Marine parks and sanctuary no fishing zones, WA reports.

"Reported" in the West today on page 13 under the heading "Call for sanctuaries to protect fish stocks", the article says "A ban on fishing in vast areas off the WA coast moved a step closer yesterday after a major State Government report backed marine sanctuaries as a key safeguard against overfishing and protection of marine biodiversity."

For anyone who wants the facts rather than rely on that muddled report, here are some unedited, full extracts of parts from the report(s). Two separate reports were released. One report is by Dept of Fisheries (only). The second has both "Dept of Environment and Conservation" and "Dept of Fisheries" on the cover and is the one "summarised" in the West article. See a later post.

You can expect more selective media stuff on this. There is a LOT of detail in these reports.

One is on http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/frr/frr169/index.php?0401 Fisheries Research Report No. 169, 2010. 48 pages. Title:- The efficacy of sanctuary areas for the management of fish stocks and biodiversity in WA waters.

1.0 Executive summary

There has been an ongoing debate about the relative value of sanctuary areas for the management of fish stocks, and biodiversity more generally. This debate can often be exacerbated by unrecognised differences among stakeholders in the definitions used and the scope and scale of the objectives to be achieved. Conflicts are also likely where there are strong expectations about the relative value of a specific strategy irrespective of the structure of the system to which it could be applied or the levels of management already being employed.

With marine sanctuary areas becoming an increasingly popular management tool, a critical assessment of their relative efficacy in meeting different government and community objectives is urgently required. This may assist in reconciling some of the areas of dispute and will hopefully result in better coordination in management approaches, more effective and efficient protection and broader community acceptance of the outcomes.

In Western Australia, the Department of Fisheries (DoF) is responsible for meeting the objectives of the Fisheries Resources Management Act (FRMA), which includes “to conserve fish and protect their environment”. In this context “fish” is defined as “aquatic organisms of any species except amphibians, mammals, birds, and reptiles”, therefore these FRMA objectives cover the conservation of most of the State’s marine fauna and flora. More specifically the FRMA provides a basis for the management of all ‘fish’ species, including protection of their environment, associated food chains, and ensuring that the harvesting of these resources is undertaken in a sustainable manner throughout all waters off WA.

This paper considers the potential threats to the State’s fish stocks and biodiversity under the current management controls and outlines the range of strategies available to add further protection. The review then assesses the relative benefits and limitations that ‘no take’ or sanctuary areas implemented under either Fisheries or Marine Park legislation, may have in assisting meet the state -wide objectives of the FRMA. It is not designed to be an all-inclusive review of MPA related literature (of which there are already many), nor does it cover the role of sanctuaries in meeting smaller scale objectives, such as those associated with individual marine parks; these are covered within the WA Government’s New Horizons Policy.

The conclusions outlined in this paper have been developed taking into account the following background of management arrangements and related marine research findings in WA.

• The responsibilities and processes of the Department of Fisheries which are designed to provide overall protection for the marine environment and biodiversity for the entire WA coast, including the relevant ‘Commonwealth waters’ (beyond 12 nmiles out to either the 200 m depth contour or the 200 nmile limit).

• The Department operates using an Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) framework that now incorporates an ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) approach. This includes the use of risk assessment processes to manage the impacts on target species, by-catch species, habitats, plus any potential indirect impacts of these removals on the broader ecosystem at both the fishery and bioregional levels.

• The Department’s marine management strategies recognise that there is an increasing level of interest for non-extractive uses of the marine environment at specific locations arising from activities such as eco-tourism, which will require appropriately sized and accessible Fish Habitat Protection Areas (FHPA’s) or sanctuaries within MPAs

• The Department has a long-standing history and significant expertise using spatial management systems (of which complete closures are just one form) for the management of fisheries resources in WA.

• Most WA waters are already protected by some level of closure or controls on fishing methods that can significantly impact directly on marine habitats (for example trawling). These management arrangements have taken into account the findings from significant research on the environmental effects of prawn and scallop trawling and other demersal
fishing methods to ensure that such activities are restricted to benthic habitats where impacts will be minimal or transitory.

In summary this review concludes that:

• 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. Approximately 35% of continental shelf waters already have full habitat protection at levels equivalent to MPAs under IUCN categories IV, V and VI. The effective area of habitat protection generated through direct and indirect controls on trawl fisheries covers about 90% of continental shelf waters.

• 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. In such circumstances, highly targeted closures (not necessarily to all fishing activities or for the entire year) in conjunction with other broad scale actions have proven to be effective management options.

• Most of the marine species subject to fishing (including those with benthic stages) in WA are highly mobile either as adults, juveniles or both; which greatly reduces the efficacy of small, static, non-targeted spatial controls for their management at a stock level.

• The implementation of sanctuaries alone, will generally not improve the quality of fishing in the areas left open along the WA coast, as the re-direction of effort from a newly established sanctuary area is likely to result in a reduction in local catch rates within the surrounding regions.

• In contrast to agricultural production on land, ongoing commercial and recreational fisheries production within the WA marine environment is totally reliant on the natural ecosystem continuing to function in relatively normal manner.

• The main marine habitats in WA at risk are the estuaries and embayments where land-based, non-fishing activities have resulted in nutrient rich run-off and eutrophication, which has significantly altered ecosystems (e.g. the Peel–Harvey Estuary). In these situations closures would neither rebuild affected fish stocks nor assist with the protection of the broader ecosystem.

Based on these assessments this report supports the concept that clearly defined sanctuary areas (within marine parks or FHPAs) will play a valuable, but restricted part of an overall scheme of management to sustain resources and protect biodiversity in WA waters. This is consistent with another recent review, which concluded that "MPAs must be designed and operated in the context of higher-order management frameworks” (World Bank, 2006)”,

Consequently, 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.

