12.05.03 RPDC response  

Resource Planning and Development Commission,
GPO Box 1691,
HOBART, Tas, 7001

Dear Sir,

As the Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council (TFIC) is the peak industry body representing all commercial fishermen, marine farmers and fish processors in this State we are extremely concerned about any proposal that will adversely impact on our members future opportunities to access marine waters.

For this reason and following the publication of your Draft Recommendations Report we held a series of industry meetings in relevant areas around the State and discussed the issues with individual fishermen who have some knowledge and involvement with both Port Davey/Bathurst Harbour and the Kent Group of Islands.

In responding to your Report it is important that our letters to you dated 23 August and 28 November 2002 be recognised and again considered along with this submission. All the issues previously brought to your attention are important to our sustainable industry and are relevant in our response to your suggested options contained in the Draft Recommendations Report.

I must emphasise that our industry is generally opposed to the introduction of restrictive marine protected areas which will impact on traditional and current commercial fishing and diving activities. Based on authoritative research information we see little or no benefit for fishermen, commercial fish species, coastal communities and the economy of Tasmania generally in locking up further areas of marine waters for what we view to be political rather than common sense reasons.

We have responded below to your Report in good faith to provide you with our views on each option. We are clearly of the opinion that MPAs are not only not necessary but also will have unnecessary impacts at a time when Tasmania needs continuing small business growth and expansion within of course the constraints of sustainable fishery management plans.

Our response to the options detailed in the Draft Recommendations Report are as follows:-

KENT GROUP OF ISLANDS
Option 1 - RPDC propose a no take MPA for all State waters in the reference area.

This proposal is totally unacceptable as it excludes our members from continuing traditional and sustainable fishing activities in this area.

Option 2 - RPDC propose a MPA for the whole Kent Group reference area but rock lobster and abalone fishing would be allowed on the western side of Erith and Dover Islands. No scalefishing and bycatch would be permitted in this area and the rest of the reference area to the east of Erith and Dover Islands and including Deal Island would be a no take MPA.

This proposal is also unacceptable.

• Due to the remoteness of this area most fishing trips can be up to a week in duration and need to be economically viable given the additional travelling time and costs etc. Any no take MPA would have serious consequences for those fishermen who frequent this area as there are few nearby comparable areas in which to fish. The pressure on adjacent fish resources by any closure would be unacceptable and particularly so for species which have a limited range such as wrasse.

• Weather conditions are generally from the west and south west for most of the year and this option would preclude fishing and diving in the other areas when the western boundary of the Kent Group is subject to the often notoriously bad conditions. Fishermen need access to sheltered areas during all adverse weather conditions and when weather bound for days on end to both fish and anchor and this option precludes the continuation of any normal and traditional activity.

The RPDC comment on page 43 of the Draft Recommendations Report that Option 2 "provides sites for fishing in most weather conditions......." is certainly incorrect.

• The southern half of Deal Island is the most productive for fishing generally and this area should remain open to traditional fishing. Most productive waters for abalone and rock lobster are within a few hundred metres of land.

• Effective surveillance and enforcement of any MPA boundaries will be virtually impossible and extremely costly in the remote Kent Group. Poaching is already a big issue and any successful MPA needs the full support of the fishing industry to be effective so that we can continue to monitor and report any observed illegal activity.

This can only be achieved with a continued presence of commercial fishermen in all areas of the Kent Group. Comment of page 28 of the Draft Recommendations Report that enforcement " would be made more difficult without the support of the fishing industry" is a serious understatement.

• DPIWE estimates of sustainable abalone catches at 10 tpa are not supported by industry as we believe up to 35 tpa are sustainable in this area.

• The scalefish catches as recorded at Table 4 on page 27 of the Background Report for fishing Block 3G1 are now incorrect according to DPIWE. Instead of nil catches the correct catches of scalefish for the years 2001 and 2002 should read 5.90 tonnes and 4.93 tonnes which necessitates your immediate review of the significance of this fishery sector in this area.

Additionally the shark catches for this same fishing block for 2001 and 2002 according to DPIWE are 5.60 tonnes and 2.39 tonnes with 0.39 tonnes of octopus/squid caught in 2002 and between 7 and 9 commercial vessels fished this area during the last two years. DPIWE have separately advised you of the changed catch details at my request.

Recent discussions with the Australian Fisheries Management Authority suggest that these new Tasmanian catch figures do not include school and gummy shark catches reported to AFMA by commercial fishermen from inshore waters around the Kent Group. When this information is available I will provide the details separately to the RPDC but it is likely that the shark catches are significantly higher than the revised DPIWE reported catches as shown above. This new DPIWE and AFMA information highlights and confirms just how important and significant the Kent Group is to the commercial fishing industry.

On page 42 of the Draft Recommendations Report the following words appear - "In terms of scalefish, the boundary of the proposed marine protected area is of little consequence as evidence indicates that the fishery in the Kent Group is at best negligible."

Unfortunately the inaccuracies of catch figures recorded in the Background Report are the basis on which several of your statements and judgements have been made - also refer our letter dated 23 August 2002. As your MPA options were based on false information we strongly recommend the RPDC should now review all aspects of the Twofold Shelf proposal.

Alternative Suggestion - Twofold Shelf Bioregion
The only realistic MPA option for this area which would enable low impact abalone diving, rock lobster potting, scalefishing and sharking activities to continue in the area and would enable sustainable and licensed fishing to continue in most adverse weather conditions is if a IUCN Category VI multiple use area was established as a MPA in Murray Passage only. This recommendation is consistent with our proposal submitted to you in our letter of 28 November 2002.

PORT DAVEY/BATHURST HARBOUR
Option 1 - RPDC propose a no take MPA for the whole of the reference area to the boundary of the Southwest National Park.

