Subnational | PANORAMA

Development of GIS-based electronic information points

The aim of the electronic information points is channeling visitor use in order to help avoid congestion within Paanajärvi and Oulanka NPs and thus to enhance possibilities of nature experiences for visitors and to safeguard biological diversity and ecological sustainability of the NPs. Through the information points visitors can obtain easily accessible, fun and entertaining information of the possibilities for experiencing nature in Oulanka and Paanajärvi National Parks and in other areas in their vicinity, encouraging also visitation across the border. The information points also describe less visited sites, thus channelling the visitor use towards areas that can accommodate more visitors. This can effectively reduce crowding in certain areas and thus contribute towards preserving ecological values in the more crowded areas. Nine electronic, multi-lingual information points were installed: 7 in Finland and 2 in Russia. Partnerships were formed with tourism associations and businesses and local administrations in order to place the information points in well visited sites outside of National Parks, as well as in the Visitor Centres of the NPs. Emphasis was put on presenting the sites with engaging photos and fun text.

There was great interest in these electronic information points, and the managers of sites where information points were placed were keen to maintain them. Interest of regional and local authorities and tourism sector actors to promote natural and cultural sites of visit within their own and in neighbouring areas was important for planning and implementing the information points. The personnel of the National Parks were keen to share their photos for the information points and the Parks management was very supportive of the information points.

The electronic information points provide information in a fun and entertaining way focusing more on photos than text. By keeping the text short and fun to read along with photos showing people not taking themselves seriously, the information is easily accessible to the user. The electronic information points can be updated using a network connection but they cannot be used over the Internet. They are only available on site. It might be worth to have the information points available on the Internet as well, as that is the way people seek information nowadays. This would help visitors plan their trip better and avoid crowds as they could find information on the less visited and known sites prior to their visit.

Local

Subnational

Multi-national

PRESS RELEASE Oulanka-Paanajärvi – opportunities provided by nature and coopera…

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.

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

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)

Partnerships with key sectors to enhance management efforts

Reef Guardian School students doing their bit to look after the Reef – here they apply a stencil to show that anything entering this drain will end up in the Great Barrier Reef.

Gordonvale school students demonstrate water saving methods to their fellow students as part of their Reef Guardians Schools program.

These banana farmers have signed up to be part of Reef Guardian Farmers program to help protect the GBR and its associated ecosystems from land-sourced water quality issues.

A range of partnerships have been established to assist with GBR management efforts; these include: -The Reef Guardian Schools (RGS) program began in 2003. Today it involves >120,000 students from 276 schools (i.e.10% of the entire population of the GBR catchment undertake stewardship programs as part of a RGS). -The RGS initiative was expanded in 2007 to include Reef Guardian Councils (i.e. local government councils). Currently, 16 councils along the GBR Coast demonstrate their commitment to improve the health and resilience of the GBR through such actions as sewerage treatment, storm water treatment, waste reuse/recycling and community education. -In 2010 the program was again expanded to include Reef Guardian Farmers and Reef Guardian Fishers. While still only pilot programs, the Fishers and Farmers programs help promote other initiatives being undertaken by these industries while also delivering environmental benefits. Other partnerships include: -The marine tourism industry is a key partner in GBR management, enhancing visitor experiences and helping to protect the biodiversity that supports their industry. -The GBR aquarium supply fishery developed a world’s-first Stewardship Action Plan including collection standards

• One object of the GBRMP Act is “encourage engagement in the protection and management of the GBR by interested persons and groups, including … communities, Indigenous persons, business and industry” (s. 2A (2b)). • Article 5 of the World Heritage Convention obligates nations who are signatories to the Convention, ”… so far as possible… to adopt a general policy which aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in the life of the community …”.

• Getting local communities involved in GBR protection and management, and developing partnerships with schools, councils and industries are some of the real success stories in the GBR. • All the Reef Guardian initiatives have created awareness, understanding and appreciation by various industries that depend on a healthy GBR. • There is no doubt that an informed and involved community fosters stewardship and promotes a community culture of custodianship for GBR protection. • Successful engagement is dependent on the willingness of the community members and stakeholders to engage on matters that are important to them, and on the level of commitment of managers to also get it right. • There is a wealth of relevant expertise in local communities – the challenge is how to harness that in an on-going way. • High Standard Tourism Operators voluntarily operate to a higher standard than required by legislation as part of their commitment to ecologically sustainable use.

Entirety

Local

Subnational

Reef Guardian Schools

Reef Guardians Schools Annual Awards Selection Criteria

Reef Guardians Schools Ripples of Change Selection Criteria

Reef Guardian Schools Annual Awards and Ripples of Change Application and Selec…

Reef Guardian Councils

Reef Guardian Farmers and Graziers

Reef Guardian Fishers

Reef Aquarium and Coral Collection Fishery

Stewardship Action Plan

GBR Tourism Climate Change Action Strategy

Multi-sectoral Advisory Committees

An officer from GBRMPA providing an update to Gladstone LMAC members about the 2016 mass bleaching event.

A field day attended by LMAC members helps them to learn about some of the environmental issues in their area.

