Establishing Representative No-Take Areas in the
Great Barrier Reef: Large-Scale Implementation of
Theory on Marine Protected Areas
LEANNE FERNANDES,a∗ JON DAY,a ADAM LEWIS,b SUZANNE SLEGERS,c BRIGID KERRIGAN,d
DAN BREEN,e DARREN CAMERON,a BELINDA JAGO,a JAMES HALL,f DAVE LOWE,a JAMES INNES,a
JOHN TANZER,a VIRGINIA CHADWICK,a LEANNE THOMPSON,a KERRIE GORMAN,a
MARK SIMMONS,g BRYONY BARNETT,h KIRSTI SAMPSON,i GLENN DE’ATH,j BRUCE MAPSTONE,k
HELENE MARSH,l HUGH POSSINGHAM,m IAN BALL,n TREVOR WARD,o KIRSTIN DOBBS,a
JAMES AUMEND,a DEB SLATER,a AND KATE STAPLETONa
a
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, P.O. Box 1379, Townsville, QLD 4810, Australia
GeoScience Australia, GPO Box 378, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
c
National Land Survey of Iceland, Stillholti 16-18, 300 Akranes, Iceland
d
Queensland Fisheries Service, 80 Ann Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
e
Port Stephens Research Center, New South Wales Fisheries, Taylor’s Beach Road, Taylor’s Beach, NSW 2316, Australia
f
National Oceans Office, GPO Box 2139, Hobart, TAS 7000, Australia
g
Queensland Environment Protection Agency, 160 Ann Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
h
Cooperative Research Centre for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, Townsville, QLD 4810, Australia
i
P.O. Box 74, Yarralumla, ACT 2600, Australia
j
Australian Institute of Marine Science, PMB #3, Townsville, QLD 4810, Australia
k
Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Centenary Building, Grosvenor Crescent, Sandy Bay, TAS 7005,
Australia
l
James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia
m
Department of Mathematics and School of Life Sciences, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia
n
Australian Antarctic Division, Channel Highway, Kingston, TAS 7050, Australia
o
Institute for Regional Development, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA 6907, Australia
b
Abstract: The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, an area almost the size of Japan, has a new network of no-take
areas that significantly improves the protection of biodiversity. The new marine park zoning implements, in
a quantitative manner, many of the theoretical design principles discussed in the literature. For example, the
new network of no-take areas has at least 20% protection per “bioregion,” minimum levels of protection for
all known habitats and special or unique features, and minimum sizes for no-take areas of at least 10 or 20
km across at the smallest diameter. Overall, more than 33% of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is now in
no-take areas (previously 4.5%). The steps taken leading to this outcome were to clarify to the interested public
why the existing level of protection was inadequate; detail the conservation objectives of establishing new notake areas; work with relevant and independent experts to define, and contribute to, the best scientific process
to deliver on the objectives; describe the biodiversity (e.g., map bioregions); define operational principles
needed to achieve the objectives; invite community input on all of the above; gather and layer the data
gathered in round-table discussions; report the degree of achievement of principles for various options of
no-take areas; and determine how to address negative impacts. Some of the key success factors in this case
have global relevance and include focusing initial communication on the problem to be addressed; applying
∗ email
leannef@gbrmpa.gov.au
Paper submitted December 10, 2004; revised manuscript accepted June 29, 2005.
1733
Conservation Biology 1733–1744
C 2005 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00302.x
1734
No-Take Areas in the Great Barrier Reef
Fernandes et al.
the precautionary principle; using independent experts; facilitating input to decision making; conducting
extensive and participatory consultation; having an existing marine park that encompassed much of the
ecosystem; having legislative power under federal law; developing high-level support; ensuring agency priority
and ownership; and being able to address the issue of displaced fishers.
Key Words: biophysical operational principles, cultural operational principles, economic operational principles,
reserve-design software, social operational principles
Establecimiento de Áreas sin Captura Representativas en la Gran Barrera Arrecifal: Implementación a Gran Escala
de la Teorı́a sobre Áreas Marinas Protegidas
Resumen: El Parque Marino Gran Barrera Arrecifal, con una superficie casi del tamaño de Japón, tiene
una red de áreas sin captura que incrementa la protección de la biodiversidad significativamente. La nueva
zonificación en el parque marino implementa, de manera cuantitativa, muchos de los principios teóricos de
diseño discutidos en la literatura. Por ejemplo, la nueva red de áreas sin captura tiene niveles mı́nimos de
protección de por lo menos 20% de protección por “bioregión” en todos los hábitats y rasgos especiales o únicos
conocidos, y tamaños mı́nimos para las áreas sin captura de por lo menos 10 o 20 km en el diámetro menor.
En general, más de 33% del Parque Marino Gran Barrera Arrecifal está en áreas sin captura (4.5% anteriormente). Los pasos hacia este resultado fueron clarificar al público interesado porque el nivel de protección
era inadecuado; detallar los objetivos de conservación al establecer nuevas áreas sin captura; trabajar con
expertos relevantes e independientes para definir, y contribuir a, los mejores procesos cientı́ficos para reforzar a
los objetivos; describir la biodiversidad (e.g., elaborar mapas de bioregiones); definir principios operacionales
requeridos para cumplir con los objetivos; invitar a la participación de la comunidad en todo lo anterior; reunir y clasificar los datos obtenidos en discusiones en mesas redondas; reportar el grado de logro de principios
para varias opciones de áreas sin captura; y determinar como atender a los impactos negativos. Algunos de
los factores clave en el éxito de este caso tienen relevancia global e incluyen el enfoque de la comunicación
inicial en el(los) problema(s) a resolver; aplicación del principio precautorio; utilización de expertos independientes; facilitación de insumos a la toma de decisiones; realización de consultas extensivas y participativas;
haber contado con un parque marino preexistente que comprende la mayor parte del ecosistema; tener poder
legislativo bajo ley federal; desarrollar soporte de alto nivel; garantizar prioridad y propiedad de la agencia y
tener la capacidad para atender el asunto de los pescadores desplazados.
