What Sen
ator Hill is proposing to do is to phase out the collection of coral from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. It is essentially the same area as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. He will do this be changing the regulations (without having to go through Parliament, community or industry consultation) such that they are not transferrable and the licensee must be in attendence while the license is being worked. The reasoning, that he is putting forth in statements he has made to coral collectors and the media is that such activities (harvesting of coral) is "inappropriate" for a World Heritage Area. This is the same politician that supports uranium mining in the Kakadu World Heritage Area in Northern Territory.
The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area 25-year Strategic Plan: does not identify coral harvesting as a threat, a conflicting use or an "inappropriate" use. A principle of the Plan is "Limits on natural resource use based on ability of environment to sustain such use". Reports mentioned below (performed by those involved in management of the GBR and who advise Sen. Hill) all state that the coral fishery is sustainable.
The following are bits from the information we have pulled together on the issue.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority states: "The 25 Year Strategic Plan for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area provides a vision for a management approach for the Area that overtly recognises its World Heritage status, and the objectives and strategies to realise this vision. By fulfilling the objectives set out in the Strategic Plan, in particular those relating to education, conservation, legislation and monitoring, Australia will meet its international obligations under the World Heritage Convention". Therefore if an industry is sustainable then it will not conflict with meeting international obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
Report by world recognised scientists, Drs Vicki Harriott, Done and Veron et al at the Cooperative Reef Research Centre (CRC Reef) for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Centre, James Cook University and the Australian Institute of Marine Science, entitled "The sustainability of Queensland's coral harvest fishery" December, 2000, finds that the fishery is:
· Ecologically sustainable and poses no threat to the future of the Great Barrier Reef.
· The total harvest in the fishery is very small relative to coral cover on the GBR.
Dr Vicki Harriott says her research shows that the current level of harvesting is sustainable. She says there needs to be changes to the way the industry is managed, but overall it is causing far less damage than the crown of thorns starfish. "If you restrict the areas from which coral can be taken and there are natural replenishment processes, it is possible for the corals to regrow and replenish themselves over time," she said. "What you need is good management practices, you need to have a strong management system."
Those involved in management of the GBRWHA have been in consultation with the best coral and reef biologists in the world and have been advised that the current levels of coral harvesting are fully maintainable. Why isn't the recommendations of the management organisations being listened to by Sen. Hill?
At The International Workshop on International Trade in Stony Corals: Development of Sustainable Management Guidelines held in Jakarta, 2001: the Marine Aquarium Society (a global organisation for the certification of quality and sustainability in the Marine Aquarium Industry) endorsed Australia as having the world's highest standards of collection and management practices.
Basically it boils down to Sen. Hill taking the easy way to get some green votes. Shut down a small industry that the public will percieve to have major impact on the environment. Don't both looking at the real issues here, such as agriculture run off, tourism, recreational divers, the Kyoto agreement (which Australia, I am ashamed to say, would not support it) etc.
I am not against regulation of the industry. The coral harvesters have actually been wanting the regulations to be overhauled. The reason is that it is out dated, most of it is aimed at the curio trade.
The flow on effects of the industry closure are more wide spread then people realise too. First off there is a monetry issue, those directly employed, those that provide services associated (transport, equipment) etc. Then there is the fact that shutting down the GBRWHA coral fishery will be an end to the marine aquarium hobby in Australia. The other reefs around Australia would not be able to stand the increase demand. That is not because of the actual impact it has, but more to do with the fact that if it increased dramatically people will suddenly sit up and say "hey, that is not good. They have shut it down on the GBRWHA, we should do the same here". Also realise that Australia cannot import or export invertebrates. So the effects are local and fatal.
Note that this does not influence the fish collection industry. If he gets away with this then it is a very easy step to then do the same to that fishery.
