Marine Policy 41 (2013) 14–24

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Marine Policy

0308-59

http://d

n Corr

E-m

kirstin.d1 Eq

USA, wo

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol

Effective governance of a large and complex cross-jurisdictionalmarine protected area: Australia’s Great Barrier Reef

Jon C Day n, Kirstin Dobbs

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, PO Box 1379, Townsville, Queensland 4810, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 1 November 2012

Received in revised form

13 November 2012

Accepted 18 December 2012Available online 20 February 2013

Keywords:

MPA

Governance

Multiple-use

Marine management

Zoning

Great Barrier Reef

7X/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright & 2

x.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.12.020

esponding author. Tel.: þ61 7 4750 0803; fax

ail addresses: j.day@gbrmpa.gov.au (J. Day),

obbs@gbrmpa.gov.au (K. Dobbs).

uivalent to the size of Italy or Japan, or if pla

uld stretch from the Canadian border to the

a b s t r a c t

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is the largest coral reef ecosystem on earth. The governance of such a large

and iconic area is complex due to the overlapping federal and state (Queensland) jurisdictions. Since

1975 this globally significant area has been protected by pioneering federal legislation which enabled

the ‘reasonable use’ of natural resources to co-exist with conservation, thus introducing the concept of

a multiple-use marine park. In 1981 the Great Barrier Reef was listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Area.

Today a federal multiple-use Marine Park covers 99% of the Great Barrier Reef Region and World

Heritage Area, with the remaining areas under state jurisdiction. A close working partnership between

the federal and state governments has evolved over 37 years and includes complementary legislation,

joint field management and joint permits. In the face of increasing pressures, management of the Great

Barrier Reef continues to be effective for a range of reasons, including a sound governance/legislative

framework together with complementary federal/state legislation; integrated management with

relevant federal and state agencies; and the application of ecosystem-based management principles

both inside and outside the area of the marine park’s jurisdiction. This integrated and comprehensive

management model is widely regarded as effective by marine and coastal managers around the world.

Crown Copyright & 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Context

Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (GBR) Region is defined in theGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (the Act), and covers anarea of approximately 346,000 km2. This huge expanse of oceanand reefs stretches some 2,300 km along the eastern Australiancoast, from the tip of Cape York in the north to past Lady ElliotIsland in the south1 (Fig. 1). Schedule 1 to the Act, which is federallegislation, describes the boundary of the GBR Region, with thewestern (landward) boundary defined as ‘‘along that coastline at

low water’’, and the eastern (seaward) boundary defined by sixoffshore points of latitude and longitude in deep water, wellbeyond the outer edge of the coral reefs [1].

The first section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP)was declared in 1979 for a small part of the GBR Region and azoning plan covering only that small area was completed in1981 [2]. Over subsequent decades, further sections weredeclared covering the majority of the Region. As these sectionswere declared and zoned as part of the federal Marine Park,various coastal areas within the GBR Region were not included in

012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All

: þ61 7 4772 6093.

ced on the west coast of the

Mexican border.

the GBRMP because they already had an existing port or harbour,or were considered to have potential for industrial or portdevelopments, and, on the basis of the information available atthe time, they appeared to have limited ecological significance2 .

The current extent of the federal GBRMP, which was pro-claimed as a single amalgamated section in April 2004, comprisesjust under 99% of the GBR Region, but does not include:

�

righ

sub

wh

hig

infr

internal waters of the State of Queensland that occur withinthe outer boundary of the Region including twelve ports orharbour areas, ten of which include the export of variouscommodities; and

� some 980 islands that form part of Queensland (the federal

Marine Park does, however, include 70 Commonwealthislands, including islands with lighthouses or within DefenceAreas).

Due of the definition of the GBR Region, the federal GBRMPextends to low water and does cover most ‘coastal waters’ (i.e.within 3 nm of the coast). At its widest point, the GBRMP is

ts reserved.

2 The ecological significance of many of these areas was recognised through

sequent research and between August 2000 and July 2001, 28 coastal areas

ich had previously been excluded from the GBRMP were added given they had

h natural values, low human use, or had only limited coastal developments,

astructure or modifications [3].

Fig. 1. Map showing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park—the outer boundary as shown is similar to the GBR World Heritage Area, the main difference being 14 small

exclusion areas along the coast corresponding to ports or internal waters of Queensland, that are not part of the Marine Park. While these exclusions total 1,600 km2, they

represent approximately 0.46% of the area of the Marine Park.

J.C Day, K. Dobbs / Marine Policy 41 (2013) 14–24 15

approximately 280 km offshore but still within the AustralianExclusive Economic Zone, which extends well beyond the GBRMPinto the Coral Sea. While no longer the largest marine protectedarea (MPA) in the world, the GBR remains arguably the mostsignificant MPA for biodiversity conservation. Coral reefs, man-groves and seagrass habitats occur elsewhere on the planet, butno other MPA covers such latitudinal and cross-shelf diversity(combined with diversity through the depths of the water column),

which collectively means a globally unique array of ecologicalcommunities, habitats and species [2].

Today the GBRMP is a large, single, multiple-use MPA (seeFig. 1). The iconic status of the GBR leads many people to thinkthe entire area is a marine sanctuary or a marine national parkand therefore protected equally throughout [4]. However sincethe first section of the GBRMP was declared in 1979, the GBRMPhas always been a multiple-use MPA in which zoning provides

J.C Day, K. Dobbs / Marine Policy 41 (2013) 14–2416

one of the key management tools [2]. The multiple-use zoningapproach provides for the separation of conflicting uses whileallowing a wide range of commercial and recreational activities,some of which are further managed through a permit system.

The GBR’s social and economic value is significant, particularlyfor the 1.12 million residents who live in the adjoining areas. Theeconomic and financial value of tourism, recreational activities,and commercial fishing within the GBRMP (plus tourism in theadjoining catchment area) has been estimated to exceed AUD$5.4billion per annum and generates some 66,000 jobs, mostly intourism [5]. In recent years, there have been an estimated 14.6million recreational visits per year to the GBR from residentswithin the GBR catchment [6], with an additional 1.85 millionvisitor days per year from tourists carried by commercial opera-tors into the GBR (averaged over 2009–10 and 2010–11) [7].

Ten major commercial fisheries operate in the GBR, contribut-ing around $140 million to the economy each year [5]. Recrea-tional use, including fishing, generates around $150 million eachyear [5], with over 87,500 recreational vessels registered in thecoastal areas adjoining the GBR [8]. Mining and tourism are thelargest industries in the catchment, with production of mineralsgrossing around $7 billion per annum. Shipping is vital to thiseconomic activity, with the majority of Queensland’s $17 billionper annum commodity exports being shipped through ten majorports on the GBR’s coast. The beef, cane and horticulture indus-tries in GBR catchments contribute approximately $3.7 billion ayear in gross value of production and also support significantregional employment [9]. The GBR catchment is one of the fastestgrowing areas in Australia and is expected to have around1.5 million people living along its coast by 2026 [10].

