davey_twofold_let_min_green09.03.htm  

Back to Website Directory


12 September 2003
Hon. Bryan Green MHA,
Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment,
G.P.O. Box 44,
Hobart, Tas. 7001

Dear Minister,


Inquiry into the Establishment of Marine Protected Areas
within the Davey and Twofold Shelf Bioregions

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Final Recommendations Report recently submitted to you by the Resource Planning and Development Commission.

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

For this reason and following the tabling of the Final Recommendations Report in State Parliament on 19 August 2003, 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.

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 however responded below to the Report in good faith to provide you with our views on each option but 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.

Having said that we recognise that there is a political desire to create MPAs and for Tasmania to endorse and support the Commonwealth national representative system of marine protected areas.

In our view some changes to the RPDC Final Recommendations Report will ensure a balanced outcome for our industry as well as enabling the Government to achieve an objective of increasing Tasmania’s marine protected waters by some 37,000 hectares.

On the assumption that all the Final Recommendations Report issues have been considered by Government, our recommended changes to the Final Recommendations Report and specifically the RPDC Options 2 for both areas are as follows:

Port Davey/Bathurst Harbour

1. We very strongly recommend that the two proposed no take areas from North Head to Point St Vincent and to Point Lucy (Outer Saddle Bight) be reclassified as Restricted Take Areas as is proposed for the majority of the rest of Port Davey.

Both these large bays are major productive abalone and rock lobster fishing grounds and importantly can be fished safely particularly when retreating from adverse north westerly weather and sea conditions which can severely restrict fishing in adjacent areas.

Whilst it is difficult to determine actual sustainable catches from these areas the estimated loss (or pressure on remaining areas) with a no take restriction would be in the range of 15 to 30 tonnes p.a. of both abalone and rock lobster (at an approximate value of $2.4m) based on anecdotal information from fishermen.

Neither of these regions were proposed as no take areas in the four options listed in the RPDC Draft Recommendations Report (March 2003) to which public comment was sought.

Reclassification into the Restricted Take Area category would enable sustainable fishing for abalone and rock lobster to continue without unacceptable fishing pressure on adjacent areas and the potential financial loss to both fishermen and the community, as well as abalone royalties to the Government, would be overcome.

Most of Port Davey can be classified as being of maximally exposed coastline under certain weather and sea conditions so reclassification of these areas does not compromise the CAR principles of Comprehensiveness, Adequacy and Representativeness.

2. Within the extended Restricted Take Area of Port Davey we strongly recommend that scalefish netting and trapping (for wrasse) be permitted,

Gillnetting by both rock lobster fishermen and scalefish licence holders in this area is a traditional activity for both bait and commercial sale and is popular with recreational fishermen as part of the culture of Port Davey.

Trapping for wrasse is extremely selective similar to rock lobster potting with no environmental impacts, is strictly controlled by licence conditions including the number of traps that can be used and is an important activity for a few appropriately licensed fishermen. Port Davey is the only bad weather fishing area available in the region for this shallow water fishery and any restriction would place pressure on the wrasse stocks probably on the south and east coasts.

We also believe that by-catch (presumably the RPDC is referring to rock lobster potting) should be retained.

3. We can accept the other recommendations as submitted to you by the RPDC although the proposed no take area east of Breaksea and Kathleen Islands is only reluctantly agreed and is a very considerable concession. These waters are fished regularly for abalone and rock lobster and the loss of these sheltered areas is of concern to us.

We would certainly prefer that the no take boundary be located at the entrance to Bathurst Channel but if the North Head and Outer Saddle Bight areas are reclassified to Restricted Take Areas we could accept the current proposed no take boundary through Breaksea and Kathleen Islands.

We have no serious objections to proposed no take areas for James Kelly Basin, the northern end of Payne Bay, Hannant Inlet and the very large Bathurst Channel and Harbour areas or the restrictions on trawling, dredging or longlining in the reference area.
The proposed changes as above for the Port Davey area recognise the importance of the commercial fishing industry to Tasmania and protects all the benefits that flow through to coastal communities etc.

At the same time it enables the Government to declare a 17,000 hectare MPA with a commercial fishing presence which will ensure that all restricted areas are recognised and respected.

Kent Group of Islands

1. We strongly recommend that the proposed western no take area including Erith and Dover Islands be reclassified as a Restricted Take Area which would mean that the whole MPA proposal for the Kent Group would become a Restricted Take Area.

If there is a desperate need for a no take component then we support the area of Murray Passage being set aside for this purpose particularly as it is viewed by some as an area of high conservation value.

The western side of the Kent Group where the no take area is proposed is an important but generally undeveloped abalone diving area and is mainly fished when weather conditions allow. An estimated 60% of the abalone catch around the Kent Group is taken in this area (Refer Page 64).

