South-east Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2023-2033

It is well established that fishing is the most significant threat to marine biodiversity and habitats after increasing sea surface temperatures. No-take MPAs are therefore critical for all marine conservation efforts. There is overwhelming evidence for higher species’ diversity, biomass and abundance within no-take areas, contributing to substantial “spill-over” benefits into surrounding waters. No-take MPAs also deliver the greatest conservation benefit for seabirds, as they reduce negative interactions with fisheries, such as overfishing of prey species, reliance on discards and mortality from bycatch. There is no doubt that some extractive uses of MPAs are incompatible with effective seabird conservation.

Unfortunately, less than 40% of the total area of the South-east Marine Park Network is currently zoned as no-take (Sanctuary or National Park zones), and most of the individual Marine Reserves that make up the Network do not include any no-take zones. Only Flinders and Freycinet Marine Reserves are primarily zoned no-take (>95%), while Macquarie and Murray Marine Reserves are <50% no-take, and Tasman Fracture Marine Reserve is <2% no-take. The other nine reserves do not contain any no-take zones.

A high number of seabirds, including the EPBC-listed Endangered Shy Albatross, are listed as Key Natural Values (defined as habitat or species that are particularly important to management) for many of the Marine Reserves in the South-east Network (detailed in the South-east Marine Parks Network State of Knowledge). Further consideration must therefore be given to the appropriateness of the existing zonings for seabirds going forward. This is especially important for Marine Parks that surround or are in close proximity to important breeding sites.

It is clear that the existing zoning and boundaries for the Marine Parks in the South-east Network do not provide sufficient protection to important seabird areas within Australia’s EEZ. Two examples below illustrate this:

• The Tasman Fracture Marine Reserve surrounds the Mewstone, a Tasmanian Nature Reserve that supports the largest breeding population of Shy Albatross in the world. Appropriately 692 km2 of Commonwealth Waters around the island is designated a National Park Zone, which prohibits extractive uses. However, the limited size of this no-take zone offers insufficient protection to the birds breeding on the Mewstone, even during the breeding season when adults typically forage within 300 km of their colony.

• Similarly, the Boags Marine Reserve and the northern half of the Franklin Marine Park are now known from tracking studies to contain core foraging areas for early incubating and post-fledgling juvenile Shy Albatross from nearby Albatross Island. However, both of these reserves are zoned as Multiple Use, with commercial fishing listed as a key activity in the Reserves. This means the existing zoning offers very little real protection to the species.

Currently, it is unclear how the zonings and boundaries of the current Marine Reserves relate to the protection of the identified Conservation Values in each reserve. At least for seabirds, it would appear that a precautionary approach has not been followed. The sole exception is the proposed expansion and rezoning of the Macquarie Island Marine Park, which will offer a higher level of protection to the identified Conservation Values of this Park. BirdLife Australia has already provided a separate submission supporting these proposed changes. Long-line fishing is to be restricted to the historical footprint of the existing industry (to be zoned as Habitat Protection). Trawl fisheries are not an allowed activity under this zoning. The remainder of the expanded Marine Park is proposed to be zoned Sanctuary and National Park, both of which prohibit extractive uses. It is hoped that a similarly evidence-based, data-driven approach will be adopted in revisiting the extent and zonings of the other 13 Marine Reserves in the South-east Network.

Given the substantial increase in quantitative data on seabird foraging habitats, and the more detailed knowledge on contemporary threats and conservation status available since the previous Management Plan was developed, we propose that two key aspects of the South-east Network must be revisited in the development of a new Management Plan for the coming decade. These are: 1) the efficacy of the existing coverage by Commonwealth Marine Parks in the South-east Network, and 2) the appropriateness of the existing IUCN zonings.

