Corporate Governance And The Different Governance Models Finance Essay - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 11 Words: 3397 Downloads: 8 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Finance Essay Type Cause and effect essay Did you like this example? The purpose of this essay is to critically analyze, describe and compare the two fundamental governance methods while finalizing and summarizing on the most efficient and dynamic model. The rules governing the structure of the corporation and the distribution of power and control in a business are generally referred to as corporate governance. According to a definition of Shleifer and Vishny (1997) corporate governance deals with the way in which suppliers of finance to corporations assure themselves of getting a return on their investment Consequently, corporate governance will only be necessary in a situation where the suppliers of finance (the shareholders or owners of the company) do not run the company themselves but hire a management team that is responsible for the daily activities of the company. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Corporate Governance And The Different Governance Models Finance Essay" essay for you Create order Corporate governance is a field that concentrates on the relationship between boards, stockholders, top management, regulators, auditors and other stakeholders. The principal characteristics of effective corporate governance are: transparency, protection and enforceability of the rights and prerogatives of all shareholders and directors capable of independently approving the corporations strategy and major business plans and decisions and of independently hiring management, monitoring managements performance and integrity and replacing management when necessary. Of importance to this study is the recognition that boards of directors are essential to most definitions of corporate governance. Cadbury (1993:9) states that it is the ability of boards of directors to combine leadership with control and effectiveness with accountability that will primarily determine how well companies meet societys expectations of them. Maassen (2002). Over the years, the traditional one-tier mana gement system was expanded and developed into a more complicated and advanced two-tier management system. The well-known one-tier system derived from the Anglo-Saxon or Anglo-American system which is characterized by the lack of enthusiasm in employee participation and strong corporate perceptions. In contrast, the two-tier management system (known as Continental or dualistic) is heavily influenced by labor law and owes its basic organizational features in Germany. The way in which corporate governance is organized in different countries, depends on the business context which it prevails. This entails a separation between ownership and management. The diversity of board roles in the governance of corporation differences in the leadership structure, the organization structure and the composition of boards provide a wide range of prototypes. However, both management and directors also share another more fundamental goal, to develop a board which can bring the most informed and most objective advise available. Thus, after the knowledge was drawn from corporate governance lecture for the competition among the two different systems of corporate governance we will provide a preliminary evaluation. Distinctive perspectives of corporate governance give rise to differences in the definition of boars roles in the governance of corporations. We are going to examine their advantages and disadvantages referring examples in European countries. The purpose is not to favor one model above another but to look at similarities and differences. In conclusion, we can say that methods used to appoint management and controlling bodies are not trivial, but they are not the most important distinctive trait of the systems of governance. Governance models The two-tier model In many countries most companies are run mostly for the benefit of the shareholders and the rightful of owners. On the other hand some companies run for the benefit of other significant groupings such us customers and employees. This is the two-tier or stakeholder model which we are going to analyze below. In the two-tier system of governance all stakeholder interests and especially public are protected. This model it is constituted from two boards, the management board and the supervisory board. The management board includes one or more individuals appointed by the supervisory board. These members chosen by the supervisory board cannot also be a member of the supervisory body. The business of the company is administered by the management board, conditional to the supervision of the supervisory board. The management board is obliged to report periodically to the supervisory board and the latter may at any time call for information or clarifications. The management of the company itself may not be undertaken by the supervisory board itself, but its approval may be required in the case of specific transactions. The management board is obliged to report periodically to the supervisory board and the latter may at any time call for information or clarifications. The management of the company itself may not be undertaken by the supervisory board itself, but its approval may be required in the case of specific transactions. Chetcuti (2010) The main tasks of the supervisory board are to appoint the members of the management board to the shareholders meeting and to monitor them. To explain, supervisory board is the monitoring body of the corporation. There is a strict separation of control and managerial tasks. The two boards