On 4th July last year the area zoned ‘Green’, and thus off-limits to commercial and recreational fishers in Great Barrier Reef (GBR) water, was increased from 4.5 per cent to 33.3 per cent of the total GBR area. This was the culmination of a hard fought campaign spearheaded by World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
There had been limits on the number of commercial licenses and numbers of fish that could be caught – but this 33.3 per cent represented a massive increase in the actual area off-limits to fishers.
The Federal Government had promised compensation to assist fishermen, related businesses and communities affected by the implementation of the new zoning.
Just yesterday, commercial fishermen said the compensation bill resulting from closures on the Great Barrier Reef could top $100 million. According to ABC Online:
The Federal Government has announced it has already spent more than $40 million buying out fishing licences and supporting businesses affected by the fishing bans.
The Commonwealth says 120 applications have been processed so far and it believes there could be 300 more by the end of the year.
Greg Radley from the Queensland Seafood Industry Association says the total compensation bill will be expensive.
“I would assume that it was somewhere between $60 and $70 million at this stage,” he said.
Alexandra de Blas (ABCRadio National Earthbeat) report in January 2003 that:
Alexandra de Blas: So it’s worth about $50 million in Australia now; what fish do we supply, and to where?
Geoff Muldoon: Since the advent of the trade in 1993, the export of live reef fish from Australia has comprised almost entirely of coral trout. Somewhere between 90% and 95% of all fish that are exported live are coral trout. The trade has increased from around about 100 tonnes per year to about 1200 tonnes per year of coral trout. We’ve seen basically a fishery that was primarily selling frozen fish shift almost entirely to supplying live reef fish. The overall catch of coral trout on the Great Barrier Reef hasn’t actually increased very much at all, in fact it’s remained relatively stable since about the mid ’90s.
Alexandra de Blas: How do our practices here in Australia compare with the practices in Asia and the Pacific?
Geoff Muldoon: Our practices compare very well. Within Australia, fishermen are only permitted to remove coral trout by hook and line techniques, that is, a hook on a handline will be baited with a pilchard, hung over the side of the vessel and the fish will be brought up by the fisherman, kept alive in tanks on the boats, which contrasts very strongly with the cyanide and dynamite fishing and gill net fishing and trap fishing approaches adopted in sort of less developed countries of the world.
Alexandra de Blas: Jeffrey Muldoon, from the International Marine Life Alliance. His organisation and others, are working to ensure that Australia’s standards are adopted around the world.
Australia exports all its fish by air, which reduces mortalities to 2%, a huge reduction on the 50% losses recorded on the transport boats used in Asia.
Australia has traditionally imported relatively large volumes of low value fish and exported small volumes of high value fisheries products, see http://www.abareconomics.com/outlook/PDF/abare_seafood.pdf .
Coral trout are the most heavily line fished species on Australia’s GBR. The annual yield (total line fishery) for the entire GBR (before the increase in Green zone area) had been calculated at 17 kg/km2 by Walter Starck, see http://ipa.org.au/files/IPABackgrounder17-1.pdf, pg 4.
This is very low relative to other Pacific Reefs which average 7,700 kgs/km2 with a sustainable yield calculated at 10,000 kg/km2, see comparison and http://ipa.org.au/files/IPABackgrounder17-1.pdf, pg 5.
I tend to think that government is paying off and retiring fishers who could be out catching fish.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
In the midst of the public consultation period, I heard a veteran (40 year) fisherman on talk-back radio suggest that trawling the sea grass beds without reprieve prevented reef fish stock recovery. He recommended a two year moratorium on all trawling every forty years, to achieve robust and sustainable stocks. It seems, though, that trawling was not targetted by the rezonings as much as minimalising the presence of recreational and commercial fishers on the reef itself, which may account for suggestions that tourism was prominent in GBRMPA determinations
Neil, The Queensland Trawl Fishery is a different story. A deal was done between Ted Loveday (representing the Trawl Fishers) and the GBRMPA in I think 2001. From memory they picked up a $30 million compensation package for reduced effort/licences.
Jennifer, nothwithstanding the reduction, the significant point concerned the lack of reprieve denying the reef stock recovery. If there is legitimacy to the notion that going without trawling within the GBR coastal portion for two years every forty would resolve conservation/tourism concerns – without disenfranchising the recreational and commercial fishers, then it should be scientifically, socially and economically evaluated. The outcomes of the current exclusions included the establishment of an Australian Fishing Party that impacted upon the outcomes of the last Senate election.
Neil, I would be interested in the data/evidence that gives legitimacy to the notion that not trawling 2 out of every 40 years would significantly boost fish numbers.
It was evident to the 40-year fisherman, having trawled thoughout his career, that the sea grass breeding grounds were removed of not only prawns but just about everything else large enough to be ensnared by the methodology, including juvenile reef fish.
I personally place great stock on such advice, particularly when the fisherman admitted risking the furious backlash of his lifelong industry colleagues, in sincere words to the effect, it would be a bald-faced lie to deny otherwise.
The abundantly-resourced GBRMPA and Reef CRC might evaluate such an hypothesis, and provide a scientific objectivity to compare with the currently unpopular approach.
What do you think?
I think that you have gone from suggesting that trawling should be banned two years in every 40 (for reasons I still don’t understand) to the suggestion that trawling is very destructive.
And my experience is that the GBRMPA worked hard to reduce the trawl effort – not sure how good their data was, and not sure where this campaign is at the moment.
jennifer , we are a rich country , like the americans and their oil – buy the fish in cheap from overseas and conserve our own stocks .
kartiya, we are fortunate to be a country rich in resources and opportunities. the australian (including the states) fishing industry is one of the most highly regulated fishing industries in the world. for a commercial fisher there are many hoops to jump through including: operating regulations, environmental sustainability standards, OH&S, food safety requirements to name a few. consider the the countries that produce those cheap fish that you are interested in buying, vietnam, thailand, china to name but a few. now think about the social and environmental issues surrounding some of these countries and ask yourself which is better? do you know who harvested the fish, how did they catch it, how much did the workers get paid, what is the water quality like, is it fresh or frozen, what impacts has aquaculture had on the environment. what are their coral reefs and seagrass beds like?
but i guess if it’s not in our back yard it doesn’t matter right?
granted, fisheries management in australia still has a long way to go before fisheries are completely sustainable, at least we are on the way. what happened to supporting ‘buy australian’? i know as a consumer and environmental advocate i would prefer to buy my seafood from australia. we don’t use cynanide or dynamite for one.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1489050.htm ABC Online Update