IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/marpol/v42y2013icp39-48.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are outcomes matching policy commitments in Australian marine conservation planning?

Author

Listed:
  • Barr, Lissa M.
  • Possingham, Hugh P.

Abstract

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are believed to be an effective means of preserving marine biodiversity. Hence, MPAs have become the cornerstone of many national and international strategies for decelerating the loss of marine biodiversity. Australia has made strong international commitments to increase its coverage of MPAs through the principles of systematic conservation planning and, in the last 10 years, has rapidly expanded its MPA coverage using these principles. This paper assesses Australia's progress in achieving a key principle of systematic conservation planning—representation—which states that MPAs will include the full range of marine ecosystems. Australia's progress in achieving representation is measured nationally and within seven extensive commonwealth marine regions: the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (rezoned in 2004), the South East Marine Regional Plan (2007), and the South West, North West, North, Temperate East and Coral Sea proposed plans (2011). State marine waters (within 3 nautical miles of the coast) are not considered. Results illustrate that, if the proposed marine plans are followed verbatim, Australia will protect just over 36% of its marine jurisdiction in MPAs and over 13% in “no-take” marine reserves. However, except for MPAs in the Great Barrier Reef, and the proposal for the Coral Sea marine park, the existing and proposed MPAs are far from representative. Importantly, only a small portion of the highest protection occurs on the continental shelf where activities potentially harmful to marine biodiversity are concentrated. Despite having a strong and long-standing commitment to the principles of systematic conservation planning, Australia is not achieving the fundamental requirement of representation across most of its marine jurisdiction. We conclude that a failure to set quantitative targets is restricting the achievement of representative marine protection in Australia. Consequently, the 2004 rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef remains a model to emulate, not only in other countries, but in other parts of Australia's marine waters.

Suggested Citation

  • Barr, Lissa M. & Possingham, Hugh P., 2013. "Are outcomes matching policy commitments in Australian marine conservation planning?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 39-48.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:42:y:2013:i:c:p:39-48
    DOI: 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.01.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X13000213
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.marpol.2013.01.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ardron, Jeff A. & Rayfuse, Rosemary & Gjerde, Kristina & Warner, Robin, 2014. "The sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity in ABNJ: What can be achieved using existing international agreements?," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 98-108.
    2. Hobbs, Jean-Paul Adrian, 2014. "A glaring omission in Australia’s marine conservation planning," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 149-151.
    3. Tessa Mazor & Hugh P Possingham & Dori Edelist & Eran Brokovich & Salit Kark, 2014. "The Crowded Sea: Incorporating Multiple Marine Activities in Conservation Plans Can Significantly Alter Spatial Priorities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:marpol:v:42:y:2013:i:c:p:39-48. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/marpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.