Download what`s the problem with australia`s marine conservation?

WHAT’S THE PROBLEM WITH
AUSTRALIA’S MARINE CONSERVATION?
At present, no need for or benefit from, proposed Marine Protected Areas has
been shown to exist.
FACTS ABOUT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, MARINE CONSERVATION AND FISHERIES
MANAGEMENT:
No marine species in Australia are threatened with extinction by fishing.
No reduction in marine biodiversity from fishing has been documented in Australia.
Australia has the largest per capita fishing zone and lowest fisheries harvest rate in the
world at about 1/30th of the global average.
Most Coral Sea islands and reefs are already protected as national parks.
All Coral Sea fisheries are already subject to highly restrictive fisheries management.
The existing GBR National Park already affords protection of all Coral Sea species and
biotopes in the world’s largest coral reef Marine Protected Area.
Well managed reefs can sustain an average harvest rate of 15,000 Kg/Km²/yr. The average
harvest rate for the GBR is 9Kg/Km2/yr.
70% of seafood consumed in Australia is imported. All of the imports come from more
heavily exploited fisheries with less environmental control than Australia.
Fisheries have the lowest detrimental impact on natural ecosystems of any food producing
sector. Reducing seafood consumption increases environmental impact.
Vast increases in proposed Marine Protected Areas with ‘no-take’ zones will force higher
imports of seafood from poorly regulated overseas fisheries increasing the global marine
environmental impact.
Having most of the world’s Marine Protected Area where it is unneeded does nothing to
preserve global marine biodiversity.
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM AUSTRALIA IS TRYING TO FIX?
The proposals for vast Marine Parks in Australian waters to protect marine biodiversity are a solution
in search of a problem.
In Australia no marine species is threatened with extinction from fishing, nor has any loss of marine
biodiversity from commercial fishing ever been documented. The proposals are to protect vast
areas in case a yet to be determined problem arises sometime in the future.
A total ban on fishing is proposed without any species being threatened by fishing. Highly restrictive
‘protection’ via marine parks is proposed for areas in pristine condition.
Given resource constraints and management costs of protected areas and other real demonstrated
terrestrial environmental problems it would be far better to direct environmental efforts to areas of
demonstrated need.
Australia is currently well endowed with Marine Protected Areas having 25% of the global total.
Planned increases will mean Australia alone will encompass about half of the total MPA’s in the
world. At present, no need for or benefit from, extensive MPA’s has been shown to exist.
Global marine biodiversity conservation will not be achieved by establishing half of the world’s
Marine Protected Areas in Australia where they are least needed.
The real current problem is fisheries over-management, restricting the utilisation of an abundant
renewable resource and thereby adding to environmental impacts of food production elsewhere.
The proposals for vast new MPA’s are in conflict with the defined meaning of sustainability.
WHO IS TRYING TO FIX THE NON-PROBLEM?
The Pew Foundation, a large U.S. based environment group is intent on marine protection – whether
local communities want it or not. The U.S. government’s refusal to sign the Convention on Biological
Diversity and therefore not commit to an active program of marine reserves has driven Pew
campaigners to look for other countries to agree to the imposition of their values.
The Australian Marine Conservation Society, WWF and ACF offer no solutions for Australia becoming
self-sufficient in seafood to reduce environmental impacts elsewhere.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority stands to gain a massive increase in budget and
influence if the Coral Sea MPA is declared with no demonstrated net benefit gained by the Australian
community.
Almost no locals or users of the area have agitated for increased protection or management, which
is typical of these types of campaigns that are driven by outside interests trying to impose their
values.
WHO WILL PAY AND WHAT WILL IT COST?
The global marine environment will bear the heaviest burden through transferring Australian
consumer’s impact to over-exploited and under-regulated fisheries elsewhere.
Australian terrestrial environments will suffer the added impacts of the increased need for food
production. Livestock production and cropping is recognised as having much more impact on the
environment than low-impact seafood harvesting.
Declining allowable catch of Australian wild-caught seafood will either increase pressure on
terrestrial food production or add to the $1.7 billion deficit in seafood imports to satisfy Australian
household’s desire for seafood.
The CSIRO forecasts Australian demand for seafood will increase by 400% in the next 15 years. We
already import 70% of all seafood consumed in Australia. All of our imports come from more heavily
exploited fisheries.
Local fishing, both commercial and recreational will be denied access and sustainable utilisation.
Local economies will suffer the multiplier effects of the above. 28 businesses supplying marine
services in Queensland have closed in recent times with the uncertainty of this marine planning
process a contributing factor. Cairns alone has seen a reduction in fishing boats from over 500 in the
1970’s to the present few dozen.
It was predicted the Australian taxpayer would pay $10 million for the last round of marine
restrictions. The process is not yet completed and the cost has exceeded $200 million. Taxpayers
are paying compensation to close down a viable primary industry that does not want to close and
which is making a worthwhile contribution to sustainable food production and our regional
economies.
Taxpayers will bear the cost of increased management and protection for very large marine reserves
that are currently rarely visited due to remoteness and will no longer provide a contribution to our
seafood needs.
Local communities will bear the direct costs of restrictions for the benefit of those with no
investment in local communities, the local economy or local jobs. The primary ‘beneficiaries’ of
change, who will pay no direct costs, live in places like New York, Melbourne and Sydney.
THE REAL SOLUTION TO THE REAL PROBLEM:
The real problem is global marine protection and implementation of global sustainable yield.
Australia’s marine ‘conservation problem’ is over-regulation that suppresses Australia’s sustainable
yield of seafood, thereby adding to global environmental impacts from over fishing and pressure to
produce more food from less environmentally friendly means of terrestrial food production.
Australian fisheries management needs to shift its focus from reducing yield to increasing yield
within sustainable limits.
The solution that Australia can contribute is to reduce our importation of seafood, all of which is
produced from more heavily exploited poorly regulated fisheries overseas and provide a model of
world’s best practice sustainable seafood harvesting that reduces the global environmental impact.
Australia can add value to marine conservation by basing decisions on empirical data, not predictive
modelling and yet to be determined imaginary threats sometime in the future.
The crux of sustainability is to provide for current generations needs without compromising the
needs of future generations. The current proposals reverse this rationale.