By Ben Diggles PhD
DigsFish Services Pty Ltd
www.digsfish.com
Ministers briefing note presented at Shangri-La Hotel, 12 June 2010
Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today and thanks also to Marine QLD for sponsoring my visit to Cairns this weekend. I’m speaking today on issues related to science and management of the Coral Sea and the Great Barrier Reef. I’m going to talk on these subjects mainly in the context of recreational fishing, and where that might fit into the development of Marine Protected Areas in the Coral Sea and other regions right around Australia
Make no mistake. This issue is an important one, especially in the context of the Marine Bioregional Planning process that is currently underway throughout the entire country. I think it’s great to have this issue up front on centre stage here today, as management of recreational fishing in marine parks is of critical significance to not only Cairns, a city that was built on sportfishing for marlin in the Coral Sea, but its also highly significant to thousands of urban, rural and remote communities throughout Australia, which rely on recreational fishing related tourism in some way, shape or form.
But before we start, a fair question to ask right up front is: Why is an aquatic animal health specialist informing the public on issues relating to the Great Barrier Reef and Coral Sea ?
Well, in simple terms, the health of aquatic animals relates to ecosystem health. Marine Protected Areas are also supposed to be about ecosystem health. So analysis of the function of MPAs is a core business area for an aquatic animal health specialist like myself. After all, if MPAs worked as well as some people claim, with no sick marine life I’d be out of a job.
Speaking of jobs, I run a small consulting business. This means what you’ll hear today are pragmatic real world views, not academic arguments.
Over the years I’ve written numerous risk analyses on issues related to aquatic animal diseases and health for governments in Australia, New Zealand, and countries in the Asia-Pacific region. I also regularly review articles for several scientific journals on topics relating to aquaculture and aquatic animal health, and I’ve been writing educational columns on fish biology for fishing magazines for over 15 years. I feel this background gives me a
good understanding of both marine science and the recreational fishing industry. Also worth noting is I base my research and briefing notes on facts and empirical science. I’m not a great fan of consensus statements, motherhood statements or computer models. I well remember experiences with racing engines I have built where the computer models used to design engine parts (which were parts made from well known materials), have been empirically proven to be inadequate, resulting in engine failure. The accuracy of models is only related to the quality of the data and assumptions used, which in marine environmentsgenerally leaves large unknowns left to chance. But I digress – speak to me afterwards if you want to know more about design of internal parts for racing engines !
So how did I become involved with the Coral Sea issue ?
I was asked to design a research program for a charter boat company who wanted to tag sportfish in the Coral Sea. I collaborated with overseas researchers who conducted identical research in MPAs in US jurisdictions and designed a research program using the latest methods and best practice techniques. For 2 years we tried to get permits to tag sportfish in the Commonwealth managed National Nature Reserves, which are Marine Protected Areas that take up around 17 thousand square km of reef and bank area in the Coral Sea.
We weren’t even asking them for any money, but DEWHA denied us access to these areas, despite their management plans clearly stating the reserves were established “Primarily for scientific research”. Adjustments to the research plans were made based on DEWHAs advice, but they then ignored the revised proposals. Then the Coral Sea Conservation Park was declared. Over this time I had accumulated a pile of scientific information on the region. So I was well placed in January this year when I was asked by Marine Queensland to comment on the quality of science used by DEWHA to justify declaration of the conservation park.
Now many of you may have already read my report on the science used to justify the Conservation Zone, so I won’t go into much detail about it here. If you haven’t seen the report, Marine QLD can find you a copy1. Briefly, my review of that literature found that DEWHA chose mainly to emphasise overseas research and a press release that used methodology that had been widely discredited in the scientific literature. Both articles also happened to be funded by the Pew Charitable Trust, which is a large environment group based in the USA.
The other studies DEWHA cited showed biodiversity in the Coral Sea was relatively low, and that recovery of Coral Sea reefs from bleaching and storm damage was independent of fishing activity. That is, coral bleaching and storm damage occurred on reefs whether they were closed to fishing or not. Indeed those studies mentioned that recovery of corals from these events was actually faster on reefs frequented by fishers and divers than in the National Nature Reserves that had been closed to fishing for 25 years! From first principles, this means the available scientific evidence shows that any threats to coral reef resilience posed by current human use patterns in the Coral Sea pale into insignificance compared to those posed by natural processes.