Where a sanctuary zoning is being considered for a specific area, the planning process would be made more efficient by:
• ensuring there are clear, simple and measurable biodiversity, research, ecotourism or fisheries management objectives, which are meaningful to the key stakeholder groups and the general public, and that the area being set aside is of a scale relevant to its purpose;

• ensuring that the site proposed takes into account and complements any existing fisheries or other management arrangements that could assist with protection of biodiversity.

• having a clearly specified and fully costed research and monitoring program directly linked to the biological and socio-economic (tourism) objectives set, with appropriate performance indicators and a transparent reporting system.
• specifying periodic reviews that could include the provision of sunset clauses if any area is found not to be assisting in meeting the agreed objectives.

In regard to the use of sanctuaries or other types of complete no-take areas to meet the objectives of the FRMA, it is our assessment that:

• The static and non species specific nature of sanctuaries as a management tool will preclude their use as an efficient strategy to deal with the stock-level management of the majority of fished stocks in WA, which are typically free ranging and broadly distributed. The high level of overlap in the footprints of these species also conflicts with the complete 'no take' nature of sanctuaries and further limits their effective application for sustainable management of
harvested species in WA waters.

• Sanctuaries (or equivalent FHPs) of appropriate scale will be valuable where their primary purposes relate to the preservation of representative examples of biodiversity; the provision of areas for various no-take uses (ecotourism), and/or as sites for long-term scientific monitoring.

• Declaration of a sanctuary will automatically raise resource use and allocation issues, with direct implications for the right of access (especially in near-shore areas) and possible compensation or litigation issues. This will be a particular issue for sedentary species such as abalone, where any such closures over productive abalone reef habitats directly reduces otherwise sustainable catches and is a clear reallocation from fishing to 'no take' use. It may be less of an issue for highly mobile fish species, except where the proposed sanctuary is to be situated over the only accessible fishing area (i.e. next to the only boat ramp or overlying the only safely fishable reefs within the region)*.

• The effective management of MPAs, which overlay the wider geographic fisheries regulations, will generally raise significant and ongoing compliance and education requirements, which will need to be adequately resourced. Multiple-use MPAs, incorporating significant sanctuary areas, are likely to exacerbate costs, resource use and allocation issues and therefore, should require a comprehensive cost benefit assessment during the design phase.

• A key issue for the evaluation of the efficacy of a sanctuary will be the dynamic nature of marine ecosystems and the ability to distinguish changes caused by human impacts (or management) from natural changes driven by environmental factors outside human control.

• Long-term monitoring programs, including time-series data for harvested fish species (and presumably other components) will be required to assess impacts from the establishment of the sanctuaries and whether they have met the expected objectives. This will require new monitoring programs to be initiated, which will have to collect data at much finer spatial scales than has been previously undertaken for stock-wide assessments. Such programs must be adequately resourced so as not to compromise the current monitoring systems that are needed for stock-wide assessments.

• Thus the development and implementation of any additional sanctuary areas will automatically generate additional costs to Government associated with their declaration, management, monitoring and compliance. All of which would need to be justified related to the projected benefits.

• The establishment of an across-Government-agency process (covering both State and Commonwealth) for broad-scale marine planning, which integrates relevant policy and legislation, would greatly assist in achieving the best marine management outcomes for the WA community. It is further suggested that the planning process for future MPAs and sanctuaries within the marine waters of WA, would be more efficient and outcomes better if it were to follow the IUCN suggestion to recognise and build on the level of existing protection for marine biodiversity, such as those provided by the FRMA.

Whilst simplistic solutions (e.g. all fisheries need sanctuary zones) and generic rules (‘x’% of the coastline always needs to be closed to fishing) are often proposed, these are rarely found to be optimal or appropriate when dealing with the management of complex natural systems. Experiences in WA, and elsewhere, have shown that the only effective methods for the overall conservation and maintenance of harvested species (i.e. not their local densities) requires specific, directed and coordinated controls on the overall catch and effort across their entire range. While these controls often involve stock-specific spatial &/or temporal closure systems, complete closures or sanctuaries will generally make only a minor contribution to the management required.

==========

Contents
Abstract
1.0 Executive summary
2.0 Introduction
3.0 Background
4.0 Threats to marine biodiversity relevant to WA
4.1 Definitions of biodiversity and ecosystems
4.2 Threats to marine biodiversity
4.3 Summary
5.0 Marine environment protection controls
5.1 Fisheries and marine management under the FRMA
5.1.1 Spatially based management strategies
5.1.2 Management review processes
5.2 Marine Management under the CALM Act
Marine Protected Areas in WA
6.0 Value and implications of sanctuaries as a marine management tool
6.1 Expectations
6.2 The efficacy of marine sanctuaries and their effect on the productivity and sustainability of fisheries
6.3 The effective scale of monitoring for fisheries management and marine protected area performance
6.4 Discussion
7.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
9.0 Acknowledgements
10.0 References
11.0 Further reading

==========
End of extracts


TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background......

Recreational anglers want sustainable fishing and good fishing experiences and a FAIR GO!.

Informed Recreational anglers aren't opposed to Marine Parks.

Informed Recreational anglers aren't opposed to sanctuary zones in the right places for the right reasons.

Informed Recreational anglers want to protect nursery areas, spawning fish stocks and spawning fish aggregations, but these don't need total closures all year long. Example:- Cockburn Sound Pink Snapper seasonal spawning closures championed by concerned recreational anglers.

Recreational anglers want to protect the environment, but locking up large areas is not the only way to protect the environment.

Informed conservationists would talk about the outcomes they want, and not just keep promoting one of the methods which might achieve them and ignore all the other methods........