MARINE REVIEW JUNE 2019

A REVIEW OF THE BENEFITS OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, WITH A FOCUS ON HOW IS TRACKING TOWARDS INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKS. TABLE OF CONTENTS A Victorian National Parks Association report, with John Ford, an independent consultant with Scope and methods 3 a background in marine and fisheries ecology, Executive Summary 4-5 as the main contributing author. Recommendations 5

SECTION 1 - Marine Protected Areas – an introduction Victorian National Parks Association What is a 6 The Victorian National Parks Association (VNPA) is Why are MPAs established 6 Victoria’s leading nature conservation organisation. All MPAs are not equal 6-7 VNPA is an independent, non-profit, membership- based group, which exists to protect Victoria’s SECTION 2 – Benefits of Marine Protected Areas unique natural environment and biodiversity through Benefits of Marine Protected Areas 8 the establishment and effective management of Biodiversity protection 9-10 national parks, including marine national parks, Threatened species conservation 10-11 conservation reserves and other measures. Ecosystem resilience and climate change 11-12 We achieve our vision by facilitating strategic Spillover benefits 12 campaigns and education programs, developing policies, through hands-on conservation work, SECTION 3 – Global targets: and by running bushwalking and outdoor activity how is and Victoria tracking programs which promote the care and enjoyment International benchmarks 13 of Victoria’s natural heritage. Published by the The global coverage of MPAs in 2018 13-15 Victorian National Parks Association. MPAs in Australia 15-16 Victorian National Parks Association Highly and partially protected MPAs in Victoria 17-20 Level 3, 60 Leicester Street, Carlton, Victoria, 3053 Marine v terrestrial protected areas 20 Phone: 03 9347 5188 | Fax: 03 9347 5199 The debate around whether MPAs work 21 Website: www.vnpa.org.au | Email: [email protected] Reasons for MPAs not achieving their objectives 22 Developing MPAs that work 22

References 23-25

Above: Marine invasive species monitoring, Wilsons Promontory, Victoria. Photo by Parks Victoria. Cover image: Weedy Seadragon, Victoria's marine emblem. Photo by Jack Breedon. Back cover image: Great Victorian Fish Count. Photo by Kade Mills.

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 2 Scope This report provides an overview of marine protected areas (history plus global, national and local Victorian context), reviews their scientifically reported conservation benefits, and briefly discusses the criteria that make for an effective marine protected area. It does so by analysing the scientific literature on marine protected areas in a conservation context, not their cultural, social or economic benefits. The report’s emphasis is on Victoria’s marine protected area network, but its 24 marine national parks and sanctuaries and six partially protected areas are Victoria’s contribution to the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA), which was agreed to by all Australian governments in 1998.

Methods The scientific literature search for this report was not as thorough as a full systematic review, however it initially considered over 1600 scientific, government and NGO reports. To identify relevant scientific literature, searches were conducted on Web of Science, Science Direct and Google Scholar database for scientific research articles, reviews and short communications containing “Marine Protected Area” or “” or “” in the title, published between 2009 and 2018 (up to Aug 2018). Papers were filtered to include only studies that explicitly considered or evaluated the conservation benefits or success of MPAs. This process removed all studies which were either a) purely observational science (no comparison to non-MPAs), b) methodological only, c) attitudinal or focused on perceptions of MPAs, d) social or economic impacts e) management and enforcement, and f) purely theoretical. The most relevant 85 of these articles are referenced here.

Statistics for the global coverage of MPAs were sourced from two main sources: Protected Planet marine database (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2018) for total MPA area, and Atlas of Marine Protection (Marine Conservation Institute 2018) for highly protected (i.e. no- take) MPA statistics. Australian MPA area statistics were sourced from the CAPAD 2016 database Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy (2017) and supplemented by calculations from GIS maps of the 2018 Commonwealth MPA revisions Australian Government Department of the Seahorse, Bay. Environment and Energy (2018). Photo by Shannon Hurley.

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 3 Executive Summary

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are (1,060km2) are contained within MPAs, A 2010 review of Victoria’s MPAs found a powerful spatial planning tool that half of this figure relies on the inclusion that they did not meet the NRSMPA’s aim to conserve marine biodiversity, of six partially protected MPAs in South key principles of comprehensiveness, ecosystems and ecological processes. that lack goals, objectives, adequacy and representativeness, The accepted international definition management plans and systematic while the Victorian Environment of a MPA is very broad, and MPAs monitoring. When the 10% figure is Assessment Council in 2017 can vary massively in scale, the level further analysed, most is within the concluded that the “existing system of protection, and the conservation Victorian Embayments ( and of no-take marine protected areas benefits they provide. Nooramunga marine and coastal parks) has some gaps in representation, and and Flinders (Wilsons Promontory individual marine protected areas may Australia is a world leader in MPA marine national park, marine park and not meet the adequacy criterion”. And establishment, beginning with the marine reserve) marine bioregions. both the 2013 and 2018 Victorian Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in 1975 The Otway, Central and Twofold Shelf State of the Environment reports and continuing with the declaration marine bioregions have MPA coverage highlighted the limited protection of new MPAs across Commonwealth, ranging from 4-6%, mostly no-take. afforded by the current MPAs. state and waters, all now part of the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA). Together the MPAs cover approximately 36% 16% of our territorial waters and, on the Marine protected area 14% surface, meet the lowest international (no-take) areas compared 12% benchmark, Aichi Target 11, of 10% 10% by state/territory 8%

(other targets urge at least 30% that 6%

would eventually become no-take). 4%

But the biodiversity conservation TOTAL 2% outcomes are mixed, with the location 0% of MPAs often skewed away from 10.4% WA NT SA QLD NSW VIC TAS of commonwealth key habitats in favour of areas that waters in no-take areas have little or no commercial interests (Devillers et al. 2014). It is now 17 years since Victoria established what was the world’s first highly protected network of marine national parks and sanctuaries. But as the years have passed it has <1.0% of territory waters in become recognised as inadequate no-take areas and other Australian jurisdictions have 14.0% of state waters in surpassed it. 10.8% no-take areas of state waters in Although the Northern Territory no-take areas continue to struggle with marine 12.4% conservation and trails Victoria, the of state waters in Australian Government and states of no-take areas , and 7.6% of state waters in are well ahead, and even no-take areas has covered more of its waters in MPAs. Internationally, the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 14, ‘Conserve and 5.3% sustainably use the oceans, seas, and of state waters in no-take areas marine resources’ has set the bare Victoria has the second lowest % minimum for high-level protection at of state waters as no-take marine protected areas 6.1% 10% of marine habitats, double the of state waters in no-take areas Victorian percentage, while the long- term aspiration of the IUCN is for at least 30% in no-take. No-take data taken from CAPAD 2016 (Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy 2017), using IUCN categories I, II and III, except for Commonwealth no-take areas which were sourced from Parks Australia shapefiles that reflect the 2018 Commonwealth management In Victoria, a mere 5.3% of coastal plan revisions ( 2018). If the Antarctic territories are included the coverage is lower at 8.5% no-take. Data on MPAs can vary from state to state, and can be difficult to determine comparability. For example, if the Macquarie Island MPAs (which are well away from the waters are protected in no-take areas. mainland) are removed from the Tasmania figures, then the percentage of no-take area would be lower at 1.1%). Although 10.6% of coastal waters

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 4 The primary goal of Victoria’s MPAs and in the wrong places. Stemming planning and management. A holistic is to maintain biodiversity and from these widely-recognized marine spatial planning framework for ecological processes, yet Victoria constraints on many global MPAs, managing cumulative threats, where has the smallest area of MPAs of all several recent studies have identified MPAs are a key conservation pillar, states and territories, and the second the key criteria necessary for an MPA will be the most effective approach to smallest area of no-take reserves to meet key conservation objectives. conserving marine environments on a behind the Northern Territory. These key criteria are: local, regional and global scale.

This report has identified the following • Legislated with regulations that key benefits of MPAs: address actual threats • Sufficient funding and staffing to Recommendations 1. MPAs are effective in stopping manage and enforce regulations direct habitat destruction caused 1. Victoria’s MPAs be considered as • Supported by government, by mining, coastal development, a key conservation pillar in the community and users dredging, and some fishing current Victorian process of marine activities • External threats are addressed spatial planning through broader marine 2. Well-managed no-take MPAs 2. An independent review, of spatial planning maintain higher adult abundances current Victorian MPAs against and larger sizes of some • Part of a network that has the NRSMPA’s key principles of exploited organisms compared to representation and replication comprehensiveness, adequacy areas open to exploitation of habitats and representativeness, as 2 3. A large, well-established, well- • Old (>10yrs), large (>100km ) recommended by the Victorian enforced, no-take MPA with and completely protects local Environmental Assessment surrounding heavily fished or habitat extent Council’s Statewide Assessment of unregulated areas are likely to • No-take (if conservation objective Public Land Assessment, 2017. provide spill over benefits for relates to exploited species) 3. Review of the criteria for key exploited species factors in MPA success (as listed No-take MPAs are the most effective in Table 7) using most recent 4. MPAs deliver positive benefits to means of achieving the highest level of literature, to better manage threatened species populations conservation benefits – the reason for when the threatened species is at their establishment – but they should expectations around conservation risk from activities that the MPA be used within a suite of conservation benefits and outcomes, for use in can regulate and marine management measures, Victorian MPAs. 5. The biodiversity and habitat including marine spatial planning. a. Scoping for new MPAs in protection benefits provided by In Victoria, barely 5% of its coastal Victoria be underpinned by the MPAs can increase the resistance waters are contained within MPAs above criteria and involve a (the capacity to withstand that have clear conservation plans review of previous scoping work impacts) and resilience (the and objectives, leaving 95% of those conducted by VNPA to identify capacity to recover from impacts) waters without comprehensive the gaps in marine protection. to human-induced threats 6. MPAs have the potential to be Biscuit Star, Port Phillip Bay. Photo by Shannon Hurley. a conservation tool for climate change by: preventing carbon emissions from marine habitat loss, sequestering carbon through habitat repair, affect climatic interactions, conserving ecosystem integrity to resist invasive species favoured by climate change and provide a refuge for species and habitats

However, many MPAs globally do not provide the benefits listed above due to a number of key factors: regulations do not address threats, threats are external and cannot be regulated within the MPA, inadequate staffing and resources, lack of political support, lack of stakeholder support, non-compliance with regulations or the MPA is too small, poorly designed

