While Marine Parks have been subjected to an orchestrated campaign of MIS-INFORMATION this blog aims to confront the myths with some real data (what a novel idea it is to use data and evidence as a basis for reasoning!!!).
MYTH: Sanctuary zones will affect the availability and price of seafood.
FACT: Most seafood produced in South Australia is exported whereas the bulk of the seafood consumed is actually imported. The price of seafood in South Australia is therefore determined more by foreign markets and the variability in the Australian dollar. (See our other post)
MYTH: Housing prices will fall in areas around marine parks
FACT: There has been no demonstrated affect anywhere that housing prices will decline as a result of proximity to a marine park. In NSW and WA marine parks have been used as a positive selling point, as can be seen in this image from Jurien Bay, WA.
Given the growing “seachange” trend particularly amongst retirees, there is likely to be a growing demand for coastal housing. |
MYTH: Regional economies close to marine parks will suffer.
FACT: Globally, communities near marine parks have experienced increased prosperity from tourism and as other businesses diversify to take advantage of the new opportunities provided by marine parks.
MYTH: You can conserve biodiversity with good fisheries management practice.
FACT: Fisheries management is used to manage fisheries where fish are being caught and removed from the ecosystem. This does not provide any basis for managing or conserving biodiversity. Indeed, some of the major threats to marine ecosystems come from fisheries including over-fishing, habitat destruction and impacts on non-target species.
MYTH: Robust fisheries management is all that is needed to ensure the conservation of fisheries resources.
FACT: Fisheries management in South Australia is aimed at maintaining the maximum sustainable yield from the target species, with little if any reference to environmental sustainability.
· It is worth noting that many fisheries in SA are in a state of decline. For example, catch from the north zone Rock Lobster fishery declined from a quota of 1001 tonnes in 1999/2000 to 310 tonnes in 2009/2010 (Knight and Tsolos 2011). Fisheries management is far from an exact science and with all good intention and even “world’s best practice”, there is no guarantee that a fishery won’t decline or even collapse.
MYTH: There is no measurable environmental impact from fishing.
FACT: According to the AMSA Position statement on marine protected areas, ‘bycatch problems’ and ‘habitat damage caused by fishing gear, especially bottom trawling’ are two of the five major threats facing marine life. Bycatch (catching of non-target species) from net fisheries is highly variable but can be as high as 15 tonnes of bycatch for every 1 tonne of the target species (Hall et al. 2000). Prawn trawl fisheries are consistently rated as amongst the worst offenders and, while bycatch is generally thrown over the side, this does not mean that the animals concerned are unaffected.
a) Many fish may rupture their swim bladder as a result of the rapid ascent in a net or will at least have pressure equilibration problems that prevent their descent on release. This leaves fish floating and highly vulnerable to predators (Clucas 1997).
b) There is also external physical damage suffered to gills, fins and eyes whilst thrashing against the net and other captives.
c) Most species experience significant stress during capture and release (Svane et al, 2007), and the physiological stress experienced may reduce the survival and/or reproductive capacity of the animals.
d) At least some of the species captured will be territorial with little if any chance of returning to a suitable home range.
e) The impact of prawn trawling on benthic systems has been widely researched in Gulf St Vincent, Spencer Gulf and elsewhere in Australia and worldwide. Tanner (2003), for example, observed in a study of the Gulf St Vincent prawn fishery:
f) “Epifauna [plants and animals that live on the seabed] at trawled sites decreased in abundance by 28% within 2 weeks of trawling and by another 8% in the following 2–3 months (compared with control sites).”
g) The environmental impacts of trawl fisheries are well documented but have little influence on their management.
h) There are also questions around the impact of recreational fishing on fish populations as a whole. According to the PIRSA Recreational Fishing Survey undertaken in 2007-08, recreational fishers caught over 60% of the total mulloway catch in South Australia (Jones, 2009), demonstrating that the more than 230,000 recreational fishers in SA can have a significant impact on fisheries resources.
i) The marine debris/litter created by fishers from plastic bait bags, cut off lines etc is also well documented. Fishing debris is well known to cause horrific and frequently fatal injuries to seals and seabirds.
MYTH: Fisheries can promote biodiversity.
FACT: Promotion of biodiversity through harvesting fish is largely based on the ‘intermediate disturbance hypothesis’, first proposed by Joseph Connell (and others) in the 1970s (Grime 1973, Connell 1978). The basic tenet of the theory is that higher diversity of species may be achieved when disturbance to the ecosystem is at “intermediate” levels.
The key points about this theory are:
1. It remains a theory, for which there are numerous examples in support as well as denial.
2. The notion of “intermediate” in terms of disturbance is difficult or impossible to define in either spatial and/or temporal terms.
3. Fishing regimes are currently determined by the availability of the target species in terms of maximum sustainable yield, NOT the level at which biodiversity might be maximised (even assuming that it is).
