GBRMPA Answer to Sunfish NQ

The Sunfish North Queensland’s submission in connection with the Draft Zoning Plan for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was treated as a formal submission to the Representative Areas Program process. Attached is a response to the nine questions posed in Annex A of the submission.

the information contained in the answers is set out in documents made widely available by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) as part of the rezoning process on the GBRMPA’s website. However, I have asked for a consideration to be made for the purpose of this reply to your queries. The GBRMPA has been in a period of very high workload, and we have attempted to reply to all correspondence as promptly as possible.

Thank you for your interest and participation in the Representative Areas Program

GBRMPA responses to questions from Sunfish NQ

1. Given your governing acts, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 which includes the phrase "allowing reasonable use" and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999_. Clause b "sustainable use of natural resources", it appears that the RAP program, by way of its plan to exclude recreational fishing from 25% of the Park it is assumed that GBRMPA views recreational fishing as an unreasonable use and not sustainable. Please explain on what data and by what measure this position has been determined? We do not require the usual waffle about data supporting increased fish biomass in "no take" areas. It is glaringly obvious that if no fish are removed from an area the biomass will increase just as it is apparent that if we stopped eating cattle from a particular paddock stock numbers would grow. The issue is whether the impact is sustainable, not whether it increases existing biomass or stock levels. We require evidence supporting your position that recreational fishing is having an unsustainable impact on the biodiversity of the Park and is, as defined by the Act, an "unreasonable use".

One of the primary tools for protecting and preserving the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), as specified by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (the Act) is zoning. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan (Zoning Plan) will provide the strategic framework for management of human use of the Marine Park and its impacts.

The principle objectives of zoning plan (according to sub-section 32(7) of the Act) are:

Within the Zoning Plan, there are strictly protected areas, which meet the criteria of IUCN Category 1 ‘Preservation or Scientific Research Zones’. There is also the Marine National Park Zone (green zones) equivalent to IUCN Category 2. Other zones, including Conservation Park, Habitat Protection, General Use and Buffer Zones, provide for a range of conservation measures consistent with sustainable use and addressing the spectrum of the IUCN Protected Area categories (For more information on IUCN Protected Area Categories please go to: http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/mpa/about/australian.html#4).

The Category 1 and Category 2 (‘no take’) Protected Areas provide for strictly protected areas representative of each of the habitat types of the GBR Region. The Representative Areas Program (RAP) aims to ensure that representative examples of all habitat types within the GBR Region are protected within the Marine National Park Zone.

In addition to spatial and temporal management, the Zoning Plan and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983 establishes a system for permitting activities that need to be considered on a case-by-case basis to address individual or cumulative impacts. Planning for the protection of the GBR and ecologically sustainable use is also achieved through Plans of Management (PoMs).

The GBRMPA does consider recreational fishing to be a reasonable use of the Marine Park. However, all activities in the marine environment have some impact. When the issue of fishing impacts is discussed, it does not help to try to distinguish between those caused by commercial and those caused by recreational fishing. Both activities have adverse impacts, although it is well understood that some fishing methods have greater impacts than others (see also 5 below).

When humans continually target and remove certain animals from the food chain, such as carnivorous fish, there are ‘flow-on’ effects elsewhere in the food web. Commercial and recreational fishers have different impacts on different species in different locations but both do have an impact. Prof. Garry Russ’s work in the Whitsundays and Palm Islands shows how protection from fishing restores the ecosystem[1]. If impacts from fishing [whether commercial or recreational] are not managed, they can have detrimental impacts on the entire ecosystem, as has occurred in many marine areas of the world.

Traditional fisheries management tools, like bag and size limits, can help protect the sustainability of a fishery but do not fully address the impact of extractive activities on the ecosystem, or on a huge range of other ‘non-target’ species. Taking particular species of a particular size that play a particular role in the ecosystem out of the system, will alter that system – even if the take is sustainable. Management plans for all the commercial and recreational fisheries (including netting, crabbing, line fishing and trawling) are important to the sustainability of the fish stocks but these more ‘traditional’ management tools do not specifically address habitats or ecological processes.

The Zoning Plan allows fishing and extractive activities to occur in most areas of the Marine Park, but fisheries, and the impact of fishing on the environment, are nonetheless required to be managed sustainably. This means that some parts of the Marine Park need to be protected from extractive use. Protecting representative examples of each bioregion will minimise such impacts and bring benefits to the conservation of the GBR ecosystem as a whole.

