The Nature Coast Marine Group Inc
(NCMG)
Select Committee on Recreational Fishing
Parliament House,
Macquarie Street,
SYDNEY NSW 2000 22 June 2010
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
1. Mr Fleming: the Coastwatcher’s submision (p1) says that it rejects the notion that the activity of recreational fishing outweighs, in any sense, other recreational uses, such as diving, canoeing, swimming and surfing.
What leads you to make this statement? Are you saying that there is a view that fishing should or does receive favourable treatment that needs to be countered? Is recreational fishing in conflict with these other activities?
2. Mr Fleming/Ms Edwards: your submissions argue that all known habitat sites of Grey Nurse Sharks should immediately be placed in Marine Parks and commercial and recreational fishing excluded. Are there any know habitat sites in the Eurobodalla area that are currently not protected?
While the Tollgate Islands aggregation site for Grey Nurse Sharks is within a Sanctuary zone, the northern end of Montague Island is also an aggregation site but it only has protection from certain forms of fishing on a seasonal basis. However, information from NSW Fisheries shows that Grey Nurse Sharks remain vulnerable and continue to suffer hook injuries.
Given the threatened status of this species, the NCMG would prefer to extend protection to the maximum possible extent by prohibiting fishing in a larger area around the aggregation sites all along the NSW coast. We recognise there is uncertainty as to the causes of mortality and morbidity among Grey Nurse Sharks and that this might extend protection beyond what might be strictly necessary. But we feel that the situation is a critical one and the sharks should not suffer because of a lesser level of interest in their welfare as compared with other marine creatures. We suspect that if, for example, a species of whale was in such a situation there would be a much higher level of protection.
3. Ms Edwards: your submission (p2) states that some of the debate surrounding Marine Parks appears to be based on the misconception that marine parks are not useful unless they manage fisheries for the benefit of recreational fishers.
Can you outline some examples of how this misconception has affected debate on Marine Parks?
The primary purpose of NSW Marine Parks as stated in the Act is “to conserve marine biological diversity and to maintain ecological processes”. Ecologically sustainable use of fish and vegetation must be consistent with that purpose.
Ever since the announcement that there would be a Batemans Marine Park opponents deluged local media and talkback to radio, and entered comments on recreational fishing websites concentrating (exclusively as far as we can recall) on the effect the park might have on fishing and recreational fishing in particular. There was no acknowledgement that biodiversity included more than just fish.
While an outcome of marine parks may be more sustainable management of fisheries this is not the prime purpose. In the case of Batemans Marine Park recreational fishers have certainly benefited from the removal of trawlers, as has the benthic habitat.
The initial negative campaign also led many people to believe that the whole of the marine park would be no take. It has taken some time for the multiple use zoning to become well known.
The opponents of NSW marine parks also still picture them as a short term political moves by the NSW government. There has been little if any recognition that, because of the world-wide deterioration of marine biodiversity, Australia signed international agreements under the Howard government and put forward Australia’s Ocean Policy in 1998. The Policy includes a “national representative system of marine protected areas”. Since then all states have agreed to establish marine parks with no take areas.
Can you also tell us what you understand conservation of marine biological diversity to mean – that is to protect absolutely or to ensure that it continues for future generations?
We are not sure if the two options offered as the meaning of 'conservation of marine biological diversity' capture the full complexity of the concept. Realistically, 'absolute protection' is unrealistic, if it is understood as protection everywhere. Obviously there are competing interests that have to be satisfied. The best that can be done is to provide absolute protection in sufficient areas (that are 'comprehensive, representative and adequate') in the hope that biodiversity values will not further be degraded and to create opportunities for something approaching a 'natural'. i.e. pre-human intervention, state to be restored in some areas.
The second option - that 'it' continues for future generations would seem to presume that 'it' is a known quantity that can be managed into the future. This is far from being the case. The difficulty of establishing scientific information about the marine environment is enormous and makes it vitally important that the precautionary principle be carefully observed. Given the inevitable difficulties in knowing what is in the marine environment and how the various elements interact, it is essential that there be sufficient absolute protection - along the lines set out in Australia's Oceans Policy - to ensure that biodiversity values are not degraded to the detriment of future generations and the environment generally. Without sanctuary zones, such detriments can be caused by actions carried out in ignorance of their impacts.
We understand from marine science reports that around 20%-30% of each type of marine ecosystem in a bioregion needs to be completely protected from harvesting in order for the original biodiversity to have a chance to re-establish. This protection would enable the biological diversity within the sanctuary to continue for future generations if other things are also managed – for example improved management of fisheries elsewhere (quotas, bag and size limits); better catchment management; reduced pollution, global warming, carbon emissions, etc. Management on all fronts is required but no take areas must be part of the management.
