brief report on the marine parks process amasa submission detailing a commonsense cost effective...

7/31/2019 Brief Report on the Marine Parks Process Amasa Submission Detailing a Commonsense Cost Effective Approach to

1/32

Australian Marine Alliance SA submission to Department of

Environment, Water and Natural Resources Regarding the Current

Proposed Zoning Arrangements for the SA Marine Parks Network

Copyright 2010


2/32

1

Table of Contents

Foreword - The State Of World Fisheries Ray Hilborn .............2

Opening Statement.. .. 7

Brief Report on the Marine Parks Process.... 12

A Common-sense Cost Effective Approach to Implementing (Re-Categorising Existing)

Marine Parks/Reserves in South Australia.21

The Cost of Impacting On Fisheries...28

Conclusion30

References31


3/32

2

Foreword

Ray Hilborn

The state of world Fisheries

As spoken byRay Hilborn in a video speech:

The world view perception status of fisheries and impact on marine ecosystems. In the 19 century there was concern

about fisheries. Gastron 1900 the fisheries are not exhaustible but in a rapid and continual process of exhaustion

he said that the rate that sea fishes multiply and grow even in favourable season is exceed in the rate of capture.

The science of understanding the impacts of fishing developed all through the beginning of the 19 hundreds. By the

1950s what we call the modern science of fisheries management had pretty well been developed and ended up

codified in a series of books was built around the concept of sustainable yields and maximum sustainable yield and

the bio mass that produces maximum sustainable y ield. In the 1970s and 1980s these concepts were written intolaw. Particularly the international Law of the Sea which solidified the concept of sustainable fishing and trying to

manage the fisheries around the level that produces maximum sustained yield

The world has always been a little more complicated than that , for instance John Gulland who was the best well

known fisheries scientist 0f his era. He once sent me a quote which was the definition of the maximum sustainable

yieldIts a quantity that has been shown by biologists not to exist, and by economists to be misleading if it did

exist, in short it is the key to modern fisheries management. This theory was in place by the 1960s when countries

were extending their jurisdictions out to 200nm, all of a sudden countries really started to think about managing

there fisheries.

Initial fisheries management was reactionary, you would wait until there was a problem; until yields were declining

dramatically and fishers were complaining and then something might be done. Most fisheries in that era were open

access there was no limitations, anyone who wanted to go fishing in a country would just go out and buy a licence

for a hundred dollars.

Countries started becoming proactive they started introducing licence limitation. Late 1970 early 1980s Australia

and New Zealand were among the world leaders in this kind of fisheries management. Almost all countries are and

modern developed countries were introducing something like modern fisheries management systems.

In the 1990s a long series of papers of concern about the status of fisheries began to emerge. These papers had

enormous public impact. The ones I am going to mention all got coverage in American Major Newspapers New York

Times and several of them got front page coverage. The first one was actually a paper that I was one of the co-

authors in 1993 authored by Don Ludwic who was a leader Author. We basically argued that fisheries inevitably

ended up over exploited because we waited too long to begin management measures. In 1998 a very influential

paper, perhaps the most influential paper in fisheries that has ever appeared came out published by Daniel Paully

and several authors on the concept of Fishing down the marine Food chains. The basic idea of that paper was that

fisheries began by catching the big valuable species and over time fished down the food chain. Ultimately all were

going to end up with left in the Marine Ecosystems is jelly fish.

Then another very high profile important paper came out in 2003 by Ron Myers and Boris Worm that looked at

Japanese long line data catch rates and basically argues that all large fish of the ocean Tuna/Billfish had been

depleted by 1980 to only 10% of their original biomass. This string of paper had a very significant impact on the


4/32

3

public, journalists and even most scientists perceptions about the state of fisheries. Almost every paper about

fisheries begins with almost an obligate reservation of this litany of disaster.

I might just read one, this came out in 2005 it was published in the journal nature and repeats what I would call the

common excepted beliefs. Fishing in the oceans is no longer sustainable; worldwide we have failed to manage the

ocean fisheries, in a few decades there may be no fisheries left to manage. So what should be done? Incessant

hunting with increasing technological proficiency has decimated fish populations worldwide. Catches of large marine

species such as swordfish and tuna have declined by 80% over the last 20 years- incidentallythats wrong they have

actually increased by 10 times in the last 20 years but it is a good story. Northern cod historically a dietary main

stay species once thought to be inexhaustible is all but commercially extinct in the western North Atlantic. In many

areas bottom trawl has scoured the seabed clean. These are just a few examples of the long and miserable record of

hunting the oceans.

This world view is depicted quite dramatically in the recent movie the end of the line. Then in 2006 came the

ultimate paper, this made the bbcs evening television news because it argued /claimed that all fish would be gone

by 2048 if we didnt change our ways. This paper got enormous push back by the scientific community who works in

fisheries that it was justsilly. Many fisheries in the world are well managed, yes some places may continue to get

worse yet some others get better. As a follow up to this paper lead author of the paper Boris Worm and I were on an

American radio show and I discovered he was not this horrible monster and he seemed like a reasonable guy I had

never met him before. We started talking and decided to put together a team representing the entire spectrum.

From very green ecologists to people who work in hard-core fisheries management, we were going to try and

understand why we had such differing perspectives about the status of fisheries. We got funding from the National

Science Foundation with an initiative to meet four times and we put together a team of 21 people representing

literally everyone imaginable.

We produced a paper in July 2009 that summarised our work, Boris and I initially agreed on is to look for places

where we could track could track the abundance of fish. Almost all the early work whether it was Worm 2003paper that said all fish would be gone by 2048 or Paulys fishing down food chains used catch data that was

assembled by the FAO (fisheries & Agriculture organisation). They assumed that the catch represented abundance.

So if catch went down abundance went down. We said lets go back to places where we could actually track the

abundance of fish. Either by surveys, scientifically designed surveys or through the complicated process of fisheries

stock assessment. What we attempted to do was assemble as many surveys and s tock assessments we could find

for the entire world. In the end we ended up with the developed countries of the world, Europe, North America,

Australia, New Zealand and a few other places. What we found was that through almost every ecosystem we looked

at fishing pressure had been reducing in the recent past. The amount of fishing pressure was at levels that would

produce in the long term maximum sustainable yield. So in other words fisheries management systems were

working to reduce fishing pressure to get it to levels it should be.