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 5 SECTION ONE

Marine Protected Areas – an introduction

“They (MPAs) are a necessary and fundamental step in arresting what is clearly an unsustainable trend in exploitation” TIM WINTON, AUTHOR AND CONSERVATIONIST

development), the management goals Many secondary objectives arise from What is a marine are often much narrower. It is this these core goals, most associated protected area? breadth of management objectives with the economic and cultural values and aspirations that make MPAs such of conservation. The key secondary Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are potentially powerful conservation objectives include: a conservation tool based on spatial tools but can also place unrealistic planning and regulation of coastal • increase fish stocks or fish expectations on what MPAs can and oceanic waters. Rules and productivity (an ecosystem service) achieve in each unique context. regulations determine what activities • increase tourism (and ecosystem can occur within zones of a MPA, and Why are MPAs service or outcome of charismatic management plans address threats species protection) to the key values such as biodiversity, established? • strengthen cultural connection and threatened species, ecosystem In recent decades there has been opportunity, and processes and services, and cultural a growing recognition of the need and social values. • reference areas for scientific to better protect our oceans from research An internationally accepted definition human-induced threats. In the coastal was created by the International zone, pressure from increasing However, clear goals and objectives Union for Conservation of Nature population, coastal development, for many MPAs are not clearly set out, in 2008; A MPA is a “clearly defined catchment runoff, shipping, invasive even after they have been enshrined in geographical space, recognised, species and recreational activities has law (Zupan et al. 2018). This has often dedicated and managed, through legal put unprecedented stress on marine led to unrealistic public and political or other effective means, to achieve ecosystems. In the open ocean, expectations of the performance long-term conservation of nature with improving technology of fishing of MPAs, particularly around the associated ecosystem services and and mining has brought resource secondary benefits such as fisheries cultural values” (Dudley 2008). exploitation to even the deepest productivity (Agardy et al. 2016). This and most remote locations. New issue is further explored below. The broad goal “to achieve long-term tools were required to conserve the conservation of nature” is what sets world’s oceans. Hence over the past All MPAs are not equal MPAs apart from other marine spatial twenty years we have seen the global management tools which focus coverage of MPAs increase from Each MPA can differ significantly in on protecting ecosystem services below 0.7% of the world’s oceans in the rules and regulations in place to or cultural values. For example, 2000, to 7.44% today (UNEP-WCMC achieve marine conservation. The a fisheries habitat or spawning and IUCN 2018). IUCN has created seven categories ground closure aims to conserve fish which describe the level of protection, productivity, an ecosystem service, Whilst the driving reasons behind the or conservation objectives, within an as the primary outcome. Similarly, creation of each MPA is unique to the MPA (Day et al. 2012). Categories a shipwreck preservation zone environmental, cultural and economic I-III are the most highly protected aims to conserve the cultural and context, the core goals are based and no extractive use of living or historical value associated with the around: dead material is allowable, hence shipwreck. Whilst the effective rules • Conservation of biodiversity they often referred to as “no-take” or “highly protected” MPAs (Table 1). and regulations of these types of • Protection of threatened or Category IV is aimed at protecting spatial management zones may be endangered species or ecosystems very similar to MPAs (e.g. prohibition some, but not all, species or habitats. • Conservation of ecosystem Hence there may be strict restrictions of fisheries, mining and coastal processes and services

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 6 on certain activities (e.g. allows line Table 1. IUCN MPA protection categories summarised from Day et al. (2012). fishing but not trawling) or allows the extraction of certain species and IUCN MPA Description Definition not others. Categories V-VI aim to Category preserve the established sustainable human interactions with the marine Ia Strict Nature Strictly protected areas set aside to protect environment, for example allowing Reserve biodiversity and also possibly geological/ artisan fishing but not industrial geomorphological features, where human activities or mining. visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled

An MPA can consist of a single Ib Wilderness Large unmodified or slightly modified areas, category or consist of many Area retaining their natural character and influence, separate zonings each with a without permanent or significant human different category. For example, habitation, which are protected and managed so many of Victoria’s MPAs are zoned as to preserve their natural condition only as Category II National Parks, while the Great Barrier Reef Marine II National Park Large natural or near natural areas set aside Park consists of eight protection to protect large-scale ecological processes, categories spread over scores of along with the complement of species and different parts of the park. Ninety-four ecosystems, which also provide a foundation percent of global MPAs allow fishing for environmentally and culturally compatible of some kind in some areas (Costello spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and and Ballantine 2015), and many do visitor opportunities not have no-take zones at all. For example, whilst Brazil’s MPAs cover III National Areas set aside to protect a specific natural 25% of their waters there are no areas Monument monument, which can be a landform, sea mount, that prevent fishing altogether (Giglio submarine caverns, geological feature such as et al. 2018). Less than 1% of the caves or even a living feature such as an ancient famed Galapagos Marine Park is no- grove. They are generally quite small protected take (Moity 2018). Therefore, the level areas and often have high visitor value of conservation benefits begins with IV Habitat/species Areas to protect particular species or habitats the zoning regime, with higher levels management area of protection against identified threats offering greater benefits. V Protected Areas safeguarded to conserve with significant seascape ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value Regardless of classification, however, for an MPA to be an VI Protected area Protected area with sustainable resource use effective conservation tool, rules and with sustainable Areas that conserve ecosystems and habitats regulations must be enforced and resource use together with associated cultural values and management plans acted on (Agardy traditional natural resource management systems et al. 2011). There is currently much conjecture over the effectiveness of many MPAs globally, which exist only as lines on the map, without regulation or action on the water (Watson et al. 2014). For example, a 2012 report found that only 1% of MPAs in the Coral Triangle (SE Asia) were effectively managed (Burke et al. 2012), and hence could enforce regulations and address threats. MPAs with adequate staff capacity have 2.9 times the ecological impact, highlighting the need for adequate investment in MPAs beyond their initial establishment (Gill et al. 2017). Mere lines on a map will not result in marine conservation.

Barwon Bluff Marine Sanctuary, Great Victorian Fish Count. Photo by Parks Victoria.

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 7 SECTION TWO

Benefits of Marine Protected Areas

“MPAs are not a panacea. They're not going to solve everything. But they're a powerful and underutilized tool.” JANE LUBCHENCO, FORMER HEAD OF NOAA

The reasons for establishing • Otway: South Australian border to • Twofold Shelf: Ninety-mile Beach to marine parks are many and Cape Otway the NSW border varied, and each jurisdiction • Central Victoria: Cape Otway to • Victorian Embayments: Port Phillip employs their own underlying Cape Liptrap Bay, , Corner Inlet goals and purposes to the MPA network. The benefits • Flinders: Cape Liptrap to the Recently these have been divided further can be broadly placed into western end of Ninety-mile Beach into biounits (refer to pages 17-18 for three different categories – (and including Wilsons Promontory) more information on biounits). conservation, economic and social. This report focuses on Table 2. The four key benefits of MPAs, their components, and the mechanisms behind them. the conservation benefits of MPA Benefit Mechanism Key study marine parks, although there is brief discussion of the fisheries Biodiversity • Prevent habitat destruction • Exclude major destructive activities Gaines et al. benefits, a subject that crosses protection • Prevent depletion of populations (e.g. mining, coastal development, 2010 destructive fishing) the boundaries between the Edgar et al. • Exclude minor destructive activities 2014 three categories. (e.g. human trampling, scuba diving) Conservation benefits of MPAs • Exclude harvesting of living can be put broadly into four organisms such as fishing different categories: Biodiversity Threatened • Prevent population decline of • Exclude harvesting (legal and illegal) Afonso et protection (including habitats), species threatened species • Prevent incidental harm by restricting al. 2011 conservation threatened species conservation, • Facilitate recovery of boating and recreational activity Williams et ecosystem and climate change populations (e.g. ship-strikes, habitat disturbance) al. 2015 • Prevent disturbance to • Protection of critical habitat Filby et al. resilience and spillover benefits critical behaviour 2017 (Table 2). • Exclusion of harmful activities from breeding ground To put this into context in • Reduce noise impacts by terms of the worthiness and restricting boating potential benefits of Victoria's • Exclude seismic testing activities marine environment protected • Regulate human tourism interactions in MPAs, according to the Ecosystem • Increased capacity to resist and • Higher genetic diversity in MPAs Munguia- Environment Conservation resilience recover from disturbance • MPAs support larger populations and Vega et al. Council’s 1999 report, there is • Recover from climate and maintain trophic diversity 2015 nowhere in Australia where there weather events • MPAs maintain ecosystem integrity Emslie et al. is ‘such a rich diversity of flora • Increase resilience to and stability 2016 and fauna, and cultural sites climate-driven ecosystem shifts • Presence of higher trophic levels in Ling et al. 2009 and landscapes, along such a • Increase resilience to MPAs resists invasion of climate- invasive species driven invasive species Ling and compact and easily accessible • Reduce incidence of • Restricting human interaction with the Johnson coastline’. This diversity includes biological invasions ecosystem e.g. reducing boat traffic 2012 intertidal, subtidal and deep • Mitigate climate change • Preservation of natural habitats Hopkins et reefs, seagrass beds, sheltered locks up carbon. Recovery of al. 2016 intertidal mudflats, mangroves habitats sequesters carbon and beaches, subtidal soft Spillover • Contribute to population growth • Larval transport from MPA to Harrison et substrates and pelagic (open Benefits in areas adjacent to MPA surrounding areas al. 2012 water) environments and • Increase numbers of exploited • Movement of individuals Diaz et al. are contained within five species in areas adjacent into adjacent areas due to 2016 marine bioregions: to MPA density-dependence

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 8 Monitoring effort and the publication The four key benefits are explored in • Greater size, adult abundancy and of scientific literature does not further detail here: occupancy rates for exploited fish show an even spread across the species in no-take Florida MPAs ten many benefits of MPAs. Instead we Biodiversity protection years after implementation (Ault et see a clear focus on assessing the al. 2013) effectiveness of MPAs relative to The evidence is compelling for the effectiveness of well-managed no- • Significantly high abundance fish assemblages and species of and larger sizes of four exploited interest to fisheries. This often occurs take reserves in maintaining higher adult abundances and larger sizes species in a NSW MPA after 14 even when these indicators are not years compared to outside, but no relevant to the initial reasons those of exploited organisms compared to areas open to exploitation (Lester difference for non-exploited fish MPAs were established. The focus on species (Malcolm et al. 2018) fish is due to both practical reasons et al. 2009, Fenberg et al. 2012, • Higher abundances of five of fish being easier to count than Edgar et al. 2014). Recent studies exploited fish families after 10 the plethora of benthic and cryptic supporting MPA benefits to exploited years protection in two NSW MPAs, species, and driven by the rewards of species from the past 10 years (2009- however the difference was only contributing to the ongoing polarising 2018) include: significant in one of the MPAs debate around fisheries benefits of • 2x large fish species, 5x more large (Harasti et al. 2018) MPAs. The benefits of biodiversity fish biomass and 14x more shark and ecosystem protection are widely biomass in large, isolated, well- • Significantly greater abundance of accepted and not often explored, enforced, well-established, no-take exploited kingfish in no-take marine while the areas of threatened species MPAs compared to non-MPAs in a reserves in NSW, but only on their conservation (mostly megafauna that global study (Edgar et al. 2014) favoured habitat of high complexity reefs (Rees et al. 2018) are not resident in MPAs), climate • 71% of over 218 MPAs studied change and resistance to invasive across the globe positively • Two exploited reef fish had species are difficult to quantify. influenced fish populations, significant higher abundances in a small NSW MPA that restricted Furthermore, most studies evaluate increasing fish biomass by 60%, across all geographies and habitats spearfishing after 12.5 years (Curley changes to marine life resulting et al. 2013) from the restriction of harvesting, (Gill et al. 2017) • Only no-take areas of a Mexican in most cases fishing. There is little • Abundance and biomass of adult MPA had higher abundances of reef to no literature on the role MPAs commercial fish species in Spanish fish after 15 years (Rife et al. 2013) have played in restricting mining or MPAs positively affected by MPA petroleum activities, port construction protection, but not juveniles or larval • Higher species diversity and more or coastal fringe development. stages (Felix-Hackradt 2018) larger individuals of commercially As highlighted previously, MPAs • Higher fish abundance and size in targeted fish inside Philippines provide major benefits in restricting Azores MPAs, but only for species MPAs (Muallil et al. 2015) devastating activities that involve with larger maximum size and • Significantly higher biomass and the wholesale destruction of marine lower mobility, and only in reserves abundance of coral trout species habitats. The value of such protection with high compliance levels (Afonso in an 11 year old no-take MPA in cannot be easily quantified, as they et al. 2018) Malaysia (Chen Chung et al. 2017) involve preventing activities that • 12x number grey reef sharks after • Higher abundances of heavily are yet to, or may now never, be eight years MPA protection on exploited fish inside Belize MPAs, undertaken. This is of particular Ashmore reef, and a shift to more but lower abundances of other importance in the developing apex predators (Speed et al. 2018) fishes and corals (Karnauskas and world, which are often more reliant Babcock 2014) economically on resource extraction • Re-establishment of natural • Higher abundance of exploited and lack other forms of regulation population dynamics of lobster in limpets in MPAs in Italy (Marra et al. (Marinesque et al. 2012). It is a Spanish MPA after 25 years, with 2017) important not to lose sight of such significantly greater size , biomass critical benefits, when public debate is and fecundity than fished areas focused on secondary benefits such (Diaz et al. 2016) as fisheries productivity.