2. We are conscious of a wide variety of impacts on the Park and while generally accepting of the need for conservation of the Park, please explain where GBRMPA places recreational fishing in its priority scale of impacts and in turn explain how green zones will reduce the pressures which you list as potentially greater threats to the environment that recreational fishing. These impacts include, but are not limited to, sewage discharge from mainland, sewage discharge from boats, sewage discharge from Islands, coral bleaching, crown of thorns, commercial gill netting, deep water trawl netting, inshore trawl netting, inshore gill netting, long lining, recreational fishing, anchor damage from commercial vessels, anchor damage from recreational vessels, diver related damage, mainland run-off. Please list, in order of priority, the potential negative impact of these and other impacts on the biodiversity of the Park This question has been put to GBRMPA previously but has been side stepped. Please explain also for those of us who are sceptical about the political agenda, why does the new zoning area of Pioneer Bay specifically dodge the issue of sewage outfall at pigeon island by deliberately excluding this outfall from the new zoning area?

As Sunfish NQ has listed, there is a range of human uses and activities that can adversely affect biodiversity, including climate change, over-fishing, depletion of spawning aggregations, marine pollution, introduced/exotic organisms, tourism impacts, boat strikes and incidental by-catch (including by ghost nets).

The level of threat varies from location to location so it is not possible to rank them in order of significance on a Marine Park-wide basis, or to indicate where recreational fishing might rank in such a list. Suffice to say that the body of robust scientific literature detailing the adverse impacts of unsustainable fishing, including recreational fishing, is considerable and incontrovertible. All the activities listed represent potential threats to the GBR and that is why a range of strategies are underway to address them, including the Reef Protection Water Quality Plan, RAP, the development of Fisheries Management Plans with QFS, Plans of Management, proposed changes to legislative requirements for vessel sourced sewage, and tourism permit conditions.

All these strategies help to increase the resilience of the GBR ecosystem so that it is better able to withstand natural perturbations and threats such as global warming, over which we have minimal control.

The GBRMPA cannot wait until science can prove, within strict 95% confidence limits, that the ecosystem is degraded. By then the ecosystem may have collapsed. As detailed above, the RAP is only one of numerous strategies the GBRMPA has adopted to address these threats.

With regard to the Cannonvale sewage outfall in Pioneer Bay (Pigeon Island), some structures in coastal areas previously excluded from the Marine Park are now located in it due to boundary alterations, and will consequently require a permit from the GBRMPA. This applies to the Airlie Section, adjacent to the townships of Airlie Beach and Cannonvale, incorporated into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in 2001.

Currently, the Airlie Section is un-zoned. The zoning of the Airlie Section is progressing as part of RAP. It is envisaged that this process will be completed mid-2004 with the anticipated gazettal of the new Zoning Plan. Those structures that are found to be in the newly zoned areas will require a permit from the GBRMPA.

3. You are by this stage aware that the position of this group, and also the position of the recreational peak body SUNFISH is to support limited Pink Zones but not Green Zones. We believe that to allow the continued commercial exploitation of the reef while excluding recreational fishers is both discriminatory and without due consideration for the protection of the reef. As a case in point, it has been established that a major outbreak of dangerous lyngbya algae was recently detected in a green zone reef (Hardy Reef), which is currently not used by recreational or commercial anglers. It is also established that endocrine disruptors, a direct result of human waste being discharged into the environment, can have a dramatic^. impact on breeding patterns of animals including fish. To whit a large backpacker dive boat, anchoring in an area of a coral trout spawning aggregation. A disruption to this aggregation has a potential impact of indeterminable numbers of trout compared with the entire live fish trade removal of 1.5 million trout per annum. Why is GBRMPA favouring green zones and not pink zones? Is part of the reason a biased towards commercial operators who fund GBRMPA via the "Reef Tax" and the commercial opposition to pink zones?

As discussed in Question 1, the removal of marine organisms affects the integrity and resilience of the marine ecosystem. Protecting marine environments from extractive

The advice from the GBRMPA’s Scientific Steering Committee recognised this and, in recognition of this fact, the GBRMPA has stated publicly that it will not stop people needlessly from visiting areas to enjoy the natural environment. Nonetheless, the Preservation Zone offers an extra level of protection, which is why some areas of the Marine Park have been protected within the Preservation Zone.

The discharge of sewage from vessels into the GBR Marine Park is managed under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983 and outlined in regulation 45A. Maritime Safety Queensland has recently undertaken a review of vessel-sourced sewage in Queensland. As a result of this review, changes to legislative requirements for vessel-sourced sewage are proposed for 2004. The GBRMPA has worked closely with Maritime Safety Queensland on the new proposed legislative regime. For more information on the proposed changes to legislative requirements for vessel-sourced sewage, go to the following Queensland Transport website: www.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/maritime.nsf/index/msq_sewage_2003.

