Speaking of poorly designed marine parks recently Dr Robert Kearney,  Emeritus Professor of Fisheries at the University of Canberra, wrote to the Premier about the marine park following a series of exchanges between the Minister and members of the far South Coast community. Dr Kearney wrote:

On October, 2007, I wrote, to you concerning the deception of the people of New South Wales by the process used by your Government to justify the declaration of the Batemans Marine Park. The reply I received on your behalf did not address the fundamental issues raised in my letter. It merely stated that my approach would be brought to the attention of the appropriate Ministers. It did, however, assure me that my comments would receive close attention.

To date I have received no response from any of the Ministers referred to in Mr Cameron's letter (who wrote on behalf of the Premier?) and so have no direct indication of what attention they may have given to my comments.

In the light of a copy of a letter of 18/12/07 to Mr Jack Tate from Minister Firth forwarded to me by Mr Tait, I am writing to enquire as to the exact nature of the "close attention" given to my comments.

In her letter to Mr Tait, Minister Firth refers to me and to my paper, a copy of which was attached to my letter to you of October 3. The Minister makes the totally unsubstantiated statement that there are many scientists who disagree with my views as expressed in that paper. She goes on to imply that I am opposed to the wise use of marine protected areas. These assertions are, unfortunately, in keeping with the consistently deceptive conduct by officers of your administration that has characterised the declaration of the Batemans Marine Park.

For a Minister to make an authoritative statement that many scientists disagree with my views she should have received testimonies from many suitably qualified and experienced scientists. I would have thought that I, or at least the recipient of the Minister's statement, in this case Mr Tait, would have been advised of the exact sources and given details of these testimonies before a Minister of your Government used the authority of her position to assert to third parties that I was in error.

In accordance with established scientific practice my paper was peer reviewed before presentation. It was also given and discussed, as an invited key contribution, to approximately 70 scientists at the Australian Society of Fish Biology's conference on area management for aquatic resources. The overwhelming response to my paper at that conference and since, by appropriately qualified scientists, has confirmed the validity of my assessments. These scientists include many of Australia's most relevant and appropriately qualified people, including numerous of the most appropriate in your Government, the senior fisheries scientists such as the Chief Scientist, in the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries.

A second particularly disturbing aspect of Minister Firth's letter to Mr Tait is that her assertion that there are many who disagree with my views is followed by deliberately misleading use of the statement, "world-wide scientific support for marine protected areas". The unambiguous inference is that I am again wrong and acting contrary to worldwide consensus in that my paper is opposed to the use of marine protected areas. This inference grossly misrepresents the truth.

My paper frequently acknowledges the benefits that may come from well designed and managed marine protected areas. It even gives examples where well designed area management of aquatic systems may work in New South Wales. What my paper does uncover is orchestrated bias and abuse of the accepted principles of science, and of the use of science for management, in the Marine Parks Authority's Science Paper and other documents used to justify the creation of the Batemans Marine Park. As such, it provides a damning assessment of the administration of one of your Government's agencies.

My paper demonstrates that the Batemans Marine Park is so badly conceived and designed that it will not bring the possible benefits on which international support for marine protection is based. Put simply, the Batemans Marine Park is not a marine protected area. It fails to provide the protection of biodiversity, and individual species, conservationists and fisheries managers expect in a marine protected area. No significant protection is given against even the key threats identified by the Marine Parks Authority. Even its sanctuary zones are nothing more than fisheries allocation mechanisms, and extremely poorly designed ones at that. No amount of wishful reference by the Minister, or the Marine Parks Authority, to the benefits that might have flowed had the Park been well designed, will change the fact that it is not.

The remainder of Minister Firth's letter to Mr Tait repeats the misinformation on the management of marine ecosystems contained in much of the Marine Parks Authority's documentation The Minister repeatedly misrepresents the intentions and possible benefits of well designed marine protection in an apparent attempt to cover-up the gross deficiencies with the justification for, and design of, the Batemans Marine Park. In reality this park does not comply with even the Marine Parks Authority's own design requirements,

You don't by any chance have the 'exchanges' that lead up to this, do you?

