficient replication of NTZs to insure against negative impacts
Where a reef is within a NTZ, the whole reef should be included
Represent at least 20% of each bioregion in NTZs
Represent cross-shelf and latitudinal diversity in the network of NTZs
Maximise use of environmental information like connectivity to form viable networks
Incorporate biophysically special/unique places
Consider adjacent sea uses and land uses when choosing NTZs

Four Social, Economic, Cultural and Management Feasibility Operational Principles were also applied:

Maximise complementarity of NTZs with human values, activities and opportunities;
Ensure that final selection of NTZs recognises social costs and benefits;
Maximise placement of NTZs in locations which complement and include present and future management and tenure arrangements; and
Maximise public understanding and acceptance of NTZs, and facilitate enforcement of NTZs.

An independent Scientific Steering Committee, including scientists with expertise in the GBR, helped to develop these principles, basing them upon expert knowledge of the ecosystem, available literature and their advice as to what would best protect the biodiversity. Careful consideration of the views of Traditional Owners, users, stakeholders and decision-makers was an essential pre-requisite before deciding the final spatial configuration of NTZs that could fulfil these principles.

Having a publicly-available set of planning principles assists everyone to understand how the NTZ network is developed.
The principles are based on the best available science and expert knowledge but can be improved.
A principle should not be considered in isolation; they all need to be treated collectively as ‘a package’ to underpin the number, size and location of NTZs.
None of these recommendations is for ‘ideal’ or ‘desired’ amounts and they refer to recommended minimum protection levels. Protecting at least these amounts in each bioregion, and each habitat, helps achieve the objective of protecting the range of biodiversity.
The “minimum of 20% per bioregion” principle is often misunderstood – it is NOT saying that 20% of every bioregion in NTZs must be protected; rather it recommends no less than 20% should be protected. In some instances that is only the minimum amount and in some less contested bioregions, a higher percentage protected is more appropriate.

Planning phase

Local

Subnational

Technical Information Sheet - Biophysical Operational Principles

Technical Information Sheet - Social, economic, cultural and management feasibi…

RAP – An Ecosystem Level Approach To Biodiversity Protection Planning

Engaging politicians and champions throughout the planning

It is important to engage the key political players from the start of the planning process rather than wait until nearer the completion of any such process. Soon after the start of the GBR planning process, a formal ‘Leader’s Guide’ was delivered to all State and federal politicians along the GBR coast and wherever possible, personal briefings were undertaken by senior GBRMPA staff. This helped ensure all politicians had the correct information, had extra materials to give to their constituents and had a contact within GBRMPA if further information was required. While some decision-makers would prefer all planning decisions to be consensus-based, or achieve a ‘win-win’ for all concerned, neither consensus nor ‘win-wins’ are achievable goals for stakeholder processes dealing with issues of such magnitude and complexity as most MPA planning processes. In the GBR, it was important to explain to politicians early in the planning process that compromises were the expected outcomes. At the end of the GBR rezoning, no one stakeholder group felt they got exactly what they wanted; but every group knew they had ample opportunities to become engaged and to provide input – and most understood the compromises all sectors had made.

The formal ‘Leader’s Guide’ delivered to all politicians along the GBR coast ensured they had the best available information and a person to contact within GBRMPA for further information. Maintaining contact with the key political players throughout the planning process was also invaluable and paid dividends when the final plan was presented to parliament. The use of telephone polling (outlined in Building Block 2) was invaluable to demonstrate the wider public views to politicians.

Do not raise false expectations with stakeholders or politicians as to the likely outcomes.
Consensus and ‘win-wins’ for all those concerned in MPA planning processes are unlikely to be achievable goals when dealing with issues of such magnitude and/or complexity.
The timelines favoured by politicians are often not compatible with comprehensive planning processes.
Compromise is essential – but recognise that this is considered by some to be winners and losers.
The use of ‘Champions’ (e.g. sporting heroes, national identities) to endorse the planning process or deliver key messages is helpful to raise the planning profile.
At the end of the day, almost all planning processes are political, and whether planners like it or not, there will be political compromises imposed at the end of the process – how much your political masters are aware of the issues, the implications of the recommended plan and the full range of public views will help them make the best possible decisions.

