Archived page, RECFISHWEST SUBMISSION TO JURIEN BAY MARINE PARK INDICATIVE PLAN

Introduction

Jurien Bay is the first marine park proposed under the amended CALM Act that establishes the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority. This plan therefore represents an opportunity for CALM to establish transparent processes and procedures to instil the confidence of the community that all stakeholders will be treated fairly and equitably in the development and implementation of this and other marine parks. Regrettably, we believe that CALM has largely failed to meet this challenge in the development of the Jurien Bay Marine Park Indicative Plan.

Recfishwest has expended considerable resources and energy, at our cost, in participating in the development of the Jurien plan. We did so in the hope that the processes, procedures and objectives of marine park planning would be addressed through this process, increasing our comfort that appropriate processes would ensure fair and equitable consideration in future deliberations. Sadly our representative has felt compromised by the process as it developed toward this unsatisfactory draft plan.

PART I RECFISHWEST GENERAL POSITION ON MARINE PARKS

It is appropriate for Recfishwest to clarify its position on marine parks.

We have consistently asked three simple but crucial questions with respect to the proposal, implementation and management of marine parks, particularly those that include exclusion zones as part of the multiple use strategy. Thesequestions are:

1. What are you trying to achieve with the establishment of the marine park?

2. How big does the area have to be to meet these objectives?

3. How will you determine if you have met these objectives?

Recfishwest does not believe that there is the same kind of justification for marine parks as there is for terrestrial parks. Two of the important differences between marine and terrestrial systems are: -

Movement, dispersal or migration from one area to another of biota, nutrients, pollutants and a range of other ecosystem features, is much more likely in marine than terrestrial systems. This means that within a specific area, impacts cannot be easily isolated or identified.

Marine areas are virtually all publicly owned and managed, in contrast to land, which is normally privately owned and managed unless there is intervention by government.

The consequences of these characteristics have a bearing on the relative need for marine parks vis a vis terrestrial parks. On the land it is possible to isolate an area as a park and protect virtually the entire ecosystem which is contained within. In the sea it is inappropriate to protect highly migratory species with straddling stocks such as tuna, for example, in a marine reserve because they are only opportunistically present and will be able to be exploited in the other 99% of the time they are moving throughout their range.

This is not to say that a holistic approach to management is not essential, rather to emphasis the need for very clear purposes for the establishment of reserve areas.

The exclusion of fishing and other extractive activities from discrete areas consequentially requires additional management of the areas not protected. There is increasing evidence from around the world that large exclusion zones, if not accommodated with significant effort reductions, can result in a net overall loss of the sustainability of some species, especially those which are only occasionally resident in the protected areas.

Generally in Western Australia, fisheries are managed sustainably and with the precautionary principle in mind. Given this the general application of prescriptive exclusion zones (such as 30% as proposed by some groups) needs to be critically examined with respect to its potential downstream negative impacts.

The unilateral approach to exclusion zones is therefore likely to compromise the three integral questions for marine parks by not allowing some objectives of sustainability or biodiversity to be met. It is also essential that exclusion zones be seen in appropriate context as but one of a number of management tools for preserving fisheries and other marine systems.

However, despite its belief that marine parks do not have the same justifications as terrestrial parks, Recfishwest recognises that there are some reasons for marine reserves. These include:-

Genuinely unique areas and some other special areas warrant complete protection from exploitation. This can be achieved by marine nature reserve status.

It is desirable to have some areas protected from any disturbance as far as possible for research and monitoring purposes. The community may feel comfortable with some additional protection as part of the physical application of the precautionary principle.

It may be sensible to select representative areas for intensive research, monitoring and management as a preliminary step in the preparation for the proper management of all marine areas. Such areas, and this could include Jurien Bay, could include general purpose zones as well as sanctuary, recreation and other special zones.

Recfishwest strongly supports proper management of marine areas in order to provide adequate protection of biodiversity and marine ecosystems. Recfishwest believes this management should also provide for sustainability of any resource use and equitable sharing of such resources.

Recfishwest does not believe that optimum marine management necessarily depends on marine parks. Instead, it believes that it is important that all marine areas should be properly managed with due and full consideration of the needs of all stakeholders, including conservation interests.

Recfishwest considers it is increasingly important that, as more and more reserves are assessed for implementation, they are fully supported by 'new' monies. We would be very concerned if existing relevant programs are compromised by redirection of funds to support new reserves without sufficient servicing or monitoring of existing reserves. We consider this to be particularly the case if there are any compliance activities deemed to be the responsibility of Fisheries WA.

It is absolutely essential that marine planning outcomes recognise the need for all sectors to be equitably catered for in marine conservation solutions. In this regard, we are concerned that to date there appears little evidence that such equity is being delivered in the Jurien proposal.

In summary, despite the reservations expressed above, Recfishwest is pleased to participate in the planning of marine parks and expects to cooperate constructively in their management. We look forward to more equitable consideration of the needs of the 600,000 recreational fishers in future marine park planning.

