|
Also
available here in pdf
Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan
Review
Scientific Guiding Principles
Recommended by the Expert Advisory Panel
The independent Expert Advisory
Panel provides advice to the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on scientific matters relating to the Moreton Bay Marine
Park Zoning Plan review.
The Panel’s members have
specialist knowledge in marine science including, but not
limited to, marine reserve design, fisheries, marine conservation,
environmental economics and social science.
The development of Scientific
Guiding Principles (principles), which include biophysical
and socio-economic guiding principles, was one of the key
tasks for the Panel. The Panel has recommended the principles
described below as a framework for guiding the review. The
Panel has recommended socio-economic principles along with
biophysical principles in recognition that the social, economic
and cultural dimensions of the project may significantly influence
the final outcome of the plan.
These independent scientific
recommendations provided by the Panel are based on world’s
best practice in marine reserve design.
These principles are also a
key component of the agreed analysis method which overlays
socio-economic, cultural and biophysical data to achieve a
draft zoning plan.
Biodiversity conservation
and the current zoning plan
The Expert Advisory Panel believes the current level of no-take
areas in Moreton Bay Marine Park does not provide suitable
protection for the biodiversity values of the area because:
- at present Moreton Bay Marine Park has
just 0.5% included in no-take areas – well below international
recommendations;
- the no-take areas are small, widely separated
areas, largely confined to coral reefs and mangrove habitats;
and
- many significant habitats within Moreton
Bay Marine Park are not protected in no-take areas.
Amount of protection
required
There are no hard and fast rules to determine the extent of
protection required to conserve marine biodiversity and ensure
long-term sustainability. Each region must be examined on
its own merits and decisions made that take into account the
unique aspects of its oceanography, geography, history, flora
and fauna, as well as present and future socio-economic factors.
The International Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD) has recommended 10% of each
country’s ecological regions (i.e. habitat types) be
conserved in marine protected areas. Amounts recommended in
the scientific literature generally fall in the range of 20%
- 40% of the ocean’s environment in no-take areas1.
Presently less than 1% of the world’s oceans are protected
in marine protected areas2.
Developing the guiding
principles
The Panel adopted the general principles of marine reserve
design as set out in the criteria detailed in the table below
along with the CAR principles (Comprehensiveness, Adequacy
and Representativeness)3 when developing
the principles for the review. The CAR principles are used
to guide the identification, selection and design of no-take
areas around the world.
The CAR principles of marine
reserve design are:
- Comprehensive: Includes the full range
of habitat types (and other biodiversity features like species)
in no-take areas recognised at an appropriate scale;
- Adequate: Protects enough area to maintain
the ecological viability and integrity of populations, species
and communities;
- Representative: Ensures that the examples
of each biodiversity feature included in no-take areas are
typical of that feature.
The Expert Advisory Panel also recognised the need to consider
potential impacts on human use of the marine park brought
about by the zoning review, including industry, recreation
and cultural pursuits. The Panel developed criteria to guide
the development of socio-economic guiding principles. These
were based on an efficient approach in which the reserve system
should:
- meet conservation goals while minimising
the impact on other users; and
- be compact, not fragmented, to ensure
efficient management and enforcement.
The scientific principles are
part of a package that will help guide the review of the Moreton
Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan. In designing a new zoning plan,
the EPA will need to make specific decisions about the location,
size and number of no-take areas. The biophysical principles
will help to do this. The EPA will also need to consider the
impacts on users of no-take areas and other zoning within
the marine park. The socioeconomic principles will help to
do this. The final zoning decisions will rely on continued
involvement of marine park users and other stakeholders.
1
NRC (2001) Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean
Ecosystem. National Research Council: Committee on Evaluation,
Design and Monitoring of Marine Reserves and Protected Areas
in the United States. National Academy Press, Washington DC
2 WWF & Wood, L (2005) Ocean Protection:
are we on track? WWF, Gland, Switzerland
3 ANZECC TFMPA (1998) Guidelines for Establishing
the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas.
Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council
Taskforce on Marine Protected Areas, Environment Australia,
Canberra
Scientific Guiding
Principles
Governing principle:
“to conserve the unique values (environmental, social,
cultural and economic) of the marine park and to ensure its
sustainable use for the enjoyment and benefit of present and
future generations”
~ Biophysical Guiding
Principles ~
The Biophysical Guiding Principles
are based on the CAR principles:
- Comprehensive: includes the full range
of habitat types (and other biodiversity features like species)
in no-take areas recognised at an appropriate scale;
- Adequate: protects enough area to maintain
the ecological viability and integrity of populations, species
and communities;
- Representative: ensures that the examples
of each biodiversity feature included in no-take areas are
typical of that feature.
| Criteria |
Principle |
Explanation |
| Habitat representation |
1. Represent a minimum amount of each
‘habitat type’ in no-take areas |
Protect examples of each habitat
type to ensure maintenance of habitats and associated
biodiversity* within the marine park.
The Expert Advisory Panel has emphasised
the need to set realistic targets based on International
mandates, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD). Australia has signed up to the CBD which states
at least 10% of each habitat type should be protected
in a system of no-take areas. The Panel recommends that
the CBD 10% minimum target be adopted in the Moreton
Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan review.
The Panel also notes the importance of continuing off-reserve
management (e.g. fisheries management and water quality
strategies) to protect marine habitats.
