Mariasole Bianco 12433140

Protected Areas Management

M

Marine Protected Areas in Italy and Australia:

A comparison

EV5914 EV5915
AthkanjlchAGCgcug
This thesis is based on interviews

and research conducted both

in Italy and Australia. It compares the different MPAs
management practices in the two countries with the best
practices available according to the literature on the topic.

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Table of Content

Introduction and Aim of the Study

Chapter 1: Marine Protected Areas, sustainable development and biodiversity conservation.

The international legislative process leading to the realization of these concepts.

Marine Protected Areas in Italy

13

Australia's Marine Jurisdictions

18

Chapter 2: The Cinque Terre Marine Protected Area

24

The Marine Protected Area of Tavolara - Punta Coda Cavallo

26

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

29

Chapter 3: Discussion

32

Funding

32

Zoning

36

Run off

45

Managing tourism impact

49

Education and Interpretation

55

Guidelines

59

Climate Change

64

Conclusion and Recommendations

68

APPENDIX 1

73

APPENDIX 2

78

APPENDIX 3

84

Acknowledgment

97

Resources

117
1

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
List of Tables and Figures

Table 1: IUCN Protected Area Management Categories

10

Table 1: Funding results

32

Table 2: Zoning results

36

Table 3: Zoning Plan Process

37

Table 5: Zoning of the GBR before and after re-zoning

41

Table 6: Runoff results

45

Table 7: Tourism impact management results

49

Table 8: Education and interpretation results

55

Table 9: Guidelines results

59

Table 10: Climate change results

64

Figure 1: Responsibility in Australian waters

20

Figure 2: Cinque Terre MPA Zoning

25

Figure 3: Tavolara-Punta Coda Cavallo MPA Zoning

28

Figure 4: Part of the GBR Zoning Map

31

Figure 5: Dive tag in the Namena Marine Reserve in Fiji

35

Figure 6: Spill over effect in Tavolara MPA

42

Figure 7: GBR Representative Areas Program

44

Figure 8: The biophysical-psychological-social interface and the reciprocal transactions

53

Figure 9: Model of population replenishment

61

Figure 10: NSMPA

63

Figure 11: Variations over the 21st Century in steric sea levels in the Mediterranean Sea

65
2

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Introduction and Aim of the Study

In recent years increasing concerns have arisen about the impacts of human activities on marine
ecosystems that have resulted in a decline of the ecosystem health and in a decrease of the size,
diversity and abundance of many species.
It has been widely recognized that protected areas play an important role in relation to
environmental protection and in relation to the socio-economic and cultural sustainability and, in
recent times , a greater interest has arisen in the use of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as tools
for the conservation of marine ecosystems (McNeill, 1994).
In particular, marine protected areas may, through the conservation of biodiversity and ecological
values and through the sustainable use of resources, play a strategic role in the management of
marine environments and react positively to the environmental degradation caused by overexploitation that historically has characterized the use of natural resources (Cattaneo & Tunesi
2007). This is the reason why Protected Areas, protection of biodiversity and sustainable
development are three concepts that are closely tied together.
In fact, the concept of sustainable development implies that the economic and social dynamics of
modern economies should be compatible with the improvement of living conditions and the ability
of natural resources to be maintained and for living organisms to be able to reproduce.
Sustainability can therefore be understood as a creative process which recalls the need to combine
the three fundamental and inseparable dimensions of development also known as the triple bottom
line: environmental, economic and social sustainability. While sustainable use and marine
conservation are often seen as fundamentally different objectives, they are in fact strongly
interrelated (Kelleher, 1999).
The aim of this study is to identify the issues that must be addressed in order for MPAs in Italy to
be managed more effectively. To achieve this aim, this study will outline and examine the history
of MPAs in the broad international context. Firstly, the study will examine how these broad
concepts have been, over a period of time, introduced into the Italian and Australian government
legislation. Secondly, two face-to-face interviews were conducted with the managers of the
Tavolara marine protected area and the Cinque Terre marine protected area in Italy. These
interviews will be presented in the methods section of this thesis regarding Australia, the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park will be used as the example of MPA management. Finally, the findings
will be tabled, discussed and evaluated against the best practices as currently found in the available
literature on the topic.
3

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Chapter 1

Marine Protected Areas, sustainable development and biodiversity conservation.

The international legislative process that leads to the realization of these concepts.
Historically the oceans were considered invulnerable to human impact and were seen by people
from an utilitarian point of view such as a common property resource, available for exploitation
by all (Hardin, 1968; Goeden, 1975), as a platform for military use, transport, extraction of food
and other resources and even as a dumping ground for human waste.
The reason for protecting natural areas, in the past, has ranged from the religious motivation to
resource management objectives, including initiatives such as designating sacred places and the
regulation of the exploitation of particular species in certain areas such as specific areas set aside by
Pacific Islanders or the European hunting reserves (Grove, 1995).
The conservation of terrestrial habitats through a protected area started in March, 1872 with the
establishment of the Yellowstone National Park and a common feeling of concerns about human
impacts on land. On the other hand, at that point in time, no parallel system or established
theoretical basis existed for the conservation and protection of the marine environment (Ballantine,
1991; Fairweather, 1991).
However, during the 1960s a new environmental awareness was born because of a number of
disasters that involved the marine environment such as the progressive depletion of fisheries in the
North Atlantic Ocean and the Minamata disaster in Japan where an entire fishing village was
poisoned by methyl mercury of industrial origin (Cattaneo & Tunesi, 2007). The recognition of the
profound impact of human activities on marine ecosystems (Chandler et al. 1995) has led to a push
for stronger marine conservation efforts.
Since the early 1970s an understanding of the need to reconcile economic growth and equitable
distribution of resources in a new developmental model has emerged in the international collective
sensitivity (Cattaneo & Tunesi, 2007). It became obvious to governments and the public that the
development of the industrial world, which resulted in a well-being previously unknown to
humanity, was also having an increasing and negative consequence on the overall quality of public
health and terrestrial environment. This sensitivity to the environment in public opinion forced the
international community to identify the guidelines of development that not only had as its objective
the creation of wealth, but also the well-being linked to the quality of life, environment and
4

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

sustainable management of resources for a fair distribution of costs and benefits among people and
a guarantee to future generations. The First World Conference on National Parks was held in Seattle
in 1962 and it was the first time that governments of all those countries having marine frontiers
were called up to examine as a matter of urgency the possibility of creating marine parks or
reserves to defend underwater interests.
In 1968 a UNESCO conference considered for the first time the idea of biosphere reserves as places
where to give emphasis to the human dimension of conserving and using the resources of the planet
and start the UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme. Today, they are defined by UNESCO
as areas of terrestrial and coastal-marine ecosystems which are internationally recognized for
promoting and demonstrating a balanced relationship between people and nature.
The model of the biosphere reserve is very similar to the model of the large multiple-use MPA
(Kelleher, 1999). In fact, according to Kelleher (1999), biosphere reserves have three main
functions and they are organized into three inter-related zones:

A core area established to ensure long-term protection and whose main role is contributing
to the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species and genetic variation. In the core area
minimal human activity should occur.

A buffer zone around or next to the core, where just regulated activities are allowed to
protect the core zone. The main role of the buffer zone is the encouragement of economic
development which is ecologically and culturally sustainable. In this zone carefully
regulated tourism and recreational activities are allowed and education and training to
develop approaches for sustainable use of natural resources are promoted.

An outer transition area or area of cooperation whose main role is the provision of locations
and services to support research, monitoring and education. In this area local communities,
conservation agencies together with other stakeholders cooperate to manage the areas
resources sustainably, for the benefit of people who depend on the area.

The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was held In Stockholm in 1972, which
represented a fundamental step in the international environmental policy. At this conference the
protection and improvement of the natural environment was recognized as a priority value to
humanity by giving these concepts equal value to the ideals of peace and socio-economic
development in the third world. In the same year the Convention Concerning the Protection of the

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

World Cultural and Natural Heritage, known as the World Heritage Convention was held and
entered into force in 1975.
After the World Heritage Convention the UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Protection, at
National Level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage was published and specified in article 19 that
Member States should, as far as possible, take all necessary scientific, technical and
administrative, legal and financial measures, to ensure the protection of the cultural and natural
heritage in their territories.
Moreover in the World Heritage Convention it was highlighted that MPAs will not succeed without
the public support. A strong public awareness about marine conservation needs is an essential
requirement for success and will secure a sufficient budget allocation for planning, establishment
and management of the MPA (Kelleher, 1999).
Although the first Marine Protected Area in the world, The Fort Jefferson National Monument in
Florida was established in 1935, it was not until 1975 that the first World Conference on Marine
Protected Areas was held in Tokyo and called for the establishment of a well-monitored system of
MPAs representative of the globes marine ecosystems.
From 1973 to 1977 the Third United Nations Conference of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
provided a legal basis on which MPAs could be established and marine resources conserved in
areas beyond territorial seas. However this convention did not came into force until November
1994 and established an official responsibility for countries to protect the sea from land-sourced
pollution and to regulate the exploitation of living resources within a distance of 200 nautical miles
from the national jurisdictional baseline. This concept was reinforced in 1982 with the Convention
on the Law of the Sea held in Montego Bay where Marine Protected Areas became an integral part
of marine management. Three years later in 1985 the United Nations Environmental Program
(UNEP) established further guidelines for the protection of the marine environment from pollution
from the land, suggesting that states should, in a manner consistent with international law, take all
appropriate measures, such as the establishment of marine reserves and sanctuaries to protect
specific areas to the maximum extent against possible pollution.

During the 1980s pollution and depletion of natural resources continued to grow despite all the
steps already taken. In 1982, the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) facilitated a series
of workshops concerning the establishment and the management of marine and coastal protected
areas, as part of the 3rd World Congress on National Parks held in Bali, Indonesia. This process
6

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

resulted in the publication of the document Marine and Coastal Protected Areas: A Guide for
Planners and Managers (Salm & Clark, 1984), which represents a comprehensive framework on
how to manage marine and coastal protected areas (Kelleher, 1999).
In 1992, the IVth World Parks Congress was held in Caracas (Venezuela) and on this occasion a
number of goals and high priority actions for protected areas worldwide were specified. In
particular, in this Congress a great importance was given to:

Bioregional planning as an integrated approach to link terrestrial and marine environments

in coastal management.

Co-management, which promotes the establishment of partnerships with the local

community and their involvement together with other stakeholders in the planning and
management of the area.

The necessity for protected areas to be more financially self-sustaining, by generating their
own income and not relying only on government budgets as their source of funding.

The use of protected areas as places where people can work and live in harmony with the
natural environment and at the same time maintain the biodiversity of the area.

The concept of living in harmony with the environment while allowing for sustainable
economic and social growth is defined in the literature as the triple bottom line which
represents the basis of sustainable development.

The term "sustainable development" appeared for the first time in 1980 in the title of the
international document the "World Conservation Strategy. Living Resources Conservation for
Sustainable Development." prepared by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
with the advice, cooperation and financial assistance of the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). However, it was only in 1987 that the
World Commission on Environment and Development, headed by Gro Harlem Brundtland, first
gave a precise definition of sustainable development as:
"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs" including economic growth, environmental protection, and
social equity (Brundtland et al., 1987).
Five years later, the concept of sustainable development was made official at the United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 and also known
7

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

as the "Earth Summit". The conference was organized to develop strategies to decrease the effects
of environmental degradation through cooperation between the Member States and to promote an
international economic system capable of generating growth and sustainable development for all
countries while preserving the environmental integrity of the world.
The Conference led to the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, a non legally binding
document that contained very important principles such as the obligation not to cause transboundary environmental harm and to inform the community of national decision-making, the
principle known as the "polluter pays" and the requirement of prior environmental impact
assessment on the main national activities (UNEP, 1992). On this occasion, national and regional
strategies like the Program of Action Agenda 21 were also identified to enable sustainable
development. The need was highlighted to harmonize national policies on economic, social and
environmental impacts and some issues such as water, waste and health became the focus for
growth and development of a policy compatible with the protection of natural resources and
attention to the interests of future generations.

In Rio de Janeiro another important agreement was also signed: the Convention on Biological
Diversity which came into force in December 1993 and which stressed the importance of protected
areas as an effective tool for maintaining biodiversity. In fact this framework agreement was the
first occasion on which the protection of biodiversity (which is defined so as to include biological
productivity) was the purpose of an international agreement and in which protected areas were
defined as the cornerstone of biodiversity conservation.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) highlighted the important role that protected areas
play not only in securing biodiversity conservation but also in securing the well-being of humanity
itself. In actual fact Protected areas provide livelihoods for nearly 1.1 billion people and are the
primary source of drinking water for over a third of the worlds largest cities and are a major factor
in ensuring global food security (Dudley & Stolton, 2009) meanwhile they maintain key habitats,
provide refuge, allow for species migration and movement, and ensure the maintenance of natural
processes across both the terrestrial and the marine environments.
The Convention on Biological Diversity upholds marine conservation and obliged signatories to
build up national biodiversity strategies, to identify and monitor the important components of
biodiversity, to establish a system of protected areas to preserve biodiversity, to promote
environmentally sustainable development in areas contiguous to protected areas and to rehabilitate
degraded ecosystems (Glowka et al., 1994).
8

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

However the United Nations Environment Programme argued that the Convention on Biological
Diversity contained no specific article on marine and coastal biodiversity. This is the reason why
the importance of marine and coastal biodiversity and Marine and Coastal Protected Areas was later
re-enforced by the policy decision also known as the Jakarta Mandate on the Conservation and
Sustainable Use of Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity that was adopted in 1995 by the Parties
of the CBD. The Jakarta Mandate handed the responsibility to the Parties of the CBD to research
and monitor the biodiversity of marine and coastal protected areas and to develop criteria for their
establishment and management. The Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity
recognises that protected areas are not the only mechanism for conserving biodiversity but that they
are an important element of the overall approach (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010).
In the same year (1995) the report A Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas
was issued in four volumes and it spelt out the situation in each of the 18 marine regions and
outlined what further MPAs were needed. Additionally in February 2004, the CBD Parties made a
comprehensive and specific protected area commitment by adopting the Programme of Work on
Protected Areas (PoWPA) which can be considered as a crucial framework for protected areas for
the next decade and which promotes the development of participatory, ecologically representative
and effectively managed national and regional systems of protected areas.
One of the main reasons for the establishment of Marine Protected Areas is the protection and
conservation of biodiversity, in particular of species and habitats.
Biodiversity is defined by IUCN as: the variability among living organisms from all sources
including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which
they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems. It is now
well established that biodiversity plays a fundamental role as an indicator of the health of an
environment and for the functioning of all ecosystems (Loreau et al., 2001). Moreover, Kelleher
(1999) states that maintaining biological productivity is crucial in terms of contributing to human
welfare.
Although there are numerous studies in the field of terrestrial biodiversity and related conservation
programs, the problem of its preservation in marine environments has historically received less
consideration. The World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) recorded in 1996 about 1.5
million km2 of MPAs in contrast with the 11.6 million km2 of protected area on land (CBD
Secretariat, 2001). Therefore, it becomes increasingly clear that marine ecosystems are equally at
risk and that the marine environment receives a great pressure from human activities and is
particularly vulnerable to loss of biological diversity.
9

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Even if the international recognition of the necessity to establish marine protected areas has been
acknowledged since the First World Conference on National Parks in 1962 (Kriwoken &
Haward, 1991), the actual area of marine environment under any form of protection remains less
than 1% of the world's oceans (Kelleher & Kenchington, 1992). Marine Protected Areas are
defined by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) as:
Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora,
fauna, historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to
protect part or all of the enclosed environment (Resolution 19.46 (1994) of the IUCN General
Assembly). According to IUCN protected areas are divided into seven different management
categories, depending on their objectives as shown in Table 1.
Table 4: IUCN Protected Area Management Categories
IUCN Protected Area Management Categories
Type of area
1

IUCN

Strict nature reserve Ia

Explanation
Managed primarily for scientific research or environmental
monitoring.

Wilderness area

Ib

Protected and managed to preserve its unmodified condition.

National park

II

Protected and managed to preserve its natural condition.

Natural monument

III

Protected and managed to preserve its natural or cultural

features

Habitat/species

IV

management area

Managed primarily, including (if necessary) through active

intervention, to ensure the maintenance of habitats or to
meet the requirements of specific species.

Protected

Landscape/seascape
7

Managed resource
protected area

Managed to safeguard the integrity of the traditional

interactions between people and nature.

VI

Managed to ensure long-term protection and maintenance of

biological diversity with a sustainable flow of natural
products and services to meet community needs.

10

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

IUCN has also defined the goal for a global network of MPAs in its General Assembly Resolutions
in 1994 as: To provide for the protection, restoration, wise use, understanding and enjoyment of
the marine heritage of the world in perpetuity through the creation of a global, representative
system of marine protected areas and through the management in accordance with the principles of
the World Conservation Strategy of human activities that use or affect the marine environment
(General Assembly Resolution 19.46, 1994).
The centrality of the role of Marine Protected Areas in the pursuit of sustainable development was
further reinforced at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, which showed that
the rational management of the marine environment is essential in order to use its resources
effectively and preserve it for future generations.
During the World Summit on Sustainable Development it was also stated that by 2012 Marine
Protected Areas will have to justify their existence and be transparent about the achievement of
their objectives not only in biological ways but also in socio-economic and administrative fields and
should organize themselves into a network-like system.
It is essential to highlight that even if the protection and restoration of biological values is one of the
main purposes of the establishment of Marine Protected Areas, they also play a central role in
promoting sustainable economic and social development. In effect, as Kelleher (1999) emphasizes,
MPAs are only effectively successful if all the users of the marine environment share the interest in
their success and if they are actually involved in the MPA planning and management. In fact MPAs
should also promote research, education and training to spread and increase the knowledge of the
marine environment and to stimulate new forms of recreation and tourism compatible from an
environmental perspective. These features, taken together and properly managed can facilitate the
realization of many benefits associated with the three different dimensions of sustainable
development.
The three different dimensions of environmental, economic and social benefits of MPAs will now
be discussed in greater detail. The environmental benefits of introducing an MPA are:

The protection and restoration of biodiversity and the conservation of genetic diversity
(Kelleher, 1999);

The protection of the landscape especially critical habitats of threatened species (Leslie et
al., 2003) ;

The protection and valorisation of biological resources and local geomorphology;

11

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The maintenance of the ecosystems productivity and the maintenance of essential ecological
processes (Kelleher, 1999); and

The protection by acting as a refuge for intensely exploited species.

In relation to the economic dimension, the establishment and proper management of MPAs favour:

The enhancement of traditional activities already present in the surrounding area and the
creation of new activities compatible with the objectives of environmental protection
(Dayton et al., 2000);

Increased productivity of fisheries by: insurance against stock collapse; buffer against
recruitment failure; increase in densities and average sizes of individuals; increase in
reproductive output; provide centres for dispersal of propagules and adults (spill over);
contain more natural species composition, age structure, spawning potential and genetic
variability (Kelleher, 1999); and

The promotion and development of sustainable and nature-based form of tourism.

(Ballantine, 1991)

Finally, in relation to the social dimension, the potential benefits of an MPA include:

The promotion of new environmentally friendly forms of recreation and tourism (Davis et
al. 1997);

The creation of new employment and business opportunities associated with these tourist
activities (Dalton, 2004);

The promotion of programs of study and scientific research in the fields of ecology, biology
and marine geology and environmental protection; and

The publication and dissemination of knowledge of the ecology of marine and coastal
environments of the marine protected area (Richardson et al., 2006).

It is clear therefore that the protection of an area does not imply the exclusion of any human activity
but requires the creation of new forms of development considering the role played by the marine
protected area within a regional system that includes not only the coast but also the associated
inland.

12

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Marine Protected Areas in Italy

The situation and the national legislation that led to the establishment of MPAs.
Italy has approximately 8,000 kilometers of coastline and underwater landscapes of exceptional
beauty and they represent an invaluable resource of biological diversity. Unfortunately over the last
100 years, this heritage instead of being protected to ensure that its beauty would remain unchanged
has been excessively exploited endangering the health of entire marine ecosystems.

The Mediterranean Sea is a semi-enclosed sea linked to the Atlantic Ocean through the Strait of
Gibraltar (15 kilometers wide, with an average depth of 290 meters) (Batisse & Grissac, 1998), to
the Sea of Marmara through the Dardanelles and to the Red Sea through the Suez Canal and it is
also a interesting source of biodiversity hosting 10,000-12,000 marine species (Cattaneo & Tunesi
2007). Even if the Mediterranean Sea is considered as having a low level of biological productivity
its water and surrounding lands are actually characterized by a high degree of biodiversity.
The Mediterranean biological diversity represents 8-9 % of the total number of described marine
species in an area that occupies less than 1% of the waters of the world but, on the other hand, the
Mediterranean is considered one of the world's seas that are most vulnerable to human activities and
pollution by carrying 15% of all global shipping trade and 30% of the worlds oil by sea (Cattaneo
& Tunesi, 2007). Moreover the Mediterranean Sea has a negative hydrological balance in which the
loss of water though evaporation exceeds the input of water though runoff and precipitation. Due to
these hydrologic and geographic characteristics, the process of water circulation and recycling in
the Mediterranean Sea are such that approximately any substance introduced, mostly from landbased sources like domestic sewage, industrial discharges and agricultural runoff will remain within
its boundaries (Batisse & Grissac, 1998).

