marine bioregional planning in the north marine region –...

Marine Bioregional Planning in the North Marine Region

Overview of Public Consultation (August–November 2011)

MA

R16

0.02

12

Marine Bioregional Planning in the North Marine Region – Overview of Public Consultation (August-November 2011)

1. Background

The Australian Government’s Marine Bioregional Planning Program is supporting the conservation and sustainable use of Australia’s oceans. It is focused on building and consolidating our knowledge of Australia’s marine environment to help improve the management of whole marine ecosystems.

For each of the large marine regions that extend across Australia’s Commonwealth waters1, the program involves development of a Marine Bioregional Plan under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) and a regional network of representative Commonwealth marine reserves.

Marine Bioregional Plans will help improve the way decisions are made under the EPBC Act, particularly in relation to the protection of marine biodiversity and sustainable use of our oceans and their resources by marine-based industries.

New Commonwealth marine reserves developed under the program will play an important role in the long-term conservation of marine ecosystems and the biodiversity of our oceans. Through the establishment of these marine reserves, the Australian Government will also meet its international and national commitments to establish a representative system of marine protected areas.

2. Consultation activities in the North Marine Region

Between August and November 2011, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities, the Hon Tony Burke MP, invited public feedback on the draft Marine Bioregional Plan and Commonwealth marine reserve network proposal for the North Marine Region.

The North Marine Region covers Commonwealth waters that stretch from the Gulf of Carpentaria as far west as the Northern Territory-Western Australian border. Information on the region and the marine bioregional planning process in the North is available at www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/north.

The three-month public consultation period was advertised in the media nationally and locally, through the department’s website and through notices sent to organisations, community groups and industry associations with an interest in the marine environment.

The department produced and made publically available on its website and upon request, a range of publications to provide information and guidance on the draft Marine Bioregional Plan and marine reserve network proposal. The publications were designed to assist stakeholders understand in detail what was being proposed, the policy basis for the proposals and the implications for marine users. They also included information on how to provide feedback on the draft Plan and proposed reserves.

1 Commonwealth waters commence at the edge of state/ territory waters (usually 3 nautical miles from the coast) and

extend to the outer limits of Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) some 200 nautical miles from shore.

During the consultation period, the department undertook meetings in coastal areas of the Northern Territory and Queensland. Regional consultations began with a multi-sector information session in Darwin followed by public information sessions held in regional centres including Normanton, Karumba, Weipa, Nhulunbuy, and Burketown. The public information sessions were open to everyone, were advertised locally and provided opportunities for members of the public to view consultation materials and talk to department staff. In addition to the public information sessions, 78 targeted stakeholder meetings were held throughout the public consultation period.

Stakeholders were invited to provide feedback using submission forms made available on the department’s website and upon request through the department’s Community Information Unit. Stakeholders were able to lodge their submissions:

1) online via the department’s website;

2) via email to a dedicated North Marine Region’s submissions email address; or

3) in hard copy posted free of charge to the department.

3. Who provided feedback

The department received 12,861 submissions for the North Marine Region. Of these, the majority (12,792 or 99.5%) were in the form of ‘campaign submissions’ organised by conservation and recreational fishing organisations. In addition to campaign submissions, 37 separate submissions were received from organisations, including businesses, clubs, representative associations, the Northern Territory and Queensland governments and industry bodies. A further 32 submissions were received from individuals (Table 1).

Table 1: Total number of submissions received

NORTH MARINE REGION

Including campaigns Excluding campaigns

Organisation 37 37

Individual 12 824 32

Total 12 861 69

The largest proportion of all submissions received (98.7%) came from the conservation sector and relate to the protection of the marine environment (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Stakeholder groups/sectors providing feedback including campaigns

Excluding campaign submissions, most submissions were made by organisations and individuals from the conservation sector (26.08%) and the commercial fishing sector (26.08%). Indigenous people and organisations (14.5%) and people representing recreational fishing interests (10.15% including both including charter and game fishing, as well as recreational fishing boating and leisure) also provided a large proportion of non-campaign submissions. Figure 2 provides further details. Campaign submissions included standardised text and messages prepared by the campaigning organisation and provided through online templates or as postcards. Most campaign submissions from the conservation sector (99%) were generated under the umbrella of the Save Our Tropical Sealife coalition and advocated the establishment of large sanctuaries for the protection of northern Australia’s waters. A small number of people making submissions via templates generated by conservation organisations used the template to express views inconsistent with or contrary to that of the campaign. The remainder of campaign submissions (112 submissions or 0.9%) were made via a template organised by the Nhulunbuy Regional Sports Fishing Club and called for changes to the zoning and boundaries of the proposed Wessel marine reserve.

