AS the federal Government’s Marine Park Planning process reaches the high tide mark, the end result of this lengthy and controversial process will see an unprecedented area of Australia’s coastline set aside for marine reserve protection.
The process has been characterised by the usual media hype with the positions of the large multinational environmental groups (ENGOs) crashing against those of Australia’s commercial fishing industry. The voice missing from the debate is that of the largest stakeholder – Australia’s recreational fishing community.
There are about five million recreational fishers in Australia, generating an estimated $10 billion a year throughout rural and coastal regional Australia. It’s not widely known but the economic input of anglers far exceeds the value of the nation’s commercial fishing sector.
Australia’s recreational fishers are passionate and have in the past reflected this passion at the ballot box in order to protect their rights. They have a vested interest in good conservation management and know and understand the marine environment.
For decades recreational fishing clubs and organisations have initiated community-based restoration of habitats. Working with regulatory bodies, their environmental footprint is minimised through adaptive management policies, such as catch & release, bag restrictions, seasonal closures and size limits. Australian anglers long ago recognised that healthy habitats result in healthy fish stocks for future generations.
In relation to marine reserves, the position of the recreational fishing community is a simple one – “don’t lock us out”. However, anglers aren’t inflexible or unnecessarily obdurate in this regard. If there are sound scientific reasons to regulate recreational fishing in a particular area, then they will actively support government actions to better protect valuable habitat and fish stocks. After all, it’s in their interest to do so.
Looking at the maps of the proposed federal marine reserves, it is striking that thousands of square kilometres of no-fishing “green zones” are being proposed in the Coral Sea and south-west WA. These green areas on the maps are “lock out” zones for recreational fishing and, if implemented, will mean access to these areas is lost forever.
The science as to why recreational fishing should be “locked out” of these massive tracts of coastline has not yet been presented. Nor have the economic and social implications for rural and regional Australia.
It has been argued that anglers should agree to these plans as the “green zones” are generally located out-to-sea or in remote locations and as a result will have little effect on the average recreational fisher. However, accepting this logic would also see us accept the logic that “locking out” recreational fishers from marine reserves without the necessary scientific justification is acceptable.
We know that the ENGO juggernaut is well funded and politically strong. It can sway government decisions. Much like a multinational company in the pursuit of key performance indicators (KPIs), it is insatiable in pursuit of its area-based targets, which unfortunately aren’t always focused on good environmental outcomes.
In this case, the international ENGOs want to maximise “green zone” KPIs in Australian waters at any cost. If their targets aren’t met this time, they will be back with far larger claims affecting recreational fishers in a far more substantive way. This sort of “corporate takeover” style operation is the way the international ENGO juggernaut operates.
As a result, recreational fishers have two options: (1) accept a plan that locks them out of vast areas of ocean without question or (2) oppose the concept of indiscriminate lock-outs and request sound scientific, economic and social justification behind all marine reserve decisions made.
While it is true that much of what the Government is planning is likely to have little impact on most Aussie anglers, the risks of saying “yes” to this decision without sound environmental, economic and social justification is unacceptably high. We know what the Government is proposing, though substantial in terms of “green zones”, is short of what the ENGOs want. So they will be back for more, and this may make the current process short-lived and fundamentally tokenistic. The precedent set would also strengthen the “lock out” argument, not only for other federal marine reserves but for state-managed inshore zones.
This brings us back to the earlier stated position. The only way these plans should be accepted by Australia’s five million recreational fishers – and the only way the Government can achieve a long lasting, durable and effective agreement – is to have marine park decisions underpinned by sound environmental, economic and social justification. Surely this is the basis of good public policy anyway? And surely it is a better approach than unquestionably agreeing to the corporate style objectives of the international ENGO conglomerate?
Many regard recreational fishers as the “bushwalkers of the sea”, leaving a minimal footprint on Australia’s marine environment. And let’s not forget the positives angling offers in regards to strengthening regional economies and offering young people the chance to experience a natural and outdoor lifestyle.
Locking anglers out of marine reserves is akin to locking bushwalkers out of terrestrial national parks. It should only be done if there are sound scientific reasons to do so. We deserve to be shown the reasons.
Allan Hansard is the CEO of the Australian Fishing Trade Association.