Objectives

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 is the primaryfederal legislation for the GBRMP [1]. Following a comprehensivereview in 2006 [11], the objects of the Act were amended. Today,the main object is ‘‘to provide for the long term protection and

conservation of the environment, biodiversity and heritage values of

the Great Barrier Reef Region’’ [1]. The other objects of the Act are todo the following, so far as is consistent with the main object:

�

‘‘allow ecologically sustainable use of the Great Barrier Reef

Region for purposes including public enjoyment and appreciation;

public education about and understanding of the Region; recrea-

tional, economic and cultural activities; research in relation to the

natural, social, economic and cultural systems and value of the

Great Barrier Reef Region;

�

encourage engagement in the protection and management of the

Great Barrier Reef Region by interested persons and groups,

including Queensland and local governments, communities, Indi-

genous persons, business and industry;

�

assist in meeting Australia’s international responsibilities in

relation to the environment and protection of world heritage

(especially Australia’s responsibilities under the World Heritage

Convention)’’ [1].

Nested within the broad objects for the overall GBR Region arefurther legislative objectives. For example, each of the eight zonetypes described in the statutory Zoning Plan (which is sub-ordinate legislation) have clear objectives [12]. If an activity isnot already listed in the Zoning Plan, these objectives provide afundamental benchmark against which to determine whetherthat activity is appropriate within that zone and therefore allowa permit to be granted.

Following a major review of the Act in 2006 the AustralianGovernment resolved that decision-making for the long-termprotection of the GBR should be underpinned by a five-yearlyperiodic Outlook Report; the first Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report

was published in 2009 and is a regular and reliable means ofassessing performance in an accountable and transparent manner[13]. The legislative review also led to other Act amendmentsrequiring operational principles addressing the environmental,economic and social objectives of a proposal to prepare a newZoning Plan to be approved by the Minister prior to any such plancommencing [1].

Drivers/conflicts

While the GBR remains one of the healthiest coral reefecosystems on the planet, its condition has declined significantlysince European settlement. The 2009 Outlook Report concludedthat the GBR ecosystem is at a crossroad, and decisions made inthe next few years are likely to determine its long-term future[13]. Much of what will happen to the GBR in the future will bedetermined by factors external to it and to Australia. The factorsthat currently, or that are projected to, influence the GBR’senvironmental, economic and social values are climate change,catchment runoff, coastal development and some aspects ofcommercial and non-commercial use [13]. A brief summary ofthe main management issues in the GBR follows:

�

Climate change has been identified as one of the greatestthreats to the long-term health of the GBR. It is affecting, andwill increasingly affect, the GBR ecosystem in a number of ways,including increased frequency of severe weather events, oceanacidification, rising sea temperature and rising sea levels [14].Over the last decade the GBR has been impacted by a series ofsevere floods, cyclones and mass bleaching events which havecaused impacts to the ecosystem [15]. Given current climatechange predictions, the GBR is facing an increase in cycloneintensity, rainfall variability (resulting in longer droughts andbigger floods) as well as mass coral bleaching events andoutbreaks of coral disease and algal blooms. � Coastal development is primarily driven by mining, industry,

intensification of agriculture and associated populationgrowth, all of which are significantly affecting coastal habitatsthat support the GBR [13]. Population growth generally leadsto an increase in supporting infrastructure, services andrecreational use of the GBRMP. If poorly planned and imple-mented, these activities can further modify the coastal envir-onment and cause such impacts as sedimentation and otherwater quality issues and drainage changes. Mining and indus-try are also fuelling growth in ports and shipping withproposals for significant expansion in at least seven majortrading ports adjacent to the GBRMP.

� Water quality—the catchment adjacent to the GBRMP is

becoming more intensively farmed, especially for sugar [16].Farming and aquaculture activities have the potential toincrease the sediment, nutrient and pesticide loads to theGBRMP. The GBRMP receives runoff from 35 drainage basinscovering a total catchment area of 424,000 km2 of coastalQueensland [17]. Researchers have recently estimated that thefollowing amounts have been added to the GBR lagoon sinceEuropean settlement—sediment increases by 14 million tons/year (5.5� natural load levels); nitrogen by 66,000 t/year(5.7� natural load) and phosphorus by 14,000 t/year (8.9�natural load) [18]. Declining water quality is linked to coralbleaching, algal blooms, crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaksand pollution.

J.C Day, K. Dobbs / Marine Policy 41 (2013) 14–24 17

�

Fishing (commercial, recreational and charter) providesopportunities for recreation, resources for the seafood indus-try, and generates regional economic value. There is limitedinformation about many targeted species and of the survivalsuccess of discarded species resulting in a poor understandingof the ecosystem effects of fishing [13]. � Shipping through the GBRMP services central and northern

Queensland industries and communities. It is a vital link in theproduction chain for many industries and regional centers butmost routine shipping activities have negligible consequences.Of concern is the expected increase in shipping in comingdecades, and the potential for a major incident such as agrounding or oil spill [19]. Recognizing the GBR is an areaneeding special protection which may be vulnerable todamage by international maritime activities, the InternationalMaritime Organization declared the area as the world’s firstParticularly Sensitive Sea Area in 1990.

� Commercial marine tourism extends throughout the GBRMP

but more than 85% of tourism occurs in a few locations,namely offshore from Cairns/Port Douglas and around theWhitsunday islands and adjacent reefs [13]. The range ofmandatory and voluntary management arrangements in placefor tourism minimizes the impacts of tourism operations, andthe overall impacts are considered as minor [20].

� Defence activities in the GBR directly contribute to the

training and operations of Australia’s defence forces; themajority of these activities have minimal impacts [21].

� The impacts of recreation (not including fishing) are mainly

localized in inshore areas. Recreation is woven into the socialfabric of adjacent coastal communities and plays an importantrole in the health and wellbeing of regional communities.Management of recreation is generally indirect and spreadacross a range of agencies [13]; one aim of a managementstrategy released by GBRMPA in 2012 is to achieve morecoordinated management [22].

� Scientific research improves understanding of the GBRMP and

allows management to be based upon the best availableinformation. Its impacts are concentrated primarily aroundsix island research stations [13].

� Traditional use of marine resources provides environmental,

social, economic and cultural benefits to Traditional Ownersand their sea country. It involves a range of marine species(some of conservation concern) but levels of take areunknown. Poaching by non-Traditional Owners is a concernfor Traditional Owners and management agencies [13].

Many of the threats from the external factors, the indirecteffects of those external factors, and those from direct use withinthe GBRMP are combining to cause serious impacts on theecosystem and its resilience. The cumulative impacts of differentcommercial and non-commercial uses of the MPA overlap and areconcentrated inshore next to developed areas [13].

The best way to ensure the future of the GBR is to reduce asmany of these pressures as possible, allowing the ecosystem to bemore resilient to the pressures that remain. Building and main-taining resilience is central to protecting the GBR, and majoradvances have occurred to improve management of some of theabove-mentioned activities.

3 Management of shipping and aircraft movements is not covered by this

precedence because they are subject to international agreements but operations

under the relevant Australian legislation are conducted in the GBR in accordance

with provisions of the Act.