*Biodiversity is described as the variety
of life forms and the habitats that make up a region. |
| Size and replication |
2. Include adequate size and replication
of ‘habitat types’ in notake areas |
Each habitat type should be protected
in more than one no-take area in a reserve network to
protect the full range of habitat types as a precaution
against major localised damage. Reserves should be large
enough to adequately protect relevant species within habitats.
Therefore, where possible larger reserves are preferred
to smaller reserves to minimise edge effects*.
*Edge effects are defined as the change
in species composition, physical conditions, or other
ecological factors at the boundary between two ecosystems. |
| Connectivity |
3. Provide connectivity within the network
of no-take areas |
Reserves in a network should be adequately
spaced to ensure the movement of species ensuring ‘safe’
distances in various ranges are included within the network
design. ‘Safe’ distances, those that provide
sufficient connectivity* to support populations in reserves,
increase with reserve size.
*Connectivity is defined as the transfer
of organisms (offspring, juveniles, adults) and genetic
exchange between populations in different places. |
| Vulnerable habitats |
4. Protect in no-take areas an
adequate amount of vulnerable habitats |
Vulnerable marine and coastal
habitats and associated animals and plants need to be
effectively protected in no-take areas. These habitat
types are defined as ‘vulnerable’ as they
typically are easily disturbed or transformed by human
actions and recovery is slow (e.g. coral reefs and seagrass
beds). The extent of protection depends on the degree
of vulnerability of the habitat and may exceed the minimum
10% target. |
| Vulnerable life stages |
5. Adequately protect species’
vulnerable life-stages in no-take areas |
Vulnerable life stages of species
need to be effectively protected in no-take areas. The
inclusion of localities where a species becomes especially
vulnerable, or which are vital for completion of their
life cycle (such as critical nursery areas, spawning or
nesting sites), adds value to a candidate area. |
| Species and areas of special interest |
6. Include species, populations
and areas of special interest in no-take areas |
Species and populations of conservation
concern such as threatened, rare, endangered or restricted-range
species need to be effectively protected in no-take areas.
Areas of special interest, such as areas with particular
geomorphologic features;
naturalness, amenity or cultural values; or areas of conservation
concern need to be effectively protected in no-take areas.
The inclusion of species/populations and areas of special
interest may heighten the need to protect a candidate
area. |
| Ecosystem linkages |
7. Include consideration of ecosystem
links among habitats and of sea and adjacent land uses
in determining no-take areas |
Areas that support other habitats
(ecosystem links), or are dependent on other habitats,
need to be protected. Past and present uses may have influenced
the integrity of biological communities, and need to be
considered when choosing no-take areas. For example, existing
no-take areas and areas adjacent to terrestrial protected
areas are likely to have greater biological integrity
than areas that have been used for resource exploitation.
Building upon these areas is a good starting point for
a marine reserve network. |
| Resilience |
8. Provide for future resilience
against natural or human induced changes or threatening
processes |
Areas that are less likely
to be subject to impacts and have a high
degree of naturalness (i.e. less exploited) need to be
considered
for no-take areas to ensure greater resilience against
future
change or threats. |
| Adaptive management |
9. Design a reserve network to
provide for scientific assessment of zoning effectiveness |
Queensland legislation provides
for the review of the zoning plan every 10 years. Decisions
about revision of the zoning should be soundly based on
scientific evidence of the effectiveness with which they
serve the governing principle of the marine park. Design
of the zoning should therefore take into account scientific
best practice in experimental design and monitoring. |
~ Socio-economic Guiding
Principles ~
The Socio-economic Guiding Principles
are based on an efficient approach in which
zoning should:
- meet conservation goals while minimising
the impact on other users; and
- be compact, not fragmented, to ensure efficient
management and enforcement.
| Criteria |
Principle |
Explanation |
| Balancing conservation and sustainable
use |
1. Ensure the final selection of zones
recognises social, economic, cultural and environmental
costs and benefits |
The final zoning selection needs
to be made recognising the costs and benefits to the community.
This acknowledges the objective to achieve a balance between
conservation goals and the need for continued sustainable
use. |
| Minimise impacts |
2. Minimise the impact of zoning on human
interactions with the Marine Park including access, activities,
values and aspirations |
Any proposed zoning should minimise impacts
on users of the marine park. For example, fishing and
boating should remain a significant and integral activity
within the marine park and Traditional Owners’ aspirations
for their sea country and the importance of the marine
park should be recognised.
Engagement of stakeholders and the community in a participatory
process that is open and transparent should be ongoing
throughout the review process. |
| Management complementarity |
3. Complement, where possible, other
management mechanisms and arrangements that affect the
Marine Park |
In considering zoning options, other
arrangements that may protect and/or manage the marine
environment should be taken into account to minimise conflict
and provide greater operational clarity. As part of the
review other environmental conservation legislation, management
of use and major initiatives to protect the marine park’s
values should be considered. For example, policies and
strategies dealing with marine pollution, international
wetlands, national parks, fisheries management, water
quality and coastal development all have some relevance
to marine park management. During the review, information
about these issues is to be provided to the agencies and
organisations that manage them. Native title claim areas
will be acknowledged. |
| Efficient and practical |
4. Maximise the understanding of the
Marine Park and the manageability of zones |
The final zoning plan should consider
operational and implementation issues to help provide
for efficient management and enforcement. Uses in the
marine park should be consistent, where practicable, with
other State marine parks to help the community understand
and appreciate conservation and use of the marine environment.
An awareness campaign to maximise the understanding of
the marine park should also be conducted. |
|