At minimum, provision must be made within the proposed revision of Management Plan for the Parks’ boundaries and zonings to be changed and updated as new information becomes available during the lifetime of the Plan. Parks Australia subscribes to an adaptive management approach for their Management Effectiveness Framework. Adaptive marine reserve management should allow for new knowledge to inform the way that parks are managed. It is important to make provisions in the revised Management Plan to facilitate such revisions should they be required during the lifetime of the Plan. Revisiting boundaries and IUCN categories at decadal intervals is insufficient to ensure protection of Critically Endangered and other Threatened Species in light of the increasing frequency and intensity of the threats faced by these species.

The South-east Marine Park Network Management Plan 2013-2023 identifies Conservation Values and the pressures and threats they face. Seabird species are listed in the South-east Marine Parks Network Management Plan 2013-2023 as Conservation Values for all but one of the 14 Marine Reserves. However, the South-east Marine Parks Network State of Knowledge reveals that there is still a significant lack of scientific information available for most Marine Reserves, including data on seabird species’ distributions and abundances. This lack of knowledge ensures that it is presently impossible to ensure that the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA) adequately conserves areas essential for maintaining the population viability of seabird species, including EPBC-listed threatened and migratory species. Understanding the extent to which the existing reserve system protects seabird habitat is fundamental for future conservation planning.

Since the South-east Marine Park Network Management Plan 2013-2023 was released, several relevant plans for seabird conservation have been published. These are the National Recovery Plan for Albatrosses and Petrels, the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Seabirds, the National Recovery Plan for the Australian Fairy Tern and the Action Plan for Australian Birds 2020. It is important that the development of any revised Management Plan(s) for the Network incorporates all available information on seabird species’ conservation status and threats, and that management priorities align with the recommendations within these plans.

In addition, significant new knowledge on spatial patterns of foraging and migration has become available for some seabird species since the previous Management Plan was published. This has been achieved through increased numbers of tracking studies over the last decade, and the extensive at-sea surveys by the Australasian Seabird Group on board the RV Investigator from 2016/17 to present. Integration of contemporary survey data available from satellite tracking studies, complemented with at-sea observations would be a significant and welcome improvement to the current state of knowledge for the Marine Reserves in the South-east network.

The state of knowledge for seabirds could also be improved by aligning the list of Conservation Values for each reserve with the Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) identified for seabirds within Australia’s EEZ. BIAs are spatially defined areas where aggregations of individuals of a regionally significant species are known to display biologically important behaviours such as breeding, foraging, resting or migration. There are currently discrepancies among the seabird species identified in the existing Management Plan as Conservation Values for each Reserve, and mapped BIAs for these species. For example, Nelson Marine Reserve has no seabird species listed as Conservation Values in the current Management Plan, yet an examination of BIA extents shows that this Reserve overlaps with BIAs for five albatross species.

DCCEEW is presently revising the process for identification of BIAs within Australia’s EEZ. The concurrence of the two reviews (BIAs and the South-east Marine Parks Network Management Plan) provides a unique opportunity to coordinate and integrate reserve management with contemporary knowledge of critical habitat for a broad spectrum of marine species. This opportunity also clearly sets the precedent for future reviews of other Marine Parks Networks around Australia.

Ideally, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) provide both direct and indirect benefits to seabirds. High-protection and no-take MPAs will directly reduce interactions with threatening processes such as fisheries, a known source of seabird mortality through incidental take or bycatch. MPAs can also indirectly promote healthier foraging habitats for seabirds, through protection of marine habitats from destructive processes such as benthic trawling. Regulation of fisheries can also ensure sustainable management of seabird prey requirements by reducing competition for resources. The likely impacts of allowable activities on seabirds need to be considered for MPAs to be effective for seabird conservation.

A high number of seabirds, including the EPBC-listed Endangered Shy Albatross, are listed as Key Natural Values (defined as habitat or species that are particularly important to management) for many of the Marine Reserves in the South-east Network (detailed in the South-east Marine Parks Network State of Knowledge). Further consideration must therefore be given to the appropriateness of the allowed activities within the existing Marine Park network. This is especially important for Marine Parks that surround or are in close proximity to important breeding sites.

See also comments above relating to zoning.

Please see attached submission.