[Coral-List] more articles

Magnus Johnson m.johnson at hull.ac.uk
Mon Feb 9 08:35:31 EST 2015

Thanks for posting these Doug,

One of the issues, which is a general one in fisheries, is that stronger "protection" for the GBR ("protection" because MPAs don't do anything to protect reefs from mine waste, agricultural run off etc) doesn't stop people eating fish and if you can't buy local fish you import from areas where protection is less stringent, damaging their habitats rather than your own.  I think one of the justifications for the expansion of the GBR was that it would enhance fisheries

"The actual commercial fishery catch data from the GBR region show that as a result of the RAP closures, there was an initial reduction in commercial catches of approximately 26% (only slightly less than the extra 28.4% of the area that was closed) and that catch data for 7 years after the closure showed no evidence of a recovery (Fletcher et al., in press). Clearly, the scientific advice to governments by BRS, and as interpreted in the RIS, that was to the fore in justifying increased fishing closures, over-optimistically projected the outcome from the closures."

Kearney B, Farebrother G (2014) Inadequate Evaluation and Management of Threats in Australia's Marine Parks , Including the Great Barrier Reef , Misdirect Marine Conservation. Adv Mar Biol 69:252-280

Cheers, Magnus

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-29705818 (article about coal exports from Australia) http://www.goldendolphin.com/WSarticles/WalterStarck(NatObs69).pdf (article from 2006 which points out that Australia is importing most of its seafood despite having a huge EEZ)


another popular article:

Cautionary fish tale from Australia's Great Barrier Reef marine reserve.


It contains a link to the original article, which is not open-access, but the abstract is open-access.  The web page gives the email address of the first author.

original article:

Fletcher, et al.  2015.  Large-scale expansion of no-take closures within the Great Barrier Reef has not enhanced fishery production.  Ecological Applications.


(My understanding is that the expansion of no-take areas in the GBR was not done to try to enhance fishery production, but rather for conservation purposes.  Further, the income to Australia from tourism to the GBR is far larger than income from fisheries on the GBR.  The article reports that the loss of fishery income which the closure produced was more than expected.
If I got it right, Australia pays compensation to fishers that lost income.  The larger loss of fishery income is thought to be because the fish and prawns were not overfished before closure.)
-------------- next part --------------
To view the terms under which this email is 
distributed, please go to 

More information about the Coral-List mailing list