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 9 Lonsdale Wall, in Port Phillip Heads Marine National park. Photo by Shannon Hurley.

There are examples of where benefits • A comprehensive review of 149 In addition to the important to exploited organisms have not been studies of 124 different MPAs biodiversity benefits in protecting observed, and these are related to across 29 countries found that ecosystems from destructive specific management failings such total average organism biomass activities such as coastal as poor enforcement (Pieraccini et al. was 446% greater, density 166% development and mining, MPAs can 2017), economic traits such as high higher, size 28% bigger and also protect habitats from minor value species that encourage illegal species richness 21% greater human impacts such as trampling poaching, and for low-productivity (Lester et al. 2009). The benefits or scuba diving. Both seagrass beds species that are not given enough time were consistently higher for (Travaille et al. 2015) and intertidal to recover (Ban et al. 2017). Highly exploited organisms and highest algae (Addison et al. 2015) can be mobile species that spend only a small for fishes and invertebrates, in significantly impacted by trampling, part of their time within the boundaries particular lobsters, crabs and and MPAs can regulate to reduce of MPAs are also not likely to receive intertidal molluscs (Lester et al. these impacts. much benefit of MPA protection 2009). (Pilyugin et al. 2016), unless there • A review focused on the Threatened species is regional cooperation in designing benefits of MPAs to primary conservation reserves (Breen et al. 2015). However, producers and herbivores found MPAs deliver positive benefits to very large and old MPAs such as the mixed results stemming from threatened species populations when Galapagos MPA (created 20 years complex interactions within each the threatened species is at risk from ago), have increased tuna fisheries ecosystem (Gilby and Stevens activities that the MPA can regulate. productivity for migratory yellowfin and 2014). The clear majority of coral For example, a small MPA in Portugal skipjack tuna (Bucaram et al. 2018). reef MPAs had less algae and effectively conserved populations of urchins, however no differences The benefits of MPAs to non-exploited endangered dusky groper that was at were detected in kelp/algal MPAs. organisms, or non-targeted life stages risk from illegal fishing (Afonso et al. of exploited organisms is context • More complex habitats and higher 2011). Most listed endangered marine dependent. Not all species will benefit abundance of associated fauna species are megafauna, however, from no-take reserve protection, such (macroalgae, sponges, hydroids, with very large migratory and foraging as algae and slow-growing stony featherstars and others) detected ranges. This presents a significant corals (Lester et al. 2009), or prey of in MPAs in the UK compared issue in adequately protecting enough heavily exploited species (Harasti to surrounding fishing grounds of their range to be effective (Hays et al. 2014). However, given the (Howarth et al. 2015), attributed et al. 2016). MPAs are therefore large benefits provided to exploited to reduced disturbance from targeted on areas of intense threats organisms the overall benefit of MPAs fishing. However, there were no or necessary for critical life stages, can still be evident when considering differences in mobile fauna such e.g. breeding grounds (Lascelles et all species within an ecosystem. as crabs and starfish between al. 2012). Very large MPAs could be The following studies investigated MPAs and fished areas. based around migratory routes which species and communities beyond are often similar for many species those exploited: (Pendoley et al. 2014). Megafauna such as dolphins, seals, effective for removing invasive kelp whales and seabirds, can be negatively Ecosystem resilience and in small Tasmanian MPAs (Hewitt affected by intensive interactions with climate change et al. 2005) and is currently being human tourism which disrupt natural The biodiversity and habitat undertaken in Victoria’s MPAs (Ricketts behaviours (Ashe et al. 2009, Velando protection benefits provided by Point and Nooramunga Marine and and Munilla 2011). MPAs can exclude MPAs can increase the resistance Coastal Park) to remove a native pest tourism vessels in critical feeding or (the capacity to withstand sea urchin species (French 2018). social areas, such as those proposed impacts) and resilience (the Marine reserves can foster high genetic by scientists for the Burranan dolphins capacity to recover from impacts) in Port Phillip Bay (Filby et al. 2017). diversity than fished areas (Munguia- to many human-induced threats Restrictions on boating in MPAs also Vega et al. 2015), resulting in greater (Hopkins et al. 2016). In preserving has the potential to reduce boat strikes tolerance within the population to natural food webs and trophic on threatened species such as turtles disturbance, and ability to recover balance, MPAs can also help resist (Denkinger et al. 2013). At present few under a variety of changed conditions disturbances such as biological MPAs restrict recreational boating, (Almany et al. 2009). This includes invasion. In the Bahamas, high however this could be an effective the threat of climate change and the abundances of exploited grouper in strategy for turtle foraging sites in critical ability of marine ecosystems MPAs better excluded the invasive places like the Galapagos (Dekinger to resist and recover from the effects lionfish and acted as an effective et al. 2013). (McLeod et al. 2009). Larger population natural bio-predator (Mumby et sizes and species diversity can result MPAs have the potential to be “noise al. 2011). However, despite these in greater genetic tolerance within refuges” for organisms that rely on specific examples there is also those groups to extreme heat or pH acoustic cues to communicate and evidence that many invasive associated with ocean warming and navigate (Williams et al. 2015). By species do equally well or better acidification. Preserving the genetic reducing or excluding ship traffic in within marine reserves (Burfeind diversity will promote the resilience of MPAs, noise can be mitigated, and et al. 2013). MPA management the ecosystems, the ability to bounce stress reduced on threatened or plans can also trigger on-ground back after the heat or acid intolerant protected species such as whales, management options such as individuals have been lost (e.g. for dolphins and seals. Seismic testing is the physical removal of invasive corals: Baskett et al. 2009, Palumbi also a threat to many megafauna that species. This approach has been et al. 2014). rely on acoustic signalling (Thompson et al. 2013), with MPAs potentially providing clear benefits in reducing Burrunan dolphin (Tursiops Australis), endemic to Southern Australian waters, mining and oil exploration activities primarily from Port Phillip Bay and Gippsland Lakes. Photo taken by Nicole Filby (Gomez et al. 2017). at the southern end of Port Phillip Bay.

Protection from fishing under MPAs can, however, have unintended negative consequences for some protected species through trophic cascades. Abundance of the protected White’s seahorse in NSW MPAs were lower than outside, attributed to the higher abundance of predators in the MPAs (Harasti et al. 2014). Protection had resulted in the increase in exploited species, but not in non-exploited species that are threatened by external pressures that MPAs cannot effectively mitigate. Similar negative effects of protection were observed in an Indonesian MPA, where over-abundant turtles caused loss of seagrass habitat through overgrazing (Christianen et al. 2014), however this effect may be facilitated by the failure to curb threats on turtle predators. These results do not discredit MPAs however, they instead enforce the call for MPAs to be used in tandem with other approaches to achieve effective marine conservation.

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 11 The ubiquitous impact of a changing • In the Great Barrier Reef, while Given that the majority of MPAs global climate proposes a significant MPAs could not protect against the globally are not no-take (Costello conservation challenge for MPA coral habitat destruction caused by and Ballantine 2015), many are likely management. Climate change a severe tropical cyclone, exploited not supporting significantly higher impacts in MPAs are predicted coral trout fish populations in population densities and biomass of to be greater than those for land- MPAs did not decline compared to exploited organisms, and spillover based impacts and ocean impacts significant declines in unprotected may not be as common as scientific combined (Mach et al. 2017 ). MPAs areas (Emslie et al. 2016) literature would suggest (Di Lorenzo can be a conservation tool for climate • MPAs in eastern Tasmania et al. 2016). change resilience in a number of supported greater abundances of A large, old, well-enforced, no-take different ways: 1) Preventing carbon large exploited lobsters, which could MPA with surrounding heavily fished emissions from marine habitat loss, prey on and control the invasive sea areas are very likely to provide 2) sequestering carbon through urchin, which is extending its range spillover benefits for exploited habitat repair, 3) affect climatic southward via climate change (Ling species. A 25 year old no-take reserve interactions, 4) conserving ecosystem et al. 2009, Ling and Johnston in Spain demonstrated spillover of integrity to resist invasive species 2012) favoured by climate change and 5) small adult lobsters to adjacent fished provide a refuge for habitats that alter MPAs also have the potential to areas, as lobsters grew much larger distribution in response to climate reduce the likelihood of invasive in the MPA and are territorial (Diaz change (Hopkins et al. 2016). species invasion by limiting the et al. 2016). Spillover can also occur human interactions with the through larval transport from MPAs, Traditional MPAs can only contribute ecosystem. Recreational boating as demonstrated on the Great Barrier in a small way to reduce the direct and commercial shipping are the key Reef, where 83% of coral trout and impacts of climate change, such as vectors of introduction (Murray et al. 55% of stripey snapper in fished areas ocean warming, acidification and 2011), and hence excluding fishing were sourced from MPAs, despite rising seas level (Keller et al. 2009) boat traffic or removing shipping MPAs only accounting for 28% of the and therefore needs to be paired with lanes will reduce the incidence of total reef area (Harrison et al. 2012). significant emissions reductions. invasion. However, spillover does not work Such change is occurring on a global for all species with a larval stage, scale that must be addressed via Spillover benefits as demonstrated by the absence of significant emissions reductions. spillover benefits for mussels in South However, MPAs can play a role in Spillover is broadly defined as African MPAs, despite high adult this, by ensuring carbon is not further the net movement of organisms abundance and larval production in released into the atmosphere by from MPAs into areas where they MPAs (Cole et al. 2011). preventing habitat change, and in benefit humans, most often through sequestering carbon through the fishing (Di Lorenzo et al. 2016). For Bio-economic modelling studies natural cycles of vegetative growth spillover to occur, the MPA firstly have demonstrated the potential for and burial in ecosystems such as must be effective in rebuilding and spillover fisheries benefits of MPAs mangroves, saltmarsh and seagrass supporting large fecund populations in the medium to long term (Cuervo- (Hopkins et al. 2016). of organisms which, through density- Sanchez et al. 2018), however there dependence (i.e. higher numbers is evidence to show that this can Examples of MPAs providing greater inside than outside), can transport only occur in areas of poor fisheries resistance and resilience to climate offspring or adults to surrounding management and overexploited change include the following studies areas. In a review of 85 studies stocks (Buxton et al. 2014). from the past ten years: investigating spillover effects of Biophysical modelling studies have predicted that spill-over would occur • By fostering larger individuals than MPAs, 80% were found to show a for species that receive protection and outside, MPAs can better resist spillover benefit (Di Lorenzo et al. benefit from MPAs, but only at a small climate-driven mass mortality 2016). Without further study, this scale up to 800m away from the events, such as observed in Mexico result cannot be generalised to all MPA (Halpern et al. 2010a). Similar where abalone in MPAs survived MPAs. All but one study reported a local-scale benefits are predicted a hypoxia event because of their recovery of populations inside the using ecosystem models (Colleter et larger size and better health (Micheli MPA, meaning that these MPAs likely al 2014), however the spillover was et al. 2012). These large individuals met the criteria (identified in Section predicted to around the same as that also had greater egg producing Three) that make an effective MPA. lost from not fishing in the MPAs. capacity, and could replenish surrounding non-MPA areas after the mortality event