The additional information that was required to be submitted to the Australian …

The Regulatory Impact Statement for the GBR rezoning

Summary report of the social and economic impacts of the rezoning of the GBR

An economic and social evaluation of implementing the Representative Areas Prog…

Targeted educational material

Graphics help stakeholders understand key concepts like connectivity, e.g. The Red Emperor at different stages of its life cycle utilises different habitats across the GBR.

Diagram explaining the legal definition of ‘one-hook’, which is all that is legally allowed by the Zoning Plan in the Conservation Park Zone.

Throughout the GBR planning program, targeted educational material was prepared and widely distributed. For example the map of the 70 bioregions across the GBR was a key foundational document upon which a lot of subsequent public engagement was based. The preparation of Technical Information Sheets (see below) helped to explain concepts like ‘biodiversity’ in layman’s terms as many people did not understand what it was nor its importance. Similarly trying to explain the importance of ‘connectivity’ in the marine environment was greatly enhanced by a poster entitled ‘Crossing the Blue Highway’ (see Photos below). It used a combination of digital art, photos and words to explain the importance of connectivity between the land and the sea, and within habitats of the GBR - this reinforced the need for the ‘representative’ approach to the zoning. Different stakeholder groups have differing interests so the communication messages were appropriately tailored by experts who understood the sectors e.g. what was presented to fishers was different to how a very similar message was presented to researchers or to politicians.

Having experts within the planning team who understood the issues facing the key sectors proved invaluable:

For ‘tailoring’ key messages (e.g. an ex-fisheries manager really understood the concerns of all types of fishers; an ex-tourism employee knew what was important for tourist operators; Indigenous persons in the team helped engagement with Indigenous groups).
Having a good understanding of each industry was also reassuring for those who felt their livelihoods might be affected.

Many stakeholders initially were misinformed about the key issues and what could, or should, be done.
People needed to understand there was a problem before accepting that a solution was required and that new zoning was necessary.
It is essential to tailor key messages for different target audiences – a blend of technical and layman’s information was produced and made widely available.
Having experts on the planning team who could tailor information relevant to the various stakeholder sectors was critical.
The rezoning was not about managing fisheries, but rather about protecting all biodiversity.
The use of graphics to explain complex issues like ‘connectivity between habitats’, or the legal definition of ‘a hook’, proved invaluable to educate a range of audiences.
Some elements of how GBRMPA undertook public participation/education were more successful than others (e.g. minimising public meetings whenever possible), so learn from other’s experience.

Technical Info Sheet - Biodiversity and why it’s important

All Technical Information Sheets

The map of GBR bioregions

Graphics help stakeholders understand key concepts

Diagram explaining the legal definition of ‘one-hook’

Ongoing/continuing public engagement during the planning

Excerpts from media headlines - some of the more controversial headlines during the more contentious early stages of the GBR planning program.

Darren Cameron

Excerpts from media headlines - some of the more complimentary media headlines at the completion of the GBR planning program.

Darren Cameron

The GBR legislation mandates 2 formal phases of public engagement when planning – one seeking input prior to developing a draft plan, and the second to provide comments on that draft plan. However previous planning processes in the GBR demonstrated that public engagement was more effective if undertaken throughout the process. This included the preparation of various brochures, technical information sheets (some tailored for different target audiences), periodic updates (see Resources below) and graphics explaining concepts like connectivity. Throughout the planning process (1999-2003) the public were engaged by a variety of methods e.g. newspapers, radio, TV, the website (refer Resources below). Planners knew a revised plan was needed. However, communication experts pointed out that the wider public did not understand why a new zoning plan was needed when there already was an existing plan. Rather than progressing the new draft plan, communications experts advised the planners to pull back for several months to conduct an awareness campaign called “Under Pressure”. Once the public were more aware of the problems facing the GBR, they were more accepting of the need for a new plan but also understood they could have their say.

The supporting role of experts in public education and communications was critical throughout the planning program. These specialists are experts in public engagement, so their perspective on a number of issues (e.g. ensuring the public understood the problems facing the GBR and why a new plan was necessary) was invaluable during the GBR process. Keeping the public informed and on-side using a range of methods were key components for success before, during and after the planning program.

