Chapter 3
Matters outside the scope of the Bill
3.1
In addition to issues relating to the proposed amendments to the EPBC
Act, the committee received evidence on matters outside the scope of the Bill.
In particular, the committee's attention was repeatedly drawn to debate
regarding whether bioregional plans and Commonwealth marine reserves are
effective environmental management strategies.
3.2
Several submitters questioned the merit of Commonwealth marine reserves
and bioregional plans.[1]
Mr Bayne of the Coral Sea Access Alliance, argued that '[i]t is not appropriate
to continually rely on little else but exclusion and fisheries restrictions as
the panaceas for almost every marine environment problem.'[2]
Similarly, Mr Jones, Marine Queensland, questioned whether the existing
environmental management strategies are fundamentally flawed, commenting that
'one of the key failures of this processes...is that there seems to be this
obsession with whether a fish can be caught or not caught'. Mr Jones submitted
that this was 'actually misguided' as '[t]he impact on healthy waterways tends
to be about land based activities and the impact of activities such as...coal
ships, cargo ships and oil spills'.[3]
Dr Diggles shared these concerns, stating:
The area management is impotent, because the water moves
across the lines and the actual ecosystem processes are what is driving the
ecology of the area, the decline of the area and the reduction of biodiversity
in the area. It is understanding the fact that we have these processes involved
that cannot be managed by the line on the map.[4]
3.3
Similarly, Professor Kearney argued:
Area management, in the form of marine closures, cannot
provide appropriate protection against the major threats to our ecosystems, in
particular pollution in its many forms, introduced and translocated species;
organisms such as marine pests or diseases, and pervasive threats such as ocean
acidification.[5]
3.4
Several submissions advocated for an alternative approach to marine
management. Dr Diggles argued for 'risk analysis or risk management'.[6]
Dr Diggles commented that 'the actual risk associated with that ecosystem
may be originating from outside the lines on the map and, therefore, it is more
of a holistic ecosystem approach.'[7]
Marine Queensland also supported a risk-based approach, recommending that
'[m]arine protection measures, where deemed necessary, will address objective
threats to marine environments'.[8]
This view was shared by Professor Kearney, who submitted that:
If you are going to manage any environment or any issue you
first look at the threats and you then look at the ways in which they might be
managed. You assess what is appropriate for each area and what outcomes you
want, and then you implement the system that is most appropriate for that
process and for that area.[9]
3.5
Conversely, it was put to the committee that the creation of bioregional
plans and Commonwealth marine reserves is an appropriate response to the risks
facing Australia's marine environment. Mr Kindleysides, AMCS, stated that
'[m]arine reserves are internationally recognised as a proven tool for
conserving marine biodiversity'.[10]
Mr Kindleysides further argued that the plans and reserves are part of a suite
of measures to address environmental concerns:
It is very fair to say that they are not intended to be an
alternative to or a substitute for good management of a marine environment.
They are not intended to be an alternative to good fisheries management. They
are complementary to and need to be complemented by measures to tackle things
like pollution...Marine conservation is a tool box and one, if not the most
proven, tool is marine protected areas, but certainly it is not the only tool
and in fact there is a whole range of measures that need to be introduced[11]
3.6
This view was shared by the Department, which provided extensive
comments in response to concerns with the use of bioregional plans and
Commonwealth marine reserves. Mr Stephen Oxley, First Assistant Secretary with
the Department explained to the committee that opponents of marine reserves are
missing a key point: Australia's international obligation to establish the National
Representative System of Marine Protected Areas:
There is a lot of evidence [before the committee] questioning
the policy rationale for creating marine reserves to the effect that their
existence and zoning should be justified on the basis of demonstrated threats
and the capacity of marine protected areas to mitigate those threats...That
line of argument misses a key policy foundation of the present reserve network
identification process; that is, that what we are seeking to achieve is to
develop a national representative system of marine protected areas that
includes within it examples of the full range of ecosystems found within
Australia’s waters. That system is known as it is growing as the National
Representative System of Marine Protected Areas...[T]he goals and principles
for the establishment of the National Representative System of Marine Protected
Areas in Commonwealth waters...make some reference to threats or risks in the
sense that the capacity of an MPA to mitigate identified risks to conservation
values is a valid consideration when choosing where to locate the
representative system...At its core we are building a representative system
which is all about making sure that in perpetuity we have examples functioning
effectively of all the different ecosystems that are present in the
Commonwealth marine area, and the goals and principles are designed to deliver
that. The essential policy rationale is that in doing that as one tool in the
overall set of tools for managing man’s presence in the marine environment,
they can make a significant contribution to supporting the health and
resilience of the marine environment.[12]
Committee view
3.7
The committee notes the divergent views regarding environmental
management policies and approaches. However, the inquiry did not afford the
opportunity to thoroughly investigate the effectiveness of marine national
parks and their contribution to the National Representative System of Marine Protected
Areas, as these matters were outside the scope of the Bill. Accordingly, the
committee makes no comment in this regard.
Senator Doug Cameron
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page