are cooperating and between them there is big confidence while information is shared among all the members with the result of efficiency decision making. This characteristic is the most important strength of two-tier management. Furtherm ore, in the shareholders meeting an auditor is represented. To remove a member of the board of auditors or the external auditor three conditions must be satisfied, a) first, a good cause is required, b) second, adopted by the shareholders meeting is needed, c)third, the resolution adopted by the shareholders meeting must be approved by a court. The external auditor may be removed only when this above conditions satisfied. In contrast with the two-tier model where the supervisory board may easy remove persons appointed to corporate bodies such as the members of the management board. The continental European model (two-tier system) where supervisory boards consist solely of non-executives and a lower level management board consists of full time managing directors. Its main difference between the other corporate governance models is the power granted by the law to the shareholders meeting to remove the members of the supervisory board with a simple resolution and without the approva l of the court. Also, the control of management (not the corporation) involves the compliance with law and articles of the corporation in its business strategies. The law has strictly restrictions to transfer the authorities of one body to another body. An obvious and comprehensible example of such transfer are the transfer of decision-making on the annual report from the supervisory board to the general meeting of shareholders and the restriction to the management board taking decisions without the supervisorys board approval. Bajuk (2010) However, business relationships are inherent characteristics of the German supervisory board. In contrast to the USA and the UK, Germany and Netherlands have a two-tier board system. Germany follows this model, where the board comprises a management and a supervisory board, which provides a complete separation between management and supervision of management as we discussed above. The right of employees to participate in decision making in this model is known as co-determination, which is also reflected in the fact that workers counsels have rights concerning working hours, holidays, hirings and dismissals. In systems with co-determination the employees are given seats in a board of directors in one-tier management systems or seats in a supervisory board and sometimes management board in two-tier management systems. In two-tier systems the seats in supervisory boards are usually limited to 1/3 of all members. In some systems the employees can select 1/2 of all members of supervisory boards, but a representative of shareholders is always the president and has the deciding vote. The employee representatives in management boards are not present in all systems. They are always limited to a workers director, who votes only on matters concerning employees. Wikipedia Co-determination (2010). The remaining members of the supervisory board are appointed by the general assembly of shareholders. Furthermore, the assembly has the right to elect the chairman, who has double voting rights in the meeting. To summarize, the two-tier model is characterized by the central role of the supervisory board which has a monitoring character. The supervisory board is granted two powers: to endorse the balance sheet and to oversee the members of the management board without a resolution of the shareholders meeting. The one-tier model One-tier model (Continental European) knows two bodies of corporate governance. The one-tier model in United Kingdom characterized by a more flexible approach than in two-tier system in Germany. The two bodies of governance are the general meeting of shareholders and the board of directors. Both management and control entrusted to the hands of board of directors. The shareholders meeting appoints the board of director who performs the monitoring function. In the Anglo-Saxon countries one specific stakeholder can be identified which can exert a substantial influence on managerial decision-making: the influence of shareholders is strongly institutionalized in these countries. Also in one-tier model the shareholders are strongly protected by the law. As a result, in the Anglo-Saxon countries apply the democratic principle of one share, one vote. A one-tier board of directors further characterizes the Anglo-Saxon countries: executive and supervisory responsibilities of the board are condensed in one legal entity. Furthermore, in its composition and competencies, the general meeting of shareholders does not differ considerably from the general meeting seen in two-tier management system. The final decision on the composition of controlling and management bodies is still made by the shareholders meeting however the combination of monitoring and managing bodies are the most important features in this model. In addition, one of its characteristics is that the shareholders meeting may remove the members of the board of directors at any time. Here I have to stress that the board of directors consists of both executive and non-executive directors who are not members of the board of directors. As all directors have the same powers, non-executive directors can also take management decisions when at the same time this is restricted by the supervisory board in two-tier management (Germany). From a practical point of view, the non-executive board members advise the i nside directors on major policy decisions for the corporation. If we compare director duties in Germany, what we observe is weak rules on care and skills