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 12 SECTION THREE

Global targets: how is Australia and Victoria tracking?

International benchmarks as no-take MPAs, but set no deadline regional scale rather than the scale to achieve the target, instead seeing of single MPAs (Mach et al. 2017). Global targets for MPA coverage have it as an ambitious end-goal (WPC been in place since 2006, when the 2014), similar to the IUCN World In recent research by O’Leary et. Al, (2016) , the authors analysed Convention on Biological Diversity Conservation Congress in Hawaii 144 studies to determine called for MPAs on 10% of the world’s (2016), which recommended at whether international targets oceans by 2012. However, this target least 30% in MPAs with a long-term for marine conservation were was not met and by 2012 only 2.3% ambition that it be all no-take. of the global ocean was designated ‘adequate to achieve, maximize, or MPAs (Spalding and Hale 2016). A While the Aichi Target 11 could optimize six environmental and/ revision of the approach led to the be considered a softening of the or socioeconomic objectives’. development of the “Aichi Target 11” definition and dilution of protection They concluded that: ‘Results consistently indicate that protecting in 2010: targets, the decision brings to the fore several tens-of-percent of the sea the importance of a broader marine “By 2020, at least 17 per is required to meet goals1 (average spatial management system which cent of terrestrial and inland 37%, median 35%, modal group includes traditional MPAs (Spalding water areas and 10 per cent 21–30%), greatly exceeding the of coastal and marine areas, and Hale 2016). The most highly 2.18% currently protected and the especially areas of particular protected MPA may be ineffective 10% target. ‘The objectives we importance for biodiversity if major threats external to the MPA examined were met in 3% of studies and ecosystem services, are boundaries go unaddressed (Agardy with ≤10% MPA coverage, 44% with conserved through effectively et al. 2011, Kearney et al. 2012, ≤30% coverage, and 81% with more and equitably managed, Stafford et al. 2016). Pressures such than half the sea protected. The ecologically representative as sedimentation and nutrients from UN’s 10% target appears insufficient and well-connected systems land runoff, and invasive species and to protect biodiversity, preserve of protected areas and other pollution stemming from shipping ecosystem services, and achieve effective area-based conservation and ports are better addressed at the socioeconomic priorities’. measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape” (Convention on Biological Seagrasses are one of Diversity) the most rapidly declining ecosystems on Earth. They provide one of the highest This extended the 10% target until values of non-commercial 2020 and broadened the definition ecosystem services by of what could be considered an Victoria’s coastal habitats, MPA to include other types of spatial but are not adequately protected in Victoria’s marine management and conservation protected areas network. measures. Photo: Shannon Hurley, Seagrass meadow This loosening of the definition of in Ricketts Point what constitutes an MPA led to Marine Sanctuary. widespread backlash amongst many scientists, some calling for the term MPA to be abandoned (Costello and Ballantine 2015), and others proposing more ambitious targets focused on no-take areas. The 2014 World Parks Congress called for 30% of the world’s oceans to be managed

1 The six goals are: (1) protect biodiversity; (2) ensure population connectivity among MPAs; (3) minimize the risk of fisheries/population collapse and ensure population persistence; (4) mitigate the adverse evolutionary effects of fishing; (5) maximize or optimize fisheries value or yield; and (6) satisfy multiple stakeholders (i.e., studies contain analyses designed to identify the required percentage coverage to minimize trade-offs between stakeholders and maximize value.

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 13 independent source, the Atlas of Marine There is great disparity in the size of The global coverage of Protection maintained by the Marine MPAs globally. More than half of the MPAs in 2018 Conservation Institute (MCI 2018), world’s MPAs are less than 10km2 in instead calculates total MPA coverage size, and the 20 largest comprise 60% The official August 2018 United at 3.7% of the global ocean and only of total area (MCI 2018). These large Nations figure for the global coverage 2% which is strongly protected (defined MPAs are mostly in isolated areas and of MPAs that fall under the Aichi 11 as no-take or heavily restricted take, are widely criticised (Singleton and definition is 29,945,395km2, or 7.44% effectively IUCN categories I-III). The Roberts 2014) for being declared in of the world’s oceans, spread across remaining 3.7% of the UN-IUCN figure the overseas territories of developed 15,334 MPAs (UNEP-WCMC and is made up of legally designated but countries to deflect attention from IUCN 2018). However, accurately unimplemented MPAs and proposed MPAs at home (Jones and De Santo calculating the area of the global MPAs (Table 3). 2016) and to quickly meet their ocean meaningfully protected by contribution to the global target. Whilst MPAs (i.e. not “paper parks”) is a Most MPAs exist in national waters, with large remote MPAs do protect vast difficult exercise and several differing 17.3 % of waters under the jurisdiction areas of lightly impacted “wilderness” figures exist. Differences arise of individual countries either currently areas (Graham and McLanahan by alternative interpretations of a or proposed to be protected. By 2013), they do not necessarily provide minimum acceptable protection level, comparison, only 1.2% of the high seas, a good representation of ecosystems, and in differentiating the implemented or international waters, are protected habitats, climates and levels of human and “working” MPAs from those that (UNEP and IUCN 2018). Closing the interaction (Spalding and Hale 2016). are only designated or proposed. gap on high seas protection represents Whilst the Aichi 11 targets aims for The current UN and IUCN figures the biggest challenge for meeting the good representation of bioregions are thought to be over-optimistic global Aichi 11 target (Spalding and and species coverage in MPAs, there and do include many proposed Hale 2016), as it requires international is an over-representation of coral but not yet functioning MPAs (MCI agreement at the level of the UN or reef systems in the tropics and rocky 2018). An internationally recognised regional fisheries management groups. reef systems in temperate areas. In 2013, only 32% of coastal and shelf Table 3: Percentage of the global ocean protected by MPAs. Designated MPAs bioregions and 5% of the pelagic are those that are gazetted but do not have functioning management plans. bioregions achieved the target 10% Data taken from the Atlas of Marine Protection (MCI 2018). MPA coverage (Butchart et al. 2015). Species protection was significantly No-take Other Designated Proposed skewed towards stony corals (78% TOTAL MPAs MPAs MPAs MPAs of species have 10% of their range in MPAs) and bony fishes (47% of Percentage species have 10% range in MPAs), of Global with no other group having greater 2.0 1.7 1.8 2.0 7.44 ocean than 25% of species meeting the Aichi protected target (Butchart et al. 2015).

Barr et (2011) found that ‘73% of countries have inequitably protected their biodiversity and that common measures of protected area coverage do not adequately reveal this bias…leaving many vulnerable species and habitats with little or no formal protection’ . For MPAs to be successful, and after reviewing 87 across the globe, Edgar et al (2014) found that they had to be no take, well enforced, old, large and isolated.

Blue Devil Fish, Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park. Photo by Shannon Hurley.

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 14 Table 4: Five countries with the largest areas of current, designated and Ninety-eight percent of Australia’s total proposed MPAs globally, and global MPA total. Data for total area derived from MPA area lies in Commonwealth Waters UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2018) and highly protected MPAs from (MCI 2018). (and Commonwealth managed areas of the Great Barrier Reef), with the Country Total Area % of Area of % remainder spread across various state and MPAs jurisdiction “highly Jurisdiction Northern Territory waters (Table 5). Not (million km2) protected” “highly all jurisdictions meet the Aichi Target 11 – MPAs protected” Northern Territory and Tasmania each have (million km2) MPAs less than 10% of their waters protected in MPAs, and none meets the ambitious 30% USA 5.1 42 2.8 23 no-take target proposed by the World Parks Congress and IUCN, with Qld having the France 3.4 35 0.1 1 highest no-take representation at 14% of territorial waters. Northern Territory lags all Australia 3.3 36 0.9 10 other states and territories in having only Great Britain 2.8 41 1.5 23 two MPAs, one with a no-take zone while the other awaits a management plan and the New Zealand 1.2 28 0.1 1 assignment of zones (as of August 2018) Australia has good representation of its GLOBAL 29.9 7.4 8.1 2 bioregions meeting the 10% Aichi target (Roberts et al. 2018). Only five of the 41 bioregions (12%) had less than 10% MPA MPAs in Australia coverage, most of these in the South- east. Eight bioregions were extremely well Thirty-six percent of Australia’s total networks are ‘residual’, that is, located represented with over 50% coverage in territorial waters are designated an in areas remote from economic MPAs, most of these in the Great Barrier MPA with some level of protection. interest with fewer conservation Reef region. The level of protection is not If the Antarctic territories are not benefits than if they were located in so well distributed, however, with 61% of considered, this figure is 40%. This is exploited areas. This review preceded bioregions having less than 10% of their one of the highest representations in the recent reductions in no-take zones. area in no-take zones (Roberts et al. 2018). the world and well exceeds the global Aichi target. Data from the World Bank places Australia ninth globally in Table 5: Number and area of MPAs as defined under Aichi target 11, by state and percentage coverage (sixth if nations territory. Note that there is some overlap in MPAs between jurisdictions the area total with extremely small marine area are for Australia marked with an * is not the direct sum of the figures presented. Total MPA excluded) and third in total area behind area and no-take data taken from CAPAD 2016 (Australian Government Department USA and France (World Bank 2018). of the Environment and Energy 2017), using IUCN categories I, II and III, except for However when looking at “highly Commonwealth no-take areas which were sourced from Parks Australia shapefiles protected” MPAs, the figure drops to that reflect the 2018 Commonwealth management plan revisions (Australian Marine 10% of Australia’s jurisdiction. Parks 2018).** Calculations for total jurisdiction include both Australian national waters and overseas territories (8,148,250km² - Geosciences Australia 2018). If the Antarctic The Atlas for Marine Protection (MCI territories are included the total area is totalling 9,081,035km² and the total Australian 2018) considers less than a third of MPA coverage is lower at 36%, and no-take MPAs 8.5%. Data on MPAs can vary from Australia’s designated MPAs to meet state to state, and can be difficult to determine comparability. For example, if the the criteria for effective protection. Macquarie Island MPAs (which are well away from the Tasmania mainland) are removed This is likely due to the recent from the Tasmania figures, then the percentage of no-take area would be lower at 1.1%) upheaval of the Commonwealth MPA Management Plans, which were Jurisdiction No. of Total MPA % of Area of no- % suspended and reviewed between (State/Territory/ MPAs Area (km2) jurisdiction take MPA Jurisdiction 2014 and 2018, significantly altering Common- in MPAs (km2, IUCN no-take the internal boundaries and protection wealth) categories I-III) levels (reduced from 14% to 10% no- take). Hence most Commonwealth Commonwealth 62 3,177,677 39.0 804,807 10.4 MPAs were considered “Paper QLD 90 62,772 51.5 17,019 14.0 parks” during this period. The new SA 50 27,130 45.2 7,444 12.4 management plans came into force on July 1st 2018 and as of August WA 39 25,197 21.8 12,474 10.8 2018 figures from the Atlas for Marine NSW 18 3,489 39.6 666 7.6 Protection have not been updated NT 2 2,906 4.1 650 <1.0 to include the new protection levels. TAS 71 1,567 7.0 1,365 6.1 Devillers et al (2014) argue that the VIC 30 1,060 10.6 531 5.3 new Commonwealth marine parks TOTAL 362 3,254,350* 35.8** 845,995 9.3**

