Please change thread title to 'marine park rant' 

Being on the other side of the world for the last while I havent caught much of this in the news, but after checking the link below, it sounds like only the green areas on the map are closed to recreational fishos. Is this correct and is the map above accurate? 

If so then im wondering what all the fuss is about. I saw this post this morning and thought it would be packed with replies by this evening. Is there something im not seeing, besides the whole "thin edge of the wedge" argument?

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/reserves/activities.html 

Cheers

the fact that once thse zones are in they will only expand! the green zones are just the start! its the fact that we have massivly tight rules so our fish stock stay in good shape! our fisheries are very well managed so why lock up waters and put heavier pressure on the open waters! its about science? these zones have been just drawn on the map! and most dont have any reason to close them! the green zone out from rottnest is going to be a no go zone for rec fisheres because we may make too much noise for the blue whales yet the navy has been playing war games there for years blowing crap up! its about our rights!

 can someone post on what the colours/hatchings actualy allow? as in fishing rod and reel, spear fishing, diving or fishing rod/reel , no spear fishing, or diving only,

from looking at the commonwealth link above it says that recreational fisher man is allowed everywhere? 

so if there is someone out there who knows rules could they please post cause I'm scratching my head here

So its the fact that:

1) They will expand in the future

2) There is debate about the science and need for them

Well I dont know about the science and evidence side of this, so ill stay out of that. As for tight rules and regs, yea I agree but I can kinda understand why with increasing population and more people fishing regs need to be increased often.

Personally I have no issues with the marine parks as shown above. Ill get involved when they propose to increase the size to a point that seems unreasonable. Trying to stop it now because one day they may get bigger doesnt seem necessary.

Cheers

Can anyone provide any actual scientific, or even moral, justification for closing part of the Rottnest Trench for fishing?

It's not to protect whales, they are already 100% protected, it's not to protect fish, and it's not to protect the habitat.

Similar story in the Coral Sea, at Geographe Bay and off the back of Legendre Island.

It's purely to appease green pressure groups. Is this a good precedent for locking anglers out? Are we wise to restrict our access to our own fish when we alread import 70% of our seafood?

The green groups have openly said this is just the beginning.

Personally, this will not affect my fishing at all - I very rarely go to the spots mentioned and have heaps of opportunity to go elsewhere for a fish.

However, I will fight against you having your rights to fish taken away for no good reason.

If you enjoy fishing, it's sustainable and not harmful for the environment and doesn't affect other people, I have a real issue with that right being reduced because of the ideological opposition of a vocal minority.

That others are OK with the insidious reduction of their rights on a political whim really surprises me...

Spook,

maybe you could elaborate on the number of fish species that have gone extinct vs the number of terrestrial species that have gone extinct (even with protection from National Parks) - from what I know - no fish species has become extinct due to fishing pressure.

Like Scotty said - it's a completely irriational set of measures - and has very little to do with the sustainable use of 'OUR' resource

The map posted above is a large scae map that doesnt show the areas closed to fishing at popular recreational fishing areas such as Geographe bay, Mindarie and teh northern head of the Rottnest trench.

Better maps can be viewed here:

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/reserves/sw-region.html

At the end of the day though, this is only the beggining.

Green groups have promised to push for more lock outs of recreational fishing. This will, in time, have a severe impact on our rights to access OUR fish stocks.

Recreational fishing should be encouraged by our government for its health and well being benefits, not discouraged to appease foreign funded green groups.

DONT LOCK US OUT!

Well said Matt! :)

These zones have been specificaly drawn to close the very area's where we the rec. fisherperson normally have a fish.

And making criminals out of law abiding fishermen and women.

The commercial fisheries of deepsea long lining and dragging huge nets for prawns and every thing else called killed bycatch, esp. in the exmouth area, have not been touched.

The exmouth gulf area is the fish hatchery and has been destroyed by ploughing the whole bottom.

Used to be full of mullet, big prawns and all sort of other fish species who have been eradicated

This together with the sediment on the coral reefs has had a devastating effect and killed the coral strcuture with a chocking silt deposits.

Kailis and the other operators have a lot to awnser for in this marine ecological disaster.

This link might provide some clarity for us rec fishers:

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/reserves/activities.html#recfishers

 just had a look at Perfish link says a lot of fishing ground there.

I dont mind not being able to access some areas.

They need to observe and study it though to be purposeful. It is going to take more than a couple of years though. More like 10,s of years to see much of a change in that particular area.

The other bonus is that it keeps out big companies dropping oil and gas platforms all over the place which in my eyes is far more beneficial for the future.

They do need to have a look at the overall picture and take into account of everything effecting it. No one simple answer is going to fix the 'so called problem'.

And just because the greens said 'they were going to lock up more and more area', doesnt mean it is going to happen!!!

I could "rant over this for quite a while but I keep it to a few simple points.

1. What are the main threats to our marine enviorment. 

Answer =  Introduced species (mainly coming in in foreign ships ballast water) and run off from the land.

2. What will making a marine reserve or no take zones do about the above problems

Answer = nothing.

3. Who is pushing the barrow for these measures

Answer = green groups such as PEW and WWF.

4. what are their aims

Answer = ban fishing

To cap it off I'll leave you with these snippets from USA PEW spokesperson Lee Crocket

"The US-based anti-fishing organisation Pew has admitted it pressured the Australian Government to lock anglers out of vast areas of the Coral Sea but would not take the same action in American waters because it would harm the US economy and disadvantage local fishermen.

In a letter published in the August edition of the US-based Sport Fishing magazine, Pew director of federal fisheries policy Lee Crockett said closing American waters to fishing "wouldn't make sense – for fishing enthusiasts or the environment".

SO IF LOCKING OUT ANGLERS IN THE USA DOESN"T MAKE SENSE FOR THE ENVIORMENT OR FISHING ENTHUSIASTS AND IT WOULD HARM THE US ECONOMY WHY ARE WE ALLOWING THEM TO DO THE EXACT SAME THING HERE????????????

And they are already pushing for larger zones and have been since the conception of this whole mess..

P.S. these zones do not stop or disallow exploration of oil and other mining activities.

of zones, their purpose and who can and cant use these areas gas and oil exploration is one of them!! You only state 1 threat to our marine environment. I can think of 100 off the top of my head. The people who are pushing this really do have to state why they are doing this and what they hope to achieve.

Instead of carrying on like a bunch of spoilt kids who cant have a lolly, why arent we as anglers asking for some type of compensation in the way of artificial reefs and wrecks???

So how do we get that idea into the pipeworks???

As part of the Artificial Reefs proposed for Geographe Bay we had some Korean divers look for suitable sites to put them on and they were astounded at the ammount of unproductive areas we have in the bay where there was virtually no fish at all and their statement was " deserts on the land and deserts in the sea."The sanctuary Zones are established on habitat that is known to have populations of fish on them and I don't buy the argument that the Greenies put out that the fish will move into these deserts for us to be able to catch. If that was so the fish would already be there and we as fisherman both Commercial and Recreational are expected to be satisfied with fishing the deserts. We've got to fight the Federal Governments latest plan for  Marine Parks or else pack the fishing gear in the corner of the shed and forget about it and isn't that exactly what the Greenies want us to do.It's time to get down and dirty and kick the Federal Govt. and the greens in the arse once and for all and do it big time so they get the message. I don't get offended with the comments from people like spook or others basically because they don't know what they're talking about that go's for Tony Burke as well.

Grab a few shopping trolleys...........

I just a received a call from the World Wildlife Find donation contractor to up date my wifes details, lies, more like being her husband I dont want to tell you Im going to ask her for more money. Yes, there is possibly a divorce this afternoon over this but either way there is going to be a big fight, expecially since we are on a do not call list.

Ok, so after having a look at this whole Marine Park saga I have found what all the fuss is about.

This has all been done under the pressure of the anti-fishing lobby.

More than likely a deal to let say a gas project go through. Or a strategy to negate votes from an opposition at the next election.

It has been found only a small percentage of fish benefit from the park closures. WWF wont even come out with the science they are using because its all bullshit.

Just wait till the WA Labor government gets through and rolls out the next lot of closures. Apparentley theres more closures coming to motor cross riders as well.

If you think it will stop, your a bit nieve. This is just the start.

Its ok youll be some greenies bitch in future years looking at your children wondering... Locked out in your own country; for what?.

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/pew-admits-it-targeted-australia-for-lockouts-left-us-alone

Its about attracting political party donations

When you hear Tony Burke saying he's locking up part of the Rottnest Trench

Tony Burke was a member of the WWF.

Tony Burke has put a Pygmy Whale closure at the Rottnest trench where the navy submarines with their sonar pass through. This is where all the container ships pass through. Its where all the World War two junk was dumped, its a ruibbish tip.

Whales are fully protected in Australian waters.

That is how frickin dumb this bitch is.

If the polls are dodgy - how freakin dodgy is the science

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/pew-linked-to-dodgy-marine-parks-poll

Its ok, roll over like a little puppy dog

So what are the chances of this proposal actually going through??

Proposals come and go and often do get changed after a period of hysteria.  I do worry though that we seem to be quick to focus on the lunacy on the other side of the argument when we may have to do some rethinking ourselves. Totally agree there needs to be a better understanding of the real benefits of sanctuaries before we lock away large areas but, will we be receptive if we don't like the answers?  I have no doubt there are some loopy greens out there; we just need to guard against being equally unreasonable.  A bit of enlightened self interest would go a long way.

Totally agree there needs to be a better understanding of the real benefits of sanctuaries before we lock away large areas but, will we be receptive if we don't like the answers?

The bloke that come with the concept now says he was wrong. Further science wont be released by Green groups because they know it is the lesser solution and developed by 'their' scientists.

Dont be fooled, they are trying to fool you

This is you current situation

bag limits, trip limits, possession limits, 3 month season closures, spawning closures, TAG TACs, boat fishing licence, upper size limits, lower size limits, spawning closures,large closed areas already

really, its getting bloody ridiculous

So with what everyone is saying it sounds like we dont need any protected marine areas. I still want to fish and my kids to fish, if we do nothing then can you say that in 20 years there is going to be the same amount of fish than today?
To the "dont know what im talking about" comments, my opinion is just as good as yours.
If they dont put any of these protected areas in can they put oil rigs wherever they like?
Those ocean deserts you talk about, they're from over fishing? pollution? or always that way? not being sarcastic.

Spook, I think you need to read this again

This is you current situation

bag limits, trip limits, possession limits, 3 month season closures, spawning closures, TAG TACs, boat fishing licence, upper size limits, lower size limits, spawning closures,large closed areas already

We are way way out in front of the rest of the world - it will be a while before we need to take any unnecessary drastic measures

A quick search shows 1650 journal articles on the benefits of marine sanctuaries 

Just of few of interest from the first page

Roberts, Callum M; Bohnsack, James A; Gell, Fiona; Hawkins, Julie P; Goodridge, Renata.Science294. 5548 (Nov 30, 2001): 1920-3.

Thailand supplies 25 per cent of our imports from an EEZ that is 5 per cent the size of Australia’s from a wild caught catch that is 11 times greater than the total Australian catch. Australian fishermen annually harvest much less than 1000 tonnes of yellowfin tuna from the Coral Sea while in the adjoining waters PNG licenses Asian fishermen to harvest 750,000 tonnes of which we then import $165 million as canned tuna. We protect our fish for Asian fishermen to catch and sell back to us. <img>http://fishwrecked.com/files/images/EEZ-wildcatch.jpg</img>

 Density and size of reef fishes in and around a temperate marine reserve

Matt Kleczkowski A B, Russ C. Babcock A, Geordie Clapin A 

The effects of marine reserve protection on the density, size, biomass, sex-ratio and overall assemblage structure of reef fishes were investigated at Kingston Reef Sanctuary, Rottnest Island, Western Australia. Significant trends in response to reserve protection were found for two species of top predators and several serially protogynous labrid species. The relative density and biomass of the heavily targeted Glaucosoma hebraicum was 10 and five times greater within the sanctuary respectively. Similarly, the biomass of the serranid, Epinephelides armatus, was 3.2 times greater in the sanctuary, although this difference was owing to a greater mean length not relative density. The male : female sex ratio for the labrid, Ophthalmolepis lineolatus, was significantly different between sanctuary and non-sanctuary sites, with the density of male O. lineolatus significantly greater within the sanctuary. Rottnest Island waters are largely restricted to recreational fishing, therefore these results suggest that a range of fish species around Rottnest Island are affected by recreational fishing, and that these effects are found in taxa beyond the primary target species. The patterns in the effects on bycatch species suggest that fishing-related mortality may be exerting a greater control on these populations than that exerted by natural predation.

Im probably not right and your probably not wrong.

Fisheries Management Paper 169, WA Department of Fisheries" - Marine habitats, and therefore a large proportion of the biodiversity in WA waters, are highly protected from negative fishery impacts compared to nearly all other locations in the world... There are few fish stocks in WA with reduced spawning biomass levels where general no-take areas would lead to increased recruitment levels of their juveniles.... There is a rational basis to support the establishment of marine sanctuary areas where they have clear, measurable objectives that relate to achievable benefits for tourism, biodiversity, research and other ‘no-take’ outcomes. There is, however, little scientific basis within the WA context to support their justification where they are proposed as a precaution against undefined ‘bad practices’ in the management of fisheries.

 The effectiveness of sanctuaries as a management tool is dependent on how you look at the ecosystem and the range of problems that need to be managed within it.  They are not the ultimate cure all for managing a fishery – clearly bag limits, habitat protection among other things all need to be considered.   No point talking about pelagic fish in this discussion as we all know sanctuaries will have bugger all impact.  It will be in resident fish species (and other less migratory marine life) that the benefits will be seen most.  In a nut shell that’s what a lot of the research actually says. 

