Top Australian Scientist Bags Marine Parks

[bayrunner]

THE PROS AND CONS OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IN NEW SOUTH WALES: WHO’S BEEN HOODWINKED?

(Address to The Australian Society for Fish Biology, Canberra, 12/9/07)

Bob Kearney PhD, DSc AM

Emeritus Professor of Fisheries

University of Canberra

http://aerg.canberra.edu.au/reprints/2007_...d_areas_NSW.pdf

Particularly the last four pages.

Here's a taste:

"The documentation relating to the creation of the Batemans Marine Park is perhaps best described as very poorly disguised advocacy marketed to the unsuspecting public as science. This is a sham. So much so that not only does it totally discredit the Batemans Marine Park but it calls into question the credibility of the Marine Parks Authority and the justification of all existing and proposed marine parks in New South Wales."

"Many citizens of the Batemans region have been hoodwinked into believing that the proposal for this park was actually based on sound science and that the park will deliver considerable benefits to biodiversity conservation and recreational fishing."

[pjbink]

MPAs – A Problem Not a Solution

Walter Starck, PhD.

Australia has the largest per capita marine area in the world and vast areas of coastal waters un-impacted by human activity. We have far more and larger Marine Protected Areas than any other nation with about 1/3 of the global total. We also have the world’s lowest fishery harvest rate and 70% of the seafood we consume is imported. All comes from areas far more heavily fished than our own. These imports currently add some $1.8 billion annually to a foreign debt that is growing twice as fast as the economy and the cost is rapidly increasing. Continuing to add to an ever growing morass of restrictions on our own fishing is unneeded, unethical and unaffordable.

Ongoing expansion of MPAs have become a problem, not a solution. Their environmental benefit is dubious and unevaluated under our lightly impacted conditions. We also know from wide scale experience with the Great Barrier Reef Green Zones that they have seriously degraded the marine experience available to the public and the socio-economic impact has been a hundred times higher than originally estimated by GBRMPA. Their advice with respect to Moreton Bay should be regarded with great caution.

Under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to which we are signatory, Australia is required to protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements. It is important to be aware that “customary” and “traditional” in this context is not limited to indigenous people. The obligation to protect and encourage the customary practice of non-indigenous Australians is in no way different from that of indigenous Australians. It is further important to recognize that recreational fishing and boating is a very low impact activity. It is not incompatible with the purposes of conservation and sustainable use.

In addition government’s own guidelines also require that procedural steps for good regulation should include:

· Definition of the problem and objectives in addressing it.

· Determination of practical alternative solutions.

· Evaluation of probable risks, costs and benefits of different solutions (including nonaction).

· Monitoring of actual outcomes.

· Adjustment of measures in accord with results.

All points of these guidelines have been slighted or ignored in establishment of MPAs. The fundamental purpose of management is the determination and assessment of options with the aim of maximizing total value. Simply claiming to be saving the environment while imposing more and more restrictions with no regard to the broader consequences is a travesty of the very concept of management. Our economy and quality of life are being increasingly burdened by a proliferation of poorly conceived regulations which provide little or no actual benefit. Environmental regulation in particular has come to be dominated by a narrow illinformed environmentalist ideology and political pandering for green votes. We are paying for this incompetence with our health, happiness and pocketbooks. Australia deserves better and voters must begin to demand it.

Edited February 29, 2008 by billfisher

[Boban]

And the biggest concern is that none of this will matter.

It politics, just like WMD's were. Provide a reason to get your goal.

[pjbink]

This helps explain why Boban:

Here's a good explanation on how the political process can become corrupted and how politicians, bureaucracies and interest groups can all work together to consolidate their own powerbase. Its called the Iron Triangle and is recognised by political scientists. It applies rather well to whats going on with marine parks:

Iron triangle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about a political term. For other meanings, see Iron Triangle.

In United States politics, the iron triangle is a term used by political scientists to describe the policy-making relationship between the legislature, the bureaucracy (sometimes called "Government Agencies"), and interest groups.

In the federal government, the phrase refers to the United States Congress (in particular, the congressional committees responsible for oversight) along with the federal agencies (often independent agencies) responsible for regulation of those industries, and the industries and their trade associations. One of the earliest formulations of the "iron triangle" concept was by political scientist Grant McConnell, in Private Power and American Democracy (1966).

An often-used example of the term is with reference to the military-industrial complex, with Congress (and the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services), defense contractors, and the U.S. Department of Defense forming the iron triangle. The term iron triangle has been widely used by political scientists outside the United States and is today an accepted term in the field.

Central assumption

Central to the concept of an iron triangle is the assumption that bureaucratic agencies, as political entities, seek to create and consolidate their own power base. In this view an agency's power is determined by its constituency, not by its consumers. (For these purposes, politically active members sharing a common interest or goal; consumers are the expected recipients of goods or services provided by a government bureaucracy and are often identified in an agency's written goals or mission statement.)

Much of what some see as bureaucratic dysfunction may be attributable to the alliances formed between the agency and its constituency. The official goals of an agency may appear to be thwarted or ignored altogether at the expense of the citizenry it is designed to serve.

Edited March 6, 2008 by billfisher