For all these reasons, MPAs are considered an effective tool for the proper management of the
coastline also considering the environmental degradation associated with the socio-economic
development along the Italian coast since the early 1960s.
In fact, the Italian coastline has been and still is one of the most at risk environments for
deterioration generated by the increasing population pressure in this area which represent
approximately 60% of the entire Italian population (Cattaneo & Tunesi, 2007). To this pressure
must also be added the impact caused by industrial and agricultural activities and by the mass
tourism that in some places dramatically increases the pressure on the environment especially
during the summer time. In addition to the impact of urbanization and pollution, including shipping,
13

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

the continued removal of resources by fisheries with the consequent by-catch, the coming out of
alien species and climate change, all contribute to increasing the impact on the marine environment.

Certainly the overall picture is very worrying and needs more attention from the political point of
view, considering that Article 9 of the Italian Constitution states: "The Republic promotes the
cultural, scientific and technical research development. The Republic protects the landscape and
the historical and artistic heritage of the Nation. Rarely, in sixty years of the Republic, has an
article of the Constitution been so ignored (Cattaneo & Tunesi 2007). In fact in Italy the pure and
simple conservation of the environment is still difficult to put into effect especially in coastal areas
where there are strong socio-economic interests related to the resources exploitation to which it
must be added a lack of controls. (Cattaneo & Tunesi, 2007).
This is the reason why an effective conservation strategy of the marine environment can only be
achieved if there is participation and sharing of goals and objectives from the stakeholders and
especially by the local populations (Kelleher, 1999). Therefore the population must realize that the
establishment of an MPA does not only involve the introduction of constraints or limitations in the
use of environmental resources, but also brings an enhancement of scenic beauty together with the
identification of possible new economic opportunities achievable through a proper zoning plan of
the area and an evaluation of the environmental and anthropogenic variables involved.

The zoning process of an MPA is a delicate procedure because it must be able to combine the needs
of nature conservation and simultaneously allow the sustainable use of resources by regulating
human activities. The environmental and socio-economic information collected during the planning
stage are used to identify the homogeneous areas of importance and given specific levels of
protection through the zoning. Kelleher (1999) stated that the time spent in preparation and
planning of an MPA is a vital investment that will take time and diplomacy to demonstrate
comprehensible and provable benefits for stakeholders but this investment will be paid back many
times over.
In general, in Italy, the zoning is on three levels with different degrees of protection:

Zone A, Total Reserve: is the site with the highest values for environmental preservation
and must be protected from all forms of human use. For this reason, in these areas, access is
allowed only to the personnel of MPA or those authorized to conduct scientific research.

Zone B, General Reserve: home to sites of particular conservation value and may be closely
related to those like zone A. This zone provides the opportunity to conduct recreational and
economic activities but in a controlled and environmentally friendly manner.
14

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Zone C, Partial Reserve: includes the largest part of MPA and serves as a buffer between the
unprotected coast and the previous A and B zones.

The Italian legislation concerning the protection of the coastal and marine living resources began in
1965 with the Marine Fisheries Act 963 issued by the Ministry of Merchant Marine. This law is still
in force and it allows the establishment of protection zones as a biological support to the
management of fish stocks and therefore it provides for the protection of areas such as sea grass
meadows (mainly Posidonia oceanica) where there is the highest concentrations of juvenile fish or
the Red coral reefs by regulating or restricting the fishing activities in specific periods of the year
like the breeding season. In the past also the Navigation Code has allowed some actions of
protection by giving in concession, over a period of time, state properties such as beaches and areas
of territorial sea.
The WWF, in 1973, took advantage of this opportunity and established the Marine Park of
Miramare in Trieste, which became the first Marine Protected Area in Italy and which was already
accepted by UNESCO as a Biosphere Reserve in 1971 under the Man and Biosphere Programme
(MAB). But it was not until 1982 with Law 979 about the Provisions for the Protection of the Sea,
which was the very first legal instrument to protect the marine environment as such and not only for
purposes of management of fishery resources or economic interest. This law, as well as providing a
monitoring service and specific measures against coastal pollution, also introduced the possibility of
establishing another 20 Marine Reserves defined as "marine environments, composed from the
waters, seabed and coastlines that represent a major interest due to the natural, geomorphologic,
physical, biochemical features with particular regard to the marine and coastal flora and fauna,
and for the scientific, ecological, cultural, educational and economic importance of these area"
(Law 979/1982). However the Law 979/1982 involved an anomaly compared to the international
policies: in fact according to this law the Italian government is responsible for the identification of
areas worthy of conservation without consulting and considering the results of scientific studies or
research activities. Hence the State decides which areas are worthy of protection without any
scientific data.
Ten years after the Law 979/1982 another important law was approved: the framework law
394/1991 on Protected Areas. This law in the article concerning the protection of the marine
environment identified another 26 areas worthy of protection and suggested the possibility of
providing additional protection to new areas identified on the basis of scientific research and studies
which analyzed the environmental value of the area. However the framework law failed to solve
15

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

some legal problems related to the management responsibilities of the State and of local authorities,
often encouraging overlapping of jurisdiction and thus creating conflict. In actual fact, Italy with
law 979/1982 was one of first nations in the world to plan the creation of a system of marine
protected areas.
Despite this primacy the results were poor not only because of the overlapping of responsibilities
among four ministries, the regions, the provinces and the municipalities, but also because of the
lack of support of local people especially at the level of economic stakeholders whose interests
conflicted directly or indirectly with the establishment of marine protected area and whose opinions
were not considered in the MPA planning process. Today in Italy the Ministry of Environment Land
and Sea is responsible for the planning process of new MPAs and the regulation of the MPA
already established. The Ministry operates through a Technical Secretariat for Marine Protected
Areas which is responsible for the prior research concerning the establishment and the updating of
the MPA. In actual fact among the 51 MPAs suggested as worthy of protection in the national
legislation in order to maintain species, communities and other ecological processes taking place
in an area to conserve biodiversity and avoiding the introduction of species, products or substances
that might somehow affect the balance to date only 24 MPAs have been legally established and
among these just a few have a regulation plan or a management body capable of dealing with a
competent and effective management plan. However because of the lack of guidelines from the
Ministry often the MPA management authority is unable to reconcile a regulation between effective
park management and local socio-economic interests in particular those regulations concerning
boating and fishing activities considered as having the highest impact on MPAs.
In summary, if the MPA is effectively managed there is an enhancement of marine resources that
ensures that both the traditional and sustainable use of marine resources is preserved thereby
conserving biodiversity and also promoting more sustainable forms of tourism such as ecotourism.
Unfortunately, despite the development of MPAs in recent years, it has not been possible to
harmonize policies and regulations on coordinated measures to protect the marine environment
laying the groundwork for a network of MPA firstly in Italy and later in all the Mediterranean Sea.
However the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea Against Pollution (1985)
established the Contracting Parties Regional Activity Centre for Specially Protected Areas
(RAC/SPA) with the role of assessing the situation of natural heritage and assisting the
Mediterranean countries to implement the Protocol concerning Specially Protected Areas and
Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (SPA/BD Protocol), which came into force in 1999
(UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA, 2003).
16

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

In this context programmes such as the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) and the Mediterranean
Commission on Sustainable Development (MCSD) were implemented. The main role of RAC/SPA
is to provide assistance to Mediterranean countries in the implementation of their commitments
under the SPA/BD Protocol, especially in regard to developing and promoting Specially Protected
Areas (SPAs), networks and in this way decreasing the loss of marine and coastal biodiversity
(UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA, 2003). MPA networks are considered an extraordinary opportunity in
terms of control and protection of the marine ecosystem, education and scientific information. In
Australia and in the United States there has been a lot of work in this direction in recent years
designing networks of MPAs to protect key environmental resources at an ecosystem level.

17

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Australia's Marine Jurisdictions

State, Territory and Commonwealth MPAs.

Australia is the largest island on the earth and it hosts some of the richest and most outstanding
marine biodiversity in the world due to the different climatic, geomorphologic, oceanographic zones
and related marine environments (Roberts al., 2002). The Australian marine environment is
characterised not only by the largest area of coral reef in the world the Great Barrier Reef (GBR),
but also by other important ecosystems such as the mangrove forests and the rocky shores under
protection by over 200 MPAs in Australian Waters.
On the other hand, Australia has a high and increasing costal population pressure that has directly or
indirectly a negative impact on the marine environment. For this reason, it is Australian federal and
States responsibility to regulate, control and monitor the impacts of human and land-based activities
on the marine environment to fulfill the obligation related to a range of international treaties to
which Australia is a signatory. Since 1879, with the establishment of the Royal National Park in
New South Wales, the second National Park in the world, Australia has been establishing protected
areas to conserve its environment and biodiversity.
However Australias initial responsibility to protect the marine environment commenced under the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1994 though which Australia is able
to claim rights and responsibilities for seas out to 200 nautical miles from the coast where it can
exploit, develop, manage and conserve all resources associated with the water column, seabed or
subsoil (UNCLOS, 1994). Alongside the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the
Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (Sea Dumping Act) and the Historic Shipwrecks
Act 1976 are the main pieces of national legislation that gave the Australian Government the
responsibilities to protect and conserve the environmental and heritage assets that are in
Commonwealth waters (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011). Other key legislation frameworks that
regulate the protection of the Australian marine environment are:

The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Management of Environment) Regulations 1999, made

under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967;

The Fisheries Management Act 1992;

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975;

The Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983; and

The Sea Installations Act 1987.

18

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Concerning biodiversity conservation Australia played a crucial role in developing the Convention
on Biological Diversity and when the Convention was adopted by the Rio Earth Summit in 1992,
Australia was one of the first of 167 nations to sign and to ratify (Commonwealth of Australia,
2011). The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is the
legal instrument by which the Australian Government accepts the legal provisions of the
Convention on Biological Diversity into its national law. Under the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act Australia is obligated to protect its biodiversity and integrate the
management of important natural environments. Several tools, processes and programmes are in
place under the EPBC Act to protect and conserve marine biodiversity by including provisions that
protect listed threatened species, listed migratory species and listed marine species and cetaceans.
Section 176 of EPBC Act provides for the development of Marine Bioregional Plans in
Commonwealth waters with the aim of identifying and describing key ecological features of a
Regions marine environment.
Through the marine bioregional planning process the Australian Government is also committed to
establish a comprehensive, adequate and representative MPA network throughout the
Commonwealth marine area that will further the development of the National Representative
System of MPAs (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007).
Moreover it must be stated that the marine bioregional planning programme was undertaken by the
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (today Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities) in consultation with all Commonwealth
agencies in charge for marine-based activities, and with participation of the involved stakeholders
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2007).
Depending on their location, marine protected areas in Australian waters (16 million square
kilometres) may be under the responsibility of State, Territory or Commonwealth government
agencies (Figure 1), or a combination of government agencies (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011).
The Commonwealth marine area generally stretches from three nautical miles to 200 nautical miles
from the coast while the States and the Northern Territory are responsible for the management of
the marine environment in coastal waters from the territorial sea baseline (low water mark along the
coast) until three nautical miles seaward of the territorial sea baseline (Commonwealth of Australia,
2007).

19

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Figure 1: Responsibility in Australian waters (www.ret.gov.au)

Although many ecological processes occur across both State and Commonwealth waters, each
government exercises its autonomous policies and laws to establish and manage marine protected
areas at the same time as coordinate their efforts on national and cross-jurisdictional issues
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2007). However to ensure consistency in defining and managing
marine protected areas, Australia has accepted into its national law the IUCN seven management
categories concerning Commonwealth reserves. In this instance the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Regulations (2000) classify the Australian IUCN Reserve Management
Categories and Principles, which illustrate how each IUCN category should be managed
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2011). The Division 12 of the above Regulations outlines the
prohibitions or limitations on specific activities in Commonwealth reserves while the EPBC Act
provides for the enforcement of management plans.
The EPBC Act can be defined as the Australian Government's central piece of environmental
legislation because it regulates activities that have, will have or are likely to have, a significant
impact on matters of national environmental significance. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is
consider one of the matters of national environmental significance as a national heritage place, a
world heritage property and as a Commonwealth marine area with its related world heritage values
and listed threatened and migratory species.

20

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Another important document concerning the protection of the marine environment, the Jakarta
Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity, was signed by Australia in 1995 at The
Conference of the Parties to Convention on Biological Diversity held in Jakarta. The Jakarta
Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity requires all Parties to establish a system of
protected areas and to develop guidelines for the selection, establishment and management of
protected areas with a comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR) approach.
The Jakarta Mandate led to the establishment and the implementation of Australia's National
Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA) a centerpiece of a national
approach to the conservation of marine ecosystems, habitats and species forming part of an
integrated strategy for marine conservation and management. (Commonwealth of Australia,
2010). The establishment of a NRSMPA is considered one of the most effective mechanisms to
conserve biodiversity because a network of MPAs is more likely to cope with human pressures and
because it reflects the biotic diversity of Australia's marine ecosystems to ensure the ecological
viability and integrity of populations, species and communities (Commonwealth of Australia,
2010).
The NRSMPA not only meets Australia's responsibilities and obligations as a signatory to the
Convention on Biological Diversity but also supports Australias national commitments under the
Inter-governmental Agreement on the Environment (1992) to establish representative marine
protected areas which were implemented throughout other national strategies such as the National
Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (1992) and the National Strategy for the
Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity (1996).
In this instance the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity (1996)
states that crucial to the conservation and protection of Australia's biological diversity is the
principle that: the establishment of a comprehensive, representative and adequate system of
ecologically viable protected areas integrated with the sympathetic management of all other areas,
including agricultural and other resource production systems. (Commonwealth of Australia,
1996). Moreover the Australia's Oceans Policy (1999) also supports the implementation of actions
for the establishment of the NRSMPA that meets the conservation purposes while allowing access
to ocean resources and guaranteeing the sustainable use in an integrated environmental, economic,
social and cultural way.
Together, all these policies, led to the recognition of Australia as one of the best countries in
managing the conservation of the marine environment and the GBR represents a perfect example of
21

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

this good management. Furthermore in November 2009 legislative changes were made to reinforce
the long-term protection of the marine park by integrating the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act
1975 (GBRMP Act) and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983 with the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, in order that a single environmental impact
assessment system is required for activities inside and outside the marine park that are likely to have
a significant impact on the environment which must be assessed and approved with the same robust
processes used under the EPBC Act (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009).

22

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Chapter 2

The Cinque Terre

Marine Protected Area

Photo by Mariasole Bianco

23

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Cinque Terre Marine Protected Area

The following information was taken from the web site of the Marine Protected Area of Cinque
Terre (http://www.parconazionale5terre.it/).
The Cinque Terre, "The Five Lands" (Riomaggiore, Manarola, Corniglia, Vernazza, and
Monterosso) are five little villages in the region of Liguria on the northern coast of Italy. The
extraordinary naturalistic features of the Cinque Terre led to the establishment of the Marine
Protected Area in December 1997 and of the Cinque Terre National Park in 1999. Moreover the
area was declared UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1997 on the basis of criteria (ii), (iv) and (v),
considering that the eastern Liguria Riviera between Cinque Terre and Portovenere is a cultural site
of outstanding value, representing the harmonious interaction between people and nature to produce
a landscape of exceptional scenic quality that illustrates a traditional way of life that has existed for
a thousand years and continues to play an important socio-economic role in the life of the
community.
The considerable naturalistic features of Cinque Terre seabed, and in particular of places like Punta
Mesco, has justified the establishment of a Marine Protected Area in December 1997, created to
preserve and manage the natural resources in a sustainable way by regulating human activities. The
submerged morphology of the marine protected area is as varied as the morphology characterizing
the surface land. Sometimes the cliffs continue for dozens of meters of depth, as in Punta Mesco
and, even if less evidently, in Capo Montenero. In other cases the rock ends at a few meters of
depth, where sandy areas begin.
The most superficial part of the submerged cliffs is characterized by the photophile associations
characterizing the western Mediterranean. When the walls reach a considerable depth, they are
colonized by photophile and sciaphilous species until they reach the coralligenous area. Moreover,
there are some small grasslands and scattered spots of Posidonia oceanica. As far as richness in
biological formations, the areas of greatest interest are in Punta Mesco and Capo Montenero, and
they include Coralligenous formations, Semi-Dark Caves, and Coastal Debris. The stratus
consisting of Paramuricea clavata and Lophogorgia ceratophyta are well represented, as well as
Parazoanthus axinellae and others. In front of the beach of Corniglia there are amphioxus sands.
The first meters of the "infralittoral area" are colonized by photophile seaweed biocenosis,
differentiating in various aspects according to depth and exposure, while at greater depths, in
conditions of reduced light and hydrodynamism, the presence of sciaphilous seaweed becomes
gradually more important, leading to the typical coralligenous population as you draw near to the
24

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

circalittoral plane. On the eastern side of the Promontory of Mesco, between the point and
Monterosso, there is grassland of Posidonia oceanica, which is not well preserved due to the
consequences of human activities along the coast.
Cinque Terre seabed is considered among the most varied and rich in marine fauna of Liguria. In a
relatively limited seabed characterizing Cinque Terre, there are a number of different species, some
of them not so frequent in the rest of the Mediterranean Sea, each of them represented by a great
number of specimens. The rocky coastal seabed, which characterizes almost the whole Protected
Area except the beaches of Monterosso and Corniglia, favors the settlement of many seaweed
species.
Permits are issued by the park authority to conduct specific activities in the different zones of the
park in accordance with the zoning plan (Figure 2).1

Figure 2: Cinque Terre MPA zoning (www.minambiente.it)

See Apendix 1 for Interview with the director of the Marine Protected Area of Cinque Terre
25

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The Tavolara - Punta Coda Cavallo

Marine Protected Area

Photo by Mariasole Bianco

26

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The Marine Protected Area of Tavolara - Punta Coda Cavallo

This information was taken from the web site of the Marine Protected Area of Tavolara - Punta
Coda Cavallo (http://www.amptavolara.it/).
The Marine Protected Area of Tavolara - Punta Coda Cavallo was established in the north-east of
the island of Sardinia in Italy on 12 December 1997 by decree of the Ministry of Environment as a
result of Law 979 of 1992 and Law 394 in 1991 and in consideration of the important natural
values, enriched by a spectacular landscape that make this area of international importance for
conservation. The management of the area is entrusted to a consortium of three municipalities:
Olbia, Loiri Porto San Paolo and San Teodoro with Olbia holding the 50% of the shares
consortium, while the remainder is divided equally between Loiri-Porto San Paolo and San
Teodoro. The Area Management, in recent years, has implemented significant measures of
environment protection that supports the idea of a sustainable use of resources in the long term
carrying on activities such as monitoring and scientific research together with the important aspects
of communication and education targeted according to potential users (Navone &Trainito (2008)
The Tavolara Island is made of creviced limestone rising 565 meters from the sea level and is 6 km
long and approximately 1 km wide. The fauna present in the Marine Area is remarkable in its
variety; in the water, on the ground and in the air. In fact the Tavolara Punta Coda Cavallo MPA,
among all the 24 MPAs in Italy, is the most important nesting area for marine birds and in
particular, two species have very important nest sites in the area: the Manx Shearwater and the
European Shag whose presence together with the presence of other important marine species led to
the inclusion of the MPA in the Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMI)
list.
A visual census of the ichthyic fauna has allowed for the estimation of density and size distribution
of target species (such as the grouper, the brown meagre and porgy) showing that there are
differences between each zone (A, B and C) and between the Protected Area and the outside waters.
In the MPA also large mammals such as bottlenose dolphins, risso dolphins, fin whales and sperm
whales have been identified.
The Marine Protected Area has established various information points throughout the territory to
inform and sensitize visitors on existing rules and environmental value of the area with the aim of
promoting the discovery of the territory though various activities of nature-based tourism which
range from scuba-diving excursions to dolphin watching. The area under protection as a MPA
27

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

covers 15,000 hectares and is divided into three zones, each with different levels of protection
(Figure 3)2.

