By Prof Colin Buxton, University of Tasmania
The South Australian Government is planning to turn almost half of the State’s waters into marine parks which in time will incorporate “no take” sanctuary zones where commercial and recreational fishers will be banned from entering.
On the surface, the concept of marine park protection appears to have merit in preserving fish stocks and protecting the local marine environment.
However, research funded by the Australian Government’s Fisheries Research and Development Corporation indicates that there can actually be side-effects from the establishment of marine parks which can be potentially devastating to the very fish stocks they aim to nurture. For example, studies on some marine protected areas established in Tasmania indicate that waters adjacent to “no take” sanctuary zones face considerable pressure because of increased use from displaced fishers. As a result, these adjacent areas are prone to serious damage through overuse, potentially leading to a collapse in fish stocks.
And while the SA Marine Parks Act provides for displaced commercial fishing to be bought out, this is not the case for recreational fishers, who will face extra fishing pressure and competition for spots from their fellow recreationals who are displaced because of the marine parks. If we are genuinely concerned for the environment we must be concerned about the effect of marine protected areas on the remainder of coastal waters.
The SA Government, commercial and recreational fishers have one thing in common – they have the best interests of the State’s marine environment at heart. Commonsense would dictate that the best way of tackling this concern is to first identify any problem, however to date the Government has not detailed the existing threats to SA marine ecosystems.
If there are concerns with over-fishing, would it not be better to focus our energies and scientific research on tackling these problems head-on and across the whole State rather than to rely on a network of marine parks to do the job? If we are genuinely concerned about our marine environment how can we argue that only 46% should be protected? To me this makes no sense and in fact implies that South Australia’s fisheries management is not doing its job – despite being independently accredited as best practice.
Commercial and recreational fishers have been vocal in their opposition to the excessive size of the marine park outer boundaries planned by the Government. Quite rightly, they argue that the marine parks are not based on addressing the real threats to marine ecosystems and habitats, and are demonstrably not the best way to manage fisheries.
The question also has to be asked as to why the Government would deliberately exclude Adelaide’s metropolitan coastal area – which is so obviously in need of protection – from its contentious marine parks proposal? Is there an election coming up?
I believe that well designed and managed marine parks can be a valuable tool in the protection of specific marine habitat and can contribute to the mitigation of properly identified threats. They are also especially valuable as a baseline reference point for scientific study.
But if the South Australian Government is serious about protecting the marine environment it should outline the specific threats to the marine species and ecosystems before it confines 46% of the State’s coastal waters as marine parks. It should also articulate how marine parks are going to manage those threats.
After all, if we all know the threats we can all work together to solve the problems, which may or may not necessitate marine parks, and importantly, may not need to exclude fisheries.
Prof Colin Buxton is a leading marine expert and Director of the Tasmanian Aquaculture & Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania.