0.01%

0.04%

0.04%

0%

0.02%

0.08%

0.02%

98.73% 0.90%

0.14%

0.02%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Tourism

Science

Recreational fishing, Boating & Leisure

Ports

Oil & Gas

Indigenous

Government

Conservation

Community

Commercial Fishing

Charter/ Game Fishing

Figure 2: Stakeholder groups/sectors providing feedback excluding campaigns

No analysis is provided in relation to the geographic origin of the submissions because of the large proportion of submissions received via email for which there is little or no indication of place of origin.

4. Focus of the submissions

It is evident from the submissions received that the difference between the draft Marine Bioregional Plan and marine reserve network proposal was not well understood by some submission authors. The majority of submissions received relate to the Commonwealth marine reserve network proposals, although one campaign submission and 21 separate submissions also refer to the draft Marine Bioregional Plan for the North Marine Region. Discussion on the feedback received on the marine reserve network proposals and the draft Marine Bioregional Plan is presented separately in Sections 5 and 6.

5. Feedback received on the North Commonwealth marine reserve network proposal

Feedback received on the marine reserve network proposal for the North Marine Region was diverse, with comments ranging from the need for greater protection of Australia’s marine environment to concern about the impacts of conservation proposals on the lives and jobs of people who depend on marine resources. There was widespread recognition of the region’s ecological significance and the social and economic role that marine resources play in the nation’s prosperity.

Overall there was a high level of support for increasing the protection of Australia’s marine environment through the establishment of marine reserves. Different views were expressed about how this should be achieved and how to balance biodiversity conservation objectives with the sustainable use of marine resources.

1.45%

7.25%

7.25%

0.00%

2.90%

14.50%

4.34%

26.08%

7.25%

26.08%

2.90%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Tourism

Science

Recreational fishing, Boating & Leisure

Ports

Oil & Gas

Indigenous

Government

Conservation

Community

Commercial Fishing

Charter/ Game Fishing

Submissions presented a wide variety of views on the extent to which highly protected zones should be included within the network of marine reserves. Views ranged from perceptions that the area of the proposed Marine National Park zones is too small to perceptions that the area proposed for high protection is too large. Different views about the social and economic implications of the proposed marine reserve networks were also received with comments focusing on the potential impacts on quality of life, recreational opportunities and the viability of regional communities.

Feedback about the marine reserve network proposal presented in submissions has been grouped under seven themes and 44 comment fields (Appendix 1). Many people provided feedback on a range of issues so that one submission could contribute feedback consistent with multiple themes (Table 2). The seven themes under which stakeholder feedback has been grouped are:

1. No support for marine reserves

Feedback under this theme asserts that there is no need to establish marine reserves to protect the marine environment.

2. Support for the marine reserves as proposed

Feedback under this theme refers to support for the marine reserve network proposal that was released for public consultation (ie. with no amendment).

3. Support for marine reserves but with a higher level of protection

Feedback under this theme refers to support for the establishment of the proposed marine reserve network but with amendment to result in higher levels of protection. Amendments requested include introduction of a larger area of highly protected zones within the proposed marine reserve network and/or increases to the total area of the marine reserve network.

4. Concerned with protection of the marine environment

Feedback under this theme relates to general support for protection of the marine environment without reference to the marine reserve network proposal.

5. Concerned with social and economic impacts of reserves

Feedback under this theme includes concerns about potential impacts of marine reserves on people who use the marine environment and activities such as commercial fishing, recreational and game fishing, petroleum operations, and the use of marine resources for cultural and commercial purposes by Native Title holders and other Indigenous people.

6. Concerned with management of reserves

Feedback under this theme relates to concerns about future management of marine reserve networks. Feedback includes concerns about the feasibility of managing large, remote protected areas, the significant resources required for enforcement, compliance and monitoring, and the absence of information to support adequate management of a large network of marine reserves.

7. Other

Feedback under this theme relates to issues that were not otherwise possible to group under the other six themes.

Table 2: Feedback themes

Note: Many people provided feedback on a range of issues so that one submission may be attributed to more than one theme.

