luigi
24-06-2003, 12:42 PM
23 June 2003
To all interested parties
Please use all or part of the following, as you deem appropriate.
Lou Teitzel (Author)
126 Patterson Pde. Lucinda 4850
Phone 4777 8263
lucindalures@ozemail.com.au
DRAFT ZONING PLAN SUBMISSION – Representative Areas Program
Question 1
Please fill in details relating to your area.
Question 2
I am unable to support the Draft Zoning Plan. I firmly believe “no fishing areas” (green zones) do not give significant or sufficient protection to the Marine Park’s biodiversity and sustainability. The term “green zone” can be interperated as a confidence trick to lull the public into thinking they are supporting the protection of the Marine Park’s ecology whereas in fact, green zones are little more than NO FISHING ZONES.
Question 3
GBRMPA continually states that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is under pressure and they are concerned about loss of biodiversity in the Marine Park. I fully endorse their aims “to do more now to further protect the biodiversity of the Marine Park, before it is too late” and suggest most thinking people would agree also.
According to the Draft Zoning Map it is now intended to introduce no-fishing areas (Green Zones) to over 32% of the GBRMP. Green Zones, according to the Authority, have been proven to protect biodiversity. I have a real problem with this statement and the suitability of no-fishing Green Zones for the following reasons:
· Green Zones only protect marine creatures taken or harvested by extractive industries. Green Zones do not afford protection to the rest of the eco-system either inside or outside the zones.
· Existing fishing effort will transfer from the proposed no-fishing zones to the remaining 50 to 60% of the park. If the park is already “under pressure”, additional pressure will result in the potential for a biodiversity disaster in areas outside Green Zones. Under the precautionary principal, this possibility should not be allowed to occur.
· Green Zones do not address problems associated with downstream effects from industry and uses outside the GBRMP.
· According to GBRMPA handouts, this Representative Areas Program and zoning review has been conducted under the auspices of two most relevant Acts of Parliament, The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 and The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. One of the 1999 Act main objects is (quote) “to promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources;” - By prohibiting recreational fishing in the green zones, GBRMPA is inferring that recreational fishing is a non-sustainable use. This is absurd. As far as I know, there is no evidence showing recreational fishing is unsustainable; in fact the reverse appears to be the case with many reports of ecological enhancement following establishment of recreational only fishing areas throughout the world.
· The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 amongst other things, calls for “The regulation of the use of the Marine Park so as to protect the Great Barrier Reef while allowing reasonable use;” - The inference that recreational fishing is not a reasonable use is totally unacceptable to me for the reasons given in the previous point.
· Much, if not all, scientific data given by GBRMPA supporting no-fishing zones appears to relate to heavily used areas or overfished coral reef areas outside Australia. Such data, I believe, is not particularly relative to circumstances in the GBRMP, which is under pressure, but certainly not in a critical situation.
· Any unjustified prohibition or unreasonable restrictions on the sport of recreational fishing will have a very detrimental effect on coastal communities and businesses as well as to Local, State & Australian economies.
GBRMPA states that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is under pressure. If this is correct, I suggest there are far better methods of protection than locking out certain users of this great asset. As stated above, by Law, GBRMPA must allow reasonable use provided such use is ecologically sustainable.
In my opinion, the Green Zone proposal does not comply with the Law i.e., The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 and The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. I am expected to comply with Australian Laws, I expect GBRMPA to do likewise.
As a simple basic starting point, my GBRMP management recommendations, which I believe to be Law compliant, are as follows:
PROPOSAL
Basic Park Management
(a) All processes, uses & users etc within the park or outside the park, which have any direct or indirect influence on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, should be assessed under the principals of Ecologically Sustainable Development. Any use or process not able to conform or be made to conform to the principals of ESD should be prohibited.
Assessment and subsequent reviews should be conducted by a consultative group or panel comprised of representatives from some or all of the following:
Scientists, Park Management, relative Federal & State Government Departments, Local Government, Sunfish, Commercial Fishers, Environmental Groups, Traditional Owners, users and other stakeholders. All interested parties should be given the opportunity to submit input to the group/panel.
