Independent Scientific Audit of
Marine Parks in NSW
PO Box H292, Australia Square NSW 1215
Email: Secretariat@marineparksaudit.nsw.gov.au
Web: www.marineparksaudit.nsw.gov.au
Workshop 1c(i)
Summary
1.30–2.30pm, Wednesday 30 November 2011
Room 1043, Parliament House
6 Macquarie Street
Sydney NSW
Attendees:
Assoc Prof Bob Beeton, Chair
Prof Colin Buxton
Mr Greg Cutbush
Prof Peter Fairweather
Assoc Prof Emma Johnston
Dr Roberta Ryan
Ms Petrina Alcock, Secretariat Manager
Dr Fiona Powell, Secretariat
Emeritus Professor Robert Kearney, The University of Canberra
The views expressed at all workshops are those of the individual participants. They do not
necessarily reflect the views of the NSW Government, the views of all the workshop participants or
the views of the Audit Panel.
The Chair welcomed attendees, provided a background to the Audit and explained Audit
procedures.
It was suggested that NSW marine parks are poorly designed and managed; they do not represent
the most cost-effective way of conserving marine biological diversity.
It was suggested that 'sanctuary zones' do not represent true sanctuaries as they do not provide
protection against the major threats.
Page 1 of 6
A letter from the Hon Tony Burke MP, Commonwealth Minister for Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities dated 25 January 2011 to Mr Gary Morgan, Chairman of
Wildcatch Fisheries SA was discussed, including indications that Australia is not formally committed
to declare any percentage of areas (targets) as no-take.
It was suggested that by way of the 1992 Inter Governmental Agreement on the Environment,
Australia does have an obligation to manage threats to marine biodiversity in proportion to the
magnitude of the threat and to do so cost-effectively.
It was suggested zones are not hierarchical, different zones have different functions, and that
having more no-take zones is not necessarily better.
Participants discussed trawling closures in the Batemans Bay area. It was suggested that the buyout of trawling in this area had been badly managed and did not represent the best way of
managing the effects of trawling. It was further suggested sanctuary zones are not needed to
control trawling.
It was suggested sanctuary zones that represent blanket bans on all fishing are seldom necessary
in NSW and that if some forms of fishing are a key threat then restrictions on specific methods of
fishing could be used instead.
It was suggested that full-time spatial closures to all forms of fishing are generally not necessary for
conservation purposes, although there may be some exceptions, and that temporal closures may be
more appropriate for managing fish populations and cost-effectively managing the effects of fishing.
Participants discussed the value of sanctuary zones as reference areas for studying the effects of
area closures. It was suggested the design of such a study would be difficult due to confounding
factors, such as the inability of area closures to provide protection against the major threats to
biodiversity and marine ecosystems, for example introduced organisms and pollution.
It was suggested area closures can be an effective conservation management tool, for example to
protect fish nursery areas against specific threats, but in the absence of recruitment overfishing it
was difficult to find areas in NSW where this would be appropriate.
Aquatic reserves in NSW were discussed and it was suggested that before declaration their specific
purpose should be identified and they then should be designed for that purpose.
It was suggested that a key problem has been the assumption that areas must be closed to all types
of fishing without first identifying problems from any specific form of fishing or fishing generally.
Indications were given that the NSW Government considers fishing a key threat to the listed
threatened species Carcharias taurus (Grey Nurse Shark) and Epinephelus daemelii (Black Cod).
The Grey Nurse Shark is known to aggregate in certain areas but it was suggested that closing
these areas to fishing would not in itself provide adequate protection as it is not known whether
such area closures provide appropriate, partial protection. It was further suggested that if closing
shark aggregation sites to fishing is assessed to be appropriate then these areas should only be
Page 2 of 6
closed to those methods of fishing that are a threat and that blanket closures, such as currently
occurs through sanctuary zones, are not appropriate.
Participants discussed the threat of fishing compared to other threats. It was suggested the main
threats to NSW marine biodiversity are introduced organisms, pollution and inappropriate coastal
development, but that pollution is commonly less of a threat offshore. It was further suggested
fishing is a potential threat to some species, habitats and even ecosystems if not managed properly.
Iit was emphasized that ‘overfishing ‘ is the threat, not well managed fishing.
It was suggested that NSW fisheries had been inadequately or even poorly managed in the past (up
to about 1990), but that most NSW fish stocks are relatively easily managed and none have been
shown to have suffered irreparable damage. Indications were given that improved management is
now providing for reasonable fish population recovery for those species that had been fished
excessively.
It was suggested that since more concerted fisheries management began in earnest around 1990
the number of fish species assessed to be well managed has increased; in recent years from 12 to
74. Further, that more than 50% of Australian fish species that have been assessed as overfished
have recovered. However, indications were given that these data refer to fisheries stock
assessments only.
It was suggested that NSW is required to manage all habitat and ecosystems impacts of fisheries
under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 and that all major fisheries must be assessed under
State environmental legislation. Export fisheries must be managed against the Commonwealth
Environment, Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), but it was suggested
that the effectiveness of this management is not as openly assessed as is the status of targeted fish
stocks.
Achoerodus viridis (Blue Groper) was discussed as an example of a NSW managed
recovering/recovered fish population. Once heavily targeted, it is now widely recognized by fishers
as a species they should not catch.
Participants discussed the recovery of the Tweed, Richmond and Clarence River estuary
ecosystems just months after fish kill events and the natural resilience of these systems.