Palabras Clave: principios operacionales biofı́sicos, principios operacionales culturales,principios operacionales económicos, principios operacionales sociales, software para diseño de reservas
Introduction
The value of coral reefs to the global community is estimated to be in the billions of dollars and is derived through provision of goods and services such as food (including fish), coastal protection, recreation, tourism, and
wider ecosystem maintenance (Costanza et al. 1998).
The net present value of tourism on the Great Barrier
Reef alone was estimated to be US$18–40 billion (Carr &
Mendelsohn 2003). Such values cannot be maintained if
the ecosystem on which they are based declines in health
(Cesar 2000; Carr & Mendelsohn 2003).
Globally, coral reef ecosystems are in decline ( Wilkinson 2002; Pandolfi et al. 2003), and efforts to find conservation solutions are increasing. Many have advocated
the application of no-take areas: setting aside areas of
the marine environment protected from extractive activities such as fishing (Kelleher et al. 1995; Hughes et
al. 2003). Some authors have offered guidance on implementing networks of no-take areas (e.g., Sala et al. 2002;
Lubchenco et al. 2003; World Parks Congress 2003). De-
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005
spite this, there have been few real successes in systematic implementation of adequate and representative networks of no-take areas to date (Airamé et al. 2003). Diverse national, cultural, political, and economic obstacles
may impede establishing large no-take reserves (Christie
et al. 2003), raising the specter that calls for protection
of 30–50% of marine habits may be unachievable.
Here we discuss success factors that led to establishing
a large, comprehensive, adequate, and representative network of no-take marine protected areas. The authors include managers, planners, and scientists that contributed
to the establishment of the new network of no-take areas. The network contains at least 20% of all described
“bioregions” in the 344,400 km2 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) off eastern Australia and includes 33%
of the area overall. This park covers an area bigger than
the United Kingdom and Ireland combined or about 85%
the area of California. Although state-of-the-art technology and relatively good data were used to establish the
GBRMP, neither was perfect or necessary to implement
the conceptual approach underpinning the protective
Fernandes et al.
system finally adopted. We discuss the main steps in the
process applied in the GBRMP as a case study of successfully implementing an extensive system of no-take
reserves in a wealthy developed nation and explore what
lessons might be learned from this case for implementation in other countries.
Defining the Problem
A review of one section of the GBRMP in the early 1990s
generated an awareness at the GBRMP Authority that
the amount and distribution of no-take protected areas
throughout the park were most likely inadequate to ensure protection of the entire range of marine biodiversity
in the park. The Great Barrier Reef ecosystem, like others
around the world (Hughes et al. 2003; Jackson et al. 2003),
is facing increasing pressures from diverse impacts, including increasing numbers of park users as a result of
growth in population and visitor numbers; an increased
range of uses; easier human access to wider areas of the
park; improved fishing technology that could amplify fishing impacts; increasing competition for use, including extractive and nonextractive uses; increased pollution from
longstanding and expanding onshore activities, including
agriculture and urbanization; increased vessel traffic; and
climate change, including ocean warming.
No-Take Areas in the Great Barrier Reef
1735
At the time of the review, 4.5% of the marine park was
protected in no-take areas and more than 80% of this area
protected only one habitat type in the ecosystem: coral
reefs. Yet other habitats interlinked with coral reefs constitute 94% of the park (e.g., seagrass beds, algal or sponge
gardens, sandy or muddy seabed communities, and deep
ocean trenches). Seventy biophysically distinct “bioregions” have been identified within the park. The bioregions were defined based on a range of inputs, including
biophysical data, existing regionalizations, and external,
independent expert advice (B. K. et al., unpublished data;
Day et al. 2002). We used these bioregions as the major
planning units, rather than habitats, to ensure that every
part of the park was considered for protection. Few data
on species or habitat distribution were comprehensive,
and a bioregional approach based on available species
and habitat data militated against merely protecting sampling sites where data showed that particular habitats or
species exist (Ward et al. 1999; Pressey 2004).
We assessed the adequacy of the existing level of protection and found flaws that placed the system at risk; for
example, only 19 of these bioregions had more than 15%
of their area protected within existing no-take reserves,
14 bioregions had 0 no-take areas, and only 1 of 135 notake areas was of adequate minimum size (i.e., > 20 km
across) (Day et al. 2002). (The reasoning for a minimum
size requirement is described under the explanation of
the first biophysical operational principle in Table 1).
Table 1. Biophysical operational principles to help achieve the ecological objectives of the Representative Areas Program.a
Operational principle
Ensure local integrity: no-take areas (NTAs) should be at least
20 km long on the smallest dimension (except for coastal
bioregions)b
Maximize amount of protection: maximize amount of
protection larger (vs. smaller) NTAs have
Replicate: have sufficient NTAs to ensure against negative
impacts on some part of a bioregion
Avoid fragmentation: where a reef is incorporated into NTAs,
whole reef should be included
Set minimum amount of protection: represent a minimum
amount of each reef bioregion in NTAs
Explanation
Although NTAs may be of various shapes and sizes, 20 km
should be the minimum distance across any NTA to ensure
that the size of each area is adequate to provide for the
maintenance of populations of plants and animals within
NTAs and to ensure against edge effects resulting from use of
the surrounding areas.