 Is that a cure all?  Definitely not but I can see how it would be considered a small part of a balanced approached to managing the resource.  Have they got the balance right?  Arguably they haven’t but then again, I don’t think all fishermen do either.     

But half of this problem is about the definitions of terms thrown around by politicians, the green brigade and also by us fishers, divers etc.

If someone uses the term 'Over-fished', it is important to note that this is a definable term and thus correct usage of the terminology is vitally important. See page five for what I mean.

AUSTRALIAN SEAFOOD CONSUMERS MISLED BY PROPHETS OF
DOOM AND GLOOM
DR RAY HILBORN
Professor of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences,
University of Washington
&
DR BOB KEARNEY (AM)
Emeritus Professor in Fisheries Management,
University of Canberra
Embargoed: 1pm Wednesday, 29 February 2012
2 | P a g e
Global situation
There is much gloom and doom in Australia and around the world about the sustainability of fisheries. Perhaps the best known example and that most commonly used by those who wish to demonise fishing is the prediction that all commercial fish stocks could be collapsed by 2048 (Worm et al. 2006). A similar message has been portrayed by claims that all the large fish of the ocean were seriously depleted by 2003 (Myers and Worm) and that we are fishing down aquatic food chains to the extent that soon all that will be left will be jelly fish (Pauly et al. 1988).
Each of these pessimistic views of the world has been shown to be wrong. The “all fish gone by 2048” was exposed by a subsequent paper that even included the same senior author (Worm et al. 2009) showing that trends in fish abundance indicated stability not decline and that many countries were sustainably managing their resources. The claim of the demise of high seas tuna stocks reported in Myers and Worm (2003) was shown to be wrong by almost a dozen follow up papers tracking the abundance of tuna stocks around the world, which with the exception of bluefin tuna are in, or above, the range of abundance that supports maximum sustainable yield. (Juan-Jorda et al. 2011). All of the key aspects of “fishing down food chains” have been shown to be wrong; large fish are not all more valuable than small fish, we do not begin catching large fish and move down the food chain, and the mean trophic level of the world catch is rising, not falling (Branch et al. 2010, Sethi et a. 2010).
Australia was recently subjected to the extreme unscientific pessimism about the state of the world’s fisheries by Sylvia Earle, including her support for the discredited prediction of the elimination of all fishing by 2050. To support this, and other ridiculous assertions, such as the world needs to stop eating all tuna, she claimed in December 2011, “On land we are maintaining the wildlife – by the mid-century we will see extinction of fish and seafood”. The facts are remarkably different: According to the List of Threatened Species under the EPBC Act (20/2/2012), Australia already has 27 species of terrestrial mammals, 23 birds and four frogs extinct but not a single extinction of a species of marine fish. Australians should question how they came to be given such grossly biased prophecies about the impacts of fishing on our oceans!
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that the percentage of the world’s fish stocks that are at or above target abundance levels is more than twice that of those below target (FAO 2010). Most importantly the distribution of areas where stocks are overexploited is not uniform and many countries have few fisheries management problems (Figure 1).
3 | P a g e
Figure 1. Global distribution of fisheries management sustainability. (Figure 3G from Mora et al.)
There have been some very serious problems with overfishing around the world, and some of them are continuing. But the global picture provides three fundamental messages; the problems are not universal, they are not uniformly distributed and the overly pessimistic view is simply not relevant to Australia. In fact Australians have excellent reasons to have faith in their fisheries management and to consume Australian seafood with confidence and enthusiasm.
Australian fisheries are sustainably managed
Australia has a great record for improving the management of its marine fisheries. Figure 2 shows the proportion of stocks not subject to overfishing (where the level of fishing is below or within the target range to produce sustainable fisheries, in red), and not in an overfished condition (the abundance of fish is above or within the desired target range, in blue). The great majority of fished stocks are in very good shape and, even more importantly for long-term sustainability, the situation continues to improve.
4 | P a g e
Figure 2. Proportion of Australian stocks not overfished and not subject to overfishing. Data from table 1.3 of Commonwealth Fisheries Status report (Woodhams et al., 2011).
Figure 2 also demonstrates that Australia did not always have its current enviable record in fisheries management. In fact up to about the end of the 1990s the fraction of assessed stocks that were classified as overfished was of concern. The number of overfished stocks was increasing and overfishing of even depleted stocks was continuing. Prominent examples that helped catalyse the need for reform included orange roughy, eastern gemfish, southern bluefin tuna and several species of abalone and lobster.
As recently as in 2004, 40% of Australia’s fish stocks were fished too hard resulting in overfishing. Figure 2 demonstrates that Australia addressed the generic overfishing problem forcefully, particularly in the period 2004-2006, and as a result the percentage of stocks that are recovering continues to increase. By 2006, overfishing had been eliminated in all but 10% of the stocks, and as a result the number of stocks assessed to be no longer in an overfished state increased to 85% by 2010; an extremely impressive performance for any form of natural resource management. In fact the rapid recovery of the status of Australia’s exploited fish stocks highlights the fundamental effectiveness of commitment to traditional fisheries management (in this case catch and effort controls) compared to attempts to recover terrestrial systems that have been impacted by urban development, mining or agriculture.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%2004200520062007200820092010not overfishednot overfishing
5 | P a g e
Some problems with definitions
There are two commonly used reference points in the regulation of fisheries in the interests of sustainability. First is when the biomass of stocks is so low that the long-term sustainable yield has been reduced – this is called “overfished.” The second is when the fishing pressure is so high that the long-term sustainable yield will be reduced if fishing continues at this level, this is called “overfishing. As undesirable as overfishing is it should not be over-dramatised; stocks that are overfished or subject to even moderate overfishing are still usually biologically sustainable with no immediate threat to the survival of the species (there has never been a species of fished confirmed to have been fished to extinction, and certainly not in Australia). In fact fishing levels that technically constitute “overfishing” can be deliberately employed on underexploited stocks for controlled periods with the intended result of reducing a stock to target levels where surplus production and long-term sustainable yields are estimated to be maximized. Stocks can sometimes remain at lower than desired abundance (technically ‘overfished’) for generations, and still recover under improved fisheries management, as demonstrated by Figure 2. During their period of low abundance reduced catches can often still be sustainable; the yield from the fishery is simply less than it could have been.
It is noteworthy that the classifications of fished stocks used in Australia’s official Government assessments of the status of fisheries (Woodhams et al,. 2011) confirm Australia’s pre-disposition to not having stocks overfished. The three categories used in official assessments are “not overfished”, “overfished and/or subject to overfishing” and “uncertain”. ‘Under-fished’ or ‘under-utilised’ are not prominent categories in Australia’s assessments and underutilized stocks are merely given the ‘green light’ of “not overfished”. This complete concentration on the regulatory side of fisheries management, at the expense of drawing attention to new fishery development opportunities, is surprising for a country with such a huge EEZ but a dependence on imports for the bulk of its seafood (discussed below). It reflects the failure by fisheries and marine environmental managers to adjust policies to recognize the successes of traditional fisheries management in Australia and develop new fisheries, not further restrict existing ones.
Relevant international comparisons
In contrast to Australia’s impressive record in fisheries management roughly half of European stocks are still overfished and subject to overfishing. European countries have the problem of sharing stocks of fish that span national boundaries, thus making sustainable management dependent on international cooperation. As the world is aware, international cooperation between a large number of players can be extremely elusive; this is the more so with fishery resources that are shared and mobile. In the absence of binding and enforced agreements for shared stocks the ‘tragedy of the commons’ (Hardin 1968) is difficult to avoid, even for the world’s most developed democracies. Australia, as an island, has individual control of most of its fisheries resources and very few stocks for which international cooperation is imperative. Australia does not have exclusive control of highly migratory tuna species and for one of these, southern bluefin
6 | P a g e
tuna (SBT), the difficulties of ensuring sustainable harvests are apparent. Current biomass estimates for SBT are between 3% and 8% of un-fished levels, approximately one sixth of the level that would classify the species as overfished in Australia and trigger mandatory recovery action. Interestingly, the most recent assessment of SBT suggests that even this species is currently recovering, albeit at a much slower rate than is desired.
Many developing countries do not have the governance systems nor the political imperative to manage all fisheries in the interests of long-term sustainability. This is particularly the case for those developing countries where there is intense pressure on fish stocks from local communities for short-term subsistence. In such situations strict effort and catch controls to achieve maximum long-term sustainable harvests of heavily fished species would restrict and redistribute total short-term yields. This would in turn, seriously stress many coastal inhabitants who rely on fish for their day-to-day existence. Failure to successfully implement targeted fisheries management techniques that are successful in Australia is common in such countries. As a result the reported successes in such countries of less specific and less efficient forms of management, such as closures of areas to all forms of fishing, should not be considered relevant to Australia.
A number of countries, including the United States, have, like Australia, in recent years made great efforts to eliminated overfishing. As a result the USA has many fisheries recovering. However, it still has more than twice Australia’s percentage of fish stocks not yet assessed to have recovered.
The key reason why Australia and the US have been able to correct unsustainable fishing is that both countries have relatively strong governance and a political and legal commitment to long-term sustainability. Action is underpinned by a legal framework that requires an end to overfishing and/or other identified negative effects of fishing. Where overfishing has occurred recovery plans are mandated in the legislation of most states and/or nationally. In Australia most fisheries must be considered sustainable in accordance with three separate pieces of legislation; a state fisheries act, a state environmental act and the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act (Commonwealth of Australia1999) which applies to all Commonwealth fisheries and any state fishery from which product is exported. Australia has a governance process for the sustainable management of its fisheries that in the little more than the decade in which it has been enforced has been clearly demonstrated (Figure 2) to be appropriate and effective. It is difficult to understand why the Australian public is not rejoicing in the success of its fisheries management and why Australians believe they need to implement additional, alternative restrictions on fishing, such as more fishing closures in MPAs!
7 | P a g e
Australian seafood supply and demand
While Australia has a very impressive record for controlling fisheries it has limited fisheries production; it remains a net importer of more than 70% of the seafood it consumes. Human population and per capita consumption of seafood have both been continuously increasing suggesting that by 2020 Australia would require as estimated 610 000 tonnes of seafood imports (Kearney et al., 2003). The most recent nutrition survey by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) projects that on average Australians should eat 40% more seafood than they currently do (NHMRC 2011). To meet this projection without increasing its domestic fisheries production (a prospect for which there is no explicit policy and little likelihood under current management strategies which are focused on further restriction of fishing) Australia will need to import approximately 850 000 tonnes of seafood per year by 2020.
Fifty two percent by value and more by volume, of Australia’s imports of seafood come from Thailand (26%), China (14%) and Vietnam (12%) (ABARES, 2011), all countries that have much less impressive records for sustainable fisheries management than Australia. In a 2009 estimation of adherence to the UN Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, Australia ranked fourth out of the 53 countries surveyed, Thailand 42nd, China 22nd and Vietnam 45th (Pitcher et al., 2009). Thus by continuing to import the bulk of its seafood Australia is effectively exporting responsibility for the sustainable management of the world’s fish stocks to countries with a far inferior record for sustainability (Kearney and Farebrother, 2012).
Eco-labeling
Most of the world’s sustainably managed fish stocks are not eco-labeled. Few other food products are so certified. So why should Australians want individual fisheries certified when they are already assessed to be well managed and sustainable under numerous pieces of state and Commonwealth legislation?
The most prominent of fish certification schemes, that of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is designed for large industrial fisheries. Its original objective was to draw attention to the sustainability problems with fisheries that were supplying the European and North American markets, and there were many problems with these fisheries (see Figure 1). It continues to achieve this objective rather effectively and is perceived to bestow a competitive advantage in the market places where the sustainability of competing products is questioned. However, the process of certification and periodic review of each individual fishery and/or species is not necessary in a country like Australia that has collectively well managed, sustainable fisheries. Furthermore, a scheme such as MSC is inherently expensive with the costs being prohibitive for most small-scale fisheries, such as dominate the supply of fresh fish to Australian consumers.
8 | P a g e
Australia has virtually no high volume, industrial-scale fisheries with most of the locally-caught fish sold in Australia coming from small regional fisheries that produce limited quantities of a relatively large number of species. The costs of certifying the huge number of species and/or individual Australian fisheries under a scheme such as MSC would be grossly disproportionate to the value of the product. Furthermore, as each Australian major fish stock is assessed under state and/or Commonwealth fisheries legislation and usually under additional environmental legislation each fishery is already technically certified to meet the world’s highest standards of sustainable fisheries management. Duplication of this certification process would not only threaten the economic viability of many small fisheries but would also likely seriously disadvantage the cost-effectiveness of the whole fisheries monitoring and assessment process. It would of course, necessarily result in a significant increase in price of seafood to Australian consumers and even to exports from Australia.
Under many certification schemes, such as MSC, certification can be obtained even if the species or fishery under consideration is overfished, provided the management system in place is anticipated to lead to stock rebuilding that can be confirmed by assessment. Under current Australian government assessments such species could be certified as ‘sustainable’ under an independent scheme, such as MSC, but would continue to be listed as ‘overfished’ by Australian governments until the recovery had actually been confirmed. Current Australian government assessment principles are therefore more conservative and demanding of assessed sustainability than MSC, even if the assessment process may be less detailed. Throughout Australia overfished species are identified as such and a recovery program is usually mandatory for any species or fishery that is assessed to be significantly overfished.
Furthermore, as Australia has extremely few, unsustainable fisheries the cost-effectiveness of providing the public with an unambiguous message on seafood sustainability would clearly be best served by identifying the few problem fisheries that do exist, rather than certifying and re-certifying those that have already been assessed by transparent government processes to be sustainable. A process of listing only those for which there is an assessed problem would not only provide assurance to Australian consumers that local seafood can be consumed with confidence but it would also draw attention to those few fisheries that remain a problem, thereby catalyzing corrective management. It would also remove the confusion created in public opinion by the inconsistencies in the many unregulated ‘seafood guides’ to which the public is exposed (discussed below).
It is relevant to the Australian situation to note that several countries and even states that have high standard fisheries management, for example Alaska, are moving to government certification based on the FAO guidelines for sustainable fisheries of the collective sustainability of fish and fisheries. Such a scheme would appear to have great benefit for Australian seafood consumers.
9 | P a g e
Why does Australia so understate the sustainability of its fisheries?
Numerous NGOs active in Australia need the public to believe fisheries to be in poor shape to facilitate their fundraising. Good news is an anathema to those whose business is based on public support for addressing real or perceived problems. There are 16 or more different organisations in Australia that produce ‘guides’ of various forms that are intended to influence public opinion on the environmental responsibility of consuming different seafood species. There are no standards or government regulation of the efficacy of these guides or their impact on the seafood industry they are designed to influence. There are no minimum qualifications or standards of experience required of the people who do the assessments of individual seafood species on which these guides are based.
At the global scale, NGOs are split between those that are opposed in principle to many forms of fishing, such as Greenpeace, and those looking for solutions to the bigger strategic issues. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace became disenchanted with the direction that particular NGO was taking. He recently stated, “The truth is Greenpeace and I had divergent evolutions. I became a sensible environmentalist; Greenpeace became increasingly senseless as it adopted an agenda that is anti-science, anti-business, and downright anti-human”. His more general comments on so called ‘environmental activism’ included, “To a considerable extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with science or ecology.”(Moore, 2010)
Equally relevant to Australia but particularly pertinent to the debate over restricting fishing in predetermined areas, are the comments of Peter Kareiva, the chief scientist for The Nature Conservancy, a major international NGO based in the USA. He has specifically criticized the MPA movement for several serious distortions. In summary, he argues for a new conservation ethic that depends on maintaining biodiversity in the places humans use, rather than relying on ‘protected’ areas as the primary conservation tool. “For this (a new conservation ethic) to happen, conservationists will have to jettison their idealized notions of nature, parks, and wilderness — ideas that have never been supported by good conservation science — and forge a more optimistic, human-friendly vision”. “But ecologists and conservationists have grossly overstated the fragility of nature, frequently arguing that once an ecosystem is altered, it is gone forever. Some ecologists suggest that if a single species is lost, a whole ecosystem will be in danger of collapse, and that if too much biodiversity is lost, spaceship Earth will start to come apart.” “Protecting biodiversity for its own sake has not worked. Protecting nature that is dynamic and resilient, that is in our midst rather than far away, and that sustains human communities — these are the ways forward now. Otherwise, conservation will fail, clinging to its old myths.” (Kareiva et al., 2011)
10 | P a g e
