Reply With QuoteSounds great Grant. Thank you again.
Derek
September 07 Update
The Moreton Bay Access Alliance has been hard at work on two main fronts as a part of our program to ensure that the problems and concerns experienced in previous marine park developments are addressed in the process of completing the 2007/08 review of Moreton Bay Marine Park.
Advocacy re EPA’s Review Process
Firstly, we have continued to represent the interests of the boating and fishing public, the commercial fishing and aquaculture industries, charter and tourism operators and of course the wide range of marine industries that serve them. MBAA’s six representatives on EPA’s Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG) have worked hard to ensure that EPA is thoroughly informed about the potential impact of fishing closures on our stakeholders.
EPA released a draft habitat map of the Bay delineating what they considered to be the 16 different habitat types that make up the Bay’s different ecosystems. Bear in mind here that the Government has accepted their expert scientific advisory panel’s recommendations, one of which is that at least 10% of all habitat types in the marine Park be protected in “no take/no fishing” (green) zones.
Knowing this, MBAA’s scientific team also developed our own habitat map and soon discovered that EPA’s map was based on just one study and did not take into account more recent and detailed studies, the result being some glaring inaccuracies. MBAA’s research team met with EPA’s scientists in August just before the Brisbane International Boat Show to review this work and as a result, EPA accepted the vast majority of our changes and updated their habitat map – a good sign that they are taking our research seriously and seem willing to make changes based on solid data.
EPA also presented their 35 “areas of interest for possible greater protection” in the Marine Park to the SRG. However they refused to publicly release a map showing these areas to stakeholders to enable them to properly consult with their members. MBAA representatives pushed hard and EPA eventually agreed to release GPS coordinates for a number of these areas, although because some areas boundaries followed depth contours, some of the areas boundaries were not provided.
Not surprisingly, the GPS marks EPA provided were quickly plotted by various groups and unofficial maps of these areas soon began to circulate on the net, causing great concern in many circles. EPA responded with a newspaper and radio campaign to try to reassure anglers that the areas of importance to them would not be closed to fishing, however feedback in fishing circles is that this message has not achieved its intended outcome.
In the meantime, MBAA representatives met in individual stakeholder groups with EPA to provide them with our views on the “areas of interest” and to advocate for alternatives where our research and knowledge showed that they would cause an unacceptable impact on fishing and associated activities or where the environmental benefits were questionable. The initial response at these meetings of EPA staff saw MBAA at an urgent meeting with (then) Minister Lindy Nelson-Carr. Since then, we have found a much more accommodating attitude in EPA, with an apparent willingness to consider changes and alternatives that our stakeholder representatives have put forward. At the end of the day, however, it will only be when the EPA releases their draft zoning map when we truly know whether this was real or a token effort.
MBAA has been busy on many other fronts too numerous to mention here, a couple of examples include on-on-one meetings with nearly every State MLA whose electorate faces onto the Bay to advocate for our interests and meeting with outboard distributors at the Boat Show to outline our strategy and to bring them up to speed with what’s planned.
MBAA’s Research Project
This project represents the second prong in our approach to the review. The aim of this project is to produce a zoning plan for the MBMP that achieves the Government’s environmental objectives whilst at the same time minimising impact on fishing, and is supported by all stakeholder groups. A key here is that all sectors – recreational, commercial and marine industries are working together in a united team, and are 100% committed to producing a result that we all support.
It is also pleasing to note that the Government has extended their review timeframes to allow EPA enough time to review and consider our proposals before they release their draft zoning plan for public comment, which is now expected towards the end of 2007. Minister Nelson-Carr also committed EPA to working through our project results in detail with our team before their draft is released.
The research will quantify exactly what happens in the Bay and what the flow-on effects are to the south east Queensland economy and local communities. The total project value is $226,000, which hasbeen jointly funded by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, (FRDC) who we are most thankful to, industry and recreational fishing groups.
Where are we at now?
At mid-September, we have completed our data gathering and analysis stages, and have produced habitat maps and maps of key fishing and boating locations. This has included surveys of all sectors (recreational fishing and boating, commercial fishing and charter boat sectors, tourism, seafood retail, recreational fishing tackle, and indigenous groups, and sourcing data from EPA, DPI Fisheries, and the Department of State Development.
These data sets have been translated into GIS layers to add to the maps of economic and social activity in the Moreton Bay Marine Park. These maps have been assessed by the project researchers in conjunction with industry leaders and experienced recreational sector representatives to identify gaps in information.
Habitat Data has been gathered by reviewing available research and verified by site visits where required. This information has been transferred into GIS layers to create a habitat map. This map is being used to ensure that the final outputs of this project meet the conservation goals of the EPA.
In early September we commenced the analysis phase, and by the end of September will have completed the “challenging” process of working with all sector representatives to come up with a consensus on a draft zoning map and report. This involves industry, community, recreational fishing and conservation representatives sitting around a table over several meetings to negotiate on where protection zones could be placed to achieve EPA’s conservation objectives, whilst minimizing impact on industries.
