Environmental lawyer Tom Young questions Australia’s commitment to ecologically sustainable development in the fishing sector.

Isuppose an article written for fly- fishers about the environmental and economic damage caused by unsustainable fishing practices is a bit like preaching to the converted! As an American fly fisherman once said: “No angler merely watches nature in a passive way. He enters into its very existence,” and I am pleased to say that every fly fisher I’ve met has been more concerned about filling the soul rather than the esky. But as a keen fly fisherman, a father and an environmental lawyer who understands the concepts of ‘ecologically sustainable development’ (ESD) and the ‘precautionary principle’, I am concerned about the way our fisheries are being managed. Like all other recreational anglers, we fly fishers depend on a sustainable marine ecology to pursue our pastime. We can no longer afford to adopt the “she’ll be right—I’ll tie another fly” attitude and ignore what’s happening to our marine resource.

Why? Let me set the scene.

According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) the global fishing catch of 100 million tonnes per annum has reached its ecological limit and is on the decline. An estimated additional 18-40 million tonnes of marine creatures are returned to the ocean dead as a result of commercial harvesting. 70% of the fish types tracked are categorised as fully exploited, over exploited or depleted. Alarmingly, in November 2001, Canadian fisheries scientists documented that FAO’s appalling statistics are in fact based on flawed data and the true state of the oceans is far worse than anyone previously realised.

Claims by the recreational sector that there were more fish around in ‘the good old days’ can no longer be dismissed as mere anecdotal whinging—it’s a scientific fact.

Why has this level of overexploitation been authorised by our governments? Historically, fisheries legislation worldwide was drafted to regulate the commercial fishing industry rather than ensure the sustainability of the marine environment. By regulating commercial fishing, governments generated revenue by levying fishing licence and permit fees. Over a decade ago, when world leaders finally became worried about global environmental degradation, international environmental treaties were signed requiring countries to embrace the principles of ESD in their resource management legislation.

The principles of ESD require fisheries managers to balance social, environmental and economic considerations to achieve the ‘triple bottom line’ so that no single consideration predominates over the others, ensuring that access to the oceans by all stakeholders is fair. Despite these global legislative changes, fish stock levels continue their downward spiral.

Sadly, the application of ESD principles to fisheries management is inhibited by a combination of both governments bowing to intense political lobbying by the commercial sector and a lack of detailed independent, scientific and economic data about the exploitation of our fisheries. In Australia and around the world, there is little scientific evidence about the size of our fish stocks or whether the current levels of harvesting are sustainable.

How can a government slice up the fishcake fairly amongst all the stakeholders attending the fishery managers’ party when it does not know how big or small the cake is?

A reluctance to make tough economic and environmental decisions to gather the necessary data to sustainably manage the resource means that Australian governments, like many other fishery authorities worldwide, crisis manage our fisheries, making politically safe resource allocation decisions in favour of stakeholders who claim the most profitable use of the resource. Environmental and recreational groups feel unfairly treated by fisheries managers as they don’t possess the financial resources to obtain the scientific and economic data necessary to justify their claims on how our fisheries should be managed.

Intense political lobbying by the commercial sector has created environmental legislation at both state and federal levels that has become nothing more than a toothless tiger
in terms of protecting the marine ecology from commercial overfishing. If commercial fishing activities are authorised under a permit issued under fisheries legislation, then no matter how much harm those authorised activities cause, they are generally exempted from the penalties imposed by Australia’s environmental legislation.

The failure by fishery managers to apply the ESD principles enshrined in fisheries legislation and the lack of independent scientific data about our fisheries coupled with a lack of environmental legislative safeguards means that fishery allocation decisions are rarely fair or environmentally responsible. As a consequence our fisheries management regime has led to intense conflicts between stakeholders as evidenced by the traditional animosity between commercial and recreational sectors.

But how do we get our governments to apply ESD principles to ensure that our marine resources are sustainable and allocation decisions are fair?

Is it simply a case of ‘out of sight, out of mind’?

Perhaps if we focus public scrutiny on what’s going on underneath our oceans and how they are being managed from above, governments will start making accountable and sustainable decisions.

