Archived page, Marine Parks - Should it be all about percentage?

Western Australia's recent explosion of new Marine Parks with their associated sanctuary zones is a contentious issue confronting recreational fishers and our future access. It is a debate that won't go away and appears to have two distinct sides to the argument. On the one hand extreme conservation groups are lobbying hard for an increase in the number of marine sanctuaries and strongly believe that a minimum 30% of Western Australian marine waters should be protected as no-take areas. On the other hand Recfishwest believes that the existing marine reservation system is fundamentally flawed in that it overly emphasises the use of marine sanctuaries at the expense of a holistic approach to marine conservation measures. Basically Recfishwest's view is that sanctuary zones should not be the only marine management tool, instead a management approach that is an integration of all available fisheries management strategies should be the approach.

Conservation groups argue that international marine scientists recommend that at least 30% of marine habitat should be protected to allow marine ecosystems to recover from human impacts. What they fail to mention is that this recommendation was developed for countries that have had no form of fisheries management where by the marine environment has effectively been 'open slather' for many decades.

Australia is regarded as having some the best fisheries management in the world and our overall marine environment is in excellent condition compared to many other countries. In countries such as the Philippines the introduction of 30% sanctuary zones has been particularly useful in the recovery of depleted fish stocks and protection of important marine habitat. However, in this instance sanctuary zones have been the only form of fisheries management ever applied and the marine environment is starting to show signs of repair from sanctuary zones.

The question that Recfishwest regularly raises in regards to sanctuary zoning is "should we be looking at this debate from purely a percentage stand point or what is best for the marine environment and the community recreational users"? Currently I believe that it is too easy to become fixated on reaching a certain percentage rather than looking at the best management approach. It is almost like, "As long as we have 30% sanctuary zones all our environmental sins will be forgotten and every thing will be ok".

Should Western Australia be accepting this management approach as the sole saviour for the marine environment or should we be taking a more integrated approach and identifying the risks and managing then accordingly? As an old saying goes "it is easier to ban something than manage it properly", unfortunately this has been the standard approach of CALM (Now called the Department of Environment and Conservation, or DEC).

The management of the fish resources is the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries under the Fisheries Resources Management Act 1994 (FRMA). The FRMA contains provision for the creation of Fish Habitat Protection Areas (FHPAs) which may include sanctuary (no take) zones. On the other hand DEC has the responsibility of protecting marine biodiversity and conservation. Whilst DEC have the best interest of the marine environment in mind, the benefits of sanctuary zones for fish are often over stated as per an objective statement by American scientists. Despite this they continually use unsustainable recreational fishing as the fundamental reasoning behind the introduction of sanctuary zones in Marine Parks.

Recfishwest is certainly not against sanctuary zones. Used in the right way they can be an effective form of marine management. Recfishwest always fully supports marine reserves and no-take zones for genuinely unique habitats which warrant complete protection from exploitation to ensure their sustainability. Recfishwest also fully supports the establishment of no-take areas for the sole purpose of research. What Recfishwest will not support is sanctuary zones established with the sole purpose of banning fishing under the guise of ecosystem management.

Development of a marine sanctuary zone just because it would be "nice" to reach the magical 30% mark is not sufficient justification to exclude the many people that enjoying recreational fishing.

Marine Parks are extremely different to their terrestrial counterparts. On land it is possible to isolate an area as a park and protect virtually the entire ecosystem contained within. However, the characteristics of a marine environment make the protection of the entire ecosystem within a marine park impossible. Pelagic species with straddling stocks such as herring, tailor, Australian salmon, tuna etc, are only opportunistically present within sanctuary zones and open to exploitation in the other 99% of the time they are moving throughout their range. This highlights the importance of a holistic approach to management and the importance of not relying too heavily on sanctuary zone as the only form of management.

