To the select committee on marine parks in south australia

Section 6 Appendix 1

Extract from the Appendix of: Ecological Society of Australia (2003) Protected areas: a position statement by the Ecological Society of Australia. ESA; Alice Springs Australia.

Quote:

3. Formulating protection targets for biodiversity – specific considerations

The ESA considers that:

* Explicit, quantitative targets are essential for planning and managing protected areas and off-reserve protection mechanisms.

* Quantitative targets should be the subject of ongoing debate and refinement. The primary concern of this debate should be the scientific interpretation of broad goals stated in policy, not the political and economic constraints on targets. New data and new understanding will require continuing refinement of targets.

* Targets should concern not only elements of biodiversity pattern but the spatial and temporal aspects of natural processes, including population sizes, movements, metapopulation dynamics, disturbance regimes, ecological refugia, adjustments to climate change, and diversification.

* Refinement of conservation targets will largely depend on research into spatial surrogates for biodiversity pattern and process and the effects of alteration of habitats outside protected areas.

* Appropriate scales for formulating targets will vary, but targets expressed as percentages of regions or subregions are essentially meaningless unless they are tied to, and preceded by, targets for habitats at the finest available scale of mapping. Targets for regions, subregions or jurisdictions should emerge from targets at finer scales.

* Targets for protected areas should be complemented by ceilings for loss of habitat with the balance comprising multiple-use under appropriate forms of off-reserve management.

* Protection targets should not be constrained by areas of extant habitats but should, where necessary, indicate the need for restoration to extend and link fragments of habitat and improve their condition.

* Constraints on the rates of expansion of protected areas within regions require individual targets to be prioritised so that early protection is given to those biodiversity features that are most irreplaceable and most vulnerable to threatening processes.

Section 6 appendix 2

Californian marine protected areas

Extract from MPA News, September 2006

In August 2006, the Fish and Game Commission of the US state of California unanimously approved a proposal to designate a network of marine protected areas along the state's central coast, encompassing 18% of Central California's coastal waters.  Totaling 204 square miles (528 km2), the proposed network of MPAs will now undergo environmental and regulatory review before taking effect, which could occur in early 2007, say officials.  The proposed network consists of 29 MPAs each extending seaward from the coast for three nautical miles, the outer boundary of state waters.  Approximately 94 square miles (243 km2) of the network would be no-take marine reserves, while the remainder would allow limited recreational or commercial fishing.
The proposed network is the first product of California's seven-year process so far to build a state-wide system of marine reserves in its waters.  The California state legislature passed the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) in 1999 with a goal of redesigning and strengthening the state's fragmented system of MPAs (MPA News 1:3).  But the MLPA-based process to plan and designate a marine reserve network got bogged down in stakeholder opposition (MPA News 3:9) and budget shortfalls (MPA News 5:7).  California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger revived the process in 2004 with funding contributed by private foundations, appointing a special task force of experts to spearhead the planning.  In a statement following the Commission's approval of the proposed network, Schwarzenegger said, "[This] milestone makes California a national leader in ocean management and is proof of what can be done when all those involved - the fishing industry, environmentalists, and others - work together."
Fishing groups, however, have expressed disappointment with the proposed network.  United Anglers of Southern California (UASC), which represents nearly 50,000 recreational fishermen, said in a press statement that although the proposed network was "not the worst possible outcome" (there had been larger reserve packages on the table for consideration), the reserves would have an unnecessarily large impact on sport boat operators who depend on access to areas now slated for closure.  UASC Fisheries Specialist Bob Osborn specified that the proposed network focused disproportionately on rocky reef habitats, thereby limiting anglers' opportunities to catch rockfish, a popular target.  Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, said that despite no-take regulations, the proposed reserves would still be vulnerable to the threat of coastal pollution and runoff from the region's major cities and farming areas, and called for stricter controls on these impacts.
The Commission's proposed network provided less protection than several environmental groups would have liked, but these organizations applauded the step forward.  "This is a solid start toward restoring our ocean and implementing ecosystem-based management," said Kaitlin Gaffney of The Ocean Conservancy.  "Although we believe that a higher level of protection is warranted, the Commission action does protect important central coast habitats like kelp forests, nearshore reefs, and submarine canyons, consistent with science guidelines on preferred size [of reserves] and protection levels."
In January 2007, the California Department of Fish and Game is expected to begin meetings with stakeholders about possible marine reserves in the Southern California region.
For links to more information:

The proposed network for Central California, including maps and regulations: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/commissiondocs.html

Response from United Anglers of Southern California: http://www.unitedanglers.com/news.php?extend.5

Response from The Ocean Conservancy: http://www.oceanconservancy.org/site/News2?abbr=issues_&page=NewsArticle&id=8731.

Section Seven:

Additional references:

AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science (2005) Scientific consensus statement on marine ecosystem-based management, AAAS, viewed July 12 2007, .

ABARE Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (2005) Australian fisheries statistics 2004, ABARE, Canberra.

ABARE Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (2007) Australian fisheries statistics 2006, ABARE, Canberra.

Adey, JM, Smith, IP, Atkinson, RJA, Tuck, ID & Taylor, AC (2008) 'Ghost fishing’ of target and non-target species by Norway lobster Nephrops norvegicus creels', Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 367, pp. 119-27.

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2002a) Assessment report Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, AFMA, Canberra.

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2002b) Northern Prawn Fishery assessment report, AFMA, Canberra.

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2004) Northern Prawn Fishery: strategic ecosystem data plan, AFMA, Canberra.

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2005) Future operating environment for Commonwealth fisheries, AFMA, Canberra.

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2006a) Response to Ministerial Direction: South eastern shark and scalefish fishery, AFMA, Canberra.

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2006b) Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery: wildlife trade operation re-assessment 2006, AFMA, Canberra.

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2006c) Response to Ministerial Direction - Northern Prawn Fishery, AFMA, Canberra.

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2007) Bycatch and discarding implementation strategy, AFMA, Canberra.

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2008a) Status report for re-assessment for export approval under the EPBC Act: Northern Prawn Fishery, AFMA, Canberra.

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2008b) Northern prawn fishery: operational information 2008, AFMA, Canberra.

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2008c) Corporate plan, AFMA, Canberra.

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2008d) Guide to CCAMLR new and exploratory fisheries, AFMA, Canberra.

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority (2008e) NPF status report for re-assessment for export approval under the EPBC Act: comments and responses November 2008: submission by Charles Jonathan Nevill, AFMA, Canberra.

Agardy, T (2000) 'Effects of fisheries on marine ecosystems: a conservationist's perspective.' ICES Journal of Marine Sciences vol. 57: pp.761-5.

Agnew, DJ (1997) 'A review of the CCAMLR ecosystem monitoring programme', Antarctic Science vol. 9: pp.235-42.

AHTEG Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Marine and Coastal Protected Areas (2003), Technical advice on the establishment and management of a national system of marine and coastal protected areas, Secretariat (Executive Secretary) to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal Canada.

Aish, A, Trent, S & Williams, J (2003) Squandering the seas: how shrimp trawling is threatening ecological integrity and food security around the world, Environmental Justice Foundation, London.

Alaska Oceans (2005) Declines in Alaska's marine life, viewed 3 March 2008