Questionable interpretation of the Precautionary Principle in Australia's implementation of 'no-take' marine protected areas

Robert Kearney, C. D. Buxton, P. Goodsell, G. Farebrother

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    9 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    The introduction of marine protected areas (MPAs) in Australia has resulted in an increase in the number and total area of 'no-take' zones. The resulting closures impact all forms of commercial and recreational fishing in and around them despite international recognition indicating that Australian fisheries were already well managed according to ecological sustainable development guidelines. Furthermore, it is recognised within Australia that most MPAs are not designed to provide protection from the full suite of known threats that can affect biodiversity and long-term ecosystem viability. By directing MPA management disproportionately towards comprehensive no-take zones that affect fishing practices that are already required by state and federal legislation to adhere to sustainability requirements, the suite of threats affecting both protected and unprotected areas can be left inadequately and/or inappropriately managed. It is shown in this paper that the modified definition of the Precautionary Principle, which was developed specifically for the MPA process in Australia, is not in keeping with accepted international definitions and guidelines for the use of precaution. It is argued that the development of a definition of precaution to justify a predetermined output (MPAs) devalues the sound use of scientific principles and diminishes the conservation outcome. Furthermore, by distracting efforts from determining and managing the full suite of recognised threats, the value of what protection is provided in Australia's marine protected areas is eroded further.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)592-597
    Number of pages6
    JournalMarine Policy
    Volume36
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Fingerprint

    precautionary principle
    protected area
    conservation areas
    interpretation
    fishing
    threat
    fisheries
    sport fishing
    international recognition
    sustainable development
    laws and regulations
    Precautionary principle
    Marine protected areas
    legislation
    viability
    fishery
    sustainability
    biodiversity
    ecosystems
    ecosystem

    Cite this

    Kearney, Robert ; Buxton, C. D. ; Goodsell, P. ; Farebrother, G. / Questionable interpretation of the Precautionary Principle in Australia's implementation of 'no-take' marine protected areas. In: Marine Policy. 2012 ; Vol. 36, No. 3. pp. 592-597.
    @article{1ede8c974460422c9b87350c5016b4ae,
    title = "Questionable interpretation of the Precautionary Principle in Australia's implementation of 'no-take' marine protected areas",
    abstract = "The introduction of marine protected areas (MPAs) in Australia has resulted in an increase in the number and total area of 'no-take' zones. The resulting closures impact all forms of commercial and recreational fishing in and around them despite international recognition indicating that Australian fisheries were already well managed according to ecological sustainable development guidelines. Furthermore, it is recognised within Australia that most MPAs are not designed to provide protection from the full suite of known threats that can affect biodiversity and long-term ecosystem viability. By directing MPA management disproportionately towards comprehensive no-take zones that affect fishing practices that are already required by state and federal legislation to adhere to sustainability requirements, the suite of threats affecting both protected and unprotected areas can be left inadequately and/or inappropriately managed. It is shown in this paper that the modified definition of the Precautionary Principle, which was developed specifically for the MPA process in Australia, is not in keeping with accepted international definitions and guidelines for the use of precaution. It is argued that the development of a definition of precaution to justify a predetermined output (MPAs) devalues the sound use of scientific principles and diminishes the conservation outcome. Furthermore, by distracting efforts from determining and managing the full suite of recognised threats, the value of what protection is provided in Australia's marine protected areas is eroded further.",
    keywords = "Marine protected areas, Conservation, Precautionary Principle.",
    author = "Robert Kearney and Buxton, {C. D.} and P. Goodsell and G. Farebrother",
    year = "2012",
    doi = "10.1016/J.MARPOL.2011.10.018",
    language = "English",
    volume = "36",
    pages = "592--597",
    journal = "Marine Policy",
    issn = "0308-597X",
    publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
    number = "3",

    }

    Questionable interpretation of the Precautionary Principle in Australia's implementation of 'no-take' marine protected areas. / Kearney, Robert; Buxton, C. D.; Goodsell, P.; Farebrother, G.

    In: Marine Policy, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2012, p. 592-597.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Questionable interpretation of the Precautionary Principle in Australia's implementation of 'no-take' marine protected areas

    AU - Kearney, Robert

    AU - Buxton, C. D.

    AU - Goodsell, P.

    AU - Farebrother, G.

    PY - 2012

    Y1 - 2012

    N2 - The introduction of marine protected areas (MPAs) in Australia has resulted in an increase in the number and total area of 'no-take' zones. The resulting closures impact all forms of commercial and recreational fishing in and around them despite international recognition indicating that Australian fisheries were already well managed according to ecological sustainable development guidelines. Furthermore, it is recognised within Australia that most MPAs are not designed to provide protection from the full suite of known threats that can affect biodiversity and long-term ecosystem viability. By directing MPA management disproportionately towards comprehensive no-take zones that affect fishing practices that are already required by state and federal legislation to adhere to sustainability requirements, the suite of threats affecting both protected and unprotected areas can be left inadequately and/or inappropriately managed. It is shown in this paper that the modified definition of the Precautionary Principle, which was developed specifically for the MPA process in Australia, is not in keeping with accepted international definitions and guidelines for the use of precaution. It is argued that the development of a definition of precaution to justify a predetermined output (MPAs) devalues the sound use of scientific principles and diminishes the conservation outcome. Furthermore, by distracting efforts from determining and managing the full suite of recognised threats, the value of what protection is provided in Australia's marine protected areas is eroded further.

    AB - The introduction of marine protected areas (MPAs) in Australia has resulted in an increase in the number and total area of 'no-take' zones. The resulting closures impact all forms of commercial and recreational fishing in and around them despite international recognition indicating that Australian fisheries were already well managed according to ecological sustainable development guidelines. Furthermore, it is recognised within Australia that most MPAs are not designed to provide protection from the full suite of known threats that can affect biodiversity and long-term ecosystem viability. By directing MPA management disproportionately towards comprehensive no-take zones that affect fishing practices that are already required by state and federal legislation to adhere to sustainability requirements, the suite of threats affecting both protected and unprotected areas can be left inadequately and/or inappropriately managed. It is shown in this paper that the modified definition of the Precautionary Principle, which was developed specifically for the MPA process in Australia, is not in keeping with accepted international definitions and guidelines for the use of precaution. It is argued that the development of a definition of precaution to justify a predetermined output (MPAs) devalues the sound use of scientific principles and diminishes the conservation outcome. Furthermore, by distracting efforts from determining and managing the full suite of recognised threats, the value of what protection is provided in Australia's marine protected areas is eroded further.

    KW - Marine protected areas

    KW - Conservation

    KW - Precautionary Principle.

    U2 - 10.1016/J.MARPOL.2011.10.018

    DO - 10.1016/J.MARPOL.2011.10.018

    M3 - Article

    VL - 36

    SP - 592

    EP - 597

    JO - Marine Policy

    JF - Marine Policy

    SN - 0308-597X

    IS - 3

    ER -