The fundamental myth that Kareiva criticizes is that conservation equates to protected areas; he argues that the key to maintaining biodiversity is good management of utilized areas. It is most significant to the current debate that Kareiva philosophy has been developed based on terrestrial systems that are far less naturally dynamic and resilient than marine ones, and in particular Australian marine systems where fishing is tightly managed and not a single species has been lost to fishing Noting Australia’s preoccupation, in spite of its relatively excellent management of fishing, with declaring more and bigger MPAs that are in effect little more than fishing closures, Kareiva’s comments are of particular relevance to Australia.
Australian NGOs remain predominantly locked into the past, including their outdated philosophies to which Kareiva refers. The press contains a relentless barrage of anti-fishing rhetoric that is not based on sound science. Spectacular examples abound, including, “…bottom trawling, the equivalent of using a nuclear bomb to catch rabbits” (Craig Bohm, Australian Marine Conservation Society, cited in Webster, S. Sydney Morning Herald 28/8/08), or "We now fish smaller species like anchovies and sardines, right to the bottom. We are at the last-chance cafe when it comes to fisheries." (Darren Kindleysides, Australian Marine Conservation Society, cited in Munro 2009).
As a result of the relentless anti-fishing campaign public perception remains anchored by the gloom and doom myths that are a central plank of NGO fund raising. The failure of Australian government agencies, particularly those responsible for policy on food security and fisheries management, and the seafood industry, to effectively counter the negative publicity on the state of Australia’s fisheries remains baffling. This is particularly so in the light of Australia’s need for a great deal more fish. Australia’s fisheries are amongst the most conservatively managed in the world. Most of the world is aware of this, but Australia actively refuses to accept the credit!
Fisheries assessments that are commonly distorted
Most of the ‘guides’ to which fish Australians should and should not eat list many species for which assessments are given that are highly questionable, at best. Most have orange roughy at, or very near, the top of the ‘do not eat’ list. Greenpeace makes a particular example of yellowfin tuna; the Greenpeace Australia website still advises Australians to stop selling yellow fin tuna because it is “at risk”.
Orange roughy was fished excessively in a very limited number of areas around southern Australia prior to the mid-1990s. Since then management has been extremely restrictive. The species is the subject of a very rigorous recovery plan. Only a fraction (less than one sixth) of the known area of distribution of orange roughy in Australia has ever been trawled and in
11 | P a g e
addition to all the unfished areas 90-95% of the small fraction that was fished in Australia is now closed to all orange roughy fishing. The current annual allowable catch in Australia is less than 1% of what it was in the period that overfishing occurred. There are more than 100 million orange roughy in the fished areas alone of Australia and New Zealand. Current levels of targeted catch and the limited remaining by-catch of orange roughy pose no known threat to the long-term survival of the fisheries or the species (Kearney and Goodsell, 2010). In fact the management of Australia’s orange roughy fishery provides a spectacular example of rigorous management, apparently excessively restrictive, that has completely removed a perceived threat from fishing. Australians should be being told about the obvious sustainability of what little orange roughy is marketed in Australia and encouraged to eat it with extreme confidence.
Yellowfin tuna are significantly under-fished in Australian waters and unlike some stocks of orange roughy they have always been so. Figure 4 shows the abundance in Region 5 (Australia) of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) yellowfin tuna stock, relative to what it would be in the absence of fishing. Even the small decrease in biomass that has been estimated is likely to be at least partly attributable to exploitation of the species outside the Australian EEZ, not by Australian fishing. Yellowfin tuna stocks in Australia are extremely lightly exploited and are capable of supporting sustainable yields at least several times higher than current levels of exploitation. The species is spread over huge areas, is very fast growing and has extreme reproductive capacity, females spawning approximately a million eggs up to four times a week, year-round in tropical waters. It is absurd, in fact morally wrong, to advise Australians not to eat the very small quantities of yellowfin tuna that are landed in this country on the basis that the species is ‘at risk’.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%1950196019701980199020002010Stock biomass/biomass without fishing
12 | P a g e
Figure 3. Status of Yellowfin tuna in Australian Zone plotted as a ratio of what the stock is now compared to what it would be in the absence of fishing. Redrawn from Figure 57 of yellowfin tuna stock assessment of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA- WP-03
Fisheries have low environmental impact compared to alternatives
Capture fisheries have lower environmental impact than other sources of animal protein. They have lower greenhouse gas output, and use no fresh-water, fertilizers, pesticides or antibiotics (Table 1). Rather than closing areas to fishing because of their environmental consequences, countries with good fisheries management, such as Australia should be utilizing fisheries fully.
Table 1. Amount of water, fertilizer, pesticides, antibiotics and greenhouse gas emissions needed to produce one portion containing 40g of protein, for beef, chicken, pork, dairy and capture fisheries. Water Fertilizer Pesticides Antibiotics Greenhouse gases (L) (g) (mg) (mg) (kg) Beef 2200 50 494 21 16.7 Chicken 1331 18 163 55 2.5 Pork 1331 46 422 53 3.8 Dairy 1178 34 299 50 2.7 Capture fisheries Low 0 0 0 0.3-2.0
The MSC has what is often considered the “gold standard” in fisheries certification. To meet this standard a fishery must demonstrate that it does not alter the structure and function of the ecosystem that is fished. This is a high and exacting standard that no form of agriculture could meet. Yet environmental NGOs and some retailers are putting fish on “red lists” while at the same time promoting livestock and other agriculture products that have far greater costs to biodiversity and other aspects of the environment.
Yes fishing does have environmental impacts; all human activities do, even breathing in oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide, a ‘greenhouse’ gas. The questions that need to be addressed
13 | P a g e
are, whether the activity justifies the impact, is further regulation necessary, or is there a more environmentally friendly way of providing the same service?
The most obvious impact of fishing is that the abundance of some target species is lower in fished areas; there are usually fewer larger and older fish of exploited species in exploited areas, even if only temporarily. But unlike in the countries with inadequate fisheries management, (discussed above) where there are well managed fisheries the densities and sizes of fished species are maintained at levels that are conservative and optimize the yields that can be taken; this is exactly what assessment of good fisheries management confirms. The maintenance of densities of species at levels that result in optimum productivity has also been suggested to provide an intermediate level of disturbance that is beneficial not only for some individual species but for overall biodiversity (Connell, 1978, Krohne, 2001).
Some forms of fishing have greater and more obvious impacts than others, for example fish-trawling over hard bottoms or dredging in areas of significant benthic communities can be expected to have more obvious impact than line-fishing for pelagic species. But even the most destructive forms of fishing (with the possible exception of dynamiting and poisoning of coral reefs, if they are allowed to be called ‘fishing’ and they are outlawed in Australia and most developed countries) have less impact than the common and accepted terrestrial activities of urban development and most forms of agriculture. Fishing does not deliberately transform landscapes as does urban development, nor does it clear-fell native vegetation and add extra nutrients and pesticides to help cultivate introduced species to the exclusion of the recovery of native flora and fauna, as do most forms of agriculture. What negative impacts fishing does have are relatively easily managed and even when mistakes are made they are normally reversible within relatively short time, as the recovery of Australia’s overfished stocks (Figure 2) demonstrates. Australia’s management of fisheries problems that have been identified is certainly ‘responsive’ and often even excessive; the restriction of the orange roughy fishery as discussed above is testimony to the occurrence of overly-restrictive management.
Trawling is one form of fishing that has been particularly demonized globally and in Australia. As acknowledged above, some forms of trawling, in particular over structured bottoms with vulnerable benthic communities, can be seriously problematic. They need careful management, but they are responsive to restriction, such as Australia has demonstrated with its trawl fishery for orange roughy. Many forms of trawling, however have limited environmental impact. Trawling on soft bottoms, particularly in high energy areas where the effects of currents or wave action dominate, may have little, if any, short-term impacts and no detectable, long-term negative consequences. In Australia this has been best demonstrated by the failure to detect any impact on bottom biota of prawn trawling in the Clarence River (Underwood, 2007). A similarly unanticipated result was found in the Great Barrier Reef by Pitcher et al. (2009a). They found
14 | P a g e
the difference in biomass between trawled and un-trawled areas was only 3%, with many taxa showing no difference and the most affected taxa showing only a 20% difference in abundance.
Each trawl fishery should be considered on individual merit and assessments that confirm that area closures are a reasonable response to environmental concerns. Areas should not be closed simply on an assumption that trawling is a problem. Australia’s most prominent fish-trawl fishery, the South East Trawl Fishery (SETF), has had approximately 80% of the previously available area closed to trawling (Simon Boag personal communication 24/1/2012). Of the remaining 20% that is technically open to trawling only 53% was estimated to be trawlable (Williams, A 2006 p109). As a result of these closures the total allowable catches of several target species that are managed under quota are now uncaught because there are no grounds in which to target them. Examples include some deepwater sharks and smooth oreo dories.
Rebuilding the world’s overfished stocks
Of all the world’s fish stocks that have been overfished northern hemisphere cod is the one most commonly referenced. Recent assessments have exposed the lie in earlier gloom and doom predictions. Even WWF states that “North Sea cod, once on the brink as a result of decades of over-fishing, has now recovered to an extent that the public should start eating it again with enthusiasm” (cited in Hickman, 2010)
Another of the world’s biggest cod fisheries, in the Baltic sea, has staged a remarkable recovery in recent years following an almost classical case of overexploitation in the 1980s and a reluctance to take the necessary action until about 2004/5 (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Trend in abundance of Baltic Sea cod. Data from ICES assessment data base
15 | P a g e
An even more spectacular recover has been reported for the largest cod stock in the world, the Barents Sea (Arcto-Scandanavian) cod which is now more abundant than any time since WW II (Figure 5)
Figure 5. Trend in abundance of Barents Sea cod. Data from ICES data base.
Threats to marine biodiversity
There is no doubt the world’s oceans are under increasing pressure from some anthropogenic impacts. The major accepted threats are pollution, including ocean acidification, inappropriate development, destructive fishing practices and overfishing and introduced and trans-located organisms.
In Australia episodic pollution events continue to devastate rivers, estuaries and numerous coastal areas, particularly near-shore areas and those with obviously vulnerable biota, notably coral reefs. More insidious and longer-lasting impacts of pollution continue to directly diminish stocks of many marine organisms and increase the vulnerability of even more to disease or other invasive vectors. Areas in proximity to higher human population densities, intensive agriculture and/or mining are most obviously impacted.
While there is little doubt Australians are increasingly aware of the problems that coastal development may cause, infrastructure development and less than perfect regulation of routine developments, such as marinas, are still a significant issue. The ‘reclaiming’ of very large swathes of sea grass beds and fish nursery areas in Botany Bay, one of Australia’s most productive and culturally significant estuaries, for airport runways and more recently a container terminal, is one obvious example.
16 | P a g e
Destructive fishing practices and continuing overfishing are no longer significant problems in Australia. Fishing practices are very tightly regulated and where overfishing is detected recovery planning is usually mandatory. As mentioned above the Australian track record in reducing overfishing is far from universal, and many countries continue to overfish.
Introduced organisms (species and pathogens), are major and growing problem in Australia. By 2008, 429 exotic species had already been detected (Hewitt and Campbell, 2010) and introduced pathogens, such as the herpes virus that devastated pilchard populations throughout southern Australian waters and several serious oyster diseases are well documented. Fouling on ships’ hulls and ballast water have been identified as the most common vectors for introductions and with accelerating increases in shipping, particularly in association with the mineral export boom, the problems can only be expected to worsen.
Conclusions:
Australia’s fisheries are amongst the best managed in the world and they are without doubt sustainable. Fishing, as managed in Australia, has not been shown to irreversibly threaten the survival of species. To the contrary, it can be demonstrated to be an extremely environmentally friendly source of an essential food, particularly in comparison with other forms of animal protein production. Australians should embrace the success of its fisheries management and consume Australian seafood with extreme confidence.
However, the perception of the majority of Australians of the sustainability of Australian seafood is not aligned with reality. Public perception has been distorted, primarily by numerous NGOs and others who benefit from projecting apprehension in seafood consumers. These NGOs are out of touch with recent global developments and in denial of fisheries management outcomes in Australia. Their distortion of reality has been based on misrepresentation of overseas examples of inadequate fisheries management to falsely claim gloom and doom for Australia’s fisheries and their impacts. The resulting anti-fishing rhetoric has falsely demonized fishing and led to ill-directed calls for more restrictions, particularly in areas that are closed to fishing and then called ‘protected’.
Australian have been told by health professionals and authorities to eat more seafood, yet the country has a serious and growing shortage of locally produced product and no obvious policies for food security or increasing domestic supply of fish. Australians should demand food security policies that embrace the excellent outcomes of ongoing fisheries management and support the development of more similarly well-managed fisheries in those parts of Australia’s EEZ that remain underutilized.
17 | P a g e
References
ABARES 2011. Australian fisheries statistics 2010. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences.
Boag, S. 2012. Personal Communication January 24, 2012.
Branch, T. A., Watson, R., Fulton, E. A., Jennings, S., McGilliard, C. R., Pablico, G. T., Ricard, D. & Tracey, S. R. 2010. The trophic fingerprint of marine fisheries. Nature, 468, 431 - 435.
Commonwealth of Australia 1999. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Connell, J. H. 1978. Diversity in Tropical Rain Forests and Coral Reefs. Science, 199, 1302-10.
Dept. SEWPaC. 2009. EPBC Act List of Threatened Fauna [Online]. Canberra: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Available: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicthreatenedlist.pl [Accessed February 20 2012].
Earle, S. 2011. Q&A: Sylvia Earle on the planet's blue engine [Online]. Science and Development Network. Available: http://www.scidev.net/en/agriculture-and-environment/eye-on-earth-summit/features/q-a-sylvia-earle-on-the-planet-s-blue-engine.html [Accessed February 10 2012].
FAO 2010. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.
Hewitt, C. & Campbell, M. 2010. The relative contribution of vectors to the introduction and translocation of invasive marine species: keeping marine pests out of Australian waters. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.
Hickman, M. 2010. Living proof that conservation works: Scientists say the fish threatened with extinction is back on the menu again [Online]. The Independent. Available: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/living-proof-that-conservation-works-1973928.html [Accessed February 10 2012].
Juan-Jordá, M. J., Mosqueira, I., Cooper, A. B., Freire, J. & Dulvy, N. K. 2011. Global population trajectories of tunas and their relatives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 108, 20650 - 20655.
18 | P a g e
Kareiva, P., Lalasz, R. & Marvier, M. 2011. Conservation in the Anthropocene: beyond solitude and fragility. In: Schellenberger, M. & Nordhaus, T. (eds.) Love Your Monsters: postenvironmentalism and the anthropocene. Oakland: Breakthrough Institute.
Kearney, R. & Farebrother, G. 2012. Expand Australia’s sustainable fisheries. Nature, 482, 162.
Kearney, R., Foran, B., Poldy, F. & Lowe, D. 2003. Modelling Australia's Fisheries to 2050: Policy and Management Implications. Deakin ACT: Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.
Kearney, R.E. and Goodsell, P.J. 2010. Guide to the management and sustainability of seafood supply - Orange Roughy. FRDC Final Report 2009/071. Fisheries Research and Development Coporation, Canberra.
Krohne, D. T. 2001. General Ecology, 2nd ed. Pacific Grove CA., Brooks/Cole.
Moore, P. A. 2010. Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: the making of a sensible environmentalist. Vancouver, Beatty Street Publishing Inc.
Mora, C., Myers, R. A., Coll, M., Libralato, S., Pitcher, T. J., Sumaila, R. U., Zeller, D., Watson, R., Gaston, K. J. & Worm, B. 2009. Management Effectiveness of the World's Marine Fisheries. PLoS Biol, 7, 1 - 11.
Munro, P, 2009. Sunday Age, 23/8/2009.
Myers, R. A. & Worm, B. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature, 423, 280 - 3.
NHMRC 2011. Australian Dietary Guidelines Incorporating the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating: Providing the scientific evidence for healthier Australian diets (DRAFT FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION). Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R. & Torres, F. 1998. Fishing Down Marine Food Webs. Science, 279, 860 - 863.
Pitcher, C. R., Burridge, C. Y., Wassenberg, T. J., Hill, B. J. & Poiner, I. R. 2009a. A large scale BACI experiment to test the effects of prawn trawling on seabed biota in a closed area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia. Fisheries Research, 99, 168 - 183.
Pitcher, T., Kalikoski, D., Pramod, G. & Short, K. 2009b. Not honouring the code. Nature, 457, 658 - 659.
Sethi, S. A., Branch, T. A. & Watson, R. 2010. Global fishery development patterns are driven by profit but not trophic level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, 107, 12163 - 12167.
19 | P a g e
Underwood, A. J. 2007. Assessment and management of potential impacts of prawn trawling on estuarine assemblages. Final Report, Project 2000/176. Canberra: Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.
WCPFC 2011. Stock Assessment of Yellowfin Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session (WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-03). Pohnpei: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.
Webster, S. 2008. Sydney Morning Herald, 28/8/2008.
Williams, A. 2006 Integrating fishing industry knowledge of fishing grounds with scientific data on seabed habitats for informed spatial management and ESD evaluation in the SESSF. FRDC 2000/153, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.
Woodhams, J., Stobutzki, I., Vieira, S., Curtotti, R. & Begg, G. A. (eds.) 2011. Fishery status reports 2010: status of fish stocks and fisheries managed by the Australian Government, Canberra: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences.
Worm, B., Barbier, E. B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J. E., Folke, C., Halpern, B. S., Jackson, J. B. C., Lotze, H. K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S. R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K. A., Stachowicz, J. J. & Watson, R. 2006. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science, 314, 787 - 790.
Worm, B., Hilborn, R., Baum, J. K., Branch, T. A., Collie, J. S., Costello, C., Fogarty, M. J., Fulton, E. A., Hutchings, J. A., Jennings, S., Jensen, O. P., Lotze, H. K., Mace, P. M., McClanahan, T. R., Minto, C., Palumbi, S. R., Parma, A. M., Ricard, D., Rosenberg, A. A., Watson, R. & Zeller, D. 2009. Rebuilding Global Fisheries. Science, 325, 578 - 584.