During the process of literature review, I also found there was evidence of anti-fishing advocacy in several scientific reports published on the DEWHA website in relation to studies of shark 2 and black cod populations 3 in National Nature Reserves near Lord Howe Island.
The main problem with these particular studies was that some of the scientists’ recommendations (which were essentially to close more areas to fishing), were not supported by their data. In fact, they even had to ignore the results of some of their own studies 4, and those of others 5, in order to arrive at such conclusions.
Unfortunately, those examples of scientific advocacy I found on the DEWHA website are not an isolated case. For example, Walter Starck has highlighted several inconsistencies in a recent review paper published by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 6. And Professor Bob Kearney from the University of Canberra has published several times on inconsistencies in documents relating to NSW marine parks 7. I also note that the Western Australian Fisheries Department recently highlighted 5 common misconceptions about the utility of marine parks in their Fisheries Research Report number 1698.
I don’t have time to go into the details of all these reports here, but I have included the references for those who want to follow them up. They are all good reads, but I think the Western Australian Fisheries Departments paper is the best one I have read on the subject for some time, as it clearly outlines the potential benefits, but also the limitations, of MPAs in relation to fisheries, and debunks several myths that have been widely promoted by environmental groups.
One myth that I must talk about here briefly, is the one that says an area is “fully protected” if it is made into a marine park “green zone”. You hear about it all the time in green group media releases and the like, but I’m sorry to say, this sort of statement is simply false. If a green zone “fully protects” an ecosystem, why don’t we just rezone the entire Murray Darling System green and it’ll look after itself ? Of course, that wouldn’t do anything, because green zones are simply fishing closures. For green zones to have substantial benefits for an ecosystem, fishing must be the key threatening process to the particular ecosystem in question.
But in Australia, our fisheries are comparatively well managed. In all but a very few specific cases, fishing is not a key threatening process for Australian marine ecosystems, and there is even empirical scientific evidence showing that well managed recreational fishing does notdestroy habitat or reduce biodiversity.
This was shown in this paper9 where in Moreton Bay the researchers found no statistical difference in nekton species richness (= fish biodiversity) between areas open and closed to fishing. Large seasonal variations in biodiversity were observed, but the highest biodiversity recorded in the report occurred in the recreational only fishing area, not the green zone. Certainly, all human activities have some impact on the environment, including diving, which research has found can cause significant damage to habitat if not managed properly10, and even tourists feeding fish11. So the key to a healthy marine environment would seem to be management of all human activities, not just fishing.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’ve been to several countries overseas which are terribly overfished, particularly in Asia, and in these regions fishing is indeed a key threatening process to their marine environment, as there is virtually no fisheries management. Yet even in areas with little or no fisheries management, such as in Papua New Guinea, there is scientific evidence to show that marine reserves cannot protect biodiversity in degraded environments. In this paper12, the authors state “Marine reserves can protect fish from exploitation, but do they protect fish biodiversity in degrading environments ? The answer appears to be no, as indicated by our 8 year study in Papua New Guinea.”
In that study, they recorded “a devastating decline in coral cover which caused a parallel decline in fish biodiversity” in a marine reserve, which even resulted in local extinctions…
Wow, fish extinctions in a green zone. Who would have ever thought that could happen ? Of course, to an aquatic animal health specialist, its not surprising because if you destroy the habitat, or poison the water, or introduce pests and diseases, you threaten the very integrity of the ecosystem. And polluted water doesn’t stop at the border of the green zone. If it did, I think President Obama would have declared green zones in the Gulf of Mexico quick smart last month after the catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
I’d like to move on now and talk a little more about the Coral Sea. Obviously it’s a vast area, around 1 million square kilometers of Australias exclusive economic zone. But, most of this area is open ocean. Coral reef and bank areas only cover 2% of it. As I mentioned earlier, there are already two large Marine Protected Areas out there in the form of Lihou and Coringa Herald National Nature Reserves.