Governance framework/approach

The governance of such a large and iconic MPA and worldheritage property is complex due to the overlapping federal andstate (Queensland) jurisdictions. Management therefore reliesupon a number of federal and state government agencies working

within a framework of the Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental

Agreement (revised in 2009) [23].The various agencies involved in GBR management include:

�

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA)—theprimary federal agency responsible for planning and manage-ment of the GBRMP. The GBRMPA is an independent statutoryauthority with its own federal legislation [1], and is respon-sible to the federal Environment Minister. � The Australian Government’s Department of Sustainability, Envir-

onment, Water, Population and Communities—responsible for theregulation of activities that may have a significant impact onmatters of National Environmental Significance (NES) includingworld heritage values.

� Various Queensland agencies assist in the management of the

GBR and the adjoining lands, islands and tidal waters, with theQueensland Parks and Wildlife Service having a major respon-sibility for field management activities.

� Other Australian and State government agencies are involved

in specific aspects of management addressing issues such asshipping, fisheries, defence training and aerial surveillance.

Under the GBR Intergovernmental Agreement 2009 and otheragreements and MOUs, management of the GBR Region is under-taken by a range of sectoral agencies, often operating under theirown legislation; this helps reduce some potential inter-sectoraltensions. The Act provides precedence over inconsistent provi-sions of other federal laws, and federal laws have precedence overinconsistent state (Queensland) laws within the GBR Region3 [24].

Management of the GBR therefore uses a combination of manage-ment tools such as the Zoning Plan, Plans of Management, FisheryManagement Plans, Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreements,Dugong Protection Areas, permits and mandatory ship reporting,along with various management approaches, including education,planning, environmental impact assessment, monitoring, stewardshipand enforcement, to regulate access, and to control and/or mitigateimpacts associated with activities, such as tourism, fisheries andshipping, or to address pressures, such as climate change or decliningwater quality.

The GBRMPA’s role, responsibility, and jurisdictional limits inrelation to the GBR are outlined within the Act [1]. Section2A(3) of the Act:

�

provides for the establishment, control, care and developmentof the GBRMP; � establishes the GBRMPA; � provides for zoning plans and plans of management; � regulates, including by a system of permissions, use of the

GBRMP in ways consistent with ecosystem-based manage-ment and the principles of ecologically sustainable use;

� facilitates partnership with Traditional Owners in manage-

ment of marine resources; and

� facilitates a collaborative approach to management of the GBR

World Heritage Area with the Queensland government.

The federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conserva-

tion Act 1999 (EPBC Act) also affords protection to the GBR byensuring matters of NES are subject to a rigorous assessment andapproval process [25]. Matters of NES relevant to the GBR includeworld heritage properties, national heritage places, wetlands ofinternational importance, listed threatened species and ecological

J.C Day, K. Dobbs / Marine Policy 41 (2013) 14–2418

communities, listed migratory species, Commonwealth marineareas as well as the GBRMP itself. This provides an overarchingmechanism for protecting matters of NES from inappropriatedevelopment, including actions taken inside or outside the areawhich might impact on those matters of NES.

The State of Queensland is responsible for management of the GBRCoast Marine Park, established under the Marine Parks Act 2004 (Qld)[26]. This is contiguous with the GBRMP covering the area betweenlow and high water marks and most of the waters within thejurisdictional limits of Queensland. Queensland is also responsiblefor management of the 980 islands within the GBR that are understate jurisdiction, about half of which are declared as national parks.

The importance of complementary legislation and comple-mentary management of islands and the surrounding waters iswell recognized by both governments given the overlap injurisdiction. Strong cooperative partnerships and formal agree-ments also exist between the Australian Government and theQueensland Government. In addition, strong relationships havebeen built between governments and commercial and recrea-tional industries, research institutions and universities. Collec-tively this provides a comprehensive management influence overa much wider context than just the marine areas and the islands.This is further augmented by the Act which has provision for‘‘yregulating or prohibiting acts (whether in the Marine Park orelsewhere) that may pollute water in a manner harmful of theMarine Park’’ (s. 66 (e)). The EPBC Act (s. 15A) also makes it anoffence if ‘‘yan action results or will result in a significant impacton the world heritage values of a declared World Heritageproperty, irrespective of where that action might occur [25].One example of the significance of this provision is the NathanDam court case in 2002 which ruled that a proper assessmentmust be made of the likely direct and indirect impacts of the dam,including the downstream impacts on the GBR, when decidingwhether to construct it or not [27].

The Act also provides the basis for GBRMPA’s role in the overallplanning and management for the GBR, and for its role in fieldmanagement tasks (i.e. ‘‘on-ground’’ operations). Field managementof the GBR has been undertaken jointly by the Australian andQueensland Governments since 1979, and the GBR Intergovernmental

Table 1Zones types, objectives and total area within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Zone type and objective

Preservation—to provide for the preservation of the natural integrity and values of

generally undisturbed by human activities.

Marine National Park—(a) to provide for the protection of the natural integrity and

Marine Park, generally free from extractive activities; and (b) subject to (a), to pro

certain activities, including the presentation of the values of the Marine Park, to be

undisturbed areas.

Scientific Research—(a) to provide for the protection of the natural integrity and valu

Park, generally free from extractive activities; and (b) subject to (a), to provide op

research to be undertaken in relatively undisturbed areas.

Buffer—(a) to provide for the protection of the natural integrity and values of areas

generally free from extractive activities; (b) subject to (a), to provide opportunitie

including the presentation of the values of the Marine Park, to be undertaken in rela

and (ii) trolling for pelagic species.

Conservation Park—(a) to provide for the conservation of areas of the Marine Park;

provide opportunities for reasonable use and enjoyment, including limited extract

Habitat Protection—(a) to provide for the conservation of areas of the Marine Park th

management of sensitive habitats, generally free from potentially damaging activiti

to provide opportunities for reasonable use.

General Use—(a) to provide for the conservation of areas of the Marine Park, while pr

reasonable use.

Islands (Commonwealth)—(a) to provide for the conservation of the natural integrit

Marine Park above low water mark; (b) to provide for use of the zone by the Comm

to (a), to provide for facilities and uses consistent with the values of the area.

Agreement 2009 reaffirmed the commitments of both governments tothe joint field management program [23].

The multiple-use zoning network (Table 1, Fig. 2) provides highlevels of protection for one third of the GBRMP (115,550 km2) in ‘no-take’ zones, and very small (710 km2) ‘no-go’ zones. These zones werechosen in a way that maximizes the protection of biodiversity whileminimizing the impacts on all other users, including fishers [28]. Afurther one third of the GBRMP is zoned such that the benthic habitatis fully protected, including a prohibition on bottom-trawling. Thezoning network governs all human activities, providing high levels ofprotection for specific areas, while allowing a variety of other uses,including shipping, dredging, aquaculture, tourism, commercial fish-ing and recreational fishing, to continue in other zones. For each zonetype, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003 [12] sets outtwo specific lists of ‘use or entry’ provisions; these clarify whatactivities are allowed to occur ‘as of right’ and which do not require apermit; and what activities may occur in that particular zone but onlyafter a permit has been assessed as meeting all the necessaryrequirements and a permission is granted (Fig. 2). Regulations forthe GBRMP specify the process and the assessment criteria [29].

In addition, a range of other management tools and approaches,including, public education, enforcement, Plans of Management, siteplanning, Special Management Areas and some temporal closures, areused to regulate access and to control and mitigate impacts asso-ciated with human use of the Marine Park [4]. An example of thisgovernance approach can be seen in the case for managing marinemammal tours in the GBR [30].