For a given amount of area to be protected, protect fewer,
larger areas rather than more, smaller areas, particularly to
minimize edge effects resulting from use of the surrounding
areas. This principle must be implemented in conjunction
with the third principle.
Sufficient refers to the amount and configuration of NTAs and
may be different for each bioregion depending on its
characteristics. For most bioregions, 3–4 NTAs are
recommended to spread the risk against negative human
impacts affecting all NTAs within a bioregion. For some very
small bioregions fewer areas are recommended,c whereas
for some very large or long bioregions, more NTAs are
recommended.c
Reefs are relatively integral biological units with a high level of
connectivity among habitats within them. Accordingly, reefs
should not be subject to “split zoning” so that parts of a reef
are no-take and other parts are not.
In each reef bioregion, protect at least 3 reefs with at least 20%
of reef area and reef perimeter included in NTAs. The
number and distribution of NTAs per bioregion are
described in the third principle.
continued
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005
1736
No-Take Areas in the Great Barrier Reef
Fernandes et al.
Table 1. (continued)
Operational principle
Set minimum amount of protection:
(a) represent a minimum amount of each reef bioregion in
NTAs
( b) represent a minimum amount of each nonreef bioregion
in NTAs
Maintain geographic diversity: represent cross-shelf and
latitudinal diversity in the network of NTAs
Represent all habitats: represent a minimum of each
community type and physical environment type in the
overall networkd
Apply all available information on processes: maximize use of
environmental information to determine the configuration
of NTAs to form viable networks
Protect uniqueness: include biophysically special/unique
places
Maximize natural integrity: include consideration of sea and
adjacent land uses in determining NTAs
a See
Explanation
In each reef bioregion, protect at least 3 reefs with at least 20%
of reef area and reef perimeter included in NTAs. The
number and distribution of NTAs per bioregion are
described in the third principle.
In each nonreef bioregion, protect at least 20% of area. See
footnote for special provisions that apply to the two coastal
bioregions,c which contain finer-scale patterns of diversity
because of bays, adjacent terrestrial habitat, and rivers.
Many processes create latitudinal and longitudinal (cross-shelf )
differences in habitats and communities within the Great
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. This diversity is reflected
partly in the distribution of the bioregions, but care should
be taken to choose NTAs that include differences in
community types and habitats that cover wide latitudinal or
cross-shelf ranges.
This principle is to ensure that all known communities and
habitats within bioregions are included in the network of
NTAs. Communities and habitats were identified for
protection in no-take areas based on the reliability and
comprehensiveness of available data. Habitat-specific
objectivesd help implement this principle, which is intended
to ensure that particularly important habitats are adequately
represented in the network of NTAs.
The network of areas should accommodate what is known
about migration patterns, currents, and connectivity among
habitats. The spatial configurations required to
accommodate these processes are not well known and
expert review of candidate networks of areas will be
required to implement this principle.
These places might not otherwise be included in the network
but will help ensure that the network is comprehensive and
adequate to protect biodiversity and the known special or
unique areas. Aim to capture as many biophysically special
or unique places as possible.
Past and present uses may have influenced the integrity of the
biological communities and planners consider these effects,
where known, when choosing the location of NTAs. For
example, existing NTAs and areas adjacent to terrestrial
national parks are likely to have greater biological integrity
than areas that have been used heavily for resource
exploitation.
also www.gbrmpa.gov.au for information on the principles, including references.
coastal bioregions: coastal-strip sand (NA1), protect at least six NTAs, each at least 10 km long, spaced approximately 70–100 km apart
( bioregion approximately 800 km long); for high-nutrient coastal strip (NA3), at least eight NTAs, each at least 10 km long, spaced
approximately every 70–100 km apart ( bioregion approximately 1400 km long).
c These Great Barrier Reef bioregions are excepted: Capricorn-Bunker Mid-Shelf Reefs (RCB2)—include one of the inner two and one of the
outer two reefs. This exception exists because RCB2 has only four reefs: deltaic reefs (RA1)—minimum 25% and minimum 15 reefs in one
continuous area (exception exists because bioregion is too small for multiple NTAs); high continental island reefs (RHC)—20% of reef perimeter
only (exception exists because reef perimeter makes more biological sense for fringing reefs); and central open lagoon reefs (RF2)—3 reefs
(very few reefs in this bioregion).
d Data and objectives to implement the seventh principle: Halimeda beds—ensure that NTAs represent 10% of known beds; shallow-water
seagrass—ensure that NTAs represent 10% of shallow-water seagrass habitat; deepwater seagrass—ensure that NTAs represent 10% of known
deepwater seagrass habitat; algae—ensure that NTAs represent 10% of known algal habitat; epibenthos—ensure that NTAs represent different
faunal classes (5% each of echinodermata, sponges, bryozoans, solitary corals, soft corals, foraminifera, brachyura); dugong—ensure that NTAs
represent identified dugong habitat areas summing to about 50% of all high-priority dugong habitat; cays—where cays exist within a
bioregion, try to include at least two examples of them in potential NTAs; reefs size—capture 5% of reef area in each of five reefsize classes;
interreef channels—capture at least one interreef channel in bioregions where they exist; exposure—ensure the entire network captures 5% of
reef and nonreef area in each of five wave-exposure classes; islands—where islands exist within a bioregion try to include one example of them
in NTAs; oceanographic diversity in water quality—ensure representation of reefs within the natural diversity of water quality (5% of reef and
nonreef area in each of nine oceanographic bioregions; 5% of reef and nonreef area in each of four flood frequency classes); adjacent coastal
and estuarine habitats (including islands)—locate NTAs adjacent to mangroves, wetlands, and protected areas rather than adjacent to
suburbs; and major turtle sites—ensure that NTAs include known major turtle nesting and foraging sites (100% of about 30 sites of the 115
identified—these include both nesting sites and foraging sites).
b For
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005
Fernandes et al.
