MARINE PROTECTED AREA REVIEW - JUNE 2019 - A REVIEW OF THE BENEFITS OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, WITH A FOCUS ON HOW VICTORIA IS TRACKING TOWARDS ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MARINE PROTECTED AREA REVIEW JUNE 2019 A REVIEW OF THE BENEFITS OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS, WITH A FOCUS ON HOW VICTORIA 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 marine protected area 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 Australia 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: vnpa@vnpa.org.au
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 “Marine Park” or “Marine Reserve” 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, Port Phillip 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. Gippsland 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 (Corner Inlet 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 Northern Territory
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% by state/territory 10%
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
of MPAs often skewed away from
10.4% 0%
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
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, a key conservation pillar in the
by mining, coastal development,
dredging, and some fishing
community and users current Victorian process of marine
activities • External threats are addressed spatial planning
through broader marine 2. An independent review, of
2. Well-managed no-take MPAs
spatial planning current Victorian MPAs against
maintain higher adult abundances
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
3. A large, well-established, well- • Old (>10yrs), large (>100km2) 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
4. MPAs deliver positive benefits to means of achieving the highest level of
in Table 7) using most recent
threatened species populations literature, to better manage
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”
T I M W I N T O N , A U T H O R A N D C O N S E R VAT I O N I S T
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 service or outcome of charismatic
Why are MPAs
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
and regulations of these types of “highly protected” MPAs (Table 1).
• Protection of threatened or
spatial management zones may be Category IV is aimed at protecting
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.”
J A N E L U B C H E N C O, F O R M E R H E A D O F N O A A
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, Western Port, 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) Edgar et al.
the boundaries between the
• Exclude minor destructive activities 2014
three categories. (e.g. human trampling, scuba diving)
Conservation benefits of MPAs • Exclude harvesting of living
organisms such as fishing
can be put broadly into four
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 • Facilitate recovery of boating and recreational activity Williams et
threatened species conservation,
populations (e.g. ship-strikes, habitat disturbance) al. 2015
ecosystem and climate change
• Prevent disturbance to • Protection of critical habitat Filby et al.
resilience and spillover benefits critical behaviour 2017
• Exclusion of harmful activities from
(Table 2). 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.
2016
is ‘such a rich diversity of flora • Increase resilience to and stability
and fauna, and cultural sites climate-driven ecosystem shifts • Presence of higher trophic levels in Ling et al.
• Increase resilience to MPAs resists invasion of climate- 2009
and landscapes, along such a
invasive species driven invasive species Ling and
compact and easily accessible Johnson
• Reduce incidence of • Restricting human interaction with the
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,
Edgar et al. 2014). Recent studies • Higher abundances of five
of fish being easier to count than
supporting MPA benefits to exploited exploited fish families after 10
the plethora of benthic and cryptic
species, and driven by the rewards of species from the past 10 years (2009- years protection in two NSW MPAs,
2018) include: however the difference was only
contributing to the ongoing polarising
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
are not resident in MPAs), climate reefs (Rees et al. 2018)
• 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
increasing fish biomass by 60%, a small NSW MPA that restricted
Furthermore, most studies evaluate spearfishing after 12.5 years (Curley
changes to marine life resulting across all geographies and habitats
(Gill et al. 2017) et al. 2013)
from the restriction of harvesting,
• Abundance and biomass of adult • Only no-take areas of a Mexican
in most cases fishing. There is little
commercial fish species in Spanish MPA had higher abundances of reef
to no literature on the role MPAs
MPAs positively affected by MPA fish after 15 years (Rife et al. 2013)
have played in restricting mining or
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
population dynamics of lobster in • Higher abundance of exploited
and lack other forms of regulation
(Marinesque et al. 2012). It is a Spanish MPA after 25 years, with limpets in MPAs in Italy (Marra et al.
important not to lose sight of such significantly greater size , biomass 2017)
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
very large and old MPAs such as the MPAs deliver positive benefits to
mixed results stemming from
Galapagos MPA (created 20 years threatened species populations when
complex interactions within each
ago), have increased tuna fisheries the threatened species is at risk from
ecosystem (Gilby and Stevens
productivity for migratory yellowfin and activities that the MPA can regulate.
2014). The clear majority of coral
skipjack tuna (Bucaram et al. 2018). reef MPAs had less algae and
For example, a small MPA in Portugal
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, Ecosystem resilience and effective for removing invasive kelp
whales and seabirds, can be negatively in small Tasmanian MPAs (Hewitt
climate change
affected by intensive interactions with 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
by scientists for the Burranan dolphins Marine reserves can foster high genetic
capacity to recover from impacts) diversity than fished areas (Munguia-
in Port Phillip Bay (Filby et al. 2017).
to many human-induced threats Vega et al. 2015), resulting in greater
Restrictions on boating in MPAs also
(Hopkins et al. 2016). In preserving tolerance within the population to
has the potential to reduce boat strikes
natural food webs and trophic disturbance, and ability to recover
on threatened species such as turtles
balance, MPAs can also help resist under a variety of changed conditions
(Denkinger et al. 2013). At present few
disturbances such as biological (Almany et al. 2009). This includes
MPAs restrict recreational boating,
invasion. In the Bahamas, high the threat of climate change and the
however this could be an effective
abundances of exploited grouper in critical ability of marine ecosystems
strategy for turtle foraging sites in
MPAs better excluded the invasive to resist and recover from the effects
places like the Galapagos (Dekinger
lionfish and acted as an effective (McLeod et al. 2009). Larger population
et al. 2013).