Figure 3: Tavolara-Punta Coda Cavallo MPA Zoning ( www.minambiente.it)

See Apendix 2 for Interview with the director of the Marine Protected Area of Tavolara-Punta Coda Cavallo
28

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park

Source: http://www.greatbarrierreef.org

29

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is one of the richest, most complex and diverse ecosystems in the
world that stretches for more than 2300km (23-260 km wide) and occupies 35 million ha/350, 000
km2 for a total 2900 reefs (incl 760 fringing reefs) along the north-east coast of Australia from the
tip of Cape York in Queensland to Bundaberg (GBRMPA, 2011). The Great Barrier Reef is
internationally renowned for its biodiversity. Its network of reefs about 2900 in total is home
to thousands of species. Extensive areas of sea grass meadows, mangrove stands, salt marsh and
sand and mud areas also provide a diverse range of habitats for many species. Furthermore the
Great Barrier Reef is the largest system of coral reefs in the world covering an area of 348,700 km2
(UNESCO 1981) and comprising 3,000 separate coral reefs. (Craik 1992; Wachenfeld et al. 1998).
The biodiversity present in the Great Barrier Reef is one of the highest in the world being home to
thousands of species of marine wildlife such as about:

1500 species of fish

400 species of corals.

4000 species of molluscs.

400 species of sponges.

800 species of echinoderms.

215 species of bird.

6 of worlds 7 sea turtle species.

Marine mammals (dolphins, dugongs, humpback and minke whales)

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) was established in 1975 by the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Act 1975 (the Act) and in 1981 the GBR was declared a World Heritage area for all
natural criteria and its unquestionable outstanding universal value by UNESCO (Lucas et al. 1997).
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) is an Australian Government statutory
authority within the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts portfolio and it is responsible for
the GBR planning and management through the control, care and development of the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park (GBRMPA, 2011).
Since 1975, the GBRMPA has managed the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park with the aim of
guaranteeing its long-term sustainability. In fact the GBRMPA's management objective is the longterm protection, ecologically sustainable use, understanding and enjoyment of the Great Barrier
Reef for all Australians as well as the international community. The GBRMPA achieves this by
balancing ecologically sustainable use, commercial realities and public interest though a multiple30

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

use marine park and also administers the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003 (Figure
4). In fact the Great Barrier Reef represents a globally significant example of a successful multipleuse marine parks and it also illustrates the rapid benefits of no-take areas for targeted species with
potential benefits for fisheries as well as biodiversity conservation (McCook et al., 2010). In effect
with the rezoning plan of the GBR in 2004 the percentage of no-take areas was increased from 4.7%
to 33.5% and it is demonstrated that this change has actively contributed to the restoration of
ecosystem structure by the widespread recovery of over-exploited fish stocks within the new notake network and it has also reduced the ongoing degradation that was occurring (McCook et al.
2010).3

Figure 4: Part of the GBR Zoning Map (www.gbrmpa.gov.au)

See Appendix 3 for the information relted to the GBRMP management

31

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Chapter 3 Discussion
Funding

The results related to the funding of the three MPAs are summarised in the following table.
Table 5: Funding results
Funding

Cinque Terre

Tavolara

GBR

Funding per year

360,701 USD

2,096,969 USD

45.615.920,64 USD

Ongoing sources

No ongoing sources

29.325,71 USD by

The Environmental Management

that help to get

just the money given

charging vessels for

Charge (EMC) That represents the

funding and their

by the Ministry of

mooring berth

18% of the yearly total income by

investment

the Environment

Money invested in
environmental
protection and
reclamation as well
as spent on seabed
cleaning.

sources of the GBR in 2009-10.

The funds received from the EMC
are vitally important in the day-today management of the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park and in
improving its long-term resilience
including education, research,
ranger patrols and policy
development.

Funding from

The MPA does not

The MPA does not

The Environmental Management

tourism activities

receive any funding

receive any funding

Charge (EMC) is a charge

from tourism

from tourism

associated with most commercial

activities.

activities except

activities, including tourism

from charging

operations, non-tourist charter

vessels for a

operations, and facilities, operated

mooring berth and

under a permit issued by the

this practice

GBRMPA

generates a further
income of 20,000
per year.

32

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The economic management of an MPA is an essential component to consider although usually low
priority is given to this component in the parks world management (Van Sickle & Eagles, 1998;
Wells, 1997). In fact Marine and Costal Protected Areas (MCPAs) as defined by the Ad Hoc
Technical Expert Group on Marine and Coastal Protected Areas (AHTEG) (established by the
Conference of the Parties of the CBD Convention) are not cost-less instruments because their
establishment and ongoing management involve significant investments from governments or
communities and these investments need to be compensated by the benefits achievable by their
establishment (CBD Secretariat, 2004).
It can clearly be seen from Table 2 that the funding varies significantly between the three MPAs
considered for this study. Especially considering the Cinque Terre MPA, it is obvious that there is a
crucial problem of lack of funding because, apart from the Ministry of the Environment funding,
there are no ongoing sources which help to raise funds to invest in the management of the MPA. On
the other hand the Tavolara MPA is able to raise almost 6 times more money than Cinque Terre
because of its environmental education programs, environmental certifications and the contribution
of the three municipalities involved in the management of the MPA.
Concerning the Australian case study of the GBR there is no comparison to be made with Italy
because the amount of money that the GBR receives each year is almost 22 times more than the
money received by the Tavolara MPA and 126 times more than the money received by the Cinque
Terre MPA. However it must be considered that 18% (more than 8 Millions USD) of the total
45.615.920, 64 USD that the GBR receives annually comes from the Environmental Management
Charge (EMC) that is a charge associated with almost every commercial activity which takes place
within the GBRMP and operated under a permit issued by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority. The Environmental Management Charge can be considered generally as an entry fee to
access and experience the GBRMP. Controversially neither the Cinque Terre MPA nor the Tavolara
MPA are able to raise funds from tourism activities and they are both waiting for a response from
the Ministry of the Environment to be able to introduce a Secretarial fee as a charge associated
with commercial activities which take place within their MPAs.
Generally as stated by Kelleher (1999) the lack of funds is a crucial problem for many MPAs and
according to James et al. (1999) protected areas in developing countries are funded on an average of
less than 30% of the financial support required for essential conservation management. Moreover
organizing environmental education and interpretation activities helps to raise funds that can later
be reinvested in the in the day-to-day upkeep and conservation measures of the MPA while also
contributing to raising awareness about the natural environment and the need for its protection.
33

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

User fees are generally described as a sum of money paid by a person who decides to access a
service or facility and considering the case of protected areas entry fees are considered as a direct
means of public participation in conservation (Tongson & Dygico, 2004). However, the acceptance
(will to pay) and the success of user fees to access a protected area are strictly related to the
guarantee that visitors contributions are directly reinvested in the park protection. Moreover entry
fees in protected areas contribute in managing tourism impact by functioning as a permitting and
regulatory tool to monitor visitor volumes and activities (Tongson & Dygico, 2004).
Finally, the protected area management authority should periodically review the existing fee
apparatus to manage and minimize visitor impacts and in particular to obtain visitor feedback and
assess customer satisfaction levels while investing part of the funds raised to promote the site and
generate awareness (Tongson & Dygico, 2004). There are several examples of successful user fee
systems in marine protected areas as the one of Bonaire in the Netherlands Antilles or of Sabah in
Malaysia described by Lindberg (2001). These examples highlighted the importance of the direct
involvement of the tourism industry and information spreading to raise and above all the
transparency in fees collection and their reinvestment in conservation activities (Tongson &
Dygico, 2004).
User fees are also very important considering the financial sustainability that MPA management
authorities should achieve and to decrease their dependency on government funds (Azahari, 2001).
This is the reason why the MPA management authorities need the freedom to raise funds though
user fees, donations and environmental funds and to retain these monies for the management of the
MPA (Kelleher, 1999) and above all that the funds raised result in improvements to facilities and
park management and in benefits to the local community.
In addition an assessment of MCPAs direct and indirect costs (infrastructure, equipment,
administration, monitoring, economic and socio-cultural impacts) and benefits (ecological benefits,
protection of cultural values, provision of a sustainable economy from new sources of income to
local communities, knowledge to support resource management and support for fisheries in
surrounding areas) is necessary to be able to minimise the costs and maximise the benefits and
networks of MCPAs (CBD Secretariat, 2004).
The outcome of this assessment often results in the recognition of MCPAs as the most costeffective tool to achieve sustainable marine and coastal resource management because the benefits
of their establishment are measurable and the rules associated with them are inclined to be easy to
understand and consequently administration costs are expected to be lower (CBD Secretariat, 2004).
34

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Moreover it is important at this stage to consider the benefits of involving stakeholders in the
management of the MPA that in the long term can lead to an effective participation resulting in
reduced compliance costs, greater effectiveness, reduced social impacts and improved design (CBD
Secretariat, 2004).
In summary it is fundamental for MPA management authorities to plan for financial sustainability
by considering other financial resources such as public and private sources and not rely almost
entirely on government funds. Planning for financial sustainability is essential especially in the
light of the cut of budgets for protected areas that resulted from the financial and political crises that
many governments have faced in recent times (Dublin et al., 1995).
In addition to the financial and political crises also international aid for biodiversity conservation
has decreased since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (James et al., 1999).
The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Marine and Coastal Protected Areas (AHTEG) address this
issue in the document Technical Advice on the Establishment and Management of a National
System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas (2004) and identified potential alternative sources of
finance and practical support such as:
Income from fees charged for conducting commercial activities within the MCPA (e.g. tourist
operations) or user fees (e.g. the fee for entering the Galapagos Islands goes in part to the marine
reserve; the fees for diving, snorkelling and yacht mooring in the Soufriere Marine Management
Area in Saint Lucia all go directly back into area management) (Figure 5).
Contributions from NGOs (e.g. Friends of groups), corporate sponsors or other independent
groups.
Contributions from local communities and users (e.g. funding from fundraising events, and
contribution of free labour for enforcement, area cleanups and public awareness work)

Figure 5: Dive tag in the Namena Marine Reserve in Fiji (www.coral.org/node/4514)

35

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Zoning

The results related to the zoning of the three MPAs are summarised in the following table.
Table 6: Zoning results
Zoning

Cinque Terre

Tavolara

GBR

Positive results from

there are more fish

4 years research

There are a number of

program of visual

programmes looking

census conducted by

at the effects of zoning

Professor Paolo

after the rezoning plan

Guidetti that proved

(2004) and

that regeneration of

preliminary research

the fish fauna has

shows that fish

occurred.

numbers and average

the zoning

there is no scientific
data to support this
claim because of the
lack of funding for this
research

size are increasing.

Tourism activities

Tourism is allowed in

Tourism is allowed in

Tourism is allowed in

allowed

all zones of the MPA

all zones of the MPA

all the zones of the

with restrictions

but only with permit in GBRMP except for the

applied only in zone

zone A

Pink Zone.

36

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The Zoning process of a protected area is described by Day (2002) as a spatial planning tool that
can be compared with a town planning scheme which provides area-based controls and separates
conflicting uses.
The stages involved in preparing a zoning plan according to Kelleher (1999) are adapted in Table 4.
Table 7: Zoning Plan Process adapted from Kelleher (1999)

37

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The concept of zoning is strictly related to the concept of MPA management effectiveness that
focuses mainly on maintaining or restoring marine biodiversity and ecosystem function particularly
through no-take areas (Lubchenco et al., 2003) while at the same time providing for ecologicallysustainable use, public appreciation, education, understanding and enjoyment of the marine
environment (Gubbay, 1995).
Although there is not a globally-accepted definition of no-take zones, generally it refers to a marine
area in which any form of extractive use is prohibited with the aim of conserving and protecting
specific communities and habitats and of enriching the neighbouring areas with species of economic
importance. In fact the other important goal of MPAs, after biodiversity conservation, is improving
socioeconomic conditions and in this instance it reflects the triple bottom line of sustainable
development. Nevertheless no-take areas within MPAs play an important role also in improving
socioeconomic circumstances because thanks to the spill over effect a growth of incomes from
fisheries production can be accomplished due to an increase in the size and number of sh
migrating out of the no-take areas (Russ et al., 2004; Pauly et al., 2002; Halpern, 2003). The need
for zoning in marine protected areas especially on the coast where various interests co-exist together
comes out from the necessity to grant continued access and opportunities for all users of marine
resources while conserving biodiversity and cultural values.
In fact multiple-use marine parks attempt to reduce the impacts on marine ecosystems by protecting
a proportion of all habitats and their associated species from removal, destructive activities such as
damage to the benthic habitats, and land-based impacts such as pollution and run-off while allowing
regulated activity like fisheries in designated areas of the marine park (MPANSW, 2008). The
crucial principle (CAR principle) identified throughout much of the literature for establishing and
correctly managing MPAs is that they contain a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative
sample of marine biological diversity (NSWMPA 2008).
The establishment and management of a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of
MPAs actively contribute to maintain the long-term ecological viability of marine ecosystems
together with the related ecological processes and to protect all levels of marine biodiversity
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2010).
The NRSMPA (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010) defines each elements of the CAR principle as:
Comprehensive incorporation of the full range of ecosystems recognised at an appropriate scale
within and across each bioregion
38

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Adequate the level of reservation required to ensure the ecological viability and integrity of
species, populations and communities
Representative the marine areas that are selected for inclusion in an MPA should reasonably
reflect the biotic diversity of the marine ecosystems from which they derive (ecosystem-based
management)
The ecological interactions in the marine environment are complex and frequently unknown to
science therefore all species within MCPAs should be protected, all biogeographic regions should
be included and within each region and all major habitats should be represented (CBD Secretariat,
2004). Moreover considering the case of a representative network of MCPAs it is important to
incorporate in the network all habitat types, with the amount of each habitat type being adequate to
cover the variability within it and to involve duplication hence maximising potential connectivity
and minimising the risk of impact from large scale effects (Day et al., 2003).
The model of a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of MPAs is strictly related to
the concept of ecosystem-based management (EBM). The EBM approach is defined by Arkema et
al. (2006) as a broad approach involving the management of species, other natural commodities,
and humans as components of the larger ecosystem and in 2005 the scientific consensus statement
on marine EBM was officially recognised during the Communication Partnership for Science and
the Sea (COMPASS). The signatories of the COMPASS agreed to support the use of ecosystemlevel planning, cross-jurisdictional management goals, zoning, habitat restoration, co management,
adaptive management, and long-term monitoring to accomplish the EBM approach of marine
biodiversity conservation (McLeod et al. 2005). McLeod and Leslie (2009) identified four main
elements of marine ecosystem-based management (EBM):
1. The need to address multiple spatial and temporal scales that characterise human use of
marine resources in the design and implementation of EBM efforts and recognition of the
social and biogeophysical interactions that operate across different spatial scales
2. The recognition of the linkages between the marine ecosystems and the human communities
that depend on these systems (coastal development, tourism and recreation and fishing)
including some hidden or undervalued connections between humans and marine
ecosystems such as the role of coastal wetlands in protecting human lives and infrastructure
from storm damage (Danielsen et al. 2005).

39

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

3. The need to connect and integrate MPAs environmental policy and management efforts
across air, land and sea boundaries and not only from the low-water mark
4. The need for a meaningful engagement with stakeholders to create a management scheme
that is credible, enforceable, and realistic and above all achievable by considering
stakeholders as agents within dynamic networks that are linked to the environment at
multiple spatial scales (Berkes, 2004).
It is also important to understand that the effective management of resources in a protected area
cannot occur without monitoring, evaluation and the related adaptive management practices. The
adaptive management is defined by Parma et al (1998) as:
..Managing according to a plan by which decisions are made and modified as a function of what is
known and learned about the system, including information about the effect of previous
management actions.
The effective implementation of adaptive management practices as well as of the ecosystem-based
management approach is rigorously dependent on monitoring activities which should be resourced,
designed and refined to ensure the effective management of the MPA (CBD Secretariat, 2004).
In Italy, in general, the zoning is based on three levels with different degrees of protection. The
Zone A also known as Total Reserve is the site with the highest values for environmental
preservation and must be protected from all forms of human use. This is the reason why in most of
these areas within Italian MPAs access is allowed only to the personnel of the MPA or those
authorized to conduct scientific research. However as it can be seen in Table 3 in the two Italian
MPAs the access in the Total Reserve area is permitted but only for specific tourism activities and
with detailed limitations.

In the Cinque Terre MPA various activities are allowed including swimming (from May 1 to
September 30) with the permission of the Park Authority to the residents or homeowners in the
MPA and their close relatives and to tourists residing for at least 3 consecutive nights in an
accommodation in the municipalities within the Marine Protected Area. However it is prohibited to
wear fins, shoes or gloves while swimming. Also guided scuba diving and sailing are allowed in
zone A and it must be stated that the scuba diving guides do not receive any training by the Park
Authority to provide interpretation activities while scuba diving in this Total Reserve area. It must
also be stated that the imposition of so many clauses in the regulation of the activities undertaken in
the Zone A by the MPA authority results in a complexity of enforcement.
40

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

On the other hand the Tavolara MPA Authority does allows research and guided underwater tours
in the Total Reserve area but only with a permit issued by the Marine Protected Area Authority and
only in designated areas with established routes and other activities such as swimming or even
entering zone A are totally forbidden.
The GBR zoning involves seven different types of zones with seven different colors and seven
different levels of protection.
Table 5: Zoning of the GBR before and after re-zoning (lecture EV5210)

The Italian Total Reserve Zone (zone A) can be compared with the GBR Pink Zone which is a 'no
go' area. In fact no one can enter in a Preservation (Pink) Zone unless they have written permission
(only for research purposes) and extractive activities are strictly prohibited.
The Great Barrier Reef represents a globally significant example of a successful multiple-use
marine park and a great contribution of this success is a result of the rezoning plan of the GBR in
2004 that increased the percentage of no-take areas ( green zone + pink zone) from 4.7% to 33.5%
(McCook et al., 2010). The Zoning Plan of the GBR was developed following wide-ranging
research and involved one of the most comprehensive community consultation processes
undertaken on any Australian environmental issue (GBRMPA, 2011).
The new zoning plan of the GBR was designed in conjunction with the Representative Areas
Program (RAP) (Figure 7) which purpose was to protect representative samples of all the different
41

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

habitats and communities and was built on the preceding bioregional classification of the marine
park (CBD Secretariat, 2004). After the rezoning plan of the GBR continuous monitoring activities
have been conducted by the GBRMPA and other independent researchers which illustrate the rapid
benefits (increase of size and abundance) for targeted species in no-take areas with related benefits
for fisheries as well as biodiversity conservation (McCook et al., 2010).
The Tavolara MPA Authority in partnership with CONISMA (Interuniversity Consortium for
Marine Sciences) has over several years conducted a visual census monitoring program to assess the
reserve effect and the spillover effect resulting as a consequence of the establishment of the
MPA (Figure 5). This research activity was funded by the Ministry of Environment and proved that
fish inside the zone with most protection were on average 30 % larger than the same fish in other
zones (Tavolara MPA, 2011). Furthermore, it was also proved that the existence of larger fish in
zone A also influences neighbouring areas because when the abundance of larger fish increase in
this zone the supply of food essential for their survival begins to decrease and consequently some
fish will move (spill over) into surrounding areas (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Spill over effect in Tavolara MPA (www.amptavolara.it)

There is extensive literature that considers the benefits to the sustainable use of marine living
resources from the establishment of MCPAs especially considering the fishery industry (Agardy,
1994; Ballantine, 1997a.b. ; Bohnsack, 1998; Murray, 1999).
42

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

This literature provides increasing evidence that MCPAs benefit the fishery industry by generally
producing fish of exploitable size which, when the supply of food essential for their survival begins
to decrease within the MCPAs, they start to disperse (spill over ) into the surrounding area where
they become available to fishers.
Moreover further benefits for the fishery industry from the establishment of MCPAS include (CBD
Secretariat, 2004; Ward et al., 2001):

Producing more offspring (from a greater density of breeding adults within MCPAs) which
are then dispersed by currents to eventually recruit into surrounding fisheries;

Providing information that is necessary to make regulatory decisions about controls such as
measures of natural mortality, reproduction and trophic interactions;

Providing insurance against resource management mistakes outside of MCPAs by providing

a refuge from the collection of organisms (e.g., corals, sponges, aquarium fish), and from
fishing and making overfishing more difficult;

Providing insurance by preserving populations

Accelerating stock recovery in cases of recruitment failures from either overfishing or

natural disasters;

Protecting important habitats or life-stages from fishery related damage such as protecting
critical spawning and nursery habitats, vulnerable juveniles, and spawning adults.

The spill over effect is strictly related to the fact that it is not possible in the marine environment to
physically enclose the marine portion of MCPAs as it happens for example in terrestrial reserves.
This characteristic allows the spill over of fish fauna in every life stage from the MPA to the
surrounding areas by acting as a stepping stone but on the other hand the MPA is profoundly
affected by up-stream events such as runoff and the related water quality and sedimentation.
However, concerning the stepping stone role of an MPA, a clear understanding of the benefits
that its establishment bring to the fishery industry has usually a noteworthy effect on the community
support of the MPA (Ward et al., 2001).