Some systems to me showed to me surprisingly rebuilding, one that surprised me was New England which had

always been the whipping boy of American Fisheries and the biomass of large fish in New England has been growing

quite dramatically in the last 20 years and the reasons are of dramatic reductions. Those catch reductions looked like

collapsing stocks if you look at catch. When you look at abundance whether by survey or stock assessment, the

abundance had been rebuilding. We also found that three areas Alaska, South Eastern Australia and New Zealand

had never been systematically over fished. Some individual stocks in those areas had been overfished but as a whole

ecosystems had managed to avoid overs fishing. Still we found that about two thirds of stocks were still below that

targeted levels that would produce maximum sustained yield. Perhaps more interesting we found that about 15% of

stocks we looked at were quite badly depleted that is perhaps below 10% of where they would be have been in theabsence of fishing. When we looked across the range of cases and said well why are these fisheries that are


5/32

4

rebuilding doing so well. We basically found there is no magic bullet there is nothing simply, like ITQ or MPA that led

to success. That in every case we found fisheries quality improving, it was because there was a strong central

government that had been able to implement a whole range of techniques not just one thing but catch limits, effort

limits, gear restrictions and a lot of closed areas, NOT MPA but temporary closed areas to protect spawning fish or to

protect juveniles or something.

The second big result I would say is that when you fish at a level that produces maximum sustained yield you reduce

fish abundance by a lot, by the order of 60 70% and some species get depleted there is no way around that. If you

want to catch fish there is going to be fewer fish in the ocean and given that most of the worlds fisheries involve

some kind of mix of species, the less productive species will be overfished at times that you are maximising

sustainable yield from all the stocks. You can moderate the ecosystem impacts to some extent by fishing a little less

than what produces maximum sustained yield and by technological innovation but the idea that you can somehow

catch fish and have everything in the ocean in good shape just does not seem to be possible. There is a trade of

between ecosystems impacts and yield. If you want to have no environmental impact you cant fish, that is a simple

fact of life.

Fishing has received an enormous amount of criticism from the environmental groups and with particular emphasison bottom trawling. As many people may be aware the Canadian chain loblaws stores have stopped selling hoki. This

is due to pressure from environmental groups even though hoki has been certified by the Marine Stewardship

Council as a well-managed fishery. Part of this is the hatred that environmental groups have with bottom trawling,

quote from Greenpeace websiteEnormous bottom trawl nets are dragged along the seafloor catching all marine life

and killing all habitats. They swallow and destroy everything in their path. And thats the kind of thing that has led

to Loblaws stores not selling Hoki.

The public is confused, back in January I was working with a college from the Frankford Zoological Society who

directs there African program. He showed me the cover of Time magazine from November 2009; it had a picture of a

Tuna bleeding. He said Tell me, should I stop eating fish? I really love sushi should I stop eating fish? so I said Wellwhats the alternative? He said Chicken, pork beef, there is no way I am becoming a vegetarian, my ancestors

came out of the trees and worked their way through Africa and up the food chain over the last 3 million years, I

would not want to dishonour them by becoming a vegetarian. This question prompted me to think about things I

had seen recently. One was I was at a meeting on the convention on biodiversity and the FAO on the impacts of

fishing and some people showed me a paper on the energy efficiency of different methods of producing food. I was

surprised that fishing on average was more efficient than any form of producing meat. More efficient than chicken,

pork or beef. Much more efficient than beef and a little more efficient than chicken.


6/32

5

I came across another paper on carbon footprints; again fishing had a lower carbon footprint than any other form of

producing meat which surprised me.

So if you really think about it and start comparing impacts of fishing on the enviroment with the impacts of meat

because if someone is not going to eat meat thats life, and the demands for both are growing quite dramatically

around the world. So if greenpeace does not want people to eat hoki then that means more meat is going to be

eaten, thats as clear as can be. So if you think about other comparative impacts fishing is amaziing in that it requires

no water uses no pesticides uses no fertilizer uses no anti-biotics and does not cause any soil errosion. So on those

measures of enviromental impacts fishing just has any form of agriculture beat by a mile!


7/32

6

The big criticism of fishing has been impacts on bio-diversity. If you look at the literature on the impacts of fishing

there is quite an extensive literature, for instance people compare the abundance of fish inside a MPA to outside.

What you find is there is more fish inside a MPA abundance outside is usually 50 70% and the diversity; that is the

number of species in fished areas is about 30% lower than in unfished areas and these are the kinds of diversity

impacts that the environmental groups worry about. Similarly if you compare trawled to un-trawled places you see

roughly similar kinds of differences. On average abundance is 50 70% less and the species diversity is about 30 %

less. Trawling is quite variable on soft sediments, on mud or sand there is almost no impact of trawling, on hard

bottoms with a lot of epi-benthic flora and fauna the impacts can be 80 90% or even more.

If you think about the standards we have in fisheries and the best international standards, the most common is the

Marine Stewardship Council. I remember the first time I encountered the marine stewardship councils criteria was

reviewing the West Australian Rock Lobster certification. I came across principle 2 of the marine stewardship council

and it says fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure productivity function and diversity

of the ecosystem including habitat and the associated dependant and the ecologically related species on which the

fishery depends. Nowthat is a pretty high standard! I remember at the time thinking wow farming would never

stand up to that, it is very clear that no form of agriculture could possibly claim to maintain the structure and

function of the ecosystem.

Green groups are criticising farming as well and I understand that they have been particularly aggressive on the New

Zealand dairy Industry, which has been expanding a lot but I do not hear them saying you should not drink milk! Or

you should not eat meat! they will criticise the group, but somehow theyre saying you shouldnt eat Hoki or you

shouldnt eat all sorts of a range of species.I think only about 3 % of New Zealands fish productions would qualify as

something you should eat by the forest and birds List. So the question is: why are fisheries been held to a totally

different standard. One simple number is that If you wanted to replace the worlds fish catch with animal protein

produced by grazing which is essentially where much of the expansion of meat production is coming from you would

need to cut down the entire rainforest of the world 22times over, thats the biodiversity cost of getting rid of fishing.

