Will Burke deliver on marine protected areas?
Dr Margi Prideaux writes: A few weeks ago, the great and the good convened in Nagoya, Japan to deliberate the future of our planet. Perhaps a little melodramatic, but in many ways it’s the truth. This 10th meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was every bit as important as the Climate Change meetings are. After all, the CBD itself is there to protect the genetic resources, ecosystems and species that we depend on for our quality of life and who share this planet with us. We need this protection to be sorted out, because we are devastating biodiversity at an alarming rate.
The compact that came from the meeting was long, and not surprisingly whittled into irrelevance by the incredible detail of negotiation that was applied to every word. The document is so precise, so exacting and limited in what it is prepared to say, it actually says very little. However, there are a few indicators of the direction the global community at least plans to go. One such directive is the new target for marine protected areas, that:
By 2020, at least … 10% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascapes. (CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity for the Period 2011-2020: Target 11)
This is particularly pertinent for Australia because we are in the midst of deciding the level of protection to be applied to a large section of our coastline and offshore areas. The south-east declarations have been completed. Next is the south-west, from the eastern tip of Kangaroo Island to the waters off Shark Bay, then the north-west, the north and finally the east from the northern tip of Cape York to the New South Wales town of Bermagu.
We do this as a nation because pollution, over fishing, species entanglement in nets the destruction of important habitats, and the ecosystem devastation of oil spills are just some of the many threats to Australia’s remarkable marine life. If these threats continue unabated we risk joining the unprecedented global collapse of marine life where two-thirds of the world’s coral reefs are dead or dying and 90% of the world’s large fish have been fished-out.
Last week scientists from the University of Queensland have released a comprehensive and deep study, called Systematic Conservation Planning: A Network of Marine Sanctuaries for the South West Marine Region, gathering the best available scientific data and applying world leading design principles to their recommendations. The report identifies that 50% of the south-west region will need to be protected in a network of marine sanctuaries if the marine life is to remain healthy. For clarity, sanctuaries are areas where extractive uses such as commercial fishing and oil and gas are not allowed. Currently, less than 1% of the south-west region is protected from these threats.
At the same time 44 of Australia’s leading marine and social scientists in support of marine protection have released a consensus statement — “Scientific Principles for Design of Marine Protected Areas in Australia” – as a peer-level guidance on the selection, design, and implementation of marine protected areas. They concur that significant protection is needed.
Earlier this month another study by the University of Queensland provided a damning assessment of the success of Australia’s national parks, marine parks and nature reserves that are failing to adequately protect more than 80% of Australia’s threatened species. Their study detailed how the fundamental aim of securing species most at risk was not being achieved. Yet another recent study by the University of the Sunshine Coast revealed ancient, giant coral reefs found on Australia undersea mountains are being wiped out by trawling on the sea floor confirming the importance of maintaining and extending Australia’s marine protected areas.
Since moving to the Environment portfolio, Minister Tony Burke has said very little publicly about the roll-out of marine protected areas around the country. Perhaps this isn’t surprising given that, in their previous term, Labor dithered on everything marine related except championing whale protection internationally. They inherited a well established, Coalition developed, marine planning process but failed to deliver anything on water, eroding confidence and credibility. Combine this with the unfortunate and poorly informed Liberal and National ‘dog-fish whistles’ to fishers in tinnies during the election and recent history probably gives little confidence to the Minister in his new role.
None-the-less, the timelines still stand, and these decisions are important ones. Indications are that the Minister will make his first and crucial decision for the south-west region soon. A huge variety of fish, sharks, whales and seals live in the south west submerged mountain ranges, deep sea canyons and both cool and tropical coral reefs. These waters provide refuge for the magnificent blue, humpback, and southern right whales, as well as bottlenose, spotted and striped dolphins. All these things matter, but perhaps what matters more is that the level of protection that Minister decides to apply will define the level of protection that will be applied to the rest of Australia’s waters for the next 10 to 20 years.
Tim Nicol from the Conservation Council of Western Australia said that “the federal government now has the scientific evidence it needs to confidently make important decisions about the future health of the oceans and marine life in Australia’s south-west”. Add to this the international consensus and the decision would appear to be a clear cut case. His confidence should be high. If the Minister chooses the side of science he invests in the future. He will also take the first steps towards the largest conservation contribution in Australian history, delivering the biggest network of marine protected areas in the world. If he doesn’t, it will be a once in a lifetime opportunity lost.
Dr Margi Prideaux is an independent specialist in migratory species protection policy & law, with 20 years of marine policy and negotiation background, working with the Australian and international conservation movement. She runs the WildPolitics.net blog.










Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
Hi Margi
This is a very complex issue with many factors to consider I am sure you will agree.