It is GBRMPA policy that no new moorings will be established in areas of known spawning aggregations. This will protect these aggregations 365 days a year from the impacts of tourism, while the same aggregations will only be protected for three-nine day periods from fishing.

4. You list in various publications reasons for green zone protection levels, a dot point list of reasons for protection of biodiversity. They are as follows:

• Six of the worlds seven species of marine turtles all of which are listed as threatened. (Very minimal if any affect by rec fishing)

• One of the worlds most important dugong populations (not affected by rec fishing)

· 2200 species of native plants (25% of Queenslands total native plant species) (not affected by rec fishing)

• Over 1500 varieties of fish (limited impact by rec fishing with only approx 15 species; i.e. 1% of actual species regularly targeted)

• Over 1500 species of molluscs (limited affect on one variety, oysters and this strictly controlled)

• Over one third of the worlds soft coral and sea pen species (not affected by rec fishing)

• Over 200 species of birds and one of Australia's most significant seabird rookeries (not affected by rec fishing)

• Approximately 2900 coral reefs built from 360 species of hard corals (minimal affect by rec fishing/anchors)

• 800 species of sea stars which is 13% of the worlds total (not affected by rec fishing)

• Over 3000 square kilometres of mangroves including 54% of the worlds mangrove diversity (not affected by rec fishing)

• Breeding humpback and other whale species. (Not affected by rec fishing)

Of these 10 vital reasons and examples of biodiversity only 1% of available species of one single dot point is affected by recreational fishing. That is impact on a small number of fish species and we continue our position that this is totally sustainable.

Why, when recreational fishing has a very limited impact on one single sector of the biodiversity portfolio, is it being excluded from up to 25%, an amount of up to 90,000 square kilometres of the Park?

As has been stated, all extractive activities, including recreational fishing have an impact on biodiversity. However, the RAP is not about closing peoples’ favorite fishing areas nor locking up areas; rather it is about better protecting examples of the entire range of habitats, plants and animals in the Marine Park to maintain the health and resilience of the ecosystem and provide benefits for present and future users.

The points above (taken from a GBRMPA publication) are not intended to provide a definitive list of the plants and animals that make up the GBR ecosystem, nor do they represent the sole justification for implementing RAP. The list highlights a tiny proportion of the amazing diversity of plants and animals that can be found in the Marine Park.

The GBR ecosystem is incredibly complex and each element within it is inextricably linked. Removal of herbivores and carnivores from this system affects the resilience and integrity of the GBR and has been found to exacerbate other human impacts such as eutrophication, outbreaks of disease, and species introductions.

5. What studies have been done to establish the varying levels of impact recreational fishing has as opposed to commercial fishing? We are of the opinion that recreational fishing has a far smaller impact, is totally sustainable and in no way impacts on seagrass beds, soft coral and sponge beds, dugong and turtle numbers, and other biodiversity issues. We believe that other control mechanisms already exist to control recreational impact such as size and bag limits. While we ourselves have no hard data, please consider the following anecdotal evidence. A case study is the Proserpine River and the creeks and rivers of Repulse Bay and a fish of high interest to both commercial and recreational anglers, the barramundi. Published figures show commercial extraction from grids 23 & 24 (Repulse Bay) in 2001 involved 27 commercial vessels and 14,500 kilos of barramundi while anecdotally total recreational catch is less than 3,000 kilos. Proserpine River has been closed to commercial netting for approx 12 years during which time it has been the subject of steadily increasing recreational use/pressure. Barramundi numbers have steadily increased (as evidenced by both catch rates and average size) over this time. Other creeks, which are still the target of commercial gill nets offer excellent tag and release barramundi fishing for the 3 month closed season but within days of the season opening and as a direct result of very heavy commercial netting barramundi become almost nonexistent as a recreational catch. Why does GBRMPA bracket both commercial and recreational fishers under the same banner when our impacts are so obviously different?

As stated above, when discussing the impacts of fishing, it is not useful to distinguish between those caused by commercial line-fishers or those caused by recreational fishers. From the perspective of the ecosystem, it is the removal of fish that is important; whether or not they are sold is irrelevant. The Zoning Plan does, however, acknowledge different impacts from different fishing methods, e.g. trawling, netting and line fishing.

While individual recreational fishers may catch only a few fish, the large number of recreational fishers and the total number of fish they collectively take, means the amount of fish taken by recreational fishers is substantial.