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 15 16% Marine protected area 14% (no-take) areas compared 12% 10%

by state/territory 8%

6%

4%

TOTAL 2%

0% 10.4% WA NT SA QLD NSW VIC TAS of commonwealth waters in no-take areas

<1.0% of territory waters in no-take areas 14.0% of state waters in 10.8% no-take areas of state waters in no-take areas 12.4% of state waters in no-take areas 7.6% of state waters in no-take areas

5.3% of state waters in no-take areas

Victoria has the second lowest % of state waters as no-take marine protected areas 6.1% of state waters in no-take areas

Table 5: No-take data taken from CAPAD 2016 (Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy 2017), using IUCN categories I, II and III, except for Commonwealth no-take areas which were sourced from Parks Australia shapefiles that reflect the 2018 Commonwealth management plan revisions (Australian Marine Parks 2018). If the Antarctic territories are included the coverage is lower at 8.5% no-take. Data on MPAs can vary from state to state, and can be difficult to determine comparability. For example, if the Macquarie Island MPAs (which are well away from the Tasmania mainland) are removed from the Tasmania figures, then the percentage of no-take area would be lower at 1.1%).

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 16 Environment Conservation Council’s NRSMPA’s key principles of Highly and partially 1999 marine investigation, while the comprehensiveness, adequacy and protected MPAs in Victoria other six MPAs (IUCN VI) followed representativeness. Conducted recommendations of the Land for the VNPA’s 2014 Nature It is now 17 years since Victoria Conservation Council’s 1982 South conservation review, in summary established what was the world’s first Gippsland investigation in 1986 Edmunds et al. (2010) found for highly protected network of marine and 1991. each marine bioregion: national parks and sanctuaries. But as the years have passed it has In total, the state’s 30 MPAs cover Otway: the bioregion’s four become recognised as inadequate 1061 km2 of Victorian coastal waters, marine protected areas were and other Australian jurisdictions have the smallest area of any state or representative of consolidated surpassed it. territory in Australia. Victoria also has and unconsolidated substrata but neither adequate nor Although the Northern Territory the second-smallest area of no-take MPAs (after the Northern Territory comprehensive due to limited continue to struggle with marine areas of intertidal, subtidal conservation and trails Victoria, the (Table 5), and the second-smallest area of coastal waters (after NSW). and deep reef in Discovery Australian Government and states of Bay MNP and subtidal reefs in Western Australia, South Australia and Table 6 lists Victoria’s 24 highly Merri MS, and the absence of Queensland are well ahead, and even protected and six partially protected seagrass habitats in the parks. New South Wales has covered more MPAs, along with their area and of its waters in MPAs. Central Victoria: considered percentage coverage. The highly representative of consolidated protected network covers 530 km2 or Australia’s state jurisdictions have and unconsolidated substrata, roughly 5.3% of coastal waters. When opted for creating multi-zoned and comprehensive for four the terrestrial components of Shallow marine parks but with core areas of five biounits (deep reefs Inlet (20% terrestrial), Corner Inlet given high-level protection (IUCN I, and offshore sediments (10%) and Nooramunga (40%) marine IA, II and III). Western Australia has a off Mornington Peninsula and coastal parks are excluded, the network of MPAs that covers 40% of were largely missing, along six partially protected MPAs cover its waters with almost 11% in no-take, with Western Port entrance 530.8 km2 or roughly 5.3% of coastal Queensland 50% with 14% no-take, seagrass and shallow reef waters. Together, the two MPA and South Australia 45% with 12.4% habitats). The assessment groups cover 10.6% of coastal waters. as no-take. With the proclamation of of adequacy was mixed, with the Australian Marine Parks Network the entirety of some habitats in 2012, 40% of Commonwealth The six partially protected MPAs in , lack goals, included, such as in Point waters are now covered by MPAs with Addis MNP and Port Phillip 10% no-take. By comparison, Victoria objectives, management plans and systematic monitoring. Although they Heads MNP, while others were has only 12% of its waters in its MPA missing, such as subtidal reefs network and just 5.3% as no-take. are assigned IUCN VI, which qualifies them as MPAs under the lowest in Marengo MS, and some Internationally, the UN’s Sustainable global benchmark, the Aichi Target 11 patchy as at Eagle Rock MS. Development Goal 14, ‘Conserve and of 10%, they allow recreational and Flinders: the four sustainably use the oceans, seas, and commercial fishing and it could be marine protected areas marine resources’ has set the bare argued that they are parks in name comprehensively covered minimum for high-level protection at only or ‘paper parks’. the two Wilsons Promontory 10% of marine habitats, double the biounits but not the offshore Victorian percentage, while the long- When the 10.6% figure is further biounit and were not term aspiration of the IUCN is for at analysed, most are within the considered representative. The least 30% in no-take. Victorian Embayments (Corner level of protection afforded by Inlet and Nooramunga marine and the three multiple use areas, There are 30 MPAs in Victoria’s coastal parks) and Flinders (Wilsons and thus their adequacy, was coastal waters, comprising 24 highly Promontory marine national park, unclear. protected or no-take marine national marine park and marine reserve) parks and sanctuaries, along with marine bioregions. The Otway, Central Twofold Shelf: data limitations six marine parks, marine and coastal and Twofold Shelf marine bioregions for the Ninety-mile Beach MNP parks and one marine reserve that have MPA coverage ranging from prevented a full assessment are partially protected. All Victorian 4-6%, mostly no-take. They fail across the region and one no-take Marine National Parks to meet the lowest international of the four biounits (isolated (IUCN II) and Marine Sanctuaries benchmark, Aichi Target 11. islands and deep shelf) was not (IUCN III) were declared at the included in a park. The other same time in November 2002 after A 2010 review of Victoria’s MPAs three MNPs were assessed as recommendations contained in the found that they did not meet the representative and adequate.

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 17 Victorian Embayments: contains values in the marine environment marine national parks will be created. 10 marine protected areas and to assist in the development of VEAC will be requested to undertake six biounits, two of which have any future spatial planning for the this assessment.” no park coverage (King, which marine environment. The review includes the Gippsland lakes, will not include recommendations Furthermore, both the 2013 and 2018 and Minor Inlets, which include to expand Victoria’s marine Victorian State of the Environment Mallacoota Inlet). Not assessed protected area system. It is current reports highlighted the limited protection as comprehensive, adequate government policy that no new afforded by the current MPAs. nor representative due to the exclusion of some habitats, such as channels, seagrasses, sponge Table 6: Details of Victorian Marine Protected Areas clump communities, brachiopods (lampshells or ‘living fossils’), Park Name Total Area No-take area Area low-level Barrallier Island and Crawfish (km2) (km2, IUCN protection Rock, and some boundaries categories II-III) (km2, IUCN bisecting habitats rather than category VI) including them entirely, with continued use of the habitat Marine National parks and sanctuaries (no-take) outside the boundary exerting Barwon Bluff MS 0.16 0.16 0 pressure on the portion inside Beware Reef MS 2.2 2.2 0 the boundary. Bunurong MNP 20.5 20.5 0 Most recently, the biounits referred to Cape Howe MNP 40.5 40.5 0 above have been refined by Edmunds MNP 6.7 6.7 0 et al. (2018) and include 21 across Corner Inlet MNP 14.1 14.1 0 state waters. Future reviews against Discovery Bay MNP 28.3 28.3 0 the NRSMPA’s key principles should Eagle Rock MS 0.2 0.2 0 be based on these 21 biounits. MNP 29.8 29.8 0 The Victorian Environment Jawbone MS 0.3 0.3 0 Assessment Council (VEAC) in 2017 Marengo Reefs MS 0.1 0.1 0 concluded that the “existing system of no-take marine protected areas Merri MS 0.3 0.3 0 has some gaps in representation, Mushroom Reef MS 0.6 0.6 0 and individual marine protected Ninety Mile Beach MNP 26.5 26.5 0 areas may not meet the adequacy Pt Addis MNP 44.1 44.1 0 criterion”. VEAC’s recommendation Pt Cooke MS 2.9 2.9 0 to the Victorian Government was for “Victoria’s marine environment be Pt Danger MS 0.2 0.2 0 reviewed for the comprehensiveness, Pt Hicks MNP 38 38 0 adequacy and representativeness Port Phillip Heads 34.7 34.7 0 of its marine protected areas when Ricketts Pt MS 1.2 1.2 0 current work on marine habitat The Arches MS 0.5 0.5 0 mapping and classification is completed and available.” Twelve Apostles MNP 75.1 75.1 0 Wilsons Promontory MNP 155.9 155.9 0 The government’s response claims Yaringa MNP 7.8 7.8 0 to accept this recommendation, yet waters it down to merely a values TOTAL 530.8 530.8 0 assessment of the broader marine Marine parks, marine and coastal parks and marine reserve (partial protection) environment, and says it is not to Bunurong MP1 2.6 0 12.6 include any recommendations for Corner Inlet M&CP 257.1* 0 257.1 new area of marine protection. Nooramunga M&CP 182.9** 0 183 “The government accepts this Wilsons Promontory MP 55.6 0 55.6 recommendation. The government Wilsons Promontory MR 6.3 0 6.3 acknowledges that information from M&CP 15.8*** 0 15.8 this review will support better policy TOTAL 530.3 0 530.3 and planning decisions for the marine environment. This review could form GRAND TOTAL 1,060.1 530.8 530.3 part of a broader assessment of */**/***Less terrestrial component (10% Corner Inlet; 20% Shallow Inlet; 40% Nooramunga (see VEAC marine investigation)

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 18 Composite image: Eastern Blue Groper, photo by Sarah Speight; Baitfish at Rye Pier, photo by David Bryant.