If you were to just ban trawling, thats the bad boyabout of the worlds fish production is produced by trawling.

So you would need 5 times the worlds rainforest to produce the fish equivalent produced by trawling.

The point here is that if we consider the impacts of not eating fish on bio-diversity they are quite a bit higher than

those of eating fish. One way to reduce impact is to not eat meat because meat takes a lot of land and causes a lot of


8/32

7

problems. If you compare fishing to farming, my wife used to be an organic vegetable farmer. She had five acres of

vegetables. She had one hundred subscription customers she sold to the farmers markets she sold to restaurants.

Organic farming in some sense is the greenest form of food production! BUT those 5 acres had been rainforest in the

North West of the U.S.A. and I guarantee you there was NO remaining bio-diversity! It was completely transformed

to something else. So I think a good case could be made that any form of fishing has less environmental impact than

organic vegetable farming! The amount of land is not the same, the fact is fishing is one of the few forms of

producing protein for food that largely leaves the ecosystems intact.

OPENING STATEMENT

The AMASA is grateful for the opportunity to submit a common sense forward thinking submission to the

government in relation to zoning within South Australian Coastal waters Marine Parks.

The AMASA does not supportthe governments current concept of marine parks or zoning in SA coastal waters. We

say NO to the 19 marine parks, 81 sanctuary zones, 20 Restricted Access Zones, 56 Habitat protection zones, 29

general managed use zones and 49 Special Purpose Areas as listed below:

Far West Coast Marine Park

1st may to 31st October Inclusive zoning = RAZ2, SPA-1, SPA3 and SPA4

1st November to 30th April inclusive= RAZ-1, SZ-1, SPA-1, SPA-2, HPZ1 SZ2 and SZ3

Nuyts Archipelago

HPZ-1, SZ-1 GMUZ-1, HPZ-2, GMUZ-2, HPZ-3, SZ-2, HPZ-4, GMUZ3, HPZ-5, HPZ-6, SZ-6, HPZ-7, SZ-7, SZ-3, SZ-4, SZ-5

SZ-6, SPA-1, HPZ-8, GMUZ-4, SZ-9, SPA-5, SZ10

West Coast Bays Marine Park

HPZ-1, SZ-1, SPA-2, RAZ-1, SZ-2, SZ-3, RAZ-2, HPZ-2, SZ-4, SZ-5, SZ-6, SZ-7, GMUZ-1, SZ-8, SZ-9, SPA-1

Investigator Marine Park

SZ-1, HPZ-1, HPZ-2, GMUZ-1, HPZ-3, SZ-2, HPZ-4, GMUZ-2, HPZ-5, SZ-3, HPZ-6, GMUZ-3

Thorny Passage Marine Park

SPA-1, HPZ-1, HPZ-2, HPZ-3, HPZ-4, HPZ-5, SZ-1, SZ-2, SZ-3, SZ-4, SZ-5, SZ-7, SPA-2, SPA-3, SPA-4

Sir Joseph Banks Group Marine Park

HPZ-1, SZ-1, HPZ-2, GMUZ-1, SZ-2, SZ-3, GMUZ-3, SZ-4, SZ-5, GMUZ-4, GMUZ-2, RAZ-1


9/32

8

Neptune Islands Marine Park

SZ-1, RAZ-1, RAZ-2, HPZ-1

Gambier Islands Group Marine Park

HPZ-1

Franklin Harbor Marine Park

SPA-1, SZ-1, SZ-2, SZ-3, HPZ-2, SZ-4, SZ-5, SPA-3, SPA-4, GMUZ-1, SPA-2, HPZ-1

Upper Spencer Gulf Marine Park

SZ-1, SZ-2, SPA-1, HPZ-1, SZ-3, SZ-4, SPA-5, SZ-5, SPA-5, GMUZ-2, SPA-3, SPA-4, SZ-7, SPA-5, SZ-8, HPZ-2, SPA-5, HPZ-

3, SPA-5, SZ-9, SZ-10, SPA-2

Eastern Spencer Gulf Marine Park

SZ-1, HPZ-1, GMUZ-1, SZ-2, SZ-3, HPZ-2, GMUZ-2

Southern Spencer Gulf Marine Park

HPZ-1, SPA-1, HPZ-2, SZ-1, SZ-2, GMUZ-2, HPZ-3, RAZ-1 ALTHORPE ISLAND, RAZ-1 HAYSTACK ISLAND, RAZ-1 SEAL

ISLAND

Lower Yorke Peninsula Marine Park

SZ-1, HPZ-1, SZ-2, SPA-3, SPA-1, GMUZ-1, SPA-2

Upper Gulf St Vincent Marine Park

SZ-1, SPA-1, HPZ-1, SPA-2, GMUZ-1, SZ-3, SZ-2, SPA-3, RAZ-1, SZ-3

Encounter Marine Park

GMUZ-1, SZ-1, SZ-2, HPZ-2, HPZ-4, HPZ-3, SPA-9, HPZ-1, SZ-3, SZ-4, GMUZ-3, SPA-1, SZ-5, GMUZ-2, GMUZ-4, HPZ-5,

SPA-2, SZ-8, RAZ-1, SPA-3, GMUZ-5, SPA-4, SZ-9, SPA-5, SPA-7, SZ-10, SZ-11, RAZ-2, RAZ-3, GMUZ-6, RAZ-4, SPA-6, SZ-

6, SPA-10, SPA-11, SPA-12, HPZ-6, SPA-8, SZ-7, GMUZ-7

Western Kangaroo Island Marine Park

SZ-1, SZ-2, HPZ-1, RAZ-1, RAZ-2, RAZ-2 (CASUARINS ISLETS), RAZ-3, HPZ-2

Southern Kangaroo Island Marine Park

SZ-1, RAZ-1, HPZ-1, HPZ-2

Upper South East Marine Park

SZ-1, HPZ-1, GMUZ-1, HPZ-2, SZ-2, SPA-2, HPZ-3, GMUZ-2, HPZ-4, SZ-3, SPA-1,

Lower South East Marine Park

SPA-1, HPZ-1, SZ-1, HPZ-2, GMUZ-1, GMUZ-2, HPZ-3, SZ-2, SPA-2


10/32

9

The Australian Marine Alliance asserts that the current government proposal:

will result in a significant change in the way the South Australian coastline and marine environment will bemanaged, the huge unnecessarily impose of resources allocation which in turn will impact upon the commercial

and recreational fishing sector across the state;

has been progressed via an appalling and unsatisfactory process, with identified concerns regardingtransparency and accountability