and at the same time powerful on fiduciary duties. There has been considerable debate over the effectiveness of executive and non-executive directors. The revised Combined Code provides the description of their functions. The Combine Code recommends composing at least half the board of independed non-executives. Also, a core element of the combined Core is the separation of the positions of board chairman and chief executive officer (CEO). The effect of both elements is the management and control of the corporation. Derek (2003) As we have described in the above analysis some one-tier boards are dominated by a majority of executive directors while others are composed of a majority of non-executive directors. In addition one-tier board can have one leadership structure that separates the CEO and chair positions of the board. O ne-tier boards can also operate with a board leadership structure that combines the role of CEO and the chairman. The one-tier boards also make often use of board committees like audit remuneration and nomination committees. Continental European countries such as Germany, Finland and Netherlands have adopted variants of the two-tier board model which make it more particular management system from one-tier system. The internal audit of the listed corporations that adopt the one-tier system is performed by an internal control committee composed by non-executive directors. An external auditor controls compliance with accounting procedures, and the term of the corporate bodies and of the external auditor is a maximum of three It is worth to mention that the appointment of a director to the management control committee it should be approved by the board of directors. In that case, the removed member has its position on the board of directors but will not belong any more in the managin g body of the corporation. Thus the removal procedure in one-tier model of governance does not follow the procedure required to remove the members of the board of auditors in two-tier system. The most interesting aspect of the one-tier system is the way boards of directors operate in combination with managing and monitoring functions. The main advantages that have been cited for one-tier governments include: better service coordination, clearer accountability (because there is only one tier), more streamlined decision-making, and greater efficiency. (Bahl and Linn, 1992) Finally, the Anglo-Saxon system of corporate governance is characterized by relatively short-term economic relationships. Quite unrestricted markets for capital, labor, goods and services ensure rapid adjustment to changing circumstances, thereby disfavoring long-term and stable relationships (Gelauff and Den Broeder, 1996). This phenomenon has led some to observe that managers in the Anglo-Saxon countri es are myopic, focusing on boosting the next quarterly figures while under-investing in long-term assets such as research and development or training (e.g.Porter, 1992; Prodhan, 1993). However, according to others, there is no concrete evidence to support these claims (e.g. Shleifer and Vishny, 1997). The most important conclusion in one-tier board counties is the emphasis on market operation where they are trying to maximize shareholders value. Comparison of two models One-tier and two tier corporate governance models have numerous differences. Their main differences are due to the dissimilar roles of their executive organs and the power that can force. One important mechanism which is a common theme in both corporate governance models is the board of directors. As well common themes are the board of shareholders and auditors. In Continental European model (two-tier system) two extra organs make the difference. The supervisory board and the Works Councils have a vital role in the countries which are following the two-tier system. Previous members of the management board often become ordinary members or even preside of the supervisory board (Schmidt and Drukarczy, 1997). A major difficulty with the supervisory board is the ownership structure in Continental Europe where the two-tier board system is predominant. In those countries certain groups often hold large shares of companies. Although, the way in which corporate governance differs from co untry to county; the separation between ownership and management exists in both systems. A demonstration follows below in making a comparison through their advantages and disadvantages. One-tier model which is typical in Anglo-Saxon countries and known as a shareholders model. Continental European model which adopts its characteristics of the German countries and is known as stakeholders model. The first significant difference is the shareholders concentration, the number or percentage of the prospective elements of dividends. In Continental European model shareholders represent a large percentage of the total number of shares which are publicity traded. The shares give the proof of membership or ownership for shareholders is a piece of paper that has a value. Every share gives you the right to vote, the right to pay dividends and both. On the other hand in Anglo-Saxon countries the shareholders concentration is very low. This happened due to the fact that companies in Angl o-Saxon countries are larger and the percentage of shares represents an enormous capital Franks Mayer (1994). This model is characterized by the fact that relationships between companies and shareholders as well as with their employees are temporary in nature. We observe a greater mobility on the capital and labor markets where counterparts does not happen the same in Continental model. This is characterized by the very good and institutional relationships with stakeholders