No-Take Areas in the Great Barrier Reef
Designing a Solution
In response to the recognized inadequacy of existing protection, the GBRMP Authority initiated the Representative
Areas Program as a basis for rezoning the park (Day et al.
2002). A first step was to establish an independent Scientific Steering Committee, with expertise in the Great
Barrier Reef ecosystem and in its biophysical processes
(Table 2). The committee was convened to define operational principles to guide the development of a comprehensive, adequate, and representative network of no-take
areas in the park (Table 1).
The principles presented in Table 1 were designed to
help achieve the following objectives: maintain biological diversity of the ecosystem, habitat, species, population, and genes; allow species to evolve and function
undisturbed; provide an ecological safety margin against
human-induced impacts; provide a solid ecological base
from which threatened species or habitats could recover
or repair themselves; and maintain ecological processes
and systems (L.F., unpublished data; Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority 2002). The principles in Table 1
were “operational” in that they provided a sufficient level
of detail to be implemented in the marine environment.
These principles were developed in a series of meetings and to meet specific management objectives for the
Great Barrier Reef ecosystem. They refer to minimum
amounts of protection; none of these recommendations
1737
is for ideal or desired amounts. Of these minimum recommendations, the experts gave priority to minimum levels
of protection per bioregion. The principles were not further prioritized but the experts recommended they be
treated collectively, as a package. The Scientific Steering
Committee explicitly stated, however, that ideal or desired amounts of no-take areas required for full protection
were likely to be greater than indicated by the biophysical operational principles (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority 2002).
The social, economic, cultural, and management feasibility operational principles were developed by the Social, Economic, and Cultural Steering Committee in a series of meetings (Table 3) (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority 2002). These principles address the user and interest groups that have a stake in the management of the
GBRMP. These principles applied, as much as possible, to
the Representative Areas Program and were subject to the
biophysical operational principles. The expertise of this
committee was very different from that of the Scientific
Steering Committee (Table 2).
Discussing the Problems and Solutions
Starting in 1999, the GBRMP Authority carried out extensive informal communications with stakeholders to discuss the concept of protecting representative areas of
each habitat (or bioregion) in the park as no-take areas.
Table 2. Expertise and affiliations of the steering committees charged with guiding the scientific, social, economic, communications, and
management feasibility aspects of the Representative Areas Program.
Area of expertise
Scientific Steering Committee
soft seabed benthos
seagrasses/epibenthos
modeling/statistics
dugong, marine mammal
reef and pelagic fish
coral reefs
stateside counterpart
fishing impacts/design issues
reserve design
Social, Economic, Cultural Steering Committee
Scientific Steering Committee member (for overlap)
day-to-day management
commercial fisheries
heritage values
tourism, recreation and public perceptions/values
social impact assessment
indigenous values/use
stateside counterpart
conservation values/nonuse values
Organization
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Queensland Department of Primary Industries
CRC Reef Research Centre
School of Tropical Environment Studies & Geography, James Cook
University
Australian Institute of Marine Science, CRC Reef Research Centre
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Division of Planning and Research, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service
CRC Reef Research Centre
Institute for Regional Development, University of Western Australia
School of Tropical Environment Studies & Geography, James Cook
University
Boating and Fisheries Patrol, Queensland Department of Primary
Industries
Queensland Seafood Industry Association
Commissioner, Australian Heritage Commission
Department of Tourism, James Cook University
Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National
University
Aboriginal Coordinating Council
Division of Planning and Research, Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service
World Wildlife Fund
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005
1738
No-Take Areas in the Great Barrier Reef
Fernandes et al.
Table 3. Social, economic, cultural, and management feasibility operational principles to help maximize positive and minimize negative impacts on
people’s uses and values in implementing the Representative Areas Program.
Operational principle
Complement human uses and values: maximize
complementarity of no-take areas with human values,
activities, and opportunities
Consider all costs and benefits: ensure that final
selection of no-take areas recognizes social costs and
benefits
Recognize management and tenure arrangements:
maximize placement of no-take areas in locations that
complement and include present and future
management and tenure arrangements
Maximize user compliance: maximize public
understanding and acceptance of no-take areas and
facilitate enforcement of no-take areas
Explanation
place no-take areas in locations that have been identified through a
consultative process which is participatory, balanced, open, and
transparent; that traditional owners have identified as important and
in need of high levels of protection; that minimize conflict with
indigenous people’s aspirations for their sea country; that the
community identifies as special or unique (e.g., places of biological,
cultural, aesthetic, historic, physical, social, or scientific value); that
minimize conflict with noncommercial extractive users such as
recreational fishers; that minimize conflict with commercial
extractive users; that minimize conflict with all nonextractive users
include recognition of relative social costs and benefits, including
community resilience; spatial equity of opportunity within and
between communities, including clan estates; planned and approved
future activities; and requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of
the new zoning plan
include existing or proposed zoning plans, management plans, or other
related management strategies for marine areas by federal, state, or
local government authorities; existing or proposed tenure and
management strategies for coastal areas (mainland and islands) in the
region; and Native Title claim areas and issues
have no-take areas that have simple shapes; have boundaries that are
easily identified; and are fewer and larger rather than more and smaller
Specifically, they discussed the various phases of the Representative Areas Program:
(1) classification, describes the biological diversity of the
entire park;
(2) review, evaluates the adequacy of the existing network of no-take areas;
(3) identification, identifies potential networks of notake areas that achieve the biological objectives of
the rezoning process;
(4) selection, integrates social, economic, cultural, and
management factors into development of potential
networks to maximize beneficial and minimize detrimental impacts;
(5) draft zoning, invites public comment on a draft zoning plan that displays the proposed new zoning, including the recommended network of no-take areas;
(6) final zoning; and
(7) monitoring, monitors effectiveness of the new zoning plan.
