By Dr Denise Russell
The Great Barrier Reef is the largest marine coral ecosystem in the world. It is an area of enormous diversity, of great beauty and scientific interest, yet highly vulnerable to human interference. The setting up of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and the Authority (GBRMPA) in 1975 were significant advances in the preservation of the reef. However, the key principles which form the basis of the authority's management decisions do have some flaws.
The management philosophy seeks to achieve conservation with the minimum of regulation. It aims to ensure a high level of usage which is consistent with maintenance of the ecological system and which will be accepted as reasonable by society. The management state that "An understanding of the Reef and the processes which maintain it is necessary before sensible decisions can be made about competing uses, and before limitations can be placed on potentially destructive uses" (my emphasis).
Zoning plans have been developed in line with these principles, but most of the park is zoned for general use, which restricts mining and spearfishing only.
Less than 10% in the Cairns section is zoned Marine National Park, and even this area has various sub-zones. The largest has only fairly light restrictions on some fishing and collecting. These "A" zones adjoin buffer zones where trolling for pelagic fish is allowed but no other fishing. Buffer zones adjoin reefs where fishing is prohibited. Very small areas are zoned for scientific research and preservation. The authority claims that "the provisions of the Marine National Park Zones are similar in concept to those of national parks on land".
The aim to support a high level of use and a diversity of human activities in a fragile environment runs counter to the aim of conservation. Marlin fishing is a good example of weaknesses in the management philosophy. Competitions were widely promoted in Cairns as recently as early 1993, and Lizard Island hosted a Marlin Classic where marlin weighing hundreds of kilos were hauled onto the beach. This is a barbarous sport, no different from big game hunting.
An alarming report by the previous director of the Lizard Island Research Station stated that big game fishing boats frequently call into Cod Hole (which is a preservation zone because it houses 16 or so large potato cod). To entertain their clients when the marlin aren't biting, the crew dangle a tail-roped tuna
from the back of the boat, and the cod fight for the bait. In the process the fish inflict wounds on each other; the cod who gets the bait incurs mouth and body damage. This activity is not illegal because the line has no hook. That this is permissible in an area of the tightest zoning should lead us to reflect on the philosophy behind the zoning.
Another weakness is the idea that if you can't prove that an activity is hazardous, allow it to go ahead. One member of GBRMPA even follows this philosophy through to oil drilling on the reef when he says, "if no research is done or no unacceptable risk can be demonstrated, exploratory drilling may well be permitted leading to exploitation if oil is discovered". This was written in 1977, after several oil spills that had devastated marine environments in other parts of the world.
Overseas witnesses to the Royal Commission on Petroleum Drilling in the Great Barrier Reef Waters in 1974 testified that an offshore oil industry, once established, could do more lasting damage to marine life through small but continuous spills, detergent treatments, discharge of water and mud used in drilling and other kinds of pollution than even single large spectacular oil accidents would do. Yet the above comments assume that no unacceptable risk has yet been demonstrated.
When we're dealing with an area of such profound importance and fragility, it is far preferable to take the stand that we should prohibit or restrict activities unless we have good reasons for thinking they are harmless. This should apply to all activities in the park, not just oil exploration or drilling.
Two others that desperately need further restrictions are fishing and tourism. The harm that tourists and tourist development are doing is clear to the casual observer. Yet tourism in the Cairns area is increasing at a rate of roughly 30% per annum, and GBRMPA gives permission for development which could be predicted at the outset to be destructive, e.g. the development on Magnetic Island, which will severely affect up to 50% of the coral reef in Nelly Bay.
The harm done by depletion of fish stocks may not be realised until it is too late. There is very little research into the long-term viability of reef fishing, and attempts at monitoring reef fish have not been successful. There is not even consensus on the appropriate method for monitoring. Yet very little restriction is placed on what fish are taken. Again the philosophy is: wait and see if these practices are dangerous.
The sad truth is that we might not have very long to wait.
Further flaws stem from acceptance of a land-based model, assuming the area can be divided into reasonably distinct regions, albeit with buffer zones.
This model is questionable on land, but it is nonsense in the sea because of the dispersal of the larvae of marine plants and animals. In an extensive study done in the mid-'80s by Gordon Bull, larval drift was recorded up to 728 kilometres, though perhaps most larvae settle in three days, three to eight nautical miles away from the spawning area. The conclusions from this study relate to about one-third of the corals on the reef and they establish the interconnectedness of different reef regions.
Other examples throw a shadow over zoning: the cod in the Cod Hole do not always stay in their small preservation zone. They may stray into the nearby zone, where trolling is legal. The scientist working in the scientific zone on Lizard Island may be frustrated to find his subjects killed in legal fishing a few hundred metres from the shore.
There are threats to the reef from activities in areas adjacent to the park, in particular from land run-off and proposed oil exploration/drilling. A philosophy which accepts the zoning model within the park makes it easy to look upon the reef as a unit separate from the adjacent land and sea. This makes it difficult to counter the threats from adjacent areas.
If the notion of interconnectedness of regions within the park is accepted, then it will be easier to see the connection between reef and non-reef areas. This philosophical stance doesn't, of course, solve the problem of state/Commonwealth jurisdiction.
A similar problem arises with the use of the reef channel for shipping.
There has been an average of one oil spill a year since 1970 from these ships, but there was a sharp increase in the last year. Often these spills are deliberate, and large fines do not work.
The safeguards in place to handle oil spills are hopelessly inadequate. It is difficult for GBRMPA to do anything about this, and even the hands of the federal government are tied to some extent because of international shipping laws relating to the free passage of shipping. Yet this is an area where urgent action is desperately needed.
The policy of "wait and see" if any activity is harmful in an area of such profound biological diversity is very dangerous indeed.
A more cautious approach should be based on the principle that if
we know that an activity is harmful, or if we are unsure of its effects, then prohibit, restrict or encourage against.
Yet given the very uneven effectiveness of the exercise of power from above, the principle should ideally lead to self-policing. This is a mammoth problem with commercial shipping and fishing, which are areas requiring tighter government intervention.
Self-policing works well with smaller scale activities. The tour boat operators in Hervey Bay exemplify this; there is a good sense of community and recognition that the regulations regarding whale watching are worth keeping to protect the industry.
An alternative philosophy of reef management should also take more account of the interconnection, not only between different parts of the park, but also between the park and its land and sea edges. The imposition of zones masks this reality.
Obviously some local regulation is required, but it could take place within an overall perspective of interconnectedness. The danger with zoning is that it gives a licence to harmful activities within certain areas and orients people's thinking away from the whole. It is only by keeping the whole in mind that we will have a chance of preserving the reef.
[The author is head of the Department of General Philosophy, University of Sydney.]