Victorian Auditor-General’s report
2 March 2011

Environmental Management of Marine Protected Areas 
Audit summary
Victoria’s marine environment covers 1 017 400 hectares, or just over 10 000 square kilometres. It extends three nautical miles from the coastline to depths of about 120 metres. Compared with similar cool-temperate marine environments around the world, it is unusually rich in species, with over 12 000 species of aquatic plants and animals. 
Across the state there are 30 marine protected areas (MPA) that have been reserved to protect environmental, historical or cultural features. There are five types of MPAs in Victoria, making up 11.7 per cent of the Victorian marine environment:
·	marine national parks
·	marine sanctuaries
·	marine and coastal reserves
·	marine parks
·	marine reserves.
This audit examined how effectively MPAs have been managed to protect marine biodiversity. It assessed Parks Victoria, as the agency with primary responsibility, on its planning frameworks, management activities, and monitoring, evaluation and reporting activities relevant to MPAs. 
The audit also assessed the Department of Sustainability and Environment’s (DSE) role in marine policy and marine biosecurity, and the fishing compliance activities that the Department of Primary Industries performs in marine protected areas. 
Conclusion
Parks Victoria cannot show that marine biodiversity is being protected or that the related management obligations of applying resources as intended are being discharged. Little environmental management activity is evident across its MPAs.
In common with our 2010 performance audit, Control of Invasive Plants and Animals in Victoria’s Parks, this audit points to systemic weaknesses with planning, program management and resource allocation that should be addressed.
Findings
Managing marine protected areas
Parks Victoria could not demonstrate that it is effectively managing MPAs or that it is being effective or efficient in protecting marine biodiversity within MPAs.
This is largely because dedicated funding for managing MPAs has been used for other activities. This has contributed to a lack of dedicated marine staffing and expertise, and a consequent lack of demonstrable activity to achieve management plan objectives. While dedicated funding for marine-related activities has not been used as intended, management and reporting systems within Parks Victoria are such that it is not possible to determine where these funds were applied.
Gaps in program documentation, including lack of detail about the objectives, outputs and outcomes for the programs and the activities that Parks Victoria undertakes, mean it is not in a position to assess whether its programs have been effective.
As Parks Victoria cannot track activity against labour, its biggest cost, it is also not able to show that the delivery of its programs and activities has been efficient. This situation is exacerbated by the absence of a database for capturing and reporting on activities to management, and the absence of evaluation frameworks and performance indicators.
There are also gaps in marine pest biosecurity across the state, particularly regarding specific roles and responsibilities to support preparedness, detection and responsiveness, as well as resourcing each of these phases. Consequently, DSE’s ability to coordinate a rapid and effective response to a marine pest biosecurity incident is significantly impaired.
Planning for marine protected areas
DSE is responsible for state marine environmental policy. However, it has not developed a policy to direct management of the marine environment—one that encompasses all marine areas, integrates well across catchments and coastal areas, and enables consistent planning across both MPAs and other marine waters to achieve agreed outcomes. 
Shortcomings exist with planning at the state level. While Parks Victoria had developed a plan for marine national parks and sanctuaries—Victoria’s System of Marine National Parks and Sanctuaries: Management Strategy 2003–2010—it had neither fully implemented nor evaluated it before it expired in 2010.
Unclear roles, responsibilities and accountabilities between stakeholders prevent effective planning. Poor information sharing about threats to marine biodiversity exacerbates this.
An absence of regular risk assessment review, detailed action plans and a lack of evaluation—both of management plans and activities—undermine planning at the park level. Parks Victoria has not reviewed its MPA risk assessments since 2005, and it therefore has no reliable basis to judge whether the risks identified then remain current, and whether their respective risk ratings still apply. It has not completed an assessment for the other marine parks in the MPA network. 
There are no final management plans for marine and coastal parks. Collectively, these parks are larger than the marine national park and sanctuary network and possess significant environmental value. While Parks Victoria has developed management plans for all 24 marine national parks and sanctuaries, which broadly detail threats and management objectives, the plans lack detailed targets, prioritised actions or responsibilities and time frames.
Recommendations
Number	Recommendation	Page	
1.	Parks Victoria should:
·	document its marine environmental management programs, including program logic, implementation plans, reporting frameworks and evaluation plans
·	implement a system to track time spent by staff on specific activities, particularly on activities related to protecting marine protected areas
·	allocate funding dedicated to the management of marine protected areas, to that activity, as intended
·	develop a capable and sufficient workforce to discharge its obligations to environmentally manage marine protected areas.	15	
2.	The Biosecurity Standing Committee should assign expertise to develop a marine pest biosecurity plan.	15	
3.	Parks Victoria should:
·	develop park management plans for all marine protected areas with supporting plans that specify actions, targets, performance indicators, accountabilities and time frames for delivery
·	develop management reporting that enables the assessment of performance against park management plans
·	regularly and routinely review its risk assessments, including prioritisation, for marine protected areas
·	as park manager, develop and lead collaboration with other agencies to better inform its planning
·	review, for effectiveness, Victoria’s System of Marine National Parks and Marine Sanctuaries: Management Strategy 2003–2010, to inform the development of a new strategy.	23	
4.	The Department of Sustainability and Environment should implement a new services agreement with Parks Victoria that clearly specifies the responsibilities of both agencies, performance standards and indicators, funding levels and reporting requirements.	23	

Submissions and comments received
In addition to progressive engagement during the course of the audit, in accordance with section 16(3) of the Audit Act 1994, a copy of this report was provided to Parks Victoria, the Department of Sustainability and Environment, and the Department of Primary Industries with a request for submissions or comments.
Agency views have been considered in reaching our audit conclusions and are represented to the extent relevant and warranted in preparing this report. Their full section 16(3) submissions and comments, however, are included in Appendix A.