1;

has been presented to the communities and marine users under false pretences and a biased uninformedknowledge based.

has not demonstrated how desired biodiversity conservation outcomes will be delivered through zoning thestates network of marine parks;

has failed to demonstrate what (if any benefits) will be achieved by zoning vast areas of our coastal waterswithout addressing the full suite of threats;

has failed to provide sound scientific justification for zoning implementation and at what cost to community. has failed to deliver a firm marine parks management plan with a clear and costed strategy for compliance,

monitoring, evaluation and research.

has not presented any solid management plan of displaced effort or any costings associated with license, quota,or entitlement buyback scheme. The modelling of displaced effort for the governments current zoning proposal

undertaken by SARDI2 has produced very poor and erroneous results, yet the data was still used.

The Regional Impact Assessment (RIS) prepared by Econsearch 21 August 2012, appears to be a very broaddocument which has been designed, modelled, and written to support government political outcomes rather

than a realistic assessment of the real impact that the Marine Park will have on the local communities and the

state.

Has been pushed onto communities by the government with a biased agenda influenced by environmental lobbygroups.

Countless errors and misleading information has been printed in government documentation.The current government proposal gives no consideration to the current management arrangements and measures

already in place within the marine environment of our state and country. These are:

Australia is ranked second in the world for sustainable fisheries management Fisheries over the last ten years have been managed under an ESD (Ecologically sustainable development plan)

where they dont just manage the fish species but also the habitats

SA has already 3.1% of state waters under protection 3.This figure has since been identified to be undercalculated by at least 3 %, given the other protection orders in place it is approximated to be around 6 to 8%.

There has NOT been a single extinction of a marine fish or invertebrate in Australia


11/32

10

Wild harvest Fisheries production has the lowest carbon footprint of any food production in the world 4 (seeforeword)

75% of seafood is currently imported into Australia5 Australia is one of three countries to already meet its 2020 target for the protection of biodiversity 6. In 2011 the

United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) calculated the entire area of the global MPAs was around 2.2

million square km, and that Australia had over 38% (840,000 square km) of this area. This was before the

planned addition of 19 large marine parks in state waters in South Australia last year, not to mention the federal

bioregional planning process. 840,000 + 2,396,216 = approx. 3,236,216 km2 of MPAs in Australia (both state and

federal) marine parks. Australia will hold more MPAs than any other country in the world totalling 70.4%.7 Not

only will we hold 70% of the total global MPAs we will hold more sanctuaries than the rest of the world

combined!

In the Janine Baker9 (2000) report commissioned by DENR she highlighted threats to the inshore marineecosystems and biodiversity for SA as:

The continued loss of habitat due to sewage and/or stormwater discharges, industrialdevelopments, and degradation of reefs by sedimentation.

Damage to reefs from boats, anchors and SCUBA diving activity Urban and rural waste as solids and chemical pollution heavy metal contamination by-catch and damage from trawling introduction of pests and diseases in ballast water aquaculture discharge Oil spills

Currently in SA waters;

100% of seagrass is protected 100% of Macro algae is protected All marine mammals such as dolphins, whales, seals, sea lions are protected Majority of seabirds both shore and migratory are under protection as well as their nesting areas

under several ACTS and Treaties

All Syngnathidae species (i.e. sea dragons, sea horses) and solenostomidae (ghost pipefish) areprotected

All intertidal reefs out to 2m in depth are protected Mangroves are protected under 3 ACTS and currently 56% of mangroves are currently in 7 existing

aquatic reserves


12/32

11

Blue groper is protected and prohibited to be taken in Gulf St Vincent, Spencer Gulf, Investigatorstrait and backstairs passage all year round( etc. etc. could go on and on)

Federal Environment Minister, Tony Burke8, stated in a letter dated Jan 2011 that SA is required by the

Commonwealth Government to have 10% under management NOT in strict Sanctuary or no take zones.

South Australia waters are 100% under management through various ACTS, so SA has already exceeded its

obligation.

3 recent Sanctuary zone audits in Australia revealed that when large sanctuary zones were implemented there were

no clear benefits to the marine environment or to the communities. Benefits have only been proven overseas where

fisheries management is poor or non-existent.

The marine reserve network options submitted below by the Australian Marine Alliance SA would minimise all

impacts on commercial fishing industry, the recreational fishing sector and communities but still significantly deliver

on Australias international commitments to marine biodiversity conservation;

The AMASA stress that we are strong supporters of marine conservation under the current care, control and

management of PIRSA. We believe that to protected marine biodiversity in South Australian coastal waters we need

to first address the already identified issue of pollution. A risk assessment completed for Gulf St Vincent clearly

identified the threats to biodiversity are directly related to Government Infrastructure (EPA 2009 A RISK

ASSESSMENT OF THREATS TO WATER QUALITY IN GULF ST VINCENT)


13/32

12

Brief Report on the Marine Park Process under the guidance of the

Department of Environment and Heritage

This report has been produced as a result of continued mistreatment of the rights of fishers and total disregard

for due processes. In this report the aim is to describe how communities/fishers have not been heard and how

coastal communities/fishers have been disregarded in the processes conducted by the Department of

Environment within South Australia. Statements will show how little knowledge the Department has and how

they should never have been chartered to carry out something which is quite clearly beyond their knowledge.

Outer Boundaries proclaimed on 23rd

July 2009

Proclamation of the outer boundaries and prior events should be mentioned as it shows the attitude and the

stealthy way in which DEWNR staff have conducted themselves.

The first contact made for the outer boundaries fishers can report from the area of Lower Yorke Peninsula was at a

meeting held at Minlaton in 2006. At this meeting DEWNR staff described the outer boundaries as being

inconsequential to fishers and it was nothing to be concerned about. They briefly described that there may be

Sanctuary Zones which would be small and would quite simply not have any effect on current activities. It was noted

they quickly breezed over any zoning and it was undecided as to what was going to happen. Fishers left feeling

confused as to what was going on but suspicious as DEWNR was entering their marine environment with a new set

of rules.