Public engagement was more effective when undertaken throughout the planning process.
The ‘Under Pressure’ campaign was successful in raising public awareness as to why a new plan was needed.
The support from communications experts throughout the planning program is invaluable.
The periodic updates were useful to keep the public informed of progress between the formal engagement periods.
The media can be a great/influential ally – or a potent opponent. Work closely with all forms of local media so they get to know you and how you work.
A trained media spokesperson in your team who knows both the topic and how to present well is important.
Expect that some media will be critical or opposed to what you are doing – and be prepared to counter those views with clear and concise messages.
Keep a running list of all meetings/engagement events and the numbers present – politicians are usually interested to see how many people you have engaged.

Summary of materials used to engage the public during the GBR rezoning (Appendi…

An example of one the RAP Update brochures

Technical Information Sheet - Representative Areas Program background and histo…

Correcting misinformation and unrealistic expectations

During any planning exercise, some key messages or information may become deliberately (or inadvertently) distorted or mis-represented by those who are opposed to the process. Many people believe everything they hear (without always checking the accuracy) and are also suspicious of any changes proposed by bureaucrats. Every time these concerns are passed onto others, they are embellished, leading to distortions from the original facts. Furthermore some stakeholders selectively quote from ‘research’ when it suits their concerns whilst ignoring evidence with a contrary position. Some stakeholders have unrealistic expectations and do not understand what is possible, or impossible, as part of the planning process. Unless this misinformation is addressed, the public may only hear the distorted or unclear messages which may then become reinforced by others with similar perspectives. Such misinformation, and the consequent fear and uncertainty, resulted in some of the largest public meetings during the GBR planning process. To counter some of these problems and address unrealistic expectations, GBRMPA produced a fact sheet titled ‘Correcting the mis-information’ - this was widely distributed, especially at large public meetings.

During the rezoning, the scientific experts were unable to provide 100% certainty. They did, however, provide a strong scientific consensus for the recommended levels of protection based on theoretical and empirical evidence. In doing so, they also took into consideration:

the national and international expectations associated with managing the GBR, the world’s largest coral reef ecosystem; and
international experience and opinion advocating increased protection of the world’s oceans.

Many stakeholders were initially misinformed about what were the key issues and pressures and what was needed to address them.
People needed to understand: there was a problem with biodiversity before they would accept that a solution was required (i.e. a new zoning plan was needed); that the rezoning was not about managing fisheries, but about protecting all biodiversity; to focus on the problem (protecting biodiversity) rather than on what the consequences might mean (i.e. reduced fishing areas).
Be prepared to refute contrary claims and correct misinformation, irrespective of whether it is due to a misunderstanding or deliberate mischievous behaviour – and address it as soon as possible (leaving misinformation out in the community just exacerbates the issue).
A lack of perfect data or lack of 100% scientific certainty may sometimes be given as reasons to delay progress or to do nothing; but if you wait for ‘perfect’ data, then nothing will ever happen.

Correcting misinformation, misunderstandings and providing the facts

Assessing the views of those who don’t want to get involved

It should not be assumed that all those who have an interest in an area or the planning process will necessarily provide a written submission. Around 1 million people live adjacent to the GBR and many millions of people elsewhere in Australia and internationally are concerned for the future of the GBR. However the 31,600 written public submissions represented only a small proportion of all those concerned citizens (noting many individual submissions were prepared on behalf of groups representing many hundreds of members). At many public events during the planning or in the media, it was a small ‘noisy minority’ who dominated the discussions. Different techniques were therefore applied to determine the views of the ‘silent majority’, many of whom were interested or concerned but did not bother to write a public submission. This included commissioning telephone polling of major population centres elsewhere in Australia to determine the ‘real’ level of the wider public understanding and support. In addition, community attitudes and awareness were monitored through public surveys. These showed that many stakeholders were misinformed about the key issues/pressures and what could, or should, be done to address their concerns.

Telephone polling in major population centres around Australia is an approach used by political parties for political purposes. The same polling companies who undertake these surveys were used in the rezoning, with the planners working closely with them to determine the most useful questions. The results helped politicians to understand the wider public perspective, not just the noisy minority or the media reports. Community attitudes were also monitored through public surveys.

Don’t ignore those stakeholders who choose to remain silent.
Remember that politicians are usually more interested in what the wider community thinks than just those who send submissions.
Recognise the ‘noisy minority’ usually does not represent the silent majority comprising all those with an interest in the future of the MPA.
Public meetings are often dominated by a few – ways are needed to allow wider concerns to also be heard.
Some stakeholders ‘leave it to others’ to send a submission – either because they think everything is fine, or else they believe changes are unlikely and so are not motivated to act.
Telephone polling of the wider public or internet surveys can determine the real level of understanding and support.
Tailor your key messages for different target audiences (take a strategic approach).
Monitor wider community attitudes and awareness through media analysis, via the internet (e.g. Survey Monkey) or face-to-face interviews or surveys.