43

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Figure 7: GBR Representative Areas Program (www.gbrmpa.gov.au)

44

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Runoff

The results related to the runoff management of the three MPAs are summarised in the following
table.
Table 6: Runoff results
Run off

Cinque Terre

Tavolara

GBR

Pollution and run

There is no policy

There is no policy of

Reef Water Quality

off

of reduction of the

reduction of the

Protection Plan (Reef

pollution caused by

pollution caused by

Plan) to halve by 2013

runoff in the

runoff in the

runoff of harmful

Cinque Terre

Tavolara

nutrients and pesticides

management plan.

management plan.

and ensure at least 80 per

The only activity

The law 152

carried out is the

concerning water

removal of logs

quality gives

and branches that

responsibility to the

arrive into the sea

ASL (Local Health)

especially after

and to ARPA

flood events.

(Agency for

A Reef Plan Monitoring

Environmental

and Evaluation Strategy

Protection) to deal

has been developed and a

with above all

Monitoring and Reporting

pollution but no

Program designed.

power of decision

GBRMPA has also

making or spillage

prepared Water Quality

cent of agricultural
enterprises and 50 per
cent of grazing enterprises
adopt land management
practices that will reduce
run off.

management is given Guidelines for the Great

to municipalities.

Barrier Reef Marine Park

(2009) for maintaining
the health and resilience
of the Great Barrier Reef.

45

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Marine and coastal environments are three dimensional and particularly dynamic in space and time
(CBD Secretariat, 2004). In fact marine food webs are extremely interconnected especially between
pelagic and benthic components and between the land and nearshore waters. The run off effect from
land-based activities is a clear example of this linkage and this complexity is reflected in the
multifaceted process of marine biodiversity understanding and its management.
The run off of pollution and sediments containing fertilizer and pesticides from land-based activities
cause a various range of impacts on the marine ecosystem.
Concerning the Mediterranean Sea the main impact on the ecosystem from runoff is eutrophication.
Eutrophication is described by Nixon (1995) as an increase in the rate of supply of organic matter
to an ecosystem and it involves a process whereby water bodies (mainly rivers) receive excess
nutrients that encourage, once the water reaches the sea, excessive growth of algae (algal bloom)
and consequently reduces dissolved oxygen in the water when dead plant material decomposes and
can cause other organisms to die. The nutrients and pollutants dissolved in the runoff water can
come from many sources such as fertilizers applied to agricultural fields or the erosion of soil
containing nutrients and also from sewage treatment discharges. In Italy the Po River represents one
of the greatest sources of runoff of sediments and nutrients coming from land based activities and
this run off significantly influences the Adriatic marine ecosystem (Batisse & De Grissac, 1998).
The reef ecosystem is influenced by a range of water quality variables such as elevated nutrient and
sediment concentrations that result in a range of impacts on coral communities, and under extreme
situations can result in coral reef community collapse (GBRMPA, 2011). For example elevated
nutrient concentrations promotes phytoplankton growth which favours filter feeding organisms
(tubeworms, sponges and bivalves) that compete with coral and can cause macro algal blooms
which can overgrow coral structures (GBRMPA, 2011). Moreover elevated levels of nutrients in the
water can inhibit fertilisation rates and embryo formation of corals, as well as causing direct coral
mortality (GBRMPA, 2011). The sediment carried to the reef though the run off also affects coral
by suffocating it, when particles settle out (sedimentation) thereby reducing the light availability
(turbidity) and potentially reducing coral photosynthesis and growth (GBRMPA, 2011).
In the total area occupied by the GBR approximately 750 reefs exist at inshore or nearshore
areas within 40 km of the Queensland coast (Furnas & Brodie 1996). These near shore areas are
particularly affected in terms of the decline of both water quality and ecological conditions because
of the run-off from land-based anthropogenic activities containing increased concentrations of
sediment, nutrients, and pesticides (Haynes et al. 2007).
46

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

In fact it has been widely recognised that as a consequence of the decreased water quality delivered
to these areas the coral reefs have suffered a direct negative impact in terms of alteration of the
ecosystem and even in loss of reef biodiversity (Fabricius & Death, 2004; Fabricus 2005). As
Gilbert (2001) states more than 80% of the land area of catchments next to the Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage Area is farmland that supports some form of agricultural production such as
intensive cropping of sugarcane and major beef cattle grazing. Furthermore, to allow these
agricultural activities, extensive land clearing has occurred over the past 200 years and as a
consequence the run-off resulting from these land-based activities and from urban development is
considered to be the primary anthropogenic influence on water quality in the Great Barrier Reef
(Bell 1991; Anon 1993; Brodie 1997).
The decline in the health of the Reef ecosystem, as a consequence of the runoff resulting from these
land-based activities, has a negative influence on the World Heritage values of the Great Barrier
Reef and moreover on the viability of businesses such as tourism and fisheries that rely on the long
term health of the Great Barrier Reef (Haynes et al. 2001). This is the reason why protection from
water-sourced pollutants is regarded as one of the most critical issues for management of the GBR
World Heritage Area (Haynes et al. 2001). To improve the water quality from land based activities
and reduce pollutant masses entering the GBR lagoon, the Australian Government has released
$200 million for plans that will increase the resilience of the Reef and its ability to deal with the
impact of climate change (Henderson & Kroon, 2009).
On the other hand in Italy the monitoring of water quality is conducted by ARPA, a regional body,
to assess the safety of bathing waters and only runs from 1 April to 30 September each year. The
municipalities and the MPA Management Authorities do not have any power to improve water
quality reaching the MPA ecosystem. In the case of a spillage the MPA must report this to the
harbour police who in turn must notify Rome where the National System of Spillage offices are
located. The damage assessment is made by the National System of Spillage and the decision when
and how to act and the logistics of getting a clean-up vessel to the area can take a long time and in
most cases it is too late to effectively respond to the impact. The National System of Spillage only
deals with water quality as far as it affects swimmers health and safety and they are not concerned
about the overall health of the marine ecosystem.
The Italian situation is particularly worrying especially concerning the Cinque Terre MPA because
there is no carrying capacity policy in the MPA management plan, during the high tourist season in
summer the population can increase by a factor of 10, thereby increasing the pressure on the marine
environment as a result of the exponential increase in sewage. Not only is there a dramatic increase
47

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

in the amount of raw sewage being discharged but the sewerage system itself was designed for the
normal population pressure and frequently breaks down as a result of overloading. This is the
reason why an Integrated Coastal and Marine Area Management (ICAMAM) approach is
considered one of the best practices to deal with this kind of impact (Beckmann & Coleman, 1999)
Since 1997 Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) was defined by Cicin-Sain & Knecht (1997) as a
constantly realized decision-making process with a view of sustainable use, development and
protection of seaside terrestrial and coastal marine areas and their resources. Still today in some
parts of the world the commonly used term marine protected area does not include coastal areas or
cross the land/sea interface and this definition excludes essential parts of the marine environment
such as estuaries and marine salt marshes.
This is the reason why the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) established by the fifth
Conference of the Parties of the Convention (COP) on Biological Diversity uses the term Marine
and Coastal Protected Area (MCPA) to describe any defined area within or adjacent to the
marine environment, together with its overlying waters and associated flora, fauna, and historical
and cultural features, which has been reserved by legislation or other effective means, including
custom, with the effect that its marine and/or coastal biodiversity enjoys a higher level of protection
than its surroundings CBD Secretariat (2001). Moreover the AHTEG (2004) recognised the role
that MCPAs in an integrated approach play as a central component in the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity and as the most suitable framework to address human impacts on the
marine environment and to implement the principles of the ecosystem-based approach.
To address cross border and sectoral issues and synchronize joint action and partnerships towards
management of coastal management issues the Australian government has released The National
Cooperative Approach to Integrated Coastal Zone Management Framework and Implementation
Plan managed through the Intergovernmental Coastal Advisory Group (ICAG), comprised of
representatives from the Australian Government, each state government, the Northern Territory
Government and the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA).

48

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Managing tourism impact

The results related to the management of tourism impact in the three MPAs are summarised in the
following table.
Table 7: Tourism impact management results
Carrying capacity &

Cinque Terre

Tavolara

GBR

Impact of tourism

No number

Survey of diving

The GBRMPA in

activities

limitation

activities

conjunction with the

LAC

concerning the
carrying capacity
of tourists

Number limitation for

visitor and boats.

Environmental Protection
Agency have developed
management tools and
processes to provide a range
of tourism opportunities
throughout the Marine Park,
and to minimise the impacts
of tourism activities on the
marine environment so the
diversity, integrity and
productivity of the Reef is
maintained.

49

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The nature-based tourism industry is growing all over the world and the viability of this industry is
strictly related to the appropriate levels of environment quality and to the suitable levels of
consumer service especially in parks and protected areas (Eagles, 2002). Several countries rely on
nature-based tourism as a vital component of their economy because, as stated before, tourism is an
important source of funding for a protected area. In fact many marine-based tourism activities such
as scuba diving rely profoundly upon the health of marine resources (Davis & Tisdell, 1995).
However, as stated by Hammitt and Cole (1987), recreational users are one of the major causes of
local and wide-scale ecosystem damage when there are not specific management practices which
regulate this impact.
It is fundamental for the MPA management authorities to identify and assess the biological and
social carrying capacities in MPAs and to plan for appropriate management responses (Davis &
Tisdell, 1995). In fact Bentrupperbumer & Reser (2002) stated that comprehensive analysis of the
patterns of visitor use, behaviour, perceptions and satisfaction is fundamental to accomplish
effective visitor management practices with the aim of minimising the biophysical impact and
maximising the benefits to the visitor and community. Therefore it is fundamental for the MPA
management authority to implement guidelines and facilities that reduce this impact and to conduct
a monitoring program to assess the complete social, psychological and biophysical perspectives of
this impact and to consider the benefits that can be achieved by regulating tourism activities.
There are two main instruments available in the related literature to reduce and control human
impact in protected areas. The first tool is called carrying capacity and it generally refers to a
numerical capacity that should guarantee that the environment, tourism experiences and the
community social structure do not experience unwanted consequences related to the impact caused
by tourism activities (McCool & Lime, 2001). However, tourism carrying capacity is currently
considered as an outdated approach to manage tourism impact in protected areas and national parks
because the development of an appropriate carrying capacity involving specific magic number
(McCool & Lime, 2001) of tourists raised noteworthy issues for the decision-makers that establish
policy, the scientists that profess to define capacity, and the public that experiences the effects of
tourism (McCool & Lime, 2001).
To respond to the practical and theoretical malfunctions of the carrying capacity the concept of
Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) was introduced and developed by the U.S. forest service for
the first time in January 1985 with the publication of the document The Limits of Acceptable
Change (LAC) System for Wilderness Planning (Stankey et al., 1985). The concept of LAC
according to Stankey et al. (1985) is based on the following process:
50

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

1. Identify area concerns and issues

2. Define and describe opportunity classes based on the concept of the recreation opportunity
spectrum (ROS) (Virden, 1989).
3. Select indicators of resource and social conditions
4. Inventory existing resource and social conditions
5. Specify standards for resource and social indicators for each opportunity class
6. Identify alternative opportunity class allocations
7. Identify management actions for each alternative
8. Evaluate and select preferred alternatives
9. Implement actions and monitor conditions
It is important to highlight that the LAC process involves standards which are the indicators of
minimally acceptable conditions. In fact these standards do not identify desired conditions or
unacceptable conditions but their importance lay in the fact that they compromise between resource
protection and access to recreational opportunities (Cole & Stankey, 1997). The tourism industry in
the GBR includes 840 commercial operators and recreational use for a total of approximately 1.9
million tourists and 4.9 million recreational visitors each year (GBRMPA, 2011).
The marine tourism impacts on the GBR can be classified according to Harriott (2002) into
ecological, social and cultural and they mainly involve:

Coastal tourism development (population pressures, construction of tourism developments)

Island-based tourism infrastructure (marina/harbour development, sewage discharge

construction)

Marine-based tourism infrastructure (pontoons, moorings, fish feeding)

Boat-induced damage (anchoring, ship groundings, litter and waste discharge, vessel strike
to wildlife)

Water-based activities (diving, snorkelling, reef walking, fishing)

Wildlife interactions (seabirds, turtle watching, whale watching, unauthorised fish feeding)

The GBRMPA in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency and QPWS has
formulated specific management tools to allow tourism and recreation opportunities within the GBR
while minimising the impacts of tourism and recreation activities on the marine environment
(GBRMPA, 2011). These management tools involve (Harriot, 2002):

51

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The possession of a permit (jointly issued by the GBRMPA and QPWS) by every tourism operator
to conduct any operations within the GBRMP and adjacent State Marine Parks. Through these
permits, the activities that may be undertaken by each operator and the conditions in which they
should be carried out are defined
The important partnership between GBRMPA and the marine tourism industry to promote the
adoption of a best practices code of conduct and additionally in this instance GBRMPA organise
training courses for tourism industry staff
The Environmental Management Charge collected from every commercial tourism operator in the
GBRMP that contribute to monitor visitors numbers
The establishment of the Tourism and Recreation Reef Advisory Committee (TRRAC) that
provides professional guidance concerning the management of tourism and recreation in the
GBRMP by developing a Cooperative Framework for Sustainable Use and Management of
Tourism and Recreation(TRRAC, 2002).
The Tavolara MPA has carrying capacity and the limit of acceptable change practices in the
management plan, however this information are not easily accessible.
The Cinque Terre MPA does not have a policy or regulatory systems concerning tourism impact
and subsequently as a result of this lack of regulation the impact on the MPA marine environment
increases significantly during the summer tourist season.
The impact assessment of human activities is basically related with the changes introduced into the
environment in terms of ecosystem integrity and functioning (biophysical) but the management
assessment should also consider the dynamic set of transactions and impacts that visitation and
use represent (Bentrupperbumer & Reser, 2002). In fact Bentrupperbumer & Reser (2002)
stated that pleasurable and enjoyable human transactions with the natural environment not only
decrease the negative biophysical impact but also have a positive psychological result that lead to a
change in the attitude, understanding and behaviour of visitors.
The biophysical-psychological-social interface and the related reciprocal transactions in the Wet
Tropic World Heritage Area (WTWHA) environment are highlighted in Figure 8 however this
biophysical-psychological-social interface and the reciprocal transactions can be easily applied in a
MPA environment.

52

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Figure 8: The biophysical-psychological-social interface and the reciprocal transactions in the

WTWHA setting (Bentrupperbumer & Reser, 2002).
As stated by the CBD Secretariat (2004) one of the main roles of highly protected MCPAs is to
allow people to enjoy and value the natural state through the facilitation of non-extractive use
activities and the provision of information to allow a better understanding of the marine and coastal
environment. To achieve the promotion of non-extractive use activities while providing information
it is fundamental that the stakeholders and the local community in general are involved in the MPA
management practices.
The CBD Secretariat (2004) identifies the stakeholders as anyone who has an interest in the issue
and defines their participation as essential for the establishment and continuance of individual
MCPAs and regional networks. Stakeholders involvement is considered very important to achieve
the MPA management objectives because it can help to accomplish the equitable sharing of benefits
deriving from the establishment of the MPA by providing economic, social, and cultural benefits to
the local communities and in this way it allows decisions and management to be carried out at the
appropriate level and to be made in a very transparent way (CBD Secretariat, 2004). Moreover it
has been proved that stakeholders involvement smooths and contributes in the progress of the
biodiversity monitoring by integrating the knowledge and resources that communities and other
stakeholders have of the MPA environment and in addition the enhancement of the community
skills, pride and sense of ownership of the MCPA directly increases the likelihood of its success
(CBD Secretariat, 2004).
53

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

This is the reason why the MPA management authorities should undertake activities to implement
stakeholder understanding and support through an effective stakeholders participation and to
guarantee that apposite benefits are produced and shared in an equitable way. The GBRMPA is
particularly aware of the importance of stakeholders involvement and works in partnership with the
marine tourism industry to promote the implementation of a best practices code of conduct and it
also organises training courses for tourism industry staff to implement education and interpretation
activities. It has been widely recognised in the literature concerning this topic (Brown et al. 2002;
Christie 2004) that involvement with stakeholders and other interested parties at the community
level is of fundamental importance to such a point that the success or the failure of the management
effort hinges on this participation.
Orams (1999) identified four main management strategies that can be used by the management
authority to control and regulate tourism in Marine Parks: Regulatory (zoning), Physical (mooring
buoys, pontoons), Economic (fees, user-charges) and Educational (marine park Interpretation)
Strategies. The Regulatory Management Strategies involve the MPA rules and regulations which
are designed to regulate visitor actions, access, times and numbers such as the restrictions on visitor
number, on the types of visitor activity permitted and even on the type of vessel/equipment
permitted (Orams, 1999).
The Physical Management Strategies involve human-made structures (underwater observatories,
glass-bottom boats, mooring buoys, pontoons) located in marine parks to manage and regulate
human activity and impacts by facilitating the movement of tourists and avoiding sensitive areas
(Orams, 1999). These human-made physical structures are designed to reduce tourist impacts while
providing opportunities, facilities and services for the marine-based tourism industry (Orams,
1999).
The Economic Management Strategies involve the use of entry fees, user-charges and incentives or
disincentives to regulate human impact on the MPA environment and to generate funds to reinvest
in management measures (Orams, 1999). The disincentives involve fines for pollution, discharging
ballast water, coral damage, harming wildlife while the incentives involve discounts on permits if
the operators undertake clean-up projects, help research or are ECO-Certified (longer 15 year
permits for reef tour operators by GBRMPA)
Finally the Educational Management Strategies involve activities such as environmental education
and interpretation of the marine environment to reduce inappropriate visitor behaviour and increase
visitor awareness and understanding of marine ecosystems and wildlife (Aiello, 1998).
54

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Education and Interpretation

The results related to education strategies in the three MPAs are summarised in the following.
Table 9: Education and interpretation results
Education and

Cinque Terre

Tavolara

GBR

Interpretation,

Sea Watching is a

The Environmental

Education and stewardship

education and

snorkelling tour that

Education Office

programs play an important part

training

costs 10 (including

coordinates the actions

in raising awareness and

guide and insurance)

for environmental

encouraging on ground action to

and is conducted by

education and

protect the Great Barrier Reef.

a nature guide

sustainability and is

Through the highly successful

employed by a

responsible for the

Reef Guardians Program, the

society from La

development of

GBRMPA has a network of

Spezia who is a sub-

interpretation activities

schools and local government

contractor and

though the Centre for

councils committed to protecting

independent of the

Environmental

the Reef. Working with the

park.

Education of the MPA.

tourism industry and

Interpretation

stakeholders, GBRMPA also

educate Marine Park visitors by
promoting appreciation through
interpretation and best practice
information.

55

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

As stated before Orams (1999) identified among the four main management strategies Education as
a tool that can be used by the management authority to control and regulate tourism in MPAs.
Moreover the CBD secretariat (2004) stated that increasing public understanding of marine
biodiversity is a key role for highly protected MCPAs to such a point that minor impacts on the
biodiversity of the area are tolerable if these impacts allows public understanding and support to be
built. This is the reason why education and interpretation should be a fundamental part of the
management policy of a protected area.
The interpretation and education features are also the main characteristics that differentiate
ecotourism from other forms of tourism and one of the most important developments in the
definition of ecotourism was to include the need for education also referred to as interpretation.
Therefore ecotourism is considered in the literature (Ceballos-Lascurain, 1993; Orams, 2000;
Beaumont 2001) as playing a crucial role in supporting and contributing towards environmental
conservation especially by incorporating learning to the visitor experience, by facilitating attitude
change and by increasing awareness. However, Orams (2000) stated that in other to achieve this
change successful management strategy should be implemented and that this implementation is
directly proportional with a decrease of the negative impact on the environment and an increase of
the positive behaviour change.
According to Orams (2000), the good management strategies in other to be successful should
consider and implement the tourists satisfaction and enjoyment, education and learning, attitude
and belief change, behaviour and lifestyle change, which can jointly be defined as interpretation and
which should guarantee that tourists leave the area with a greater will to contribute to the areas
environment conservation and protection. This is the reason why interpretation is considered
fundamental to educate and involve visitors and in this way influence peoples behaviour and
increase peoples awareness (Moscardo & Ballantine, 2008).
Interpretation facilities can include guided walks, guided tours, signs, books, brochures, lectures,
videos as well as information centres (Moscardo & Ballantine, 2008).
The importance of interpretation not only lays in the fact that it helps to raise visitors awareness
but also in the fact that together with education it contributes towards involving local people in the
management of the MPA by sharing the purposes of its establishment and therefore supporting it. In
this instance both Tavolara and the GBR MPAs are conducting education programs such as the
Reef Guardians Program of the GBRMPA and various educational programs that the Tavolara
56

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

MPA is carrying on in primary and high schools with the aim of involving and educating the local
population from the earliest stages.
Concerning interpretation the GBRMPA is currently working in partnership with communities,
school and with the tourism industry to educate Marine Park users and visitors by promoting
appreciation through interpretation and education services and through best practice information
(Figure 9). Within the GBR marine park the interpretation practices are essential for tour operators
to obtain an ecocertification that will allow them to have financial benefits on the permits to
operate.
On the other hand the Cinque Terre MPA provides scarce and inappropriate interpretation activity
and facility concerning the MPAs marine ecosystem.

