Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  11
Division/Agency:	Marine Division
Topic:	Sharks
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice
Senator Siewert asked:
(a).	Is the Department undertaking any assessment of shark fisheries in Australia waters other than the ongoing Western Australian assessment? 
(b).	If so, which ones and at what stage is the assessment?
(c).	Does the department acknowledge:
(i)	That the true status of most shark populations in Australian waters is unknown?
(ii)	That basic biological information is lacking for almost all species of sharks?
(iii)	That knowledge of habitat preferences and other ecological requirements is poor or unknown?
(iv)	That there is inadequate monitoring, enforcement and research programs specifically designed for sharks?
(v)	That there is wide spread concern about the apparent decline in shark numbers?
(d).	Has the National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks been reviewed?
(e).	If so, when and what were the outcomes of that review?
(f).	Has the department considered the listing of shark species on CITES?

Answer/s:
(a).	Yes

(b).	The Department has completed the assessment of a number of fisheries which either take sharks as target species or as byproduct. These include: the Northern Territory Shark Fishery, Queensland Gulf of Carpentaria Inshore Finfish Fishery and the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery. Currently the Department is also assessing the Queensland East Coast Inshore Finfish Fishery which is due for completion in May 2006.
(c).	
(i)	Yes
(ii)	Yes
(iii)	Yes
(iv)	No
(v)	Yes
(d).	No
(e).	Not applicable
(f).	Yes. Australia supported the nominations of the Basking Shark and Whale Shark at the twelfth Conference of the Parties to CITES and successfully nominated, jointly with Madagascar, the Great White Shark at the thirteenth Conference.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  20
Division/Agency:	Marine Division
Topic:	Coral Bleaching
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice
Senator Siewert asked:
(a).	I am after some information on coral bleaching. There was the big talk about coral bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef a couple of weeks ago. The situation sounds pretty bad. I am interested to know what the situation is in Ningaloo, if you are aware of it. If you are not aware of what the situation is, is anybody looking? 

(b).	Can you tell us about the other Commonwealth marine parks in the northern waters and the extent of coral bleaching in those areas well?

Answer/s:
(a).	On 14 March 2006 the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a coral bleaching warning for Ningaloo Reef based on satellite data indicating that sea surface temperatures in the area have recently exceeded the maximum monthly mean by 1 degree Celsius. Whilst this does not mean that bleaching is occurring, bleaching events become more likely if elevated water temperatures persist. 
	The coral reef communities of Ningaloo Marine Park susceptible to coral bleaching occur in the State waters which are managed by the Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management. 
	Research into the impacts of climate change, including coral bleaching, will be implemented at Ningaloo Reef as part of the WA State Government’s Ningaloo Research Program. This research will assess current and potential impacts of climate change on the reef system and inform management of the Ningaloo marine conservation reserves. 
(b).	There have been no reports of coral bleaching this year in any of the Commonwealth reserves managed by the Department. There has been coral bleaching documented in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park this year.
	Surveys conducted by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in March 2006 recorded severe coral bleaching in the Keppel Islands and moderate bleaching in the Capricorn Bunker Group. However, bleaching was focused in the southern third of the GBR, with only minor bleaching in the central and northern regions, and was not as widespread or significant as the mass bleaching that occurred in 2002.
	In 2003 there was a major bleaching event across much of northern Australia in which four Commonwealth coral reef reserves were effected. These were Coringa-Herald, Lihou Reef and Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserves and Cartier Island Marine Reserve.
	A follow up survey at Lihou Reef in October 2004 revealed that the reef was recovering well. A follow up survey at Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island in 2005 revealed that some areas of the two reefs were recovering better than others.
	The 2003 survey indicated that Coringa-Herald Reserve may have also experienced an earlier bleaching event in 2002.
	A mild bleaching event occurred at Mermaid Reef in 2005 with a follow up survey planned for this year or 2007. 
	Coral bleaching has been linked to global warming and higher than usual sea water temperatures. There is very little that can be done at a Reserve management level to counter what is a global issue. However, scientists are now identifying factors such as coral health and high biodiversity that appear to promote resilience to bleaching resulting in less coral death and shorter recovery times. Promotion of coral reef resilience and ongoing monitoring is integral to the management of the Commonwealth coral reef reserves.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  27
Division/Agency:	Marine Division
Topic:	Cost of Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Structural Adjustment Package
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Joyce asked:
The GBRMPA delivered a document to the Commonwealth Parliament that stated the impact from RAP would be between $0.52 and $2.59 million (total impact, including flow on) and, immediately following the introduction of the plan, the Bureau of Rural Sciences conducted a study that showed the impact would be at least $10 million dollars, in lost landed catch alone. To date, however the Restructure Package has cost the federal government over $50 million dollars, and is continuing to increase.

(a)	How does the GBRMPA explain that the actual cost to the Commonwealth Government and the Australian Community is already above $50 million dollars, and rising? 

(b)	Does the GBRMPA believe that this margin of error is acceptable? 

(c)	Does the GBRMPA believe its knowledge and balance of social and economic impacts was adequate for the implementation of a plan such as RAP?