These phases overlapped and ran concurrent with extensive public consultation to bring information into the
decision-making process as well as to deliver information
about the program. A new zoning plan was the tool that
delivered the outcomes of the Representative Areas Program. The entire process, excluding the monitoring program, took about 6 years (Day et al. 2003).
Shortly after beginning these communications, it became clear that the community understanding of the
range of threats to the GBRMP was generally poor; therefore, support for and interest in a possible solution were
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005
low. Accordingly, the GBRMP Authority initiated a campaign to raise awareness of the threats. The lesson learned
was that introducing a solution without clarifying the
problem would not work.
During these informal discussions, feedback was explicitly sought on the proposed bioregions. This aspect
of the communications was successful. It helped build
more robust and justifiable bioregions and involved the
community, via a nonconfrontational mechanism (that is,
describing the bioregions), in building the foundations of
a representative network of no-take areas. The process
helped build a greater understanding and ownership of
the issues, the underlying concepts, and the rezoning process.
During the first formal community participation phase,
the principles were made public and the GBRMP Authority asked people to say where they would and would not
like to have new no-take areas and to provide comment on
any other aspect of park zoning. The coupling of biological and social principles with other available information
was useful in the communication and subsequent planning and negotiation stages. The approach of layering all
available biophysical, social, and economic information to
develop, as far as possible, positive outcomes for all was
largely well received.
Reserve-Design Software for Decision Support
Sala et al. (2002) discuss the theoretical application of
reserve-design software that was used for the Great Barrier
Fernandes et al.
Reef and the Channel Islands, California. The software
allows multiple sets of data and multiple objectives and
social costs to be considered simultaneously to derive various, relatively optimal, options for networks of no-take
areas in the GBRMP (Ball & Possingham 2000; Possingham
et al. 2000; McDonnell et al. 2002; Lewis et al. 2003). Spatial data about use derived from fisheries or submissions
were summarized and used in the analyses. In the case
of the Great Barrier Reef Representative Areas Program,
there were millions of alternative arrangements of no-take
areas that would have satisfied most of the operating principles. Finding minimum-impact, optimal solutions from
such a large array would have been beyond manual calculation, and the software was useful for providing an
efficient beginning point for developing a draft zoning
plan. The concepts outlined in the principles can be implemented without access to such software but less effectively and without consideration of as extensive a range
of possibilities.
Beyond Decision Support to Decisions
Although it is important that the reserve-design software
made maximum use of all available data, much of the important information was not vested in data sets amenable
for use in such software (Lewis et al. 2003). Expertise
from people inside and outside the GBRMP Authority
had to be incorporated explicitly into decision making.
Information from people making formal submissions was
made available through either analysis of the textual input
or geographic information system (GIS) analysis of the detailed spatial input. These layers of information and other
available data were projected for use in structured roundtable planning discussions that drew on in-house expertise. Without the GIS technology, physical maps would
serve the same purpose, albeit less easily.
A key foundation for the entire process was the assessment of mapping solutions (any network of protected
areas) against the biophysical and socioeconomic operational principles. Tracking how well the developing and
evolving networks of no-take areas (and other kinds of
protected areas) achieved these principles greatly influenced round-table decision making. The evolution of the
final map required staff understanding of various stakeholder positions, continual reference to the principles,
and reference to the variety of data. Staff knowledge reflected sectoral and/or geographic expertise gained over
many years, understanding of formal submissions and
data, and was augmented during the two formal community participation phases. The 10 or so staff contributing to each of these round-table discussions had expertise in planning, traditional owner and other indigenous
uses and values, fisheries, conservation biology, tourism,
compliance, shipping, water quality, on-the-water marine
park management, and coastal development. Staff advice
was delivered to senior managers at the GBRMP Author-
No-Take Areas in the Great Barrier Reef
1739
ity, then, finally, after further revision, to Parliament. The
final zoning plan satisfied the majority of the principles,
and in particular the minimum levels of protection per
bioregion.
The Outcome—an Improved Network of No-Take
Areas
A priority in implementation of a new network of protected areas for the marine park was maximizing complementarity with people’s uses and values. Nonetheless, the
biophysical operational principles were critical to achieve
the objectives of reviewing zoning of the park. The rezoning has been largely successful in attaining these principles (Table 4).
More than 33% of the GBRMP is now in no-take areas;
this was an outcome of the process and principles, not
a target itself. Before this rezoning only approximately
1/10,000th of the world’s oceans were protected from all
forms of fishing (Roberts & Hawkins 2000), not including
the 16,000 km2 of no-take areas in the previous GBRMP.
This new level of protection increases the global amount
of marine no-take areas more than fivefold (Fig. 1).
Not all aspects of each principle were achieved, however (Table 4). Achievement of some biophysical operational principles was compromised to accommodate people’s uses and values, particularly recreational and commercial fishing uses. This compromise was a transparent
acknowledgment of the importance of people’s values in
the process and the willingness of the government to be
responsive to public input.