The response from

1.  Professor Kearney in Narooma News, 10th October 2007 .. "Letters to the Editor". 

2.  Mr. Richard Tilzey, formerly of the Bureau of Resource Sciences as a Fisheries research Scientist in Narooma News "Letters to Editor" 10th October 2007

1.  "Response to Dr. Fleming's comments" ... by Professor Kearney, Narooma News, October 10

There is scientific consensus that well designed and managed marine protected areas can have benefits for the conservation of biodiversity and for assisting with fisheries management. The accepted essentials are to have well designed area management that protects the ecosystems or species therein from real threats. Dr Fleming?s imprecise generalisation on the benefits of marine protection misrepresents the true consensus. His imprecision when considering marine parks and marine protected areas is damning: the two are not synonymous. Consensus on the value of marine protected areas is of little relevance to the current specific debate as the Batemans Marine Park is not a marine protected area. Correct interpretation of the scientific documentation provided by the Marine Parks Authority shows that the Park does not protect either ecosystems or species from even the threats identified by the Marine Parks Authority.

The Batemans Marine Park is nothing more that a very poorly designed fisheries allocation mechanism, even in the sanctuary zones, particularly in estuaries and on ocean beaches. The two Ministers responsible for the declaration of the Park acknowledged in their joint media release of July 14, 2007 that even the sanctuary zones were directed only at fisheries. They stated ?People can generally continue to do what they?ve always done within the sanctuary zones except commercial and recreational fishing?.

It is probable that the ?entrenched opponents of marine parks in NSW?, with whom Dr Fleming is clearly not impressed, are justifiably entrenched opponents of marine parks as implemented in NSW, and not opponents of properly designed and managed marine protected areas. Any conservationist with a genuine interest in the protection of the marine ecosystems of NSW should remain an opponent of marine parks that cost millions of dollars for no clearly defined potential benefits.

Dr Fleming's statement that my paper "seems to be raising issues with the planning principles for marine parks rather than the science of marine parks" is yet another staggering example of the Marine Parks Authority's misinterpretation of the literature. Twelve of the first thirteen pages of my sixteen page paper are devoted entirely to science. They deal paragraph by paragraph with the bias and abuse of science depicted in the Science Paper of the Marine Parks Authority. The bulk of my paper does not deal specifically with planning principles, however, I do point out the essential need, when planning marine protection, to first identify "what it is that is being protected and what it is that it is being protected from". Then what should follow is logical explanation of how the proposed management measures will provide the necessary protection, and why these measures represent the most efficient way of doing so. Not one of these fundamental steps has been addressed in the Science Paper or other documents provided for the Batemans Marine Park.

The remainder of the long final paragraph in Dr Fleming's response to my paper refers inconsistently and imprecisely with the needs and benefits of managing ecosystems and species. He implies, incorrectly, that I have somehow advocated species specific management. It is in fact the Marine Park Authority's own Science Paper that gives undue weight to individual species. For example, three of the four sections in that paper that deal with the benefits of marine protected areas use examples of individual species in an attempt to justify the Batemans Park. It is significant that the one section in that paper that deals specifically with ecosystems, "Sanctuaries lead to improvements in ecosystems and habitats" exaggerates the information that is actually given in the scientific literature by a factor of 100 in a scurrilous attempt to misrepresent the potential benefits of more parks in New South Wales.

Seems PJ got a bit caught out in the Jervis Bay thread and isntead of putting forward any practical suggestions decided to restart this debate from the very beginning:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1207213095/21#21

Duh FD, the idea of fisheries is to catch fish of a marketable size.

Are whiting marketable? What about sardines and anchovies? I've even eaten whitebait in a restaurant before.