2008 Fishers/ community members report DEWNR set up a tent on the foreshore located near the jetty at Port

Victoria. One DEWNR staff member entered an establishment and conversed with the staff there. The staff

mentioned/asked why DEWNR were here as the Government had already decided where the outer boundaries

were going and communities/ fishers would have no say in what was happening?. Very Little community

involvement and confusion IS apparent. Industry Involvement consultation committed under duress. (*refer

constitution common law equity) Proclamation/change in law or ownership of anything previously owned or utilised

by the common man/communities would need a referendum an election or a change in the constitution to become

law.

In 2009 the outer boundaries were proclaimed by the Government under the guise of not impacting and being quite

simply put nothing to worry about. Industry involvement was committed under duress; there was little

community involvement with poor/confused understanding. To the best of our knowledge the Government has

acted in a manner that could be seen to be in breach of our rights under equity. This has not been an

Industry/community initiative and has been forced upon the people of South Australia.


14/32

13

No Consultation Period

There has not been a consultation period as was promised.

DEWNR staff member describing the consultation period has not started.

In a breifing at the Port Victoria town hall Denr Staff member David Pearce described that the consultation period

would start after the Lag.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICAR0IjAN4U

Also Chris Thomas described a consultation process in a breifing with the MP 11 Action Group which was recorded

after permission was granted by DEWNR staff. Chris said they would consult for at least 3 months as it was such a

big issue for communities.

DEWNR Documentation of the Marine Park Management Planning Process describes a Consultation process after

the release of the Draft Management plan. This process has been changed to a review period . Leading up to the

release of the Draft Management plans the public was led to believe there would be a consultation period.

Consultation is meeting with people NOT expecting the general public to have to fight against governmental decision

makers through writing an indepth submission which should meet certain criteria to which the decission maker has

set the rules. Judge Jury & Excutioner! This is hardly democratic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICAR0IjAN4Uhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICAR0IjAN4Uhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICAR0IjAN4Uhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICAR0IjAN4U


15/32

14

BIASED FORM

Please AGREE to the following by ticking the boxes. I am committed to the creation of Marine Parks in my local

area, I am prepared to be an advocate for marine parks in my local community, I am committed to attending local

meetings. This is quite blatant ! They were looking for community members who were going to help advocate for

Marine Parks. If this is the case then it would hardly be an unbiased structured view.


16/32

15

BIAS MISTRUTHS written by DEWNR and placed on the South Australian Strategic Plan site (screenshot)

http://saplan.org.au/targets/69-lose-no-species

This screeshot was originally taken from the above link (South Australian Strategic Plan Website). The above

information has since been removed. It is quite clear the author has an opinion about the cause in decline of boththe Australian Sealion and the Giant Cuttlefish. These comments are slanderious and shows DEWNRs opinion of

fishing.
http://saplan.org.au/targets/69-lose-no-specieshttp://saplan.org.au/targets/69-lose-no-specieshttp://saplan.org.au/targets/69-lose-no-species


17/32

16

Rapid Assessments produced by DEWNR example of errors in information

Environmental values that are represented in this zoning option between 10-19%:

Cosema endangered macroalgae Rocky reef (0 to-10m) Soft bottom habitat (0 to -10m)

The statement made by DEWNR above is not correct, according to Karen Edyvanes research there is no macroalgae

under threat, however it is protected under the Fisheries Act 1982 and the Vegetation Management Act 1990.

MP13, quite obvious errors in the diagrams below in the rapid assessment, the depth data is incorrect. If you look at

the unmapped areas 0- 10m then compare with the soft bottom habitat you will notice the are 0-10m runs out past

the 30m contour. Quite obviously this is a serious error and makes the planning process flawed.

Macroalgae (0 to -10m)

Macroalgae (-10 to -30m)


18/32

17

Unmapped (0 to -10m)

Soft-bottom habitat (-10 to -30m)

The same has been repeated throughout the states marine park rapid assessments. The information is not correct.


19/32

18

Propaganda produced by DEWNR pulling at the heart strings. (Preserve habitats of our unique species as well as the

recreation and livelihood of those who use the sea.) How could we possibly say this is not about fisheries

management?


20/32

19

DEWNR staff misinforming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawRpn1RxHk&list=UUPNl9NbqFafUq3TS0hqYGvA&index=1&feature=plcp

This YouTube video shows a member of staff from DEWNR misinforming the public. The Video was recorded on

January 9th 2011.

00:03

00:03http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/files/259a3fa6-b648-48bb-83d2-9e6700be1472/mp11-factsheet.pdf

The above link opens up a DEWNR document which was produced on November 12 th 2010. In the document it

clearly statesThe State Government has not adopted an arbitrary percentage target for the size of sanctuary

zones. Instead, it remains open to the advice of the community as to how to best design the marine parks

network to protect and conserve marine biodiversity and marine habitats in a manner that accords with the

objects of the Marine Parks Act 2007. This was backed by Tony Burkes letter in response to Gary Morgans

question on the AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGETS adopted by Australia; Tony Burke clearly states the targets are

aspirational and not binding on Australia. Why were DEWNR staffs informing the public they are

OBLIGATIONAL!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawRpn1RxHk&list=UUPNl9NbqFafUq3TS0hqYGvA&index=1&feature=plcphttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawRpn1RxHk&list=UUPNl9NbqFafUq3TS0hqYGvA&index=1&feature=plcphttp://www.environment.sa.gov.au/files/259a3fa6-b648-48bb-83d2-9e6700be1472/mp11-factsheet.pdfhttp://www.environment.sa.gov.au/files/259a3fa6-b648-48bb-83d2-9e6700be1472/mp11-factsheet.pdfhttp://www.environment.sa.gov.au/files/259a3fa6-b648-48bb-83d2-9e6700be1472/mp11-factsheet.pdfhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawRpn1RxHk&list=UUPNl9NbqFafUq3TS0hqYGvA&index=1&feature=plcp


21/32

20

00:19 traditionally our oceans have been open slather. This is not correct and quite obviously fisheriesmanagement

00:35 A lot of species are in decline. Identifying that fishing is a threat. 00:40 Commitment to put 10% of every jurisdiction around the world in a sanctuary zone. Wrong 01:05 happening in commonwealth and State waters. Identifying a commitment that does not exist. 01:12 commitment has been made at an International level which has led to a state commitment as well

and the writing of the legislation to create the marine parks. Quite clearly DEWNR are making it sound

like we have little choice in this matter.