PART II RECFISHWEST'S CONCERNS WITH THE JURIEN INDICATIVE PLAN

We wish to express our deep concern that the deliberations of the Advisory Committee process have led, thus far, to outcomes that do not meet the requirements of all stakeholders and that the interests of commercial rock lobster fishers have been allowed to dominate recreational, environmental and scientific interests in the proposed park.

Recfishwest views these outcomes as fundamentally discriminatory in their obvious bias toward the professional Western Rock Lobster fishing interests at the expense of both recreational fishing and broader environmental stakeholders.

Recfishwest is aware of, and concurs with, widespread sentiment that the outcomes were designed not to offend the Rock Lobster industry to ensure that the planning process proceeded without significant industry opposition. In doing so the outcomes are clearly undesirable to all other groups, especially recreational fishing, which has lost much and gained nothing from its ongoing participation in the planning process.

We are further concerned at the inference by CALM staff and others associated with the development of the plan that the zoning is equitable in that recreational rock lobster fishers have access to the scientific reference zones. This argument is specious.

Firstly the majority of recreational fishing in the Jurien region is for fin fish species. This fishing, which is extremely important economically and socially, will now be prohibited from 27% of the proposed park. Recfishwest acknowledges and supports continued beach based fishing in most areas.

Secondly almost all recreational fishing for rock lobsters is in shallow water immediately adjacent to convenient access and population centres due to size of vessel, cost of running and logistics associated with the small number of pots each recreational boat is permitted to use.

The bias to western rock lobster fishing interests appears to stem from the reliance on local community consultation. Recfishwest certainly does not accept that inputs from the local community, whether commercial or recreational users, can be extrapolated to generally represent community attitudes.

In particular the local community is likely to under-represent the broader interested stakeholders from both the adjacent regions and metropolitan area who access the Jurien area. Further, those who do not actually use the Jurien area also have a stake in the park. It will be a resource held in trust for all Australians.

If the aim was to reach an equitable outcome as is implied by the strategic objectives listed at page 2, then the planning process thus far has manifestly failed.

Choice of Jurien Bay/Cervantes for a marine park Recfishwest recognises that the central west coast is a logical place for a marine park. We recognise that the community will not be prepared to fund the amount of research and management that is needed for a marine park in many locations.

This probably means there can be no more such parks between Perth and Geraldton at least until alternative funding sources are provided. From a scientific point of view it might have been better to locate this park around Beagle Islands. It is recognised that the size of the community at Jurien gives the park a higher social focus in that location.

Funding implications

Recfishwest is very concerned that the development and subsequent compliance requirements of the proposed Park need to be funded from 'new' monies, both now and into the long term future. Further, that if there are any costs to be borne by Fisheries WA, then these must be fully recovered by that Agency.

We are further concerned that recreational fishing activities may be seen as a soft funding option to provide management for a park from which they have been inequitably removed from such large areas. Any proposals for recreational access fees, specific mooring fees or boat ramp fees would be extremely cynically viewed by a sector largely incensed at the inequitable treatment of recreation and recreational fishers already.

Layout of the Indicative Management Plan

Recfishwest commends the layout of the management plan in terms of the objectives. It makes it particularly easy to follow the logic of the management prescriptions. It makes it much easier to identify the strengths of the plan and also to identify the weaknesses of the zoning.

Zoning

Recfishwest considers that the zoning plan is totally unsatisfactory for the following reasons:-

• It will not provide sites for scientific study of the impacts of the plan. We will therefore not be able to learn from this marine park unless we change the zoning plan. The areas in which no fishing at all will be allowed (sanctuary) are too small. There will be almost no place in a sanctuary zone that is one kilometre from an area where fishing is allowed. Therefore it will be impossible to look at edge effects on animals of intermediate mobility. The special purpose (scientific reference) zones have sometimes been referred to as "buffer" zones. This is not valid. The buffer effects should be studies within areas that are large enough that the edge effects can be fully measured within the sanctuary as well as outside the zone.

Recfishwest's position should not necessarily be construed as support for significant additional sanctuary zones (unless they explicitly address the concerns in the first of the primary questions with respect to the reason for the establishment of the sanctuary), but rather, criticism that the 'scientific reference zones' are being promoted as fulfilling a scientific purpose rather than politically conceding that the rock lobster fishery should undergo minimum impact.

However, we do acknowledge that sanctuary zones should be large enough to allow a meaningful assessment of their ability to meet the objectives that lead to their establishment.

The zoning is inequitable to different sectors of the fishing community. The recreational dinghy fishing map shows five intensively used areas. Three of these will be entirely or partially precluded from use by no-take zones for finfish. On the other hand, virtually no area used for intensive lobster potting, according to the map of commercial lobster potting, is affected by a no-take zone for rock lobsters.

An unusual and disturbing aspect of the zoning is the absence of recreation zones. Such zones are a feature of virtually all other marine parks. Recreational fishing zones were proposed and existed on several drafts of the plan but were removed and never reinstated, without reference to recreational fishing interests groups and as a result seriously compromised the integrity of the CALM negotiators.