About three years ago, my colleague David Nicholls and I were fishing in Queensland’s Hervey Bay with well known fly fishing guide and now local Councillor, Sid Boshammer, chasing pelagics on fly. Although we caught mackerel and tuna on that trip, we also witnessed commercial fishermen netting within the World Heritage boundaries of Fraser Island, roaring their engines and banging their boats loudly to scare anything with fins swimming among the mangroves and creeks into their nets.

Those fishermen spooked not only the fish but also the migratory birds roosting in the mangroves and presumably, anything in the vicinity of this disgraceful practice. We also witnessed ring-netters decimating shoals of spotted mackerel in the bay.

The trip got us thinking, not only about the environmental harm those fishermen caused, but that this harm was authorised under Queensland legislation. We speculated about the economic gains a typical Australian seaside community, such as Hervey Bay, derives from a fish such as a mackerel or trevally caught by a commercial fishermen and one caught by a recreational angler.

Soon after our trip, David and I began researching Queensland and Australian fisheries management practices and we found that:

• Contrary to government rhetoric, our fisheries are not being managed in accordance with the principles of ESD.

• To the detriment of our fishery, managers are primarily concerned about resource allocation matters rather than ensuring that there are sustainable fish stocks.

• Despite the commercial sector’s counterclaims, on a fishery-by-fishery basis exploitation of the resource by the recreational sector produces greater benefits to our economy than the commercial sector.

• Recreational anglers spend an enormous amount of money on four wheel drives, accommodation, camping equipment, clothing, seaside units and homes, plane fares, boats, bait, petrol, fishing tackle, ice, registration fees for cars and boats, food, alcohol and beverages when they go on a fishing trip. This expenditure has enormous economic flow-ons, creating jobs and prosperity for many regional centres such as Hervey Bay. The tax revenue generated by recreational expenditure is enormous.

But fisheries economists, representing the commercial sector, argue that this expenditure should not form part of any economic equation that determines resource allocations. It is interesting to note, that the commercial sector actually receives ship building and diesel subsidies and GST exemptions for its environmentally damaging activities. Is that fair?

• Unlike any other Australian extractive industry, the commercial sector is not required by our governments to rehabilitate the areas it harvests nor are the environmental costs of the damage caused to the ocean’s bottom and the wasted dead by-catch caused by commercial trawling factored into the economic data that the commercial sector presents to our government to justify its continued access to the resource.

• The commercial sector’s claim that its exploitation of the resource has high social benefits because it “produces fish for the public” is a red herring. 60% of the seafood consumed in Australia is imported from other countries while a staggering 87% of Australia’s total catch value is exported every year. Why? Australian’s can’t pay the high prices demanded by the commercial sector.

• Although not of the same magnitude of harm caused by the commercial sector on the environment, the recreational sector does cause significant environmental harm. Unfortunately there is still a large number of recreational anglers who view their pastimes as a means of reducing the weekly grocery bill. Too many recreational anglers keep undersized fish or exceed bag limits.

• Most of the fish caught by recreational anglers are released but little is known about subsequent survival rates.

• Existing scientific evidence reveals that most of the by-catch discarded by commercial fisherman die. Some commercial fisheries in Australia have by-catch ratios as high as 10 tonnes of by-catch to every 1 tonne of targeted species.

• Although our fisheries legislation at both the state and federal levels requires fisheries management to adhere to the principles of ESD, the lack of independent scientific and economic information inhibits the practical application of ESD principles to our fisheries resource, to the detriment of all stakeholders—now and in the future.

Clearly fisheries management in Australia is long overdue for a drastic overhaul. Unsustainable exploitation of our marine resource not only threatens the pursuit of our recreation pastime but also the livelihoods of those employed in both Australia’s recreational and commercial fishing industries.

A politician once said to me: “When the people lead, the leaders will follow”.
Hopefully this article will motivate you to voice your concerns to your local member, fishery managers or even the press about the importance of ensuring a sustainable fishery.But when you do, make sure you don’t level your criticisms at the commercial sector. The blame for our declining fisheries falls squarely on the shoulders of our governments, who authorise the unsustainable exploitation of our precious marine environment.