These represent around 60% of all the reef and bank area in the entire region, and they have been closed to all extractive activities for over 25 years. In recent years both reserves have been adversely affected by storms and coral bleaching, with very low percentages of live coral cover remaining13, 14. Indeed, both reefs have been very slow to recover – despite no fishing for over 25 years.
I also mentioned earlier that scientific access to these areas for fish tagging research has been denied by DEWHA – in my opinion this is very unfortunate, given how badly the information is needed. Another thing decision makers need to realise is that an increase in area closure for the whole Coral Sea region of as little as 1% could lock up ALL of the remaining coral reef and bank areas of value to the recreational fishing industry.
Very few recreational anglers go fishing in 2000 meters of water. After all, its very, very hard to find a reel big enough to hold that amount of line ! Obviously, most of the fishing activity occurs around the shallow coral reef and bank areas.
In recent times we have had several green groups adamant that the entire one million square kilometers of the Coral Sea needs to be locked up in a giant green zone, in order to “protect” it. Which leads to the multi million dollar question: Can recreational fishing be part of a sustainably managed Coral Sea Marine Park ?
I think the answer to that question is an unequivocal YES. In fact, one could argue that recreational fishing opportunities should be one of the major drivers determining the management direction of the park. What decision makers don’t seem to realise yet is that this could be done while enhancing the environmental credentials of the government and their management agencies. The average punter may well ask, “How can this be so ?”
Every university student nowadays is taught, in environment 101 class, that fishing is extremely harmful to the environment, with the collapsed Atlantic cod fishery in the northern hemisphere usually being given as the case study material.
But what many people don’t realise is that not all fishing is the same. Its horses for courses.
An international fleet of factory trawlers like the ones that severely overfished the Atlantic Cod, or fishing with nets, explosives and cyanide, like they do in many areas of Asia, simply doesn’t equal hook and line recreational sportfishing, which is an activity that does not interact with habitat, kill coral or even take many fish. You see, it’s a well known fact that around 90% of recreational anglers catch 10% of the fish, so most recreational anglers catch very little. Fortunately, the other 10% who catch the majority of the fish are manageable, usually know their fishing regulations, and many are responsible enough to “take only enough for their immediate needs”, which is usually less than the bag limits that are strictly enforced nowadays.
But unfortunately, in recent years we have seen environment groups tending to lump all forms of fishing together. They have been unable to discriminate between a pair of factory trawlers and a kid fishing with a worm on a bent pin at the end of a jetty.
Another thing that environment groups tend to mention quite a bit is the need for “marine equivalents to Yellowstone National Park”. Yellowstone National Park in the USA is famous because it was the worlds first terrestrial national park, established in 1872.
The funny thing about this is the fact that Yellowstone boasts a vibrant and healthy recreational trout sportfishery. And it has since the day dot. According to the official Yellowstone National Park website15 “Fishing has been a major visitor activity (in the park) for well over a century. Because of this history, fishing continues to be allowed and can complement, and in some cases even enhance, the park’s primary purpose to preserve natural environments and native species”
Given that todays environment students are taught that all fishing is very bad for the environment, what is Yellowstones secret ? How could Yellowstone National Park tolerate fishing for nearly 140 years and still have a healthy fishery ? What fancy trickery are they using over there to achieve this ?
In two words, sophisticated management. There is no commercial fishing in the park, and recreational fishers must be licensed. They use closed seasons to protect spawning fish.
Gear restrictions are used, such as hook and line only, and lures or flys only. In other words, no nets or destructive fishing practices are allowed. They have minimum size limits and strict bag limits, and rigorously enforce them. They also have other rules to help prevent introduction of exotic and invasive species. In other words, Yellowstone National Park has maintained a vibrant recreational fishery for nearly 140 years using nothing but normal fisheries and environmental management procedures. No tricks, nothing fancy at all.
