The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) provides a globally significant demonstration of the effectiveness of large-scale networks of marine reserves in contributing to integrated, adaptive management. Comprehensive review of available evidence shows major, rapid benefits of no-take areas for targeted fish and sharks, in both reef and nonreef habitats, with potential benefits for fisheries as well as biodiversity conservation. Large, mobile species like sharks benefit less than smaller, site-attached fish. Critically, reserves also appear to benefit overall ecosystem health and resilience: outbreaks of coral-eating, crown-of-thorns starfish appear less frequent on no-take reefs, which consequently have higher abundance of coral, the very foundation of reef ecosystems. Effective marine reserves require regular review of compliance: fish abundances in no-entry zones suggest that even no-take zones may be significantly depleted due to poaching. Spatial analyses comparing zoning with seabed biodiversity or dugong distributions illustrate significant benefits from application of best-practice conservation principles in data-poor situations. Increases in the marine reserve network in 2004 affected fishers, but preliminary economic analysis suggests considerable net benefits, in terms of protecting environmental and tourism values. Relative to the revenue generated by reef tourism, current expenditure on protection is minor. Recent implementation of an Outlook Report provides regular, formal review of environmental condition and management and links to policy responses, key aspects of adaptive management. Given the major threat posed by climate change, the expanded network of marine reserves provides a critical and cost-effective contribution to enhancing the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef.biodiversity protection | spatial planning and zoning | social and ecological resilience | coral reefs | economic cost benefit analysis

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

ABSTRACT

This paper examines barriers and opportunities for climate change adaptation in an urban coastal setting where adaptation is in its infancy. It draws on a diagnostic framework as a foundation for identifying and organising barriers and opportunities in terms of three broad phases of the adaptation process, i.e. (1) understanding the problem, (2) planning adaptation options and (3) managing implementation of such options. Data come from the analysis of documents (e.g. policy, plans and reports) and a survey of 49 representatives from 42 organisations (e.g. government, environmental non-governmental organisations, businesses and local industry and professional associations). Nineteen barriers and/or opportunities pertaining to the different phases of the adaptation process were identified. Three of those barriers (i.e. competing priorities, existing management context and existing ecological context) are our additions to the initial list of common barriers proposed in the diagnostic framework. Barriers pertaining to the understanding phase were the most frequently noted by respondents. The understanding phase was also one which most of the barriers were nevertheless considered as opportunities. Emerging critical barriers and/or opportunities for climate change adaptation included perception of signal, availability and accessibility of information, existing management context and leadership. We propose that addressing these barriers and opportunities would involve improving perception about climate change and availability and accessibility of information, fostering anticipatory planned adaptation through the existing management context and developing leadership for adaptation. Findings from this study may prove useful to other jurisdictions, particularly those where climate adaptation is at its early stages of development.

No abstract