Drivers of the process and guiding tools

From the late 19th Century, the main stimulus behind the designation of protected areas around the world was to preserve iconic landscapes and species. After the mid-1900s, tourism started to become a key activity in many of them, but it was only from 1970s onwards that protected areas were seen as a valuable management tool to protect the dwindling habitats and species (Watson

et al. 2014). It is with this purpose that the TMPAS intended to guide the establishment of a system of effective MPAs in Tasmania: “to contribute to the long-term ecological viability of marine and estuarine systems, to maintain ecological processes and systems, and to protect Tasmania’s biological diversity” (Marine and Marine Industries Council 2001 pg. 6). IUCN’s conceptual developments and definitions (Dudley 2008; Day et al. 2012) provided direction, increasing coherence across the international, national and the Tasmanian State levels.

The designation of representative MPAs, however, is only the initial step in the establishment of an effective MPA system. Long-term management, monitoring and periodic assessment of effectiveness are key components (Worboys et al. 2015) to achieve primary and secondary goals outlined in the Strategy. As mentioned by some interviewees, at the start of the formal designation process, the government at the time did not envision actions beyond MPA proclamations. For example, MPA managers have lacked adequate funding to perform basic management actions such as effectiveness monitoring, surveillance and community engagement. Most MPAs do not even have management plans; management plans are basic tools that guide management actions, and may include an analysis of values, threats, regulations and financial mechanisms (Worboys et al. 2015). Management actions beyond designation were not planned for when the government decided to initiate the establishment of new MPAs, but at the time of designation, the TPC recommended their development (Marine and Marine Industries Council 2001). As suggested by some interviewees, this insufficient emphasis on management might be a result of national and international commitments to achieve a percentage of protected waters, rather than a genuine commitment to the conservation of marine biodiversity (Barnes 2015). One interviewee pointed out that in some cases the establishment of a global numerical target has shifted politics away from real conservation.

119

Furthermore, Agardy et al. (2003) emphasize that vulnerable ecosystems need much higher levels of protection than a universal target set at 10%, 20% or 30%. These authors also stress that policies that focus solely on protecting a numerical target, may divert resources from surrounding waters, where complementary actions might be needed to reach conservation goals. De Santo (2013) argues that a numerical target has driven countries to create MPAs without a corresponding management capacity, undermining both sustainability and social justice. Until 2009, Tasmania focused mainly on proclamation, without clear direction on the next steps to ensure that those new areas were effectively managed. After the Bruny Inquiry, there have been no new designations and very little has been achieved regarding management of existing MPAs. Until 2007, the Australian Government actively coordinated the establishment of a NRSMPA, with the participation of all states and territories. Most efforts afterwards focused on the Commonwealth MPA system, as reflected by limited references to other MPAs in their webpage (Department of the Environment n.d.-a). The latest country report to the CBD highlights that Australia has the largest representative MPA network in the world, but fails to recognise that several marine regions still lack any kind of representation, or that many MPAs have no management plans and their status of conservation is unknown (Department of the Environment 2014a). The lack of government support for MPAs in Tasmania is driven by a combination of factors:

1) The strong divide between pro-development and environmental ideologies in Tasmania As mentioned by some interviewees, the pro-development – conservation divide seems to be more perceived than real, as it has been exaggerated by the media and by political manipulation. For instance, (Gale 2008) mentioned that branding development opposition as “greeny” has been used to generate political support from businesses in Tasmania. This difference between perceived and actual disagreements has been reported in other places. For example, in a case study from Lake Ontario, Schusler et al. (2003) mention that after a collaborative management process, people were surprised to learn that there was much more common ground between different stakeholders than they originally thought. In Tasmania, the dichotomy between development and conservation has probably been fuelled by previous environmental controversies, such as the Gordon-Franklin Dam, the Gunns pulp mill, and the forestry debate (Baidya 1984; Jacobs 2007; Gale 2008; Krien 2010).

2) Uncertain, insufficient and conflicting evidence surrounding the costs and benefits of MPAs

120

The academic literature demonstrates that MPA benefits depend on a number of factors, such as clear and viable objectives (Weible 2008) and appropriate monitoring; effectiveness of fisheries management and coordination between conservation and fisheries management (Hilborn et al. 2004); ecological design (Kirkman 2013); and effective compliance of rules (Edgar et al. 2014). As some interviewees mentioned, MPA benefits have been exaggerated, particularly under the steady growth of ecological and socio-economic expectations of what MPAs are supposed to deliver (Watson et al. 2014). Failure to meet such complex set of expectations results in loss of faith and bad publicity for MPAs (Pressey 2013). Some have also raised doubts as to the adequacy of MPAs to regulate external threats to biodiversity, like climate change, pollution and invasive species (Kearney et al. 2012).

3) Cultural perception of recreational fishing as a right, rather than a privilege with corresponding responsibilities

The perception of recreational fishing as a given right was further commented by another interviewee, who stated that no subsistence fisheries exist in Tasmania, and that recreational fishing should be subject to regulations as strict as those for commercial fishing. Recreational fishers comprise a significant proportion of the Tasmanian population (Lyle et al. 2014b). As in other places around Australia, decisions that may affect recreational fishers are delayed or entirely avoided (McPhee et al. 2002). Unfortunately, it is unclear if the recreational fishers that oppose MPAs in Tasmania are the majority or just a vocal minority. In other places in Australia, recreational fishers have come to support MPAs after initial opposition (Hoisington 2013).

Regarding the legal tools that support the establishment of an MPA system, interviewees referred to the TMPAS, and to the legal framework under which MPAs are designated and managed. The TMPAS was in general regarded as an appropriate guiding tool, although they mentioned that it probably required updating. Some interviewees also mentioned that the legal framework for designating and managing MPAs is confusing. A set of laws, under the responsibility of different agencies and ministers requires a high level of coordination, which was deemed as insufficient. These difficulties were raised by the TPC during MPA inquiries (Resources Planning and Development Commission 2003a; 2008), and have been discussed in more detail by Kriwoken and Haward (1991) and Kriwoken (2016). Interviewees, however, did not elaborate on the fact that a strategy is usually no more than a guiding tool, and has no statutory weight. Interviewees did not have specific recommendations to improve the legal framework, but in 2008 the TPC made a specific recommendation to amend relevant Acts

121

(NCA, LMRMA and NPRM) to provide for more effective management by a single authority – PWS (Resources Planning and Development Commission 2008). Other states in Australia have shown a stronger commitment by creating a state-wide MPA system (Wescott 2006; Thomas and Hughes 2016; Wescott 2016). In the case of South Australia, a law specific for MPAs reduced ambiguities in objectives and responsibilities of government agencies (Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources 2014). New South Wales also developed specific legislation to establish and manage MPAs in 1997, although recent governments have introduced changes and weaken levels of protection (Clarke 2016).

The issues considered in this section point to failures in governance performance. On the one hand, direction to establish a MPA system seems to come mainly from international commitments, rather than a genuine interest in protecting marine biodiversity. Remarks from interviewees from different sectors in relation to a lack of political will and weak leadership further cast doubts on appropriate MPA direction. The TMPAS gives reasonable direction to establish an effective MPA system. Nevertheless, without genuine government commitment to implement the strategy, such a guiding tool is insufficient for achieving substantive outcomes. A lack of political commitment is also closely related to insufficient funding to effectively manage MPAs.