The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, an area almost the size of Japan, has a new network of no-take areas that significantly improves the protection of biodiversity. The new marine park zoning implements, in a quantitative manner, many of the theoretical design principles discussed in the literature. For example, the new network of no-take areas has at least 20% protection per "bioregion," minimum levels of protection for all known habitats and special or unique features, and minimum sizes for no-take areas of at least 10 or 20 km across at the smallest diameter. Overall, more than 33% of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is now in no-take areas (previously 4.5%). The steps taken leading to this outcome were to clarify to the interested public why the existing level of protection was inadequate; detail the conservation objectives of establishing new notake areas; work with relevant and independent experts to define, and contribute to, the best scientific process to deliver on the objectives; describe the biodiversity (e.g., map bioregions); define operational principles needed to achieve the objectives; invite community input on all of the above; gather and layer the data gathered in round-table discussions; report the degree of achievement of principles for various options of no-take areas; and determine how to address negative impacts. Some of the key success factors in this case have global relevance and include focusing initial communication on the problem to be addressed; applying * email leannef@gbrmpa.gov.au the precautionary principle; using independent experts; facilitating input to decision making; conducting extensive and participatory consultation; having an existing marine park that encompassed much of the ecosystem; having legislative power under federal law; developing high-level support; ensuring agency priority and ownership; and being able to address the issue of displaced fishers.Key Words: biophysical operational principles, cultural operational principles, economic operational principles, reserve-design software, social operational principles Establecimiento deÁreas sin Captura Representativas en la Gran Barrera Arrecifal: Implementación a Gran Escala de la Teoría sobreÁreas Marinas Protegidas Resumen: El Parque Marino Gran Barrera Arrecifal, con una superficie casi del tamaño de Japón, tiene una red deáreas sin captura que incrementa la protección de la biodiversidad significativamente. La nueva zonificación en el parque marino implementa, de manera cuantitativa, muchos de los principios teóricos de diseño discutidos en la literatura. Por ejemplo, la nueva red deáreas sin captura tiene niveles mínimos de protección de por lo menos 20% de protección por "bioregión" en todos los hábitats y rasgos especiales oúnicos conocidos, y tamaños mínimos para lasáreas sin captura de por lo menos 10 o 20 km en el diámetro menor. En general, más de 33% del Parque Marino Gran Barrera Arrecifal está enáreas sin captura (4.5% anteriormente). Los pasos hacia este resultado fueron clarificar al público interesa...

ABSTRACT1. While conservationists, resource managers, scientists and coastal planners have recognized the broad applicability of marine protected areas (MPAs), they are often implemented without a firm understanding of the conservation science } both ecological and socio-economic } underlying marine protection. The rush to implement MPAs has set the stage for paradoxical differences of opinions in the marine conservation community.2. The enthusiastic prescription of simplistic solutions to marine conservation problems risks polarization of interests and ultimately threatens bona fide progress in marine conservation. The blanket assignment and advocacy of empirically unsubstantiated rules of thumb in marine protection creates potentially dangerous targets for conservation science.3. Clarity of definition, systematic testing of assumptions, and adaptive application of diverse MPA management approaches are needed so that the appropriate mix of various management tools can be utilized, depending upon specific goals and conditions. Scientists have a professional and *Correspondence to: Dr T. Agardy, Sound Seas, Bethesda, MD 20816, USA. E-mail: tundiagardy@earthlink.net 1 The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of their affiliated institutions. 2 Order of authorship is alphabetical by family name and does not indicate relative level of effort to the development of this paper. ethical duty to map out those paths that are most likely to lead to improved resource management and understanding of the natural world, including the human element, whether or not they are convenient, politically correct or publicly magnetic.4. The use of MPAs as a vehicle for promoting long-term conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity is in need of focus, and both philosophical and applied tune ups. A new paradigm arising out of integrated, multi-disciplinary science, management and education/outreach efforts must be adopted to help promote flexible, diverse and effective MPA management strategies. Given scientific uncertainties, MPAs should be designed so one can learn from their application and adjust their management strategies as needed, in the true spirit of adaptive management.5. It is critical for the conservation community to examine why honest differences of opinion regarding MPAs have emerged, and recognize that inflexible attitudes and positions are potentially dangerous. We therefore discuss several questions } heretofore taken as implicit assumptions: (a) what are MPAs, (b) what purpose do MPAs serve, (c) are no-take MPAs the only legitimate MPAs, (d) should a single closed area target be set for all MPAs, and (e) how should policymakers and conservation communities deal with scientific uncertainty?

No abstract

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) is bigger than the United Kingdom, Holland and Switzerland combined. Over the last 25 years a range of management 'tools', including zoning plans, permits, education, and more recently management plans, have been applied to regulate access and to control and mitigate impacts associated with human use of the GBRMP. A multiple-use zoning approach provides high levels of protection for specific areas whilst allowing reasonable uses, including certain fishing activities, to continue in other zones. Zoning has long been regarded as a cornerstone of Marine Park management, separating conflicting uses through application of the various zones and determining the appropriateness of various activities. Zoning in the GBRMP has evolved and changed considerably since the first zoning plan in 1981, along with other management approaches. This paper outlines what aspects of zoning have worked well, what has necessarily changed, and the zoning lessons learned from over two decades of 'adaptive management'. r

In numerous and important situations across the globe, the transition from designs to actions in conservation planning requires multiple iterations. Regional designs need to be updated progressively as some applied actions depart spatially from the areas notionally selected for conservation, or as some intended actions prove infeasible or undesirable. For researchers and organizations to fully capitalize on the enormous investment in conservation designs around the world, regional designs must be seen, not as static products, but as starting points for ongoing adaptation. We explain 18 reasons why regional designs need to be adapted, either in anticipation of actions or as actions are progressively applied. Our reasons are in four groups: early fine-tuning; mistakes and surprises; new data; and major overhaul. We show that the relative importance of these reasons varies between three planning situations: 1. rapid application, when conservation actions are applied simultaneously across all parts of regional designs; 2. protracted application, when, more typically, actions are applied incrementally over extended periods; and 3. revision of regional designs, either mandated or spontaneous. We then explore the conceptual, operational, institutional, and policy implications of designs being, or needing to be, dynamic. The weaknesses in methods for conservation planning are most starkly revealed by the need to adapt designs during protracted application of actions on private or community-managed lands and marine waters.