for the maintenance of balance. The role of shareholders can move the threads in the operation and development of enterprise. Their identity differs in these two models. In United States and United Kingdom most of the totals of shares are in the hands of agents of financial institutions. In Germany happens completely opposite, private companies, financial institutions and private persons hold the most of the shares. In one-tier system due to the regulations the financial institutions are not allowed to hold s hares on their own behalf, on the other hand in two-tier system companies and individual persons act directly without using agents to manage their affairs. Financially the one-tier system shareholding via the stock exchange is very widespread and the individual shareholders do not have enough attendance in the daily practice of the corporation but the influence of the stock exchange is decisive. The term business context is the number of listed companies as a percentage of the total number of companies in a country. In one-tier board system many companies are listed and their shares are publicity traded as a result of less personal contact with their shareholders. In contrast, the two-tier model is characterized by a business management whos seeking lasting institutional relationships with all stakeholders. In European countries fewer companies are publicity traded, so a strong relationship exists between the management of the company and its shareholders. The majority of Euro pean companies hold large stakes in associated companies and shareholding and vice-versa. The existence of different holdings and top-down structures in these companies regulates the diverse patterns of control, which are often maintained over the long term. However, transparency is much more limited in these countries because of the limited number of shareholdings and thus the limited extent of information disclosure. Furthermore, regulations as anti-trust laws and arms-length between parent and daughter companies have limited the complexity of the ownership structure within the tier-two countries. Summary Conclusion By analyzing the regulations for the two board systems to elaborate the respective advantages and pitfalls, we find a strong evolution of the systems towards each other. The independence of corporate governance boards is an important corporate governance issue. The monitoring bodies of the organizational structures of the two models have to keep the balance of power among corporation. One-tier boards stand for faster decision making and flexibility as they are characterized by a clearly defined management body. On the downside, there is a greater risk of board capture because the members are heavily influenced by the CEO. To empower non-executive directors, stock exchanges, legislators and other comment factors promote changes to existing board structures in Anglo-Saxon countries. In this context we found that Anglo-Saxon countries rely on a majority of independent directors within the board of directors to guarantee an alignment of interests between the management and the share holders, which is claimed by all the recently released corporate governance codes. Consequently both the responsibilities of monitoring and the strategy-setting are incorporated in the same body. The board members fulfill both economical and monitoring roles, thats why they face dilemma, they should make decisions, and, at the same time to monitor these decisions. While this problem does not exist in two-tier system due the formal separation of control and management, it is essential to obtain this separation affected in the one-tier system. Two-tier boards ensure a clear separation of direction and control. This separation can protect both, shareholders and the public interest, this is the major advantage. Although, the separation of management and control a little enervates the independence of the members of the supervisory board, this separation remains a strength regarding to the management board. Each member of the management board has the same task, to run the business in a way that allows further development and financial prosperity. The control claims an open discussion between the members of the supervisory board and the management board. The members of the supervisory board are chosen by the management board and are only formally obtained at the general meeting. In practice the members of the management board and usual the chairman switches to the supervisory board, and frequently become the chairman after retirement. Although the co-determination statute had even the advantage to reduce the possibility of strikes and is an early warning system for social conflicts. Furthermore, co-determination is capable of protecting companies from hostile takeovers. Aside from marginal differences we observed the same difficulties of control for both board systems. The strong evolution of the systems towards each other on the one hand illustrated an obstacle for the new legal form since the additional benefit of the new freedom of choice between different b oard structures is lowered. This research concludes that Continental European forms of board organization are hardly ever acknowledged by both reformers as well as researchers in the fields of corporate governance and thus still limited on widespread relevance and recommendation. On other hand, resent financial developments in both corporate Amecrica and Europe have shown tremendous short comings on both control and diligence on both systems. Further development and clarification of both financial and governance laws need to both refine and merge elements from both systems.

Effects Of The Treaty On Mexico s Agricultural Economy...

