Professor Kearney (Scientist) versus Dr Tony Fleming (resigned head of NPWS)

The following appeared on Ecofishers 16/10/2007

Professor Kearney stirs up a hornet's nest within the NSW Government with his paper "Pros and Cons of Marine Protected areas in New South Wales: Who's being hoodwinked

1. FROM Dr. Tony Fleming, Director of NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, in the Narooma News October 3rd., 2007, page 5.
I remind everyone that Dr. Tony Fleming is the recently resigned National Parks and Wildlife Service Director General. He has a Phd. He received his Phd for a study in .... Forestry.

Prof. Kearney is Australia's leading Marine Scientist and Marine biodiversity expert. He has a PHd in sustainable Fisheries Science. He was awarded a DSc. (Doctorate in Science) for Fisheries and Marine Biodiversity studies, as well as an AM awarded by the Australian Government for services to Australian and International sustainable fisheries science.

"MPA welcomes debate in the community about the benefits of Marine Parks." .... by Dr. Fleming.

The Marine Parks Authority welcomes debate in the scientific community about the benefits of marine parks.

The Marine Parks Authority's Tony Fleming says that despite some local criticisms from entrenched opponents of marine parks in NSW "it's worth noting that there is quite a clear scientific consensus on marine protected areas, with several consensus statements published by scientists over the past decade. Most recently, earlier this year on World Oceans Day, 260 European marine scientists published a consensus statement calling for the establishment of marine parks to conserve biodiversity".

He says part of their statement reads "Where marine reserves have been designated, they have been shown to result in long-standing and often rapid increases in the abundance, diversity and productivity of marine life, especially of species that were previously exploited."

Dr Fleming says he has no doubt ongoing monitoring of the Batemans Marine Park will continue to add to the body of worldwide research that shows the critical importance of protecting and restoring marine ecosystems. In some cases what we take as 'natural', such as the abundant rocky reef barrens in Batemans Marine Park that have been denuded of kelp forests by sea urchins, are actually symptomatic of degraded marine ecosystems. Experience with marine sanctuaries in New Zealand - in similar temperate waters - has shown that it is possible to restore these types of ecosystems by helping the recovery of predatory fish that eat sea urchins and hence allow the recovery
of kelp. Even though this type of recovery will take many years it is important to begin now and not continue to delay action until more of our marine species decline in abundance or are listed as threatened species.

He says a critique by Professor Robert Kearney of the MPA's paper on the benefits of marine parks - which was produced for the general public - seems to be raising issues with the planning principles for marine parks rather than the science of marine parks. These planning principles have been developed over a number of years and are widely accepted and used both within Australia and internationally. The idea that protecting examples of the range of marine habitats is a more effective way to protect biodiversity than a species-by-species approach is widely accepted by the scientific community as the best way to proceed with marine conservation. Dr Fleming says there are significant problems with the narrow idea that marine parks and their zones should only be put in place to protect species identified as threatened or over-fished. This idea might make sense if we were just managing a few species of commercial or recreational importance, but marine parks aim to conserve and restore entire ecosystems while providing for a variety of sustainable uses. This is not just about managing threatened species but ensuring that our marine and estuarine environments are healthy and productive into the future.

"Key threats to the marine environment are managed by a range of Government programs, including marine parks. It is clear that the conservation and ongoing sustainable use offered by marine parks works in concert with a range of other estuarine and marine management initiatives that we have in place. The Marine Parks Authority will continue to work with other key groups such as the Department of Primary Industries, Southern Rivers Catchment Management Authority and local government to manage issues like sediment runoff and pollution and improve the health of Batemans Marine Park.

The response from

1. Professor Kearney in Narooma News, 10th October 2007 .. "Letters to the Editor".

2. Mr. Richard Tilzey, formerly of the Bureau of Resource Sciences as a Fisheries research Scientist in Narooma News "Letters to Editor" 10th October 2007

1. "Response to Dr. Fleming's comments" ... by Professor Kearney, Narooma News, October 10

There is scientific consensus that well designed and managed marine protected areas can have benefits for the conservation of biodiversity and for assisting with fisheries management. The accepted essentials are to have well designed area management that protects the ecosystems or species therein from real threats. Dr Fleming?s imprecise generalisation on the benefits of marine protection misrepresents the true consensus. His imprecision when considering marine parks and marine protected areas is damning: the two are not synonymous. Consensus on the value of marine protected areas is of little relevance to the current specific debate as the Batemans Marine Park is not a marine protected area. Correct interpretation of the scientific documentation provided by the Marine Parks Authority shows that the Park does not protect either ecosystems or species from even the threats identified by the Marine Parks Authority.

The Batemans Marine Park is nothing more that a very poorly designed fisheries allocation mechanism, even in the sanctuary zones, particularly in estuaries and on ocean beaches. The two Ministers responsible for the declaration of the Park acknowledged in their joint media release of July 14, 2007 that even the sanctuary zones were directed only at fisheries. They stated ?People can generally continue to do what they?ve always done within the sanctuary zones except commercial and recreational fishing?.