Guided by the principle of balancing conservation and sustainableuse, this comprehensive suite of ecosystem-based managementarrangements ensures positive environmental outcomes for theGBRMP and allows for reasonable use while protecting the healthof the GBRMP and the World Heritage Area for future generations.

Effectiveness

Managing the complexities of the GBRMP requires balancingreasonable human use with the maintenance of the area’s naturaland cultural integrity. The enormity of the task is due, in part, to

Closest equivalentIUCN category

Area(km2)

Area(hectares)

% ofGBRMP

areas of the Marine Park, IA 710 71000 o1

values of areas of the

vide opportunities for

undertaken in relatively

II 114530 11453000 33

es of areas of the Marine

portunities for scientific

IA 155 15500 o1

of the Marine Park,

s for (i) certain activities,

tively undisturbed areas;

II 9880 988000 3

and (b) subject to (a), to

ive use

IV 5160 516000 2

rough the protection and

es; and (b) subject to (a),

VI 97250 9725000 28

oviding opportunities for VI 116530 11653000 34

y and values areas of the

onwealth; and (c) subject

II 185 18500 o1

Total 344400 34440000 100

Fig. 2. Activities Matrix indicating which activities can occur in which zone, which are prohibited and which activities need a permit.

J.C Day, K. Dobbs / Marine Policy 41 (2013) 14–24 19

the sheer size and diversity of the GBRMP, its economic impor-tance, and the jurisdictional complexities of local, state, federaland international interests. Moreover, the close proximity of ruraland urban populations to the coast, the range of users and interestgroups whose use patterns frequently compete with each other,the need for equity and fairness in facilitating use and access tothe GBRMP, and the ecological diversity of the Region are allfactors that the governance framework needs to consider. Despitethese complexities, the integrated management model that hasbeen functioning with various amendments over the last 30þyears has proven to be effective and successful. Indeed, it iswidely regarded as such by marine and coastal managers aroundthe world [31,32,33].

The most comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness ofthe overall management approach in the GBR was undertaken aspart of the 2009 Outlook Report [13]. Chapter 6 of that Report is anassessment of the existing measures to protect and manage theecosystem within the GBR Region, examining all activities thatcontribute to protection and management, both inside and out-side the GBR Region. The chapter was based on an independentassessment undertaken by two international experts [34]. Theassessment examined the effectiveness of 12 broad managementtopics, ranging from biodiversity protection to fishing, coastaldevelopment, ports and shipping [13]. The overall conclusionwas that the greatest challenges for management effectivenesswere evident for those management topics which are broadin scale and complex socially, biophysically and jurisdictionally(e.g. climate change, coastal development, water quality, fishing).

Effectiveness was strongest on issues that are limited in scale,intensity or complexity (e.g. defence and scientific research) [34].

A more recent independent assessment of the status of theGBR and its management in 2012 also concluded that the GBRfaces a bleak future under climate change but that local actions onwater quality management and management of no-take zonesprovide some hope of building resilience for the GBR in the face ofclimate change [35].

Incentives

A variety of incentives are currently utilized for governance ofthe GBRMP; Table 2 summarizes the key incentives, along withthose considered important to improve the governance withinthe GBRMP.

Economic incentives

An independent report in 2008 provides quantitative esti-mates of the economic and financial value of tourism, commercialfishing and recreational activities undertaken in the GBRMP andits catchment area. The majority of the GBR’s contribution to theAustralian economy of over AUD$5.4 billion per annum comesfrom tourism [5]. The GBRMPA encourages high standard marinetourism operations through an eco-certification process [36];these high standard operators are ecologically sustainable andhelp to protect and present the GBRMP to a consistently high

Table 2The incentives employed in governing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and needed to improve governance of the Marine Park.

Incentivetype

Incentives applied to address conflicts andprovide governance steer

Incentives needed to improve MPA governanceCross-cutting issues

Economic � Promoting economically and ecologically

sustainable resource use

� Green marketing of tourism within the MPA

� Providing economic compensation for

restricted users

� Allocation or reinforcement of property rights

A sound governance/ legislative framework,

including complementary state/federal

legislation

Interpretative � Public communication, education and

awareness raising

� Clear and transparent policies and guidelines

� Role of celebrity ‘champions’

� Promoting recognition of the potential

benefits from MPAs

Effective leadership (at both the political and

agency levels) essential for the success of MPA

governance initiatives. Applying an adaptive

management approach combined with

ecosystem-based management principles

Knowledge � Integration of local knowledge in MPA

decision-making

� Maximizing scientific knowledge to guide/

inform MPA decision-making

� Utilizing decision-support systems to support

management

� Promoting mutual respect and collective

learning between different

knowledge owners

Management influence over a wider context

than just the federal marine park. Integrated

management across all relevant federal and

state agencies. Promoting a sense of

stewardship amongst users through the

development of strategic partnerships with

industry

Legal � International–regional–national–local

regulatory obligations that require effective

MPA conservation

� Clarity/consistency in defining legal

objectives, roles/ responsibilities of different

authorities/organizations

� Legal or other official basis for cross-sectoral/

jurisdictional MPA restrictions

� Ensuring that sufficient capacity, political

will, surveillance technologies and financial

resources are available to enforce all

restrictions equitably on all users, including

addressing driving forces

Clarity/consistency in jurisdictional boundaries.

Strengthening legal or other official bases for

cross-sectoral/jurisdictional management e.g.

fisheries management and coastal development,

to support the achievement of MPA objectivesMany industries recognize the health of their

industry depends of the health of the MPA so it

is worth protecting it. Effective research and

monitoring programs providing the right

information for management

Participative � Participative governance structures and

processes

� Clear principles/rules on the means/degree of

participation from different groups

� Effective partnership programs, designed to

address the priority management issues

� Adopting a ‘plain-English’ approach to key

information documents

Partnership programs with stakeholders who are

currently less well-connected (e.g. ports,

marinas)

J.C Day, K. Dobbs / Marine Policy 41 (2013) 14–2420

standard. In 2012 over 60% of all tourists visiting the GBR werecarried on high standard operators.

The rezoning undertaken between 1999 and 2003 was doneprimarily to protect the range of biodiversity in the GBR, butevidence is already showing benefits in adjacent fishing grounds.Coral trout numbers have rebounded by 31–75 percent on amajority of reefs that were closed to fishing after as little as 1.5–2years [37,38]. The increased fish populations in the no-take zonesmean benefits for the tourism industry on the GBR as well asenhancing the sustainability of commercial and recreational reefline fishing in the longer term.

As a result of the rezoning, a structural adjustment package(SAP) was initiated for fishers, their employees and other busi-nesses that were negatively impacted by the rezoning of theGBRMP. The enormous costs of the SAP when weighed against thebenefits have been widely debated; a comprehensive review alsodiscusses the implications given the rezoning process was con-ducted by one government agency (i.e. GBRMPA), while the SAPwas handled by another government agency [39].

Interpretative incentives

One of the objects of the Act is to allow ecologically sustainableuse of the GBR Region for purposes including:

�

public enjoyment and appreciation; � public education about and understanding of the GBR Region; � recreational, economic and cultural activities [1].