Another much more recent development worth noting, due to it having several parallels with the Coral Sea situation, is the declaration of the Marianas Islands National Marine Monument. This marine park was declared by the Bush Administration in January 2009 16 after the Pew Environment Group lobbied hard for its establishment. The Monument excludes commercial fishing activities but specifically allows sustainably managed recreational and traditional fishing. I note that some residents of the Marianas are saying that Pew are not very happy with this decision17, and continue to lobby the government to remove all fishing from the area.
One other point I found interesting when reading the declaration for the Marianas Islands National Marine Monument, was that access for scientific research in the monument was enshrined in the management plan, including research that requires fishing (such as tagging and so on). It is notable that the USA government has been down this track before, and also important to consider what they came up with.
So how do these overseas examples relate to the Coral Sea ? In the Coral Sea, unlike the Marianas and Yellowstone, there is no permanent human habitation at all. This means no destructive fishing like you see in Asia, no people pressure like you see in the Pacific Islands, and the area is far offshore, meaning there is very little pollution. There are also many regulations already in place to limit fishing, including QLD fisheries regulations such as size and bag limits, but commercial fishing is still permitted, though it is a relatively small industry and almost certainly entirely sustainable at current catch levels.
Already the casual observer can see the Coral Sea has many features of places like Yellowstone National Park and the Marianas Monument. Which leads one to question whether the Coral Sea is actually threatened at all ?
Put the situation in perspective, it must be noted that much of the overseas research on utility of MPAs for protection of coral reefs has come from the Caribbean, where they have experienced widespread degradation of coral reefs due primarily to algal overgrowth (promoted by human eutrophication, the algae overgrows the corals and results in trophic cascades). This really got going in the early 1980’s after a huge dieoff of the sea urchin Diadema antillarum. It was the worlds largest known disease outbreak in invertebrates – possibly due to a virus, with over 95% mortality over an area of 3.5 million square km 18.
Once the sea urchins were lost, control of the algae was left to herbivorous reef fish. Fishing with nets and traps (not hook and line) reduces numbers of herbivore reef fish, so control of fishing (particularly for herbivorous fish), became the central focus for coral reef managers in the Caribbean 19.
However look at this 20 – in a new research paper just published in 2010, these scientists found that after 25 years, the sea urchins have begun to return. And lo and behold, the reefs are recovering too, even in the presence of fishing. Idjadi et al. (2010) state as much in their discussion “Fishing pressure continues to be severe on reefs along the north coast of Jamaica (ref). Fish and other vertebrate consumers are scarce, and water quality (sediment loads, dissolved nutrient concentrations, etc.) have not improved in the last few decades (refs). Considering this, the rapid reversal of the coral to macroalgal phase shift suggests that algal dominance is not the inevitable and irreversible consequence of overfishing or localized pollution.Whereas restoring herbivorous fish populations is a worthy goal of reef management (ref), it is clear from this study that in Jamaica where these fish are largely absent, Diadema can singlehandedly drive rapid and effective reductions in macroalgae, facilitating coral recovery.”
Results like these have confounded 25 years worth of research which centred around the idea that fishing controlled much of the fate of coral reefs in the Caribbean. It may well be that it was the sea urchins all along, especially as they appear to be a “keystone” species for Caribbean coral reefs. But look out, management of marine ecosystems is never that simple. It turns out that other recent studies suggest that sea urchin larvae are likely to be sensitive to acidification of the oceans 21.
This sort of information demonstrates how a wide range of factors continue to influence the survival of coral reefs both now, and into the future. Other threats may include runoff from agricultural land threatening corals with pesticides22, herbicides 23 and sediment 24. Indeed, in the Caribbean it has been shown that human sewage is the likely cause of certain types of coral diseases that have destroyed coral communities in many areas25. And as I pointed out earlier from that study in PNG, once you lose the corals, biodiversity declines very fast. And lets not forget the threats from shipping, whether they be collisions with reefs, oil spills or the significant threat of introductions of exotic species and diseases via ballast water.
