Essay Topic: Are the economic, social and environmental implications of the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve Management Plan 2014 – 2024 on local communities and the fishing industry justifiable?
Next year, on July 1, the world's largest marine reserve will come into effect. The Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve Management Plan 2014 -2024 is the culmination of more than a decade of campaigning by conservationists, consultation by the Federal Government and vehement opposition by industries and regional communities affected by the decision. On one hand, conservationists believe the nearly one million km² of ocean inside the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone will protect forever the pristine marine ecosystems of the Coral Sea - an iconic statement by the Australian government and its people that it's serious about marine conservation. However, the closure of some of Australia's richest fishing grounds will directly impact on commercial fishers and game charter operators, seafood distributors and wholesalers and other shore-based industries in regional ports such as Cairns. Many of these people claim the outcome has been achieved by the government based on emotive scaremongering campaign driven by a cashed-up environmental lobby without scientific basis.

So, who is right? In a community where the local economy has become so reliant on the dominant tourism industry, isn't the marine park sending the right message to the rest of the world about its iconic natural wonders such as the Great Barrier Reef, World Heritage rainforest and now, the Coral Sea? Or, as others suggest, has the balance been lost and too often other industries are being forced to sacrifice jobs and livelihoods in the name of the almighty tourism dollar?

Tourism contributed almost $8.4 billion or 3.1% to gross state product in 2010-11 annually (Queensland Government, business and industry portal) The Coral Sea is an internationally recognised marine environment, noted for its rich biodiversity. It's described by conservationists and fishers as a unique and pristine marine environment one arguing these values justify "locking up" the Coral Sea while others believe it is a marine domain that has demonstrably sustained a fishing industry for 30 years and should be left alone.

Coral Sea campaigner with the Australian Marine Conservation Society states: “The AMCS only selects the healthiest environments to become marine parks and the Coral Sea has no indication of being effected by fishing and (PEW et al 2012) - It is considered one of the most distinctive and undisturbed natural systems in the world and provides refuge for a wide range of threatened, migratory and commercially valuable species under serious threat."
The fishing industry has operated sustainability in the Coral Sea by working in consultation with the Australian Fisheries Management Authorities and the governing legislation (Fisheries Management Act) is based on methodological information and monitoring.

Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke says the Australian Government has undertaken exhaustive consultation before gazetting a network of marine parks around Australia, including the Coral Sea, with more than 100,000 people making submissions. He has repeatedly stated the no-take zones will affect "less than one per cent of the value of

production of wild catch fishing around Australia" and promised compensation for displaced fishers across Australia.

But many believe the government's consultation process delivered the outcome it was intended to achieve with socio-economic impacts, particularly on the commercial fishing fleet, given minimal consideration. The Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) is the peak industry body representing the interests of fishers in Commonwealth-managed fisheries, who generate a significant part of Australia's $2.2 billion in economic activity in the seafood industry. Its chairman Martin Excel says the $100 million compensation package is "a drop in the ocean" of the amount needed to fairly compensate fishers.
The Coalition also says the amount is "woefully inadequate" and has committed to reviewing the marine park boundaries by the peak lobby group, Commonwealth Fisheries Association, if elected (The Australian, November 17, 2012). The Greens Senator, Larissa Waters, supports "fair and adequate" compensation for all areas of the fishing industry affected by the closure, but others have drawn unfavourable comparisons with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) where a much smaller area of 365,450KM² was closed compared with the 2.3 million square kilometres being added to the existing Commonwealth marine reserves. The GBRMP compensation package which was initially estimated at being $10 million, and ultimately cost the Australian Government (and taxpayers) $240 million.
Individuals, businesses and communities reliant on the fishing industry will not be compensated at all. An industry-commissioned study clearly shows the impacts on upstream and downstream (Ernst and Young, ABARES Social and Economic Assessment report submitted to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities). It goes further to state the implementation costs have been excluded from the assessment, including the cost of ongoing research and community and industry education, enforcement, administration and managing structural assistance.

Meanwhile, fishers claim the uncertainty during the consultation period and lead up to the implementation of the marine reserves on July 1, 2014 is stifling investment, growth and confidence in the fishing industry. Many are reeling from the lack of strategic planning for their industry. Operators who lost grounds when the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park "green zones" were implemented a decade ago were compensated and directed to move to the Coral Sea, only to find themselves in a similar position.
Pioneering tuna longliner, Bob Lamason has been forced to drive his tuna boat and relying on family and friends to keep the doors of his tuna export business, based in Cairns, open. He told ABC radio on November 16 last year: "I've got no crew, everybody's deserted, we've got nobody left. I'm finished, what else can you say?"

They feel the long-term social impacts on the regional fishing community have been largely ignored. Sixty-seven per cent of jobs in the fishing industry are based in small coastal communities. Several generations of families are often involved in the business, invoking an attitude of ownership of the industry and self-reliance among its members. These communities have cultural values associated with the fishing industry which bring a unique and robust lifestyle. Social implications on these communities need to be considered along with environmental and economic considerations when implementing new management strategies or policies.

At the centre of the debate is science. Many critics believe the marine reserve maps have been influenced by political expedience rather than scientific grounds.