Development is a highly contested and complex concept, it has different meanings for different people, and have had different approaches through time. This paper examines the concept of development and its effects in the capitalist era and explores how the globalisation agenda has established the requests of the neo-liberalism project by the trade and financial liberalization and the new global regulatory system, and affected the developed countries. I argue that the development concept is socially constructed and inextricably linked with western economic structures and variables. The case of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is used to exemplify how the new vision of globalisation through market integration and self†¦show more content†¦456). Development is a historical process, rooted in the colonial discourse, where the north was seen as advanced and the south as primitive (Edelman Haugerud, 2005, p.178; Ziai, 2007, p. 8). This essay examines how developmen t has become a western discourse, a mechanism of progress tied to ideas of social evolution and civilization (Bulloch, 2014, p. 178; Edelman Haugerud, 2005, p.178; Escobar p. 18). The analysis will focus then on how Mexico as a developed country, becomes the model of un-development, the object in need of modernization, and development, thus as the process of improvement and progress, but progress as a subject of economic growth. As Sklair (1994, p. 180) state, Development implies progress from backwardness to modernity. The intent of development under this idea is that it will compensate what is thought as being deficient to accomplish an improved future, the following of a linear path between the traditional undeveloped and the modern developed (Bulloch, 2014, p. 179; Cowen Shenton, 1996, p. 433-445). For post-development theorists such as Esteva or Escobar, development is socially constructed and based in a western economic structure and in the power relationships between developed and developing countries, with a clear domination of the first ones (Escobar p.18, Esteva Prakash, 1998b, p. 175-182). Positivists claim that development can only be sustained and attained by industrialization, which is achieved through human

Environment and Sustainability Protected Areas

Question: Discuss about theEnvironment and Sustainability for Protected Areas. Answer: Introduction To answer the question of why one should conserve a protected area, one must first have a clear idea what is a protected area. A protected area means an area, which is protected by the government of a nation under strict laws and legislations for its ecological, natural as well as cultural diversities (Carranza et al. 2014). These areas consist of species, which are on the verge of extinction and are protected from poaching activities. Hunting is strictly prohibited, and steps are taken for the protection of the biodiversity, which is seriously threatened. Different countries have different criteria for declaring an area as protected, but the main aim consists of conserving the natural resources and protecting the flora and fauna (Venter et al. 2014) Protected areas not only consist of terrestrial habitats but also aquatic habitats, which are also under severe threats and needs to be looked over. The aquatic habitat is affected by overfishing and pollution that is harming many invert ebrates and marine vertebrate species which are under threat of extinction. Australia consists of a large number of protected area which altogether accounts for about 895,300 square kilometers that cover about 12% of the entire land of Australia (Environment.gov.au, 2016). The national parks are maintained by the Australian government and also by the state as well as the territory authorities. Among the various protected areas, one can focus the entire essay on a particular protected area which is known as the world famous Great Barrier Reef which is a well known tourist attraction and hence had been gaining fame for a long time (Gbr.qld.gov.au, 2016). Due to various anthropogenic effects and the increasing global warming has therefore resulted in it to be a threatened area and has been extensively cared and looked over by the Australian Government. This is a world heritage sight of Australia which has been given the declaration of the protected areas of the world. This reef is currently the habitat of a huge variety of organisms and comprises of about innumerable islands with coral cays and various reef systems. Among the various organisms, there are the coral reefs amounting to about 1400 with about 1700 species of fish (Centre, 2015). Mollusks, shell fishes, starfishes, sea urchin, sea snakes, marine turtles, sharks, and rays are the fascinating species that live in the reef. Another attraction of the area is the presence of dolphins and whales that give completion to the reef. Many of the organisms have been designated as protected animals and are under the protection act by the government. The main body that takes part over the monitoring of the entire Great Barrier Reef is called the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) (Australia.gov.au, 2016). They are mainly assigned to the duty of the protection of this pr otected area from the adversaries. They consist of a team of government officials along