It is absolutely essential, on equity grounds, that meaningful recreational zones are established. What Recfishwest is seeking is an outcome analogous to the Rottnest situation i.e. quality fishing areas which exclude commercial access. This does not mean extensive reservation, however, as most recreational fishers will only fish within a 10km radius of local boat ramps.

The zoning plan for the Park shows large areas of "special purpose (scientific reference) zones". The plan says that the purpose of these zones is to provide large areas where natural processes can be studied free of significant human usage. However, these zones are all open to lobster potting.

The biomass (weight of living material) of rock lobster catch in the area of the proposed Jurien Bay marine park is greater than the biomass of all the other fish catch, recreational and commercial, put together.

Both in catch and in degree of disturbance by dropping pots, this is the most intense fishing in the Park. It can not logically be said that where lobster potting is allowed it is free of significant human impacts.

The values of the zones proposed are not adequately (at all) described. It is very difficult to understand the reasons for most of the boundaries and sites chosen for 'protection'.

For instance the relatively large zone south of Jurien Island point has significant areas of simple sand bottom Ð it would have been helpful to groups such as ours in preparing a responsible response to the proposal to know why a common habitat type is seen to justify exclusion of usage. Indeed, it would also seem that the western boundary of this zone is contrived, we can only assume, to cater to commercial interests Ð otherwise why the substantial indent.

Similarly the Pumpkin Hollow site, which is very exposed to wave disturbance, does not seem, at least at face value interpretation of the map (the only information supplied), to be worthy of special zoning.

An explicit inventory of values for each zone would have avoided confusion. Indeed, in addition to such a statement of intrinsic values, justification as to why the sanctuary zones proposed are the best of the areas available for this level of zoning would be more than useful.

Recfishwest accordingly considers that the proposed zoning is quite unacceptable.

We recommend the following changes as a minimum:-

Although most of the small near shore sanctuary zones could be left as they are, the North Head sanctuary should be reduced by truncating the northern end.

The Grey settlement should have an area south west of the settlement inside the island where people can fish in protected water in small boats, ie. there should be a general purpose zone or recreational zone allowing recreational fishing. On the present plan it is all special purpose (scientific reference) or sanctuary zone. This would restore access to one of the more intensively used recreational dinghy fishing areas. The proposal might be cynically viewed as part of a strategy to remove the settlement of Grey by reducing the amenity values of the area to the extent that it is no longer worth visiting. Most of the special purpose (scientific reference) zones, in particular the relatively large Green Islands zone, should be reduced in size and at least part of these areas changed to sanctuary zones (providing that there is a sound basis for the exclusion of activities for the area). If an area is required for scientific study it must be free from significant disturbance. Catching nearly all rock lobsters in the year they attain a carapace length of 76 mm is a very significant disturbance. The fact that the lobster fishery is sustainable is not the issue. Other fisheries may be sustainable under present or new rules; but no responsible fisher would suggest the area in which they are fished is necessarily free of significant disturbance.

It is essential that the consequential impacts of significant exclusions are managed in close consultation with Fisheries WA so that the creation of sanctuary zones does not compromise the very values they seek to protect.

The zoning would be more balanced if there were small recreation zones close to the main settlements where people go for holidays or retirement. That recreational zones have been deleted from the Indicative Plan is seen by Recfishwest as a major flaw in the plan and may affect the belief of recreational fishers that CALM can objectively assess the needs of this user group for other management areas.

The overall effect of these changes would likely increase the area of sanctuary zones and remedy the problems outlined in section 8.1.3 of the proposal. It would also allow appropriate assessment of the areas and provide a sound basis on which to base future management proposals.

The changes would reduce the area in which there would be some restrictions on fishing but these restrictions would equally apply to all sectors. Although this would cause some inconvenience to traditional commercial rock lobster fishing, it would not be likely to result in a significant reduction in rock lobster catch. There may be some large individual rock lobsters that would stay in the sanctuaries and avoid capture; but they would add significantly to egg production and potentially local recruitment.

Recfishwest considers it unnecessary to expose the inappropriateness of the zoning because it is clearly recognised and described on page 66 of the Plan in 8.1.3.

Further, the flawed underpinning of the zoning outcomes are expressly acknowledged in the principles and assumptions listed at p55 the contradiction between the juxtaposed fourth and fifth points is puzzling to a responsible peak industry body seeking to provide reasonable comment on a plan which appears to embody client capture by commercial fishing interests.

The only part of section 8.1.3 with which Recfishwest disagrees is the statement that research on the impact of rock lobster fishing can be carried out elsewhere. This can only be a last desperate hope.

If this marine park, which is in the centre of the rock lobster fishing area, can not make provision for measuring the impact of lobster fishing, where else will it be possible and effective, unless it is hoped to implement the park but not measure its effectiveness in any meaningful way?

In conclusion, unless substantial changes are made in due course to address our concerns, Recfishwest will have no choice but to actively oppose implementation of the Plan.



This page last updated on 30 December 2003.