mpas_sen_ian_macdonald.htm  

Back to Website Directory
Back to Media Summary

21 September 2004

Senator the Hon. Ian Macdonald,
Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation,
Parliament House,
Canberra, ACT 2600

Dear Minister,

Your letter dated 31 August received in this office on 13 September 2004 covers a range of issues which are of great concern to our commercial fishing industry in Tasmania.

The development of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in both State and Commonwealth waters involving fisheries managed by both jurisdictions is fragmented and at least in the case of Tasmania may result in a serious economic impact on commercial fishermen and coastal communities with all sorts of political consequences. In responding to your request for further comments I will briefly set out some of our concerns about the State process.

The Tasmanian MPA process commences with the appropriate State Minister providing a reference to the Resource Planning and Development Commission (RPDC) pursuant to the Tasmanian Marine Protected Areas Strategy. This was the process adopted for both the Davey and Twofold Shelf (Kent Group) bioregions. The instruction to RPDC made no reference to any structural adjustment assistance for fishermen who may be displaced by the subsequent creation of an MPA however the Strategy document records the issue of displacement as follows –

The Tasmanian Government recognises the importance of displacement issues. To address these issues, the Tasmanian Government has agreed to establish a process for providing special adjustment payments on a case by case basis (ex poste) to certain individuals directly affected by a Marine Protected Area.

All indications are that the Tasmanian Government will not provide displacement compensation following the declaration of an MPA without some long arduous and uncertain process which would even further penalise those already impacted. There are for instance no public guidelines on how displacement would be assessed or the basis on which payments would be made to either individuals or the industry as a whole. There has not been any declared adjustment package for affected State or Commonwealth licensed fishermen such as has been made available in the comprehensive GBRMP Structural Adjustment Package or your MPA Displaced Fishing Effort policy statement.

You are correct in that the RPDC process of MPA no take site selection was not as comprehensive as that undertaken by the Commonwealth as well as the assessment of fishing activity that would be allowed in multiple use areas. The RPDC provided every opportunity for written and verbal submissions but in the end the Commission made recommendations to the Minister based on public submissions without any special regard to the economics of fishing activities.

In the Commonwealth process industry has been very much involved in the co-operative selection and setting of boundaries for proposed MPAs and in recommending fishing activities and gear types that could continue in multiple use areas. This is mainly as a result of your desire to focus on MPA selections and design that minimises the impact on the fishing industry. In the case of the two Tasmanian MPAs general economic interests were part of the consideration but there was no specific Ministerial instructions to minimise the economic impact on the fishing industry.

A good example is the Tasmanian Government’s recently announced intention to proclaim a marine reserve around the Kent Group. Under this proposal all state waters around Erith and Dover Islands and all of the Murray Passage will be a sanctuary zone (no take) and the area around Deal Island out to 3 nautical miles – except the Murray Passage side – will be a habitat protection zone (restricted take). In this restricted take area abalone diving, rock lobster potting and line fishing will be permitted but trawling, netting, long lining and fish trapping will not be allowed.

The impact of this state decision on the southern shark fishery which is managed by the Commonwealth from the high water mark will be very significant indeed. I am advised that a flush of gummy shark and other shark species usually appears to the west of Deal Island towards the end of April or May each year and slowly moves south east to the south of Deal Island and out of the area by late September or October each year. AFMA records show that an average of 134.5 tonnes of shark per annum have been caught in Fishing Blocks 39A47 and 39C47 over the last five years by an average of 30 vessels per year with an average of 423 shots per year. This represents a very significant 6% of the entire southern shark fishery for those years. The two fishing blocks cover the whole of the Kent Group of Islands and AFMA advised the Resource Planning and Development Commission in Hobart last year that in these blocks most shark are caught within 3 nautical miles (i.e. in state waters) of the Kent Group.

I understand around 80% of catches are by shark gillnet and the balance is caught by demersal long line. Both these types of fishing gear would not be permitted under the Tasmanian Government’s marine reserve proposal which would result in an estimated financial loss to shark permit holders or relocation of effort of around $1.1m per annum. In general the reef area around the Kent Group only extend from one to two hundred metres offshore and the remaining area out to 3 nautical miles is a silty, sandy bottom which is where the shark fishing occurs. Bottom set long lines and gillnets would not do any damage to the marine environment within the marine reserve and the industry feeling is that if the shark are not caught in these shallower State waters there will be considerable additional costs incurred by the fishermen in accessing other areas.

We do not support the Tasmanian Government move to ban netting and longlining within this proposed marine reserve around the Kent Group of Islands and we strongly recommend that you adopt the same position.

In summary we recommend that you use whatever influence you may have on the Tasmanian Government in regard to the Port Davey and Twofold Shelf bioregions proposed MPAs –

• there is a desperate need for a full structural adjustment package for any displaced fishing effort which may impact on State or Commonwealth licensed fishermen;

• there should be a review of MPA multiple use criteria with an emphasis on minimising the economic impact on the fishing industry as a whole, and

• for future State MPA proposals detailed displacement assistance, multiple use criteria and minimisation on the fishing industry should be part of any Ministerial strategy policy agreed with industry before a reference is given to the RPDC.

Yours sincerely,

R.K. LISTER

Chief Executive