Excellent progress has been made in the two workshops that have been completed, and we are confident that the final meeting scheduled for this coming weekend will complete the work required. It’s been pleasing to see all sectors working so well together and striving to accommodate all perspectives, views and needs.
The aim of this final meeting will be to finalise exact coordinates & locations for areas that have been agreed on, evaluate the percentages of each habitat type that we have already set aside as highly protected areas through the last two meetings, and decide on what is still required to satisfy EPA’s and our own requirements. Blue and yellow zones will also be discussed.
The aim is to have a map by the end of the meeting that we are all in agreement on. Once all groups finalise their agreement, the map and research report will be submitted to EPA. Time is very tight – all this needs to occur by Friday 5 October 2007 to have the report to EPA in time for them to consider it before their draft is finalised.
Our aim, of course, is to convince Government of the obvious benefits of accepting a well researched proposal that is backed by defensible science and is supported by all key stakeholders. We have arranged a meeting with the new Minister Andrew McNamara MLA next week to further this process.
Grant Bennett
Deputy Chair MBAA
Sounds great Grant. Thank you again.
Derek
So what will be the process after the EPA releases their draft zoning plan? How set in concrete is the plan? Or is it a draft in the true sense of the word?
Cheers Chris
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
It all sounds good. I just hope the EPA is not just paying lip service to MBAA
Any chance of the info being presented to EPA could be made available to the public along with any alternate proposals being put forward
Regards
Neil
A Proud Member of
"The Rebel Alliance"
Hi Chris
The EPA says that they will have a quite long period in which the public can review the draft and provide formal submissions, before the new zoning plan is taken to Cabinet in time to come into effect in September 2008. See their website for more details.
Past experience suggests however that once the Government puts a draft out, it represents their preferred position and wholesale changes are unlikely. Fine tuning is about the best that has been achieved in the past in most cases, although I understand that in Hervey bay (Great Sandy Straits) there were quite significant changes made. We'll only know if this time is any different when it happens.
This is why we're working so hard now to complete our research with the aim of giving them a solution that is difficult not to accept.
In a worst case scenario, we will have a scientifically robust solution that's supported by all major players that we can take to the public and if we all get behind it, we might just create enough impetus to change the draft, despite how hard that would be.
Once the MBAA proposal is signed off by all our stakeholders, I hope to be able to post it up on Ausfish with the Moderators support, including maps, justifications and at least a summary of the supporting rationale. You can rest assured that we will come up with the best possible solution to minimise impact on all fishing sectors whilst at the same time meeting the Governments environmental objectives.
Regards
Grant
Not a problem just let us know what you want.Once the MBAA proposal is signed off by all our stakeholders, I hope to be able to post it up on Ausfish with the Moderators support, including maps, justifications and at least a summary of the supporting rationale.
Regards
mod5
Hi Grant, sounds good in principle and I know you guys are working very hard to secure as much access as possible for all bay users (and I/we are all very thankful) but there are a couple of points that really concern me and I want to know if you guys have covered off on them and if not what you intend to do.
5 year Review: Nelson- Carr and now the new minister McNamara have both flagged a further review of the whole process in 5 years rather than 10. So my concern is this - we/you have been at this almost a year now and by the time the review is implemented will be well over 18 months - maybe up to 2 years.
I am concerned that they are giving in to you now and then we have to go through this whole process in 5 years time - if they sneak the 10% in now - then they'll go for their stated goal of 20-50% next time. Whats to stop them? The AMCS have already stated that they are demanding 50% closures - non negotiable and are going for the creeks and rivers up North that they didn't get last time. They have form on these types of deals and have the patience and funding to wait you out.
Scientific Panel: As you quite rightly pointed out the EPA has already accepted the "scientific Panels" "findings" of 10% that of each area should be "fully protected" under the CAR system. I use the terms "findings" and "fully protected" lightly because there is quite a shadow of doubt in terms of these terms. In fact when the "greens" use the term "scientific" when they assert that "science" should determine what happens in the bay - they arent even using the term the same way we are - so there is a significant conflict in terminology there.
For instance when they refer to using "science" to determine closures, they are talking about the scientific CAR principle. Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative. They havent mentioned that they have used science to determine whether or not there is further protection required and IF protection is required - WHAT species and or habitat requires protection. They just ASSUME that ALL these habitat types require "protection".
No one it seems will challenge them on this issue - it seems like its all about a negotiated landgrab, that being the case - even if you are successful this time around and ONLY 10% of the bay is closed forever, then they'll just grab more next time - in 5 short years from now. This is because the basis of their argument and assumption has never been successfully challenged.
I also challenge the very term "fully protected" fully protected from what?? Typhoon?, drought?, pollution?, urban runoff? siltation? or just fishing?
If the closures ONLY protect from fishing pressure, then how can these closures be considered COMPREHENSIVE? ADEQUATE OR REPRESENTATIVE?? I do note that they have twisted the CAR principle to only reference the terms of NO-Take areas - therefore leaving all other threatening elements (such as urban runoff, pollution etc.) OUTSIDE the terms of reference. Is that COMPREHENSIVE?
