Join Us
Email Us
Fishing sustainably and humanely
PO Box 200
BYRON BAY NSW 2481 June 16, 2005
In 2001 the Bureau of Rural Sciences and the CSIRO undertook a worldwide review of the scientific literature on the effectiveness of marine sanctuaries/no take areas. The review was the first of its kind in Australia and helps dispel some scientific myths.
The implementation of no-take sanctuary zones has been seen as a precautionary, ecosystem based approach to address the problems currently faced by fisheries.
“However, the BRS-CSIRO review clearly shows that potential fisheries benefits are theoretical and have not been demonstrated in practice.”
Subsequent overseas studies have confirmed this conclusion. In 2003, an extensive American scientific study confirmed:
“As a tool for fisheries management, where optimal and /or maximum sustainable yield is the objective, reserves are not generally as effective as traditional management measures and are not appropriate for the vast majority of marine species. This is because most marine species are far too mobile to remain within a reserve and are not overfished.”
A 2003 study from Leigh Marine Laboratory [NZ] confirms, “Without empirical substantiation, predictions of fishery enhancement are deductions based on circumstantial evidence and ancillary information. We cannot predict what the effects of marine reserves might be.”
Some conservation groups are increasingly advocating the use of Marine Parks and no-take sanctuary zones for the conservation and management of oceanic and estuarine resources.
The current science or facts don’t support their rhetoric.
Using imprecise and unfounded statements, they undermine the validity of the real conservation message.
Conservation individuals promoting the benefit of sanctuary zones with media statements, all too often misrepresent these statements as scientific facts, which of course they are not.
Their aggressive, emotional and unfounded conservation message has left a legacy of confusion, frustration and gross mistrust in conservation objectives within the community.
Not all scientists agree on the merits of marine protected areas. Generally their position is that these protected areas, “are not a panacea, but could provide an additional fisheries management tool.”
With regards to the Cape Byron Marine Park, some scientists refer to it as a “political park”, while others refer to it as a “paper park”, (of no real scientific merit unless it is extended north and south).
“Fisheries benefits described in many studies on marine reserves are mostly observed for fisheries already over-exploited and/or under little or inappropriate management, as in the case of many small-scale tropical fisheries in developing countries.”
The results of scientific analysis in one situation are not necessarily applicable in other situations. They are usually site and species specific.
Even the strongest scientific proponents (Ballantine, W.J. et al), on the roles and performance of marine protected areas, acknowledge that “using marine protected areas (sanctuary zones), as a fisheries enhancement objective is now questionable”.
NSW fisheries management has not been shown to fail with regard to stocks of targeted species.
Ill-informed commentators from the conservation lobby attempt to convince the community otherwise, to justify their “lock it up at all costs” theories.
“However, there is little documented evidence in a well-managed fishery, that no-take areas offer additional advantages.”
Most studies focus on changes in abundance or size of fish with few documenting changes in reproductive output. Many studies are also limited to “snapshot studies”, with little interpretive value. “Changes in predator/prey interactions and increased predation on juvenile fish inside sanctuaries also complicate studies of fish abundance and community structure.”
The location, size and shape of sanctuary zones are crucial to their effectiveness in delivering spill over and larval export to fisheries IF known spawning sites are enclosed. For example, collapse of an abalone population in South Australia has been attributed to poor sanctuary design. In Tasmania, a species of Trumpeter increased tenfold inside the reserve, but failed to spill over to adjacent fishing grounds because their rocky reef habitat was surrounded by sand, which acted as a natural barrier.
While scientific opinion differs about the optimum size, shape and design of sanctuaries, generally, a network of smaller sanctuaries seems to be preferred.
The current debate concerning the Cape Byron Marine Park has conservationists lobbying for up to 50% sanctuary zones, located arbitrarily in an ad hoc manner without any notion of, or regard to habitat areas; what they are conserving and why; ecological interactions, ecosystems, fisheries management strategies or the principles of ecologically sustainable development.
“The authors concluded there are no well-documented examples where fisheries sanctuaries have been shown to provide or maintain net economic benefits for preserving existing fisheries.”
These findings by the CSIRO and other august international scientific bodies and marine researchers, certainly dispel some of the scientific myths and misinformation pedalled by some conservationists. The myths and alchemy has been exposed and exploded.
Ken Thurlow
Chairman