01:57 its a preventative approach, adopted by the government seen as responsible stewardship of theocean.

02:26 the current science recommends 10% of our oceans be locked away you are safeguarding yourmarine resource. Fisheries management, there is no science

The video goes for 17 minutes it is full of misinformation.

Throughout the state DEWNR staff have been saying they have a huge amount of scientific Data to back up claims

that Marine Parks are a solution to a precautionary principlecreated problem. This is simply not true in fact one ofthe Scientist enlisted by DEWNR to be part of the scientific working group DR. Hugh Kirkman (Director at marine

science and ecology, seagrass ecologist) has written a peer reviewed paper. This paper states:- the design principles

were again used for zoning purposes but modifications to them and others were needed. Some problems,

including protests from user interest groups and a lack of scientific information on biodiversity and

marine habitats, have been resolved, the latter by invoking the Precautionary Principle.

The application of these methodological approaches and the lessons learned are extremely applicable to the East

Asian Seas.

So no scientific backing to Marine Parks, this is why the invoking of the precautionary principle has been essential to

push this broken agenda. DEWNR staff have always maintained they had mountains of science now we learn that

was a lie!


22/32

21

SUBMISSION DETAILING A COMMONSENSE COST EFFECTIVE APPROACH TO

IMPLEMENTING (RE-CATAGORISING EXISTING) MARINE PARKS/RESERVE

SYSTEMS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

WE MEET ALL TARGETS BEYOND FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS

States and Territories are under no obligation to implement a marine park system.

Darkened wording are quotations taken from the COP 10 Decision Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-

2020 AND THE AICHI BIODIVERSITY TARGETShttp://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268

Strategic goal C. Improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity

Target 11:By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine

areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through

effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and

other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscapes and seascapes.Dr.

Gary Morgan had this confirmed from Minister T. Burke that all targets were aspirational and NOT binding on

Australia!

Target 15:By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced,

through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems,

thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification. i.e. Metro

Adelaide is a perfect example of GOVERNMENT infrastructure impacting on the seagrass beds. The denuding of

Adelaides coastlines is due to high nutrient water and stormwater runoff.

Target 8:By 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients, has been brought to levels that are not

detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity. The Government is not adhering to the agreement.

Even if the states and Territories were obliged to meet targets set by the UN treaty we would not have to proclaim

MPAs or change anything under our current management system being enforced by PIRSA/EPA/DEWNR. Quite

simply if the state would like to come in line with the ICUN park system all that is required is to re-categorise our

current systems and laws. Using the below areas and also adding an approximate of the inshore rocky reef it is our

belief there is 8% of state or coastal waters already protected. This is in comparison to Victoria and or New South

Wales a much greater percentage. However if you were to compare them per population South Australia has alreadyby far an enormously inequitable comparison.


23/32

22

PROPOSED MARINE PARKS

State population classification

% of c.

water area in mtrs2 mtrs per head of population

VIC 5,603,100.00 NO FISH 5.30% 541,289 0.096605272

NSW 7,272,800.00 NO FISH 6.00% 528,120 0.072615774

SA 1,650,600.00 NO FISH 6.00% 3,601,920 2.182188295

1,650,600.00

Total

proclaimed 44.00% 26,414,080 16.00271416

WA 2,410,600.00 NO FISH 2.50% 2,893,500 1.200323571

EXISTING AQUATIC RESERVES & PROTECTION WITHIN SA

State population classification

% of c.

water area in mtrs2 mtrs per head of population

SA 1,650,600.00 VARIOUS 8.00% 4,802,560 2.909584394

At a glance the proposed marine NO take zones are double that of other comparative states. To bring things into

perspective we could do away with all aquatic reserves and closures keeping the Great Australian Bight. We would

actually have around the same share per head according to South Australias population as Victoria and Western

Australia and more than New South Wales. Hardly seems equitable to implement additional on top of our existing

zoning.


24/32

23

Fisheries Ministerial powers

Fisheries Minister may close a fishery or area if deemed to be under threat or in risk of collapse or an area being

harmed. The Minister has the power to control any fishery and its practices under the Fisheries Management Act as

he or she sees fit.

Re categorising current areas of protection to align with IUCN

AQUATIC RESERVE

Area

(km2)

% State

Waters

IUCN

Category

(Fisheries Management Act 2007)

Aldinga Reef 7


25/32

24

Avoid Bay Islands CP


26/32

25

Sinclair Island CP


27/32

26

(B) the Water Resources Act 1997; or

(C) any other Act prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph;

waters of the sea includes any water that is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide

NATIVE VEGITATION ACT 1991

Area

(km2)

% State

Waters

IUCN

Category

South Australian State legistlated waters

protected under the "native Vegitation Act 1991"

Total Area under State Durisdiction 60282 100 ?

Intertidal Reefs

Intertidal reefs fully protected in SA

A closure for the taking of all benthic (bottom dwelling) organisms from intertidal rocky reef areas applies to all

coastal waters in South Australia.

Intertidal reefs are those rocky areas of our coastline extending up to the high tide mark.

This closure means that it is illegal to remove any bottom dwelling organisms, including abalone from any intertidal

rocky reef in South Australia out to a depth of two metres.

The closure only relates to rocky reefs and therefore does not include sand or beach areas.

To protect these areas, it is an offence to remove bottom dwelling organisms from all intertidal rocky reef areas fromthe high tide line to a depth of two metres throughout South Australia. Government of South Australia Primary

Industries and Resources August 2005.

INTER-TIDAL REEF PROTECTED UNDER

Area

(km2)

% State

Waters

IUCN

Category

Total Area protected under inter tidal

5716 ? ?protection out to 2 mtrs in depth on rocky reef

The length of South Australias coastline is measured at the mean high water (MHW) and extends over a distance of

around 5716 kilometres; a large percentage of South Australias coastline is made up of Rocky Reef. The exact

percentage is unknown.