Marine National Parks and Sanctuaries in Victoria Mallacoota 2 akes Entrance Melbourne 12 22 23 11 13 Geelong Portland 16 Warrnambool 1 1 1 Anglesea 2 Seaspra 1 Port Campbell 6 1 Wonthaggi 21 Apollo Ba 3 1 2 MARINE 1 NATIONA PARS

MARINE SANCTUARIES 1 iscover Ba Marine National Park Whale nursery ground

Twelve Apostles Marine National Park Rugged cliffs and spectacular rock stacks 2 Merri Marine Sanctuar Little Penguins roost and breed on the islands within Point Addis Marine National Park Haunt of the mysterious Weedy Sea Dragon 3 The Arches Marine Sanctuar Spectacular underwater limestone formations 1 Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park Internationally recognised dive and snorkel sites, Marengo Rees Marine Sanctuar made up of six separate marine areas Two small reefs featuring seaweed gardens and sponge gardens 1 Churchill Island Marine National Park Significant roosting and breeding sites for migratory birds 6 Eagle Rock Marine Sanctuar Kelp forests with a variety of seastars, 16 aringa National Park crabs and sea anemones Mangroves and mudflats important for migratory birds and juvenile fish Point anger Marine Sanctuar Limestone reef filled high diversity of 1 French Island Marine National Park weird and wonderful critters Part of Western Ports significant Ramsar-listed wetlands Barwon Blu Marine Sanctuar 1 Bunurong Marine National Park Lava flow formed basalt reefs Exploration of intertidal platforms and rock pools with bull kelp and schooling fish

1 Wilsons Promontor Marine National Park 11 Point Cooke Marine Sanctuar Underwater caves and sponge gardens Diversity of sponges, sea-urchins, crustaceans, sharks and skates

2 Corner Inlet Marine National Parks 12 Jawbone Marine Sanctuar The only extensive beds of Posidonia seagrass in Victoria The largest occurrence of mangroves in Port Phillip Bay

21 Ninet Mile Beach Marine National Park 13 Ricketts Point Marine Sanctuar Vast underwater plains rich in sea life Rockpool and snorkelers wonderland

23 Point Hicks Marine National Park 1 Mushroom Ree Marine Sanctuar Spectacular sub-tidal reef Diverse intertidal rocky reef communities

2 Cape Howe Marine National Park 22 Beware Ree Marine Sanctuar Where many species from warmer northern Tremendous biodiveristy of fish, corals species waters reach their southern limits

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 19 A major investigation into the As Edgar et al. pointed out, the marine environment”. The report performance of Victoria’s MPAs was level of protection is critical to recommended that management conducted by the Victorian Environmental the success of MPAs. Partial plans and research strategies be Assessment Council in 2014 (VEAC 2014). protection, which is the basis of prepared, and goals and objectives The report clarifies a number of key points the six MPAs in South Gippsland, is be developed for the partially regarding Victoria’s MPAs, including: seen as having fewer conservation protected MPAs. benefits than no-take protection • Primary purpose of Victoria’s no- (Denny and Babcock 2004; Shears take MPAs is to maintain biodiversity Marine v terrestrial et al. 2006; Lester and Halpern and ecological processes for future protected areas 2008; Franco et al. 2009; Sciberras generations. The areas were not et al. 2015). Sciberras et al. (2015) Although it is Australia’s most cleared designed to rehabilitate biodiversity concluded that: “while [partially state, Victoria has a proud record in or fish stocks protected areas] PPAs significantly developing its conservation estate, • There is no legal framework for enhance density and biomass dating back to 1892 when the first the multiple use MPAs, hindering of fish relative to Open areas, conservation reserve was created effective planning [no-take reserves] NTRs yielded at Tower Hill (most of its native • Marine pests and oil spills identified as significantly higher biomass of fish vegetation was gone, however), the biggest threats to Victorian MPAs within their boundaries relative to followed by lands set aside for • Many threats are externals to PPAs” …and… “MPAs with partial national parks at Wilsons Promontory Victorian MPAs and require protection confer advantages, such and Mount Buffalo in 1898. All told co-operation and action of multiple as enhanced density and biomass there are now 45 national parks agencies and stakeholders of fish, compared to areas with no covering 12.75% of the state, with restrictions, although the strongest another 4.5% in other conservation • The major habitats and ecosystems reserves. Because of its development and natural values within Victorian responses occurred for areas with total exclusion.” history, only 37% of Victoria’s MPAs have persisted terrestrial lands remain in public • A detailed evaluation of the VEAC observed in its 2014 hands, whereas 100% of its coastal ecological performance of Victorian marine investigation “that while waters are owned by the community. MPAs cannot be undertaken due to there is some evidence of active This provides a remarkable lack of appropriate scientific data management in the marine opportunity to extend the marine • MPAs have not been completely components of the multiple-use conservation estate, which has lagged effective in preventing new marine areas, these areas are managed in well behind terrestrial conservation pests, however they have been a manner that is indistinguishable efforts – the first marine national park successful in preventing oil spills from the management of was not proclaimed until 110 years and seabed development natural values in the surrounding after Tower Hill’s reservation.

Wilsons Promontory National Park. One of the first National Parks in Victoria. Photo by Unsplash/Jonny Clow.

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 20 states of Australia, including Victoria, MPAs that disallow these activities The debate around fisheries benefits are not an explicit will almost always “work” in protecting whether MPAs “work” objective written into protected-area biodiversity from these direct legislation or management plans destructive threats, even if they are Fundamental to the question of because the prime objective of not no-take reserves. In the short- whether MPAs work is the definition MPAs is biodiversity conservation. term these threats may be displaced of “work”. Many examples exist Yet the public debate has become to other areas, but the existence of globally of high-functioning MPAs “fisheries vs MPAs” and focused MPAs long-term will ensure at least that achieve their conservation on this admittedly tangible and part of the marine environment objectives (Edgar et al. 2014, Lester quantifiable potential benefit whether remains as functioning natural et al. 2009), however there are also it be positive (e.g. Hough and Poole habitats. many examples of under-performing 2012) or negative (e.g. Sutton 2018). MPAs (Gill et al. 2017). Add to the Most recently, however, commercial Achieving conservation benefits also mix the many MPAs that lack solid fishers supported the 2018 passing takes time. If fish are expected to be conservation objectives or fail to of management plans for the larger in a no-take MPA, they must be properly identify threats (Zupan et Commonwealth marine parks in given time to grow, or more fish are al. 2018), and it is easy to see how the Australian parliament. (Media expected, they need time to breed. confusion and disagreement can release 2018) Given the relatively young age of be perpetuated. many MPAs (e.g. only 5 years in South Most scientific studies aiming to Australia), consistent and persuasive Broadly speaking, an MPA works if it answer the question of whether benefits cannot be observed. An MPA achieves its conservation objectives. MPAs “work” investigate the effects age of at least 10 years is cited by These objectives will necessarily vary of removing harvesting activities Edgar et al. (2014) as being one of for each MPA and there is no one- such as fishing. Such studies are the five critical criteria for an MPA to size-fits-all MPA approach (Fox et al. based on comparisons of protected be effective in meeting conservation 2012). Objectives are often vague or natural habitat to unprotected goals associated with fish size and not well communicated (Gallacher natural habitat. There are no studies, biomass. The remaining four criteria et al. 2016), and in many cases although perhaps sensibly so, that – being no-take, well enforced, large unrealistic expectations have been compare marine life in an MPA next (<100km2) and isolated – are all placed on MPA performance. For to that in an adjacent recent harbour crucial factors in determining whether example, overwhelmingly the most development, reclaimed land, seawall, a MPA “works” in maintaining or studied aspect of MPAs performance or seabed mining operation. When rebuilding biodiversity after a history have been the secondary benefit placed in this context, well-enforced of exploitation. of fisheries productivity. In many

Twelve Apostles Marine National Park. Photo by Unsplash/Saiteja Garimella.

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 21 To be truly effective in conserving the part of this process from the outset Reasons for MPAs not marine environment on a regional (Gaines et al. 2010). A holistic achieving their objectives and continental level, MPAs should framework for managing resource be used alongside other forms of use and cumulative threats, where The reasons why MPAs might not ecosystem-based management MPAs are a key conservation pillar, achieve their objectives are specific (Halpern et al. 2010b). As marine will be the most effective approach to to each individual MPA, but there are spatial management becomes more conserving marine environments on a a few common causes – small area widely adopted around the world, local, regional and global scale. of the park, ineffective regulation MPAs need to be a fundamental (i.e. rules don’t prevent impacts), inadequate enforcement and lack of habitat continuity (Edgar et al. Table 7: Key factors in determining the conservation success of an MPA 2014). It therefore become a little more understandable that less than 10% of MPAs globally are considered Key factors in MPA success Key supporting studies successful (Edgar et al. 2014). Edgar et al. (2014) Old (>10yrs) Large (>100km2) Edgar et al. (2014) Some reasons that MPAs fail: Biological and No-take Edgar et al. (2014) • Inadequate staffing and resources ecological aspects Isolated Edgar et al. (2014) (strongest predictor of conservation Self-sustaining Ballantine (2014) impact was staff and budget – Gill et al. 2017) Politically supported Rossiter and Levine (2014)

• Lack of political will for enforcement Community supported Bennet and Dearnden (2014) or effective management (Chuenpadgee et al. 2013, Araujo Properly legislated Chuenpadgee et al. (2013) and Bernard 2016) Social, political Properly staffed and funded Gill et al. (2017) • Lack of user engagement and and management aspects support (Castrejon and Charles Proper enforcement Pieraccini et al. 2017 2013, Bennet and Dearnden 2014) Placed in a regional network of MPAs Gaines et al. (2010) • Non-compliance with regulations Planning and (Fish in Italian MPAs – Pieraccini regulation aspects External threats addressed Stafford et al. (2016) et al. 2017, Lobsters in the Galapagos – Buglass et al. 2018) Integrated into wider marine spatial planning Agardy et al. (2011) • Inability to curb external threats Representation of habitats Ballantine (2014) (Stafford et al. 2016) Replication of habitats Ballantine (2014) • Small and isolated (Moffitt et al. 2011) • Residual (Devillers et al. 2014)

Developing MPAs that “work” Several important studies in the past five years have identified what criteria are necessary for an MPA to adequately conserve the marine environment (Ballantine 2014, Costello 2014, Green et al. 2014, Edgar et al. 2014, Rossiter and Levine 2014, Gill et al. 2017). These criteria cover both the planning and regulation aspects, social, political and management aspects, along with the biological and ecological aspects. These studies are synthesized in Table 7. Further, the three key principles of the NRSMPA, comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness, should also Australiasian Gannet (Morus serrator) pair, Fur Seal. Wilson’s Promontory Marine National Park. Popes Eye, Victoria. Photo by Parks Victoria. Photo by Shannon Hurley. be met.