So what I’m saying is, fishing is not the only threat to coral reefs, but “green” zones only stop fishing. Indeed, storm damage, shipping, invasive species and disease, climate change and coastal runoff are all considered by most scientists to be the main threats to coral reefs – none of these happen to be stopped by “green” zones. In the Coral Sea, a risk analysis of the current situation would most likely find that fishing does not rate in the top 5 threats at all.
So in the future, it is likely that additional management will be required to prevent degradation of the reefs in the Coral Sea from some of these other factors, but what about management of fishing ?
At this point I would like to bring the audiences attention to some relevant overseas data on the economic value of sportfishing. My first example relates to the Florida Keys bonefish census. Now bonefish are a relatively small fish that look a bit like a whiting, there is a picture of one here. As their name implies, they are full of bones and thus are almost inedible, but in Florida, scientists spend a lot of time and grant money studying bonefish with methods such as bonefish censuses and tagging them with satellite tags.
Why ? Because it just happens that a population of 300,000 bonefish underpins a sportfishery worth one billion US dollars to the Florida economy 26. Yes, that’s right, that’s the amount of money spent in Florida each year on fishing trips that just target bonefish.
To save you the sums, that’s $3500 per fish, per annum. However there’s more. Sportfishers in Florida release 99% of their bonefish – they are no good to eat and there are size limits and a strict bag limit of one fish anyway, so it’s essentially a catch and release fishery. Now a bonefish lives for around 20 years, which means over their lifetime, researchers in Florida consider these fish to be worth $70,000 each to the Florida economy27. Given bonefish average 3 kg or less, that’s over $23,000 per kg. That would make you think twice about eating one in a restaurant, wouldn’t it !
Now in Australia, we also have bonefish, and other sportfish species such as Aussie permit, giant trevallies, various species of marlin, and many others that can be found throughout the northern parts of the country. So whats stopping us from encouraging sportfishing for these species over here ? We can do that here too! Already the Northern Territory is doing this in many respects, but I am amazed that the other states aren’t catching on. Particularly when 24
We already know from a study conducted by Ernst and Young in 200428 that recreational fishers targeting striped marlin off New South Wales had an economic benefit to the community roughly around 10 times that of the commercial marlin fishery in the same region. But the recreational fishers also released over 96% of their catch, potentially recycling most of the fish. Again, there is no time to provide details of the report, but its available on the NSW fisheries website, and it’s a good read that provides much food for thought.
I have one more example of the economic value of recreational sportfishing. This time its in the Coral Sea itself, where we can compare the gross economic value of the entire Coral Sea (commercial) Fishery, which is managed by AFMA, with the turnover of one sportfishing charter operation. Now the 17 commercial operators in the AFMA managed Coral Sea Fishery landed 132 tonnes of product in 2007/08, with a landed value of six hundred and forty thousand dollars29. Divide that by 132 tonnes gives an average value of $4.85 per kilo.
I know there are other flow on benefits for the fishery, but for the purposes of this argument we’ll ignore these for the moment.
Now compare this to the sportfishing charter operation, which operates on a “no take away” philosophy – they don’t allow anglers to take fish home, and as a consequence of this policy, they release 98% of the fish caught and keep only one or two each night to eat for dinner on the boat. Their annual turnover works out at around $800 spent for every kg of fish they take to eat, which equates to more than double the total value (and around 165 times the relative value) of the commercial fishery on a “per kg of fish caught” basis.
Now I’m not an economist, but I own a small business, and I know which business is likely to be the most environmentally friendly, as well as the most financially rewarding to own.
Also worth noting is a high percentage of charter fishing turnover in the Coral Sea is from overseas customers who travel to Australia to experience sportfishing. So like the commercial fishery, there will be other flow on benefits in accommodation, airfares etc. not captured in these figures.