If you are like most recreational fishers and genuinely care about preserving fish stocks for the future I urge you to start taking an interest in future marine park zoning. I receive numerous phone calls from people when new Marine Parks are proposed saying "they're going to take away my favourite fishing spot". "All I do is catch a feed of herring and whiting, what can we do about this". Unfortunately the reality is that unless all recreational anglers form a united front in these arguments whether it is in your own back yard or 1,000 miles away we are going to have trouble arguing out point. At the moment there simply are not enough recreational fishers motivated to care about their future access and most importantly what is best approach to manage the marine environment.

The Shoalwater Islands Marine Park Draft Management Plan 2006 is currently open for public comment. Submissions are due before Friday 27 October 2006. The Walpole and Nornalup Inlets Marine Park Draft Management Plan 2006 has also been released fro public comment. Submissions are due before Friday 1st December. As well as these two, the Cape to Cape Marine Park Draft Management Plan 2006 will have been released by the time this article goes to print. Recfishwest urges all recreational fishers to check out these Management Plans (available at www.naturebase.net) and provide comment.

The release of the Walpole and Nornalup Inlets Marine Park Draft Management Plan has been met with praise from Recfishwest with the plan recognising the value of recreational fishing and the whole marine park being zoned as a recreational zone. It is important that recreational fishers advise the Minister of our support for this management plan as the conservation groups will be gunning for the introduction of sanctuary zones during the three month consultation period.

With good there is always bad and the Shoalwater Islands Draft Management Plan has been met with some reservations by Recfishwest on what the individual zones are aimed at achieving. Recfishwest understands the need for distinct areas to be zoned for nature appreciation, however, the use of recreational fishing as the major reason for these areas is unfair and unfounded.

Recfishwest has concerns about DEC making sweeping, unsubstantiated fisheries management decisions and "justifying" under the banner of protecting biodiversity
or "wildlife values", but having absolutely no data on the extent or effect
of recreational line or spearfishing. Here is an exert from the Shoalwater Island Draft Management Plan.

"...the ecological impacts of recreational fishing in the park are localised depletion of site attached target species, the modification of population structures from overfishing, by-catch of unwanted non-target species, and associated impacts on the ecological values, for example, from litter and trampling of sensitive habitat."

If the DEC is willing to make such statements then Recfishwest would like them to at least back it up with some scientific evidence. Also to imply that litter and trampling of habitat is an ecological impact of recreational fishing is a cop-out. A reef walker or snorkeller would be just as likely to trample benthic habitat as a recreational fisher.

If DEC wants to strictly allocate observation areas to eco tourism operators, divers and snorkellers, then be honest about it and say these are the reason and we can negotiate on the real issues. At the moment DEC is developing sanctuary zones under the guise of fisheries management when there benefit are largely superficial.

The "have your say" document also raises the incredible question of additional protection for the Point Peron area, with the recommendation for an additional sanctuary zone. Recfishwest believes that this proposal should be rejected on the principle that it does not provide any justification for the increased protection and was never part of the discussion process. The Draft Management Plan document does not even mention this proposal making it impossible to provide comment when no information is disclosed about where the sanctuary zone will exactly be and what size. The Minister for the Environment in his wisdom has decided that it would be a good idea to have a sanctuary zone at Point Peron. This is accompanied with no risk assessment, reasoning or indication of its size. This is unacceptable and reflects poorly on their consultation process.

Recfishwest will be submitting a detailed submission of the Shoalwater Islands Management Plan and it would be great if it could be accompanied with personal submissions from as many people as possible.

A number of these issues I have just raised will be discussed a national conference run by Recfish Australia on Marine Protected Areas held in Brisbane on November 4th and 5th this year. This two day forum will aim to identify and articulate the strengths and gaps in knowledge and understandings of the recreational sector in MPA's and help develop our process and approach to future proposals for MPA's in Australia. I am looking forward to this conference with much anticipation and believe that a lot of interesting information should come for this collaboration of recreational fishers and marine park planners.

If you are interested in finding out more about Recfishwest's submissions on past Marine Park proposals check out our submissions page.