A statement signed by more than 300 scientists in February 2012 urging the Australian government to implement a 'no take' zone in the Coral Sea says: “The Australian Government’s draft plan for a marine reserve in the Coral Sea is a significant step forward - but misses a unique opportunity for Australia to demonstrate global leadership in marine stewardship, by declaring the Coral Sea within Australia’s EEZ as the world’s largest no-take area.”
Professor Hugh Possingham, Director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, cites the "remoteness of one of the most intact oceanic ecosystems in the world" rather than an imminent threat posed by fishing or any other economic activity.
The statement outlines six reasons a marine park is needed "at a time of growing concern over the widespread loss of megafauna, corals and other marine life", but was widely criticised by fishers for not giving specific scientific reasons for a marine reserve. The backlash to the scientists' involvement in the Coral Sea campaign evoked a call for scientists who engage in public policy debate to disclose fully from whom research funding is received and whether their particular expertise qualifies them to engage in the debate at hand. Support has been sought at federal and State levels by the Australia Marine Alliance. (AMA 2012)
The fact recreational fishers also appear to have fared much better than commercial fishers in the consultation and drafting of maps lends weight to the cynical view the government was worried about the impact of the recreational fishing lobby and therefore, willing to accommodate their concerns. There are anecdotal reports of stakeholder meetings held in confidence at various locations in which recreational fishers were asked to shade in areas of the proposed reserve that they felt should be left as a non-protected area and that these areas were reflected in the final drafts released by government
The Cairns region has experienced very little economic growth in recent years and has an unemployment rate of 8.5 per cent (ABS Data, 2013). It is largely dependent on the discretionary spending of the tourism industry, prompting many economic and political leaders to reflect on the need for greater diversity in the Cairns regional economy.
Mayor of Cairns Bob Manning has criticised the Coral Sea marine park and it makes creating jobs and stimulating the economy harder. He is quoted on the ABC Rural website: "We've got three ship yards in Cairns that are going to be severely affected by this closure. We've got a number of other industries that work for those shipyards, sub contractors, they’re going to be affected by this."
The direct cost to the community of the Coral Sea marine park is not known, but the impact on the Australian community has been estimated at 4.3 billion and a total loss of 36,000 jobs, (AMA 2012). The only resolution offered by the Non Government Organisations (NGOs) who support the marine park to addressing the pecuniary loss to regional areas is to create more tourism ventures.

The other consideration either not recognised or fully understood by policy makers is the impact of illegal fishing within the Northern bioregion. As economic pressures grow in south-east Asia, the problem of illegal foreign fishing is projected to get significantly and rapidly worse (Field et al., 2009). The presence of licensed and regulated Australian fishers

operating within the area acts as a deterrent to illegal fishermen and assists with border control by conveying information to the Department of Defence and Australian Customs. No additional funding or resources has been allocated for enforcement agencies in the Coral Sea reserve, prompting concern, the new marine park will effectively be a “paper park” which does not achieve any desired objectives. The lack of any additional enforcement also means a regulated Australian fishery could be replaced by an unregulated illegal foreign fishery (A/Prof D. Mc Phee. 2012). Another consequence is reduced funding to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, which raises levies based on GVP, effectively reducing research programs and monitor of the marine reserve.

Conservationists also recognise that illegal fishing is a major threat to the sustainability of the world’s fisheries. Some estimates are that illegal and unregulated fishing causes annual financial losses of up to $23.5 billion worldwide and accounts for up to 20 per cent of all of the wild marine fish caught globally. In many cases, the theft is made easy by patchwork regulation of fishing areas and weak enforcement at sea and in ports (Pew et al 2012). The conservationists have disregarded the real flow on effect of the marine park proposal, and their critics (Agardy et al. 2011) have attacked their position, stating "a blind faith in marine parks is fraught with risk."

Australia is ranked 4th out of the 53 countries surveyed in a 2009 estimation of adherence to the United Nations Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. Australia now imports 75 per cent of its seafood, including from many of the countries which rate poorly against these international benchmarks such as Thailand ranked 42nd, China 22nd, and Vietnam 45th (National Seafood Alliance et al 2013). As this trend continues, consideration must be given to the impact of increased demand on the marine environment of countries with far less sustainable fishing practices. The conservationist movement also recognise this is an environmental concern. However, the conservationists' answer of closing fishing grounds within countries that have highly regulated and proven sustainable practices would seem inconsistent with its stated position: "Across the oceans, overfishing and destructive fishing practices endanger not only the health of fish stocks, but also the livelihoods of approximately 450 million people—and the food security of some three billion people." (PEW et al 2012). Although the mining and gas industries also have been banned from future exploratory or extractive activities within the marine reserves, the Coral Sea would be neither closed nor protected with 6000 shipping movements annually through the Great Barrier Reef and Coral Sea (Dr Kearney. 2012). In ignoring these obvious impacts, it is argued the marine park signals a green light for the expansion of coal and gas industry, effectively allowing a super highway for shipping. Opponents believe this is further evidence the Coral Sea fishers have been made scapegoats by the conservationists and a government unable or unwilling to take on the international shipping and mining companies over environmental issues.

The run-off through our estuaries and coastal waterways from urbanisation and agricultural practices pollute the waters that flow to the GBRMP and effectively place the coastal and inshore fisheries under strain. The exploitation of less polluted areas in the northern waters of our EZZ should be investigated to ensure Australia’s food security as it relates to the future of sustainable supply of seafood. (Dr Kearney. 2012)

The Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve Management Plan 2014 -2024 has failed to address major strategic issues to the Coral Sea, its conservation and its uses. The primary focus from conservationists has been only emphasising the existing biodiversity values of the area, with minimal regard for the implications of the closures on the Australian community. The idea this pristine environment will be protected once the extractive practices of fishing industry are removed is scientifically flawed and highly speculative. An accurate assessment of the threats to area and of what protection is needed should be undertaken in a scientific and transparent manner before the proposal proceeds.