Australia’s Unappreciated and Maligned Fisheries
Walter Starck
A Report for the
May 2012
Australian Environment Foundation
PO Box 274 Deakin West ACT 2600
Phone: 03 5762 6883
Fax: 03 5762 3069
Email:
www.aefweb.info
Published by the Australian Environment Foundation to inform discussion on the management of
Australia’s fisheries and the current review of Marine Protected Areas. Report 002/12 May 2012.
1
About Walter Starck
Walter Starck grew up on, an island in the Florida Keys and began catching fish in
saleable quantities off the family dock at age five. At age six he helped his grandfather
build his first boat with which he began diving using a face mask. He started scuba
diving in 1954 (before scuba was a word). In 1964 he completed a PhD degree at the
Institute of Marine Science of the University of Miami. In the process he determined
that the world of academia was not to his taste so started his own business as well as a
private research foundation. In 1968 he took delivery on a purpose built 150 ton
research vessel, El Torito, and spent the next two decades exploring widely from the
Caribbean to the Western Pacific. He arrived in Australia before boat people became
unfashionable and in 1979 established a home base on a 164 acre rainforest property on
the north shore of the Daintree River.
His main research interest has centred on coral reef biology and has included research
grants and contracts from the National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research
and National Geographic Society as well as various private foundations and individuals.
He has been a research associate of the Institute of Marine Science in Miami, the Bishop
Museum in Hawaii, The Australian Museum in Sydney and the Western Australia
Museum in Perth. His wide experience of reefs around the world has encompassed the
full spectrum of conditions ranging from heavily impacted to untouched as well as
several opportunities for decade or longer familiarity with individual reefs. His views on
reef biology derived from direct observation are not always in accord with popular
theories.
2
Foreword
Australian marine waters encompass a vast variety and quantity of marine life encircling the globe’s
largest island, enabling Australia to lay claim to the world’s third largest Exclusive Economic Zone.
Almost without exception, away from coastal and tourist influences, these waters are pristine, rarely
visited and are home to the same number of fish species today as at European settlement.
However this is not the story told or believed by most Australians due to campaigns by Australian and
international green groups to ‘save’ our marine waters, reefs and fish species. These campaigns are
directed at achieving vast increases in Marine Protected Areas which would see Australia, by itself,
creator of about half of the world’s marine protected areas. These new MPA’s will offer no net benefit
from an environmental or economic viewpoint to the Australian people.
Proposals for extraordinary increases to MPA’s are currently with the federal environment minister and
have motivated the Australian Environment Foundation to request marine biologist Dr Walter Starck to
prepare this report on Australia’s fisheries and their management and the effects of proposed MPA’s.
The report highlights there is no demonstrated need for further protection of marine areas or any
justification for further restriction on commercial and recreational fishing based on freely available
evidence.
Embracing the concepts of the globally accepted IUCN ‘wise use’ principles would remove much of the
rationale for the large expansion of MPA’s. As this report shows, the fisheries harvest in Australian
waters is very low and declining, not from a paucity of fish stocks, but from management seemingly
intent on reducing the Total Allowable Catch for which the main beneficiary will be other countries.
Harvesting seafood is the most environmentally sustainable means of food production, with none of the
impacts of terrestrial livestock or cropping production. For this reason alone management should be
charged with providing the maximum sustainable yield from a resilient resource.
Fisheries management and marine protection in Australia need a new vision.
This vision should embrace increased sustainable seafood harvesting to ease the demands on terrestrial
food production, provide leadership in sustainable use of natural resources instead of placing an
increasing environmental burden, by default, on other countries and provide an economic benefit from
management costs.
The environmental benefits of such a vision are tangible.
Overwhelming evidence suggests that the desired results from the sustained juggernaut of
environmental campaigning that has brought us to this point is not in the national interest and clearly
produces perverse global environmental outcomes.
The assemblage of facts and evidence by Dr Starck present a compelling and disturbing overview of the
incremental dissembling of a vital primary industry over the last four decades through increasingly
unnecessary ‘green tape’ that is producing little or no additional environmental benefit.
Max Rheese,
Executive Director
Australian Environment Foundation
3
Contents
About Walter Starck
1
Foreword 2
Executive Summary 4
Introduction 7
Australia’s Fishing Zone 8
Australian Fisheries Production and Economic Value 9
Social and Health Values 11
Aquaculture 13
Australian Fisheries in Context 14
MPA Mania 21
Management 24
Recommendations 29
References 30
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The prevailing perception of Australian fisheries is one of a heavily exploited resource. The
evidence presented in this report is not just “my” evidence but is rather “the” evidence. It
comes from a variety of easily verified sources. It irrefutably indicates that Australia’s
marine resources are in reality much greater, healthier and more under-utilised than is
widely imagined.
Australia’s Exclusive Fishing Zone
Australia has the largest per capita fishing zone and lowest fisheries harvest rate in the
world at about 1/30th of the global average. We also have the most restrictive and costly
marine resource management. Two-thirds of our seafood consumption is imported. All of
these imports come from much more heavily exploited resources elsewhere.
Australian Fisheries Production and Economic Value
The production, value and profitability of Australian fisheries are all in long term decline.
Seafood imports currently cost about $1.7 billion annually and must be paid for by mineral
exports or add to a chronic deficit.
Well managed reefs can sustain an average harvest rate of 15,000 Kg/Km²/yr. The average
harvest rate for the Great Barrier Reef is 9 Kg/Km²/yr.
Australian Fisheries in Context
In discussions of Australian fisheries words like sustainability, precaution, delicate,
threatened, endangered and biodiversity are applied liberally; but, the simple truth is that
no marine fish or invertebrate has ever been exterminated by fishing and none in Australia
are even remotely threatened in this regard.
Thailand supplies 25% of our seafood imports and their fishery zone is about 1/20th that of
Australia. The Australian catch is about half that of New Zealand or Netherlands and is on a
par with Finland, Poland, and Germany.
Some key facts regarding Australian fisheries:
No marine species in Australia are threatened with extinction by fishing.
No severe population collapse due to overfishing has been documented in Australia.
No reduction in marine biodiversity from fishing has been documented in Australia.
The overall harvest rate for Australian fisheries is the lowest of any nation.
The productivity of Australian waters is not unusually low.
The catch rate of Australian fisheries is indicative of healthy stocks, not of overfishing.
5
(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY cont’d)
MPA Mania
Establishing vast Marine Protected Areas with no clear assessment of need, efficacy or
consequences amounts to large scale environmental meddling.
MPAs are an ill-considered and expensive idea which addresses no demonstrated problem.
The Law of the Sea Treaty, under which we claim EEZ rights, provides that exclusive rights
to resources are dependent on utilisation. Huge MPA areas and a fisheries harvest rate at
1/30th of the global average sets the stage for a future petition by Asian nations for access
to our vast underutilised EEZ areas.
Australia has the world’s largest MPA area where it is needed least.
The only significant environmental effect of MPAs is to further restrict fishing when we
already have the world’s most highly restricted marine fisheries.
The proposed Coral Sea MPA is the biggest and most ill-advised of all the proposed MPAs
because:
a. Most Coral Sea islands and reefs are already protected as national parks.
b. All Coral Sea fisheries are already subject to highly restrictive AFMA management.
c. The existing GBR National Park already affords protection of all Coral Sea species and
biotopes in the world’s largest coral reef MPA.
d. The Coral Sea is one of the world’s prime yellowfin tuna fishing grounds. We now
produce a few hundred tonnes from the Coral Sea where previously Japanese
fishermen had sustainably produced around 30,000 tonnes annually for many years.
Meanwhile PNG licenses Asian fishing companies to fish the same migratory stocks in
their waters. They currently catch about 750,000 tonnes while all our tuna fisheries
only catch about 15,000 tonnes. We then import some $165 million in canned tuna
each year. We “save” our fish for Asian fishermen to catch and then sell back to us.
Australians are paying a high price for gross resource mismanagement in our cost of living,
our health, our freedom and in the broader wellbeing of the nation. The proposed MPAs
will only contribute to these costs with no benefit to the environment at all.
Management
The management of Australian fisheries is the most expensive, restrictive and least
productive in the world. Every year increasing management costs are delivering only
further decreases in production, participation and profitability.
The fundamental purpose of management for utilisation is to deliver increased productivity,
efficiency and profitability. In this regard our management has failed abysmally.
Self-proclaimed excellence by managers is always bolstered by assertions it’s all based on
sound science; however; if actually examined, the available scientific evidence either does
not support the claims being made or even refutes them.
The extensive use of computer modelling in fisheries management is poorly founded,
unverified, highly uncertain and often grossly misleading.
6
(EXECUTIVE SUMMARY cont’d)
The management of Australian fisheries is overwhelmingly by office workers with little or
no real world experience of the fisheries they oversee. With only a few years classroom
training in generalised and largely untested theories about complex and poorly understood
natural systems they are charged with authority over multimillion dollar industries.
Management of our fisheries has become divorced from the realities of the industry, the
real nature of the resource and any factual consideration of its actual condition and
dynamics.
Ecology is above all holistic. Every organism must have effects in order to exist. We are no
exception. Aiming to maximise our beneficial effects and minimise our detrimental ones
requires trade-offs and balances in which we seek to spread our demands across our whole
resource base within the bounds of sustainability.
Every resource we lock up puts more pressure on others and makes balance more difficult.
An unnecessary restriction in one place becomes an increased impact somewhere else.
Of all major means of food production, fisheries have the least impact on the natural
environment. Any food not produced by fishing must come from the land and come with
greater environmental impact.
In the management of Australian fisheries three key points are apparent:
• Claims of widespread overfishing at our levels of harvest are absurd.
• Fisheries are robust resources. There is little risk of irreversible damage from
dealing with problems as they actually develop rather than invoking elaborate
precautionary measures to avoid every imagined hypothetical possibility.
• Management which delivers orders of magnitude less productivity than no
management at all requires a severe overhaul.
Recommendations
1. Benchmark fisheries management and research budgets to industry production. Link
salary bonuses to improved production.
2. Base management decisions on empirical data not predictive modelling.
3. Proposals for additional Marine Protected Areas must be based on demonstrated needs
and provide measurable balanced benefits.
4. Direct involvement of fishing industry representatives in decision making processes on
fisheries management.
7
Introduction
The prevailing perception of Australian fisheries is one of a heavily exploited resource under threat
from over fishing, pollution, habitat destruction and climate change. This view is widely shared not
just by the general public but also by scientists, fisheries managers and even many fishermen.
Suggesting that the real nature of the resource might be far larger, healthier and much less exploited
than is widely believed immediately raises the objections that so many experts couldn’t be wrong
and why should anyone believe just one person’s dissenting opinion.
One of the most important lessons from history is that most people most of the time are wrong, not
about everything but often about some very important things. Much of what is believed to be
unquestionable truth at any time is later viewed as ignorance; and, there is nothing to indicate we
have now finished that process. Rational evidence based science has been our most powerful means
of better understanding the world we live in and avoiding nonsense beliefs. Genuine science is not
determined by opinion, no matter how expert. The evidence is the final arbiter.
The evidence presented in this report is not just “my” evidence but is rather “the” evidence. It
comes from a variety of sources and is easily verified. It includes peer reviewed primary research
journals plus reports from various government bodies, NGOs and international agencies such as the
UN and OECD. It clearly and irrefutably presents a very different picture of Australia’s marine
resources which are in reality much greater, healthier and more under-utilised than is widely
imagined.
If so, how could so many people be so wrong? Actually, the answer is not hard to understand. The
marine environment is out there; underwater and largely out of sight. In truth we really don’t
actually know much about it at all and most of the purported “experts” are in fact office workers
dealing mainly in estimates, assumptions and theories.
Another misperception about overfishing that is prevalent even among many fishermen rests on the
fact that intensive line fishing makes fish wary and harder to catch. A common example of this
occurs around many docks and piers, where one can often find dense schools of resident fishes
exposed to almost constant fishing, but which are extremely difficult to catch. At the other extreme,
on isolated oceanic reefs that have rarely or never been fished, fish are very easy to catch. Any small
object dropped in the water will attract attention and may be mouthed by curious fish. Under such
circumstances, fish may even be caught with a bare un-baited hook.
In areas that are relatively frequently fished, underwater surveys often reveal surprisingly abundant
fish populations. It is worth noting also that it is these same relatively few areas that are frequently
fished which tend to be the basis of many fishermen's perception of overfishing. Reduced
catchability then, rather than actual decreased abundance, is often mistaken for overfishing.
Interestingly it is widely known among fishermen and fishing lure manufacturers that new
techniques and lures that are at first highly effective tend to become much less so as they are more
widely used. Good fishermen are always experimenting with new methods, baits, and lures. Less
skilled fishermen do nothing different until they see everyone else doing it. They remain behind the
curve and blame their poor catches on a lack of fish.
8
If some of my criticism of current marine management seems overly harsh or perhaps even
intemperate it is because the claims being made are not just arguably incorrect but grossly and
sometimes even dishonestly so. Nor is this matter only an academic dispute. It has had devastating
effect on hundreds of honest hard working fishing families and it has sentenced millions of
Australians to an impaired quality of life by depriving them of the many proven health benefits of an
increased consumption of seafood.
Australia’s Exclusive Fishing Zone
Australia, with the third largest fishery zone in the world and the largest by far per capita, has the
lowest harvest rate of any nation at only 3% of the global average.
If the EEZ area and catch of Australia is compared with that of other nations in the region, it is
readily seen that the Australian fishing zone is the largest and the catch the smallest, with the
differences being in orders of magnitude.
Until a few years ago low productivity was not even mentioned. It became a convenient explanation
only after I pointed out in public debate that claims of widespread threats from overfishing were
grossly inconsistent with a harvest rate that is only about 3% of the global average and less than half
of 1% that of Thailand, our biggest supplier of imports.
Suddenly, an inexplicable black hole in oceanic productivity was proclaimed and the Commonwealth
Minister announced that “… Australia is in the middle of, you might say, a fish desert.” Strangely,
oceanographic science seems never before to have noted this remarkable phenomenon until it was
needed to explain dubious claims of overfishing despite having only tiny harvest rates.
I then pointed out that global marine primary productivity measurements from satellite monitoring
showed no unusually low productivity around Australia. Amazingly, the initial response to this was a
claim that the most productive fisheries are on the continental shelves and we had only a small shelf
area. This argument was equally uninformed because Australia has the second largest shelf area of
any nation. Australia also has about 10 times the shelf area of our nearest neighbours N.Z. and PNG
but less than half the fisheries catch of either.
The shelf area nonsense was also quickly shelved and the claim then became that the productivity
figures were only averages and a large area of exceptionally high productivity in the north meant
that the productivity of most of our waters was very low. This argument is just as ill-founded and
smacks of desperation. Productivity everywhere varies widely with time and place, and ours is not in
any way unusual in this respect nor is it even particularly low at its lowest. It also raises a further
question regarding the absence of major fisheries associated with the area of highest productivity.
If, indeed, Australian waters were so poor it would be obvious to any fisherman with experience
elsewhere and would be reflected in a very low catch per unit of effort. On the contrary, above
average abundance is clearly apparent. If the fish in our waters were as few as is being claimed they
would literally have to come from miles around to dive into fishermen nets and traps or onto hooks
to account for the rates at which they are caught.
The ill-informed and shifting arguments used to defend the idea of a meagre over exploited resource
make it clear that there is no genuine scientific basis for the claims being made. The lack of interest
9
in and even angry rejection of good evidence to the contrary also makes it apparent that the real
agenda is not actually a concern for the resource itself but rather the pursuit of other agendas for
which environmental concerns provide a convenient moral and pseudo-scientific cloak.
Australian Fisheries Production and Economic Value
Commercial fishing -
The following thumbnail overview of Australian fisheries comes from the most recent ABARES
report, Australian fisheries statistics 2010.
In 2009–10
“Tasmania accounted for the largest share of gross value of production (26 per cent),….”
“The value of farmed salmonids rose by 13 per cent to $369.1 million in 2009–10. Farmed salmonids
continue to be the largest aquaculture species group produced, and also the most valuable fisheries
product in Australia. Salmonids accounted for 42 per cent of the total value of Australian aquaculture
production and 17 per cent of the total value of fisheries production.”
“In volume terms, the largest species produced is Australian sardines. However Australian sardines
are a relatively low value product, mainly for use as baitfish.”
The estimated employment in the Australian fishing industry in 2006 from Australian Bureau of
Statistics census data was 15,939.
It is readily apparent that apart from salmon farming in Tasmania the overall trend in Australian
fisheries and aquaculture is one of declining production and value.
10
Note – The above graphs numbered 1, 10, 11, 12 and 18 above are from ABARES report Australian
fisheries statistics 2010
11
Recreational and Indigenous Fishing -
The most recent National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey (NRIFS) was conducted in
2000–01. The 2010 ABARE report summarises as follows:
“The ABS (2003) estimated that more than 5 million Australians participate in recreational fishing in
Australia and that the sector supports about 90 000 Australian jobs. Ridge Partners (2010) estimated
that about 3.4 million Australians engage in recreational fishing each year, directly contributing an
estimated additional $2.5 billion to national and regional economies.
“The NRIFS indicated that Indigenous fishers in northern Australia harvested approximately 900,000
finfish, 1.1 million molluscs, 660,000 prawns and yabbies, 180,000 crabs and lobsters and smaller
numbers of other species during the survey year.”
“Based on the NRIFS, Henry and Lyle (2003) estimated that 186,200 Indigenous people (excluding
those living in the Torres Strait) participated in non-commercial fishing during the survey year and
that a total expenditure of $22.52 million was incurred by these fishers.”
Two items of note in the NRIFS report not mentioned by ABARE were the indigenous dugong and
turtle harvest and the recreational catch figures for Murray cod. Indigenous fishing harvested 1,600
dugong, 6,000 saltwater turtles, 14,000 freshwater turtles and 40,000 turtle eggs. These numbers
seem remarkable in view of the alleged “threatened” status of these animals and the level of
concern expressed over their occasional accidental catch by commercial fishermen.
The Murray cod is another “threatened” species. A widely cited NSW Fisheries survey in 1995-96
reported that: “A telling indication of the condition of rivers in the Murray region was the fact that,
despite intensive fishing with the most efficient types of sampling gear for a total of 220 person-days
over a two-year period in twenty randomly chosen Murray-region sites, not a single Murray cod or
freshwater catfish was caught.” The Murray cod commercial fishery was closed in 2001.
The Recreational Fishing Survey estimated that during the survey period recreational fishers caught