In addition, another object of the Act is to assist in meetingAustralia’s international responsibilities in relation to the envir-onment and protection of world heritage. The transmission ofinformation about the GBR to users and visitors assists withAustralia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention.

GBRMPA strongly believes that an educated and aware user ofthe GBR is more likely to voluntarily abide by the laws governingits protection. GBRMPA achieves communication and visitoreducation through a variety of mechanisms including a publicaquarium. Some visitor education occurs through displays,

J.C Day, K. Dobbs / Marine Policy 41 (2013) 14–24 21

signage, publications, or personal contact via regional offices andlocal committees. These activities are generally focused on thekey messages for zoning, best voluntary environmental practices,safety, and boating impacts on the GBR’s biodiversity.

Zoning maps are provided free of charge through more than300 Community Access Points established in partnership withbait and tackle shops, marine retailers and Visitor InformationCenters along the Queensland coast. ‘Champions’ (well recognizedcelebrities) were used very effectively during the rezoning to raisepublic awareness through community service announcements.They are also being used to promote the ‘Reef Guardian’ conceptin relation to schools, councils, farmers and fishers through atargeted awareness raising campaign.

Having clear and transparent policies and guidelines helps topromote the agency’s position on issues. As a result of changes tothe Freedom of Information Act 1982, Australian governmentagencies, including GBRMPA, are required to publish certaininformation on their websites [40]. This is aimed at ensuring amore open and transparent culture across government withagencies encouraged to take a proactive approach to publishingthe information they hold, and to consider what they mightpublish over and above what they are obliged to do. In developingthe 2009 Outlook Report, GBRMPA recognized the need for variousproducts (on-line evidence, fact sheets, etc.) to educate as well asdisseminate the key messages from the report [41].

Knowledge incentives

GBRMPA makes every effort to maximize scientific knowledgeto guide/inform its decisions. The Representative Areas Programused the best available science (both biophysical and socialscience) as a fundamental underpinning for the overall planningprocess. A combination of expert opinion, stakeholder involve-ment and analytical approaches were used to identify options forpossible zoning networks [4].

Independent experts greatly assisted in the development of anumber of ‘products’ that were fundamental in the planningprocess including a comprehensive map of 70 bioregions coveringthe entire GBR e.g. [42,43]. An independent Scientific SteeringCommittee with expertise in GBR ecosystems and biophysicalprocesses defined biophysical operational principles to guide thedevelopment of a representative network of no-take areas in theGBRMP [28]. Another committee guided development of socio-economic, cultural and management principles. The implementa-tion of these principles and their outcomes can be found invarious publications e.g. [28,44,45,46].

The analytical approaches used when rezoning the GBRMPincluded marine reserve design software specifically adapted forthe GBR, and a suite of GIS-based spatial analysis tools [47,48].Analytical software enabled the GBRMPA to integrate a number ofdata layers representing biophysical, social and economic values,and enabled a number of options to be generated and assessed. Itis important to note, however, that the final outcome was not ascience-based outcome. Rather, it was a socio-political outcomethat was informed by the best available science but also othersocial, economic and pragmatic considerations [4].

GBRMPA values the involvement of Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islanders in GBRMP management. This includes workingin partnership with Traditional Owner groups along the GBR toassist with the development and implementation of TraditionalUse of Marine Resources Agreements (TUMRAs) [49]. TUMRAs areformal agreements developed by Traditional Owner groups,accredited by GBRMPA and Queensland, describing how Tradi-tional Owner groups work with government to manage tradi-tional use activities [50]. This is an example of a co-management

approach in the management of traditional use activities in seacountry. Other examples include:

�

Recognizing traditional names is one way of showing respectfor local traditions relating to places or areas, customs orpractices; in the GBRMP there are over twenty distinctlanguages. Once such place names are confirmed with theTraditional Owners for the area, they are shown on the officialmaps with the traditional name first, and if there is anestablished European name, that follows (but in brackets); � Development of an Indigenous Heritage Strategy; and � An Indigenous Reef Advisory Committee providing advice to

the GBRMPA about activities the Indigenous Land and SeaCountry Partnership Program should support [51].

Story Place is one example of a useful resource for Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islanders, GBR managers, researchers, students,stakeholders and other people interested in learning more aboutTraditional Owner connections with the GBR [52]; the databaseholds hundreds of references relating to Indigenous history andco-operative management practices. Through this work theGBRMPA is promoting mutual respect and collective learningbetween different knowledge owners.

Legal incentives

The federal EPBC Act puts into effect a number of internationalagreements and conventions to which Australia is a signatory andwhich are relevant to the GBR [25]. These include the Conventionfor the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (theWorld Heritage Convention), Convention on the Conservation ofMigratory Species of Wild Animals, and the Convention on theInternational Trade of Endangered Species of Wild Floraand Fauna.

Clarity and consistency in defining legal objectives, jurisdic-tional boundaries, roles and responsibilities of different autho-rities and organizations has been critical in the management ofthe GBRMP. A close working partnership between the GBRMPAand the State of Queensland has evolved over 37 years, andincludes such aspects as complementary legislation and jointpermits [4]. For example, Queensland has ‘mirrored’ the federalmarine park zoning plan in the adjoining state waters. Thispartnership has ensured the effective management of the com-plex and inter-related mix of marine, coastal, and island issueswhich makes implementation easier for users and managers alike.It also provides for integrated, holistic management of the entireGBR ecosystem and the consideration of issues from outsidethe area.

Compliance with GBRMP legislation is undertaken through acombination of enforcement and education. Surveillance andenforcement of the complementary jurisdictional arrangementsis supported by a range of federal and state agencies. Thelegislation has very high maximum penalties if the courts chooseto use them (e.g. up to AUD$5.5 million for an aggravatedcontravention by a body corporate). Considerable resources andtechnological advances assist with enforcement activities, whichalso act as deterrents to non-compliant behavior (e.g. satellitetransponders¼vessel monitoring systems are required to be usedon all trawlers in the GBRMP). GBRMP inspectors have thediscretionary power to decide a course of action on a case-by-case basis with options including enforcement action, infringe-ment notices and prosecution. However, GBRMPA will continue toview education, i.e. interpretative incentives, as the most effectivestrategy to encourage compliance with GBR management, legalincentives only being used as last recourse, though their presencedoes serve as a deterrent.

J.C Day, K. Dobbs / Marine Policy 41 (2013) 14–2422

GBRMPA receives its own appropriations for undertakingmanagement activities in the GBRMP. Through the GBR Intergo-

vernmental Agreement 2009, both federal and state governmentsreaffirmed their commitment to a joint program of field manage-ment across the entire world heritage area with shared fundingon a 50:50 basis (this includes Queensland marine and nationalparks within the World Heritage Area). Information about theGBRMPA budget and how it is expended can be found in itsAnnual Reports [53].

GBRMPA’s decision making procedures have various conflictresolution processes built in (e.g. review rights for permit deci-sions). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Ombudsmanprovide two further avenues for adjudication if necessary.