with a board of researchers continuously looking for the betterment in the scientific approaches as well as various marine engineers in the zeal of the creating modern systems for a successful monitoring process and development of the coastal organisms. Experts and traditional owners also seem to take a very active part in the venture. This Marine Park is one of the best-protected areas in the field of vulnerable protected area. The main motto of the management is the analysis of the various strategic managements, which included the threats to the reefs and decides the values that would be required for their priority set up for a target management output (Cakex.org, 2016). Their 25-year management plan consists of forming strategies, deciding policies for the implementation of the strategies and the statistical analysis and monitoring. The most interesting part is the engagement by which GBRMP is handling the protected area is praiseworthy and even involves the new project called the Reef 2050. This project will involve the Australian government along with some private funds with a focus that would ponder upon the quality control of the marine water along with various methods that would help in improving the present condition of the reefs due to both the climate change and various anthropogenic factors. The various issues that usually remain associated with protected areas include mainly anthropogenic activities where another factor might play a very important role. The first issue is mainly concerned with the connectivity problem that exists between the different protected areas. Many different animals require large areas for conducting their regular activities, Herein the presence of corridors between the protected areas are very important acting as a linking passage where they can roam freely and expand their territories (Bull et al. 2013). Secondly, a large portion of various habitats are not recognized as a part of the protected area campaign. Protected areas in marine ecosystems are very less and therefore require them to be included in such campaigns. Thirdly, funding issue is another matter that restrains from a proper management system that ultimately results in improper management leading to harmful effects of both flora and fauna. Its leads to poor functioning of the enti re system and various discrepancies occur when lack of funds result in inefficiency in management. Fourthly, an inefficient management might also become the source of poor maintenance in protected areas. Management with able leaders is important for assurance of all the management and conservational purposes to be occurring properly. A well-protected area can be only achieved through the various strategies and the technologies introduced by the officials which are extremely important for the stability of a protected area ecosystem (Watson et al. 2014. The planning includes assurance that the rule of the protected area are to be maintained as well a respected, monitoring the health of the natural resources, keeping statistical records of the number of each species residing there and making the native people realize the effects of a balanced ecosystem and act maturely without harming the flora and fauna for their commercial interests. Lastly, the most important issue in the conservati on of protected areas are the anthropological activities. Illegal activities of selfish people includes poaching of protected animals for financial rise, cutting of huge trees both for logging and also for commercial purposes, construction of houses and malls and pollution from various sources result in negative aspects of nature resulting in rising temperature, climate chain, invasive species introduction and many others (Barnes et al. 2013). Excessive fishing and mining under the sea are also results in a huge number of extinction of organisms from the protected areas. During the conservation of the Great Barrier Reef, the management often faces a large number of issues to which they are trying their best to cope up with the situation. Most of them are anthropogenic activities that are in turn leading to a massive destructive effect on the reef organisms. The biggest issue is the recent climate change mainly due to the rise in temperature and global warming that are in turn affecting the metabolical and physiological activities of many organisms leading to death (Death et al., 2012). Coral bleaching has become a common occurrence. Sponges are developing diseases being attacked by harmful bacteria when their symbiotic bacterial colony is degraded. The management has been trying its best to conserve the coral whose densities declining at a very fast rate. Many important organisms such as dugongs, marine turtles, Black teat fish, and sharks are indeed decreasing in number, which is affecting the ecological balance of the entire system. Increased carbo n dioxide have become very harmful accounting to about 400 parts per million (ppm) which is making the different species highly vulnerable. If the present concentration of CO2 keeps increasing in this way within 50 years, it would reach a ppm harmful enough for the complete decline in the number of a large number of sea birds and their chicks, fish, reptiles, and planktons as well (Albright et al. 2013). The main attraction, which