National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas explained
The model of marine parks selected is
called the CAR principle of marine parks,
Comprehensiveness: The NRSMPA will include the full
range of ecosystems
recognised at an appropriate scale within and across each
bioregion.
Adequacy: The NRSMPA will have the required
level of reservation to ensure the
ecological viability and integrity of populations,
species and communities.
Representativeness: Those marine areas that are selected
for inclusion in MPAs
should reasonably reflect the biotic diversity of the
marine ecosystems from which they
derive.
The principle of this model is to select areas that represent
a full range of healthy ecosystems of an appropriate size and lock them up for
the future, with the hope that by removing the threats you can control (fishing,
oil/gas, shipping, pollution), the area will be in a better position to look
after itself in the future from the threats we can control (global warming)
This model was chosen not because it is the best model to
provide a safe guard to our ocean habitats but because it was the one that would have had the best chance of winning over the public and the hardest for opponents
to fight, I have some highlight from the document that spells out the Victorian
CAR model implementation over ten years ago, I encourage anyone interested to
read the full document (down load link below) if for nothing else than to see a
formula that has worked and will work again, we as anglers need to adopt
this type of approach if we are to have
any chance.
The long and winding road: The development of a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of highly protected marine protected areas in Victoria, Australia
The long and winding road: The development of a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of highly protected marine protected areas in Victoria, Australia
This paper written in 2006 for the Victorian National Parks Association describes and discusses the factors that contributed to the establishment of the Victorian system and the relevance of these factors to other jurisdictions.
“There are clear
benefits for pursuing an ‘‘all or none’’ strategy for creating a CAR system of
MPAs. Of the many attempts made in Victoria to obtain a highly protected MPA
system it was the most comprehensive and most ambitious that proved successful,
i.e. One which was for all ‘‘no-take’’ reserves and was for an entire suite, or
system, of MPAs in one declaration.
The previous modest
attempts at gaining one MPA ‘‘here’’ and a little later another MPA ‘‘there’’
meant that each and every proposal was weakened (either by a decrease in the
degree of protection, or a decrease in area) before declaration. Historically
the area by area (incremental) approach meant that there was little statewide
support for a localised proposal but those opposed to MPA declaration were able
to focus all their statewide and local resources to oppose each proposed MPA in
turn, i.e. each proposal was ‘‘picked off’’ and weakened. By proposing an
entire suite of MPAs simultaneously statewide support was garnered for the MPAs
but the opposition now had to work against a whole range of proposals
simultaneously. The better organised state-based conservation organisation were
able to carry a central campaign direct to the parliament, politicians and
decision makers based in the capital city , Melbourne, where over 75% of the
state populations lives. Conversely the ‘anti’ campaign became fragmented when
confronted with 24 MPA ‘‘battlefronts’’ simultaneously.
Also the argument of the ‘‘thin end of the wedge’’ was not as easy to carry in a CAR system proposal. Whilst when a single reserve was proposed in a local area opponents could argue that their favourite fishing spot was to be removed and the MPA was to cover say 15–20% of their local area—hence making ‘‘scare’’ tactics easier—it was impossible to argue that a reserve system that covered 5% of the sate (and no piers, jetties or heavily frequented beach fishing locations) leaving 95% of coastal waters available for fishing was a threat to the existence of recreational and commercial fishing. A 5% reservation could not be portrayed ‘‘as locking up the state’s waters’’.
“So whilst sustainable fisheries is one desirable objective for establishing MPAs it is certainly not the only reason and is usually not even the primary reason.”
“finally in organising a MPA breakfast of key decision makers in Melbourne lent a strong credibility to the CAR proposal.”
“During the debate a series of international scientists and experts were sponsored to visit Victoria in support of MPAs, most notably Dr Sylvia Earle (USA), Prof. David Bellamy (UK) and Dr. Bill Ballantine (New Zealand). These people briefed Cabinet Ministers and also addressed public meetings/small gatherings and received considerable media coverage. This seemed to set a global context to the debate.”
Also the argument of the ‘‘thin end of the wedge’’ was not as easy to carry in a CAR system proposal. Whilst when a single reserve was proposed in a local area opponents could argue that their favourite fishing spot was to be removed and the MPA was to cover say 15–20% of their local area—hence making ‘‘scare’’ tactics easier—it was impossible to argue that a reserve system that covered 5% of the sate (and no piers, jetties or heavily frequented beach fishing locations) leaving 95% of coastal waters available for fishing was a threat to the existence of recreational and commercial fishing. A 5% reservation could not be portrayed ‘‘as locking up the state’s waters’’.