483,284 Murray cod of which 374,932 were released and 108,352 weighing 144,222 Kg were kept.
As is so often the case the claims and concerns of devout environmentalists and even fishery
biologists bear no relation to real world evidence. The astounding disparity between the catch of
the expert biologists and that of the recreational anglers underscores the problem faced in biologists
having sole responsibility for management of a fishery.
Social and Health Values
Social values-
The social value of recreational fishing tends to be greatly overlooked and undervalued. It is a
healthy outdoor activity which is enjoyed by millions of people of all ages and socio-economic
backgrounds. It not only provides entertainment but is also an all too rare opportunity for different
generations to share in a mutually enjoyable experience involving a whole range of differing skills
and knowledge.
Health benefits-
While lifestyle and environmental contaminates are important contributors to health problems, the
biggest and most readily addressed factor is what we eat. The modern diet loads us with an excess
of saturated fats, trans-fats, sugar, salt and refined starch in the form of highly processed food
products laced with a cocktail of additives to enhance flavour, texture and colour and to retard
12
spoilage. What is missing is a host of essential vitamins, minerals, trace elements, antioxidants and
other nutrients lost in processing and depleted in the products of industrialised agriculture and
animal husbandry. Also missing are the synergies which arise from the combinations of nutrients
found in whole natural foods.
Like animals raised on formulated pellets, we grow fast, big and fat but are prone to old-age
disorders beginning in early mid-life. Studies of human populations who have exceptional longevity
and health in old age repeatedly find consumption of low levels of processed food, high levels of
fresh vegetables, low levels of red meat and often high levels of seafood.
Water is the universal solvent. All of the trace elements and minerals necessary to life are in sea
water. Every one of the ninety-two naturally occurring elements is there and, except for a few inlets
and bays, human pollutants remain at far lower levels in the sea than are present in most
agricultural and grazing land.
Recent large-scale clinical and epidemiological studies published in the world’s leading medical
journals have reported a broad range of health benefits associated with seafood. Of especial
importance are those associated with omega-3 fatty acids which are low in most foods from the land
but are abundant in seafood.
Regular consumption of seafood (two or more meals per week) has been found to provide
significant health benefits in three broad categories. These are cardiovascular; immune system
related; and conditions involving neurological development and functioning. Regular seafood
consumption correlates with low levels of heart disease as well as reduced incidence of asthma,
arthritis, osteoporosis, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, hypertension, migraine headaches, certain
cancers, age-related maculopathy and some kidney diseases. It has also been shown to enhance
brain development and has indicated significant cognitive and behavioural benefits for children. In
adults it has been found to be significant in reducing aggression, depression and moderating
schizophrenia as well as enhancing cognitive functioning in old age. The old wives were right. Fish
really is a brain food and mismanaging our fisheries is quite literally stupid.
The difference in incidence of these disorders between countries with high levels of seafood
consumption and our own population would save billions of dollars each year in our health care
system and contribute hugely to a greatly improved quality of life for millions of people if only we
would realise this and implement it.
The Japanese have much higher rates of smoking than we do. They also eat a lot of salt and have
higher levels of hypertension, but nevertheless, they still have much lower rates of heart disease and
lung cancer. This pattern also occurs in other countries with high levels of seafood consumption; but,
Japanese Americans living in Hawaii and eating a more Western diet have much higher levels of
heart disease. Epidemiologists think that the most likely explanation is the protective effect of high
levels of seafood consumption.
Although government and health care professionals are aware of the desirability of greater seafood
consumption and some efforts are being made to promote this, no formal cost-benefit assessment
has been conducted and there is little appreciation of the actual magnitude of potential benefits
either financial or societal. It seems highly probable that increased seafood consumption in Australia
13
could save billions of dollars every year in health care costs while at the same time hugely improving
the quality of life for millions of people.
Aquaculture
Aquaculture is the fastest growing sector in world food production. Since 1970 global aquaculture
production has increased by over 1200% at an average compound growth of over 9% per annum.
Australia, with some 60,000 km of mostly undeveloped coastline well suited for aquaculture, a
benign climate and unpolluted waters, clearly has vast potential, yet development of the industry
has been weak. Globally aquaculture production now equals some 60% of wild caught fisheries. In
Australia it is only half that proportion and the wild caught fisheries themselves are extremely low
compared to other nations.
Although the small size of Australia’s industry has been attributed to higher cost structure there is
obviously something more to it than this. Certainly Australian costs for land, labour, equipment,
power and feedstock are at no great disadvantage to Canada, France, Japan, Norway, the UK, or the
U.S. Why then, with more coastal area per capita than anyone else in the world, are we importing
70% of the seafood we consume and why is our aquaculture industry so small?
If you speak to a few people in the industry the real reason soon becomes obvious. In a word, it’s
bureaucracy. The costs, delays, restrictions and uncertainties imposed on aquaculture are simply
unworkable. A growing morass of ill-founded, poorly drafted, overly broad and irregularly applied
environmental regulations is becoming an increasing impediment to a broad range of economic
productivity. While this imposes a significant burden on already well-established activities, these at
least have a background of extensive experience thus focusing regulatory attention mostly on
recognized problems that at least have some basis in reality. With new industries such as
aquaculture, however, the limitless realm of possibility tends to become the subject of expensive
hypothetical solutions to imaginary problems under the banner of the precautionary principle. The
resulting costs, delays, restrictions and uncertainties now effectively bars the development of new
industries.
Under the illusion we are saving the environment, all we are doing is increasing our impact
somewhere else. At the same time we are degrading our own quality of life and with it our capacity
to address real problems that do exist.
The ultimate effect is glaringly obvious. Despite having thousands of kilometres of undeveloped
coastline ideal for aquaculture, it is said that the State Development Office in Queensland has not
had a new application for aquaculture in the past 7 or 8 years.
By far the largest and most valuable aquaculture sector in Australia is salmon farming in Tasmania.
This industry has flourished because it became well established before environmental restrictions
became too onerous. However, even Australia’s largest and most successful aquaculture operation,
the salmon farmer Tassal, is now doubtful about the viability of future expansion here. Despite an
outstanding environmental record, employment of over 700 people and being named the nation’s
most respected company in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sector, bureaucracy and
restrictions are forcing them to consider seeking future expansion elsewhere.
14
Australian Fisheries in Context
You hear and read a lot of eco-waffle regarding marine resources—words like sustainability,
precaution, delicate, threatened, endangered and biodiversity are applied liberally—but the real
situation in the ocean is not nearly so dire or dramatic. These are emotive terms dressed up as
scientific ones. They lend an aura of importance and urgency to hypothetical speculations when
seeking extravagant funding to address imaginary problems. The simple truth is that no marine fish
or invertebrate has ever been exterminated by fishing and none in Australia are even remotely
threatened in this regard. The only truly endangered marine species in Australia is the Australian
commercial fisherman.
Our fisheries management is not about saving endangered species or beneficial use of resources. It is
all about bureaucratic empire building, grant-seeking researchers and political pandering for green
votes.
All of the prophesying, hand waving, emotive terminology and impressive statistics have little real
meaning until they are placed in some context which provides a sense of reality and proportionality.
If we start to consider Australian fisheries in the context of real world evidence a very different
picture emerges. For example:
An examination of some comparative fishery statistics for Australia and our northern neighbours is
instructive. These fishery production figures are for 2005.
COUNTRY WILD CAUGHT
(Metric Tonnes)
AQUACULTURE
(Metric Tonnes)
EEZ AREA
(km²)
SHELF
AREA (km²)
PRIMARY
PRODUCTIVITY
(mgC/m²/day )
HARVEST
RATE
(kg/km²/yr)
Australia 245,935 47,087 6,384,731 2,182,962 513 39
Indonesia 4,381,260 1,197,109 6,159,032 2,039,381 685 711
Thailand 2,599,387 1,144,011 299,397 230,063 702 8,682
Vietnam 1,929,900 1,437,300 417,663 365,198 700 4,620
Philippines 2,246,352 557,251 1,590,780 272,921 356 1,412
Malaysia 1,214,183 175,834 334,671 323,412 962 3,628
PNG 250,280 - 2,402,288 272,921 363 104
Note that the PNG wild caught harvest is almost entirely tuna. Their catch in 2010 had risen to almost
three-quarters of a million tonnes. This is about 4 times greater than the total wild caught fisheries
harvest for all species in Australia. The Australian tuna catch is limited to less than 15,000 tonnes.
PNG has about 37% of the EEZ area, 13% of the shelf area and about 70% of the average marine
primary productivity of Australia.
With the largest EEZ area our catch is the smallest. Thailand, our largest source of imports, produces
over 10 times our total catch with less than 5% of our EEZ area.
15
Low productivity waters is perhaps the biggest furphy of our fisheries mismanagement. If indeed our
waters were so poor it would be reflected in a very low catch per unit of effort. To the contrary,
above average abundance is readily apparent.
To believe otherwise one must accept that despite being almost non-existent compared to
anywhere else, our fish somehow conspire to be caught at rates higher than where they are
supposedly 30 or even 200 times more abundant.
16
Even if true, low natural productivity does nothing to explain why our aquaculture development is
even feebler than that of our fisheries. Incidentally, Japan’s aquaculture production in 15 times
larger than Australia’s and the EU’s is over 40 times larger. SE Asian aquaculture compared to
Australia looks like this:
Imports
Over recent years about 70% of seafood consumed in Australia is imported and a CSIRO study
projects a 400% increase in consumption over the next one and a-half decades. The largest single
source of these imports is Thailand which supplies 25% of the total. Australia’s fishery zone (EEZ) is
over 20 times larger than that of Thailand and the shelf area, which provides most of the catch, is
nine times larger.
Australian and Thai EEZ areas
17
In 2004, wild caught Thai fishery production was 11 times larger than Australia’s and aquaculture
production was 30 times greater. When the size of fishing zones is taken into account the
discrepancy is astounding. On an area basis the Thai wild caught production in 2004 was 250 times
greater than that of Australia.
Thailand and Australia Fisheries Comparison
Thailand has:
1/9th the shelf area of Australia
1/20th the EEZ area of Australia
11 times more wild caught production
30 times larger aquaculture production
250 times greater harvest rate
A comparison of Australian and Thai fisheries over time is instructive as well.
A comparison of the harvest rate per Km2 of EEZ area is even worse.
18
Compared to a broad sample of OECD countries the disparity remains. Total Australian production is
half that of New Zealand or Netherlands and on a par with Finland, Poland, and Germany.
19
Thailand’s entire fishery zone is actually only about 85% the size of the Great Barrier Reef park area.
Their area of coral reef however is less than 1/20ththat of the GBR. Their catch of reef dwelling
groupers and snappers (e.g. coral trout and emperor) is similar to the GBR and their catch of
mackerel is much larger. In addition to reef fish however their total catch from the same area is
about 1000 times greater! A comparison with a sample of other reef areas is equally informative.
Annual Yield per Km2 for Various Pacific Reef Fisheries
The reef catch rate for Australia’s GBR fishery is too small to be visible on a scale necessary to
accommodate the rates common elsewhere.
20
The World Resource Institute is a conservation NGO which produces a global coral reef status report
every few years. Their survey is produced by contributing researchers from the various regions
covered. In their latest report published in 2011 they state that well managed reefs can sustain a
harvest rate of 15,000 Kg/Km²/yr. The average harvest rate for the Great Barrier Reef is 9 Kg/Km²/yr.
That’s only 90 grams per Ha and well below 1% of the sustainable average for reefs elsewhere.
The reality of this situation is readily observable to anyone making an extended reef cruise or a flight
over the reef. Away from proximity to the few small population centres, boats are rarely seen and
one passes reef after reef with no vessel anywhere in sight. It does not require a PhD and a
computer model to figure out that no boats means no fishing.
Still, the "experts" tell us that the GBR is "threatened" by overfishing and a complex morass of
restrictions has been created to address this problem.
As a result locally caught reef fish is in short supply and most species sell for prices in the range of
$25-$50 per kilo and, even with the relatively small population in this region; the supply is so
inadequate that most fish in local shops must come from elsewhere.
The Northern Demersal Scalefish Fishery
The NDSF on the NW shelf off Broome in Western Australia is another clear example. It is a small
trap fishery limited to 6 boats with a fishing ground of over 200,000 Km2 or about 30,000 Km2 per
boat. With the number of boats, traps and fishing days permitted it would take some 500 years to
fish the entire grounds just one time and there are still larger areas both inshore and offshore that
are not being fished at all.
In the 1970s and 80s a fleet of large Taiwanese pair trawlers operated extensively in this region
under license from Australia. Based on a widespread sample of over 25,000 hours of trawling using
100 metre wide pair trawls, they estimated a sustainable annual yield of 250,000 tonnes of demersal
fish for the same area. All this was published in one of the world’s leading peer reviewed marine
science journals, Acta Oceanographica Taiwanica.
Their estimated sustainable catch is some 300 times more than the 800 tonne maximum yield
imposed by current management. It is also more than the current total wild catch of all Australian
fisheries.
Could this be possible? Actually, the Taiwanese catch comes to about a tonne per square Km or 10
Kg. per Ha. This is not extreme at all and is comparable to moderately good trawling grounds
elsewhere in the world.
It is also consistent with estimates based on the extensive trap catches. It amounts to a small
fraction of 1% of the primary productivity of the area. This is further confirmed by echo sounder, line
fishing and video evidence of abundant fish throughout the fishing grounds.
The only thing not in accord is the output from computer modelling conducted by office workers a
thousand kilometres away in Perth, who in two decades of management have never even seen the
fishery.
21
The management of the NDSF trap fishery repeated 100-fold around the country is what is wrong in
Australian fisheries management. It is simply a fantasy not even credible at first glance if accorded
the most rudimentary quantitative examination.
Some key facts regarding Australian fisheries:
No marine species in Australia are threatened with extinction by fishing.
No severe population collapse due to overfishing has been documented in Australia.
No reduction in marine biodiversity from fishing has been documented in Australia.
The overall harvest rate for Australian fisheries is the lowest of any nation.
The productivity of Australian waters is not unusually low.
The catch rate of Australian fisheries is indicative of healthy stocks, not of overfishing.
MPA Mania
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs, a.k.a. green zones) are a current fad in marine resource
management (and yes, science does have its fads). Where renewable resources are overexploited
some form of restriction is desirable. MPAs are but one of a range of restrictive measures that may
be employed. Whether they offer any advantage or disadvantage to closed seasons, catch limits,
limited licensing or other restrictions has not been assessed.
As one might expect, there is evidence that in heavily exploited regions there are more and bigger
fish in protected areas and some of the protected population will spill over into the immediately
adjacent area. However, the spill over effect that has been observed has only been apparent over
a distance of a few hundred metres. In this respect lots of small reserves might be more effective
than fewer larger ones although this is contrary to the current management idea that MPAs need to
be much larger.
One would also reasonably expect that the increased populations and spill over effects would be
proportional to the fishing pressure. Where only light pressure exists not much effect should be
expected and indeed this has been what has been found with the closed reefs on the Great Barrier
Reef.
From a fisheries management standpoint a key question is whether the increase in catch just outside
a reserve is greater than what is lost by having the reserve itself. Or, to put it differently, is it better
to protect a portion of an area and concentrate impact on the remainder or to spread the harvest
over the whole and limit it by other forms of restriction. At present we simply don’t know and until
such assessment has been made the establishment of extensive MPAs amounts to large scale
environmental meddling with no clear idea of efficacy or consequences. Ironically, this is in direct
disregard to the precautionary principle so often cited as justifying the immediate need for such
measures.
Most importantly there is no urgent need for extensive MPA’s in Australia and we can afford the
time to learn more and know what we are doing instead of imposing costly and un-needed measures
that may create more problems than they address.
20 good reasons why MPAs in Australia are a useless solution to a non-problem
1. MPAs are an ill-considered and expensive idea which addresses no demonstrated
problem. Bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny while permitting a single minister to
exercise personal discretion in implementing a vast, costly, unneeded network of
MPA’s is gross misgovernance.
22
2. The claim that international treaty obligations require establishment of the planned
MPAs is untrue. Pandering for Green votes is the only real purpose.
3. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity deals primarily with sustainable
development and the agricultural and bio-medical uses of natural resources. It
imposes no demand for MPAs or obligation for any specific conservation measures.
However, Article 10 (c) of this Convention does require signatories to, "…protect
and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional
cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use
requirements...." “Customary” and “traditional” in this context is not limited to
indigenous peoples. Under this convention the obligation to protect and encourage
the customary use of recreational and commercial fishing by non-indigenous
Australians is in no way distinct from the obligation to protect such use by
indigenous Australians.
4. The Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas is an initiative of The
World Conservation Union (IUCN). The IUCN is an NGO based in Switzerland. Their
stated mission is to: "influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world
to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of
natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable". One of their objectives
is the establishment of a global representative system of MPAs. An objective by an
NGO creates no specific obligation under international law or treaty. It should also
be noted that even the IUCN has explicitly recognised that trivial increases in
environmental protection should not be pursued using highly restrictive and
economically expensive measures.
5. The Law of the Sea Treaty, under which we claim Exclusive Economic Zone rights to
the areas outside 12 nautical miles from land, provides that exclusive rights to
resources depends on utilisation. Provision is made that other nations may petition
for access to unutilised resources. Huge MPA areas combined with a fisheries
harvest rate at 1/30th of the global average and excessive demand for seafood
imports set the stage for a successful future petition by Asian nations for access to
our vast underutilised EEZ areas.
6. Australia already has about 25% of total global MPA area. The Coral Sea and other
planned expansions will then comprise about 50% of the global total. Biodiversity
protection obligations are already over-fulfilled.
7. MPAs in Australia are not really about preserving marine biodiversity at all. There is
no known instance of any marine species in Australia which has been lost through
human impacts and none that are now threatened by fishing.
8. At present, no need for or benefit from, extensive MPAs has been shown to exist
and it would be prudent to await accumulation of further knowledge to establish
them if and when indicated in accord with increasing knowledge. Current scientific
understanding is simply not adequate for a soundly based large scale
implementation of MPAs. The crash program of MPA implementation amounts to
large scale environmental meddling with no proper assessment of need, efficacy or
consequences.
23
9. MPAs do nothing to address pollution or climate change. Their sole effect is to
further restrict fishing when we already have the world’s most highly restricted
marine fisheries.
10. MPAs, closed seasons, size limits, bag limits, quotas, gear restrictions, limited
licenses and access restrictions have been imposed willy-nilly on fishing with little
