First, each jurisdiction developed sustainable finance plans, including financing targets, strategies, and the creation of Protected Area Network (PAN) Funds. For example, Palau created a Green Fee, and FSM and RMI are working on Tuna Licensing Fee legislation and a tourism fee to support sustainable financing of the Micronesia Challenge. Pohnpei and Kosrae State are creating PAN funds and are evaluating an amendment to the airport tax law to allow some of the departure fees to go into the FSM's Micronesia Challenge Endowment Fund. Additionally, several other sustainable financing schemes have been and/or are being set up (i.e. the Yela Conservation Easement Endowment, the Awak Sustainable Community Development Revolving Fund, the Nett Water Fund). An endowment for the MC is another important component to sustainable financing. Interest income from an endowment of approximately $56 million ($17 million as of 2015) will be needed to supplement local sources for the long-term sustainability of the MC in all five jurisdictions. Although the endowment funds are invested together, each jurisdiction has their own sub-account and will develop their own dissemination mechanisms for their interest income.

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.

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.