Participative incentives

When rezoning the GBRMP in the early 2000s, GBRMPArecognized the need to conduct an effective consultation pro-gram; at the time this was the most comprehensive process ofcommunity involvement and participatory planning for anyenvironmental issue in Australia’s history [28,54]. Every majortown and city along the GBR coast was visited involving hundredsof stakeholder meetings. During the two formal phases of con-sultation, 31,000 public submissions were received, clearly show-ing the vast level of community interest. As a result significantchanges were made between the initial zoning, the Draft ZoningPlan and the final Zoning Plan, as accepted by Parliament [4,54].

The role non-government organizations played was importantduring the GBRMP’s rezoning. Conservation NGOs provided acounter-balancing perspective to those who were advocates forfishing or collecting; sectoral interest NGOs (e.g. recreationalfishing) served as a focal point for disseminating informationand coordinating input to the public consultation phases. At thecompletion of the rezoning, no-one group felt they got everythingthey wanted; however most groups agreed they had numerousopportunities to participate and that the final outcome showedsignificant changes between the draft and final Zoning Plansbased on public submissions and the additional informationprovided, while still maintaining the key operating principles toadequately protect biodiversity.

Following the huge level of public interaction during therezoning of the GBRMP and not wanting to lose connectionsestablished with GBR regional communities, GBRMPA establishedregional offices in Cairns, Mackay and Rockhampton. These officesenhance the work GBRMPA was already doing by developingbetter linkages with, and greater understanding of, coastal com-munities and improving local involvement in decision-making,compliance and stewardship of the GBR. They also providesupport to Local Marine Advisory Committees and other regionalGBRMPA initiatives based in the regions. Today, GBRMPA has fourexpertise-based Reef Advisory Committees [55] (one each addres-sing coasts and catchments; ecosystems; Indigenous Partner-ships; and tourism and recreation issues) and 12 Local MarineAdvisory Committees (from Cooktown to Bundaberg) [56]; theseall provide advice and make recommendations to the GBRMPA.

The ‘plain-English’ approach adopted in the 2009 OutlookReport has increased the transparency of a wide range ofinformation on the GBR’s environmental, social and economicvalues for stakeholders, users and anyone with an interest in theGBR as well as providing a clear and reasoned ‘outlook’ for theGBR. This information is underpinned by comprehensive scientificevidence which is readily available on the World Wide Webthrough ‘Outlook On-line’ [57]. Similarly the independent assess-ment of management effectiveness [34] was a further componentof effectively increasing the transparency of GBRMPA’s managementapproach.

Cross cutting issues/factors

The success of management in the GBRMP is due to variouscross-cutting factors which overlie many of the incentives out-lined above, plus a number of key factors such as those outlined inthe conclusion below. The cross-cutting factors include:

�

effective leadership and strong political support; � applying an adaptive management approach combined with

ecosystem-based management principles;

� substantial expertise accumulated within the managing agen-

cies, including a number of long-standing staff with consider-able corporate knowledge; and

� effective partnership programs, designed to address the key

management issues.

GBRMPA is today focusing considerable resources into thedevelopment of strategic partnerships with key communitygroups (schools and local government Councils) and key indus-tries (e.g. tourism, commercial fishing and farmers) to ensure theGBR is sustainable, especially in the face of threats like climatechange. Examples of partnerships include:

�

The Reef Guardian Schools program which started in 2003 andhas been extremely successful with over 110,000 studentsfrom 285 schools across Queensland now involved in steward-ship programs which help look after the GBR. It is significantthat ten percent of the entire population of the catchmentadjoining the GBR is now involved in the Reef GuardianSchools program [58]. � Given the success of the Reef Guardian Schools program, the

initiative was expanded to include Local Government Councilsin 2007. Currently, thirteen councils from Bundaberg to Cook-town are signed up as Reef Guardian Councils, effectivelydemonstrating their actions to improve the health and resi-lience of the GBR through such initiatives as sewerage treat-ment, urban storm water treatment, waste reuse andrecycling, and community education [59].

� A Stewardship Action Plan developed by Pro-vision Reef,

believed to be the world’s first for a collection fishery [60].Developed by the aquarium supply fisheries in collaborationwith GBR management agencies and coral reef scientists, itestablishes a uniform collection standard across the industryand involves responding to the challenge of global climatechange.

� A GBR Tourism Climate Change Action Strategy, 2009–2012, has

been developed in partnership with the tourism industry. TheGBRMPA has also developed tools to assist tourism operatorsto reduce their emissions and adapt to climate change (e.g. acarbon emissions calculator; providing case studies outlininghow some tourist operators have reduced their emissions andencouraging others to do the same) [61].

Conclusion

While the GBR remains one of the world’s best managed coralreef ecosystems and is likely to survive better under the pressureof accumulating risks than many others, the current long-termoutlook for the GBR remains poor [13]. Nevertheless the manage-ment of the GBR continues to be effective in the face of increasingpressures for a range of reasons, including:

�

a sound governance/legislative framework, including comple-mentary state/federal legislation;

J.C Day, K. Dobbs / Marine Policy 41 (2013) 14–24 23

�

ecosystem-level management, including management influ-ence over a wider context than just the federal marine park; � integrated management across relevant federal and state

agencies;

� widespread consensus that the GBR is important, with many

industries that depend upon its health recognizing that it isworth conserving; and

� effective research and monitoring programs providing the

right information for effective management.

It is important to consider the specific political, economic, social,and managerial context of the GBR when considering whether itslessons might transfer to other areas [4]. Furthermore, the ongoingsuccess of the GBRMP is effective for a range of reasons, some ofwhich may not be relevant or achievable in other MPAs. Such factorsthat contribute to the success of the current adaptive managementapproach include relatively low population density along the GBRcoast, a reasonably high standard of living, and well-established andstable governance at all levels of government.

The approach taken in the Representative Areas Program andthe rezoning of the GBRMP is a good example of the combinationof the incentives discussed above i.e. the process achieved verygood marine biodiversity outcomes by using the best availableknowledge, augmenting it with public participation, to produce alegislative framework that was subsequently adopted in theadjacent Queensland waters [62].

All the incentives mentioned above play a role in the achieve-ment of the management objectives for the GBRMP; Table 2indicates that improving the governance of the GBRMP is likely tobe achieved by increasing the interpretative and participatoryincentives which may enable a commensurate reduction in thelegal incentives. However two relatively recent but importantlegislative requirements with major implications for governanceinclude the five-yearly Outlook Report summarizing the past andpresent condition of the GBR as well as presenting its possible‘outlook’, and the legislative requirement for ministerial approvalof operational principles addressing the environmental, economicand social objectives of any proposal for a new Zoning Plan.

In 2011 the World Heritage Committee (the Committee)considered the GBR World Heritage Area following concernsraised about developments occurring along the Queensland coast.The Committee expressed ‘‘extreme concern’’ about one develop-ment near Gladstone (Curtis Island) and requested that Australiaundertake a strategic assessment of the entire GBR and invite ajoint reactive monitoring mission to visit the area; the missionoccurred in March 2012 and investigated first-hand the issuesaffecting the GBR. In July 2012 the Committee considered afurther report on the GBR after which they made a comprehensivedecision including numerous recommendations that need to beaddressed ‘‘with a view to consider, in the absence of substantialprogress, the possible inscription of the property on the List ofWorld Heritage in Danger’’ [63].