NOTE: Current means of assessment and application of Ecologically Sustainable Development principals don’t appear to be effective. For example, prawn trawling is an allowable use in much of the GBRMP despite evidence that trawling is not ecologically sustainable particularly in relation to its destructive effect on seabed ecosystems not to mention by-catch problems.
Anyone fishing a reef soon after the presence of a live trout boat has ample cause to question the sustainability of this form of fishing.
Targeting spawning aggregation areas and netting fish migration runs are currently allowed despite ecological sustainability being questionable at best.
(b) Establishment of Scientific Research Zones on the basis of a maximum area totalling say 5% of the GBR Marine Park. Such zones should ideally be located in the more remote regions of the park.
In due course, provided ESD principals and criteria are correctly identified, monitored and compliance is enforced as an ongoing process, I see no necessity for additional zones of any other type.
Fishery Management
Note. It is acknowledged that fisheries management issues are not the province of GBRMPA but in view of no-fishing green zones, it appears that GBRMPA is usurping management from Queensland Fisheries Service.
(a) Research spawning cycles of major fish species and introduce fishing closures over the spawning period.
(b) Continually review fish size limits, bag limits and commercial catch limits with a view to maintaining sustainability together with fishery enhancement.
(c) Increase surveillance and law compliance.
(d) As an interim measure only, Green Zones, which allow recreational fishing with restrictions similar to those called for in Marine Park (yellow) Zone A, should be identified and introduced as per the Representative Areas Programme.
These zones should be established as a temporary measure under the precautionary principal pending implementation and refinement of Basic Park Management clause (a).
The above proposal will be most effective with a high degree of research involvement. As such, the cost factor may be substantial but justifiable in view of potential outcomes. Perhaps consideration for some form of user fee or licensing system may be necessary. Provided revenue collection and expenditure is transparent and used solely for marine fishing research, management and surveillance, I would like to think a reasonable level of impost would be acceptable to most recreational fishers.
I firmly believe my above proposal is fair and equitable and will give protection to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park far into the future.
To all interested parties
Please use all or part of the following, as you deem appropriate.
Lou Teitzel (Author)
126 Patterson Pde. Lucinda 4850
Phone 4777 8263
lucindalures@ozemail.com.au
DRAFT ZONING PLAN SUBMISSION – Representative Areas Program
Question 1
Please fill in details relating to your area.
Question 2
I am unable to support the Draft Zoning Plan. I firmly believe “no fishing areas” (green zones) do not give significant or sufficient protection to the Marine Park’s biodiversity and sustainability. The term “green zone” can be interperated as a confidence trick to lull the public into thinking they are supporting the protection of the Marine Park’s ecology whereas in fact, green zones are little more than NO FISHING ZONES.
Question 3
GBRMPA continually states that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is under pressure and they are concerned about loss of biodiversity in the Marine Park. I fully endorse their aims “to do more now to further protect the biodiversity of the Marine Park, before it is too late” and suggest most thinking people would agree also.
According to the Draft Zoning Map it is now intended to introduce no-fishing areas (Green Zones) to over 32% of the GBRMP. Green Zones, according to the Authority, have been proven to protect biodiversity. I have a real problem with this statement and the suitability of no-fishing Green Zones for the following reasons:
· Green Zones only protect marine creatures taken or harvested by extractive industries. Green Zones do not afford protection to the rest of the eco-system either inside or outside the zones.
· Existing fishing effort will transfer from the proposed no-fishing zones to the remaining 50 to 60% of the park. If the park is already “under pressure”, additional pressure will result in the potential for a biodiversity disaster in areas outside Green Zones. Under the precautionary principal, this possibility should not be allowed to occur.
· Green Zones do not address problems associated with downstream effects from industry and uses outside the GBRMP.
