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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

1. 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.
2. All submissions were individually scanned and the electronic files were saved into an Oracle submissions database.
3. 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)
4. 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.
5. Many submissions involved spatial information, including some 5,800 maps in the formal submission phases; these maps were digitized or scanned.

This building block relates to the ownership and in situ analysis of collected monitoring data. At the pilot site, four village school-leavers were recruited and trained to record data on octopus catches at each of two landing sites. Training was given in weighing and measuring the catch of 30 fishers/day over the 16 main fishing days of the lunar month (spring tides). Data books were then submitted monthly to the data logger; a local school teacher who was trained in excel using a laptop computer. Project leaders kept in regular contact with data recorders and the results were checked to identify problems at an early stage. After 8 months of recording, two parameters were chosen by which to examine the results of the exercise with the recording team: total catch per fishing period for both landing sites, and average size of octopus per fishing period. Recorders were shown how to make bar-charts to display the results. A detailed discussion with project leaders explored what the data and trends might suggest. The data recorders then visited the headquarters of the Department for Fisheries Development and presented their results. An ensuing discussion explored the implications for management and any changes suggested.

Scientific results and data are often published in formats that managers cannot access or find challenging to process and extract directly useful information (e.g. scientific publications). Once managers know what data they need to inform management (have thought through objectives and indicators), they can create a data request form asking researchers for the specific data most relevant to MPA management and in the format managers are using to allow rapid understanding and integration into existing databases.

We have three capacity building programs to pursue legal, sustainable and competitive fishing practices:

1. Capacity building for leaders: It focuses on human development at the individual level. We identify community leaders and provide the tools and knowledge to strengthen their leadership for the common good. The leaders develop sustainable fishing and marine conservation projects, to which COBI provides follow-up. We have had 38 fellows from 18 communities.

2. Capacity building for fishing cooperatives: It provides legal guidance and

training to fishing cooperatives to improve their operations, be more competitive, and ensure financial sustainability in the mid and long-term. 26 cooperatives have participated in the program.

3. Capacity building for fishery committees and alliances: Designed to increase collective action in working groups that represent different stakeholders

and interests within a given area or resource. The program provides guidance to define common goals, rules for decision-making and operations, working plans, and a follow-up strategy. Four committees and an alliance have participated in the program.