A no take restriction over this area would result in a loss of approximately 10 to 15 tonnes p.a. of blacklip abalone and about half a tonne of rock lobster at an estimated total value of $600,000 as well as requiring a revision of the Bass Strait abalone zone total allowable catch which is currently 70 tonnes p.a. (Refer Pages 33, 50 and 68).

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 or restricted MPA would have serious consequences for those fishermen who frequent this area during poor weather and sea conditions 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 but can be notoriously bad and unpredictable. Fishermen need access to sheltered areas during all adverse weather conditions and need to be able to continue to fish safely when weather bound for days on end.

Importantly the two options in the RPDC Draft Recommendations Report (March 2003) did not include the western section as a specific no take area with restricted activity to the east.

By reclassifying the western side of the Kent Group to a Restricted Take Area it would enable abalone diving, rock lobster potting and line fishing to continue which are existing practices that cause minimal damage to the marine environment (Refer Page 46).

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 because of the proximity to Victoria 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 as a deterrent to poachers (Refer Pages 42 and 44). Comment in the Draft Recommendations Report (March 2003) that enforcement " would be made more difficult without the support of the fishing industry" is a serious understatement (Refer Page 28).

2. Within the proposed enlarged Restricted Take Area we strongly recommend that fishing for bait, net fishing, longlining and trapping for wrasse should be permitted as well as the retention of by-catch.

Scalefishing particularly for wrasse by longline and traps is an important activity in this region and in the interest of fairness should be permitted to continue. As previously stated wrasse fishing is strictly controlled by licence conditions and being a shallow water fishery all marine areas should remain available to enable fishing to continue in sheltered waters regardless of weather and sea conditions.

The other major fishery in the Kent Group is the southern shark fishery which is now managed by the Commonwealth from the high water mark.

In their RPDC representations AFMA advised that of the average 134 tonnes p.a. of mainly gummy and school shark caught by an average of 30 vessels per year in the two fishing blocks adjoining the Kent Group the majority of this catch was within Tasmanian State waters out to 3nm around the Kent Group.

They advised that a flush of mainly gummy shark usually appears to the west of Deal Island towards the end of April or May and slowly moves south east to the south of Deal Island and out of the area by late September or October each year.

Southern Shark are caught by both gillnets and longlines and any restriction over this traditional fishing activity could result in the loss of some 100 tonnes p.a. + or about $700,000 in value.

The RPDC conclusions that 2-4% of the total Southern Shark catch is taken in State waters adjacent to the Kent Group (Refer Page 59) is contrary to the advice provided by AFMA but even if this were the case this would still represent an annual catch of up to 90 tonnes p.a. in State waters which is very significant indeed.

3. We accept that dredging and trawling could be prohibited activities within the enlarged Kent Group Restricted Take Area.
The above reclassifications within the Kent Group would enable sustainable fishing to continue with the flow on benefits retained as well as allowing the Government to declare a 20,000 hectare MPA.

The following additional comments are relevant to both proposed MPA areas and should be carefully considered before any decisions are made:

* Commercial seafood production is a very important industry currently worth $327m. p.a. 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 (i.e. IUCN VI) should be promoted.

* 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.

* Any restriction on sustainable fishing activities and a subsequent loss of production and economic benefits to the community of Tasmania will be multiplied by the years those restrictions are in place, i.e. a loss of $1m. p.a. represents $20m. over 20 years without inflationary increases so any decision has very significant and long term consequences for our State.

* The carrying of fish, fishing gear and anchoring of vessels in any MPA of any classification must be permitted for practical and safety reasons particularly in both these remote reference areas as there are limited safe refuges for vessels and crew during extreme weather and sea conditions.

* 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 (Refer Page 41). The Marine Police have admitted that it will be very difficult and expensive to protect lines on water in these remote areas (Refer Pages 41 and 42).

* 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 must be considered for any proposal that impacts on traditional fishing grounds and fishing activities.

The advice quoted from the Solicitor General in the Final Recommendations Report to the effect that provided fishermen can obtain their full quotas from State waters then closure of certain areas of State waters would not be compensatable is a serious misrepresentation of the facts (Refer Pages 34 and 92). This ignores the pressure that will be placed on adjacent areas still open for fishing and puts at serious risk the whole sustainability issue.

The Tasmanian Government has already recognised the importance of displacement issues as recorded in the MPA Strategy document and this issue is of course of major significance to fishermen.

* 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 and sea conditions which enables fishermen to continue operating in a safe manner 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 – State Cabinet process in the interests of fairness (Refer Section 2.3).


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 however recognise the Government’s desire for increased MPAs and provided an acceptable balance between conservation and resource use is achieved in the best interests of our TFIC members we are prepared to continue to participate in this process on a co-operative basis.

At the same time it must be clearly understood that any Government imposed fishing restrictions can have serious implications and will incur increased costs for individual fishermen who may have fished these areas for generations. Their interests must carefully be taken into account.

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

Yours sincerely,



R.K. LISTER

Chief Executive