Fisheries management Act 2007

71Taking, injuring etc aquatic mammals and protected species prohibited

(1) A person must not

(a) Take an aquatic mammal or aquatic resource of a protected species; or

(b) Injure, damage or otherwise harm an aquatic mammal or aquatic resource of a protected species.


28/32

27

Fisheries management Act 2007

Area

(km2)

% State

Waters

IUCN

Category

Taking, injuring etc aquatic mammals

and protected species prohibited

Total Area under State Durisdiction 60282 100 ?

Parks and wildlife act 1972

Marine mammal means a seal or sea lion (order Pinnipedia) or a dolphin or whale (order Cetacea); protected animal

means

(a) any mammal, bird or reptile indigenous to Australia; or

(b) any migratory mammal, bird or reptile that periodically or occasionally migrates to, and lives in,

Australia; or

(c) any animal of a species referred to in Schedule 7, 8 or 9; or

(d) any animal of a species declared by regulation to be a species of protected animals,

but does not include animals of the species referred to in Schedule 10 or any animals declared by regulation to be

unprotected;

Division 2Restrictions upon the taking of protected animals

51Taking of protected animals etc

(1) Subject to this Part, a person must not take a protected animal or the eggs of a protected animal.

Maximum penalty:

In the case of a marine mammal$100 000 or imprisonment for 2 years

National Parks & Wildlife Act 1972

Area

(km2)

% State

Waters

IUCN

Category

All species indigenous to Australia unless

otherwise specified in Schedule 10 or any

animals declared by regulation to be unprotectedTotal Area under State Durisdiction 60282 100 ?

IUCN Protected Areas Categories

Category IaStrict nature reserve: protected area managed mainly for science

Category IbWilderness area: protected area managed mainly for wilderness protection

Category IINational park: protected area managed mainly for ecosystem conservation and recreation

Category IIINatural monument or feature: protected area managed for conservation of specific natural features
http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#Iahttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#Iahttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#Ibhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#Ibhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#IIhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#IIhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#IIIhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#IIIhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#IIIhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#IIhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#Ibhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#Ia


29/32

28

Category IVHabitat/species management area: protected area managed mainly for conservation through management

intervention

Category VProtected landscape/seascape: protected area managed mainly for landscape/seascape conservation and

recreation

Category VIProtected area with sustainable use of natural resources: protected area managed mainly for the sustainableuse of natural ecosystems

The cost of impacting on Fisheries

Humans consume protein: if we impact on fisheries protein must be produced in some other way. Wild caught fish is

the most ecologically environmentally friendly cost effective manner to produce protein. No fertiliser poison

pesticide or antibiotics, bio-diversity may be in an altered state it is NOT destroyed. Fishers dont clear land like other

forms of farming. The most ecologically friendly form of farming (organic) has a bigger impact on the worldsbiodiversity than fishing. More imported unsustainably caught or poorly produced fish from other countries in the

world is hardly a solution to this quandary. Whilst Australia restricts itself by selfishly neglecting the obligation to

utilise our economic exclusion zone other countries around the world will see it as a boon. We risk their environment

and their biodiversity by forcing them to produce product for us to eat. Will Australia bring in laws to force all

product imported to have a Marine Stewardship tick of sustainability? Or boycott countries that are not locking up

vast areas of ocean in the name of conservation?

Australia's fishing zone is the third largest in the world, covering 11 million square kilometres, yet Australia is only

the 52nd largest producer in terms of volume. Locking up areas of ocean puts Australias national security at risk. It is

not our god given right to lock away vast areas of ocean the Law of the Sea treaty means we must utilise theresource. Quite simply use it or lose it, UNCLOS was designed for resource management, locking up sections of

oceans is not management it is shutting the gate. This treaty could allow other countries to argue the fact that

Australia is underutilising its resource therefore they could petition to utilise Australia would have one vote to argue

against loss of our EEZ, one vote out of one hundred and sixty! Would other countrys vote with us?

If we are to look at mother earth as one ecosystem instead of humans interpreting it as segments then Australia is in

fact underutilising our EEZ. Australia has an obligation to rest of the world to utilise and produce a high qualityproduct using our sustainable fishing practices. We as a nation have an obligation to the environment and humanity

to help feed the worlds population. Australia is 52nd as far as production is concerned and 3rd as far as the size of
http://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#IVhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#IVhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#Vhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#Vhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#VIhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#VIhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#VIhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#Vhttp://www.environment.gov.au/parks/iucn.html#IV


30/32

29

our Economic Exclusion Zone. By underutilising we threaten the very thing we are suggesting we protect the

environment. Other countries use poor or no fisheries management.

2007-2008 Australia became a net importer of fisheries products, both in terms of volume and in terms of value. We

are not only underutilising we are not providing enough food to feed our own population.

Land clearing for other forms of primary production

Salinity in South Australia is a problem in all principal agricultural areas, with 370000 hectares of land and wetlands

impacted. At current rates, this is expected to increase by 60% by 2050.[12] It is expected to cost the state around

$47million per year in lost agricultural profit, and is expected to taint more than 20% of ground water to levels above

those safe for human consumption.[9]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity_in_Australia#South_Australia

The State of the Environment Report, 2001, prepared by independent researchers for the federal government,

concluded that the condition of the environment and environmental management in Australia had worsened since

the previous report in 1996. Of particular relevance to wildlife conservation, the report indicated that many

processessuch as salinity, changing hydrological conditions, land clearing, fragmentation of ecosystems, poor

management of the coastal environment, and invasive speciespose major problems for protecting Australia's

biodiversity.[177]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna_of_Australia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity_in_Australia#South_Australiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity_in_Australia#South_Australiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity_in_Australia#South_Australiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna_of_Australiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna_of_Australiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna_of_Australiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity_in_Australia#South_Australia


31/32

30

CONCLUSION

There have been three Audits conducted, Victoria, Western Australia & New South Wales. The Auditor Generals

findings found in Victoria it cost one million dollars to implement each sanctuary zone and they could find No clear

benefits. Western Australias department of environments own Audit on Jurien Bay Marine Park found no clear

benefits after 10 years and they have large No Take areas. Why would South Australia want to go down the path of

self-imposing restrictions on fisheries? No species of fish has become extinct from fishing, our current systems of

100% management of both the fisheries and simultaneously through EPBC is the best system of management in the

world.