For those who don’t know what charter sportfishing in the Coral Sea entails, a typical operation has the anglers accommodated on a large mothership, with the actual fishing being done out of smaller boats. The attraction of the area is the big sportfish that are available, particularly giant trevally, such as this relatively small 15 kg one taken in shallow water by a gentleman who traveled all the way from South Africa to get one on a flyrod. There are also dogtooth tuna like this small one, also around 12-15 kg, taken along a reef edge. If you peruse the scientific literature, virtually nothing is known about this species, but this dogtooth was already tagged (by sportfishers) so recapturing it provided useful scientific information on growth, survival and movement of this species, and then it was released again in the hope that additional information could be gathered at a later date. Then there are the coral trout like this 20 kg specimen – this being the first commercially valuable species I’ve shown you. But no one takes coral trout this big, not even the commercial fishery, as they are likely to be ciguatoxic at this size and the market demands small live trout, so they are catch and release only, but one this big becomes a fish of a lifetime for this gentleman here.
No wonder the angler looks happy, and because the fish was taken on a lure from a shallow coral bommie, its survival chances are extremely high once released. Same for the red bass – it is illegal to take red bass in QLD due to the high chance they will be ciguatoxic, so all red bass must be released. They have never had any value at all to commercial fishers, but they are fine shallow water sportfish, there are plenty of them out there, and recreational anglers will travel a long way to tangle with them.
So the upshot to all of this is that commercial fisheries measure their output in dollars per kilogram. On the other hand, it is clear that recreational sportfisheries measure output in dollars per experience, and that recreational fishers need access to desirable sportfish and desirable locations to add value to their experience. It is no secret that they are willing to pay quite a bit of money to do this, just look at the economic data on bonefish, marlin and so on.
So essentially, recreational sportfishing is ecotourism. Unlike commercial fishing, given access recreational fishing ecotourism can co-exist with “no take” areas or “no take away” philosophies. This is widely acknowledged overseas by governments in places such as the USA for example, where catch and release bonefishing has been permitted in “no take” marine parks such as Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge30. But it doesn’t seem to be widely recognised by government here in Australia. In fact, last week I was in Brunei discussing with their government how they could develop a sustainable sportfishery based around the oil rigs inside their MPAs. Brunei have a small EEZ and are looking to maximise the economic benefits of their fisheries while minimising the number of fish taken out. They have a very pragmatic position regarding the possibility of attracting international tourists to fish in their MPAs. This has a lot to do with the fact that 95% of their GDP will disappear in the next 15 to 20 years as their oil reserves become depleted. When times get tough, it seems common sense prevails with recognition of the socioeconomic benefits of a pragmatic approach to management of recreational fishing ecotourism inside marine protected areas.
Don’t get me wrong, we still need some no take zones as reference sites for scientific research, but this move towards closing large percentages of the ocean to all fishing appears to me to be a simple, but largely ineffective, way to dodge the real management issues caused by complex problems in todays marine environment.
I’m nearly finished, but to wake up the non fishing audience out there, I’ll leave the science and economics for a second to touch briefly on the politics. Never before have the rights of the 20+ percent of Australians who fish recreationally been so threatened by the actions of a Federal Government. The bioregional planning process affects anglers in all states, not just those in Cairns or those who fish in the Coral Sea. I am told by those who are supposed to know these things, that there is potential for a significant swing in the upcoming election towards a party that fully understands this issue. Which poses the question. Who is willing to implement sophisticated marine management strategies that address the real threats to marine regions and assess recreational fishing on its merits ??
So where to from here for the Coral Sea? To date, I haven’t let anyone know my own personal opinion, but what better forum than this to let people know what I think.
Well, I reckon we should follow the lead from the US government with their handling of the establishment of the Marianas Islands National Marine Monument – possibly even to the extent of excluding commercial fishing, though there is no real need to do this in the Coral Sea as current commercial fishing activities in the region are likely to be sustainable.
However, all efforts should be made to retain maximum access for recreational anglers.
Recreational sportfishing will provide by far the best bang for your buck in the Coral Sea, and it doesn’t make any sense to lock recreational fishing out of any more areas. Recreational fishing ecotourism, suitably managed, is a sustainable activity for which the socio-economic benefits are potentially enormous and could last forever. But don’t take my word for this, do the relevant studies before the Coral Sea is locked up. Remember, 60% of the reef and bank area in the region is already locked away in the two National Nature Reserves, and even researchers can’t even get in there to conduct research at the moment. Maybe DEWHA don’t want us to see all of the dead coral ? In any case, the “green” credentials of any management authority are likely to be enhanced if you begin to objectively assess the real risks and begin to address the real issues affecting the region. Issues such as shipping threats, ballast water, and for areas closer inshore on the Great Barrier Reef, land management and habitat rehabilitation.