4. Mr Fleming/Ms Edwards: A number of submissions have argued that closing areas during spawning would provide a greater protection to biodiversity than would a number of marine park sanctuary zones that have no important role in the spawning process – if this did prove to be a more effective mechanism for biodiversity protection would you be comfortable with allowing certain types of fishing in sanctuary zones?
It seems that once again fish are the only organisms under consideration. Are we also talking about abalone, sea urchins, sponges, turban snails, nudibranchs, seagrasses, red, brown and green seaweeds, bryozoans, echinoderms, worms and crustaceans of all kinds, hard and soft corals, hydroids, sea jellies and all the other myriad organisms that go to make up the marine environment? Since every organism in a marine ecosystem is likely to have a different spawning time we don’t see how this could work.
The interaction between all these creatures is not well understood. However, there are scientific studies that show that where certain types of fishing are allowed in previous sanctuary zones, the benefits are quickly eroded.?
For a marine ecosystem to return to its original biological diversity fish, including pelagics that are only passing through, must be allowed to be part of the system. Removal of large predators has impacts right down the food chain and hence on the whole ecosystem.
There is value in locating sanctuary zones in places where they will protect species targeted by fishers when those species are at their most vulnerable, eg when spawning and during their juvenile stages. It also makes sense for the conservation of fish stocks to close areas to the fishing of relevant species in all parts of the sea/estuaries when these areas are being used for spawning, even if these areas are not in marine parks.
Seasonal closures outside of Sanctuary zones would be difficult to police and we are not sure whether enough is known about all the spawning sites for this to be possible but at least some could be closed.
5. Ms Edwards, you say that some types of habitats are currently under-represented within sanctuary zones in Batemans Marine Park.
Can you elaborate on which types of habitat need greater protection within sanctuary zones?
Unfortunately, the two NCMG committee members who suggested this point in our submission are travelling in NW Western Australia and I have been unable to contact them to clarify what habitats they meant.
6. Mr Fleming / Ms Edwards: While there is a large volume of scientific literature supporting the role of sanctuary zones in conserving and improving marine biodiversity, would you agree that it is fair to say that each piece of literature is most often specific to a type of habitat location and one or more species, and that generally the greatest benefit is derived for those species that are predominantly resident on the protected habitat, and for the ecological processes within the habitat that depend on the actions of those species?
A question that seeks a comment on the whole of the vast body of scientific literature demonstrating the value of sanctuary zones would be better directed to current professional scientists with expertise in marine ecology who have a more comprehensive knowledge of the literature. It is something of a statement of the obvious that providing protection in a certain area is likely to provide greater protection to organisms that live within that area than to organisms that do not.
However our ignorance of marine processes is such that we simply cannot be sure of how extensive the benefits will be of providing protection.
For example, in the United States the exclusion zone created around the Cape Kennedy space centre in Florida resulted in increases in sizes of pelagic species that pass through that area. Other studies have shown that some individuals of migratory species change their behaviours in response to increased food availability and become more sedentary. In New Zealand it was found that protecting large fish predators resulted in an eventual decline in the numbers of grazing sea urchins and subsequently a regeneration of seaweeds that had the effect of dramatically improving the underwater environment to a richer more natural state. In both New Zealand and northern Tasmania rock lobsters in sanctuaries are able to grow to a size where they are able to produce many more eggs. While this no doubt benefits the resident lobsters it also benefits all those creatures outside the sanctuary which feed on the increased larvae and juveniles in the plankton.
The best approach is to put together a synthesis of all the vast number of studies supporting marine protected areas and acknowledge the enormous benefits. Moreover - and though this is outside the scope of NSW action - there should be international action to establish large high seas sanctuary areas.
In addition, marine environments in other parts of the world have suffered tremendous damage because of the absence of marine protected areas. Australia is in still in better shape than most but we should take advantage of this to protect existing environments for all the reasons set out in Australia's Oceans Policy.
Do you believe that sanctuary zones provide the best, or at the least a reasonable, method of protection for marine biodiversity in all circumstances?
With our current level of knowledge and available resources, I think sanctuary zones are the best means we have of protecting marine biodiversity. With regard to fish stocks, there needs to be a lot more research to achieve sustainable fisheries and implementation of more effective commercial quotas, by-catch reduction, and size and bag limits for recreational fishers.
As we mentioned above, other impacts on marine ecosystems also have to be addressed at the same time. Governments already have laws and policies aimed at reducing pollution, sedimentation, climate change, etc. These responsibilities should not be duplicated by or handed over to Marine Parks Authorities. However, it would make sense to put the Dept of Fisheries under the Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water. This would make for better management of marine biological resources and, hopefully, reduce bureaucracy and delays in decision making.
Jenny Edwards
President
Nature Coast Marine Group