NORTH MARINE REGION

Theme

Proportion of submissions

(incl. campaigns)

Proportion of submissions

(excl. campaigns)

No support for marine reserves

Less than 0.1% 7.2%

Support for the marine reserves as proposed

Less than 0.1% 8.7%

Support for the marine reserves but with a higher level of protection

99.7% 47.8%

Concerned with protection of the marine environment

Less than 0.1% 8.7%

Concerned with social and economic impacts of reserves

1.2% 59.4%

Concerned with management of reserves

0.3% 49.3%

Other 0.3% 47.8%

Figure 4: Feedback themes

5.1 No support for marine reserves

Less than 0.1% of all feedback on the North Marine Region opposed establishment of marine reserves in any form. Excluding campaign submissions, 7.2% of feedback received was consistent with this theme and included assertions that management of commercial and recreational fishing activities is adequate so that no further measures are required to protect the marine environment, as well as claims that there is no evidence to support the need for establishment of marine reserves.

Feedback consistent with this theme originated from the recreational fishing, boating, tourism and charter fishing sectors as well as the commercial fishing industry.

Support for the marine reserves as proposed

Support for marine reserves but with a higher level of protection

Concerned with the protection of the marine environment

Concerned with social and economic impacts of reserves

Concerned with management of reserves

No support for marine reserves

Feedback themes (excluding campaigns)

Feedback themes (including campaigns)

5.2 Support for the marine reserves as proposed

In total, less than 0.1% of feedback on the North Marine Region expressed support for the marine reserve networks without amendment. Excluding campaign submissions, 8.7% of feedback described sentiments consistent with this theme. Feedback consistent with this theme included general support for the marine reserve network proposal or specific requests that the area proposed for highly protected zones not be increased.

Feedback consistent with this theme was submitted by a range of groups and people from different sectors including the Queensland and Northern Territory governments, the conservation sector, recreational fishing sector and Indigenous organisations.

5.3 Support for marine reserves but with a higher level of protection

The majority of all feedback received (99.7%) supported the marine reserve network proposal with amendment to increase levels of protection. All campaign submissions from the conservation sector fall within this theme. Excluding campaign submissions, 47.8% of feedback was consistent with this theme.

Feedback consistent with this theme was provided by the conservation and research sectors, community representatives, the recreational and game fishing sector and Indigenous organisations. In most cases, feedback called for increased protection across the proposed marine reserve network as a whole (particularly in relation to expansion in the total area of the proposed marine reserve network), further restrictions on activities permitted within Multiple Use Zones, and/or expansion of the total area of proposed highly protected zones. In some cases however, specific requests for increased levels of protection within a specific reserve and/or introduction of new reserves to the network proposal were made.

5.4 Concerned with protection of the marine environment

Six submissions presented feedback that described general support for protection of the marine environment without specific reference to the marine reserve network proposal for the North Marine Region. The authors of these submissions expressed general concern about the impacts of marine based activities and the need for protection measures to reduce these impacts.

5.5 Concerned with social and economic impacts of reserves

While nearly all feedback on the North Marine Region was generally supportive of marine protection and the establishment of marine reserves, there was also a significant proportion of feedback in relation to concerns about the potential social and economic impacts of the proposed marine reserve network. Campaign submissions from members of a recreational fishing group expressed concerns about the impact of the proposed Wessel marine reserve on recreational and game fishing activities.

Excluding campaign submissions, 59.4% of feedback was consistent with this theme, and was provided by the commercial, recreational, game and charter fishing sectors, community

members, the Queensland, Northern Territory and local governments, the oil and gas sector, and Indigenous people and organisations. Feedback from the conservation sector included calls for measures to address any adverse social and economic impacts arising from the establishment of marine reserves.

The largest proportion of feedback consistent with this theme was provided by the commercial fishing sector. Feedback included concerns about the displacement of specific fishing activities resulting in increased operating costs, impacts on the profitability of businesses, changes in the value of fishing licences, and the impacts of uncertainty on access to capital and ability of fishing and fishing-related businesses to plan for the future. Feedback about the potential impacts of marine reserves on future or ‘prospective’ fishing was also raised by the commercial fishing sector. Most feedback from the commercial fishing sector consistent with this theme described requested changes to zoning arrangements and/or boundaries of the proposed marine reserves to address impacts on fishing activities.

Feedback from Indigenous people and organisations within this theme raised concerns about possible impacts on commercial fishing opportunities for Indigenous people and potential restrictions on access to marine resources.

Representatives of the petroleum sector providing feedback under this theme raised concerns about the implications of Marine National Park zones for prospective oil and gas areas, the development of infrastructure (e.g. pipelines), and seismic and other operations in adjacent areas.