I just quickly want to reiterate what I mean regarding habitat rehabilitation. Its a fact that if you clean things up on the land, it directly effects what happens at sea – everything eventually finds its way into the sea. For my way of thinking, habitat rehabilitation equals an improved marine environment, which equals improved fisheries productivity, which results in better fishing, which will attract more tourism. Examples of what I’m talking about in the context of north Queensland include control of wild pigs and horses; and re-establishing and maintaining buffer zones between development and sensitive wetlands. The latter must include assistance for farmers and developers to help them improve their land management practices and hence the ecological and economic value of their land. The announcement to employ a “green army” of 15,000 landcare workers sounds a great idea in this regard, as talk is cheap, real improvements on the ground are the only things that really matter. Monitoring environmental health is also important, but even more important is actually enforcing water quality guidelines.
If we can achieve effective habitat rehabilitation, the resulting improvements in fisheries productivity will stimulate fishing ecotourism, which equates to sustainable economic development for remote regions and equals jobs onshore (where they are needed most). Indigenous communities would also likely benefit by encouraging them to care for and improve their land, and also through boosting ecotourism related employment – indigenous fishing guides are the best fishing guides I have experienced – they really know the habits of their local fish. The lessons learnt in the Coral Sea and along the Great Barrier Reef can then be applied to other bioregions – whats this rush towards locking up huge areas of Australia’s marine environment from sustainable activities ? Activities that could be so easily managed in other ways to provide much needed socioeconomic benefits to regional communities, while still protecting the environment ?
I’ve rambled on for long enough, but just in case some people nodded off there in the middle and just woke up, I’ll summarise in three dot points. Green zones are just fishing closures. They do not protect the marine environment from key threatening processes such as habitat destruction or water pollution. They do not protect corals from disease, they do not protect corals from environmental degradation, and hence they provide minimal benefits for protection of biodiversity in a country like Australia which already has effective fisheries management arrangements
Secondly, healthy fisheries need a healthy environment. To maximise the socioeconomic benefits of recreational fishing, authorities and governments will need to have strong environmental credentials. You do not throw out your environmental credentials if you support recreational fishing, because if you support recreational fishing, you will be trying to address the real threats to our marine environment to maximise the industrys potential. I believe that’s called having your cake and eating it too.
Finally, recreational fishing, properly managed, equals sustainable economic activity, especially for regional and remote areas. The current government is doing plenty to discourage the development of the recreational fishing industry, such as withdrawing support for the peak body, and locking out anglers from large areas of the marine environment.
Together with other factors such as the Blue Mud Bay decision, this means the industry cannot reach its full socio-economic potential without support from the government.
So that’s the end of my talk, but I’ll conclude with the lyrics of “The Fishing Song”, written by a group called the Arrogant Worms. I have heard some people say they aren’t in the same league as mainstream bands like, say, Midnight Oil, but I really like their humble style, as it sums up the economics of the recreational fishing industry really well. One verse of their song goes like this.
The Fishing Song, by the Arrogant Worms
I’ve got my ten dollar lure, the one that floats,
And I take a big cast from my 20 grand boat,
With my thousand dollar rod, or maybe it’s more,
Gonna catch me a fish that’s 5 bucks at the store.
Thanks for your time.
1http://marineqld.com.au/sites/default/files/DigsFish%20Services%20Report%20for%20Marine%20Qld.pdf
2 van Herwerden et al. (2008). Population genetic structure of Australian Galapagos reef sharks Carcharhinus galapagensis at Elizabeth and Middleton Reefs Marine National Nature Reserve and Lord Howe Island Marine Park. Final Report to the DEWHA. 45 pgs.
3 van Herwerden (2009). Connectivity of black cod Epinephelus daemelii between Elizabeth and Middleton Reefs (as measured by population genetic structure based on microsatellites). Final Report to the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 14 pgs.