In fact the Cinque Terre does not provide

brochures and the only interpretative sign is written only in Italian even if many of the tourists are
from other parts of the world. Furthermore the sign is written in a very scientific way that most
people would anyway find it difficult to understand. The only activity carried out in the MPA is a
snorkelling tour called Sea Watching that costs 10 including guide and insurance. However this
tour is conducted by a nature guide employed by a society from La Spezia who is a sub-contractor
and independent of the MPA management authority. It must also be stated that education programs
also contribute to raise more funds for the MPA that can be reinvested in the implementation of
management practices such as conservation and research which are particularly lacking in the
Cinque Terre MPA.
Concerning education it is very important that the management authority of the MPA considers all
the users of the MPA from primary school children to stakeholders such as the tourism industry and
therefore targets information though different educational and interpretation programs according to
the specific audience. So once again the stakeholders involvement is considered fundamental and
education is recognised as playing an indispensable role in this involvement.
The CBD secretariat (2004) stated that, among the principles underlying the participation process of
stakeholders it is important to give stakeholders access to relevant information in a form they can
understand and give them enough time to be able to prepare and participate. Another important
principle underlined in this document is the active involvements of stakeholders by enabling them
to participate directly in the management practices of the MPA by for example participating in
monitoring programmes and providing education services.
It is also very important to acknowledge and integrate traditional knowledge about the MCPAs
biodiversity and environment in its establishment and management practices, including education.
57

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The GBRMPA acknowledges Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the Traditional
Owners of the Great Barrier Reef region and acknowledges their connection with sea country and
its natural resources that lasted for over 60 000 years and still continue today (GBRMPA, 2011).
For many years GBRMPA has been working though effective and meaningful partnership with
Traditional Owners and recognises the role that these partnerships play in the protection of heritage
and cultural values and in the conservation of biodiversity (GBRMPA, 2011).
As a result of this acknowledgment the GBRMPA has established the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority's Indigenous Partnerships Group and in 2008, the Australian Government has
committed $10 million over five years towards the Reef Rescue Indigenous Land and Sea Country
Partnerships Program to engage Traditional Owners and Indigenous communities along the Great
Barrier Reef catchment in sea country management (GBRMPA, 2011).
The CBD secretariat (2004) on this topic stated that together with the participation in management
achieved by transferring management functions to stakeholders such as allowing community
members to become rangers, the stakeholders must also be given adequate authority, training and
resources in order to allow them to fulfil these functions successfully.
Gubbay (1995) stated that the most important thing to achieve a successful and effective
management of an MPA is that people understand the importance of the MPA and are involved in
its management. Furthermore, Gubbay (1995) goes on stating that this participation is fundamental
to the successful implementation of every management practice (zoning, enforcement, monitoring)
and that interpretation and education strategies are the key elements to achieve this involvement.

Figure 8 Reef Guardians Source: www. reefed.edu.au

58

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Guidelines

The results related to guidelines and network strategies in the three MPAs are summarised in the
following table.
Table 9: Guidelines results
Shared guidelines

The Cinque Terre

It would be very

The Great Barrier

MPA is a member of

useful to have

Reef Marine Park is

SPAMI but it

ministerial guidelines

managed under the

provides just generic

concerning MPAs

GBRMP Act and

guidelines that are

management

associated legislative

usually ineffective
because of the
generality of their
application and they
need to be more
specific.

Tavolara
management plan
was updated on the
basis of the standards
provided by SPAMI
and Tavolara
embraced these
principles.

instruments
(including
Regulations and
Zoning Plans). The
Authority also
operates within the
statutory framework
of the EPBC Act.
Various other
legislation under
Commonwealth and
Queensland State
law, together with
international
conventions, also
impact on
governance and
management of the
Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park.

59

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The Convention on Biodiversity (1993) requires signatory Parties to develop national strategies,
plans or programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and to
establish a system of protected areas. Moreover the CBD Convention calls upon Paries to develop
and implement guidelines for the selection, establishment and management of such areas.
To achieve this in the marine environment that is characterised by a relative deficiency of physical
limits, the presence of mobile reproductive stages and strong interactions across different
ecosystems, it is indispensable to implement a network approach of MCPAs (CBD Secretariat,
2004).
It is recognised that single highly protected MCPAs can provide some benefits but only a network
can protect the range of biodiversity in a region and this is the reason why at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development, held in South Africa in 2002 one of the main objectives was the
establishment of a global network of representative marine protected areas by 2012. According to
the CBD Secretariat (2004) this network of MCPAs should be managed in order to maintain their
integrity, functioning, resilience, persistence and beauty and moreover the network should cover a
representative range of marine and coastal ecosystems. In addition the CBD Secretariat (2004)
acknowledged that the aim of this network is to create a coherent whole and to provide for
intrinsic values, to allow us to better understand the marine and coastal environment, to provide
ecological coherence and contribute towards marine environmental recovery and as insurance
against failures in the authority management.
Jennings (2009) reinforced the importance of the implementation of guidelines as legislation
framework to support an effective management process and as an insurance against failures in the
authority management. In fact these guidelines play a fundamental role in buffering and safe
guarding the designation and management process against discrepancies that are associated with
changing administrations and personnel and to ensure institutional memory (Jennings, 2009). This
is the reason why Kelleher (1999) recognised that developing the legal framework is a key step
needed still in most countries to achieve management effectiveness of MPAs. Concerning this topic
it is important to consider that a viable and representative network cannot be designed and
implemented by just a few small MCPAs and a great number of authors (Bohnsack et al., 2000;
Ballantine, 1991; Davidson et al., 2000; Fogarty et al. 2000) in the literature have attempted to
provide directions on the minimum area needed and within the area the percentage of no-take zone.
These recommendations on how much area is required to be protected in no-take marine reserves
fluctuate between a range of protection encompassing the 10% to 75% of the marine area.
60

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Generally it can be stated that the proper size of an MPA depends from the background in which it
is established and it varies according to what is to be protected and the purpose of the protection.
However various governing entities or initiatives including the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force and the
Great Barrier Reef rezoning plan have established a target ranging from 20 to 30% of area within
the MPA to be protected as no-take zone where mainly scientific research, education and nonextractive activities are allowed.
The CBD Secretariat (2004) stated that the highly protected MCPA network have to be permanent
and viable in perpetuity and identified that this viability is strictly related and can be influenced by
the nature of the legal protection, the presence of replicates, the design of the individual MCPAs,
and the connectivity between MCPAs.According to the CBD Secretariat (2004) the networks
should also be geographically dispersed across the biogeographic regions with sites that are selfsustaining and independent of what happens in the surrounding area (Murray et al 1999).
Furthermore the network should follow an ecosystem-based approach by protecting representative
examples of all ecosystems and in this way ensuring that management failures cannot result in
irreversible biodiversity loss (CBD Secretariat, 2004).
In order to achieve the creation of a network as a coherent whole, the connectivity between MCPAs
is an essential feature to consider especially in the light of the presence of strong interconnections
between most ecosystems. This connectivity not only involves the interconnections among marine
ecosystems (e.g. spill over from spawning areas) but it also involves the strong connectivity that
there is between the marine and terrestrial processes (e.g. movement of water and sediments).In
regard to connectivity there is a great debate in the literature (McNeill & Fairweather, 1993;
Andren, 1994; Allison et al., 1998; Roberts & Hawkins, 2000) concerning the effectiveness of
Single Large Or Several Small (SLOSS) reserves to achieve better connectivity hence better
conserving biodiversity (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Model of population replenishment (Allison et al., 1998)

61

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

In general, it is recognised that the establishment of a large number of small reserves will provide
better connectivity benefits than a small number of large ones, but it is also recognised that smaller
reserves may not be as effective in achieving settlement of dispersing organisms (Roberts &
Hawkins, 2000; Richer & Guenther, 2001; Warner et al., 2000). Roberts and Hawkins (2000) stated
that high levels of ecological connectivity can be achieved predominantly through networks because
isolated reserves are able to protect just limited portions of marine biodiversity and because most
of marine species have open water dispersal phases and can potentially be transported long
distances from where they were spawned. According the Strategic Action Programme for the
Conservation of Biological Diversity (SAP BIO) in the Mediterranean Region the existing Marine
and Coastal Protected Areas need to be enhanced by integrating specific protection measures within
wider management plans as well as into large scale networks of Coastal and Marine Protected
Areas. In fact, SAP BIO (2003) stated that: although on a local scale Marine Protected Areas can
be effective conservation tools, on a regional scale MPAs can only be effective if they are
substantially representative of all habitats, also taking into account the biological and ecological
particularities of protected species and habitats.
The SAP BIO (2003) recognised also the role that the network plays in acting as a buffer against
environmental variability and in providing greater protection for marine communities than a single
reserve. In this regard in the document it is also stated that the actual situation will be significantly
improved by the implementation of the European Union Habitat Directive and of the Natura 2000
network and in this context, the SPAMI List (Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean
Importance) of the SPA Protocol has particular weight (UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA, 2003).
The conservation of habitats, ecosystems and species in the Mediterranean through sustainable
management practices and through an ecosystem-based approach is the focus of the actions carried
out by the RAC/SPA. In 2005 the Contracting Parties to the Barcelona Convention invited the
RAC/SPA to produce a programme of work for the development of MPAs to help the
Mediterranean countries to meet the CBDs target of establishing a representative network of MPAs
in the Mediterranean Sea by 2012.
This programme of work that entered in force in 2009 was elaborated by RAC/SPA in partnership
with the IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation, WWF-MedPo, MedPAN and ACCOBAMS
and it focus on the following four elements (RAC/SPA, 2009):
1. To assess the representativeness and effectiveness of the existing Mediterranean network of
marine and coastal protected areas.
62

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

2. To make the Mediterranean network of marine and coastal protected areas more
comprehensive and more representative of the ecological features of the region.
3. To improve the management of the Mediterranean marine and coastal protected areas.
4. To strengthen the protected area governance systems and further adapt them to national and
regional contexts.
Italy is a signatory of the Barcelona Convention and both Cinque Terre and Tavolara MPAs are
included in the list of Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance. However the Cinque
Terre MPA management authority stated that the SPAMI guidelines are generic and usually
ineffective because of the generality of their application. On the other hand the Tavolara MPA
management plan was updated on the basis of the standards and guidelines provided by SPAMI and
Tavolara deeply embraced these principles.
The obligation that Australia had as a signatory of the CBD and the Jakarta Mandate are fulfilled
with the establishment and the implementation of Australia's National Representative System of
Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA) that is considered a centerpiece of a national approach to the
conservation of marine ecosystems, habitats and species forming part of an integrated strategy for
marine conservation and management. (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010). The NRSMPA not
only meets Australia's responsibilities and obligations as a signatory to the Convention on
Biological Diversity but also supports Australias national commitments of national strategies such
as the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (1992) and Australia's Oceans
Policy (1999) supports the implementation of actions for the establishment of the NRSMPA (Figure
10). The Parties to the CBD agreed in 2004 to implement a global network of comprehensive,
representative and effectively managed national and regional protected area system by 2012
however it is unlikely that this target will be met by all the signatory Parties of the CBD.

Figure 10: NSMPA (www.mpa.gov.au)

63

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Climate Change

The results related to climate change strategies in the three MPAs are summarised in the following
table.
Table 10: Climate change results
Climate Change

Cinque Terre

Tavolara

GBR

Climate change

There are not

Yes, there are already signs

The vulnerability of corals to future climate

influence

any ongoing

of these changes such as the

change has received considerable attention, as

policies of the

growth of algae Caulerpa

impacts on them have already been observed such

MPA dealing

taxifolia that is in direct

as coral bleaching. Many other species, including

with the impact

competition with Posidonia

microbes, fish, marine turtles and seabirds, are

of climate

oceanic. The plague of

also under threat by climate change. The other

change

Gorgonian is also

environmental changes predicted such as ocean

considered an example of

acidification and rising sea level suggest there

this change.

will be additional impacts.

The MPA already took

GBRMPAs Climate Change Response

mitigation to

measures to mitigate this

Programme is taking important steps towards

deal with

change such as pruning and

reducing the negative impacts of climate change.

climate change

planting of the colonies with The Great Barrier Reef Climate Change Action

Adaptation and

None

a program of analysis of the

Plan (the Action Plan) is built on the

rate of survival and growth.

comprehensive knowledge base compiled in

Several Italian universities

Assessment. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

are contributing to research

Authority undertakes a number of different

and study the environment

activities which help to fulfil key objectives under

and biodiversity features of

the Great Barrier Reef Climate Change Action

the MPA and their resilience Plan. These activities involve a range of Great
to climate change

Barrier Reef Marine Park stakeholders, from

industries such as fisheries and tourism through to
communities and scientific researchers.

64

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Climate change is defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2001) as any
change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.
Climate change has been shown to have negative impacts on the marine ecosystem.
The Mediterranean Sea is considered an oceanic sub-basin and scientific studies have proved that
sub-basins are particularly sensitive to the impacts of climate change because of their smaller size
and their partial isolations from the global ocean. In fact the Mediterranean Sea has a negative water
balance in which evaporation surpasses the input of water by rivers and rain. This is the reason why
any climate changes that cause an alteration of the hydrologic balance would have a drastic impact
on the environmental conditions on land and on the regional marine productivity. Moreover a
Spanish-British research project conducted by Marcos et al. (2008) has identified three future
scenarios for the effects of climate change on the Mediterranean over the next 90 years, using
global models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Figure 11). The
conclusions of this study, based on global climate models, predict that a higher concentration of
gases will lead to an increase in temperatures throughout the entire Mediterranean Sea and this will
consequently lead to an increase of the sea levels predicted to be from 3cm to 61cm.

Figure 11: Variations over the 21st Century in steric sea levels in the Mediterranean Sea caused by
changes in temperature and salinity (Marcos et al., 2008).
65

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Concerning the GBR various studies have proved that Climate change will have direct impacts on
the reef through (GBRMPA, 2011):
increased water temperature
increased sea level
increased severity of storms and cyclones
ocean acidification
changed rainfall and runoff
changes to the El Nio Southern Oscillation

One of the main ecological consequences of these climatic changes is coral bleaching that has
already started to occur and increase in frequency and severity as a result of increases in water
temperature (GBRMPA, 2011). Moreover corals ability to form their calcium carbonate skeleton is
threaten by ocean acidification and this will cause corals to be both more vulnerable to storm
damage and the entire coral reef structure to be more exposed to erosion (GBRMPA, 2011).
Furthermore mangrove forest ecosystems will be critically impacted by rising sea levels and
seagrass bed ecosystems by more extreme temperatures, powerful waves and river run-off
following intense storms (GBRMPA, 2011).
The GBRMPA has established a Climate Change Response Team that is presently working in
partnership with specialists in the field to assess the vulnerability of the Great Barrier Reef to
climate change by identifying all the possible variables involved and by implementing successful
management strategies that will minimise this impact. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority in the assessment of the variables involved has identified other pressures such as poor
water quality and has already implemented various strategies such as the Zoning Plan and the Reef
Water Quality Protection Plan that will help to increase the ability of the reef to cope with the
impact of climate change.
In comparison with Australia, the Italian attitude towards climate change is far less advanced. In
fact after the failure of the Copenhagen climate change conference (2009) that resulted in seeking to
lower targets and decrease goals the Italian Senate called for a re-assessment of European Union
(EU) climate policies and a reconsideration of the entire IPCC process. The EU have ratified the
Kyoto Protocol, under which signatories pledged to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
to 8% less than 1990 levels by 2008-12. The EU has consequently adopted the 20-20-20 package
of directives that requires a 20% reduction of GHG emissions by 2020 and that 20% of the entire
energy consumed will be generated by renewable energy sources.
66

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The Italian governments attitude is clearly reflected in the attitude of most of the Italian MPAs. In
fact despite the scientific evidence of the impact of increasing temperatures and rising sea levels on
the marine environment, most Italian MPAs are not considering these facts in their management
policies. This statement is confirmed by the complete absence of any climate change policies such
as climate change adaptation and mitigation of the Cinque Terre management authority.
On the other hand the Tavolara MPA is one of the few MPAs in Italy that are actively involved in
climate change adaptation and mitigation. The Tavolara MPA has already taken some measures to
mitigate climate change such as the pruning and replanting of the gorgonian colonies which were
dying as a result of increased sea temperature and related changes to the thermocline level. They
also have a program in partnership with several Italian universities to analyse the rate of survival
and growth of the replanted gorgonians.
In the report published after the International Earth system expert workshop on ocean stresses and
impacts, Rogers & Laffoley (2011) reconfirmed that human actions directly contributed in the
oceans warming and acidification causing increased hypoxia. The oceans warming, acidification
and the consequent hypoxia are three symptoms that identify disturbances of the carbon cycle that
are usually associated with each of the previous five mass extinctions on Earth (Veron, 2008a,b;
Veron et al., 2009). The speeds of many negative changes to the ocean are near to or are tracking
the worst-case scenarios from IPCC and other predictions. Some are as predicted, but many are
faster than anticipated, and many are still accelerating.

67

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Conclusion and Recommendations

Since the establishment of the first protected areas, the Yellowstone National Park in 1872 the
management policies of conservation together with public concern for the environment have
evolved. Firstly the number of MPAs has grown significantly to approximately 5,000 MPAs
(Wood, 2007) worldwide together with the acknowledgement of the important role that protected
areas play as a core element in biodiversity management and of the benefits to the wider
community.
It must be considered that the oceans cover 70 % of the world surface but just less than 0.65%
(Wood, 2007) of the marine environment is under protection. Even though the 0.65% is already a
very small percentage, in reality it is even less because although the 0.65% exists in theory in
practice not all the MPAs established have an effective management strategy. Moreover only 0.08%
of the worlds oceans are under protection as a no-take zone where extractive activities are
prohibited (Wood, 2007)
As a result of the global financial crisis many protected areas particularly in developing countries
are considered merely paper parks because of lack of funding they are unable pay for staff
salaries, maintain and fuel patrol vessels or conduct wildlife conservation programs let alone
provide education or interpretation services (CBD Secretariat, 2004). This is the reason why not
only increasing the number and coverage of MPAs is essential but also implementing their
representativeness and effectiveness is crucial in order to achieve a sustainable use of marine
resources.
The complexity of the MPAs management and the difficulty in gaining political and public support
for them lays in the fact that environmental degradation is more difficult to observe and monitor in
the marine environment than on dry land, and this means that marine degradation could reach a
catastrophic level before it is even recognised let alone addressed (Vallega, 1999). Furthermore the
acquisition of new information and data is usually more expensive and requires more sophisticated
equipment compared to the terrestrial equivalents (CBD Secretariat, 2004).
Due to the complexity of the marine environment, the limited knowledge that scientists have about
these fragile and deeply interconnected ecosystems and of the way in which they operate, the
precautionary principle should be implemented within the management framework of MPAs and
greater emphasis placed on education that will increase public awareness, knowledge and
understanding. In fact education plays a crucial role in raising awareness in the public and it builds
68

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

support from the local community who learn to realise and appreciate the real benefits that the
establishment of an MPA can bring to their livelihood.
Whilst many of these benefits are obvious to the scientific community it can take a long time for
these benefits to become obvious at the local level. In a case study conducted in New Zealand a
survey of stakeholders that were initially opposed to the creation of the MPA in a relatively short
period of 10 years came to value the area and had become strong supporters of the MPA (Cocklin et
al., 1992; Cocklin et al., 1998).
Another aspect of the evolution of protected areas is the paradigm shift from the unsuccessful
exclusion model of Yellowstone Park as an area without people to the actual inclusion model that
recognises the important role played by stakeholders and local community in general in the
effective biodiversity conservation. It is now generally acknowledged that the difference between
success and failure in the management of a MPA is in direct proportion to the involvement of the
local community.
The importance of communities involvement in the management of protected areas is particularly
evident when Indigenous people are considered because it has been recognised that not only the
exclusion of Indigenous people was ineffective but also the exclusion caused problems in terms of
loss of biodiversity and conservation. In this instance the IUCN (1994) in the document Guidelines
for Protected Area Management Categories stated: Governments and protected area managers
should incorporate customary and Indigenous tenure and resource use, and control systems, as a
means of enhancing biodiversity conservation.
As a result of writing this thesis it has become clearly obvious that the successful management of an
MPA must include and involve the local community at all levels from the early zoning process to
the on-going monitoring programs, educational initiatives and enforcement policies.
Further findings from the work done for this thesis identify the need to implement within MPAs
framework an Integrated Costal Management (ICM) and an ecosystem-based management approach
that involves the CAR principle and the related adaptive management practices. Moreover the
importance of establishing MPAs networks is also highlighted because it is now widely recognised
that single highly protected MCPAs can provide some benefits but only a network can protect the
full range of biodiversity in a region. The 5th World Parks Congress (2003) called on the
international community to establish a global system of MPA networks that increases the marine
and coastal area covered by including strictly protected areas that amount to at least 20 to 30% of
each habitat (IUCN, 2005).
69