Mine and many other rec anglers main issue is the message being continually pushed to the general public is over simplified for what is a very complex issue.
“Lets put in marine parks and all will be well!”
From a rec anglers point of view constantly hearing doom and gloom and we must save and protect. From what?
I will agree in other parts of the world, fisheries are not in a great state, however the latest report from ABARE 2009 presents a very different picture of our fisheries. This is afterall what we are talking about are we not Australia’s marine environment. http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/fishrp9abc_011/fishrp9abc_0111011a/FishStatusReport2009.pdf
Don’t get me wrong our fisheries are far from perfect, many of our commercial extraction methods are less than ideal, quota systems, licences and bycatch all placing greater pressure on some target and non target species.
Here is a link to a great article that sums it up in my book.
Faith, Conservation and Science
by Bob Kearney Institute of Applied Ecology, University of Canberra
http://www.lovefishing.com.au/blog.php?user=LoveFishing&blogentry_id=170
There is a distinct lack of local science and research, particularly as many of the environmental sites state, “many of our species are unique and only occur in one place” so how can research from the other side of the world be relevant. Why not do the science first and do it properly!
Victoria in point, has no base data for the existing marine parks or new parks proposed by the VNPA and No research conducted on how effective the existing parks have been.
In fact there is evidence to the contrary that some of the existing parks harbour many more introduced marine pests than areas outside the park.
The proposed parks also do not address any of the real issues facing biodiversity such as pollution, runoff, introduced marine pests, etc. Surely addressing these issues first will have far greater benefits than the tact the VNPA are taking “Just stop rec angling and all will be saved”.
No data means No science.
So I say again, if we are going do something, lets do it properly and you will get the backing of everyone. There are many actions that could be taken before marine parks that will have far greater impact. After all we all want the same thing, what’s best for the future.
Cheers
Fishburger
Silly article, really.
For a start, sorry, climate change is a more important issue than biodiversity, mainly because the biggest threat to biodiversity is a changing climate.
Deliver all the national and marine parks you like – make them cover 100% of the planet’s surface – and runaway climate change will still wipe out species by the bucketload.
(OK, maybe a bit of hyperbole there, but given the writer’s general style I think I should be allowed to get away with it!)
And no, it isn’t a once in a lifetime opportunity. If Tony Burke was to knock back any marine park, there’s no reason why the decision couldn’t be revisited by the next government – or even the next Minister – or even the next day.
I tend to agree Zoomster, particularly on the AGW threat to diversity.
I’ve done a lot of bird watching, and once you get a feel for it, you realise a lot of species are hanging on in isolated lumps of particular habitat.
Protecting that habitat only goes so far; if the temperature goes up 2 degrees and that forest (as an example) then dries out and becomes bushfire prone, well then, the protection didn’t do much good did it? Birds like the Bristlebird, 40-spotted pardalote and some of the WA species are just one good fire away from extinction.
Phew, cold hearts zoomster and Eponymous. She’s hasn’t said climate change isn’t important. For my money, I think the buffers of protected areas on land and in the sea are pretty important if we are to survive the times to come. Sure some species are already on the edges, but that doesn’t mean we should act to secure the rest.
And anyway, just when ARE we going to take some tangible action on climate change? At least this is now.
I don’t think Burke will knock the park back as you suggest he might zoomster, but he can make them pathetic and worthless. Comments like your just give him an excuse
Fishburger, couldn’t disagree more. Unless you have a $80,000+ boat, a fish finder, a GPS and some serious tackle it is hard to find a decent fish anywhere near Perth now.
Fisheries reports do not reflect the state of the environment. Just what fisheries scientists think is out there for commercial fishermen to take. If there is 30% of the original population left they consider it underexploited.
There is a massive body of science saying marine sanctuaries work. It’s time to get on with the job and the people who fight saying it is for the future of recfishing haven’t experienced what is happening in WA.
All that said, marine sanctuaries are for conservation, not fisheries, which deserves a place in the oceans too. But I think they need to be added to the mix for the future of fishing too.
PerthBloke,
I can’t comment on your situation in Perth as unfortunately I have never been there and am not entirely familiar with the state of play, but what I can say is what is happening here in Victoria is nothing short of a joke.
Scientific data can be manipulated, collected and Interpreted in many ways, so to say Fisheries reports do not reflect the state of the environment may well be true as environmental reports may not necessarily reflect the true state of a fishery, particularly if funded by a green group with an agenda, such as the Pew foundation.
Under the CAR system, the belief that locking up areas to reduce the pressures of rec angling, thus allowing species deemed to be at risk to better cope with the other pressures placed upon them such as, loss or degradation of habitat, poor water quality from pollution, lack of effective riparian buffer zones adjacent to feeder streams leading into our bays and waterways, nutrient loaded run off from farm land and introduced marine pests.