is the corals would also become extinct and would erode completely. Floods occurring in the northeastern rivers of Australia carry a huge amount of run-offs from the farms, which consists of harmful chemicals as well as nutrients. This often results in the death of different organisms and algal bloom might take place. Coastal habitats and mangrove vegetations are also altered to suit various demands. Managements have not been able to control illegal fishing in the reef areas thereby catching fish important for conservation, death of species discarded from the fishing nets in the reef and also killing a large number of predators like sharks which affect the food webs in the ecosystem. Recent shipping traffics have been a major problem, which is a major concern for the conservation project. Due to the huge amount of export and import traffic system from Queensland, the traffic is foreseen to increase in number in the coming years (Grech et al. 2013). Management has already applied requests to the government concerning the hazardous effects it is having on marine life and steps to be taken soon. Other than these anthropological effects, several issues are also present within GBRMPA system management as well. The Australian National Audit Office has reported some issues within the governing authority of the protected area. Various problems were reported regarding the differing views between the working men on the project as well as that of the ministers who approved the plan. Moreover, there were also issues in the controversial approval of the dredge spoil dumping in the protected area. They have also revealed some problems regarding the authority's handling of permits and compliance investigations (Sunshine Coast Daily, 2016). For the establishment and a successful management for the proper functioning of a protected area, certain key factors are to be kept in mind. Only for the proper maintenance of the project, humans have to be made aware of the hazards that their activity is having on the biodiversity and the natural resources of the protected areas. The first step should include a complete planning procedure how the entire system has to be conserved through the application of various methods and criteria, which will be reflected in the strategies thereby undertaken. According to the IUCN-WCPA framework of setting rules, proper statistical records of data must be maintained an as parameter for the effect of the harmful activities on the protected species. Various steps should be maintained to keep the anthropogenic activities under check and for this, the government would take an active part for it. Correct and accurate evaluation surveys should be conducted from time to time to assess the poaching act ivity and keep it under check (Day et al. 2012). Proper monitoring should be done, and acts should be passed for strict punishments for breaching any rules of the protected area. Other than this establishment part, management part is the most important. This includes an effective evaluation that is how well the established strategies are working so that it could be assessed how well the strategies are working. IUCN has provided a framework how to evaluate the status of conservation in a six concept model as that has been depicted in the diagram. Six steps of management Source: (Cbd.int, 2016) The six steps for the proper management of various issues are the context (that is why we need to implement a strategy), then planning of the strategy (that is how it is to be carried out), then the inputs (like what we need for that strategy), the process of implementation of the strategy, the output or the result produced and the outcome (that is how it was successful in gaining success). The six concepts is entirely described in the following chart: Six steps for evaluations of the establishment of the strategies that form protected areas. Source: (Cbd.int, 2016) The management should work in unity where they can impose better results on the areas and should not be careless about the work. The governing body should cooperate with the workers so that negligence from the management community can be assessed. The locals should be made to understand the importance of biodiversity and resources. Tourists should be made known about the do's and don'ts so that hazards from their activities can be avoided. The Australian and Queensland government are looking forward to a rigorous developmental assessment processes to preserve their treasure of the Great Barrier Reef, which is even larger than The Great Wall Of China. The recent strategic assessment of the reef consists of two important comprehensive tasks taken. The first includes where future developments can make in the reefs that would yield a better conservational attempt protecting both biotic and abiotic factors. The second initiative taken would be designing the various strategies and management that will protect the value of the reef as a world heritage site and also increase the resilience in the harmful effects of anthropogenic activities and look over the funds allocated (Harrison et al. 2016). A detailed coastal management plan is to be introduced to control the shipping traffics, control the growing pollution due to increased population both of locals and also of tourists (Andrade and