5.6 Concerned with management of reserves

A large proportion of feedback (excluding campaign submissions) on the North Marine Region (49.3%) related to the future management of new networks of marine reserves. Sectors contributing feedback under this theme included research organisations, community representatives, conservation organisations, the Queensland, Northern Territory and local governments, commercial, charter and recreational fishing representatives, the oil and gas industry, and Indigenous people and organisations.

Many people providing feedback under this theme referred to concerns about the level of funding required to effectively manage and enforce management arrangements in networks of marine reserves and uncertainty about who will undertake management and enforcement. Representatives of the oil and gas industry specifically raised queries about potential changes to the regulation of petroleum activities within and adjacent to future marine reserves.

Most Indigenous representatives providing feedback under this theme called for the involvement of Indigenous people and organisations in the making of marine reserve management plans as well as the future management of marine reserves. Indigenous groups and conservation organisations also called for complementary reserve boundaries, zoning and management arrangements across adjacent state/territory and Commonwealth waters.

5.7 Other feedback

Feedback that does not fall under the six themes described above included calls for a national approach towards the collection and reporting of fisheries data, challenges to the scientific basis of the marine reserve proposals, and concerns about the adequacy of the application of government policy in the design, location and zoning of the proposed marine reserves. A number of submissions also raised concerns about consultation processes and the response of government to views raised by different sectors.

6. Feedback received on the draft North Marine Bioregional Plan

Of all submissions received, one campaign submission and 21 separate submissions describe feedback on the draft North Marine Bioregional Plan. All those who made a submission on the draft Plan also made a submission on the marine reserve network proposal.

Of those submissions that referred to the draft Marine Bioregional Plan, six expressed support for Marine Bioregional Plans and associated information resources, and none of the submissions on the Plan expressed negative views about their intent or content. Representatives from the commercial fishing industry, a research organisation and the oil and gas sector provided the most substantial feedback on the draft Plan.

Feedback on the draft Marine Bioregional Plans has been grouped under the four themes below.

6.1 Strengthening the Plan’s strategies and actions

Most submissions received on the draft Marine Bioregional Plan expressed support for the strategies presented in the draft Plan but called for more detail about the proposed actions, including more information on timing and funding. Specific feedback on the strategies and actions included calls for:

acknowledgement of the contribution that the commercial fishing industry makes in relation to marine research and the measures the fishing industry takes to mitigate its environmental impacts,

increased emphasis on collaboration between communities, researchers and governments on fisheries research, particularly in relation to monitoring and analysis of recreational fishing,

increased emphasis on measures to address impacts of climate change on the marine environment,

increased application of offsets as a conservation measure, and

incorporation of a strategy to involve Indigenous people in the identification and implementation of actions.

One submission called for strategic assessments as part of the implementation of the Marine Bioregional Plan. Several submissions also called for the incorporation of regional priorities specific to activities associated with offshore oil, gas and mineral exploration and mining.

6.2 Pressures on conservation values

A number of submissions in this theme included feedback on the characterisation and/or rating of pressures on conservation values. In particular, feedback related to:

perceptions that some sector-specific pressures are given too much emphasis,

concerns that many strategies and actions are too broad and give too much emphasis to some species and/or key ecological features,

inadequate consideration being given to recent literature in the assessment of pressures,

inadequate consideration being given to pressures associated with the growth in certain marine industries (e.g. ports, shipping, oil and gas) and the need for oil spills to be given a greater pressure rating than currently described in the draft Plan,

concerns about the scientific justification of pressure ratings and species habitat distributions, and

lack of evidence to support pressure ratings described for some activities.

Much feedback in this theme also related to concerns about the method used to assess pressures. These submissions called for:

description of a process to periodically review and update pressure ratings,

development of an approach to assess the cumulative impacts of pressures on conservation values and the marine environment.

6.3 Need to articulate a framework for monitoring and review

Many submissions providing feedback consistent with this theme recommended that a clear framework for evaluation and review should be included in the final Marine Bioregional Plans. Some called for a transparent and consultative process for reviewing the final Plans, particularly in relation to environmental pressures, and some called for scientific review of the plans.

6.4 Supporting information resources

There was no feedback received on the draft Marine Bioregional Plan that was unsupportive of the information resources developed to assist its implementation. Many submissions specifically acknowledged the usefulness of the web-based Conservation Values Atlas with some calling for expansion of its content and application, and some praised the Conservation Values Report Cards as informative and simple to use.