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

It is also evident that Australia is considered to have the best management practices because of the
implementation in the national framework of all the above practices and other countries including
Italy could benefit from following this example. However, it must also be recognised that whilst
other countries would like to adopt the Australian model, the reality of financial costs and the lack
of political commitment often act as a barrier to their implementation.
This is the reason why in Italy it is fundamental that more funds are allocated to the research in
order to achieve a best practices status, the related effectiveness of the MPAs management and in
this way meet the obligation that Italy has as signatory to international agreements and as part of the
European Union. In fact in order to implement an ecosystem-based approach research activities
must be conducted to assess the habitats and the ecosystems in the area and this requires more funds
as well as genuine political commitment. In addition the implementation of adaptive management
practices is strictly related to a continuous monitoring activity that also requires a constant
allocation of funding which must be considered in the cost-benefit planning process of an MPA.
Even though Australia is considered one of the best countries to effectively manage and conserve
the environment, there are natural and climatic phenomena that are beyond human control such as
climate change. In the last year alone North Queensland has experienced major river flooding as
well as a category 5 cyclone and the consequences of these events has had profound effects on the
marine ecosystem of the GBR. As a result of the GBRMPA implementation of an adaptive
management approach the reef is more likely to be able to cope with natural phenomena such as
those mentioned above because adaptive management has been recognised as the most appropriate
approach toward the management of biological resources in the light of its ability to deal with
uncertainty and natural variations.
The GBRMPA recognise the elevated vulnerability of the reef ecosystem to climate change and
because the impacts of this change are already being observed, the GBRMPA in partnership with
the Australian Greenhouse Office has developed the Climate Change Response Programme to
address the threat of climate change to the GBR (GBRMPA, 2011). However in an article written
by Fergus Hanson and published in The Interpreter on the 28th June 2011 it is stated that still just
41% of Australians consider climate change as a serious and pressing problem which should now be
addressed even if this involves significant costs. Considering the Italian situation a great
discrepancy can be noted between the management of Cinque Terre and Tavolara.
The importance of having guidelines and targets to achieve and being part of a larger scale network,
lays in the fact that this can only help, with a high degree of certainty, to bridge the gap that there is
70

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

between the management practices of the two MPAs. Examples of this great difference can be seen
clearly in the educational strategies and in the research activities conducted by the two Italian
MPAs that, in the case of Cinque Terre, are next to nothing. Hence, it is recommended that the
Cinque Terre management authority implements and improves their research, educational and
monitoring activities. All these practices can be effectively implemented through a more consistent
involvement of the local community and in this way the authority will be able to fulfil the
obligations required of it as a World Heritage area.
The Tavolara MPA in comparison with Cinque Terre has updated and effective practices especially
concerning the educational and research activities, however greater importance should be given to
community involvement. However, both MPAs management authorities in Italy have no power on
water quality control and this is due to the lack of legislative framework that allows them to manage
runoff. This lack reflects the impracticality of an integrated coastal management framework
approach although this is recognised in the literature as the best practice to manage MPAs (Vallega,
1999; Beckmann & Coleman, 1999).
There is also a need for the increase of no take areas percentage within MPA integrated with a more
effective regulation of activities that can be carried out in each zone (see Maragos et al., 2000).
Hence it is recommended a review of zoning criteria and process in a national framework that will
lead to homogeneity in the regulation and a greater understanding hence respect of it. It is also
recommended a more sensitive and responsive national policy in considering the possible effects of
climate change and acknowledging the contribution that research can provide in this regard. In fact,
research activities need to be more funded as they represent a crucial part of adaptive ecosystem
based management, identified already in much of the literature as the best practise (Arkema et al.,
2006; CBD Secretariat, 2004). Finally, a greater involvement of stakeholder should be implemented
in all the management strategies of the Italian MPAs and this can be achieved through education
programs that area another crucial part to implement as education and involvement determine the
success or the failure of an MPA (Brown et al. 2002; Christie 2004). In a national context it is not
acceptable to allow this discrepancy to have lasted this long, to still exist and, unless rectified, to
continue.
In conclusion, in order to achieve a long term, effective and sustainable management of marine
biodiversity, a planning approach embracing sustainable use and ecosystem-based management
should be adopted and implemented at the national and regional levels and the knowledge of marine
biodiversity increased. Moreover the management strategies should be adjusted over time on the
71

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

basis of experience and increased knowledge gained from an adaptive management approach and
the related monitoring activities based on specific and reliable indicators (CBD Secretariat, 2004).
The CBD Secretariat (2004) stated that the establishment of MCPAs should as far as possible be
designed in a way that complete failure of the management regime will not significantly affect the
viability of the MCPA network. At the time of writing (2011) the report of the International Earth
system expert workshop on ocean stresses and impacts was published. This event brought together a
select group of world science leaders in ocean stresses and impacts that, through presentations,
discussions and recommendations, recognised and analysed the increasing effects of these impacts
and the way they commonly act in a negatively synergistic way (Rogers & Laffoley, 2011).
The examination of these synergistic impacts leads (Rogers & Laffoley, 2011) to the conclusion
that we have underestimated the overall risks and that the whole of marine degradation is greater
than the sum of its parts, and that degradation is now happening at a faster rate than predicted.
In this document once again, the establishment of a globally comprehensive and representative
system of marine protected areas is identified as an urgent action to restore the structure and
function of marine ecosystems, to build resilience and to ensure an ecologically sustainable use of
its resources (Rogers & Laffoley, 2011).
The final recommendation of this report is the very profound idea of a wider re-evaluation of the
core values of human society and its relationship to the natural world and the resources on which
we all rely (Rogers & Laffoley, 2011). I completely agree with this profound idea and it is probably
the first time that this kind of idea has been powerful enough to appear in a scientific publication
and we should understand that we are only one of the many interconnections that contribute to the
complexity of the marine environment.

72

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
APPENDIX 1

Interview with the director of the Marine Protected Area of Cinque Terre
The following responses were provided by Miss Sabrina Rolla, director of the Cinque Terre MPA,
in a one on one interview conducted in July 2010.
MANAGEMENT

Who funds you and how much money do you receive annually for the management of
your marine protected area? Which criteria are used?

The Cinque Terre MPA is funded directly by the Italian Ministry of the Environment for an amount
of 246,000 per year. The great majority of this money is used to purchase fuel for the 8 vessels of
the MPA. Two of these vessels are ecological boats provided by the Ministry of the Environment.
There are no criteria for the funding of the MPA. Previously the MPAs received 250,000 from
the Italian Ministry of the Environment plus further funding on the basis of scientific research
projects carried out by the MPA and approved by the Ministry of the Environment.

Do you have any ongoing sources (e.g. tax, pathways, foundations, etc) that help you to
get funding? If yes how do you invest this money into marine park protection?

There is a problem with the lack of funding for the MPA; a possibility does exist to earn funding by
charging administration fees for certain activities if the decree is approved by the Ministry of the
Environment. At present there are no ongoing activities that could raise revenue. There are four
dive shops that operate within the MPA but only just one is actually located in the territory of the
MPA (Riomaggiore) the other three are in Levanto that is not a part of the consortium that manages
the Cinque Terre MPA and the terrestrial national park. Moreover the Cinque Terre MPA is the
only MPA in Italy that allows scuba diving in zone A of total protection. There is a strict ratio of
one instructor or guide for every five scuba divers however there is no educational awareness or
interpretative instruction about the environmental features of the area.

Did you see any positive results from the zoning of your marine protected area?

While there is some anecdotal support to believe that there are more fish, there is no scientific data
to support this claim because of the lack of funding for this research. The only type of research
carried out is by university students who are keen to investigate some ecological aspects of the
MPA and after their research they share their data and analysis with the MPA.
73

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

What policies and management actions are in your management plan to deal with
pollution and runoff associated with land based activities?

From the satellite images it can be clearly seen that there is a great runoff from the river Arno that
influences the water quality of the marine protected area of Cinque Terre. The water of the river
carries sediments and nutrients from land base activities and when they reach the sea they cause an
over production of phytoplankton. In the management plan of the MPA there is no policy of
reduction of the pollution caused by the run off. The only activity carried out is the collection of
logs and branches that arrive into the sea especially after flood events. This activity is mostly
carried out by the ecological boats for the purpose of safe navigation.

Do you think it will be useful to have some shared guidelines for all the marine
protected areas in your country (and globally) and in this way form a network between
them? (in Italy NATURA 2000)

The Cinque Terre MPA is a member of ASPIM (SPAMI in English) Specially Protected Areas of
Mediterranean Interest that are sites "of importance for conserving the components of biological
diversity in the Mediterranean; contain ecosystems specific to the Mediterranean area or the habitats
of endangered species; are of special interest at the scientific, aesthetic, cultural or educational
levels". (Article 8(2) of the Protocol Concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas and
Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean 1995). But SPAMI provide just generic guidelines that
are usually ineffective because of the generality of their application and they need to be more
specific.
TOURISM

Do you have a management plan to deal with the impact of tourism activities in your
marine protected areas (for example, pollution maximum number, carrying capacity)?

In the management plan of the MPA there is no number limitation concerning the carrying capacity
of tourists or other activities like fisheries. Often it is the territory that determines this limitation.

Which tourism activities are allowed in your marine protected area?

Principally the activities allowed in the Cinque Terre marine protected area are:
Anchoring:
-Zone A: Anchoring prohibited,
74

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

- Zone B: Anchoring prohibited

-Zone C: Anchoring is allowed from sunrise to sunset, but no later than 8 pm, with the approval of
the Park, outside of the mooring fields in special areas designated by the decision of the Park.
It is forbidden to anchor in areas specifically identified and reported by the Park as affected by the
presence of sensitive biological communities, such as Posidonia oceanica and rocky bottoms or
coral.
Swimming:
-Zone A: swimming is allowed with the permission of the Park, from May 1 to September 30. With
access by land and by sea, only by swimming or with rowing boats. It is prohibited to use fins,
shoes and gloves. This permission is given only to the residents or homeowners in the MPA and
their close relatives and to tourists residing for at least 3 consecutive nights in an accommodation in
the municipalities within the Marine Protected Area.
-Zone B: swimming is allowed with the permission of the Park with access by land and by sea, only
by swimming and by authorized vessels. This permission is given only to the residents or
homeowners in the MPA and their close relatives and to tourist residing for at least 3 consecutive
nights in an accommodation in the municipalities within the Marine Protected Area
-Zone C: Swimming is permitted freely.
Diving:
-Zone A: individual scuba diving is forbidden but scuba diving with a diving center authorised by
the marine park authority is permitted.
-Zone B: individual scuba diving is permitted if authorized by the Park, from May 1 to October 31,
from sunrise to sunset, in groups of no more than 5 divers on the sites and at the times determined
by the Park to ensure they are not contemporary with other individual and scuba diving tours. This
permission is given only to the residents or homeowners in the MPA and their close relatives and to
tourist residing for at least 3 consecutive nights in an accommodation in the municipalities within
the Marine Protected Area
-Zone C: individual scuba diving is allowed, with the approval of the Park, from May 1 to October
31. It is forbidden to make contact with the seabed, the partial removal or damage of any material or
body of geological and biological material, and is compulsory to maintain diving equipment as
75

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

close as possible to the body. The access to the submerged caves is only permitted with the use of
breathing apparatus for closed circuit or semi-enclosed, with exhaust air out of caves.
Navigation:
According to current legislation and the provisions of the local maritime authority, navigation is
allowed 100 meters from the coast overlooking the sea and over the distance of 200 meters from the
coast and the low sandy beaches frequented by people swimming. It is not permitted to use personal
watercraft or jet skis, neither is it permitted to practice other water sports such as water skiing.
-Zone A: only sailing and rowing are permitted, with the approval of the Park, for the sole purpose
of swimming, but there should be no more than one vessel for the applicant, vessels owned only by
the residents or homeowners in the MPA and their close relatives. If a vessel has a fitted engine, the
engine and the propeller must be raised above the water.
-Zone B: rowing and sailing navigation is allowed. Motor boats are allowed at speeds not exceeding
5 knots, the recreational craft, authorized by the Park, which are equipped with: electric motors,
engines fueled with biodiesel fuel, unleaded gasoline 4-stroke engines or motors of 2 stroke direct
injection, in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2003/44/EC of The European
Parliament and of The Council in relation to gas and noise emissions. The navigation of motor boats
is prohibited for unauthorized vessels, boats and recreational craft.
-Zone C: rowing and sailing navigation is allowed. It is allowed to navigate with motor boats and
recreational craft, as follows:
-at speed not exceeding 5 knots within the range of 300 meters from the shore;
-at speed exceeding 10 knots over a distance of 300 meters from the coast.
Access to the caves is permitted to the rowing boats, with appropriate protection systems of soft
sides, to prevent damage to the walls and rock formations. It is forbidden to discharge any untreated
waste water to the sea from bilges or other facilities of the vessel and any toxic substance or
pollutant. It is also forbidden to misuse acoustic signals or sound.
Fishing:
In the Cinque Terre marine protected area fishing of the following species is prohibited:
a. Grouper (Ephinepleus sp.)

76

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

b. Grouper bottom (Polyprion americanus);

c. Clam (Pinna nobilis).
Sport fishing competitions and spear fishing are prohibited throughout the Marine Protected Area.
For non-residents in the municipalities of the Marine Protected Area recreational fishing is
permitted, with the approval of the Park Authority, with a maximum of two rods or lines from the
land and not more than two hooks.

The authorization entails the obligation to provide data to the

Park and information on fishing activities for the purpose of monitoring the Marine Protected Area.

Do you receive any funding from tourism activities to put back into management and
research?

The MPA does not receive any funding from tourism activities.

Do you provide any kind of interpretation of the natural environment in your marine
protected area? If yes do you organize any training programs for the tourism
industry?

The only educational activity organized by the MPA is called Sea Watching and is a snorkeling
tour that costs 10 (including guide and insurance) and is conducted by a nature guide employed by
a society from La Spezia who is a sub-contractor and independent of the park.
CLIMATE CHANGE

Do you think that climate change will influence the ecological and economic values of
your marine protected area?

Is your organization considering adaptation or mitigation to deal with this likely

impact of climate change?

There are not any ongoing policies of the MPA dealing with the impact of climate change

77

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
APPENDIX 2

Interview with the director of the Marine Protected Area of Tavolara-Punta Coda Cavallo
The following responses were provided by Mr. Augusto Navone, director of the Tavolara MPA, in a
one on one interview conducted in July 2010.
MANAGEMENT

Who funds you and how much money do you receive annually for the management of
your marine protected area? Which criteria are used?

The Tavolara MPA is funded on the basis of the following table:

CURRENT EXPENSES

150,000

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND

320,000

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT

450,000

MUNICIPALITY OF OLBIA

210,000

MUNICIPALITY OF PORTO SAN PAOLO

105,000

MUNICIPALITY OF SAN TEODORO

105,000

The funds from the Italian Ministry of the Environment are granted on the basis of the following
objective criteria:
-Size: the physical area of the MPA
-Complexity of the territory
-Environmental certification:
ASPIM (SPAMI) Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Interest
I.S.A: Action for the Sustainability of the Environment
EMAS: Environment Management Verification
78

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Finally 420,000 is donated by the three municipalities of the consortium. The three municipalities
donate respectively: 50% municipality of Olbia, 25 % municipality of Porto San Paolo and 25%
municipality of San Teodoro.
Previously the MPAs received 250,000 from the Italian Ministry of the Environment plus further
funding on the basis of scientific research projects carried out by the MPA and approved by the
Ministry of the Environment.
Since 2006 however all the Italian MPAs are funded on the bases of objectives criteria that mean
that different MPA receive different amounts of money.

Do you have any ongoing sources (e.g. tax, pathways, foundations, etc) that help you to
get funding? If yes how do you invest this money into marine park protection?

The Tavolara MPA is also self funding by charging vessels for mooring berth and this practice
generates a further income of 20,000 per year. Another contributing factor to self-funding is by
charging administration fees.
The monies raised are invested in environmental protection and reclamation as well as spent on
seabed cleaning. There is a legal problem that regulates non recreational scuba diving. To
accomplish the seabed cleaning it is necessary to employ divers who are suitably certified for non
recreational activities (technical diving operator).To solve this problem there is pressure for the
introduction of a new certificate of underwater scientific observer.

Did you see any positive results from the zoning of your marine protected area?

There is definite measurable scientific proof that the professional management of this MPA has
produced sustainable progress. This has been achieved as a result of a well calibrated and careful
zoning of the MPA. This claim is confirmed by the results of a four year research program of visual
census that proved that regeneration of the fish fauna has occurred. This study was conducted by the
well known Salento University professor Paolo Guidetti.
Recreational scuba diving within the MPA is also well regulated and organized and this is aided by
the accessibility and the geographical remote nature of the island. Although there are 25 diving
centres operating within the boundaries of the MPA, the number of divers of any one site at any one
time is controlled (one boat for each site and a specific ratio of divers to guide). This means that the
impact on the area of the dive site and its sustainability can be closely monitored.

79

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

What policies and management actions are in your management plan to deal with
pollution and runoff associated with land based activities?

In Italy there is no local authority to which the malfunction can be reported.

The law 152 concerning water quality give responsibility to the ASL (Local Health) and to ARPA
(Agency for Environmental Protection) to deal with above all pollution but no power of decision
making and spillage management is given to municipalities.
The National system for spills management is a slow process that involves firstly the Ministry of
Environment, secondly the harbour police and finally requires anti pollution and cleaning facilities
to be brought to the area affected by the spill.

Do you think it will be useful to have some shared guidelines for all the marine
protected areas in your country (and globally) and in this way forming a network
between them? (in Italy NATURA 2000)

It will be very useful to have ministerial guidelines concerning MPAs management.

Previously in Italy there was only a rudimentary system dating from the early 1982 and 1990
legislation. From cognitive studies, socio-economic studies and regulation evolved a correct
management plan of the MPA. The Tavolara management plan was updated on the basis of the
standards provided by SPAMI and Tavolara embraced these principles. The management body of
Tavolara strongly agrees that there should be shared guidelines for all MPAs in the Mediterranean
Sea.
TOURISM

Do you have a management plan to deal with the impact of tourism activities in your
marine protected areas (for example pollution, maximum number, carrying capacity)?

In the Tavolara management plan there is a monitoring program about recreational diving at dive
sites where it is felt that the greatest impact on the environment will occur. The Marine Protected
Area management plan highlighted the carrying capacity and the limit of acceptable change of:
800 passengers per day / 1900 boats rental / 3000 private boats
The Environment Office coordinates and monitors all activities of monitoring and scientific
research of direct concern for the protection of habitats and species, collaborating with several
Universities and Research Institutes
80

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Which tourism activities are allowed in your marine protected area?

Inside the Tavolara Punta Coda Cavallo Marine Protected Area, the following zones are defined,
and accompanying rules established, by the founding Ministerial Decree (12 December, 1997) and
updated with the Ministerial Decree of 28 November 2001:
Zone A
The following activities are permitted in Zone A:
-Entrance to the area by MPA staff and authorized researchers present for scientific purposes;
-Guided underwater visits, authorized by Marine Protected Area authority, in areas with established
routes, keeping in mind the sensibility of the environment.
The following activities are prohibited in Zone A:
-Swimming or bathing;
-Professional or sport fishing;
-The use of water craft (except official Marine Protected Area craft).
Zone B
The following activities are permitted in Zone B:
-The use of boats and other water craft at a speed of less than 10 knots;
-Underwater visits, following the rules of the Protected Marine Area;
-Swimming or bathing;
-Mooring to berths installed by the Area managing authority;
-Professional fishing by residents of towns bordering the Protected Marine Area within regulated
weight limits by using environmentally sensitive equipment.
The following activities are prohibited in Zone B:
-Trawling and similar fishing techniques;
-Sport fishing.
Zone C
The following activities are permitted in Zone C:
-Transit of boats and crafts;
-Mooring to berths installed by Area management;
-Underwater diving (while respecting the surroundings);
-Professional fishing by residents of towns bordering the Protected Marine Area within regulated
weight limits by using environmentally sensitive equipment;
-Sport fishing, with the following equipment:

81

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

A) Fishing rods, lines, hooks, natural and artificial bait not more than one per person, maximum
three fish hooks
B)Correntine: not more than one per person, maximum six fish hooks;
C) Traina: not more than one per boat.

Do you receive any funding from tourism activities to put back into management and
research?

The MPA does not receive any funding from tourism activities except from charging vessels for a
mooring berth and this practice generates a further income of 20,000 per year.

Do you provide any kind of interpretation of the natural environment in your marine
protected area? If yes do you organize any training programmes for the tourism
industry?

