1. Clive Schofield and Quentin Hanich
Protecting Marine Parks on a Grand Scale: Moving from No Take to No Go in Oceania?
Clive Schofield and Quentin Hanich
The Australian National Centre for Ocean Resources and Security (ANCORS), University of Wollongong, Australia

2. Zoning to Conserve Marine Biodiversity
Area-based management via:
Representative Marine Protected Area (MPA) networks
Marine Spatial Planning (MSP)
Strong legal rationale under LOSC
Based on key norms and approaches:
Ecosystem approach
Precautionary approach
Responsible use
Integrated management
Science-based decision making
Environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments

3. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Requirements
CBD 1992: agreement to conserve 10% of the marine environment in MPAs
Parties to CBD to meet target by 2020:
By 2020, at least … 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape (CBD Aichi target 11).
Leading to the advent of large-scale MPAs

4. North-western Hawaiian Islands
Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Marine Sanctuary declared June 2006
362,580 sq km
Largest marine sanctuary in the world…at that time

5. The “Other Galapagos”: Chagos Marine Reserve
British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)
April 2010 declared the world’s largest marine reserve: fully no-take
640,000 sq. km

6. Pacific Oceanscape
Framework for a Pacific Oceanscape for oceans governance and conservation endorsed by Pacific Island Forum in 2009
Catalyst for establishment of a network of large MPAs: Pacific Ocean Arcs by Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTS) e.g.:
Kiribati
Cook Islands
Palau
More than a network of marine parks?
Moves towards an integrated approach

7. Kiribati: Phoenix Islands Protected Area (PIPA)
408,250 sq. km
Declared in 2006
Questionable implementation:
Only 3% no-take?
BUT: some signs of progress
No ‘no go’ zones

8. Tarawa, Kiribati: Managing small-scale issues crucial
EEZ: 3,441,810 sq. km
Land area: 811sq. km
MSP at local scale critical
Potential for definition of archipelagic and internal waters
Allows for ‘no go’ zones

9. Palau’s Proposed Marine Sanctuary
Area: 492,923 sq.km
Coverage:
80% of Palau’s EEZ
Remaining 20% as “domestic fishing zone”
How to police?
Simplicity of large no take zone
UAVs (Drones) & civilian surveillance?
No go zones?
Would add complexity
Freedom of navigation concerns?

10. Great Barrier Reef Area: 344,400 sq. km Complex Zoning Plan:
Multiple Use Area
Allows for a range of activities, some with permits
Ecologically sustainable recreational, commercial and research
Shipping: does not require a permit in the Designated Shipping Area and General Use Zone
(map source: GBRMPA)

11. In the Pink? Preservation (Pink) Zone: Less than 1% of the Park
Extractive industries strictly prohibited
No entry without written permission (map source: GBRMPA)
Source: GBRMPA

12. Coral Sea Marine Reserve
Declared November 2012
Area: 989,842 sq.km
Primary purpose: conserving biodiversity
BUT: multiple uses allowed
No extra ‘no go’ zones
Source: GBRMPA

13. Track of the Southern Supporter
Heard Island and McDonald Island
Declared in 2002, expanded in 2014
71,200 sq.km: Australia’s largest IUCN class 1a strict nature reserve
Access primarily limited to monitoring and scientific work
Track of the Southern Supporter
Photo: Australian Customs Service
The Viarsa 1
A 21 day, 3900nm hot pursuit
Photo: Australian Customs Service

14. Large-scale Marine Protected Areas: Moving from no take to no go?
Proliferation of large marine parks
Variety of models in terms of access/zoning
Virtue of simplicity
E.g. Palau – no take easier to police than multi use
Potentially add complexity in high value areas inshore
BUT, Large marine parks are predominantly oceanic waters
Areas of EEZ and High Seas
Designation of ‘no go’ areas problematic
Challenge to freedom of navigation?
Likely to result in protests
Application of ship routeing measures via IMO?
Local tenure, access and community considerations crucial in defining no go areas – interactions with MSP