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 11The 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
different ways: 1) Preventing carbon A large, old, well-enforced, no-take
large exploited lobsters, which could
emissions from marine habitat loss, MPA with surrounding heavily fished
prey on and control the invasive sea
2) sequestering carbon through areas are very likely to provide
urchin, which is extending its range
habitat repair, 3) affect climatic spillover benefits for exploited
southward via climate change (Ling
interactions, 4) conserving ecosystem species. A 25 year old no-take reserve
et al. 2009, Ling and Johnston
integrity to resist invasive species in Spain demonstrated spillover of
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
• By fostering larger individuals than MPAs, 80% were found to show a predicted that spill-over would occur
spillover benefit (Di Lorenzo et al. for species that receive protection and
outside, MPAs can better resist
2016). Without further study, this benefit from MPAs, but only at a small
climate-driven mass mortality
result cannot be generalised to all scale up to 800m away from the
events, such as observed in Mexico
MPAs. All but one study reported a MPA (Halpern et al. 2010a). Similar
where abalone in MPAs survived
recovery of populations inside the local-scale benefits are predicted
a hypoxia event because of their
MPA, meaning that these MPAs likely using ecosystem models (Colleter et
larger size and better health (Micheli
et al. 2012). These large individuals met the criteria (identified in Section al 2014), however the spillover was
also had greater egg producing Three) that make an effective MPA. predicted to around the same as that
lost from not fishing in the MPAs.
capacity, and could replenish
surrounding non-MPA areas after
the mortality event
Marine Protected Area Review | PAGE 12SECTION 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.
Convention on Biological Diversity Al, (2016) , the authors analysed
Conservation Congress in Hawaii
called for MPAs on 10% of the world’s (2016), which recommended at
144 studies to determine
oceans by 2012. However, this target whether international targets
least 30% in MPAs with a long-term
was not met and by 2012 only 2.3% for marine conservation were
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
in 2010: consistently indicate that protecting
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
cent of terrestrial and inland spatial management system which
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
the most rapidly declining
Diversity)
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,
but are not adequately
MPA to include other types of spatial 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
Marine Sanctuary.
what constitutes an MPA led to
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 13independent 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 of species have 10% of their range
MPAs MPAs MPAs MPAs
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 14Table 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
WA 39 25,197 21.8 12,474 10.8
on July 1st 2018 and as of August
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 65016%
Marine protected area 14%
(no-take) areas compared 12%
by state/territory 10%
8%
6%
4%
TOTAL 2%
10.4% 0%
WA NT SA QLD NSW VIC TAS
of commonwealth
waters in no-take areasEnvironment 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 marine protected areas were
1061 km2 of Victorian coastal waters,
and other Australian jurisdictions have representative of consolidated
the smallest area of any state or
surpassed it. and unconsolidated substrata
territory in Australia. Victoria also has
the second-smallest area of no-take but neither adequate nor
Although the Northern Territory comprehensive due to limited
continue to struggle with marine MPAs (after the Northern Territory
(Table 5), and the second-smallest areas of intertidal, subtidal
conservation and trails Victoria, the and deep reef in Discovery
Australian Government and states of area of coastal waters (after NSW).
Bay MNP and subtidal reefs in
Western Australia, South Australia and Merri MS, and the absence of
Table 6 lists Victoria’s 24 highly
Queensland are well ahead, and even seagrass habitats in the parks.
protected and six partially protected
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
Australia’s state jurisdictions have protected network covers 530 km2 or
and unconsolidated substrata,
opted for creating multi-zoned roughly 5.3% of coastal waters. When
and comprehensive for four
marine parks but with core areas the terrestrial components of Shallow
of five biounits (deep reefs
given high-level protection (IUCN I, Inlet (20% terrestrial), Corner Inlet
and offshore sediments
IA, II and III). Western Australia has a (10%) and Nooramunga (40%) marine
off Mornington Peninsula
network of MPAs that covers 40% of and coastal parks are excluded, the
were largely missing, along
its waters with almost 11% in no-take, six partially protected MPAs cover
with Western Port entrance
Queensland 50% with 14% no-take, 530.8 km2 or roughly 5.3% of coastal
seagrass and shallow reef
and South Australia 45% with 12.4% waters. Together, the two MPA
habitats). The assessment
as no-take. With the proclamation of groups cover 10.6% of coastal waters.
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 South Gippsland, 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 17You can also read