or no evidence of any problem and no consideration of socio-economic impacts. It
seems that current management has never seen an additional restriction they find
unnecessary or superfluous to those already in place.
11. Australia has the largest per capita fishing zone and lowest harvest rate in the world
at about 1/30th of the global average. We also have the most restrictive and costly
marine resource management in the world. Two-thirds of our seafood consumption
is imported. All of these imports come from much more heavily exploited resources
elsewhere. This is unconscionable.
12. Having most of the world’s MPA area where it is unneeded does nothing to
preserve global marine biodiversity.
13. Seafood imports cost $1.7 billion annually and must be paid for by mineral exports
or add to the chronic trade deficit. Selling off a non-renewable resource to a buy a
renewable one we have in abundance while adding to an unsustainable deficit is
simply bad management.
14. Fisheries have the lowest detrimental impact on natural ecosystems of any food
producing sector. Restrictions on fishing only further increase the already higher
impact of terrestrial food production.
15. Holders of fishing rights have committed to large investments in both money and
years of their lives on the assurance that their rights were, secure, permanent and
tradeable. Their licenses are in fact a contract with government and under contract
law the terms and conditions of their rights cannot be legally changed without
either their full knowledge and consent or fair and just compensation.
Compensation for the fishing industry as a consequence of the expanded green
zones on the GBR has cost over $200 million and is still not completed. Similar
compensation for the national MPA network could exceed this by an order of
magnitude. All that is just to close down productive activity without even
considering the ongoing long term economic loss.
16. Over recent years numerous large scale clinical and epidemiological studies
published in the world’s leading medical journals have found significant health
benefits from increased seafood consumption for a broad range of neurological,
cardio-vascular and immune related conditions. In particular it affords significant
reduction in obesity, heart disease, depression, aggression and age related mental
deterioration. It is also important in mental development and functioning in
children. Translated into reduced health care costs, it could save Australia billions of
dollars per year not to mention the improved quality of life for millions of
Australians. We need to be looking at how to expand our underutilised fisheries
24
and aquaculture potentials, not seeking to find more imaginary reasons to close
them down. Imposing more and more restrictions on our fisheries is quite literally
contributing to national stupidity and ill health.
17. The proposed Coral Sea MPA is the biggest and most ill-advised of all the proposed
MPAs because:
a. Most Coral Sea islands and reefs are already protected as national parks.
b. All Coral Sea fisheries are already subject to highly restrictive AFMA
management.
c. The existing GBR National Park already affords protection of all Coral Sea
species and biotopes in the world’s largest coral reef MPA.
d. The Coral Sea is one of the world’s prime tuna fishing grounds. We now
produce a few hundred tonnes from the Coral Sea where previously
Japanese fishermen had sustainably produced around 30,000 tonnes
annually for many years. Meanwhile PNG licenses Asian fishing
companies to fish the same migratory stocks in their waters. They
currently catch about 750,000 tonnes while all our tuna fisheries are
only allowed to catch about 15,000 tonnes. We then import some $165
million annually in canned tuna. We “save” our fish for Asian fishermen
to catch and then sell back to us.
18. Why, at a time when government is struggling with deficits and trying to stimulate
economic activity, do we need to be taking on additional millions of dollars in
expenditure to address a problem which does not exist and further curtail
productive activity and employment?
19. All Australians are already paying a high price for gross resource mismanagement in
our cost of living, our health, our freedom and in the broader wellbeing of the
nation. The proposed MPAs will only contribute to these costs with no benefit to
the environment at all.
20. In current economic conditions adding more and more ill-conceived restrictions
onto our food producers is tantamount to a betrayal of national interests. It is time
that positive outcomes be required, not just meaningless eco-waffle. It is also time
for real evidence to be demanded for claims, not just unsupported opinions by a
chorus of “experts” seeking more funding. Over the past year there is indication
that the electorate has begun to realise that government has not been entirely
truthful about climate change and other environmental matters; and, that we are
all paying a punishing price to buy the votes of a small minority of ill-informed
urban Greens “concerned” about things they have never seen, know nothing about
and in which they have nothing invested.
Management
A browse through the websites and publications of the various state and commonwealth bodies
involved in Australian fisheries reveals numerous claims to excellence and even assertions of being
the “world’s best” in fisheries management.
A few years ago the managing director of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA)
described their management as “… actually leading the world in this stuff” and “It is cutting edge.”
25
In reality the management of Australian fisheries is the most expensive, restrictive and least
productive in the world. Every year increasing management costs are delivering only further
decreases in production, participation and profitability while managers bask in self- awarded
accolades. In a number of smaller fisheries, management costs more than the GDP of the fishery.
Money could be saved by just paying the fishermen not to fish and dispensing with management!
The fundamental purpose of management for utilisation is to deliver increased productivity,
efficiency and profitability. In this regard our management has failed abysmally. Every significant
fishery here has suffered substantially decreased productivity, efficiency and profitability. In all
cases the decline is primarily attributable to management imposed charges, restrictions and
demands, not any decline in the resource. In no instance has management yielded any
improvement to a fishery. Management that delivers only declining productivity, efficiency and
profitability is contrary to the very concept of management.
Current management emphasises protection, precaution and sustainability; but, in itself, this is a no
brainer. To achieve these aims, all that is required are high levels of restriction. Good management,
however, must also entail productive utilisation of resources and maximising their socio-economic
value, not just locking them up to “protect” them.
Claims of excellent management are always bolstered by assertions it’s all based on sound science.
Examination of global fisheries management literature presents a different picture. The proliferation
of fisheries management here is relatively recent and little in the form of widely regarded studies or
positive results has been forthcoming. However, there has been repeated appeal to alleged scientific
findings which, if actually examined, either do not support the claims being made or even refute
them.
Mostly, this scientific charade consists of “expert” opinions, computer models and a liberal dose of
important sounding techno-waffle devoid of any clear meaning. Although terms such as
sustainability, biodiversity, ecosystem-based management, ecologically sustainable development,
computer models, precautionary, overfishing, threatened and endangered all do have technical
definitions, they have also become undefined colloquialised terms of emotional index.
This style of eco-speak, bureau-blather and techno-gibberish sounds impressive, means little and
misleads without outright lying. Its real purpose is to provide an aura of scientific sophistication
along with an element of emotive appeal without actually committing to anything for which anyone
could be held accountable.
Computer models uncertain
In the past, maximum sustained yield was the ideal and monitoring the performance of a fishery was
the primary methodology of management. Now we have a new generation of biologists schooled in
theories and enthralled by sophisticated computer models based on simplistic assumptions about
complex and highly variable phenomena of which we genuinely understand very little. Although such
models may be of value in gaining insights about the possible dynamics of a resource, their output is
fraught with many uncertainties.
26
Typically they require generous tweaking to yield results that are within the bounds of credibility –
and their output tends to reflect more the assumptions, aims and adjustments of the modeller than
anything in reality.
From a bureaucratic perspective computer modelling has much to offer. It can be done from an
office in office hours. It lends an aura of high tech sophistication and credibility. Results can be
adjusted to suit any desired outcome. The methods, inputs and assumptions can be claimed to be
intellectual property and so not open to independent examination. What’s not to like?
The only thing lacking is the only thing that actually counts for real science and that is verification;
but, fortunately for management nobody seems interested in that anymore.
Experts without experience
Genuine expertise is usually self-evident and needs no claims. Whenever it is self-proclaimed, as is
common in Australian fisheries management, it is usually also doubtful. The researchers charged
with the management of Australian fisheries are academic office workers most of whom have little
or no real world experience of the fisheries they oversee. With only a few years classroom training in
generalised theory about complex and poorly understood natural systems they are charged with
making critical management decisions determining the viability of multimillion dollar industries.
Typically this is done from an office hundreds of kilometres away from the actual activity they are
supervising and which in many cases they have never ever actually seen. Worse yet, their decision
making power is unilateral, discretionary and final with no accountability for outcomes, no oversight
by a board of directors and no answerability to actual stakeholders.
Environmentalism
On top of all this has come the rise of environmentalism and a growing attitude that primary
producers are exploiters who need to be severely curtailed if not stopped altogether.
To many urbanites the environment has acquired a near sacred status. Though themselves voracious
consumers, they are divorced from the production that supplies their demands. Those who provide
their needs are seen as greedy exploiters and defilers of the sacred. Even more ironically, their own
chosen lifestyle is one which has virtually annihilated the natural world in the environment in which
they choose to live.
No matter how sound the supporting evidence, any suggestion that an environmental problem may
not be as dire as feared receives only angry rejection from environmentalists, never hopeful interest.
Their commitment is to the problem, not to a balanced solution, and the stake holding they so
righteously claim is one assumed with no investment in money, knowledge or experience.
The reality of a constant struggle for survival in a dynamic ever changing world has been replaced by
a romantic notion of nature in a blissful state of harmony and balance: something pure and perfect
where any detectable human influence is by definition a desecration. This sacred perspective of the
environment manifests itself in language where fragile and delicate become almost mandatory
adjectives in describing the natural world.
A peculiar corollary of all this has been the enshrinement of the precautionary principle as
mandating that any imagined possibility of an environmental effect must be addressed with full
measures to prevent it. Unfortunately this formulation makes no reference to probability, cost, or
27
consequences of risks and it offers a ready cloak for sundry other agendas. In fact, it would even
preclude itself as everything we do or don’t do entails risk, including precautionary measures
themselves. Amazingly, this vacuous and pernicious piece of nonsense has even been written into
the enabling legislation for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority.
Privatisation
The idea of limited entry fisheries and catch quotas was sold to fishermen on the basis that this
would provide valuable, secure and tradable rights that would in effect be their own superannuation
fund. Experience has proved otherwise. Once initiated with generous catch quotas to get the mugs
into the tent, quotas have typically been reduced to a level where it becomes necessary to either sell
out or buy more rights. This has worked well for sellers deciding to take a healthy one-time payment
and get out; but, it has saddled the active fishermen with high debts. It has also served to squeeze
out independent individual fishermen with more and more of the most valuable fisheries becoming
the private property of a few bigger corporate operators and investors who buy rights which they
then lease to fishermen who cannot afford to buy any more themselves.
The end result has been the demise of the independent fishermen, a high bar to entry for younger
fishermen, monopolisation of a public resource by corporate and absentee owners, shortages of
supply and exorbitant prices for consumers.
Management divorced from reality
Management of our fisheries has become divorced from the realities of the industry, the real nature
of the resource and any factual consideration of its condition and dynamics. Fishing is a demanding
and uncertain, often even dangerous, business. The ability to bear added costs and restrictions is not
unlimited and their imposition should only be imposed with due care.
The marine communities upon which fisheries are based are not fragile and delicate, but rather
robust and flexible ones that readily undergo and recover from frequent natural perturbations.
There is little risk in monitoring fisheries and addressing problems if and when they become
apparent, rather than trying to take elaborate pre-emptive action to avoid an endless array of
imaginary possibilities.
Ecology is above all holistic.
Every organism must have effects in order to exist. We are no exception. Aiming to maximise our
beneficial effects and minimise our detrimental ones requires trade-offs and balances whereby we
seek to spread our impacts across our whole resource base within the bounds of sustainability.
Every resource we lock up puts more pressure on others and makes balance more difficult. An
unnecessary restriction in one place becomes an increased impact somewhere else. Any food not
produced by fishing must come from the land and come with a greater environmental impact.
The economic and health costs of this mismanagement are already immense and they are
increasing. A two to three fold increase in seafood consumption over the next several decades is
projected and is expected to come from imports. However, with growth in economic development in
Asia their demand for seafood is rapidly increasing as are prices. Meanwhile we have the smallest
manufacturing sector in any developed nation, the highest foreign debt (growing at twice the rate of
GDP), exploding imports and an economy increasingly dependent on raw commodity exports. Now
our resource managers are assuring we will need to import still more.
28
Selling off non-renewable resources to buy a renewable one we could easily produce ourselves is
apparently their idea of “sustainable management”.
This disconnect from reality in our fisheries management would be unbelievable were it not true.
Most remarkable of all is that the media, the public and government have swallowed management’s
self-praise and bogus scientific claims without question despite the obvious ongoing decline in the
industry. A succession of Labor, Liberal and National party ministers have presided over this debacle
and been a willing mouthpiece for management disinformation. It would appear few have ever
bothered to really listen to fishermen, noticed the empty berths and idle deteriorating vessels in
fishing ports, wondered about the overwhelming predominance of imported seafood in
supermarkets, examined the industry statistics or thought to look at what fisheries everywhere else
do produce.
Steadfastness and optimism in the face of adversity are valuable qualities only if accompanied by an
ability to assess and address the situation. “She’ll be right”, in itself, is not good enough. The first
step to effectively dealing with any problem is to recognise that it exists. The situation with our
fisheries goes beyond a gross failure in management. It includes a widespread refusal to even
consider that such a problem might even exist.
With a global economic slowdown looming and revenue in decline, government is looking for places
to cut their budget. Fisheries management deserves to be near the head of their list. It’s not just
wasted money but is an expenditure that generates a massive negative multiplier. It has strangled
an entire industry, created a large and growing bill for imports and is adding an unknown but surely
significant amount to health costs. If the total economic cost of current fisheries mismanagement is
compared to even a conservative estimate of what our fisheries could sustainably produce, the
annual cost would have to be several billion dollars.
In the management of Australian fisheries three key points are apparent
• Claims of widespread overfishing at our levels of harvest are contrary to both
reason and evidence.
• Fisheries are robust resources. There is little risk of irreversible damage from
dealing with problems as they actually develop rather than invoking elaborate
precautionary measures to avoid every imagined hypothetical possibility.
• Management which delivers orders of magnitude less productivity than no
management at all requires a severe overhaul.
We like to think we are a clever country. This is a test.
29
Recommendations
Just before his election as Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd announced he would take a “meat axe” to the
bloated bureaucracy if he won office. Our environmental management agencies, and in particular
marine management, deserve to be near the top of the list for such attention. Even if our tiny catch
were indeed all our waters could sustain the ongoing trend of spending more and more on
management where the resulting production and profitability become less and less is the antithesis
of the fundamental purpose of management.
Making bureaucratic budgets and authority subject to outcomes would yield a quantum
improvement in governance. If this could be effected it really would be a “cutting edge”
achievement in management.
Setting management and research budgets in accord with the production and profitability of the
industry would bring a much needed discipline to bear. That is, make the manager’s own funding
depend directly on the results of their management. This should also include modest base salaries
with good bonuses for improved production and profits.
A more empirical approach needed
A big problem with fisheries is that they are somewhere out there and underwater. Anything can be
claimed but who’s to know? Actual knowledge is sparse and the little that is known is usually
inferred and uncertain. The absence of real understanding and a proliferation of office based
management coming straight from the degree mills with no actual experience of fisheries have
resulted in a management approach based largely on theories and models. Empirical assessment of
the actual resource is largely wanting and little regard is given the practical realities of the industry.
The precautionary principle disposes of any uncertainties while the righteousness of saving the
environment justifies any hardships imposed.
In general a much more empirically based approach is needed. Management decisions should
be based on what is actually happening in a fishery, not theories and models. In view of our
ignorance and the complexity of the matters involved, it would also be prudent to test
measures before applying them on a broad scale and to carefully assess their results when
implemented.
Proposals for additional MPA’s must be based on demonstrated needs and provide
measurable balanced benefits.
Much stronger involvement of the industry in formulating management measures is essential
to ensure that the form of demands is appropriate to the practical realities of the fishery. This
needs to entail a genuine industry voice in management decision making instead of the phony
charade of consultation with government funded “peak bodies” that typically are nothing
more than handbags for the bureaucracy to whom they are beholden for funding. Seats on
the boards of management agencies for genuine industry representation with authority equal
to management would seem highly appropriate.
Remote control management by theory without broad and ongoing assessment of actual conditions
and results is a recipe only for continuing decline.
30
We now face an ongoing global financial crisis, a tightening oil supply crunch and emerging food
supply problems. Continuing to add further ill-founded restrictions on our producers is tantamount
to betrayal of national interests. It is time that positive results are demanded from management, not
just waffle.
It is also time that real evidence is demanded of researchers, not just unsupported opinions by
a chorus of “experts” seeking more funding. Above all, it is past time for the public and
government to realise that we are all paying the price of resource mismanagement in our
health, in the cost of living and in the general well-being of the nation.
Above all, budgets and authority of management must be related to outcomes. Current fisheries
management has become a sheltered workshop for otherwise unemployable academics who
pretend to be managing vast and complex marine ecosystems by remote control from air
conditioned offices. The science is only a sham. Their real guiding principle is environmentalist
ideology aimed at prohibiting fishing, not at improving it.
References
ABARES 2011
Australian fisheries statistics 2010, Canberra, August 2011.
Campbell, D & Murphy, JJ 2005
The 2000–01 National Recreational Fishing Survey Economic Report, A Fisheries Action Program Project,
Natural Heritage Trust, FRDC Project No. 99/158.
Countries' EEZ areas and marine primary productivity -
http://www.seaaroundus.org/eez/eez.aspx
Henry, G & Lyle, J (eds) 2003
The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry,
Canberra.
Hilborn, Ray & Kearney, Bob 2012
Australian Seafood Consumers Misled by Prophets of Doom and Gloom, 19pp.
http://www.sydneyfishmarket.com.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=L-DLXbsmBJA%3d&tabid=103
Starck, Walter
Numerous articles on Australian fisheries management by Walter Starck may be downloaded in .pdf format at:
http://www.goldendolphin.com