As you would be aware, the Queensland Fisheries Service manages fisheries in Queensland. As discussed in Question 1, traditional fisheries management tools, like bag and size limits, can help protect the sustainability of a fishery, but do not fully address the impact of extractive activities on the whole ecosystem (as the GBRMPA is legislatively required to do).

The GBRMPA has a responsibility to manage the impacts of fishing on the Marine Park. It uses zoning to manage the impact of commercial and recreational fishing on the Marine Park. The zoning plan sets out the purposes for which a zone may be used or entered without permission, and the purposes for which the zone may be used or entered only with the written permission of the GBRMPA. The General Use Zone provides for the widest range of activities, while the Preservation Zone is the most restrictive. Recreational line fishing is allowed to occur largely unrestricted in the majority of the Marine Park. Commercial fishing activities are generally restricted, to varying degrees, in all zones of the Marine Park.

(a) Current green zones, where possible, are zoned pink. An amount of 25% of the Park be yellow zoned for a period of 5 years and a number of study areas closely 'monitored to assess the impact on biodiversity and fish biomass levels.

(b) It is our position that recreational anglers are not having an unsustainable impact on fish stocks. It is our position that such practices as inshore gill netting are having an unsustainable impact on fish stocks and further has an impact on turtle and dugong numbers and has no place in dugong protection areas of the Park.

(c) It is our position that inshore beam trawling and its subsequent by catch and seabcd destruction represents the greatest single danger to fish stocks and should be banned from 100% of the Park, however we recognise the personal and economic impact of such bans and propose that the 25% yellow zone proposal would be an important starting point for a phase out of these industries over time.

(d) That if the biomass of fish removed by the live trout trade, currently standing at a reported 1500 tonnes per annum is deemed unsustainable, a capping of effort and individual vessel quota be set for the 558 boats currently engaged in this practice to reduce levels to a sustainable catch in conjunction with a review of recreational bag and size limits if deemed appropriate.

(e) That GBRMPA recognise the practices of a large majority of recreational anglers when fishing in blue water environs will put out a floating pelagic bait and then bottom fish with 1 hook 1 line while waiting for a pelagic to strike. The yellow zone rules regarding 1 line 1 hook be changed to allow 1 line 1 hook fishing at any time for domicile species while allowing 1 line set for pelagic species.

(f) That GBRMPA review its banning of spear fishing in yellow zones. Spear fishing by its very nature is totally selective, has zero by catch, zero pollution (discarded lines etc) and combines for many spearfishes the enjoyment of snorkelling with their minimal impact on fish stocks.

It is the position of this forum that we would totally support turning current green zones into pink zones for reasons of better and more fulsome protection of the Park. We would totally support modified yellow zones for 25% of the Park provided a totally transparent review and monitoring process of yellow zone fish stocks was undertaken and this was in conjunction with a capping of live fish trade levels at whatever is deemed to be sustainable catch levels along with appropriate bag limits for rec fishers. We do not and will not support green zones for reasons outlined.

a. Rotation of zones – RAP is about protecting the full range of plants and animals in the GBR, not just fish. Rotational or seasonal closures may be useful tools for some species in fisheries management, however they are not appropriate for many other species. A network of areas zoned green will provide the necessary level of protection to ensure the long-term protection of all species over the entire Marine Park.

d. Concern re live fish trade - The RAP is being complemented by Queensland fisheries management arrangements that are reducing catch and effort across all fisheries. The Queensland Government has recently launched its management plan for the coral reef finfish fishery. The plan aims to reduce latent and real effort in the fishery from the current 1,550 vessels to less than 400 vessels licensed to take coral reef finfish commercially. The plan also uses quotas to reduce the catch from the current level of about 4,500 tonnes to some 3,060 tonnes. While the revised Zoning Plan aims to further reduce the effects on fishers, Queensland’s coral reef finfish fishery management plan more than adequately deals with concerns about displacement of effort in this fishery arising from RAP.

e. Why problems with a floater for pelagics - the number of lines and hooks permitted in each zone has been considered in light of the submissions.

f. Why ban spearfishing in the yellow zone – the Zoning Plan does not propose to ban spearfishing in yellow zones. On the contrary, the Zoning Plan proposes that it be allowed.

7. As a result of the public consultation process and the overwhelming groundswell of opposition to the RAP program will GBRMPA continue with its plans for a 25% no take area policy or is it listening to public opinion? It is noted that a recent communique from the chair of the WLMAC expressed with some dismay "to date I have very few RSVP's. There is little point developing a submission if we don't have a reasonable number of members". On the other hand you are receiving thousands of submissions from rec fishers. As a by-product of this question is the review being undertaken on democratic or autocratic principles and will weight of numbers influence the outcome? To whit are we wasting our time having input into the zoning when the outcomes, if not the exact areas, are already pre-determined?