This option is completely unacceptable as it totally precludes our members continuing traditional and sustainable fishing activities.

Option 2 - RPDC propose a MPA for the whole reference area with five no take areas and in all other areas no trawling, gillnetting, sharking or bycatch would be permitted but abalone diving and rock lobster fishing would be allowed.

We do not support and strongly oppose the whole of Port Davey being declared a MPA and do not support the no take areas in the Saddle Bight (inner saddle) and around Kathleen Island.

Option 3 - RPDC propose five no take areas with no restriction in other areas.

This option subject to some amendments is the least objectionable and in our alternative proposal detailed below with some changes we view this option as a possible solution if it is absolutely necessary to introduce any restrictions over sustainable fishing activities.

Option 4 - RPDC propose a MPA for the whole of the reference area with four no take areas and outside of these areas abalone and rock lobster fishing would be permitted but no trawling, gillnetting, sharking or bycatch would be allowed.

We do not support and strongly oppose the whole of Port Davey being declared a MPA.

Alternative Suggestion - Davey Bioregion

If it is absolutely necessary (and there is no other option) to create MPAs in Port Davey/Bathurst Harbour we support option 3 subject to amendments deleting the Whalers Point to Point Lucy (Saddle Bight) proposed no take area. Additionally Kathleen Island and surrounding waters should be removed from the no take category with a new MPA boundary line to the south of the proposed line and from the northern end of Breaksea Islands to a point at the southern end of Toogelow Beach.

• The Saddle Bight is a productive abalone and rock lobster area which is regularly fished and is an important anchorage. This area is fished particularly during adverse weather conditions in the region and should remain open to enable traditional and sustainable fishing to continue.

• James Kelly Basin is very similar to Hannant Inlet in that both areas tend to be shallow and contain seagrass beds which in many ways duplicates the CAR principles of comprehensiveness, adequacy and representativeness preferences in the MPA Strategy. No abalone or rock lobster are harvested in these areas but flounder fishing in particular is undertaken in James Kelly Basin. A Category VI MPA that permits continued flounder fishing would be appropriate.

• Kathleen Island and all surrounding waters are particularly important for abalone, rock lobster and scalefishing and in order to minimise the impact on these valuable fisheries this area should be removed from any planned no take status.

• We have no arguments with MPAs in the northern part of Payne Bay from Curtis Point to Woody Point, at Hannant Inlet and reluctantly east of the Breaksea Islands and including the very large areas of water in Bathurst Channel and Bathurst Harbour. The waters between Breaksea Islands and Bathurst Channel are fished regularly for abalone and rock lobster and the loss of this area to commercial fishing is only very reluctantly agreed and is in our view a very significant compromise. We would certainly prefer a Category VI MPA for the waters east of Breaksea Islands to Bathurst Channel with low impact fishing permitted.

• As an alternative to removing Saddle Bight from the MPA option we could reluctantly accept an enlarged MPA in Payne Bay north of the line from Curtis Point to Schooner Point where some fishing occurs but clearly on the proviso that the Saddle Bight area is removed from this option and that no other MPA areas are added. This new boundary would provide submaximally exposed coastline under certain sea and weather conditions.

• DPIWE estimates for sustainable Port Davey fisheries at 40 tpa for abalone and 33 tpa for rock lobster are not supported by our industry members. We believe the sustainable catches could be as high as 75 tpa for abalone and 90 tpa for rock lobster.

Considerations Needed
In considering this reference from the Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment the Commission should take into account the following brief comments:-

* Commercial seafood production is a very important industry currently worth $306mpa to the Tasmanian economy at beach price and brings considerable benefits to coastal communities in particular. Any plan that impacts on fisheries production and the benefits that accrue will attract considerable adverse reactions.

* We already have sustainable fishery management plans in place for all our major state fisheries which protects the resources, biodiversity and the marine environment.

* Sustainable fishing does not damage the marine environment and the imposition of MPAs is of doubtful value to our commercial fishing industry so a multiple use concept (ie IUCN VI) should be promoted. In our view we do not need even more MPAs and nor do we want them.

* There are already over 300 existing protected areas in Tasmanian waters where fishing is either prohibited or restricted so there is little justification in proposing even more restricted areas.

* The carrying of fish, fishing gear and anchoring of vessels in any MPA must be permitted for practical and safety reasons.

* Effective surveillance and enforcement of MPAs in the two very remote areas is virtually impossible even with increased resources. The only way remote MPAs can be policed is with the support and co-operation of the commercial fishing industry so the above alternative proposals are especially relevant.

* Commercial fishermen are the long time traditional guardians in both remote bioregions and utilise and protect the areas for themselves and future generations. They can observe and report illegal activities and without their presence poaching could increase substantially.

* Compensation for any displacement and loss of access should be a strong recommendation for any RPDC proposal that impacts on traditional fishing grounds and fishing activities.

* Storms and large seas regularly impact on both bioregions and the marine environment and will always have a much greater impact in these remote areas than sustainable human activities so it is difficult to assess what benefits really result from the creation of MPAs.

* From a practical aspect both bioregions provide fishing locations and opportunities in adverse weather conditions which enables fishermen to continue operating until weather conditions improve and any proposal should be structured to enable this to continue.

* For any MPA area that restricts activity there needs to be a high level of certainty in the process to protect all users should someone at some later date wish to change the rules for that area of water. In our view any future change to a MPA plan should go through the whole Reference - RPDC - Cabinet process in the interests of fairness.

I wish to confirm that our industry is generally opposed to the introduction of restrictive marine protected areas which cannot be justified as part of sustainable fishery management plans. We do not want or need MPAs in either area and in our view there is little justification or public benefit in locking up areas of productive water at either location.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on this Draft Recommendations Report.

R K LISTER

Chief Executive