3 different types of advisory committees support the management of the GBR, each with differing responsibilities: • Local Marine Advisory Committees (LMACs): community-based committees at 12 major towns along the GBR coast. They provide a two-way flow of information between the community and the GBR managers, and advice at the local level. Managers are required to attend all meetings to hear community views and discuss local marine/coastal issues. LMAC members are voluntary and may represent a community or industry group or be independent. • Reef Advisory Committees (RACs): expertise-based RACs provide expert-advice for critical issues facing the GBR (such issues as catchment and ecosystem management; Indigenous Partnerships; and tourism/recreation). RAC members are appointed for a three year term from stakeholders with expertise and experience in the critical issue. RACs meet formally with GBRMPA officers 2-3 times per year to assist in developing policy and provide strategic advice for GBR management; RAC Chairpersons also meet periodically with the GBRMPA Board. •Reef 2050 Advisory Committee: formally advises the GBR Ministerial Forum, including strategic advice about implementation of the Reef 2050 Plan and GBR management.

• Having a clear objective in the Act that encourages “… engagement in the protection and management of the GBR by interested persons and groups, including Queensland and local governments, communities, Indigenous persons, business and industry” has proven to be very beneficial (see Section 2A (2b)). • A comprehensive Charter of Operations provides clear guidance as to how LMACs and RACs must operate.

• The three differing types of committees cover a broad range of technical and geographical advice, thereby strengthening the overall legitimacy of that advice. • A member of the GBRMPA Senior Management Team is allocated to each LMAC and must attend meetings with the dual aims to build rapport with the locals and report back to senior management. • An independent Chair for each RAC and LMAC is appointed by the GBRMPA Chairman to help ensure effective committee meetings and outcomes. • An annual meeting of all LMAC Chairs has proven useful for cross-fertilization of ideas and to facilitate interaction between the 12 LMACs. • Sitting fees are not paid to any members to attend these committees; however, travel costs are covered for members to attend RAC and Reef 2050 meetings. • Minutes of RAC meetings are not for public distribution; however a summary report is publicly-available after each RAC meeting summarising the major items discussed at the meeting (see ‘Resources’ below).

Entirety

Local

Subnational

GBR Local Marine Advisory Committees

Communique from the 2015 LMAC Chairs meeting

GBR Reef Advisory Committees

A Charter of Operations (including Terms of Reference) governs how each of the …

Summary documents for the Indigenous Reef Advisory Committee

Summary documents for the Tourism Reef Advisory Committee

Reef 2050 Advisory Committee - Terms of Reference, including such matters as me…

Co-managing with Indigenous Traditional Owners

An elder of the Thiithar clan of the Guugu Yimmithirr Nation of Traditional Owners teaches children about their sea country at Elim Beach.

An interpretive sign welcoming visitors to Girringun Sea Country. The logos on the bottom of the sign show this is a joint initiative of the Australian Government, the Queensland Government and the Girringun Indigenous Traditional Owners.

Part of the zoning map for the sea country around the Keppel Islands, showing both the Traditional Owners’ names (in brackets) and the European names for specific locations.

This community stall at the Gladstone Eco-Fest was jointly staffed by officers of the Queensland Government, the Australian Government and an Indigenous representative of the Port Curtis Coral Coast Traditional Owner groups.

Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders have been the Traditional Owners (TOs) of the GBR for >60,000 years. Today traditional customs and spiritual lore continue to be practised by 70 TO clan groups whose sea country includes the GBR. The TOs continuing social, cultural, economic and spiritual connections to the area is acknowledged by the park managers (GBRMPA). An Indigenous Partnerships Group in GBRMPA works closely with TOs to establish meaningful partnerships to protect cultural and heritage values while conserving biodiversity. One way is a management arrangement called a Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreement (TUMRA), a formal agreement for sea country developed by TO groups and then accredited by both GBRMPA and Queensland. Another is an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA). There are currently seven TUMRAs and one ILUA accredited in the GBR which collectively involve 15 TO groups and cover 22% of the GBR coastline. Each TUMRA operates for a set time after which it is renegotiated. Indigenous engagement in the GBR is fostered by membership on the Authority Board, an Indigenous Reef Advisory Committee, compliance training and management workshops for TOs, and the use of traditional ecological knowledge.

• Having definitions and processes set out in the legislation was invaluable, for example: - Section 3 of the Act defines a ‘traditional owner’ - S. 10 (6A)) requires a member of the Board to be “an Indigenous person with knowledge of, or experience concerning, indigenous issues relating to the Marine Park” - S. 2A (3e)) requires a “partnership with traditional owners in management of marine resources” • The GBR Regulations defines how a TUMRA is to be made, accredited, terminated, etc.

• Experience shows an effective format for a TUMRA has three parts: 1. A narrative outlining the TOs aspirations for their sea country; 2. Specific details e.g. the areas in which traditional activities, such as hunting, will, and will not, occur or are limited by the TUMRA. 3. An implementation plan (e.g. outlining ways the TUMRA will educate the public and other TO groups about their sea country). • Compliance training for TOs has not only led to an increased awareness of marine compliance issues, but more importantly, to an increased feeling of empowerment by TOs to manage their sea country. • Managers should not expect that one Indigenous representative is able to speak on behalf of all Indigenous people or that the best way to engage TOs is the same as for other users or stakeholders. • Recognize different knowledge systems, and consider traditional ecological knowledge as complementary to western science.

Entirety

Local

Subnational

Traditional Owners of the Great Barrier Reef

Traditional use of resources of the GBR Marine Park

A TUMRA workbook

Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA)

GBR Regulations - see Part 2, s. 89A-89U, for specific details about a TUMRA