Key Success Factors
Several factors were central to the eventual success of the
GBRMP zoning review, although the importance of each
was not necessarily recognized at the time it occurred:
focusing initial communication on the problems to be
addressed; applying the precautionary principle; using
independent experts; facilitating input to decision making; conducting extensive and participatory consultation;
having an existing marine park that encompassed much
of the ecosystem; having legislative power under federal
law; developing high-level support; ensuring agency priority and ownership; and being able to address the issue
of displaced fishers. These factors may be significant for
other nations wishing to implement systematic networks
of no-take protected areas, and are presented in no particular order.
Focusing Initial Communication on the Problem to be
Addressed
Communication about the existing and potential threats
to the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem, including information about risks and uncertainty, was not originally
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005
1740
No-Take Areas in the Great Barrier Reef
Fernandes et al.
Table 4. Degree to which the new zoning plan for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park achieves the biophysical operational principles.
Biophysical operations principle
No-take areas (NTAs) are at least 20 km along the smallest
dimension (except for coastal bioregions)
Coastal bioregions:
NA1—include 6 NTAs, each at least 10 km long and each
separated by 70–100 km
NA3—include at least 8 NTAs, each at least 10 km long and
each separated by 70–100 km
Have larger (vs. smaller) NTAs
Have sufficient NTAs to ensure against negative impacts on
some part of a bioregion
Where a reef is incorporated into an NTA, the whole reef
should be included
Represent at least 20% of reef area and of reef perimeter per
reef bioregion in no-take areas
Represent at least 20% of each nonreef bioregion in no-take
areas
Represent cross-shelf and latitudinal diversity in the network
of NTAs
Represent a minimum amount of each community type and
physical environment type in the overall network of NTAs:
Halimeda beds 10%
shallow-water seagrass 10%
deepwater seagrass 10%
algae—known habitat 10%
epibenthos—5% of different faunal classes
dugong habitat (∼50% of area of 29 sites)
with cays capture two examples
interreef channels—capture a least one per bioregion where
they exist
capture 5% of reef area in each of five reefsize classes
oceanographic diversity in water quality:
5% of nonreef area in regionalization
5% of reef area in regionalization
5% of nonreef area in flood plume categories
5% of reef in plume categories
major turtle habitat (20% foraging)
all high-priority turtle nesting sites
Maximize use of environmental information to determine the
configuration of NTAs to form viable networks
Include biophysically special/unique places
Include consideration of sea and adjacent land uses in
determining no-take areas
identified as an issue that required discussion. But because these risks were not widely understood, it emerged
clearly that explaining the need for action was essential
to garnering support for a successful solution.
Application of the Precautionary Principle
The science was far from perfect, and the decision to proceed without perfect knowledge was a key factor in the
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005
Level of achievement
52 of 122 offshore NTAs > 20 km across at some point,
previously only 1
coastal bioregions:
7 NTAs > 10 km long
17 NTAs > 10 km long (NTAs spread north and south
along the coastline, most separated by a maximum
70–100 km)
average size of an NTA increased 5 times to 700 km2
recommended level of replication achieved for all
bioregions
rate of split zoning reduced from ∼10% to an estimated 8%,
despite many more reefs being in NTAs
reef bioregion percentages range from 20% to 47%, with a mean
of 18%; reef perimeter percentages range from 18% to 47%,
with only 2 of 30 reef bioregions have < 20%
nonreef bioregion percentages range from 20% to > 90%, with a
mean of 34%
yes, reflected in bioregions and habitat protection
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes for 8 of 12 bioregions
yes for 13 of 17 bioregions
yes
yes for 15 of 16 nonreef area
yes for 15 of 16 reef area
yes
yes
yes except for two green turtle populations
yes, flatback & green > 75% area; loggerhead & hawksbill > 40%
area
yes (e.g., inclusion of important source reefs for reproductive
propagules)
yes for 28/53 high priority sites; additionally 3 > 50% in NTAs, 4
> 25% in NTAs
complementarity with terrestrial conservation reserves
substantially increased
success of the program. Some available information indicated that populations of key species were in decline
(Williams 2000), especially those directly or indirectly affected by fishing activities. This information was considered sufficient evidence that the ecosystem was at
risk. More than 60 data sets were available to help describe biological and physical parameters of the Great
Barrier Reef ecosystem (B. K. et al., unpublished data).
Arguments to postpone protection to gather further information were used as a delaying tactic only by those
Fernandes et al.
No-Take Areas in the Great Barrier Reef
1741
Figure 1. Location and
extent of the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park and
location and size of the new
marine no-take areas (dark
gray shading).
who considered their interests best served by minimizing
no-take areas.
Use of Independent Experts
Independent experts greatly assisted in the identification
of bioregions specific to the Great Barrier Reef and devel-
opment of reserve-design software and operational principles relevant to biodiversity protection objectives. Collectively, more than 30 experts contributed to the rezoning
of the GBRMP. The bioregions and principles were made
public before development of any maps of new zoning.
These “products” were powerful because of their independent status and their wide availability for discussion
and critique early in the planning process.
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005
1742
No-Take Areas in the Great Barrier Reef
Early Input from Stakeholders
Before drafting any maps, stakeholders were asked where
new no-take areas should be located. Stakeholders included commercial and recreational fishers, traditional
owners and other indigenous groups, tour operators, recreational users, researchers, local communities, local
governments, state government, various ministers, and
the general public. Although asking for input about new
no-take areas generated complaints about obfuscation
(e.g., “. . .show us the map, we know you’ve got one already”), inviting input ultimately provided another key
foundation for delivery of an acceptable, well-informed,
and balanced final map. Gathering data from the public
that were then demonstrably used in defining a draft map
was more effective in enhancing support than if the management agency had produced maps without demonstrable community input. How the public input was used to
develop the zoning plan was then described in detail in
a publicly available draft and in the final zoning report.