As the result of two formal public participation stages for the RAP, the GBRMPA has received over 30,000 submissions. The second formal phase of community participation was one of the largest examples of public involvement in any issue in Australia’s history. The majority of people making submissions have made it very clear to the GBRMPA that they have an interest in ensuring the future of the GBR ecosystem.

It is not correct to suggest that the outcomes of the zoning process are predetermined. As GBRMPA has said in a number of media releases, “the DZP will undoubtedly change in the light of submissions and ongoing consultation”.

While everyone is keen to ensure the best possible outcome for all parties concerned, it would be misleading to give any one group or community the impression that the submission they made in CP2 will be able to be adopted in total in the revised Zoning Plan.

8. With regard the recommendations of the Scientific Steering Committee to the RAP program please clarify that the 25% green zone proposals are regarded as the bare minimum and that "none of the recommendations are for ideal and desired amounts" the committee goes on to say "the protection of 20 - 40% of any fishing ground in no take areas offers some fisheries the opportunity for better management". In part 4 under data and objectives to implement principle 8 it is observed that the sum of 50% of all high value dugong habitat areas and 10% of 30 of the identified turtle foraging areas are earmarked for green zone. How is recreational fishing having a detrimental impact on these areas? The only recorded boat strike on a dugong in this regions was by the QPWS patrol boat and the only other noted deaths have been caused by entanglement in commercial gill nets. It is boarding on fanciful to suggest that banning recreational fishing is going to cure the ills of the Park and enhance dugong protection, seagrass beds and turtle foraging sites, the entire basis on which the SSC is operating under, the precautionary principle is without credibility. Are we to expect at the next planning review a push for 40% green zones given this appears to be the ideal in the opinion of the SSC?

If the biophysical operational principles are implemented in full, the SSC advocates that 25-30% of the GBRMP will be protected in the Green Zone, or no-take areas[2]. These biophysical operational principles refer to minimum amounts of protection and should be treated as a package to underpin the choice of what number, size and location of no-take areas to implement. The SSC considers that to achieve the objectives of RAP the GBRMPA should protect at least these amounts in each bioregion and each habitat; none of these recommendations is for “ideal” or “desired” amounts. Ideal or desired amounts required for full protection are likely to be greater than indicated by the biophysical operational principles.

The SSC considers that the biophysical operational principles are best estimates of the requirements to provide minimum protection through declaration of no-take areas. They are based on all available literature and expert knowledge, but may require review as new information becomes available.

The SSC realises that there are many different spatial configurations of no-take areas that would fulfill these biophysical operational principles and that the final location of no-take areas has been decided in consultation with all stakeholders.

9. Can GBRMPA explain, given it has been a demonstrable failure in its efforts to enforce the current zonings and management plans, how it will police an area larger than the entire state of Victoria and how will they ensure a massive dilution of enforcement effort (on an area pro rata basis) will not have the reverse effect of even greater illegal use of the Park and green zone areas?

Following Government support, the compliance program in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has become much more effective in recent years. Strategic planning and use of intelligence has increased the ability to detect offenders. Prosecutions have been increasingly successful. The courts are imposing heavier penalties. Planning is underway to ensure that the proposed re-zoning of the Marine Park is supported by an even stronger enforcement capability.

Since July 2002, 56 commercial fishing boats have been detected operating illegally in protected areas of the GBR Marine Park. During the same period commercial line fishermen have been successfully convicted of 55 offences, recreational fishers for 45 offences. A further 29 matters are presently before the court and 41 matters under investigation or with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Government recognises illegal fishing in the Marine Park is a serious environmental crime that can be a very lucrative activity for offenders. In July 2001, the Government increased the maximum penalties for this offence to $220,000 for an individual and $1.1 million for companies.

Sunfish NQ claim that the GBRMPA has been “a demonstrable failure in its efforts to enforce the current zonings and management plans”. If Sunfish NQ members are aware of illegal activity, they should report specific details promptly to the GBRMPA.

Please see attached information sheet on compliance and enforcement in the Marine Park for more information.

[1] Graham, N.A.J., Evans, R.D., and G.R. Russ (2003) The effects of marine reserve protection on the tropic relationships of reef fishes on the Great Barrier Reef. Environmental Conservation 30(2):200-208. Paper Attached for your information.

[2] More new no-take zones will be located over non-reef areas than reef areas because 21% of reef area is already in no-take zones.