The Environmental Education Office coordinates the actions for environmental education and
sustainability and is responsible for the development of interpretation activities though the Centre
for Environmental Education of the MPA.
The institutional purpose of the Marine Protected Areas is as important as the measures of
protection and land management, information activities, awareness and environmental education.
The educational mission of the Marine Protected Area aims at the promotion and the reflection on
the relationship between Man and Nature, which helps to rediscover the connection with the land
and to promote the values that inspire the protection activity.
For this specific purpose targeted environmental education for elementary and junior high schools
have been designed and developed according to the different audience.
CLIMATE CHANGE

Do you think that climate change will influence the ecological and economic values of
your marine protected area?

Yes, there are already signs of these changes such as the growth of algae Caulerpa taxifolia that is
one of two algae on the list of the world's 100 worst invasive species compiled by the IUCN
Invasive Species Specialist Group. Moreover this algae is in direct competition with Posidonia
oceanica a plant species endemic to the Mediterranean Sea and protected as a SIC in the program

82

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Natura 2000 of the European Union. Also the plague of Gorgonian, also known as sea fan and order
of sessile colonial cnidarians, is an example of this change.

Is your organization considering adaptation or mitigation to deal with this likely

impact of climate change?

The MPA already took measures to mitigate this change such as pruning and planting of the
colonies with a program of analysis of the rate of survival and growth. The MPA is also carrying
out research about the bacterium that contributes to this phenomenon. Several Italian universities
are contributing to research and study the environment and biodiversity features of the MPA.

83

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
APPENDIX 3
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

The following information was taken from the GBRMPA web site for the purpose of being as close
as possible to statements and practices of the GBRMPA.
MANAGEMENT

Who funds you and how much money do you receive annually for the management of
your marine protected area? Which criteria are used?

An overview of the GBRMPAs nancial operations follows and a summary of nancial and
staffing resources is in Figure 1, Figure 2. The total revenue for 2009-10 was $42.6 million.
Appropriation for 2009-10 of $28 million was $0.5 million less than the 2008-09 appropriation.
This was primarily due to a reduction in Special Appropriation derived from the Environmental
Management Charge.

Income from other sources for 2009-10 of $14.2 million was $1.9 million less than in 2008-09. This
was primarily due to reduced resources for water quality and Indigenous engagement as part of the
Australian Government's Reef Rescue Plan.
84

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The Australian and Queensland Governments provided matching funding for eld management of
the Marine Park, which was implemented in partnership with the Queensland Department of
Environment and Resource Management (DERM) and other agencies.
The operating expense of managing the Marine Park in 2009-10 was $45.1 million. Employee
expenses were similar to that in 2008-09. Expenses for suppliers were lower than 2008-09 by $0.6
million. Resources were also allocated to capital projects including the Reef HQ Aquarium and
development of the Reef Permits System.
The GBRMPA had an operating decit of $2.5 million in 2009-10. This reects the reduction in
appropriation due to the drop in actual revenue from the Special Appropriation derived from the
Environmental Management Charge and increased expenses for management of the Marine Park.

Do you have any ongoing sources (e.g. tax, pathways, foundations, etc) that help you to
get funding? If yes how do you invest this money into marine park protection?

The Environmental Management Charge (EMC) is a charge associated with most commercial
activities, including tourism operations, non-tourist charter operations, and facilities, operated under
a permit issued by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA).
For most tourism operations, visitors to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Marine Park)
participating in a tourist activity are liable to pay the charge to the permittee, who then remits the
charge to the GBRMPA.
Other operations in the Marine Park such as those involving the hire of equipment, installation and
operation of tourist facilities, underwater observatories, sewage outfalls and vending operations,
must pay fixed quarterly charges to the GBRMPA.
The funds received from the EMC are vitally important in the day-to-day management of the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park and in improving its long-term resilience.
All funds received as EMC payments are applied directly to management of the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park including education, research, ranger patrols and policy development.
At the same time, visitation information provided when EMC is submitted greatly assists the
GBRMPA and the Department of Environment and Resource Management, Queensland Parks and
Wildlife Service (QPWS) in developing management arrangements for sustainable use of the
Marine Park.
85

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Did you see any positive results from the zoning of your marine protected area?

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is a multiple-use area. Zoning Plans define what activities can
occur in which locations, both to protect the marine environment and to separate potentially
conflicting activities.
Revised zoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was introduced in 2004 as part of the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authoritys Representative Areas Program.
There are eight different types of zones and they apply to the entire Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park. The major zones are:

General Use (Light Blue)

Conservation Park (Yellow

Habitat Protection (Dark Blue)

Marine National Park (Green).

Other zones include Preservation (Pink), Scientific Research (Orange) and Buffer (Olive Green)
Zones, which make up less than five per cent of the Marine Park.
The revised zoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park increased the cover of MNPZs (Green)
and PZs (Pink), to approximately 33% of the Marine Park and thus providing suitable protection to
all habitat types within the Marine Park;
Globally, no-take areas have been found to:

Protect spawning areas and nursery grounds

Minimise damage to important habitats

Provide refuge for protected species, such as turtles and dugongs

Boost species numbers, which helps the food web as a whole

Increase the abundance of fish

Build the resilience of the reef against threats such as climate change and water pollution.

There are a number of programmes looking at the effects of zoning and early indications are that
zoning is working and preliminary research shows fish numbers and average size are increasing.
86

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Research conducted by the Australian Institute of Marine Science, on offshore reefs from Cairns to
Gladstone, found coral trout is now about 50 per cent more abundant in Marine National Park
(Green) Zones.
James Cook University research in the Whitsunday Islands found numbers of both coral trout and
stripey sea perch were more than 1.7 times higher and average fish size was larger.
Bigger fish have more and stronger offspring. For females of some reef fish species, an increase in
length of one third can lead to 200 times more egg production.
This is important for replenishing depleted fish stocks and is essential to the biological well-being
of the Reef and the industries dependent on it remaining healthy.
More fish in closed areas also make it more likely that increased fish populations will spill over into
other zones.

What policies and management actions are in your management plan to deal with
pollution and runoff associated with land based activities?

The Great Barrier Reef continues to be exposed to increased levels of sediments, nutrients and
pesticides, which are having significant effects inshore close to developed coasts, such as causing
die-backs of mangroves and increasing algae on coral reefs.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) is a partner in the Australian and
Queensland government's commitment to a new Reef Water Quality Protection Plan (Reef Plan), a
joint plan of action to halt and reverse the decline in the quality of water flowing into the Great
Barrier Reef.
Through the measures identified in Reef Plan the governments will, by 2013, halve runoff of
harmful nutrients and pesticides and ensure at least 80 per cent of agricultural enterprises and 50 per
cent of grazing enterprises adopt land management practices that will reduce runoff.
A Reef Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy has been developed and a Monitoring and
Reporting Program designed for implementation in late 2009. The GBRMPA has a lead role in
managing the marine part of the program which has been running since 2005. This combined
reporting will enable the governments to measure the success of Reef Plan implementation and
publicly report on progress towards the Reef Plan goals and objectives.
87

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The GBRMPA has prepared Water Quality Guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
(2009) for maintaining the health and resilience of the Great Barrier Reef.

Do you think it will be useful to have some shared guidelines for all the marine
protected areas in your country (and globally) and in this way forming a network
between them? (in Italy NATURA 2000)

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is managed under the GBRMP Act and associated legislative
instruments (including Regulations and Zoning Plans). The Authority also operates within the
statutory framework of the EPBC Act. Various other legislations under Commonwealth and
Queensland State law, together with international conventions, also impact on governance and
management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
On 2 October 2006 the Australian Government released the review of the GBRMP Act. The
Government supported the reviews recommendations and has begun the implementation process.
The GBR is also part of the NRSMPA.

TOURISM

Do you have a management plan to deal with the impact of tourism activities in your
marine protected areas (for example, pollution maximum number, carrying capacity)?

Up to two million tourists visit the Great Barrier Reef in any one year. This number fluctuates
depending on tourism trends, weather and even global factors. Information on the number of
tourists visiting the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has been compiled from logbook data that
tourism operators are required to provide when submitting their Environmental Management
Charge (EMC) returns.
The GBRMPA in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA - historically
referred to as the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service) have developed management tools and
processes to provide a range of tourism and other opportunities throughout the Marine Park, and to
minimise the impacts of tourism activities on the marine environment so the diversity, integrity and
productivity of the Reef is maintained.

88

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Consultation on tourism management issues are undertaken at all levels including operators, sector
associations and through the peak marine tourism body the Association of Marine Park Tourism
Operators.
The GBRMPA works closely with community groups, recreational users, Local Marine Advisory
Committees (LMACs), and Tourism and Recreation Reef Advisory Committees (TRRAC) on key
issues related to tourism and recreation in the Marine Park.

Which tourism activities are allowed in your marine protected area?

The Preservation (Pink) Zone is a 'no go' area. A person cannot enter a Preservation (Pink) Zone
unless they have written permission and extractive activities are strictly prohibited. A permit is
required to conduct research in this zone. The Preservation (Pink) Zone makes up less than one per
cent of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
Tourism programme

No

The Marine National Park (Green) Zone is a 'no-take' area and extractive activities like fishing or
collecting are not allowed without written permission from Marine Park authorities. Anyone (with
the exception of unattached dories*) can enter a Marine National Park (Green) Zone and participate
in activities such as boating, swimming, snorkelling and sailing.
Anchoring is also allowed in a Marine National Park (Green) Zone, however in high use and
sensitive areas use of a mooring may be necessary or there may be a no anchoring area defined by
buoys.
Tourism programme

Permit

The Scientific Research (Orange) Zone facilitates research, in areas primarily around scientific
research facilities that are relatively undisturbed by extractive activities. One type of Scientific
Research (Orange) Zone allows public access and is shown as green with an orange outline on
Zoning Maps (see Fig.1). For people who are not undertaking research, these areas are essentially
the same as Marine National Park (Green) Zones where only non-extractive activities like
swimming, snorkelling and diving are allowed without written permission. The other type of
Scientific Research (Orange) Zone is shown on the map as orange (see Fig. 2). These areas do not
allow public access. There are two of these areas and they are located adjacent to the Australian
Institute of Marine Science near Townsville and surrounding One Tree Island Research Station in
89

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

the Capricorn Bunker Group, offshore from Gladstone. The Scientific Research (Orange) Zone
makes up less than one per cent of the Marine Park.

Figure 1 - Image of Scientific Research

Figure 2 - Image with Scientific Research

Zone

Zone

Tourism programme

Permit

The Buffer (Olive Green) Zone provides for the protection and conservation of areas of the
Marine Parks in their natural state, while allowing the public to appreciate and enjoy the relatively
undisturbed nature of the area.
The Buffer (Olive Green) Zone makes up approximately three per cent of the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park.
Tourism programme

Permit

The Conservation Park (Yellow) Zone allows for increased protection and conservation of areas
of the Marine Park, while providing opportunities for reasonable use and enjoyment including
limited extractive use. Most extractive activities are allowed in a Conservation Park (Yellow) Zone
with additional restrictions for most fishing activities. Public Appreciation Area boundaries are
shown as broken pink lines on the Zoning Maps. These Special Management Areas prohibit
spearfishing, commercial harvest fishing, recreational collection of marine aquarium fish and
aquaculture in some Yellow Zones.
Tourism programme

Permit

90

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The Habitat Protection (Dark Blue) Zone provides for the conservation of areas of the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park by protecting and managing sensitive habitats and ensuring they are
generally free from potentially damaging activities. The Habitat Protection (Dark Blue) Zone
continues to provide for reasonable use of areas and makes up about 28 per cent of the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park.
Tourism programme

Permit

The objective of the General Use (Light Blue) Zone is to provide opportunities for reasonable use
of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, while still allowing for the conservation of these areas. The
General Use (Light Blue) Zone in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is very similar to the
Queensland (State) General Use Zone.
Tourism programme

Permit

The Commonwealth Islands Zone is comprised of those areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park above the mean low water mark that are owned by the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth
Island Zone can be used or entered without permission for low impact (non-extractive) activities,
photography, filming, sound recording and limited educational programmes subject to limitations.
The Estuarine Conservation Zone provides for the protection of areas of Queensland's Great
Barrier Reef Coast Marine Park in a natural state while allowing the public to appreciate and enjoy
the relatively undisturbed nature of those areas; to maintain fisheries production and use; and to
provide for traditional hunting and gathering.

91

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Do you receive any funding from tourism activities to put back into management and
research?

The Environmental Management Charge (EMC) is a charge associated with most commercial
activities, including tourism operations, non-tourist charter operations, and facilities, operated under
a permit issued by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA).
For most tourism operations, visitors to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (Marine Park)
participating in a tourist activity are liable to pay the charge to the permittee, who then remits the
charge to the GBRMPA.
Other operations in the Marine Park such as those involving the hire of equipment, installation and
operation of tourist facilities, underwater observatories, sewage outfalls and vending operations,
must pay fixed quarterly charges to the GBRMPA.

Do you provide any kind of interpretation of the natural environment in your marine
protected area? If yes do you organize any training programs for the tourism
industry?

Education and stewardship programs play an important part in raising awareness and encouraging
on ground action to protect the Great Barrier Reef.
92

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Through the highly successful Reef Guardians Program, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority has a network of schools and local government councils committed to protecting the
Reef.
Whilst the Reef Guardian Schools and Councils Program is only available along the Great Barrier
Reef catchment area, resources are available to assist all schools and councils to be environmentally
aware.
Working with the tourism industry and stakeholders, GBRMPA educate Marine Park visitors by
promoting appreciation through interpretation and best practice information. Well-trained and wellinformed tourism staffs are the key to achieving high standards in your tourism operation. There are
a number of courses available for marine tourism staff wishing to improve their skills and
knowledge.
Industry training workshops for operators, managers, office staff and crew are designed to keep you
up to date with all you need to know about operating in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
The Reef Discovery Course (Formerly known as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Tourism Staff
Certificate Course) is designed for tourism staffs who interact closely with clients and who have the
role of informing clients about the Marine Park and what makes it special

CLIMATE CHANGE

Do you think that climate change will influence the ecological and economic values of

your marine protected area?

The diversity of the Great Barrier Reefs natural values makes it a particularly unique and valued
ecosystem. Understanding the vulnerability of such a large and intricate system to climate change is
a challenge.
We must first understand how climate change will affect an individual species or a community of
different species. Identifying how these predictions will influence the entire Great Barrier Reef is a
much larger challenge. However we do know, while few systems are likely to benefit from climate
change, coral reefs are particularly vulnerable.
93

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

The vulnerability of corals to future climate change has received considerable attention, as impacts
on them have already been observed. Coral bleaching has begun to increase in frequency and
severity due to rising sea temperatures. These events have led some experts to claim that coral reefs
around the world are in crises. The Great Barrier Reef has not suffered extensive damage due to
coral bleaching. However, approximately five per cent of reefs in the Great Barrier Reef were
severely damaged in each of the 1998 and 2002 mass coral bleaching events. Projections of future
water temperatures suggest coral bleaching could become an annual event in the course of this
century.
Many other species, including microbes, fish, marine turtles and seabirds, are also temperature
sensitive. Scientists predict impacts on these species under future climate change projections.
The other environmental changes predicted, suggest there will be additional impacts. Some may
have severe consequences. The implications of ocean acidification for animals and plants that
produce calcium carbonate skeletons, for example, could be profound. While rising sea level could
lead to large redistributions of benthic (bottom-dwelling) habitats and the animals that depend on
them. As our awareness of climate change has increased, so, too, has our need to understand the
threat it poses. Knowledge of the vulnerability of the Great Barrier Reef to climate change is
essential to meaningfully respond to this challenge. This has prompted experts to assess the
vulnerability of all species groups and habitats of the GBR to climate change, and to highlight its
social and cultural implications. Climate Change and the Great Barrier Reef: A Vulnerability
Assessment is a collaboration between the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and over 80
leading climate and tropical marine scientists. This publication provides a comprehensive
assessment of how future climate changes are likely to affect Great Barrier Reef species,
ecosystems, industries and communities.
Is your organization considering adaptation or mitigation to deal with this likely impact of
climate change?
Climate change cannot be fully averted and we must understand, prepare and adapt to the inevitable
effects of climate change. GBRMPAs Climate Change Response Programme is taking important
steps towards reducing the negative impacts of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef. Climate
change has emerged as the most significant long-term threat to the Great Barrier Reef.
In response, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, in partnership with the Department of
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, is implementing the Great Barrier Reef Climate Change
Action Plan (the Action Plan) The Action Plan is funded with an $8.9 million 5-year allocation
94

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

under the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) National Climate Change Adaptation
Framework. The Action Plan outlines a five-year program designed to develop and test strategies
that will give the Reef, and those who depend upon it, the best chance of coping with climate
change. It is built on the comprehensive knowledge base compiled in Climate Change and the
Great Barrier Reef: A Vulnerability Assessment. The Action Plan identifies strategies for direct
actions and partnerships that will increase the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef (the Reef) to
climate change. The focus is on actions that can be taken to help minimise impacts on the Great
Barrier Reef ecosystem, on Reef industries such as tourism, commercial and recreational fishing
and on regional communities.
The four core objectives of the Action Plan are:

targeted science

a resilient Great Barrier Reef ecosystem

adaptation of industries and regional communities

reduced climate footprints.

The major focus of the Action Plan is to fill key information gaps identified in the Vulnerability
Assessment, implement adaptive management of the Reef and support the adaptation of Reef
industries and communities. Approaches used include testing adaptation actions, inspiring
adaptation measures through awareness-raising and partnerships, and policy analysis and review.
Information on some of the projects and knowledge delivered under the Action Plan is available on
this website, and can be viewed in relation to the four core objectives of the Action Plan or by
interest area.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority undertakes a number of different activities which
help to fulfil key objectives under the Great Barrier Reef Climate Change Action Plan. These
activities involve a range of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park stakeholders, from industries such as
fisheries and tourism through to communities and scientific researchers.
The table below lists a sample of these activities and examples of the particular stakeholder groups
or areas of interest to which they relate. Follow the links after each title to learn more about
projects in a particular area of interest.

95

Mariasole Bianco

Activity

12433140

Fishing

Tourism

Communities Scientific
and councils research

Showcasing sustainable island management

on the Great Barrier Reef Energy audits on

Low Isles and Lady Elliot Island

Tourism Operation Audits for Climate Action
Readiness
ReefHQ energy audit
Lady Elliot Island climate change trail
signage
Development of a climate change module for
the Reef Guardian Council Program

Community engagement on the climate

change issue Development of an interactive

climate change display

Mapping reef health using Google Earth
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg's Smart State
Premier's Fellowship 2009 2014

96

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Acknowledgment

I would like to acknowledge my family for allowing me to be able to

complete my master degree at James Cook University and for the neverending support that I receive from them.
I would also like to acknowledge David Oldfield for the invaluable help
that he has given me during all my degree.

97

Mariasole Bianco

12433140
Resources

Aiello, R. (1998). Interpretation and the marine tourism industry, who needs it? A case study of
Great Adventures, Australia. Journal of Tourism Studies, 9 (1): 51-61.
Allison, G.W., Lubchenco, J. and Carr, M.H. (1998). Marine reserves are necessary but not
sufficient for marine conservation. Ecol. Appl., 8, S79S92.
Andren, H., (1994). Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds and mammals in landscapes with
different proportions of suitable habitat: A review. Oikos 71, 355366.
Anon (1993). The condition of river catchments in Queensland: a broad overview of catchment
management issues. Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.
Agardy, M.T. (1994). Advances in marine conservation: the role of marine protected areas. Trends
in Ecology and Evolution 9:267-270
Area Marina Protetta delle Cinque Terre. Viewed 3 May 2011:
http://www.parconazionale5terre.it/sez_110_2.asp?id_lingue=2
Area Marina Protetta Tavolara Punta Coda Cavallo (2006). Piano di Gestione. Viewed 3 May
2011: http://www.amptavolara.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=59
Arkema, K.K., Abramson, S.C. and Dewbury, B.M. (2006). Marine ecosystem-based management:
from characterization to implementation. Front Ecol Environ 4: 52532.
Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (1996).
National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity. Viewed 3 May 2011:
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/strategy/pubs/national-strategy-96.pdf
Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (1999).
The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Viewed 3 May 2011:
http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/epbc-act-fact-sheet.pdf
Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2007).
A Description of the Ecosystems, Conservation Values and Uses of the South-west Marine Region.
Viewed 3 May 2011 http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/publications/south-west/pubs/swprofile-full.pdf

98

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2009).

