Given the many uncertainties associated with climate change, political and community support for so-called ‘no-regret’ adaptation measures can often be higher than for alternative approaches whose (cost-)effectiveness depends on the degree of future climate change. The no-regret approach focuses on maximizing positive and minimizing negative aspects delivered by EbA, and selecting actions that yield a range of benefits even in the absence of such change. In the case of the Kamen green-blue-corridor, the ecological improvement of the stream in combination with disconnecting the storm water from surrounding properties was determined to have positive impacts regardless of whether rainfall will increase in the long-term or not. Should rainfall intensify and become more frequent, flood risks will be reduced; if temperatures increase in the summer, the stored water will benefit the mircroclimate. Regardless of climate, however, the EbA measures can be considered as ‘no-regret’ as they create amenity and recreational benefits for the community and visitors, increase awareness levels, contribute to the EU Water Framework Directive and biodiversity conservation, and reduce water discharge fees for local inhabitants.

Successful implementation of EbA sometimes necessitates the involvement and support of private actors in cases where the measures are to take place on their land. This can create a challenge as the process of convincing individual stakeholders to participate in implementation activities often requires significant time investments, financial resources, and public outreach efforts. In the case of Kamen, it was necessary to determine the value of decoupling private citizens’ rainwater from the sewage system and then to convey this information in a convincing manner to those involved. Two public information meetings were followed by one-on-one planning sessions in which a technician visited individual homes and drafted catered solutions for disconnection that met the needs of each citizen. Furthermore, financial incentives were provided to the residents in the form of expenses per decoupled square meter to motivate participation.

From 2007 to 2010, severe flash floods occurred in different cities in the Emscher- and Lipperegion due to extreme rainfall events. In the public discussion that followed, the question of responsibility came up. Citizens formulated the demand that the public bodies, particularly the municipalities and water boards, had to guarantee a full protection against future flood events. In further developing this demand, it quickly became clear that this would not be possible without paying a high price. Questions arose like: How high should the dikes be, and how big should the waste water sewers be dimensioned to protect people against any extreme event? How much energy and money would that cost? This would speak against all efforts regarding climate protection and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. A communication strategy was thus necessary to change citizen perspectives and develop support for a reasonable solution. The goals was to convince the population that there is no solution by public authorities which can offer 100% protection against the impacts of climate change, and that there will always remain a degree of personal responsibility. This was the starting point when people began to ask the question: What can I do?

As this solution serves various goals and meets several objectives, it was possible to secure sufficient funding from diverse parties, domains and funding bodies to cover the entire implementation of the project. Innovative financing approaches can also act as ‘self-sustaining’ and generate funds during the course of the project to fund some of the foreseen activities.

In order to find an EbA solution for e.g. the development of an area in which multiple actors have an interest in, it is important to synergistically combine various interests, ambitions, challenges and goals.

Effective management in the marine realm can be greatly assisted by various technological aids; examples include: • Global Positioning System (GPS) - a satellite navigation system accessible to anyone with a GPS receiver (including most cell phones). Provided there is unobstructed access to four or more GPS satellites, a GPS will provide three-dimensional position, velocity and time anywhere on Earth. • Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) - an electronic tracking system used by regulatory agencies to monitor the activities of commercial fishing vessels. VMS can play important roles in fisheries management, including the prevention of illegal fishing and protecting the marine environment. VMS requires a GPS on the vessel and communication between the vessel and shore, usually via satellite. It has wider applications (e.g. collision avoidance) and may be used to monitor vessels up to 200 nm from the coast of most countries. • Automatic Identification System (AIS) - a radio broadcasting system enabling AIS equipped ships and shore stations to identify and locate ship’s positions, course and speed. Vessel traffic services (VTS) uses AIS to monitor vessels in ports, busy waterways and inshore waters, primarily for safety and efficiency.

The boundaries of an MPA (or zones within an MPA) should be identifiable while on the water. Traditionally, inshore MPA boundaries were referenced to some obvious natural feature or by using a distance from a feature like the shoreline. In some instances, physical demarcation of marine boundaries has occurred using fixed markers on the land or floating marker buoys, but there are significant costs to install and maintain such infrastructure. For deepwater, open-ocean conditions or for large MPAs the placement of marker buoys is extremely difficult, if not impossible, and the cost is prohibitive. For these reasons, MPA managers delineate such offshore boundaries using GPS coordinates (see Resources for Coordinate-based zone boundaries). Experience has shown that submerged features (e.g. depth contours, reefs, banks, shipwrecks, etc) may be hard to identify so should not be used for marine boundaries. Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary has considerable experience with installing offshore infrastructure for marine boundaries; FKNMS staff have installed >100 yellow boundary buoys marking marine zones; over 120 boundary buoys and/or signs marking Wildlife Management Areas, and are responsible for > 500 mooring buoys.

An obvious preference of most MPA managers is to have a fleet of reliable, safe, fit for-purpose vessels, which are well maintained and operational. However, sometimes vessel patrols or some marine management tasks are more appropriately shared (e.g. with other governmental agencies or by chartering a vessel from the private sector). The operation and ongoing maintenance of specialised management vessels can pose significant challenges, especially if there are insufficient staff in the agency with the necessary technical capacity, or if the operating funds for ongoing regular operations are limited. Determining whether to purchase expensive assets (e.g. specialised fast patrol vessels for enforcement or a stable working vessel to install facilities such as moorings or no-anchoring markers) should consider the objective of providing the required level of service and its frequency of likely use in the most cost-effective manner. MPA management may also be enhanced by sharing responsibility and information as explained in the Blue Solution on Shared Governance in the GBR. Management may also involve sharing other physical assets than just boats; e.g. shared assets may include operational bases, offices, vehicles and even aircraft.

Many issues facing MPAs cannot be effectively addressed by managing the marine realm alone; e.g: • water quality – most water quality issues arise on land • coastal developments, e.g. ports – most are outside the jurisdictional control of an MPA • increasing population growth and recreation – marine management does little to curtail growth or reduce some consequential impacts • climate change – management may build resilience but climate change is a global issue The GBR Marine Park is confined to waters seaward of low water mark so does not include tidal lands/tidal waters; key coastal areas e.g. ports and ‘internal waters’ of Queensland are also excluded (another Blue Solution outlines complementary zoning, irrespective of which jurisdiction applies). An integrated management approach with other agencies extends the management influence outside the Marine Park so that the islands, tidal areas and many activities in the catchments are effectively addressed. For example, the mapping of coastal ecosystems, the identification of key areas within catchments, and working with farmers to minimise their impacts on water quality, are specifically aimed at addressing the land-sea interface and the adjoining coastal lands and waters.

Zoning is only one of many spatial tools used in the Great Barrier Reef. Other spatial layers are depicted in the maps below, showing the same area of the GBR with differing layers overlying the zoning. A range of multi-dimensional management tools (spatial, non-spatial and temporal) are applied, some of which are part of the statutory GBR Zoning Plan, while others are in other statutory documents. Non-spatial management includes bag limits or size limits for fishing, or a wide range of permits; temporal management includes seasonal closures at key fish spawning times or temporary closures for short-term activities like military training. So rather than a single GBR management plan, a comprehensive three-dimensional Management system exists, comprising federal agency plans, State agency plans and other plans (e.g. fisheries management, ports, etc). Today this full suite of management tools comprises a comprehensive management framework, integrated and coordinated across agencies and jurisdictions. However, not every aspect of spatial management is shown in the publicly available zoning maps. Permits (often tied to specific zones or locations within zones) allow a detailed level of site management not possible by zoning alone.