How effective is the management of the Great Barrier Reef?

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is the largest coral reef ecosystem on earth. In 1975, specific legislation for its protection led to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) being declared covering an area of 344 400 km2 (about the size of Italy or Malaysia). The GBRMP meets the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) definition of a marine protected area (MPA) being “… a clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley, 2008). While no longer the world’s largest MPA, the GBRMP remains globally significant; its expansive latitudinal and cross-shelf extent contains more biodiversity than any existing MPA or World Heritage Area (Day, 2016). It is a multiple-use MPA comprised of different zones (see Table 1), each with its own statutory entry and use provisions complying with the requirements of differing IUCN-protected area categories (Day et al., 2012). GBR zone names and equivalent IUCN categories of protected areas (after Day, 2016). The GBRMP does not include the majority of islands which are Queensland but does include 70 islands or parts of islands that are considered Commonwealth Islands. See zoning provisions for details. GBR zone names and equivalent IUCN categories of protected areas (after Day, 2016). The GBRMP does not include the majority of islands which are Queensland but does include 70 islands or parts of islands that are considered Commonwealth Islands. See zoning provisions for details. About one-third of the GBRMP is “no-take” (i.e. IUCN Category II), while some very small areas are “no-go” (i.e. Category Ia) requiring a special permit. Various types of fishing are allowed in two-thirds of the GBRMP (i.e. Categories IV and VI); the Habitat Protection Zone, however, ensures a huge area is free from benthic disturbance. Zoning and other management tools, both spatial and temporal, apply across the marine jurisdictional boundaries. Many of these other multilayered management tools overlay the zoning and have a statutory basis so are legally binding on specific users. Together all these tools form the three-dimensional management “package” for the GBR (Day, 2015), with different sectors subject to specific rules and regulations. Effective management of the GBR relies upon the cooperation of a number of management agencies (both federal and State), using statutory and non-statutory management tools (including zoning plans, plans of management, and other spatial plans) along with various management approaches (e.g. education, planning, partnerships, and enforcement) to control and/or mitigate impacts of various activities (e.g. tourism, fishing, and shipping) and to address various pressures/threats such as climate change, water quality, and population growth. Assessing management effectiveness in such a complex and extensive multiple-use area is challenging. One way is to examine the goals or objectives for the GBRMP set out in guiding documents and then assess the extent to which they are being met. The legislation provides the highest level objective governing how the GBRMP should be managed. The main object in the GBRMP Act 1975 is “… the long-term protection and conservation of the environment, biodiversity and heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef Region.” The legislation has other objectives but is clear that these can only occur “so far as is consistent with the main object” (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, section 2A). A five-yearly GBR Outlook Report is a legal requirement (GBRMPA, 2014); the long-term outlook is developed from eight specific assessments addressing the biodiversity of the GBR, ecosystem health, heritage values, the uses of the GBR, factors affecting the Region’s values, ecosystem resilience, the risks to the values, and the existing protection and management measures. Each chapter includes an assessment of the current condition and trend of the key values. The 2009 and 2014 Outlook Reports reveal a disturbing deterioration in many of the values for which the GBR has been internationally recognized, for example: Between 1985 and 2013, hard coral cover declined from 28% to 13.8% (De’ath et al., 2012), mainly in the southern two-thirds of the GBR. Widespread losses of seagrass have occurred particularly in areas directly affected by cyclones in 2011 and 2015; seagrass meadows throughout the GBR are still recovering from multiple years of climate related impacts which have left a legacy of reduced resilience (McKenzie et al., 2016). The dugong population has drastically declined from 1962 levels in the southern two-thirds of the GBR (GBRMPA, 2014). The 2014 Outlook Report concluded (GBRMPA, 2014: vi): Even with the recent management initiatives to reduce threats and improve resilience, the overall outlook for the GBR is poor, has worsened since 2009 and is expected to further deteriorate in the future. Greater reductions of threats at all levels, Reef-wide, regional and local, are required to prevent the projected declines in the GBR and to improve its capacity to recover. The 2014 Report also concluded: … the greatest risks … (remain) climate change, poor water quality from land-based run-off, impacts from coastal development, and some remaining impacts of fishing … (GBRMPA, 2014: v). These four threats are the greatest of the 41 threats examined in the Outlook Report, noting all but three of the 41 are impacting the GBR now, with sea level rise, ocean acidification, and altered ocean currents all expected to occur within 10+ years. Of greatest concern are the cumulative and possibly synergistic impacts of these threats that are extremely difficult to anticipate or measure. Reef 2050 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015) is the government’s response to these threats, with 151 management actions collectively providing the framework to protect and manage the GBR until 2050. Two examples, however, show the GBR’s values continue to decline despite these management actions. First, Reef 2050 contains eight measurable targets for water quality by 2018; Queensland’s report (2016) comprehensively assessed progress in 2015 showing: the overall assessment for sediment was 12.3% with the 2018 target being 20% and the overall assessment of dissolved inorganic nitrogen was 18.1% with the 2018 target being 50%. Water quality management for the GBR in 2015 was officially rated as “poor” (Queensland, 2016), with one expert stating “… there is almost no chance the targets will be reached (by 2018) … current progress towards the targets is so poor that we will not even get close” (Brodie, 2016). Second, in 2016, there was a major coral bleaching event in the northern half of the GBR (Hughes et al., 2016) followed in 2017 by an unprecedented bleaching further south; collectively these comprise the most widespread and catastrophic bleaching events ever recorded in the GBR and have since been described as a “game changer” for the overall health of the GBR. Today, many of the GBR’s key values are deteriorating and are expected to further decline. Hughes et al. (2015) showed that 25 of the 42 metrics that comprise the outstanding universal value of the GBR have deteriorated since inscription as a World Heritage Area in 1981; 10 are currently assessed as “poor.” Both the 2015 water quality report and the recent bleaching assessments were not yet available when the 2014 Outlook Report and Hughes et al. (2015) were compiled, so many GBR values would today be assessed with very different ratings. The GBR is under unprecedented pressures (both human-induced and natural) which are expected to increase. Some pressures, like climate change, are outside the mandate of any individual managing agency. Reef 2050 maintains many of the management actions will help build resilience to better cope with these pressures; sadly none of the management actions supposedly building resilience were insufficient to counter the recent bleaching. The more highly protected areas may be able to recover more effectively, but this has yet to be determined. It is impossible to determine what would be the state of the GBR if the multitude of management actions had not been applied. Some Before–After, Control-Impact (BACI-type) experiments have been attempted, but it is impossible to know definitively because the GBR was not pristine when the MPA was declared; furthermore, management is occurring at varying scales amidst countless confounding factors. The good news is that without the level of management that has occurred to date, it is highly likely that more of the GBR values would be considerably degraded; specific examples include improvements in the management of shipping and trawling, both resulting in significant advances. Equally there are specific examples where the management approach has clearly failed (e.g. Gladstone harbour or the curtailment of dissolved inorganic nitrogen, Brodie, 2016). The bad news is the long-term outlook for the GBR officially remains “poor” (GBRMPA, 2014: vi) and more needs to be undertaken at global, Reef-wide, regional, and local scales to reverse these declines. The worst news is that future generations will never experience the GBR with the values that we have enjoyed.