4. Fisheries management should be based on the best available information (i.e. data not dogma).
It is also a mistake to think that marine parks and sanctuary zones are entirely about the threat posed by fishing. There are a number of additional threats to our marine ecosystems, including pollution from outfalls (stormwater, wastewater and desalination), introduced pests, litter, coastal development, mining and tourism. We need marine parks as part of the broader framework for managing these threats.
MYTH: Fishers and others will lose suffer a total loss of access to important sites.
FACT: The vast majority of marine parks will be accessible by everyone, but there will be some small areas where extractive activities such as fishing will no longer be allowed.
· The vast bulk of recreational boat fishers move only a short distance from a boat launching ramp. The best approach to a loss of access is the availability of new boat ramps although other factors to be considered are the development of artificial reefs as well as stock enhancement programs, although these are controversial.
· Jetties will not be affected and major beach fishing locations are being avoided wherever possible.
· Sanctuary zones will not preclude non-destructive activities (swimming, surfing, etc.).
· The issue of displaced fishing effort from commercial fisheries is possibly the only area of real concern for the industry, given that without ANY compensation displaced fishing effort will concentrate in a slightly smaller area. Therefore any related compensation should target a reduction in fishing effort, for affected fisheries, through a buyback of licences. The AMSA position statement says that ‘to be effective, MPA designation should be accompanied by a net reduction in fishing effort for affected fisheries which are at or near full exploitation’ (AMSA, 2008).
· It has been well documented that sanctuary zones will have a positive affect on adjacent areas (e.g. Gell and Roberts 2003, Goni et al. 2010). However, to maximise the potential benefits from spill over, the sanctuary must be an appropriate size (large) and shape (round).
The nature of the various zone to be applied within each MPA are listed below.
Zone | Permitted activities |
Habitat protection | All current activities except any destructive activities (e.g. mining and trawling. This is the default zone within each MPA. |
General use | All activities that currently occur. Any new activities must be assessed. |
Sanctuary | Any activity that does not remove anything (plants, animals, sand, dead shells or rocks). Outfalls (stormwater, wastewater and industrial) are also banned. |
Restricted access | No entry areas to be used for highly sensitive, pristine areas but can be required for research/monitoring areas as well as defence activities. |
Special purpose | Can be used to modify any of the above for a specific reason |
The combined area of Sanctuary and Restricted zones is likely to be less than 10-12% of state waters although the best science advice says they should be around 15-30%.
MYTH: There is no science to support the planning and management of marine parks in South Australia.
FACT: Research specifically targeted into identifying areas for marine parks started at least as early as the mid 1990s (see Edyvane 1999, Baker 2004) with ongoing work undertaken by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), the Department of the Environment and Heritage (now DENR) with support from the universities.
· There is also a vast literature on marine research in South Australia, starting from the 1960s. All of this science tells us that we have a significant legacy to preserve and maintain our unique marine assets.
MYTH: There is no science to support the potential benefits of marine parks.
FACT: There is a substantial literature for Australia and elsewhere in support of the benefits derived from appropriately designed marine parks in terms of size and abundance of fish, ecological improvements and spill over effects (see DENR Review).
References
Australian Marine Sciences Association (2008) Position statement on marine protected areas. Accessed: https://www.amsa.asn.au/statements/index.php
Baker, J. L. (2004). Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report. Prepared for Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia.
Clucas, I. (1997). Discards and bycatch in Shrimp trawl fisheries. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 928 FIIU/C928
Connell, J.H. (1978). Diversity in tropical rain forests and coral reefs. Science 199 (4335): 1302–1310.
Edyvane, K. (1999). Conserving marine biodiversity in South Australia Part 1 – Background, status and review of approach to marine biodiversity conservation in South Australia. South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) Aquatic Sciences. May 1999 ISBN 0 7308 5237 7 No. 38.
Gell, F. R. & Roberts, C. M. (2003) Benefits beyond boundaries: the fishery effects of marine reserves. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 18: 448-455.
Goni, R., Hilborn, R., Diaz, D., Mallol, S. & Adlerstein, S. (2010) Net contributions from a marine reserve to fishery catches. Marine Ecology Progress Series 400: 233-243.
Grime, J.P. (1973). Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation. Nature 242 (5396): 344–347.
Hall, M. Alverson, D.L. Metuzals, K.I. (2000). By-Catch: Problems and Solutions. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 41. pp. 204–219.
Jones, K. (2009) South Australian Recreational Fishing Survey. PIRSA Fisheries, Adelaide, 84 pp. South Australian Fisheries Management Series Paper No 54.
Knight, M.A. and Tsolos, A. (2011). South Australian Wild Fisheries Information and Statistics Report 2009/10. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2008/000804-3. SARDI Research Series No. 521. 60 pp.
Svane, I., Rodda, K. and Thomas, P. (2007) Prawn fishery by-catch and discards: marine ecosystem analysis – population effects. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. RD 03-0132.
Tanner, J. (2003). The influence of prawn trawling on sessile benthic assemblages in Gulf St. Vincent, South Australia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60: 517-526.