Opinion polls - Wikipedia

Telephone and Internet Polling - Boundless Political Science

Written public submissions during the planning

Some of the thousands of public submissions received and waiting to be scanned (note some submissions included maps and lots of additional supporting data).

During the first phase of public comment, large maps were provided free to the public; this submission used the map to mark areas of interest to the submittee. Other submissions choose to cross-hatch the entire map, claiming they fished the entire area.

One of the A3 submission forms used in the 2nd phase of public comment; this format proved much easier to code than the original maps and submission forms and helped many of those who made submissions to provide more useful comments.

Given that GBRMPA had previously never received so many public submissions (> 10,190 in the 1st phase and 21,500 in the 2nd phase commenting on the draft zoning plan), the following multi-stage process was used to analyse all the submissions:

Contact details from each submission were recorded in a database, a unique identification number was assigned, and an acknowledgment card was sent to whoever made the submission.
All submissions were individually scanned and the electronic files were saved into an Oracle submissions database.
Trained GBRMPA staff analysed each submission using a coding framework consisting of keywords for a range of themes and attributes. The framework was developed from a stratified random sample of submissions based on place of origin and sector. The database linked the scanned PDF with the relevant contact details and analytical information (i.e. keywords)
A search and retrieve ability based on the keywords enabled planners to search and retrieve PDFs of specific submissions or to run various queries of all the information in the submissions.
Many submissions involved spatial information, including some 5,800 maps in the formal submission phases; these maps were digitized or scanned.

The legislation outlines a comprehensive process for community participation in the planning process. The fact that the locals were ‘familiar’ with two phases of public participation and written submissions from previous experiences with GBR planning processes did assist this most recent planning process. Many groups assisted by submitting joint submissions. Consistency of analysis across the analytical team was ensured by the team leader checking a sample of the analysed submissions.

The analysis method must consider the substance of submissions rather than the number of times a comment is made. The submission process is not a numbers game but more about the quality of any argument that is made.
In the first public phase, many open questions on the submission form led to long rambling answers; these proved hard to code, as were the large maps that were also distributed.
The 2nd phase was more effective as a simple two page A3 size submission form asked more specific questions. Not everyone used the submission form, but it did make scanning and coding easier.
Many pro-forma submissions were received; easy to code but not helpful.
Linking spatial information with a qualitative coding system in the GIS was important.
Coding was based on seven key themes and a range of sub-themes, allowing a detailed analysis of each submission and all information provided.
Public feedback is important to demonstrate that all comments were considered.

Managing, Analysing and Presenting Public Submissions in the GBR

Report on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003

Understanding the issue and working with the PA management.

SGNP is possibly the most visited protected area anywhere in the world. The average annual visitation is more than 1 million people. Our problem at hand was to transform this visitation into popular public support for SGNP. The figures speak for themselves, and I set out to convince the forest department that if we are able to engage with the visitors in a detailed manner, our problem would easily be solved. We put together an active Facebook page for SGNP and a website (government agency) to start this Out reach campaign. We also produced popular, high quality publications on various biodiversity related topics and handouts for enhancing user experience (in multiple languages). Because of the vibrant social media presence, we were able to build a public following of about 20,000 people till now and so created a bandwidth for our outreach. The website is a means to utilize the internet to start online data collection and transactions. With these things in place it was relatively easy for the forest department to go ahead and implement further actions.

1. Understanding of the functioning and mentality of a government agency and work to their skill sets, rather than forcing your priorities. 2. Visualise your solution as an upward engaging structure and start working on the basics.

- At least in India, the mandate of the forest department (PA management) is to protect and manage the area. Education, outreach, tourism are so to say not their mandates and are looked upon as additional burdens. It was very important for me to demonstrate how this particular approach was going to help them do their job in a better way. Only then was the process smooth and up-scaling was possible. The ownership of the process has to lie with the PA management. I prefer working as a volunteer, just facilitating the solution. I think this is very important as it prevents any financial ambiguity.

Planning phase

Subnational

SGNP Facebook page

SGNP official website