“So whilst sustainable fisheries is one desirable objective for establishing MPAs it is certainly not the only reason and is usually not even the primary reason.”
“finally in organising a MPA breakfast of key decision makers in Melbourne lent a strong credibility to the CAR proposal.”
“During the debate a series of international scientists and experts were sponsored to visit Victoria in support of MPAs, most notably Dr Sylvia Earle (USA), Prof. David Bellamy (UK) and Dr. Bill Ballantine (New Zealand). These people briefed Cabinet Ministers and also addressed public meetings/small gatherings and received considerable media coverage. This seemed to set a global context to the debate.”
“some of the
techniques adopted by proponents were: regular meetings to update politicians
and the media on progress, the use of local as well as statewide groups in
lobbying local politicians as well as Ministers and opposition spokespeople,
respectively, telephone calls from local constituents to their local members of
parliament across the State and the use of email campaigns to politicians at a
time when this method had been little used in the past. The ‘media-savvy’ of
key individuals was crucial for success of the campaign by proponents”
“Proponents
developed a range of individuals and groups to ‘‘champion’’ the proposed CAR
MPA system. These ranged from international experts (see above) to key
scientists and academics in Victoria and significant bureaucrats and agencies.
This meant that the message the public received about MPAs came from different
people from different backgrounds and hence raised the probability of the
community hearing the message from someone they admired or trusted. The term ‘‘trusted
messengers’’ was used to describe these individuals.”
“A key element of the proponents’ campaign, particular from the MCCN was to support the actual campaign for a CAR MPA system with a more general consciousness-raising education programme. This educational programme did not carry advocacy messages but rather raised people’s awareness of the beauty, splendour and uniqueness of the southern temperate marine environment of Victoria. There were a suite of colour marine posters produced on off shore habitats with familiar names intertwined e.g. Kelp Forests, Sponge Gardens, Seagrass Meadows (author’s emphasis) and a series of posters on local habitats and charismatic fauna (e.g. Sea Dragons, Seals, Dolphins, Blue Whales)
“Focus groups were used to guide the development of these media messages, packages and the terminology used in the discussions. For example the use of the term ‘no-take’ instead of ‘‘highly protected MPAs’’, the use of ‘national park’ for large MPAs and the ditching of painful and unhelpful discussion on the differences between marine reserves, marine parks, MPAs, marine sanctuaries, fisheries reserves, etc.”
“A key element of the proponents’ campaign, particular from the MCCN was to support the actual campaign for a CAR MPA system with a more general consciousness-raising education programme. This educational programme did not carry advocacy messages but rather raised people’s awareness of the beauty, splendour and uniqueness of the southern temperate marine environment of Victoria. There were a suite of colour marine posters produced on off shore habitats with familiar names intertwined e.g. Kelp Forests, Sponge Gardens, Seagrass Meadows (author’s emphasis) and a series of posters on local habitats and charismatic fauna (e.g. Sea Dragons, Seals, Dolphins, Blue Whales)
“Focus groups were used to guide the development of these media messages, packages and the terminology used in the discussions. For example the use of the term ‘no-take’ instead of ‘‘highly protected MPAs’’, the use of ‘national park’ for large MPAs and the ditching of painful and unhelpful discussion on the differences between marine reserves, marine parks, MPAs, marine sanctuaries, fisheries reserves, etc.”
Most anglers are responsible and
would have no problem with a closed season or a marine park to protect a vulnerable
species, if it was shown that it would help. But the CAR model will not do
this, if you stop people fishing in an area then it is obvious that that area
will hold a greater number of the species anglers usually target, but is this necessarily
good for the biodiversity of the area, according to recent studies the species
that are at greatest risk are the very prey of the species we target, having a
larger amount of predators in the area will just place them under more stress. These
prey species are under threat not because of what we do on our water but what
we do on land, and as they usually live on reefs located close to shore and over
their life don’t move very far from this area they are greatly affected by this.
If the same people fish for the same amount of time, then the areas we are allowed to fish will have the opposite effect resulting in a decrease in the number of species we target.
If the same people fish for the same amount of time, then the areas we are allowed to fish will have the opposite effect resulting in a decrease in the number of species we target.
No comments:
Post a Comment