A range of strategies continue to be implemented to ensure theGBR is protected now and into the future, for example[17,64,65,66]. These strategies have been developed with federal,state and local governments, and various industries, and aredesigned to increase the resilience of the GBR to cope withescalating pressures. Addressing such challenges will give theGBR its best chance of adapting to and recovering from the threatsahead, and most significantly from climate change.

Acknowledgements

This paper arose following a workshop on MPA Governanceheld in Croatia in 2009. JD thanks the organizers, particularly

Peter Jones and Elizabeth De Santo, for the invitation to attend theworkshop and to prepare this paper. Both authors thank thosewho provided comments on a draft of this paper (particularlyRichard Kenchington, Peter McGinnity and Margaret Johnson),and Rhonda Banks for assistance with Figs. 1 and 2.

References

[1] Australian Government. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. Canberra,Australia. Available from: /http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2012C00109S[accessed 30.10.12].

[2] Day JC. Zoning—lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean CoastManage 2002;45:139–156.

[3] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. New coastal areas of the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park. Technical Information Sheet #9. RepresentativeAreas Program background and history. 2002. Available from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/zoning-permits-and-plans/rap/docs/representative-areas-program-publicationsS [accessed 30.10.12].

[4] Day J.C. Protecting Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Solutions 2011; 2(1):p.56–66. Available from: /http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/846S[accessed 30.10.12].

[5] Access Economics Pty Ltd. Economic contribution of the GBRMP 2006–07,prepared for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Canberra,Australia: Access Economics Pty Ltd; 2008.

[6] Lawrence K, van Putten I, Fernbach M. Profiles of recreational use of the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park, research publication no. 101. Townsville, Australia:Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australia; 2010.

[7] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Tourist visits to the entire GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park. 2009–2011 data [online]. Available from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/visit-the-reef/environmental-management-charge/gbr_visitation/numbers/reef-wideS [accessed 30.10.12].

[8] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Vessel registration levels for GreatBarrier Reef coastal communities. 2011 data [online]. Available from:/http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/visit-the-reef/environmental-management-charge/gbr_visitation/vessel-registration-levels-for-great-barrier-reef-coastal-communitiesS [accessed 30.10.12].

[9] Oxford Economics. Valuing the effects of Great Barrier Reef coral bleaching.Brisbane, Australia: Great Barrier Reef Foundation; 2009.

[10] Office of Economic and Statistical Research, Projected population by statis-tical division, Queensland 2006 and 2031; 2008. Available from: /http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/queensland-by-theme/demography/population/tables/pop-proj/proj-pop-sd-qld/index.shtmlS [accessed 30.10.12].

[11] Australian Government. Review of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act1975—Review Panel Report. Canberra, Australia: Department of the Envir-onment and Heritage; 2006.

[12] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkZoning Plan 2003, Townsville, Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkAuthority; May 2004.

[13] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report2009, Townsville, Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; 2009.

[14] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Climate change. [online]. Availablefrom: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-reef/climate-changeS[accessed 30.10.12].

[15] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Extreme weather. [online]. Avail-able from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-reef/extreme-weatherS[accessed 30.10.12].

[16] Brodie J, Christie C, Devlin M, Haynes D, Morris S, Ramsay M, Waterhouse J,Yorkston H, et al. Catchment management and the Great Barrier Reef. Wat. Sci.Technol. 2001;43(9):203–211.

[17] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Informing the outlook for GreatBarrier Reef coastal ecosystems. Townsville, Australia: Great Barrier ReefMarine Park Authority; 2012. Available from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-coastal-ecosystemsS [accessed30.10.12].

[18] Kroon FJ, Kuhnert PM, Henderson BL, Wilkinson SN, Kinsey-Henderson A,Abbott B, Brodie JE. Turner RDR. River loads of suspended solids, nitrogen,phosphorus and herbicides delivered to the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. Mar.Pollut. Bull. 2012;65(4–9):167–181, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2011.10.018.

[19] Australian Government. State party report on the state of conservation of theGreat Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (Australia). Canberra, Australia: 2012.Available from: /http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/strategy/gbr-state-party-report-feb12.htmlS [accessed 30.10.12].

[20] Harriott V. Marine tourism impacts and their management on the GreatBarrier Reef, Technical Report no. 46, 2002, Townsville, Australia: CRC ReefResearch Centre. Available from: /http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/techreport/techrept46.htmS [accessed 30.10.12].

[21] URS Australia Pty Ltd. Strategic environmental assessment of defenceactivities in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Canberra, Australia:Directorate of Environmental Stewardship, Department of Defence; January2006.

[22] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Recreation management strategyfor the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Townsville, Australia: Great Barrier

J.C Day, K. Dobbs / Marine Policy 41 (2013) 14–2424

Reef Marine Park Authority; 2012. Available from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/how-the-reefs-managed/recreation-in-the-great-barrier-reef-marine-parkS [accessed 30.10.12].

[23] Australian Government. Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement.Canberra, Australia; 2009. Available from: /http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/gbr/agreement.htmlS [accessed 30.10.12].

[24] Kenchington RA, Day JC. Zoning, a fundamental cornerstone of effectiveMarine Spatial Planning: lessons learnt from the Great Barrier Reef, Australia.J Coast Conserv 2011;15(2):271–278.

[25] Australian Government. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conserva-tion Act 1999. Canberra, Australia; Available from /http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A00485S [accessed 30.10.12].

[26] Queensland Government. Marine Parks Act 2004. Available from: /http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/parks_and_forests/marine_parks/S [accessed 30.10.12].

[27] McGrath C. Federal environmental laws consider direct and indirect impactsof an action—summary of Nathan Dam case. Environmental Law Publishing.Available from: /http://www.envlaw.com.au/nathan.htmlS and /http://www.envlaw.com.au/nathandam6.pdfS [accessed 30.10.12].

[28] Fernandes L, Day JC, Lewis A, Slegers S, Kerrigan B, Breen D, Cameron D, JagoB, Hall J, Lowe D, Innes J, Tanzer J, Chadwick V, Thompson L, Gorman K,Simmons M, Barnett B, Sampson K, De’ath G, Mapstone B, Marsh H,Possingham H, Ball I, Ward T, Dobbs K, Aumend J, Slater D, Stapleton K.Implementing representative no-take areas over 1/3 of the Great BarrierReef: large-scale implementation of marine protected area theory withlessons for global application. Conserv. Biol. 2005;19(6):1733–1744, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00302.x.

[29] Australian Government. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983.Canberra, Australia. Available from: /http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/F1996B01950S [accessed 30.10.12].

[30] Stokes T, Dobbs K, Recchia C. Management of marine mammal tours on theGreat Barrier Reef. Australian Mammalogy 2002;24:39–49.

[31] Pandolfi JM, Bradbury RH, Sala E, Hughes TP, Bjorndal KA, Cooke RG, McArdleD, McClenachan L, Newman MJH, Paredes G, Warner RR, Jackson JBC. Globaltrajectories of the long-term decline of coral reef ecosystems. Science2003;301(5635):955–958.

[32] Pandolfi JM, Jackson JBC, Baron N, Bradbury RH, Guzman HM, Hughes TP,Kappel CV, Micheli F, Ogden JC, Possingham HP, Sala E. Coral reefs on theslippery slope to slime? Science 2005;307(5716):1725–1726.