Answer/s:
(a)	The estimated impact range $0.52-2.59 million was the estimate of gross value added (GVA) derived from the gross value of production (GVP) for commercial fishing displaced by the rezoning. GVA is the value of the fishing over and above the costs of fishing. The GVP of annual catch displaced was estimated at $13.7 million annually in an independent assessment undertaken by PDP Australia Pty Ltd. It was not claimed that the PDP estimate represented the total impact, including flow on. 

In September 2003, the GBRMPA estimated the impact of the draft Zoning Plan on the GVP of commercial fisheries as $11.5-17 million. A QSIA-sponsored, University of Queensland assessment estimated the economic impact of the draft Zoning Plan on commercial fisheries, in terms of foregone annual production, to exceed $23 million. An independent BRS report commissioned by the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation estimated that the annual impact of implementing the revised Zoning Plan on all commercial fisheries to be in the order of $13.5-14 million in reduced GVP.

It is not possible to accurately compare estimates of the impact of the rezoning on the GVP of fisheries with the cost of a structural adjustment package. While GVP is one measure of impact that can be used to inform the development of an adjustment package, a range of other factors need to be taken into account. These include issues such as the capacity of the fishery to absorb displaced effort, costs potentially incurred by fishermen in shifting effort to new locations and the pressure of increased competition within a smaller area available to fish. The potential for flow-on impacts to fishery related businesses also needs to be taken into account. These considerations are covered by the Australian Government’s policy statement on Marine Protected Areas and Displaced Fishing, which was released in January 2004 and informed the development of the final structural adjustment package.

(b)	The GBRMPA impact estimates for annual gross value of production and net business returns after expenses were quite different from the requirements of a comprehensive structural adjustment programme. 

(c)	The Regulatory Impact Statement (which accompanied the tabling of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003), Bureau of Rural Sciences report and the peer-reviewed report entitled “An economic and social evaluation of implementing the Representative Areas Program by rezoning the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park” indicate the extent of knowledge of the perceived social and economic impacts of the rezoning of the Marine Park. These documents have been available on the GBRMPA website since 2003. 

Outcome:	Environment				Question No:  28
Division/Agency:	Marine Division
Topic:	Recreational fishing industry compensation
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Joyce asked:

After identifying the impact to the commercial fishing industry and allocating a compensation package why was this process not also undertaken for the recreational fishing industry?

Answer/s:
Adjustment assistance under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Structural Adjustment Package is available to all fishery related businesses which can demonstrate that they have experienced negative impacts as a consequence of rezoning. The guidelines make no distinction between commercial and recreational fishing businesses. Recreational businesses such as retailers supplying fishing boats and equipment, and recreational charter boats, have been offered assistance under the package. A major study was undertaken to estimate the impacts of the rezoning on the recreational fishing sector and this is available to applicants to help them demonstrate the impacts of the rezoning on their businesses.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  47
Division/Agency:	Marine Division
Topic:	GRMPA Structural Adjustment Package
Hansard Page ECITA:	138

Senator McLucas asked:

How many recommendations from QRAA to DEH have not been accepted?

Answer/s:
To date, 94 Full Business Restructure Assistance applications have been finalised by DEH based on QRAA recommendations. Of these, 53 recommendations were accepted without change. Of the 41 QRAA recommendations not agreed by DEH, 23 were approved at a lower level of adjustment assistance and 18 at a higher level of adjustment assistance than recommended by QRAA.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  48
Division/Agency:	Marine Division
Topic:	Regional Marine Planning
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Siewert asked:
How does the new approach to regional marine planning under Section 176 differ from the Commonwealth’s previous approach to marine planning?

Answer/s:
Marine bioregional planning will be primarily concerned with identifying and implementing measures to achieve the Australian Government’s environment and heritage objectives within Commonwealth waters.
The regional marine planning program will also incorporate the identification of Marine Protected Areas (previously undertaken as a separate program) to meet the Government’s obligations under the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas.
This new approach to marine planning is focused more clearly on identifying and addressing conservation priorities in the marine environment. Marine bioregional plans will provide much clearer advice to the public, industry and project proponents about the Government’s conservation priorities in each marine region.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  49
Division/Agency:	Marine Division
Topic:	Regional marine planning
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Siewert asked:
What is the expected date for completion of the Northern Regional Marine Plan?

Answer/s:
Currently the Commonwealth is implementing a refocussed approach to regional marine planning to bring it under the EPBC Act. Work is underway to utilise the information and data collected to date to finalise the regional marine plan for the Northern planning area. A deadline for completion has yet to be set. 

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  50
Division/Agency:	Marine Division
Topic:	Marine Protected Areas
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Siewert asked: 
Does the Commonwealth have a timetable for implementation of the Commonwealth component of the National Representative System of MPAs which it plans to establish by 2012? If yes, please provide details

Answer/s:
The Commonwealth is committed to delivering a network of representative Marine Protected Areas in Commonwealth waters by 2012. MPAs will be developed region-by-region as part of the Regional Marine Planning process. 

The timetable is not yet fixed, however Regional Marine Plans are currently being developed for the North and will soon be developed for the South-west and other regions. 

The Regional Marine Plan for the South-east was completed in 2004 and MPA development in the South-east is expected to be completed by the end of the 2006 calendar year.