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park protection: legislative changes - frequently asked questions.
Viewed 3 May 2011 http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/gbrmp-legislativechanges-faq.pdf
Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2010).
National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas. Viewed 3 May 2011:
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/nrsmpa/index.html
Australian Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2011).
History of the National Reserve System. Viewed 3 May 2011:
http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/nrs/about/history.html
Azahari, O. (2001). The perception of visitors of the new entrance fees to national parks and
wildlife centers, Hornbill, 5: nn-nn. Viewed 3 May 2011:
http://www.mered.org.uk/Hornbill/Azahari.htm
Ballantine, W.J. (1991). Marine Reserves for New Zealand. Leigh Laboratory Bulletin No. 25.,
University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Ballantine,W.J. (1997a). No-take marine reserve networks support fisheries. Pages 702-706 in
Developing and Sustaining World Fisheries Resources:The State and Management, D.A.
Hancock, D.C. Smith, A. Grant, and J.P. Beumer (eds.). 2nd World Fisheries Congress, Brisbane,
Australia, 797 p.
Ballantine, W.J. (1997b). Design principles for systems of no-take marine reserves. Paper for
workshop: The Design and Monitoring of MarineReserves at Fisheries Center, University of
British Columbia, Vancouver, Feb 1997.
Batisse, M. and De Grissac, A.J. (1998). A global representative system of marine protected areas.
Volume 1; Marine Region 3 Mediterranean Sea.
Beaumont, N. (2001). Ecotourism and the Conservation Ethic: Recruiting the Uninitiated or
Preaching to the Converted? Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 9 (4): 317-341.
Beckman, R. and Coleman, B. (1999). Integrated Coastal Management: The Role of Law and
Lawyers. The International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 14 (4): 491-522.

99

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Bell, P. R. F. (1991). Status of eutrophication in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 23, 89-93.
Bentrupperbumer, J.M. & Reser, J.P. (2002). Measuring & Monitoring Impacts of Visitation and
Use in the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area: A Site Based Bioregional Perspective Rainforest
Cooperative Research Centre Cairns.
Berkes, F. (2004). Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv Biol 18: 62130.
Bohnsack, J.A. (1998). Application of marine reserves to reef fisheries management. Aust. J. Sci.
23: 298-304.
Bohnsack, J.A., Causey, B., Crosby, M.P., Griffis, R.B., Hixon, M.A., Hourigan, T.F., Koltes, K.H.,
Maragos, J.E., Simons, A. and Tilmant, J.T. (2000). A rationale for minimum 20 - 30% no-take
protection. Proceedings of the 9th International Coral Reef Symposium, Bali, Indonesia. Oct. 2000.
Brodie, J. and Furnas, M. J. (1996). Cyclones, river flood plumes and natural water quality extremes
in the central Great Barrier Reef. In Downstream Effects of Land Use, eds. H. M.Hunter, A. G.
Eyles, and G. E. Rayment. Department of Natural Resources, Brisbane. pp. 367-74.
Brodie, J. (1997). The water quality status of the Great Barrier Reef. In State of the Great Barrier
Reef World Heritage Area workshop, eds. Wachenfeld, D., Oliver, J., and Davis, K. Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville. pp 69-96.
Brown, K., Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. (2002). Making waves: integrating coastal
conservation and development. London,UK: Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Brundtland, Gro Harlem et al., 1987. Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment
and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1993). Ecotourism as a worldwide phenomenon. In: K. Lindberg, & D.E.
Hawkin (Eds), Ecotourism: a guide for planners and mangers. North Bennington, USA: Ecotourism
Society.
Cattaneo Vietti R. and Tunesi, L. (2007). Le aree marine protette in Italia: Problemi e prospettive.
Ediz. ARACNE.
CBD (2006). Decisions Adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological
Diversity at its Eighth Meeting (Decision VIII/15, Annex IV). Convention on Biological Diversity,
Curitiba, Brazil.
100

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

CBD (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. United Nations Environment Programme.

Viewed 3 May 2011 http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp.
Chandler, M., Kaufman, L. and Muslow,S. (1995). Open Oceans. Pages 393-399 in United Nation
Environmental Programme, editor. Global biodiversity assesment. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Christie, P. (2004). MPAs as biological successes and social failures in Southeast Asia. In: Shipley
JB (Ed). Aquatic protected areas as fisheries management tools: design, use, and evaluation of these
fully protected areas. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society
Cicin-Sain, B. and Knecht, R.W (1997). Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management: Concepts and
Practices. Island Press, 39 p.
Cocklin, C. and Flood, S. (1992). The socio-economic implications of establishing marine
reserves. Report to the Department of Conservation, N.Z. Department of Geography, University of
Auckland, New Zealand.
Cocklin, C., Craw, M. and McAuley, I. (1998). Marine reserves in New Zealand - use rights, public
attitudes and social impacts. Coastal Management 26: 213-231
Cole, D.N. and Stankey, G.H. (1997). Historical development of limits of acceptablechange:
Conceptual clarifications and possible extensions. In Proceedings Limits of Acceptable Change
and Related Planning Processes: Progress and Future Directions. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest
Service.
Craik, W. (1992) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: its establishment, development and current
status. Marine Pollution Bulletin 25,122133.
Dalton, T.M. (2004). An approach for integrating economic impact analysis into evaluation of
potential marine protected area sites. Journal of Environmental Management 70:333-349
Davidson, R.J., Villouta, E., Cole, R.G. and Barrier, R.G.F. (2002). Effects of marine reserve
protection on spiny lobster (Jasus edwardsii) abundance and size at Tonga Island Marine Reserve,
New Zealand. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 12:213-227.
Day J.C. (2002). Zoning lessons from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Ocean Coast Manage
41: 13956.

101

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Day, J., Fernandes, L., Lewis, A. and J. Innes (2003). RAP - An ecosystem level approach to
biodiversity protection planning.A paper presented at the second meeting of the International
Tropical Marine Ecosystem Symposium (ITMEMS2), Manila, Philippines, March 2003.
Danielsen, F. , Srensen, M.K., Olwig, M.F. et al. (2005). The Asian tsunami: a protective role for
coastal vegetation. Science 310:643.
Dayton, P. K., Sala, E., Tegner, M. J., and Thrush, S. (2000). Marine reserves: Parks, baselines, and
fishery enhancement. Bulletin of Marine Science, 66(3), 617-634.
Davis, D. and Tisdell, C. (1995). Recreational scuba-diving and carrying capacity in marine
protected areas. Ocean Coast Manage. 26(1), 1940.
Davis, D., Banks, S., Cuthill, M. (1997).Whale sharks in Ningaloo Marine Park: managing tourism
in an Australian marine protected area. Tour. Manag. 18:259
Dublin, H., Milliken, T. and Barnes, R. (1995). Four years after the CITES ban: illegal killing of
elephants, ivory trade, and stockpiles. A report produced by the World Conservation Union
(IUCN)/SCC African Elephant Specialist Group.
Dudley, N. and S. Stolton, (2009). Running pure: The importance of forest protected areas to
drinking water. Gland, Switzerland
Eagles, P. F. J. (2002). Trends in park tourism: Economics, finance, and management. Journal of
Sustainable Tourism 10:13253.
Epler Wood, M. (2002) Ecoutourism: Principles, Practices and Policies for Sustainable. Paris:
UNEP.
Fabricius, K.E. and Death G. (2004). Identifying ecological change and its causes: A case study on
coral reefs. Ecological Applications 14:14481465
Fabricius, K.E. (2005) Effects of terrestrial runoff on the ecology of corals and coral reefs: review
and synthesis. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50:125146
Fairweather, P.G. (1991). Implications of "supply side ecology for environmental assessment and
management. Tree 6, 60-3.Society.
Fogarty M.J., J.A. Bohnsack & P.K. Dayton. 2000. Marine reserves and resource management. In:
Sheppard (Ed.). Seas at the Millenium: An Environmental Evaluation, 37 - 392. Pergamon, 2000.
102

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Furnas, M. J., Mitchell, A. W., and Skuza, M. (1995). Nitrogen and phosphorus budgets for the
central Great Barrier Reef shelf. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Research Publication
No. 36. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority Townsville.
Game, E.T., et al. (2010) Pelagic MPAs: The devil you know. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25,
63-64
Gilbert, M. (2001). Population and major land use in the Great Barrier Reef catchment area: spatial
and temporal trends. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.
Goeden, G.B. (1975) Managing marine national parks: conflicts in resource exploitation. In
Managing Aquatic Ecosystems Volume 8. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia,
(H.A. Nix and M.A. Elliot, eds) pp. 20-6. Canberra: Australia.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority web site. Viewed 3 May 2011:
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/
Grove R.H.. (1995). Green imperialism: colonial expansion, tropical island Edens and the origins of
environmentalism. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: pp. 16001860.
Gubbay, S. (1995). Marine protected areas; principles and techniques for management. London:
Chapman & Hall.
Guidetti P. (2006). Marine reserves re-establish lost predatory interactions and cause community
changes in rocky reefs. Ecological Applications 16:963976
Glowka, L., Burhenne-Guilman, F., Synge, H., McNeely, J.A. and Gndling, L. (1994). A Guide to
the Convention on Biological Diversity. Environment Policy and Law paper No. 30. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland.
Halpern, B.S. and Warner, R.R. (2002). Marine reserves have rapid and lasting effects. Ecology
Letters 5: 361-366.
Halpern BS. (2003). The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve size matter?
Ecological Applications 2003;13:S11737.
Hammitt, W.E., Cole, D.N., (1987). Wildland Recreation: Ecology and Management. Wiley, New
York, p. 341.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243-8.
103

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Harriot, V. J. (2002). Marine tourism impacts and their management on the Great Barrier Reef,
CRC Reef Research Centre Technical Report no. 46, CRC Reef Research Centre, Townsville.
Viewed 3 May 2011:
http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/techreport/pdf/Harriott46.pdf
Haynes ,D., Brodie, J., Christie, C., Devlin, M., Michalek-Wagner, K. et al. (2001) Great Barrier
Reef water quality: current issues. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville,
Queensland, Australia
Haynes, D., Brodie,J. , Waterhouse J. , Bainbridge Z. , Bass, D. , Hart D. (2007). Assessment of the
water quality and ecosystem health of the Great Barrier Reef (Australia): conceptual models.
Environmental Management. v40. 993-1003.
Henderson, F. and Kroon, F. (2009) Overview of CSIRO Water Quality Research in the Great
Barrier Reef, 2003 2008. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship
IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T.,Y.
Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp.
IUCN (1976). An International Conference on Marine Parks and Reserves: papers and proceedings
of an international conference held in Tokyo, Japan, 1214 May, 1975. IUCN, Morges,
Switzerland.
IUCN (1980). World Conservation Strategy Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable
Development. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
IUCN. (1994). Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN
Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas with the assistance of the World Conservation
Monitoring Centre.
IUCN (1998). 1997 United Nations List of Protected Areas. IUCN, Cambridge, UK and Gland,
Switzerland.
IUCN (2005). Benefits Beyond Boundaries. Proceedings of the Vth IUCN World Parks Congress.
Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Viewed 3 May 2011:

104

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

/r22.htm
James, A., Green, M. and Paine J. (1999). A global review of protected area budgets and staffing.
Study produced by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Jennings, S. (2009). The role of marine protected areas in environmental management. ICES
Journal of Marine Science, 66: 1621.
Kelleher, G. and Kenchington, R.A. (1992). Guidelines for establishing marine protected
areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Kelleher, G. (1999). Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK. xxiv +107pp.
Kriwoken, L.K. and Haward, M. (1991) Marine and Estuarine Protected Areas in Tasmania,
Australia: the complexities of policy development. Ocean Shoreline Man. 15, 143-63.
Law 979 of 31 December 1982. Provisions for the protection of the sea. (G.U. of the Italian
Republic No. 16 -Ordinary Supplement of January 18, 1983). available online at:
http://www.sulpm.it/sulpm/lazio/pagine-professionali/Legge-1982-979.htm
Leslie, H., Ruckelshaus M., Ball I.R., Andelman S., Possingham H.P. (2003) Using siting
algorithms in the design of marine reserve networks. Ecol Appl 13, S185S198.
Leverington, F. et al. (2008). Management Effectiveness evaluation in protected areas a global
study. Supplementary Report No1: Overview of approaches and methodologies. The University of
Queensland, Gatton, TNC, WWF, IUCNWCPA, AUSTRALIA
Lindberg, K. 2001. Protected area visitor fees: Overview. Unpublished manuscript, Cooperative
Research Center for Sustainable Tourism. Gold Coast, Australia. (Available from author:
k.lindberg@mailbox.gu.edu.au).
Loreau, M., S. Naeem, P. Inchausti, J. Bengtsson, J. P. Grime, A. Hector, D. U. Hooper, M. A.
Huston, D. Raffaelli, B. Schmid, D. Tilman, and D. A. Wardle (2001). Biodiversity and ecosystem
functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294:804808.
Lubchenco J, Palumbi SR, et al (2003). Plugging a hole in the ocean: the emerging science of
marine reserves. Ecological Applications.

105

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Lucas, P. H. C., Webb, T., Valentine, P. S., and Marsh, H. (1997). The outstanding universal value
of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority,
Townsville.
Marcos et al. (2008). Comparison of results of AOGCMs in the Mediterranean Sea during the 21st
century. Journal of Geophysical Research; 113 (c12)
Marine Parks Authority of New South Wales (2008). A review of benefits of marine protected areas
and related zoning considerations. Viewed 3 May 2011
http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pdf/A-review-of-benefits-MPAs.pdf
McCool, S.F. and Lime, D.W. (2001). Tourism carrying capacity: Tempting fantasy or useful
reality? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9 (5), 37288.
McLeod, K.L., Lubchenco, S.R., Palumbi, S.R. and Rosenberg, A.A. (2005). Scientific consensus
statement on marine ecosystem-based management. Communication Partnership for Science and
the Sea (COMPASS). Viewed 3 May 2011: http://compassonline.org/?q=EBM.
McNeill, S.E., Fairweather, P.G., 1993. Single large or several small marine reserves? An
experimental approach with seagrass fauna. J. Biogeogr. 20, 429440.
Moscardo, G. & Ballantyne, R. (2008). Interpretation and Attractions. In: A. Fyall et al. (Eds).
Managing Visitor Attractions. Oxford: Elsevier.
Murray et al. (1999). No-take reserve networks: sustaining fishery populations and marine
ecosystems. Fisheries 24:11:11-25.
Navone A. and Trainito E. (2008 ). TAVOLARA: Nature at work Working in nature
Nixon, S. W. (1995). Costal marine eutrophication: a definition, social causes and future concerns.
Ophelia 41, 199
McCook et al. (2010) Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef: A globally significant
demonstration of the benefits of networks of marine reserves. PNAS Early Edition
McNeill, S.E. (1994). The selection and design of marine protected areas: Australia as a case study.
Biodiversity and Conservation 3:586-605
Orams, M. (1999). Management approaches. In Marine tourism: Development, impacts and
management (pp. 71-93). London: Routledge.
106

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Orams, M. (2000). Towards a more desirable form of ecotourism. In: C. Ryan & S. Page (Eds.)
Tourism Management: Towards the new millennium. Oxford: Pergamon.
Parma A. M., Amarasekare P., Mangel M. et al. (1998) What can adaptive management do for our
fish, food and biodiversity? Integrative Biology 1, 1626.Richardson, E.A., Kaiser M.J., EdwardsJones G., Possingham H.P. (2006) Sensitivity of marine-reserve design to the spatial resolution of
socioeconomic data. Conserv Biol 20, 11911202.
Pauly D, Christensen V, Guenette S, Pitcher TJ, Sumaila UR, Walters CJ, Watson R, Zeller D.
(2002) Towards sustainability in world sheries. Nature 2002; 418:68995.
Pomeroy R.S., Parks J.E., Watson L.M. (2004) How is your MPA doing? A guidebook of natural
and social indicators for evaluating marine protected area management eVectiveness. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland
RAC/SPA Programme of work (2009). Viewed 3 June 2011:
http://www.rac-spa.org/sites/default/files/doc_pwmcpa/pwmcpa_en.pdf
Rachor, E. and Guenther, C.P. (2001). Concepts for offshore nature reserves in the southeastern
North Sea. Senckenbergiana maritima 31: 353-361
Roberts, C.M. and Hawkins, J.P. (2000). Fully-protected marine reserves: a guide. World Wildlife
Fund,Washington, D.C. p 131.
Roberts, C. M. et al. (2002). Marine biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities for tropical
reefs. Science 295, 12801284
Rogers, A.D. & Laffoley, D.dA. (2011). International Earth system expert workshop on ocean
stresses and impacts. Summary report. IPSO Oxford, 18 pp.
Russ GR, Alcala AC, Maypa AP, et al. (2004). Marine reserves benets local sheries.
EcologicalApplications 2004(2):597606.
Post-print of Saenger, P. ( 2003). 'The Great Barrier Reef History, science, heritage, and the Great
Barrier Reef Finding the rightbalance: Book reviews', Australasian Journal of Environmental
Management, vol. 10, pp. 118-120.
Salm, R. V. and Clark, J. R. (1989). Marine and coastal protected areas: a guide for planners and
managers. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
107

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Salm, R. V. and Clark, J. R. (2000). Marine and coastal protected areas; a guide for planners and
managers, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: IUCN, 2000
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2001). Value and Effects of Marine and
Coastal Protected Areas (MCPAs) On Marine and Coastal Biodiversity: A Review of Available
Information. Paper for AHTEG First Meeting October 2001. UNEP/CBD/AHTEG-MCPA/1/2
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2004). Technical Advice on the
Establishment and Management of a National System of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas,
Scbd, 40 Pages. (CBD Technical Series No. 13).
Stankey, George H.; Cole, David N.; Lucas, Robert C.; Petersen, Margaret E.; Frissell, Sidney S.
(1985). The limits of acceptable change (LAC) system for wilderness planning. Gen. Tech. Rep.
INT-176. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 37 p.
Tongson, E. and Dygico, M. (2004). User fee system for marine ecotourism: The Tubbataha reef
experience. Coastal Management 32 , pp. 17-23.
Tourism and Recreation Reef Advisory Committee (2002). A cooperative framework for the
sustainable use and management of tourism and recreation opportunities in the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park, proposal of the Tourism and Recreation Reef Advisory Committee, Queensland.
Viewed 3 May 2011: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/tourism/publications.html
UNEP (2010) COP 10 Decision X/2 - Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020. Viewed 3 May
2011 http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268
UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA (2003): Strategic Action Programme for the Conservation Of Biological
Diversity (SAP BIO) In The Mediterranean Region, Tunis.
UNESCO (1972). Recommendation concerning the Protection, at National Level, of of the Cultural
and Natural Heritage. Viewed 3 May 2011
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.phpURL_ID=13087&URL_DO=DO_PRINTPAGE&URL_SECTIO
N=201.html
United Nations (1972). Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment.
Viewed 3 May 2011
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?documentid=97&articleid=1503
108

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

United Nations (1990). United Nations list of national parks and protected areas, vffi, United
Nations. Gland, Switzerland.
United Nations (1992). Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. The United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development. Viewed 3 May 2011
http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.Print.asp?DocumentID=78&ArticleID=1163
United Nations General Assembly Resolutions - 49th SESSION (1994). Viewed 3 May 2011
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/resolutions/49/GA1994.html
Vallega, A. (1999). Fundamentals of integrated coastal management. Dordrecht, Netherlands;
Kluwer Academic Publishers
Van Sickle, K. and Eagles, P.F.J. (1998). User fees and pricing policies in Canadian Senior Park
Agencies. Tourism Management 19 (3), 22535.
Veron, J.E.N. (2008a ). A Reef in Time: The Great Barrier Reef from Beginning to End. Belknap
Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass, USA
Veron, J.E.N. (2008b). Mass extinctions and ocean acidification: biological constraints on
geological dilemmas. Coral Reefs 27: 459472 IPSO workshop summary report 010611 21
Veron, J.E.N., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Lenton, T.M., Lough, J.M., Obura, D.O., Pearce-Kelly, P.,
Sheppard, C.R.C., Spalding, M., StaffordSmith, M.G., Rogers, A.D. (2009 ). The coral reef crisis:
the critical importance of <350ppm CO2. Marine Pollution Bulletin 58: 1428-1437
Virden, R. (1989). "Activities, experiences, and environmental settings: A case study of recreation
opportunity spectrum relationships". Leisure sciences (0149-0400), 11 (3), p. 159.
Wachenfeld, D. R., Oliver, J. K. and Morrisey, J. I. (1998) State of the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area 1998. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville, Australia.
Ward, T.J., Heinemann, D. and Evans, N. (2001). The role of marine reserves as fisheries
management tools: a review of concepts, evidence and international experience. Bureau of Rural
Sciences, Canberra, Australia. 192pp.

109

Mariasole Bianco

12433140

Warner, R.R., Swearer, S.E. and Caselle, J.E. (2000). Larval accumulation and retention:
Implications for the design of marine reserves and essential fish habitat. Bull.Mar. Sci. 66(3): 821830.

Wells, M.P. (1997). Economic Perspectives on Nature Tourism, Conservation and Development.
Environment Department Paper no. 55, Pollution and Environmental Economics Division.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Wood, L. (2007). MPA Global: A database of the worlds marine protected areas. Sea Around Us
Project. UNEP-WCMC & WWF.

110