These have all been shown to be detrimental to mangroves and sea grass beds, biodiversity, fish habitat and success of juvenile species of all types occurring in these areas.
Wouldn’t it be more logical to tackle the major source of the problem and address the above points, before banning rec angling from these areas with no effective scientific studies having been conducted locally?
Surely this would have far a greater beneficial impact than just simply banning fishing alone, or is it just easier to get the bulk of the uninformed population on your side and continue donating, thinking they are doing something good for the environment by financially supporting various fringe environmental groups and voting green.
There was no research conducted prior to the implementation of the last series of marine parks in the bay and no follow up research conducted on the effects of these marine parks since
NO BASE DATA MEANS NO SCIENCE
Most research sited by VPNA in their desk top study comes from other countries where fish numbers and biodiversity levels are far worse than here, extraction methods are different, little or no restrictions are place on fishing or the environment here in Australia where we have a world class fishery. Therefore it cannot and should not be used to measure possible outcomes in our local environment.
A push for local research, an increase in funding for fisheries officers and enforcement and addressing some of the real threats to our marine environment could see us all working together for a better out come for all.
Isn’t that what we all want anyway?
Jacinta Ray
1. I’m not suggesting Burke will knock it back, I’m pointing out the silliness of the article. The writer is the one who infers – with no evidential backing – that this might happen.
2. I don’t see how critiqueing this article will justify a knockback of the proposed marine park. I’m all for marine parks – have seen first hand the impact they have. However, articles like this one, which argue from false premises (e.g. that action on biodiversity is equally important to action on climate change) do the cause no favours.
If scientists are going to put a case for good scientific outcomes they should do so using good substantial arguments, otherwise it’s too easy for non experts like myself to pick holes – and that undermines the credibility they have when it comes to the scientific bits.
zoomster, clearly you weren’t watching the protected areas debate during the last election!
Normally I just watch the debate, but this time I want to pitch in my two cents.
First – the article doesn’t say biodiversity protection is MORE important than climate change. It says: “This 10th meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was every bit as important as the Climate Change meetings are.”
This seems like a fair enough statement to make, given the CBS exists and lots of countries have signed up to it. Clearly they think it’s important too.
Second, even a cursory reading of the documents from CBD meeting show that countries are agreeing to put in place biodiversity conservation, informed by climate change. Protected areas on the land and in the sea are part of that delivery.
And last, has anyone bothered to follow the links provided? If not, are you just ‘blanket’ saying that the work of University of Queensland is unsubstantiated without checking first? The author isn’t suggesting ownership of these reports – just sighting what’s been released.
Seems to me a few comments got stuck on some ‘pet peeves’, rather than actually reading what has been said.
Fishburger, with respect, in WA having no large marine sanctuaries in the SW is why we have no science on them. Many scientists, including in the fisheries department and in independent advice to the fisheries department are recommending them for fisheries management (that is a different argument than for conservation which we mustn’t forget is the primary reason for sanctuaries, but isn’t disputed and marine scientists are calling for sanctuaries for conservation too), but we still have no movement. The future of our fishing and environment is at stake.
I’ve no problem with tackling all threats to fish stocks. Pollution is a big problem, but so is fishing. Where is the logic in only tackling pollution and not fishing? That is a circular argument, need to tackle both.
Fisheries science based management has seriously reduced our fish stocks in WA well below historical levels and they are now close to a critical state, if not critical already. There is not enough science on the impacts of fishing to really know anything other than that the situation is bad, getting worse, and poorly understood. Reducing stocks to 30% as fisheries science recommends is not appropriate management for our slow growing old fish in WA. Many don’t breed till they are decades old.
Once we’ve got some sanctuaries, then we can start doing some science. I hope you are also pushing for the Vic Government to do some quality science on the sanctuaries there to see if they are helping with fisheries and conservation, or not. I’d be suprised if there wasn’t some benefits, there are benefits everywhere else they have been studied. I do agree they need to fund some science though.
Ray Hilborn has some interesting thoughts on World Fisheries and Walter Stark on Marine Parks. Both of these scientists have no affiliations with Pew, Greens or Governments. Funny how scientists find for the hand that feeds them. Lots of emotive language and reports that don’t identify the areas and who fishes them (University of the Sunshine Coast recent study).
Moreton Bay Marine Park closed off areas to trawl and fishing that have been fished for generations. Commercial Fishing wouldn’t have lasted all this time if the fishermen weren’t doing something right.
Lots of green groups are jumping on the bandwagon and need your dollar and your vote, Anyone watched “Wag the Dog”? Being a green group is big business these days.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.