Adaptive, Ecosystem-Based Management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Reserve Network A globally significant demonstration of the benefits of networks of marine reserves Laurence McCook, Pew Fellow in Marine Conservation, ARC Centre of Excell. Coral Reef Studies (& Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority), & Very many GBR scientists Pew Fellows Program in Marine Conservation A science & management team effort & consensus statement • Tony Ayling • GBRMPA & Pew Fellows Program • Mike Cappo • AIMS • J. Howard Choat Pew Fellows Program • ARC Centre of Excellence for Reef Studies in Marine Conservation • Richard D. Evans • Debora M. De Freitas • MTSRF & RRRC • Michelle Heupel • JCU Marine & Tropical Biology & • Terry P. Hughes JCU School of Earth & Environmental Sciences • Geoffrey P. Jones • CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Sciences • Bruce Mapstone • Helene Marsh • FRDC; QFMA • Morena Mills • Fergus Molloy • MANY GBRMPA STAFF; esp. • C. Roland Pitcher • Mick Bishop, James Aumend, Reg Parsons, Mark • Robert L. Pressey Read; Spatial Data Centre • Garry R. Russ • James Innes, Ingrid van Putten & GBRMPA Social- • Stephen Sutton Economics team; • Hugh Sweatman • S. Gaines, J. Lubchenco, K Grorud_Colvert, S. • Renae Tobin Lester; • David R. Wachenfeld • N Stoeckl, J. Quiggan and G. Lange • David H. Williamson Generous contributions of EXTENSIVE Unpublished data Outcomes: a tribute to good process…. • “Overall, zoning of the GBR marine reserve network appears to be making major contributions to the protection of biodiversity, ecosystem resilience and social and economic values of the GBR Marine Park.” • Overall, the available evidence suggests that the large-scale network of marine reserves on the GBR is proving to be an excellent investment in social, economic and environmental terms. • “The breadth and extent of benefits reflect very well on the scientific and engagement processes involved in the development and implementation of the 2004 Zoning Plan, especially • the value of larger reserve size and high proportion of overall area in reserves to provide margins of error.” • Global best practice… significant demonstration of success$ • Tribute to collaboration between managers, team & leadership, scientists, politicians & community. Outline: • Background: EBM, Adaptive Management, etc • Results: – Fish & sharks – direct effects (+/- 2004) – Corals & Foodwebs – indirect effects – Non-reef habitats & shoals; – Species of Conservation Concern: Dugong & Turtles; – Compliance – Economics – Social impacts • • Take Homes: Reef benefits… GBR: A globally significant case study of paradigms of marine reserve networks • Scientific significance: – LARGE, replication, before-after, no-entry zones; gradients, background science. • Best practice implementation - CARR, Operating Principles etc; • Regional scale • Lots of results - new & old zoning; • Exceptional breadth: fish compliance $$ • (Not including process, governance, etc.) • Joint management integrated with GBR Coast Marine Park Ecosystem-based management GBRMP Act now defines “ecosystem-based management” as: “An integrated approach to the management of an ecosystem and of matters affecting that ecosystem with the primary goal of maintaining ecological processes, biodiversity and functioning biological communities”. Spatial Management within Ecosystem Based Management: • Fundamental component of effective ecosystem-based management BUT…. • Only 1 element of integrated package of management strategies used in the GBR to sustain biodiversity & different uses; Management Approaches • Education & Community Partnerships • Water Qual Partnerships, incentives & regulations • Zoning; • Permitting; • Environmental Impact Management; • Compliance & Enforcement: • Dugong protection areas; • Fisheries Management Plans: Gear Restrictions (Bycatch reduction); Size Limits; Bag Limits • Temporal closures (eg. fish spawning) • Economic instruments (eg. Environment Management Charge) • Industry Codes of Practice • Assessment & Influencing activities outside jurisdiction (EPBC); Many important „activities‟ NOT primarily managed by zoning : • Defence • Indigenous use • Shipping • Special Management • High use tourism Areas areas • Spawning closures • Research • World Heritage Area These are better addressed by other planning approaches More than just no-take zones • 7 marine zones + Commonwealth Island zone, • each clear objective to manage different aspects of use and conservation; • challenge for monitoring... Zoning Plan- pre 2004 Zoning Plan- 2004 Revised ZP Old ZP Preservation Zone – ‘ no go’ 0.2% (0.1%) 117,000 km2 Marine Nat’l Park - no-take 33.3% (4.6%) Scient. Research 0.05% (0.01%) Buffer Zone – trolling only 2.9% (0.1%) Conservat’n Park – limited fishing 1.5% (0.6%) Habitat Protect’n – no trawling (66%) 28.2% (15.2%) General Use – all reasonable uses 33.8% (77.9%) 2004 New Zoning Plan: A global standard for marine protection • 33% protected in no-take Process: areas; • 11 biophysical operating principles • 20% of each of ~70 • 4 social & economic operating principles bioregions; • Community consultation – 31,500 • ~66% no-trawl submissions Monitoring the zoning network- Target fish A. Inshore Reefs B. Offshore Reefs Numbers Biomass Numbers Biomass 15 7 Cairns - Innisfail 6 Cairns - Innisfail 5 10 4 3 5 2 1 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 20 7 Townsville 6 Townsville 15 ) 5 -2 4 -2 10 3 5 2 1 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 50 20 Mackay Mackay 40 15 30 10 20 5 10 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 50 15 Swains Swains 40 10 30 Biomass of coral trout (kg.1,000m trout of Biomass coral Abundance of coral trout 1,000m trout of coral Abundance 20 5 10 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 15 50 Capricorn - Bunkers Capricorn - Bunkers 40 10 30 20 5 10 0 0 2006 2007 2008 2006 2007 2008 Monitoring the zoning network- TargetMonitoring fish- the zoning Previous network Zoning Offshore Reefs: Inshore Reefs: Effects of Line Fishing Experiment; B. Coral trout visual surveys Williamson et al. 2004; Evans & Russ 2004 1 Fished 20 No-take 0.5 2 15 Fish / m 250 sq. 0 Lizard Townsville Mackay Swains 10 C. Coral trout catch surveys 12 Fish/ 1000m 5 8 0 4 Fish / line hour 19981984 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 0 Lizard Townsville Mackay Swains D. Redthroat emperor catch surveys Clear, widespread evidence for long- 4 term benefits of no-take zones 3 2 • Unpublished data Fish / line hour 1 • ELF modelling of management 0 Lizard Townsville Mackay Swains • Depletion by 1984… Effects on ecosystem-wide fish populations: • Benefits to other reserves; to fished areas; Effects on ecosystem-wide fish populations: • Benefits to other reserves; to fished areas; • Limited adult export (esp. coral trout); • Larval exchange & subsidies: – Transport between reefs – Jones et al... ongoing – Relative reproductive output – reserves : fished reefs Big fish -> disproportionate reproductive output; e.g. Green 2.5x blue zones; scaling by area => fished reefs no loss of reproductive input (Evans et al 08); Russ et al ongoing; – Dispersal distances Connectivity & mpa networks: Maintain range of dispersal distances 60 50 All reefs 40 99.5% No-take to no-take No-take to fished 30 75%90% Fished to no-take % reefsof 20 10 0 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 12-14 14-16 16-18 18-20 20-22 22-24 24-26 26-28 28-30 30-32 32-34 34-36 36-38 38-40 Nearest neighbour distance (km) Outcome of OTHER design principles Monitoring the zoning network- Sharks 0.2 Catch Rates - Effects of Line Fishing Expt: Heupel et al. 2009 0.1 Sharks / line hour line / Sharks 0 Whitetip Grey Blacktip All Sharks Monitoring the zoning network- Sharks Visual surveys- Robbins et al. 2006 3.5 3 2.5 F is hed 2 1.5 F is hed 1 No-take S harks per hectare 0.5 0 No E ntry Whitetip G rey -0.5 Monitoring the zoning network- Sharks Visual surveys- Ayling & Choat 2008 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 S harks per hectare 0.5 0 Whitetip G rey Monitoring - No-entry zones, wide- spread depletion & compliance 3.5 Visual surveys- Ayling & Choat 2008 Sharks- Robbins et al. 2006 3 3.5 2.5 2 3 1.5 1 2.5 S harks per hectare F is hed 0.5 2 0 Whitetip1.5 G rey F is hed 1 30 Target fish from Ayling & Choat 2008 • (Pre-2004 zoning) No-take S harks per hectare 25 0.5 Fished No-take • Compliance problems 20 0 No-entry No E ntry 15 Whitetip G rey • (no-entry easier to enforce) -0.5 10 Fish per Fishhectare per 5 • Shifting baseline & depleted 0 stocks – 66% & 31% area??!! Serranids Redthroat Emperor Lutjanids Crown-of-thorns starfish, Corals & Reef Resilience: Indirect effects Proportion of reefs with COTS Outbreaks Coral Cover 30 100% 25 80% 20 60% 15 40% % coralCover of % 10 Proportion Proportion of reefs 20% 5 0% Fished No-take 0 (24 reefs) (5 reefs) Fished reefs No-take reefs • No-take zones appear to benefit coral abundance – very basis of physical habitat & reef construction • 1st demonstration of indirect effects not herbivory/destructive Inter-reefal shoals: 3 Southern regions shoals: 2.5 Fished No-take 2 MaxN 1.5 1 0.5 0 Common Redthroat Red Venus Gray Reef Coral Trout Emperor Emperor Tuskfish Shark • Results vary with region, sites, spp… • Central: more fish in open zones- confounded Inter-reef seabed habitats: 95% of the Marine Park & “megadiverse” • Lack of background knowledge for zoning: • Seabed biodiversity project: • Proportion in no-trawl zones (Pitcher et al. 2007). Inter-reef seabed habitats: Retrospective accounting • Lack of sufficient, detailed biodiversity knowledge for direct zoning: • i. Use of physical proxies; + ii. Seabed biodiversity study: • Proportion in no-trawl zones (Pitcher et