Archived page, Submission on The review of the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority, the Marine Parks and Reserves Scientific Advisory Committee and the Conservation Commission of Western Australia

Submitted 20 Jan 2003

Recfishwest's submission will basically limit comment to the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority (MPRA). The Scientific Advisory Committee is really an appendage of the MPRA. Recfishwest does not have specific knowledge of its performance but sees no need for a statutory basis for such a function.

Recfishwest has limited specific knowledge of the current performance of the Conservation Commission. We do, however, strongly support the existence of an effective independent, community-based, statutory body to give the community confidence in the vesting and oversight of the State's conservation estate. The problem with the National Parks and Nature Conservation Authority was that it lacked resources and independence from CALM. We will be looking for the Conservation Commission to have a higher public profile, greater resources and show more leadership by the time it is due for its five-year review.

Recfishwest believes that the MPRA is part of an ineffective process for ensuring marine conservation and establishing marine reserves in Western Australia. Evidence for this is: -

• There is no integrated marine conservation strategy in Western Australia equivalent to the Commonwealth system under the National Ocean's Office.

• There have been no new marine parks established under the MPRA

• The Jurien planning process was completed 3.5 years ago - there is still no park and two of the three main stakeholder groups (Conservation Council of WA and Recfishwest} have been thoroughly alienated as a result of the Jurien Bay process.

• The Barrow and Monte Bello Islands Reserve Advisory Committee completed their planning quickly and with consensus but nothing further has happened 12 months later.

• Dampier Archipelago Marine Park was gutted before the planning process really began by the removal of a large part of its central Port Authority area.

Recfishwest considers that this is sufficient evidence that the process has failed. The next issue is whether the MPRA is wholly or partly to blame for this failure.

There can be no doubt that the dual CALM and Fisheries legislation creates problems by leaving overlapping responsibilities for marine conservation between two Departments. However, the MPRA does not appear to have tried, as an independent statutory authority, to resolve these problems. Rather it has tried to pursue its own agenda of a chain of marine reserves based on the Wilson report without regard for public concerns, rapidly evolving community and scientific opinions, or the problems of providing resources for such a system

• The MPRA has not taken initiatives, such as a joint meeting with a park advisory committee, to resolve problems (the NPNCA did this during the Fitzgerald NP process and during the Leeuwin Naturaliste NP planning process).

• Although the Act gives the MPRA the task "To preserve the natural marine and estuarine environments of the State" under Section 26B(b) (i), it appears to have addressed marine conservation only through attempts to establish new marine reserves.

Recfishwest is of the opinion that the MPRA has not done all that might have been expected of it in pursuit of Section 26B(b)(i) of the Act.

Recfishwest believes that there are two major interconnected problems for marine conservation in Western Australia:-

1. There are two agencies carrying responsibility for marine conservation in WA, the Department of Fisheries and CALM, and their activities appear not to be coordinated or carried out cooperatively. Their roles with respect to each other are not clearly defined and this can provide fertile ground for defensive attitudes and personality problems.

2. The Department of Fisheries are concerned with (sustainable) management of virtually all marine biota as well as having responsibilities for area protection through Fish Habitat Protection Areas. CALM, which comes under the conservation portfolio, can only implement a marine conservation strategy through marine reserves.

This means that CALM cannot provide a balanced approach to marine conservation because it does not itself have a broad marine management responsibility and it does not appear to have a close working relationship with the Department of Fisheries. This has led to virtually sole emphasis on reservation of areas listed in the Wilson Report.

Western Australia needs a new approach to marine conservation. Pursuit of the Wilson Report would concentrate virtually all the resources available for marine conservation on a relatively small proportion of the marine and estuarine area ignoring the values, threats and management needs of the rest. Experience so far has also demonstrated that the process is hopelessly slow and it has elicited divisive attitudes from stakeholders, including those who might be expected to philosophically support further marine conservation.

Recfishwest has prepared a paper on the need for a different approach to marine conservation and a copy is attached. The process suggested by Recfishwest is to look at all the State's marine area on a regional basis and use a combination of tools including traditional fishery management as well as marine protected areas to achieve the objectives. In general terms this is the approach used by the Commonwealth (see www.oceans.gov.au).

Recfishwest believes, for the reasons given above, that the MPRA as presently constituted is not a useful instrument for pursuing marine conservation in WA.

In the absence of major changes in legislation and Departmental responsibilities, Recfishwest believes that the most useful approach would be that there should be a Cabinet Marine Committee. This would achieve its objectives by establishing and overseeing a Marine Interdepartmental Committee. As well as ensuring coordination in other marine responsibilities, this committee would oversee a Marine Conservation Strategy for WA. The Marine Interdepartmental Committee would have to meet at least monthly and would have to include the Chief Executive Officer's of Fisheries and CALM.

The Marine Conservation Strategy should involve formal stakeholder consultation and some body, like the MPRA, would have to exist to provide a continuing forum for stakeholder and independent expert input. However the tasks and approach would have to be different and much more inclusive for this proposed "marine conservation advisory committee" than that pursued by the MPRA.



This page last updated January 2003.