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 22

REFERENCES Addison PFE, de Bie K and Rumpff L (2015). Bacaram SJ, Hearn A, Trujillo AM, Rentaria W, Chung FC, Komilus CF and Mustafa S (2017). Setting conservation management thresholds Bustamante RH, Moran G, Reck G and Gracia Effect of the creation of a MPA on populations using a novel participatory modelling JL (2018). Assessing fishing effect inside and of coral trout in the coral triangle region. approach. Conservation Biology 29(5): 1411- outside an MPA: The impact of the Galapagos Regional studies in marine science 10: 1-9. 1422. MPA on the industrial pelagic tuna fisheries during the first decade of operation. Marine Chuenpadgee R, Pascual-Fernandez JJ, Afonso P, Fontes J and Santos RS (2011). Policy 87: 212-225. Szelianszy E, Alegret JL, Fraga J and Jentoft Small marine reserves can offer long term S (2013). Marine protected areas: re-thinking protection to an endangered fish. Biological Ban NC, Davies TE, Aguilera SE, Brooks C, Cox M, their inception. Marine Policy 39: 234-240. Conservation 144: 2739-2744. Epstein G, Evans LS, Maxwell SM and Nenadovic M (2017). Social and ecological effectiveness Cole VJ, McQuaid CD and Nakin MDV (2011). Afonso P, Schmiing M, Fontes J, Tempera of large marine protected areas. Global MPAs export larvae of infauna, but not of F, Morato T and Santos RS (2018). Effects Environmental Change 43: 82-91. bioengineering mussels to adjacent areas. of marine protected areas on coastal fishes Biological Conservation 144: 2088-2096. across the Azores archipelago, mid-north Barr L, Pressey R, Fuller R, Segan D and Atlantic. Journal of Sea Research 138: 34-47. McDonald-Madden E (2011) ‘A new way to Colleter M, Gascuel D, Albouy C, Francour P, de measure the world’s protected area coverage. Morais LT, Valls A and Loch FL (2014). Fishing Agardy T, di Sciara GN and Christie P (2011). PLoS ONE 6(9): e24707. doi:10.1371/journal. inside or outside? A case study analysis of Mind the gap: addressing the shortcomings pone.0024707. potential spillover effect from MPAs using of MPAs through large scale marine planning. food web models. Journal of Marine Systems Marine Policy 35(2) 226-232. Baskett ML, Gaines SD and Nisbet RM (2009). 139: 383-395. Symbiont diversity may help coral reefs Agardy T, Claudet J and Day JC (2016). survive moderate climate change. Ecological Convention on Biological Diversity, ‘Quick ‘Dangerous targets’ revisited: Old dangers Applications 19(1): 3-17. guide to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, in new contexts plague MPAs. Aquatic . Ecosystems 26 (2): 7-23. people do not support conservation: Community perception of MPA livelihood impacts, Costello MJ (2014). Long live marine reserves: Almany GR, Conolly, SR, Heath DD, Hogan governance and management in Thailand. A review of experiences and benefits. JD, Jones GP, McCook LJ, Mills M, Pressey Marine Policy 44: 107-116. Biological Conservation 176: 289-296. RL and Williamson DH (2009). Connectivity, biodiversity conservation and the design of Breen P, Posen P and Righton D (2015). Costello MJ and Ballantine B (2015). marine reserves. Coral Reefs 28: 339-351. Temperate marine protected areas and mobile Biodiversity conservation should focus on no- fish: a review. Ocean and Coastal Management take marine reserves. Trends in Ecology and Araujo JL and Bernard E (2016). Management 105: 75-83. Evolution 30(9) 507- 509. effectiveness of a large marine protected area in north-eastern Brazil. Ocean and Coastal Buglass S, Reyes H, Ramirez-Gonzalez J, Eddy Cuervo-Sanchez R, Maldonado JH and Rueda Management 130: 43-49. TD, Salinas-de-Leon P and Jarrin JM (2018). M (2018). Spillover from marine protected Evaluating the effectiveness of coastal no-take areas on the pacific coast in Colombia: A Ashe E, Noren DP and Williams R (2009). zones of the Galapagos Marine reserve for the bioeconomic modelling approach for shrimp Animal behaviour and marine protected red spiny lobster. Marine Policy 88: 201-212. fisheries. Marine Policy 88: 182-188. areas: incorporating behavioural data. Animal Conservation13: 196-203. Burfeind D, Pitt K, Conolly R and Byers JE (2013). Curley BG, Glasby TM, Curley AJ, Creese RG Performance of non-native species within marine and Kingsford MJ (2013). Enhanced numbers Ault JS, Smith SG, Bohnsack JA, Luo J, reserves. Biological invasions 15(1): 17-28. of two temperate reef fishes in a small, partial- Zurcher N, McClellan DB, Ziegler TA, Hallac DE, take MPA related to spearfisher exclusion. Patterson M, Feeley MW, Ruttenberg BI, Hunt Burke LM, Reytar K, Spalding M. & Perry A (2012). Biological Conservation 167: 445-445. J, Kimball D and Causey B (2013). Assessing A. Reefs at Risk Revisited in the Coral Triangle. coral reef fish population and community World Resources Institute, 2012. Day J., Dudley N., Hockings M., Holmes G., changes in response to marine reserves in the Laffoley D., Stolton S. & S. Wells, (2012). Dry Tortugas, Florida USA. Fisheries Research Butchart SHM, Clarke M, Smith B, Sykes R, Guidelines for applying the IUCN Protected 144: 28-37. Scharlemann JPW et al. (2015). Shortfalls Area Management Categories to Marine and solutions for meeting national and global Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Australian Government Department of the conservation area targets. Science 238, 1164- Environment and Energy (2018). Australian 1168. Denkinger J, Parra M, Munoz JP, Carrasco C, Marine Parks. Spatial GIS data – shapefiles Murillo JC, Espinosa E, Rubianes F and Kock V and layers. File identifier: ecedecba-1a39- Buxton CD, Hartmann K, Kearney R and Gardner (2013). Are boat strikes a threat to sea turtles 4933-868f-a96bb3cf4eed. Accessed C (2014). When is spillover from marine reserves in the Galapagos Marine Reserve? Ocean and online 3rd September 2018 based spatial management: the Galapagos Assemblages?” Biological Conservation 116: Australian Government Department of the Marine Reserve. Marine Policy 38: 235-245. 119–29. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00183-6. Environment and Energy (2017). Marine Christianen MJA, Herman PML, Bouma TJ, Devillers R et al. 2014, ‘Reinventing residual CAPAD 2016 Datasets. Accessed online 3rd Lamers LPM, van Katwijk MM, van der Heide T, reserves in the sea: are we favouring ease September 2018 Kerk M, Kiswara W and van de Koppel J (2014). Aquatic Conservation, vol. 25, pp Habitat collapse due to overgrazing threatens turtle conservation in MPAS. Proceeding of the Royal Society B 281.

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 23 Diaz D, Mallol S, Parma A and Goni R (2016). Gallacher J, Simmonds N, Fellowes H, Brown Hopkins CR, Bailey DM and Potts T (2016). A 25-year marine reserve as proxy for the N, Clark W, Biggs C and Rodwell LD (2016). Perceptions of practitioners: Managing marine unfished condition of an exploited species. Evaluating the success of a marine protected protected areas for climate change resilience. Biological Conservation 203: 97-107. area: a systematic review approach. Journal of Ocean and Coastal Management 128: 18-28. Environmental Management 183: 280-293. Dudley N (2008). Guidelines for Applying Horta BH, Claudet J, Franco G, Erzini K, Caro A Protected Area Management Categories. Geosciences Australia (2018). Oceans and and Goncalves EJ (2016). A regulation-based IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Seas – Australian Exclusive Economic Zone classification system for marine protected (online). http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific- areas. Marine Policy 72: 192-198. Edgar, G et al. (2014). Global conservation topics/national-location-information/ outcomes depend on marine protected areas dimensions/oceans-and-seas Accessed 3rd Hough C and Poole L (2012). Think tank says with five key features’, Nature 506: 216-220. September 2018. marine parks will help fishermen as well as the environment. ABC News 27th June 2012. Edmund M et al 2010, ‘VNPA Nature Giglio VJ, Pinheiro HT, Bender MG, Bonaldo Accessed 11th September 2018. Edmunds M and Flynn A (2018). Victorian Southern Atlantic Ocean are flawed and raise concerns. Marine Policy 96 13-17. Howarth LM, Pickup SE, Evans LE, Cross TJ, Marine Biogeographical Settings. Report to Hawkins JP, Roberts CM and Stewart BD Department of Environment, Land, Water and Gilby BL and Stevens T (2014). Meta-analysis (2015). Sessile and mobile components of Planning. Australian Marine Ecology Report indicates habitat-specific alterations to a benthic ecosystem display mixed trends No. 559, Melbourne. primary producer and herbivore communities within a temperate marine reserve. Marine Felix-Hackradt FC, Hackradt CW, Trevino- in MPAs. Global Ecology and Conservation 2: Environmental Research 107: 8-23. 289-299. Oton J, Perez-Ruzafa A and Garcia-Charton Jones PJS and De Santo EM (2016). Is the race JA (2018). Effect of marine protected areas Gomez C, Lawson J, Kouwenberg a, Moors- for remote, very large marine protected areas on distinct fish life-history stages. Marine Murphy H, Buren A, Fuentes-Yaco C, Marotte E, taking us down the wrong track? 73: 231-234. Environmental Research. In press. Wiersma YF and Wimmer T (2017). Predicted Karnauskas M and Babcock EA (2014). An Fenberg PB, Caselle JE, Claudet J, Clemence distribution of whales at risk: identifying priority areas to enhance cetacean monitoring analysis of indicators for the detection of M, Gaines SD, Garcia-Charton JA, Goncalves effects of marine reserve protection on fish EL, Grorud-Colvert K, Guidetti P, Jenkins SR, in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. Endangered Species Research 32: 437-458. communities. Ecological Indicators 46: 454- Jones PJS, Lester Sem McAllen R, Moland 465. E, Planes S and Sorensen TK (2012). The Graham NAJ and McClanahan TR (2013). The science of European marine reserves: Status, last call for marine wilderness? Bioscience 63, Kearney R, Buxton CD and Farebrother G efficacy and future needs. Marine Policy 36: 397-402. (2012). Australia’s no-take MPAs: Appropriate 1012-1021. conservation or inappropriate management of Green AL, Fernandez L, Almany G, Abesamis fishing? Marine Policy 36: 1064-1071. Filby NE, Stockin KA and Scarpaci C (2017). R, Mcleod E, Alino PM, Whote AT, Salm R, Can MPAs be developed effectively without Tanzer J and Pressey R (2014). Designing Keller BD, Gleason DF, McLeaod E, Woodley baseline data? A case study for Burrunan marine reserves for fisheries management, CM, Airame S, Causey BD, Friedlander AM, dolphins. Marine 77: 152-163. biodiversity conservation and climate change Grober-Dunsmore R, Johnson JE, Miller SL and Steneck RS (2009). Climate change, coral Fox HE, Mascia MB, Basurto X, Costa A, adaptation. Coastal Management 42(2): 143- 159. reef ecosystems and management options for Glew L, Heinemann D, Karrer LB, Lester SE, protected areas. Environmental Management Lombana AV, Pomeroy RS, Recchia CA, Halpern BS, Lester SE and McLeod KL 44: 1069-1088. Roberts CM, Sanchiro JN, Pet-Soede L and (2010a). Placing marine protected areas onto White AT (2012). Re-examining the science of the ecosystem-based management seascape. Lascelles BG, Langham GM, Ronconi RA marine protected areas: linking knowledge to Proceedings of the National Academy of and Reid JB (2012). From hotspots to site action. Conservation Letters 5: 1-10. Science. protection identifying MPAs for seabirds around the globe. Biological Conservation 156: Franco, Antonio Di, Simona Bussotti, and Halpern BS, Lester SE and McLeod KL 5014. Augusto Navone. 2009. “Evaluating Effects (2010b). Spillover benefit from marine of Total and Partial Restrictions to Fishing on reserves and the replenishment of fish stocks. Lester SE, Halpern BS, Grorud-Colvert K, Mediterranean Rocky-Reef Fish Assemblages.” Environmental Conservation 36 (4): 268-276. Lubchenco J, Ruttenberg BI, Gaines S, Airame S Marine Ecology Progress Series 387: 275–85. and Warner RR (2009). Biological effects within doi:10.3354/meps08051. Harasti D, David TR, Mitchell E, Lindfield no-take marine reserves: a global synthesis. S and Smith SDA (2018). A tale of two Marine Ecology Progress Series 384: 33-46. French R (2018). Sea urchin harvest a win-win islands: Decadal change in rocky reef fish for seafood industry and seagrass habitat assemblages following implementation of no- Lester, S., and B. Halpern. (2008.) “Biological as fishers deal with spike. ABC News Online take MPAs in NSW Australia. Regional Studies Responses in Marine No-Take Reserves versus < http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-23/ in Marine Science 18: 229-236. Partially Protected Areas.” Marine Ecology sea-urchin-harvesting-a-win-for-industry-and- Progress Series 367 (September): 49–56. biodiversity/9790694>. Accessed 16th Sept Harrison HB, Williamson DH, Evans RD, doi:10.3354/meps07599. 2018. Almany GR, Thorrold SR, Russ GR, Feldheim KA, van Herwerden L, Planes S, Srinivasan Ling SD, Johnson CR, Frusher SD and Ridgway Gaines SD, Lester SE, Grorud-Colvert M, Berumen ML and Jones GP (2012). KR (2009). Overfishing reduces resilience of K, Costello C and Pollnac R (2010). Larval export from Marine reserves and the kelp beds to climate-driven catastrophic phase Evolving science of marine reserves: New recruitment benefit for fish and fisheries. shift. Proceedings of National Academy of developments and emerging research Current Biology 22: 1023-1028. Science frontiers. Proceedings of National Academy of Science 107(43): 18251-18255. Hays GC, Ferriera LC, Sequira AMM, Meekan Ling SD and Johnson CR (2012). Marine MG, Duarte CM, Bailey H, Bailleul F, Bowen reserves reduce risk of climate-driven phase WD, Caley MJ, Costa, DP, Eguiluz VM, Fossette shift by reinstating size and habitat specific S, Friedlander AS, Gales N, Gleiss AC and 26 trophic interactions. Ecological Application others (2016). Trends in Ecology and Evolution 22(4): 1232-1245. 31 (6): 463-475.

