SA’s Marine Parks Can Take Effect, But “What Effect?” Is The Question
Much of SA’s marine life is found nowhere else, and the species native to southern Australian waters are more diverse than The Great Barrier Reef. Accordingly the Government decision to establish the ocean equivalent of national parks is being hailed in some quarters as one the most significant and important in the State’s history.
It’s a view that Peter Owen, SA campaign manager of the Wilderness Society and South Australian of the Year (Environment) says he “supports unequivocally - as do a large number of South Australians”.
But a large number don’t. Gary Morgan, chairman of the SA Marine Parks Management Alliance, claims the marine parks will cause South Australians great pain for little gain. He says the parks covering about 42% of the State’s waters including 6% where no fishing will be allowed, will do maximum damage to sustainable food production for minimum marine conservation outcomes.
Government "Unrealistic?"
The Government claims its decision will reduce the value of commercial fisheries’ catches by only 1.7% despite independent studies showing a likely reduction of up to 15% on important sustainable export fisheries – particularly rock lobster and abalone.
These fisheries are vital to the economies of regional communities such as the West Coast and Kangaroo Island and proclamation of the marine parks is expected to cost them $45m annually. This is not including the effect on smaller traditional fishers statewide who supply local communities as well as Adelaide.
This sector of the industry expects an annual loss to local markets of between 300 and 400 tonnes – which surely would open the way for increased imports and mean price rises for remaining local fish.
It’s a situation that mystifies business owners, both in the fishing industry and associated with it, given the Government’s promotion of SA fish, lobsters and abalone as part of the State’s Fine Food and Wine Strategy.
Critics of the marine parks say no evidence has been produced by the Government to support its claim that ecotourism and conservation benefits will compensate the fishing industry for inevitable financial loss – estimated to strip $12.6m a year from gross State product and to cost 124 local jobs.
Indeed, opponents of the Government on the marine parks issue argue its claim of benefits is totally negated by willingness to consider applications for seabed mining together with oil exploration and production within the parks.
Parliamentary Report
Certainly we understand the concern of fish industry business leaders, who say the Government’s insistence that it has consulted widely on all issues related to the establishment of marine parks “is a nonsense”. Indeed a Parliamentary Select Committee has tabled a report concluding there’s been a lack of any effective consultation.
Furthermore the Committee said the parks’ boundaries should be set on the basis of threats to species rather than spatial mapping.
Family First MLC Dennis Hood who chaired the Committee insists many of the parks and no-take zones are too big, their boundaries have been based on questionable science that could potentially devastate regional fishing communities.
Committee witnesses had claimed Government consultation was a sham, and that its decisions were made before consultative processes had concluded.
We’ll be watching with interest the parks’ effect on businesses both directly and indirectly associated with SA’s fishing industry.
Meanwhile, Clean Seas, largely debt free, expects to complete a “class harvest” of yellowtail kingfish by the end of February, and is seeking joint venture partners in other aquaculture companies to maintain the viability of this sector of its business.