Rhodes 2012). $9 million has been allo cated for The Great Barrier Reef Climate Change Plan that would include strategies for minimizing the effect of climate change on different species. Zoning plan, Coral Bleaching Response Plan, Water Quality Protection Plan and many others are implemented to make the future of Great Barrier Reef free from any Hazards (Coles et al. 2015) Protected areas are critical for the various flora and fauna that are under threat or on the verge of extinction. Different natural sources are exploited by human in various ways for their personal needs. To protect them both on an environmental parameter and aesthetic parameters, such areas should be strictly monitored by the governmental bodies and save natural treasures. Many world Heritage Sites are under threat, and their only ways of protection are by passing strict laws for their protection for a successful conservation. The renowned protected site such as The great Barrier reef are hence monitored by governmental bodies to protect the species from extinction through various acts and a proper management planning. It is hoped that it will overcome the adversities and will see a protected and safe future in the coming years. References: Albright, R., Langdon, C. and Anthony, K.R.N., 2013. Dynamics of seawater carbonate chemistry, production, and calcification of a coral reef flat, central Great Barrier Reef.Biogeosciences,10(10), pp.6747-6758. Andrade, G.S. and Rhodes, J.R., 2012. Protected areas and local communities: An inevitable partnership toward successful conservation strategies?.Ecology and Society,17(4), p.14. Australia.gov.au. (2016). Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority | australia.gov.au. [online] Available at: https://www.australia.gov.au/directories/australia/gbrmpa [Accessed 24 Sep. 2016]. Barnes, J., Dove, M., Lahsen, M., Mathews, A., McElwee, P., McIntosh, R., Moore, F., O'Reilly, J., Orlove, B., Puri, R. and Weiss, H., 2013. Contribution of anthropology to the study of climate change.Nature Climate Change,3(6), pp.541-544. Bull, J.W., Suttle, K.B., Gordon, A., Singh, N.J. and Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2013. Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice.Oryx,47(03), pp.369-380. Cakex.org. (2016). Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority | CAKE: Climate Adaptation Knowledge Exchange. [online] Available at: https://www.cakex.org/directory/organizations/great-barrier-reef-marine-park-authority [Accessed 24 Sep. 2016]. Carranza, T., Balmford, A., Kapos, V. and Manica, A., 2014. Protected area effectiveness in reducing conversion in a rapidly vanishing ecosystem: the Brazilian Cerrado.Conservation Letters,7(3), pp.216-223. Centre, U. (2015). Great Barrier Reef. [online] Whc.unesco.org. Available at: https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/154 [Accessed 24 Sep. 2016]. Coles, R.G., Rasheed, M.A., McKenzie, L.J., Grech, A., York, P.H., Sheaves, M., McKenna, S. and Bryant, C., 2015. The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area seagrasses: managing this iconic Australian ecosystem resource for the future.Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science,153, pp.A1-A12. Day, J., Dudley, N., Hockings, M., Holmes, G., Laffoley, D.D.A., Stolton, S. and Wells, S.M., 2012.Guidelines for applying the IUCN protected area management categories to marine protected areas. IUCN. Death, G., Fabricius, K.E., Sweatman, H. and Puotinen, M., 2012. The 27year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,109(44), pp.17995-17999. Environment.gov.au. (2016). The National Reserve System (NRS) - About Australia's Protected Areas. [online] Available at: https://www.environment.gov.au/land/nrs/about-nrs/australias-protected-areas [Accessed 24 Sep. 2016]. Gbr.qld.gov.au. (2016). Living wonder (Great Barrier Reef, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection). [online] Available at: https://www.gbr.qld.gov.au/living-wonder/ [Accessed 24 Sep. 2016]. Grech, A., Bos, M., Brodie, J., Coles, R., Dale, A., Gilbert, R., Hamann, M., Marsh, H., Neil, K., Pressey, R.L. and Rasheed, M.A., 2013. Guiding principles for the improved governance of port and shipping impacts in the Great Barrier Reef.Marine pollution bulletin,75(1), pp.8-20. Harrison, I.J., Green, P.A., Farrell, T.A., Juffeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ Bignoli, D., Senz, L. and Vrsmarty, C.J., 2016. Protected areas and freshwater provisioning: a global assessment of freshwater provision, threats and management strategies to support human water security.Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems,26(S1), pp.103-120. Sunshine Coast Daily. (2016). Audit shows details of GBRMPA's investigations problems. [online] Available at: https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/problems-found-in-gbrmpa-abbot-point-investigation/2741076/ [Accessed 24 Sep. 2016]. Venter, O., Fuller, R.A., Segan, D.B., Carwardine, J., Brooks, T., Butchart, S.H., Di Marco, M., Iwamura, T., Joseph, L., O'Grady, D. and Possingham, H.P., 2014. Targeting global protected area expansion for imperiled biodiversity.PLoS Biol,12(6), p.e1001891. Watson, J.E., Dudley, N., Segan, D.B. and Hockings, M., 2014. The performance and potential of protected areas.Nature,515(7525), pp.67-73.