With all due respect, I don't think definitions for words are half the battle.  It's about weighing up all the evidence and arriving at a balanced decision.  I have no objection to the idea of having some areas set aside as pristine environments where you can observe a largely undisturbed ecosystem.  There’s also value in that beyond whatever conservation and management benefits that exist in my view to.  I also know some sanctuaries have been fished heavily in the past. One of my favourite Mackie spots used to be a reef line in 6m of water in what is now part of the Lighthouse Bay Sanctuary (Exmouth).  Sure I miss the spot but there are others and from what I’m told by the divers the resident species are doing very nicely indeed since the sanctuary was created. 

More importantly though, I recognise Exy doesn’t fish as consistently as it once did 25 years ago and that it can’t all be attributed to the pros etc.  I’ve seen firsthand what a few years intensive fishing pressure from amateurs can do to an area.  The 15-40kg GTs you could rely on to sight cast to at one shore location until some loose lips led to it being fished every frigging day.  Then there’s the hoards of Queenies you could rely on at certain times in some places until a few years worth of fishing pressure screwed those spots to.  These were all areas that fished consistently for decades while the pros were catching prawns etc in the gulf so it all happened because of amateurs.  Hardly surprising that those that advertised these areas to others keep their own top Exy spots secret these days. 

I do worry though is that my interests don’t seem to be the same as many fishers.  In fact I can see that many C&R fishers like me might need to find our own voice.  Some opportunity for us to talk to the sensible greens and look at other ideas.  Perhaps having stricter bag limits and a “zero trip limit” for the entire NW cape.  If you can’t eat it there then it goes back.  Make the whole area a place for ocean fillers instead of freezer fillers and as part of the compromise, get the right to fish some sanctuaries =) 