Real world evidence shows that fish actually grow faster (as I described) under fishing pressure.

That's got nothing do with it. I'm not suggesting we get rid of fishing pressure. This is about minimum sizes.

The genetic changes you talk about are theoretical

What utter BS. You can't seriously think that natural selection doesn't apply to fish. Common sense would lead you to take the threat seriously. Only naive hope would leaqd someone to think it isn't happening.

So leaving groper as an angling only species makes them overprotected and your answer is to ban angling for them in NTZ's!

I think a bag limit of two is a bit overprotective as well, but I would remove the spearing ban first, then see what happens.

You have also avoided my question - as spearfishing for them has been proven to be unsustainable

Again, you miss the point entirely. I would only suggest you remove the spearing ban after a network of marine parks is set up. Obviously that would make a huge difference.

why won't you policy just lead to depleted areas outside the NTZ's!

Not sure if I understood this correctly, but it won't matter if the stocks are a bit depleted outside the NTZ boundaries.

From the NSW Jervis Bay MP site. I have copies if these get removed from the site. A review of marine park literature:

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pdf/MPA-literature-listing.pdf

A review of the benefits:

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pdf/A-review-of-benefits-MPAs.pdf

Some extracts from the second. Much more detail is given in the document.

The primary criteria identified throughout much of the world for establishing Marine Parks are that they contain a comprehensive, adequate and representative sample of marine biological diversity. In the Australian and NSW context, “comprehensiveness” refers to the extent to which the full range of ecosystems and habitats within and across all NSW bioregions are included in the parks; “adequacy” is the capability of the areas to maintain biodiversity and ecological processes into the future; and “representativeness” is the extent to which the parks reflect the full range of biological diversity. These broad ecological criteria were examined in the bioregional assessments in NSW that resulted in the identification of specific areas with important biodiversity values.

In recent decades, concerns over the cumulative impacts of human activities resulting in declines in the ecological condition of marine ecosystems, and sizes and abundances of many species, have led to the use of marine protected areas as a management tool for conserving biodiversity in most of the world’s oceans.

Benefits cited in scientific studies that may result from the implementation of marine protected areas like marine parks and their sanctuary zones include:
• increases in the abundance, biomass, diversity and productivity of many organisms;
• reductions in the loss of threatened and vulnerable species;
• helping ecosystems recover from natural and human impacts;
• increased protection of important species and habitats;
• the provision of reference sites for the evaluation of threats to biodiversity; and
• improved engagement and education of the community concerning issues of marine conservation.

The likelihood of significant and measurable improvements in the health of marine ecosystems through the implementation of a marine protected area, however, is strongly related to the following criteria:
• adequate knowledge about the contained biodiversity;
• assessment of the vulnerability of the biodiversity and threatening processes;
• consideration of the location and extent of zone types in relation to the distribution of habitats, ecological processes and management practicality; and
• the capacity to reduce the level of impacting activities.

Given that many activities have direct and indirect impacts on species and habitats, managing or eliminating those activities is an effective way of reducing those impacts on the marine ecosystem, and contributing to the long-term ecological viability of marine ecosystems. Zoning arrangements within multiple-use marine parks such as those set up in NSW attempt to reduce the impacts on marine ecosystems by protecting a proportion of all habitats and their associated species from removal, destructive activities and a range of threatening processes. In terms of indirect impacts such as pollution and siltation, a range of catchment management programs are progressively being implemented to address these issues. The protection of species and their habitat can result in benefits to a range of species and habitats, some of which are documented below.

From fishing and fisheries, a JCU publication. See the last page of edition 31:

http://www.jcu.edu.au/ees/cffr/

Or the direct link:

http://www.jcu.edu.au/ees/idc/groups/public/documents/research_units/jcudev_018188.pdf

Of particular interest to me was the discussion of the role that green zones can play in the management of fish like coral trout, which change sex from female to male as they age. They also eat their own young. Intuitively, this would suggest they are more resilient, as taking the large males gives you more females. So you may think that this fishery would get the least benefit from marine parks and that standard management tools alone will ensure sustainability.