Appendix 1: Summary of feedback described in submissions on the North

Marine Region

Note - as many submissions present feedback on a range of issues, one submission may be grouped under multiple categories and themes resulting in totals greater than 100%

Theme: No support for marine reserves

Key Comments: incl. campaign

submissions excl. campaign

submissions No need for marine reserves <0.1% 7.2%

Theme: Support for the marine reserves as proposed



submissions General support <0.1% 8.7%

No changes to current proposal and, particularly, no additional marine national park zones

<0.1% 1.4%

Theme: Support for the marine reserves but with a higher level of protection



submissions Increase protection for marine species and/or habitat type 98.7% 26.1%

Concern about oil and gas operations within the marine environment 74.9% 14.5%

No oil and gas within reserves in any zones <0.1% 8.7%

Keep recreational fishing (including catch and release) out of marine national park zones

<0.1% 2.9%

Need stronger restrictions on gear types in multiple use zones 0.9% 14.5%

Proposed marine national park zones are inadequate 98.8% 42.0%

Theme: Concerned with the protection of the marine environment



submissions

General support for protection of the marine environment <0.1% 2.9%

Concerned about impacts of industry activities in the marine environment

<0.1% 7.2%

Theme: Concerned with social and economic impacts of reserves



submissions

Uncertainty about implications of reserves for existing or future uses 0.1% 21.7%

Allow recreational fishing in marine national park zones 0.9% 14.5%

Change to reduce impacts on fishing prospectivity <0.1% 13.0%

Disagree with proposed restrictions on gear types in multiple use zones 0.1% 18.8%

Change boundaries of Joseph Bonaparte marine reserve to reduce impacts on commercial fishing

<0.1% 10.1%

Change boundaries of Oceanic Shoals marine reserve to reduce impacts on commercial fishing

<0.1% 13.0%

Change boundaries of Arafura marine reserve to reduce impacts on commercial fishing

<0.1% 13.0%

Change boundaries of Arnhem marine reserve to reduce impacts on <0.1% 11.6%

commercial fishing

Change boundaries of Wessel marine reserve to reduce impacts on commercial fishing

<0.1% 8.7%

Change boundaries of Limmen marine reserve to reduce impacts on commercial fishing

<0.1% 1.4%

Change boundaries of Gulf of Carpentaria marine reserve to reduce impacts on commercial fishing

0.1% 18.8%

Change boundaries of West Cape York marine reserve to reduce impacts on commercial fishing

<0.1% 17.4%

Change boundaries of Wessel marine reserve to reduce impacts on recreational/charter fishing

0.9% 5.8%

Avoid any impact on traditional and commercial use of resources by Native Title holders

<0.1% 11.6%

Proposed reserves may result in safety issues for commercial fishers <0.1% 4.3%

Questions about commercial fishing buy-out and assistance, including adequacy of funding

0.1% 27.5%

Concerns about potential for increased competition due to commercial fishing displacement

0.1% 24.6%

Theme: Concerned with management of reserves



submissions

Questions about management/enforcement issues, including adequacy of funding

0.2% 30.4%

Need to assess economic and social benefits of marine national park zones

<0.1% 5.8%

Increase and fast-track research into resilience of marine ecosystems to climate change

<0.1% 8.7%

Align boundaries with state marine parks <0.1% 13.0%

Monitor impact of recreational fishing in reserves <0.1% 1.4%

Need to streamline environmental/approvals processes for petroleum operations

<0.1% 2.9%

Uncertainty about assessment/approvals process for petroleum operations in marine reserves

<0.1% 2.9%

Increase Traditional Owners’ and Indigenous representative bodies’ participation in development and management of reserves

0.1% 24.6%

Concern with potential relationship between Indigenous Protected Areas and reserves

<0.1% 5.8%

Need for stakeholder engagement in management <0.1% 11.6%

Improve information base for management (including research, monitoring and evaluation)

<0.1% 13.0%

Theme: Other



submissions

Address at national level issue of fisheries data quality and resolution <0.1% 1.4%

Challenging scientific basis for marine reserve identification <0.1% 8.7%

Concerned about adequacy of consultation process <0.1% 10.1%

Concern that fisheries have been treated differently to oil and gas <0.1% 11.6%

Critical of application of goals and principles used to design network <0.1% 27.5%

marine bioregional planning in the north marine region –...

Documents