There's an idea with appeal

Sensible greens is a good call mate, if you can find them. The groups pushing this have a stated policy of "starving fishermen of oxygen in this debate"

They have no interest in dealing with us as they are ideologically opposed to fishing.

RFW has used your idea, indeed we are getting a wilderness fishing area in the Camden Sound area, where only one fish can be kept for the table and the rest must be released.

However, the Cons Council says catch and release fishing is not compatible with conservation objectives.

Pretty sure RFW also suggested a similar approach in Exmouth Gulf, which got no support from conservation groups who only want sanctuary zones. 

Yeah I heard that Scotty.  Disappointing stuff really but, what I can tell you is that from talking to some of those that vote green is that they don’t like the lunatic fringe in their own movement either – they just need an alternative.  So what you need is a plan to fracture their base as their voting block is not a unified one (it’s as fractured as ours).  It will require some work but it can be done. 

The only reason I am saying this as I can’t believe some of the rhetoric I’m seeing here.  I know how the possession limit game works in Exy.  Seen a lot of blokes catch their limit and have it trucked south and then catch it again before heading off (40kg each right there).  Well aware that many have trucked more than that south in the past.  How often do you get inspected?  Happened once to me in well over 20 years.  In the old days there were far fewer fisherman but these days there’s far more and there’s just too many holes in the status quo for us to be able to say the right thing has been done. 

Had a massive fallout with one of the Murdoch Uni researchers on the very issue of fishing rights.  I have always believed we have a right to fish responsibly.  What constitutes “responsible” fishing policy though is not a matter of cherry picking a couple of papers that say what we want to say and ignoring other credible sources and evidence that suggest we need to rethink our game plan.  That’s all I’m saying.

Wow ! - what a remarkable co-incidence that the areas proposed for 'high conservation value' all fall outside of current oil & Gas exploration leases !!

There is a solution to the fishing exclusions.

These decicions are made by the political parties and their chosen members when they are in power @ Federal government.

The only way these legislations can/will be over turned is if another political party gets power to Govern and their party members have sufficient numbers within the party to instruct the elected parlimentairians to repeal the legislations.

The only other way is public outrage and pressure, which I, sadly, cannot see happening on this .

Due to the fact that political parties membership is only a very small % of the total population the Political membership pressure is the better way to achieve this for a relative small group of fishermen and women.

This is because it takes a LOT less members in a party structure to gain the upper hand.

So if you feel that this is making sense then consider it.

aprox. 200 financial party members, cost $25 each per year, will be able to achieve this when organised as a group. 

Glastronomic that sounds like some church ad. Pay so much $ and Jesus will sort it out. Change "financial members" to believers and you will see what I mean

Well spook, show this forum your stratergy.

I like some of your thinking Alex, but I think you will find that most are opposed to how this is a 'blanket' marine park.  Its not the fact that marine parks are being implemented, its the way its being done.  You can't just go, heres a line here, theres another one there and lets just shut it down because thats the pro-active thing to do to protect the ecosystem.  It is such a massive area that there is no definitive way to assess the impact it is going to have and if it is successful in achieving the desired outcomes.

The way I believe it should be implemented is; small areas are locked off because of their diversity values, soft corals, sponge gardens, rock, rubble (etc etc) and an analysis of what different types of species live in those areas that can be protected and have value to the overall ecosystem.  I have no problems with marine parks and sanctuary zones and think they have been used very effectively in Exmouth (I didn't use to think that, but have since seen their benefits), it is a balance where fisherman can still catch a feed and conservation is still maintained.  (As for the freezer filling mentality, I'm pretty sure the 10kg limits can't be too far away from being implemented from what I was told a while back)  I don't understand why these types of zones can't be used as a template for other areas down the coast where fishermen can still have their access and the areas of importance that can help to regenerate populations are maintained and protected.

The real reason behind it IMO is that it is a last ditch effort by the greens to accomplish something whilst they hold some power over the labor govt (knowing full well they are going to get reamed at the next election and there is most likely a change of govt coming)  Whilst they do have some control over the govt, why not go for as much as possible and get the 30% of Australia coastline they have been talking about for years.  (Whilst still allowing the O&G exploration to continue as to ensure the real power of the economy is free to power on)  To me it isn't a rational thought out plan to conserve our ocean with key stakeholders in mind, it is a pin the tail on the donkey move to say look at us, aren't we great (oh and lets just allow a supertrawler in while everyone thinks about the boat people)  The mind wonders sometimes...

Yeah that makes heaps more sense Adam, the greens wont get a seat in the next election (how did they in the first place?) so they are trying to get something done. I agree its probably too much at once but the theory of it all as you said as a basis on Exmouth works. After the next elction would those move loose momentum or will this be implemented before the greens/labour/independents loose seats??

I think you and I pretty much see eye to eye on this.  As I said above – I recognize Sanctuaries are only a small part of the picture and that arguably the balance is wrong here.   Some of my remarks are aimed at some of the posts I’ve seen in a few threads (not just this one) that really rubbed me up the wrong way.  It’s okay now; the rage has subsided LOL

Totally agree with you about the Greens motive for this push.  As you said - It is entirely an opportunistic public relations exercise to help boost their cred in the eyes of their base before the next election. 

Most of the main stream political parties will have a very good idea of what public opinion is on this subject.  Between 1000- 2000 political surveys are done in WA most weeks by the two big parties (Dunno how many get done in other states).  So I seriously doubt the greens will achieve their ultimate goal.  We just need to do a better job of highlighting that there are more effective ways to achieve conservation/sustainability goals than this.  Do it well enough and I think we may actually win over most of those that vote green to.