Green Zones and Fish Stocks

What does the ELF Experiment show?

By Annabel Jones and Bruce Mapstone

The Queensland reef line fishery presents a unique challenge for managers because of the multi-species, multi-sectorial nature of the fishery, as well as complex ecological, economic and social factors that affect it. The effects of reef line fishing on targeted species and other reef species on the GBR have been poorly understood. Understanding the distribution, intensity, and effects of reef line fishing is essential for successful management of both fishing and other recreational and commercial activities in the GBR region, as well as for conservation of the GBR ecosystem. The Effects of Line Fishing Experiment was conceived with the aim to provide some information to fill this information gap.

The ELF Experiment was (and still is), a world-first in respect to its size (spread over 1500 km of the GBR), its duration (over 10 years of sampling) and design (at the scale of entire reefs). The experiment has generated an unprecedented body of information relevant to users of the GBR Marine Park. This information has already been included in two major management plans affecting the reef line fishery and the GBR Marine Park.

The ELF Experiment has allowed us to investigate some of the primary impacts of fishing on targeted fish stocks and to measure some of the secondary impacts on other components of the GBR ecosystem. The design of the experiment allowed for monitoring of reef fish stocks prior to and after opening and closing several reefs to fishing. These reefs are situated in four areas between Lizard Island in the north and the Swains in the south.

Surveys of areas that had been open and closed to fishing for over a decade showed that the two main target species of the fishery, common coral trout and red throat emperor, were significantly more abundant, larger and older in areas closed to fishing (zoned Marine National Park) than in adjacent open areas (General Use) although the degree of difference varied from near-zero around Lizard Island to several-fold in the southern regions of the GBR.

The patterns in apparent ‘effectiveness‛ of closed areas to protect fish stocks closely match patterns in the amount of fishing effort and catch, indicating that these patterns are probably more likely due to historical fishing levels rather than infringements in the closed areas. That is, the lack of contrast between open and closed areas in the Lizard Region probably arises because the open areas are lightly fished, whereas the strong contrasts in the other regions arises because of relatively heavy fishing in the open areas in those regions.

Indirect effects of line fishing on by-catch and non-harvest fish such as bombie cod, banana fish and stripey bass were less conspicuous. Whilst some differences existed between open and closed reefs in abundances of the prey of targeted species, these patterns varied. In some situations the patterns in abundance suggested that removal of a key predator such as coral trout by fishing might have allowed populations of some prey to flourish on fished reefs, but the evidence was neither uniform nor convincing.

The research did find some interesting results that could have implications for future management decisions. For example, fishing significantly affected the sexual characteristics of common coral trout populations. Coral trout are one of many fish species that change sex during their life. Results from the ELF Experiment suggest that fishing pressure reduced the size of female coral trout, reduced the average age of males and reduced the size of fish undergoing sex change. With biological research indicating that it is the larger females that provide a significant proportion of the reproductive output of a variety of fish species, it may be that large females are very important to the long term sustainability of fish stocks. If this is the case for coral trout, then it is important that enough large females are maintained in populations.

The ELF Surveys indicated that there were similar total numbers of fish species present on open and closed reefs. Therefore, line fishing on the Great Barrier Reef does not appear to reduce biodiversity of fished areas.

Closure of reefs to fishing for 5 years as part of the ELF Experiment resulted in increased abundance of coral trout and red throat emperor on these reefs. However, the rate of recovery tended to be influenced by the amount of time the reefs had been opened to fishing previously. This indicates that fishing has long-term effects on fish stocks, potentially through changes in size and age stuctures of the stocks that remained on these reefs.

Quote:

Moreton Bay rezoning to hit families, say fishermen

Poor families, hahahaha.