· According to GBRMPA handouts, this Representative Areas Program and zoning review has been conducted under the auspices of two most relevant Acts of Parliament, The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 and The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. One of the 1999 Act main objects is (quote) “to promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources;” - By prohibiting recreational fishing in the green zones, GBRMPA is inferring that recreational fishing is a non-sustainable use. This is absurd. As far as I know, there is no evidence showing recreational fishing is unsustainable; in fact the reverse appears to be the case with many reports of ecological enhancement following establishment of recreational only fishing areas throughout the world.
· The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 amongst other things, calls for “The regulation of the use of the Marine Park so as to protect the Great Barrier Reef while allowing reasonable use;” - The inference that recreational fishing is not a reasonable use is totally unacceptable to me for the reasons given in the previous point.
· Much, if not all, scientific data given by GBRMPA supporting no-fishing zones appears to relate to heavily used areas or overfished coral reef areas outside Australia. Such data, I believe, is not particularly relative to circumstances in the GBRMP, which is under pressure, but certainly not in a critical situation.
· Any unjustified prohibition or unreasonable restrictions on the sport of recreational fishing will have a very detrimental effect on coastal communities and businesses as well as to Local, State & Australian economies.
GBRMPA states that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is under pressure. If this is correct, I suggest there are far better methods of protection than locking out certain users of this great asset. As stated above, by Law, GBRMPA must allow reasonable use provided such use is ecologically sustainable.
In my opinion, the Green Zone proposal does not comply with the Law i.e., The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 and The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. I am expected to comply with Australian Laws, I expect GBRMPA to do likewise.
As a simple basic starting point, my GBRMP management recommendations, which I believe to be Law compliant, are as follows:
PROPOSAL
Basic Park Management
(a) All processes, uses & users etc within the park or outside the park, which have any direct or indirect influence on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, should be assessed under the principals of Ecologically Sustainable Development. Any use or process not able to conform or be made to conform to the principals of ESD should be prohibited.
Assessment and subsequent reviews should be conducted by a consultative group or panel comprised of representatives from some or all of the following:
Scientists, Park Management, relative Federal & State Government Departments, Local Government, Sunfish, Commercial Fishers, Environmental Groups, Traditional Owners, users and other stakeholders. All interested parties should be given the opportunity to submit input to the group/panel.
NOTE: Current means of assessment and application of Ecologically Sustainable Development principals don’t appear to be effective. For example, prawn trawling is an allowable use in much of the GBRMP despite evidence that trawling is not ecologically sustainable particularly in relation to its destructive effect on seabed ecosystems not to mention by-catch problems.
Anyone fishing a reef soon after the presence of a live trout boat has ample cause to question the sustainability of this form of fishing.
Targeting spawning aggregation areas and netting fish migration runs are currently allowed despite ecological sustainability being questionable at best.
(b) Establishment of Scientific Research Zones on the basis of a maximum area totalling say 5% of the GBR Marine Park. Such zones should ideally be located in the more remote regions of the park.
In due course, provided ESD principals and criteria are correctly identified, monitored and compliance is enforced as an ongoing process, I see no necessity for additional zones of any other type.
Fishery Management
Note. It is acknowledged that fisheries management issues are not the province of GBRMPA but in view of no-fishing green zones, it appears that GBRMPA is usurping management from Queensland Fisheries Service.
(a) Research spawning cycles of major fish species and introduce fishing closures over the spawning period.
(b) Continually review fish size limits, bag limits and commercial catch limits with a view to maintaining sustainability together with fishery enhancement.
(c) Increase surveillance and law compliance.
(d) As an interim measure only, Green Zones, which allow recreational fishing with restrictions similar to those called for in Marine Park (yellow) Zone A, should be identified and introduced as per the Representative Areas Programme.
These zones should be established as a temporary measure under the precautionary principal pending implementation and refinement of Basic Park Management clause (a).
The above proposal will be most effective with a high degree of research involvement. As such, the cost factor may be substantial but justifiable in view of potential outcomes. Perhaps consideration for some form of user fee or licensing system may be necessary. Provided revenue collection and expenditure is transparent and used solely for marine fishing research, management and surveillance, I would like to think a reasonable level of impost would be acceptable to most recreational fishers.
I firmly believe my above proposal is fair and equitable and will give protection to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park far into the future.