4 Choat JH (2006). A report on the ecological surveys undertaken at Middleton and Elizabeth Reefs, February
2006. Report by James Cook University to the Department of Environment and Heritage. 65 pgs.
5 Speare P et al. (2004). Deeper Water Fish and Benthic Surveys in the Lord Howe Island Marine Park
(Commonwealth Waters): February 2004. Produced for Department of the Environment and Heritage with
National Heritage Trust funding. AIMS, Townsville. 2004. 30 pgs.
6 http://www.quadrant.org.au/Starck%20document.pdf
7http://www.rfansw.com.au/Documents/Kearney%20RESPONSE%20TO%20ACORF%20ON%20THE%20TO
RN%20BLUE%20FRINGE.pdf
8 http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/frr/frr169/frr169.pdf
9 Pillans et al. (2007). Impact of marine reserves on nekton diversity and community composition in subtropical eastern Australia. Biological Conservation 136: 455-469.
10 Barker and Roberts (2004). Scuba diver behaviour and the management of diving impacts on coral reefs.
Biological Conservation 120: 481-489.
11 Semeniuk et al. (2009). Hematological differences between stingrays at tourist and non-visited sites suggest
physiological costs of wildlife tourism. Biological Conservation 142: 1818-1829.
12 Jones et al. (2004). Coral decline threatens fish biodiversity in marine reserves. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
101: 8251–8253. www.pnas.org_cgi_doi_10.1073_pnas.0401277101
13 Oxley WG, Alying AM, Cheal AJ, Thompson AA (2003). Marine Surveys undertaken in the Coringa-Herald
National Nature Reserve, March –April 2003. AIMS report produced by CRC Reef for Environment Australia.
Townsville 2003
14 Oxley WG, Emslie M, Muir P, Thompson AA (2004). Marine Surveys undertaken in the Lihou Reef National
Nature Reserve, March 2004. AIMS report produced by The Department of Environment and Heritage. Townsville 2004.
15 http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/fishing.htm
16 http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2009/01/20090106-2.html
17 http://www.saipantribune.com/newsstory.aspx?cat=15&newsID=90204
18 Lessios (1988). Mass mortality of Diadema antillarum in the Caribbean: what have we learned ? Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 19: 371-393.
19 Mumby et al. (2006). Fishing, trophic cascades, and the process of grazing on coral reefs. Science 311: 98– 101
20 Idjadi et al. (2010). Recovery of the sea urchin Diadema antillarum promotes scleractinian coral growth and
survivorship on shallow Jamacian reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 403: 91-100.
21 O’Donnell et al. (2010). Ocean acidification alters skeletogenesis and gene expression in larval sea urchins.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 398: 157-171.
22 Lewis et al. (2009a). Pesticide residues in the Great Barrier Reef. Pesticides News 86 (Dec 2009): 8-11
23 Lewis et al. (2009b). Herbicides. A new threat to the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Pollution 157: 2470-2484
25 Sutherland et al. (2010). Human sewage identified as likely source of white pox disease of the threatened
Caribbean elkhorn coral, Acropora palmata. Environmental Microbiology 12: 1122-1131.
26 Ault JS, Moret S, Luo J, Larkin MF, Zurcher N, Smith SG (2008). Florida keys bonefish population census.
In. Ault JS (ed). Biology and Management of the world Tarpon and Bonefish Fisheries. pgs . 383- 398. CRC press.
27 ibid
28 Ernst and Young (2004). Economic impact of the striped marlin fishery. Report prepared for NSW Fisheries
by EYECon, June 2004. 124 pgs. .
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/151944/striped-marlin-report.pdf
29 http://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/ext_territories/coral_sea/at_a_glance.htm
30 Friedlander et al. (2008). Biology and ecology of the recreational bonefish fishery at Palmyra Atoll National
Wildlife refuge with comparisons to other Pacific Islands. In. Ault JS (ed). Biology and Management of the world Tarpon and Bonefish Fisheries. pgs . 27-56. CRC press
Technorati Tags: coal fish, coral sea, great barrier reef