The recovery of Thunnus maccoyii (Southern Bluefin Tuna) was discussed. It was suggested that
relatively strong recruitment (of the order of 60% of optimum annual levels) had continued with this
species even though it had been reduced to between 3-8% of its unfished biomass, and that recent
assessments suggested it was recovering.
Participants discussed the number of terrestrial mammal extinctions in Australia compared to fish
extinctions. It was suggested no fish have been fished to extinction in Australia, and very few, if any,
worldwide.
It was suggested that data have been misrepresented by some interest groups to exaggerate the
threat from fishing. Participants indicated there is only one species of fish off NSW that is seriously
Page 3 of 6
recruitment overfished, Rexea solandri (Gemfish), and that this species is managed by the
Commonwealth, not NSW.
The recovery of fish populations following management actions in response to overfishing was
discussed.
Concern over confusion around growth overfishing compared to recruitment overfishing was
discussed, with recruitment overfishing of greatest concern as this can result in stock depletion and
collapse. Growth overfishing, which is much more common, usually results in a decline in the
averages size of individuals in populations but does not pose a threat to the survival of a species.
Participants discussed the effects of trawling on different substrates. It was suggested that habitats
with removable components, such as corals, sponges and attached macroalgae are the most likely
to be adversely impacted by trawling and that trawling has limited effect on sandy bottoms in high
energy areas. Participants indicated by-catch does need to be carefully managed. It was further
suggested that if trawling did have some impact on substrates, for example on seagrass, then this
impact should be managed across the whole area of distribution of the impact, rather than only
within marine parks.
It was suggested the marine protected area system in NSW has created a false sense of security
that these areas are in fact protected, whereas they are not protected from all threats.
It was suggested there is an assumption that a comprehensive, adequate and representative (CAR)
based system is adequate because it is assumed to provide ‘protection’ of some of everything, but
that little work has been done to show whether protection is actually conferred or whether area
management was the most cost-effective way of approaching protection.
It was suggested that 'marine protected area' and 'sanctuary' are misleading names. For instance,
that no-take zones do not protect against invasive vectors, such as oil spills or introduced
organisms. It was also suggested that the negative impacts of disproportionate displacement of
fishing effort to other areas also needs to be taken into account and there is no evidence this has
been considered in NSW.
The threat to biodiversity and ecosystems from invasive species was discussed in the context of
429 introduced or cryptogenic species already having been identified in Australia and no species
having been fished to extinction.
Indications were given that overfished species have almost all responded positively to recovery
plans but that introduced species had with a few exceptions proven impossible to eradicate, at least
cost-effectively. The specific example of Crassostrea gigas (the Pacific Oyster) was discussed as it
was suggested it had replaced native oysters in many areas and in some, such as Tasmania, it now
dominates many embayment or estuarine rocky habitats.
It was suggested not only has this oyster directly altered habitat (in South Australia this was a
particular issue as there, and possibly elsewhere, the Pacific Oyster formed reefs to a much greater
degree than other oysters would do), the impact of the introduced Pacific Oyster on ecosystems
and trophic change in NSW is much greater than its mere physical presence; the species spawns
Page 4 of 6
three months earlier than the previously dominant native oyster Saccostrea glomerata (Sydney
Rock) and as oyster spawn is a major food item for many larval and juvenile fish this has
considerable and widespread ecological consequences.
Threats to different species were discussed and it was suggested:
 Pagrus auratus (Snapper) is growth overfished in NSW
 potential causes of Hyporhamphus australis (Eastern Sea Garfish) decline are debatable.
They include the possibility of the introduced herpes virus that decimated pilchard
populations around eastern Australia at the same time as the decline in garfish was
recorded, or another pathogen that may have been introduced at the same time
 potential causes of Argyrosomus japonicus (Mulloway) decline include altered flows of the
Hawkesbury/Nepean River and lower rainfall across NSW in the last decade. It was further
suggested this species has not responded to a decrease in trawling in numerous areas
where unwanted by-catch of juveniles had been known to be a problem
 potential causes of Panulirus cygnus (Western Rock Lobster) decline should include
introduced pathogens
 the available data strongly suggest that fishing was not the cause of the recent decline in
oyster recruitment as spawning biomass is at unusually high levels.
It was suggested that on beaches the influences of tide, wind and wave action would have much
greater impacts on biodiversity and local distribution of fish than well managed fishing.
It was suggested that marine protected areas may have some conservation advantages, for
example keeping some areas free of marinas, but such a method of providing management would
be inefficient compared to the well-considered and properly designed regulation of marinas across
the whole of NSW. It was also suggested it is difficult to justify fishing closures as an excuse for
controlling the location of marinas.
It was suggested a better approach to managing the biodiversity impacts of shipping and boating
would be to properly manage the impacts of all shipping, rather than through a blanket closure to
fishing and boating.
A holistic approach to coastal and marine management was discussed and the need for threats to
be properly assessed and then managed appropriately.
It was suggested that the limited degree of trophic change that might result from regulating fishing in
marine parks does not necessarily constitute a benefit.
It was suggested the costs of fishing closures to anglers had not been adequately considered, that
as some conflict between interest groups is inevitable it needs to be managed and that there is a
need for greater transparency in the decision-making process.
It was suggested fishing closures may be a popular form of management because of their relative
ease of implementation, rather than their effectiveness.
The Chair closed the workshop at 2.30pm.
Page 5 of 6
Supplementary workshop material participants offered to provide:

1998 review on the displacement of local seagrass by aquarium species, prepared for the
Victorian Government

Follow up information.
Page 6 of 6