It is probable that the ?entrenched opponents of marine parks in NSW?, with whom Dr Fleming is clearly not impressed, are justifiably entrenched opponents of marine parks as implemented in NSW, and not opponents of properly designed and managed marine protected areas. Any conservationist with a genuine interest in the protection of the marine ecosystems of NSW should remain an opponent of marine parks that cost millions of dollars for no clearly defined potential benefits.

Dr Fleming's statement that my paper "seems to be raising issues with the planning principles for marine parks rather than the science of marine parks" is yet another staggering example of the Marine Parks Authority's misinterpretation of the literature. Twelve of the first thirteen pages of my sixteen page paper are devoted entirely to science. They deal paragraph by paragraph with the bias and abuse of science depicted in the Science Paper of the Marine Parks Authority. The bulk of my paper does not deal specifically with planning principles, however, I do point out the essential need, when planning marine protection, to first identify "what it is that is being protected and what it is that it is being protected from". Then what should follow is logical explanation of how the proposed management measures will provide the necessary protection, and why these measures represent the most efficient way of doing so. Not one of these fundamental steps has been addressed in the Science Paper or other documents provided for the Batemans Marine Park.

The remainder of the long final paragraph in Dr Fleming's response to my paper refers inconsistently and imprecisely with the needs and benefits of managing ecosystems and species. He implies, incorrectly, that I have somehow advocated species specific management. It is in fact the Marine Park Authority's own Science Paper that gives undue weight to individual species. For example, three of the four sections in that paper that deal with the benefits of marine protected areas use examples of individual species in an attempt to justify the Batemans Park. It is significant that the one section in that paper that deals specifically with ecosystems, "Sanctuaries lead to improvements in ecosystems and habitats" exaggerates the information that is actually given in the scientific literature by a factor of 100 in a scurrilous attempt to misrepresent the potential benefits of more parks in New South Wales.

2. Mr. Richard Tilzey ... "Marine Park a Mess" ... Narooma News 10th October 2007. "Letters to Editor"

Dr Fleming's article in last week's Narooma Times is another example of NSW government bureaucratic spin-doctoring. As a correspondent who earlier commented on the lack of scientific rationale with the site selection and creation of the Batemans Marine Park (BMP), Professor Kearney's scathing and informed criticism of the NSW government's marine park program came as no surprise to me. Let's cut to the core of the debate and not nibble around the edges of scientific rationale. From the start of the NSW marine park process, politics have driven the agenda and common sense has been left behind. Earlier deals between Carr's Labour Government and the Green Party for preference votes have created a marine park juggernaut that rolls on regardless of mounting evidence of its ineffectiveness, inequality and adverse socio-economic impacts. The current government, if you can call it that, chooses to ignore these issues.

Professor Kearney highlighted the fact that fishing activity was unfairly targeted as the major threat to marine habitat and other, more detrimental, environmental threats were ignored during the site selection process. This illogic still persists. Fishers are the "evil ones" despite no corroborating evidence, other than bottom trawling is a habitat damaging and non-selective fishing method. A well researched fact. The only merit with the BMP is that it has banned trawling within its boundaries. It should also be noted that the initial zoning for the BMP permitted trawling over much of its area, illustrating the lack of logic in the park's conception and planning. From a fish conservation viewpoint, the other no-fishing "sanctuary zones" are a joke. They represent a 20% spatial grab-bag to placate the "Greens" and will do little, if anything, to conserve fish stocks.

This political agenda has disadvantaged local residents, be they fishers or traders, and will continue to do so unless the lack of common sense in the BMP zoning is driven home to the bureaucrats and politicians responsible for creating the mess. If we don't do this, worse may come. For example, there is an ongoing push by the NSW Nature Conservation Council to ban baited line fishing within a one kilometre zone around Montague Island because of the so-called endangered status of the eastern grey nurse shark population. As a fisheries scientist, it behoves me to say that the current (low) population estimate of grey nurse off eastern Australia is based on a very dodgy study full of assumptions. There is no hard evidence that such a closure would improve the grey nurse shark population. Recreational fishing is an important component of the south coast tourism industry and these no-take zones are having, and will continue to have, an adverse impact on tourism revenue. They also severely disadvantage local fishers adjacent to them.

As a final point to illustrate the absence of scientific logic, the political wheeling and dealings behind the BMP zonings and the horse-trading and collusion between the government departments responsible for this morass; How come Narooma fishers have lost about 20% of Wagonga to no-take zones whereas Tuross Lakes remain untouched? This is purely because the latter is a NSW DPI designated "Recreational Fishing Haven". Minister McDonald must have stuck it up Debus on that particular night. Ministers Koperburg and McDonald, please try and sort this mess out.

Richard Tilzey