All of the Marine Environment from the water itself to the plants and animals that dwell in the ocean are already

protected; any development terrestrial or oceanic must first be approved through government. In a study financed

by the EPA the threats to biodiversity were not fishing, it was actually government infrastructure which had the

biggest impacts.

With our growing populations cost to the Health of our populous is paramount. Through impacting on small country

townships where particularly our younger generation fish from beaches etc will have profound effects on thebehaviour of adults and youngsters. In a study Identifying the health and well-being benefits of recreational fishing

Prof A. McManus, Dr W. Hunt, J. Storey, J. White. http://cessh.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/RecFishinglr.pdf it found

With clear evidence supporting physical activity and a healthy diet high in seafood as beneficial to health and the

prevention of chronic conditions (McManus and Newton 2011; McManus. A., White. J. et al. 2011; Newton and

McManus 2011), it is both logical and intuitive that recreational fishing could offer substantial health benefits.

Reforming the cultural behaviour by impacting on traditional fishing practices is in our opinion a breach in the

constitutional rights of Australian citizens. Under equity the Government would be neglecting by showing a total

disregard for both commercial and recreational fishers by taking ownership and legislating boundaries and new laws.

Such practice is against our constitutional rights!

In conclusion it is the belief of the AMA that the South Australian State government should:-

Remove all outer boundaries. Re-categorise all existing protection orders Marine protected areas or reserves to come under the IUCN

zoning scheme.

In doing so the State Government can avoid:-

Displacement of both commercial and recreational fishers Social economic impacts on small communities and the economics of the State

The cost of using this common-sense approach is in administration only; The State Government can save hundreds of

millions of dollars. Current marine protected areas are already being policed by the Fisheries department there

would be no additional policing fees. The current marine protected areas have community acceptance. The area of

current mpas has been approximated to be between 6 to 8 % ofthe states coastal waters, more than Victoria.

Seeking common-sense with an equitable outcome,

Australian Marine Alliance SA Branch

Written and collated by Wade Wheeler
http://cessh.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/RecFishinglr.pdfhttp://cessh.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/RecFishinglr.pdfhttp://cessh.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/RecFishinglr.pdfhttp://cessh.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/RecFishinglr.pdf


32/32

References

1. SA Select Committee Inquiry Into Marine Parkshttp://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Committees/Pages/Committees.aspx?CTId=3&CId=263

2. Ward, T.M. and Burch, P. (2012) Revised Estimates of Historical Commercial Fishery Catches/Effort in DraftSanctuary and Habitat Protection Zones in South Australias Marine Parks. Reprt To PIRSA Fisheries And

Aquaculture. SARDI, Adelaide. SARDI publication no. F2011/000307-6.

3. Possingham, H.P., Noyce,T. and Stewart, R.R., 2003 Opportunity cost of an Ad Hoc Marine Reserve DesignDecisions : An example of South Australia, Vol 253;25-38, 2003 Marine Ecology Press series, Published May 15th

2003

4. Stark, Walter (2011) MPAs A Useless Solution To A Non-Problem5. http://www.sydneyfishmarket.com.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=qV8leOPtKW8%3D&tabid=1836. Dr Gary Morgan; Radio interview on Radio 5AA - October 2012 , Leon Byner, 5AA ;Tuesday, 9 October 2012

Jobs losses as a result of bans on fishing in proposed Marine Parks

7. http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/temperateeast/consultation/submissions/pubs/0178nswgamefishingassociation.pdf8. Tony Burke, 25th January, 2011 letter to Dr Gary Morgan regarding CBD Target 119. Baker J.L. and Bridgland, John, SA Dept. of Environment and Heritage, Coast and Marine Section Guide to

Marine Protected Areas Adelaide; 2000

References Links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity_in_Australia#South_Australia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna_of_Australia

http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268

http://cessh.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/RecFishinglr.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICAR0IjAN4U

http://cessh.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/RecFishinglr.pdf

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/files/259a3fa6-b648-48bb-83d2-9e6700be1472/mp11-factsheet.pdf

Disclaimer

Australian Marine Alliance SA would like to apologise if we have not provided all references, given opportunity if
http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Committees/Pages/Committees.aspx?CTId=3&CId=263http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Committees/Pages/Committees.aspx?CTId=3&CId=263http://www.sydneyfishmarket.com.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=qV8leOPtKW8%3D&tabid=183http://www.sydneyfishmarket.com.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=qV8leOPtKW8%3D&tabid=183http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/temperateeast/consultation/submissions/pubs/0178nswgamefishingassociation.pdfhttp://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/temperateeast/consultation/submissions/pubs/0178nswgamefishingassociation.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity_in_Australia#South_Australiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity_in_Australia#South_Australiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna_of_Australiahttp://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICAR0IjAN4Uhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICAR0IjAN4Uhttp://cessh.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/RecFishinglr.pdfhttp://cessh.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/RecFishinglr.pdfhttp://www.environment.sa.gov.au/files/259a3fa6-b648-48bb-83d2-9e6700be1472/mp11-factsheet.pdfhttp://www.environment.sa.gov.au/files/259a3fa6-b648-48bb-83d2-9e6700be1472/mp11-factsheet.pdfhttp://www.environment.sa.gov.au/files/259a3fa6-b648-48bb-83d2-9e6700be1472/mp11-factsheet.pdfhttp://cessh.curtin.edu.au/local/docs/RecFishinglr.pdfhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICAR0IjAN4Uhttp://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12268http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauna_of_Australiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salinity_in_Australia#South_Australiahttp://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/temperateeast/consultation/submissions/pubs/0178nswgamefishingassociation.pdfhttp://www.sydneyfishmarket.com.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=qV8leOPtKW8%3D&tabid=183http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Committees/Pages/Committees.aspx?CTId=3&CId=263

brief report on the marine parks process amasa submission detailing a commonsense cost effective...

Documents