Additionally, we invited people’s questions on how their
information was used in follow-up meetings and information sessions. Final decision making, however, rested
with the government, and this was made clear in every instance. In other cases even greater levels of involvement
in decision making may be desirable.
Extensive and Participatory Consultation
Thorough consultation with key stakeholders was a critical factor that led to the success of the final no-take network which became law. The linking of science, scientists, and community participation was an essential threeway dynamic in the process. The public was provided
with hundreds of thousands of maps to assist them in
providing their input. We used direct mail, meetings, a
toll-free telephone number, the Internet, and advertising
to distribute information to the public. Meetings also provided an important forum for management agency staff to
gather information informally. All 30,000 formally submitted comments were analyzed and entered into a database
and GIS. All the formal and informal information was used
in the decision-making process. In all communications,
achieving a minimum of 20% protection in no-take areas
per bioregion was emphasized, and many people provided input that took this into consideration.
Existence of a Marine Park
Before embarking on the review of protective zoning,
the GBRMP had existed for more than 25 years and contained a spectrum of zoning with varying levels of protection. The existing zoning provided a clear and understandable framework within which ecosystem management could be improved. Mobilization of the community
to support greater protection was probably more achiev-
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005
Fernandes et al.
able given this existing, familiar framework of area-based
management. Our experience suggests that establishment
of broad management frameworks within which various
levels of protection are implemented and adaptively managed may be useful elsewhere.
Legislative Power under Federal Law
An act of Parliament enables management of the GBRMP
through legal support for the implementation and maintenance of marine-park zoning. This legislative obligation
allows the GBRMP Authority to effect the changes required for adequate ecosystem protection despite a level
of opposition from some sectors of the community. So,
although we facilitated bottom-up input, top-down legislative support was also very important.
High-Level Support
The government’s Ocean’s Policy (Environment Australia
1998) and the Australian Federal Minister for the Environment supported the Representative Areas Program implemented in the GBRMP. As far as possible, the GBRMP
Authority staff worked with stakeholders and decision
makers to ensure a high level of ownership of the Representative Areas Program at all levels of society. The ownership was engendered, in part, through judicious negotiations wherein stakeholders and decision makers could
see both the agency’s commitments to the primary conservation objective of the program and a willingness to accommodate people’s concerns. This ownership enabled
the GBRMP Authority to deliver the new zoning plan despite the fact that members of some sectors continued
to view implementing a network of no-take protected areas as undesirable. Many now see the new zoning plan as
“their” legacy to the future.
Agency Priority and Ownership
Ownership of the program and outcomes was also generated within the organization responsible for production
of the new park zoning, namely, throughout the GBRMP
Authority. Genuine pooling of resources, expertise, and
capabilities was one of the enabling features in delivery
of the new zoning plan that implemented the Representative Areas Program. This was delivered by delegating
and coordinating responsibilities for various aspects of
the process to the respective senior managers within the
GBRMP Authority.
Addressing the Issue of Displaced Fishers
A possible impediment to the new plan could have been
the absence of structural adjustment (e.g., the buyback
of fishing licenses) for displaced fishers. A federal government commitment to structural adjustment was of both
social and environmental importance and led to greater
Fernandes et al.
community acceptance of the socially or economically
negative consequences of the new zoning.
Conclusions
Because the pressures and risks for coral reef ecosystems
are relatively generic throughout the tropics, a strong
basis exists for motivating more systematic and holistic
protection of coral reef ecosystems globally (Hughes et
al. 2003; Pandolfi et al. 2003). Under different circumstances some of the success factors described above may
not be important, or other, different, factors may be crucial. Despite this, the lessons from the Great Barrier Reef
experience offer insights into the hurdles and challenges
that may be generic and may facilitate efforts to establish
marine networks of no-take areas elsewhere.
The concepts and approaches applied in the process of
reviewing Great Barrier Reef zoning can be applied elsewhere regardless of the level of available data or technical
support. The generic, applicable steps are to (1) define
and discuss the problem; (2) decide on objectives; (3)
engage relevant and independent experts; (4) compile
existing biophysical, social, economic, and cultural data;
(5) describe the biodiversity (e.g., through bioregions);
(6) define operational principles that will achieve the objectives; (7) invite community input on all of the above;
(8) gather and layer data in round-table discussions; (9) for
each alternative map of no-take areas, report the degree
of achievement of principles; and (10) have mechanisms
by which to address any negative impacts. The hurdles
that remain will be political and legal and unique to each
situation.
The true success of any management initiative can be
measured only in outcomes versus outputs. The Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority has delivered an important output—a new zoning regime. Existing and new
monitoring programs are being reviewed and designed
to enable assessment of the new zoning regime against
biological, social, and economic outcomes.