[33] Wilkinson C. Status of coral reefs of the world. Townsville, Australia: GlobalCoral Reef Monitoring Network and Reef and Rainforest Research Centre;2008.

[34] Hockings M, Gilligan B. Assessment of the management effectiveness for the2009 Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report, Report to the Great Barrier ReefMarine Park Authority. Townsville, Australia: Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkAuthority; 2009. Available from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-outlook-report/assessment-of-management-effectivenessS [accessed 30.10.12].

[35] Brodie J, Waterhouse J. A critical review of environmental management of the‘not so Great’ Barrier Reef. Estuarine Coastal Shelf Sci. 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2012.03.012.

[36] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Choosing a high standard tourismoperation [online]. Available from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/visit-the-reef/choose-a-high-standard-operatorS [accessed 30.10.12].

[37] McCook LJ, Ayling T, Cappo M, Choat JH, Evans RD, De Freitas DM, Heupel M,Hughes TP, Jones GP, Mapstone B, Marsh H, Mills M, Molloy FJ, Pitcher CR,Pressey RL, Russ GR, Sutton S, Sweatman H, Tobin R, Wachenfeld DR,Williamson DH. Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef: a globallysignificant demonstration of the benefits of networks of marine reserves.Proc Natl Acad Sci 2010;107(43):18278–18285.

[38] Russ GR, Cheal AJ, Dolman AM, Emslie MJ, Evans RD, Miller I, et al. Rapidincrease in fish numbers follows creation of world’s largest marine reservenetwork. Curr. Biol. 2008;18(12):R514–R515, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2008.04.016.

[39] Macintosh A, Bonyhady T, Wilkinson D. Dealing with interests displaced bymarine protected areas: a case study on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Parkstructural adjustment package. Ocean Coast Manage 2010;53(9):581–588.

[40] Office of the Australian Information Commissioner. Information about theInformation Publication Scheme [online]. Available from: /http://www.oaic.gov.au/foi-portal/ips.htmlS [accessed 30.10.12].

[41] Dobbs K, Day J, Skeat H, Baldwin J, Molloy F, McCook L, Johnson M, Elliot B,Skeat A, Vohland K, Wachenfeld D, Kenchington R. Developing a long-termoutlook for the Great Barrier Reef, Australia: a framework for adaptivemanagement reporting underpinning an ecosystem based managementapproach. Mar. Policy 2011;35:233–240.

[42] Kerrigan B, Breen D, De’ ath G, Tobin R, Day JC, Fernandes L, Dobbs K.Classifying the Biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef, Research PublicationNo. 104. Townsville, Australia; Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority;2010.

[43] Day JC, Fernandes L, Lewis A, Innes J. RAP: an ecosystem level approach tobiodiversity protection planning, Proceedings of the 2nd International Tropical

Ecosystems Management Symposium (ITMEMS): Manila, Philippines, March2003. Department of Environment and Natural Resources; 2004; 251–265.

[44] Dobbs K, Fernandes L, Slegers S, Jago B, Thompson L, Hall J, Day J, Cameron D,Tanzer J, Macdonald F, Marsh H, Coles R. Incorporating dugong habitats intothe marine protected area design for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,Queensland, Australia. Ocean Coast Manage 2008;51(4):368–375.

[45] Dobbs K, Fernandes L, Slegers S, Jago B, Thompson L, Hall J, Day J, Cameron D,Tanzer J, Macdonald F, Limpus C. Incorporating marine turtle habitats intothe marine protected area design for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.Australia, Pacific Conservation Biology 2007;13(3):293–302.

[46] Fernandes L, Dobbs K, Day J, Slegers S. Identifying biologically and physicallyspecial and unique sites for inclusion in protected area design in the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean Coast Manage 2010;53(1):80–88.

[47] Lewis A, Slegers S, Lowe D, Muller L, Fernandes L, Day JC. Use of spatialanalysis and GIS techniques to re-zone the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,Coastal GIS 2003: an integrated approach to Australian coastal issues,Woodroffe CD, Furness RA (eds.). Papers on Maritime Policy, 14, Universityof Wollongong, NSW. 2003; p. 431–51.

[48] Lewis A, Day JC, Fernandes L., Lowe D, Slegers S. Analytical tools—what theycan, and cannot do, when developing MPA networks [Extended abstract].First International Marine Protected Areas Congress, 23–28 October 2005.Geelong, Victoria; 2005.

[49] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Traditional Use of MarineResources Agreements [online]. Available from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-partners/traditional-owners/traditional-use-of-marine-resources-agreementsS [accessed 30.10.12].

[50] Dobbs KA. Reef-wide framework for managing traditional use of marineresources in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Townsville, Australia: GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park Authority; 2007.

[51] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Indigenous Reef Advisory Commit-tee [online]. Available from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-us/reef-advisory-committee/indigenous-reef-advisory-committeeS [accessed30.10.12].

[52] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Story Place [online]. Availablefrom: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-partners/traditional-owners/story-placeS [accessed 30.10.12].

[53] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Annual Reports [online]. Availablefrom: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/resources-and-publications/publications/annual-reportsS [accessed 30.10.12].

[54] Osmond M, Airame S, Day JC, Caldwell M. Lessons for marine spatialplanning: a comparison of three marine protected area processes. OceanCoast Manage 2010;53(2):41–51, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.01.002.

[55] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Reef Advisory Committees [online].Available from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-us/reef-advisory-committeeS [accessed 30.10.12].

[56] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Local Marine Advisory Committees[online]. Available from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-us/local-marine-advisory-committeesS [accessed 30.10.12].

[57] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Outlook Online 2009 [online].Available from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-outlook-report/outlook-onlineS [accessed 30.10.12].

[58] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Reef Guardian Schools [online].Available from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-partners/reef-guardians/reef-guardian-schoolsS [accessed 30.10.12].

[59] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Reef Guardian Councils [online].Available from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-partners/reef-guardians/reef-guardian-councilsS [accessed 30.10.12].

[60] Pro-Vision Reef Inc. Stewardship Action Plan [online]. Available from:/http://pro-visionreef.orgS [accessed 30.10.12].

[61] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Tackling climate change [online].Available from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-partners/tourism-industry/tackling-climate-changeS [accessed 30.10.12].

[62] Day J.C. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park—governance analysis. p1-18 in Jones,PJS, Qiu W, De Santo EM (eds.) Governing Marine Protected Areas: getting thebalance right – Volume 2. Technical Report. United Nations EnvironmentProgramme, Nairobi: Marine and Coastal Ecosystems Branch; 2011. Availablefrom: /http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mpag/S [accessed 30.10.12].

[63] World Heritage Committee. Decision 36COM 7B.8, Great Barrier Reef(Australia) (N 154). 2012. Available from: /http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4657/S [accessed 30.10.12].

[64] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Great Barrier Reef Climate ChangeAction Plan 2007–2013. Available from: /http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-reef/climate-changeS [accessed 30.10.12].

[65] Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat. Reef Water Quality ProtectionPlan 2009. Available from: /http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about.aspxS[accessed 30.10.12].

[66] Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Great Barrier Reef BiodiversityConservation Strategy 2012, Townsville, Australia: Great Barrier Reef MarinePark Authority; 2012.