Grant what we REALLY need to do is score runs on their terms of reference - not negotiate smaller closures - just to have them increased next time around.
Like I said, I know you guys are working hard but I just wonder if under these terms of reference if we arent going to be back here in 4 and a half years time. The time to argue the terms of reference is NOW - not next time!!
Just my thoughts - appreciate any feedback.
Cheers,
Adam
Thanks to you Grant, and all who are working within the alliance! let's hope the changes to the current proposals are substantial! Please let us all know if there is ANYTHING we can do to chip in - i'm in 100 percent! thanks.
cuzza
Thanks Grant for hte reply and Adamy for the point of view. Grant so is it all possible that they are playing us for a fool by making out that they are listening to our point of view, so we cause less waves when it really matters, only to be guzumpted with a plan that is no where near what we are happy with and by the time we start screaming it's too late? Can this process be trusted?
Cheers Chris
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
Hi all
Responding to some of the issues raised:
Are the EPA giving us lip service? I wish I knew for certain, only they can answer that question, and their answer will be apparent for all to see when we compare their draft with the proposals put forward by the Alliance.
In the Alliance's view, if they do come out with a draft that is devastating to our (all fishing sectors) interests, then that’s when a campaign will hit top gear. Having all sectors on board and talking with one voice will be even more critical then than it is now, I’m sure you’d agree. The MBAA research project will then stand us in good stead because we will be able to promote a positive, viable alternative. Let’s hope it doesn’t need to get to that.
Re the 5 year review being mooted and it possibly being a means to go from 10% to the next level, I doubt if 5 years is sufficient time to evaluate the impact of any changes, though we will need to get advice from our scientists about that and make submissions.
The Alliance intends to be around long term into the future (no doubt with a different name!) We’ve identified the need for proper, independent, UNBIASED monitoring and review of not only the Moreton Bay Marine Park, but all others in Queensland waters as well. If nothing else, this process has awakened the whole marine industry (fishing, boating, rec and commercial) and all sectors realise that they have to get onto the front foot and make sure that unbiased scientific monitoring and research is done well ahead of these 10 or 5 year review processes so that we are well positioned when other forces try to have fishing closures extended. That will be a key Alliance focus after this current review is finished.
Grant
The 5 year review process could be a double edged sword. Think of it this way, if we do get screwed in this process then we only have a 5 year wait to effect changes back to our favour???
Cheers Chris
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
I might be wrong, but I don't think they ever change anything back in the favour of anglers, regardless of who is in power. I am pretty sure it only gets worse.
Absolutely correct!! in about 3 and a half years James Cook or UQ will produce some apparently scientific/academic paper (leaked to the greenies and the courier mail) proclaiming the benefits of no-take areas and it will be "on" again.Originally Posted by Fafnir
What we need to do is challenge the "terms of reference" and whilst I support the efforts of the MBAA, I dont think this is being done. If you successfully challenge the CAR process or at very least make them widen their terms of reference to include protection from other elements beside fishing, (ensuring that "Comprehensive" means "encompassing all elements" instead of "Large") then the focus is off fishing and on the more detrimental and important elements which affect water quality and thus the health of the Bay. The logic is basic, if we protect the Bay from these other elements, water quality improves and there will be more fish and habitat for everyone... with NO LOCKOUTS!!
Am I alone on this?? Why are we negotiating a smaller land grab (which is bound to get bigger with each subsequent review) when we have an opportunity to not only to further improve the Bay but reveal and squash the intentions of the Greenies who just want to stop us fishing and destroy our lifestyles???
Adam
p.s. had another thought: Again; not knocking the efforts of the MBAA... but it seems they are doing the EPA's job for them - identifying areas for proposed closures! These areas may have LESS (read: LESS not ZERO) effect on rec and comm fishers but they are still closures none the less and STILL without any adequate evidence showing the need for such closures.
If I was the EPA and greenies I would be chuckling myself to sleep every night (though they never will admit it because they want 100%) but it seems they will get what they want, at least 10% in closed areas (THIS ROUND - target more next time) AND have the apparent approval of both rec and com fishers (MBAA) to boot. A VERY good deal for the EPA and greenies! why wouldnt they accept it???
Last edited by Adamy; 29-09-2007 at 09:42 PM.
I have read intently and carefully everything the MBAA have shown us. It appears to me that they have a very good research team and a lot of very intelligent and dynamic people on their team.
In my view they are looking towards a very balanced outcome that shows sustainability for all concerned.
I think we should be 100% behind them not criticising everything they release.
My thoughts for what they are worth.
Derek
Not criticising their work Derek I think the work they have done and are doing is excellent! I further believe they will be able to get excellent concessions and because of them (MBAA) we will be able to fish some of the Bay for a few years longer at least.
But I do wonder if there is a better way. Then again I might be the only one out here thinking this - except that I'm not! There are a few eminent fisheries experts who are starting to come out of the woodwork exposing the "science" behind closures. We should be exploring this avenue.
I'd hate to be the one in 4 years time saying "I told you so!" when there is an opportunity now of exposing the basis of the so called green science instead of placating to their demands.
Adam
Posting Permissions