Acknowledgments
The Representative Areas Program was coordinated by
the GBRMP Authority and involved almost all staff to some
degree, and we acknowledge their input here. The program could not have been done, however, without the
assistance and expertise of, and data from, a wide range
of external agencies, institutes, and experts. Therefore we
thank T. Ayling, B. Bowtell, R. Coles, D. Davis, T. Done,
K. Fabricius, B. Grimley, A. Hansen, J. Hooper, M. Furnas, T. Hughes, P. Hutchings, C. Jenkins, W. L. Long, J.
Lennon, L. McCook, G. Moscardo, F. Pantus, R. Pitcher,
I. Poiner, H. Ross, L. Squires, A. Taplin, D. Williams, T.
No-Take Areas in the Great Barrier Reef
1743
Wymarra, Australian Geological Survey Organisation, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Australian Land Information Group, Australian Museum, Australian Oceanographic Data Centre, Cooperative Research Centre for
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, CSIRO (Divisions
of Marine Research, Oceanography, Wildlife and Ecology),
Department of Environment and Heritage, James Cook
University, Museum of Tropical North Queensland, New
South Wales Fisheries, Ocean Sciences Institute (University of Sydney), Queensland Fisheries Service (Northern
Fisheries Centre), Queensland Museum, Queensland Environment Protection Agency, and University of Queensland The assistance of all these people and agencies (most
of which is voluntary) was invaluable. We thank M. Riddle
for advising on the manuscript.
Literature Cited
Airamé, S., J. E. Dugan, K. D. Lafferty, H. Leslie, D. A. McArdle, and
R. R. Warner. 2003. Applying ecological criteria to marine reserve
design: a case study from the California Channel Islands. Ecological
Applications 13:S170–S184.
Ball, I., and H. Possingham. 2000. MarXan (V1.2) Marine reserve design
using spatially explicit annealing. A manual. University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Carr, L., and R. Mendelsohn. 2003. Valuing coral reefs: a travel cost
analysis of the Great Barrier Reef. Ambio 32:353–357.
Cesar, H. S. J. 2000. Coral reefs: their functions, threats and economic
value. Pages 14–39 in H. S. J. Cesar, editor. Collected essays on
the economics of coral reefs. Coral Reef Degradation in the Indian
Ocean, Kalmar University, Kalmar, Sweden.
Christie, P., et al. 2003. Towards developing a complete understanding:
social science research agenda for marine protected areas. Fisheries
28:22–25.
Costanza, R., et al. 1998. The value of the world’s ecosystem services
and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260.
Day, J., et al. 2002. The Representative Areas Program for protecting biodiversity in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Pages 687–
696 in M. K. Moosa, editor. Proceedings of the ninth international
coral reef symposium 2000. Ministry of Environment, Indonesian
Institute of Sciences, International Society for Reef Studies, Jakarta,
Indonesia.
Day, J., L. Fernandes, A. Lewis, and J. Innes. 2003. RAP—an ecosystem
level approach to biodiversity protection planning. Pages 251–265 in
Proceedings of the second international tropical marine ecosystems
management symposium. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority,
Townsville, Australia.
Environment Australia. 1998. Australia’s oceans policy. Australian Government, Canberra.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2002. Technical information
sheets for the Representative Areas Program. Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Australia. Available from http://
www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp site/key issues/conservation/rep areas/
info sheets.html (accessed May 2005).
Hughes, T. P., et al. 2003. Climate change, human impacts and the resilience of coral reefs. Science 301:929–933.
Jackson, J. B. C., et al. 2003. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems. Science 293:629–638.
Kelleher, G., C. Bleakley, and S. Wells. 1995. A global representative system of marine protected areas. International Bank for Reconstitution
and Development/The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Lewis, A., S. Slegers, D. Lowe, L. Muller, L. Fernandes, and J. Day. 2003.
Use of spatial analysis and GIS techniques to rezone the Great Barrier
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005
1744
No-Take Areas in the Great Barrier Reef
Reef Marine Park. Pages 431–451 in C. D. Woodroffe and R. A. Furness, editors. Coastal GIS 2003: an integrated approach to Australian
coastal issues. Maritime policy no. 14. Wollongong papers. Wollongong University, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
Lubchenco, J., S. Palumbi, S. D. Gaines, and S. Andelman. 2003. Plugging a hole in the ocean: the emerging science of marine reserves.
Ecological Applications 13:S3–S7.
McDonnell, M. D., H. P. Possingham, I. R. Ball, and E. A. Cousins, 2002.
Mathematical models for spatially cohesive reserve design. Environmental Modelling and Assessment 7:107–114.
Pandolfi, J. M., et al. 2003. Global trajectories of the long-term decline
of coral reef ecosystems. Science 301:955–958.
Possingham, H., I. Ball, and S. Andelman. 2000. Mathematical methods
for identifying representative reserve networks. Pages 291–307 in S.
Ferson and M. A. Burgman, editors. Quantitative methods in conservation biology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Pressey, R. L. 2004. Conservation planning and biodiversity: assembling
the best data for the job. Conservation Biology 18:1677–1681.
Roberts, C., and J. Hawkins. 2000. Fully protected marine reserves: a
Conservation Biology
Volume 19, No. 6, December 2005
Fernandes et al.
guide. World Wildlife Fund Endangered Seas Campaign, Washington
D.C., and Environment Department, University of York, York, United
Kingdom.
Sala, E., O. Aburto-Oropeza, G. Paredes, I. Parra, J. C. Barrera, and P. K.
Dayton. 2002. A general model for designing networks of marine
reserves. Science 298:1991–1993.
Ward, T. J., M. A. Vanderkleft, A. O. Nicholls, and R. A. Kenchington.
1999. Selecting marine reserves using habitats and species assemblages as surrogates for biological diversity. Ecological Applications
9:691–698.
Wilkinson, C., editor. 2002. Status of coral reefs of the world. Australian
Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia.
Williams, L., editor. 2000. Queensland’s fisheries resources—current
condition and recent trends 1998–2000. Queensland Department
of Primary Industries, Brisbane, Australia.
World Parks Congress. 2003. Recommendations of the fifth World
Parks Congress, Durban. World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. Available from http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/
english/outputs/recommendations.htm (accessed May 2005).