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 24 Mach ME, Wedding LM, Reiter SM, Micheli unregulated vector transporting marine Speed CW, Cappo M and Meekan MG F, Fujita RM and Martone RG (2017). invasive species. Diversity and Distributions (2018). Evidence for rapid recovery of shark Assessment and management of cumulative 2011:1-12 populations within a coral reef marine impacts in California’s network of marine protected area. Biological Conservation 220: protected areas. Ocean and Coastal O’Leary, B, Winther-Janson M, Bainbridge, 308-319. Management 137: 1-11. J, Aitken J, Hawkins J and Roberts C 2016, ‘Effective coverage targets for ocean Stafford R, Clitherow TJ, Howlett S, Spiers EKA, Malcolm HA, Williams J, Schultz AL, Neilson protection’, Conservation Letters, doi. Williams RL, Yselga B, Valarezo AZ, Izurieta J, Johnstone N, Knott NA, Harasti D, Coleman org/10.1111/conl.12247, p398. DFV and Cornejo M (2016). An integrated MA and Jordan A (2018). Targeted fishes are evaluation of potential management larger and more abundant in ‘no-take’ areas in Palumbi SR, Barshis DJ, Traylor-Knowles N processes on marine reserves in continental a subtropical marine park. Estuarine, Coastal and Bay R (2014). Mechanisms of reef coral Ecuador based on Bayesian belief network and Shelf Science 212: 118-127. resistance to future climate change. Science model. Ocean and Coastal Management 121: 344 (6186): 895-989. 60-69. Marra S, Coppa S, Camedda A, Massaro G and Andrea de Lucia S (2017). The exploitation of Pendoley KL, Scholfield G, Whittock PA, Sutton M (2018). Marine Park controversy limpets in a Mediterranean MPA: assessing Ierodiaconou D and Hays GC (2014). continues following five-year review in South the effectiveness of protection in the intertidal Protected Species use of a coastal marine Australia. ABC News. 23rd January 2018. zone. Mediterranean Marine Science 18(3) migratory corridor: connecting MPAs. Marine Accessed 11th September 2018. Marine Conservation Institute (2018), MPAtlas Pieraccini M, Coppa S and De Lucia GA [On-line]. Seattle, WA. Available at: [Accessed 30/08/2018]. theory to assess and address environmental Barton TR, Needham K, Bradbury G and non-compliance. Aquatic Conservation 27 (1) Merchant ND (2013). Short-term disturbance Marinesque S, Kaplan DM and Rodwell LD 177-196. by a commercial two-dimensional (2012). Global implementation of marine Pilyugin SS, Mellock J and De Leenheer P seismic survey does not lead to long- protected areas: is the developing world being term displacement of harbour porpoises. left behind? Marine Policy 36: 727-737. (2016). The effectiveness of marine protected areas for predator and prey with marrying Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280. McCrea-Strub A, Zeller D, Sumaila UR, mobility. Theoretical Population Biology 110: Travaille KL, Salinas P, Bell JJ (2015). Nelson J, Balmford A and Pauly D (2011). 63-77. Indication of visitor trampling impacts on Understanding the cost of establishing MPAs. intertidal seagrass beds in a NZ marine Marine Policy 35: 1-9. Rife AN, Aburto-Oropeza O, Hastings PA, Erisman B, Ballantyne F, Wielgus J, Sala E and reserve. Ocean and Coastal Management 114: Media release 2018, ‘Australian fishers Gerber L(2013). Long-tern effectiveness of a 145-150. unite to support Commonwealth multi-use MPA on reef fish assemblages and UNEP-WCMC and IUCN (2018) Protected Marine Park management plans’, fisheries landings Planet: [Marine Protected Area Database; The https://seafoodindustryaustralia.com. World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA)/ au/2018/08/02/australian-fishers-unite- Roberts KE, Valkan RS and Cook CN (2018). Measuring progress in marine protection: A The Global Database on Protected Areas to-support-commonwealth-marine-park- Management Effectiveness (GD-PAME)] management-plans/ new set of metrics to evaluate the strength of marine protected area networks. Biological [On-line], [August 2018], Cambridge, UK: Micheli F, Saenz-Arroyo A, Greenley A, Vazquez Conservation 219: 20-27. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Available at: L, Montes JAE, Rossetto M and De Leo www.protectedplanet.net. GA (2012). Evidence that marine reserves Rossiter JS and Levine A (2014). What makes a “successful” marine protected area? The Velando A and Munilla I (2011). Disturbance enhance resilience to climatic impacts. PLOS to a foraging seabird by sea-based tourism: One 7(7). unique context of Hawaii’s fish replenishment areas. Marine Policy 44: 196-203. Implications for reserve management in Moffitt EA, White JW and Botsford LW (2011). MPAs. Biological Conservation 144: 1167- The utility and limitations of size and spacing Sciberras, Marija, Stuart R Jenkins, Rebecca 1174. guidelines for designing marine protected Mant, Michel J Kaiser, Stephen J Hawkins, and Andrew S Pullin. (2015.) “Evaluating the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council area networks. Biological Conservation 144: (2014). Marine Investigation Final Report. April 306-318. Relative Conservation Value of Fully and Partially Protected Marine Areas,” 58–77. 2014. State of Victoria. Moity N (2018). Evaluation of No-take zones doi:10.1111/faf.12044. Victorian Environment Assessment Council in the Galapagos Marine Reserve, zoning plan Shears, N, R Grace, N Usmar, V Kerr, and R 2017, ‘Statewide assessment of public land’, 2000. Frontiers in Marine Science 5 Article Victorian Environment Assessment Council, 244. Babcock. 2006. “Long-Term Trends in Lobster Populations in a Partially Protected vs. No- Melbourne, p.21. Muallil RN, Deocadez MR, Martinez RJS, Take Marine Park.” Biological Conservation Williams R, Erbe C, Ashe E and Clark CW Mamauag SS, Nanola CL and Alino PM (2015). 132 (October): 222–31. doi:10.1016/j. (2015). Quiet(er) marine protected areas. Community assemblages of commercially biocon.”2006.04.001. Marine Pollution Bulletin 100: 154-161. important coral reef fishes inside and outside MPAs in the Philippines. Regional Studies in Singleton RL and Roberts CM (2014). The World Bank (2018). DataBank – Marine Marine Science 1: 47-54 contribution of very large MPAs to marine Protected Areas (% of territorial waters). conservation: Giant leaps or smoke and Accessed online 30th September 2018. Mumby PJ, Harbone AR and Brumbaugh DR mirrors? Marine Pollution Bulletin 87: 7-10. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ER.MRN. (2011). Grouper as a natural biocontrol of PTMR.ZS invasive lionfish. PLos One 6(6). Spalding MD and Hale LZ (2016). Marine protected areas: past, present and future – a World Parks Congress (2014). Priorities Murray CC, Pakhomov EA and Therriault global perspective. In: Big Bold and Blue; emerging from the IUCN World Parks TW (2011). Recreational boating: a large Lessons learned from Australia’s Marine Congress 2014. Accessed online Protected Areas. Eds: Fitzsimmons J and 10 September 2018. https://www. Westcott G. CSIRO Publishing, Australia. worldparkscongress.org/wpc/

Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 25 Victorian National Parks Association Level 3, 60 Leicester St, Carlton VIC 3053 PH: 03 9341 6500 | EMAIL: [email protected] | WEB: vnpa.org.au All donations over $2 are tax-deductible. ABN 34 217 717 593