Sections

Services

Information

UK United Kingdom

Marine reserves: finding the balance with oil and gas

How do we get the most out of our marine reserves? The government is in the process of reviewing Australia’s network of marine protected areas. The review focuses on zones that exclude recreational fishers…

While we don’t know much about oceans off north west Australia, we know they’re important. Australian Institute of Marine Science

How do we get the most out of our marine reserves? The government is in the process of reviewing Australia’s network of marine protected areas. The review focuses on zones that exclude recreational fishers, and whether those fishers can be allowed back in.

However, fishing isn’t the only threat to marine life: oil and gas developments also influence offshore waters. Separating marine protected areas and regions with oil and gas potential leads to an unrepresentative reserve system. But working with oil and gas companies could work out both for industry and our ocean.

Like oil and water

Striking the balance between biodiversity conservation and industry is never easy. It is particularly difficult in regions that support both important biodiversity values and industry assets such as oil and gas resources and important commercial and recreational fisheries.

While the current management review will focus on fishing, a very different challenge exists in Australia’s northwest marine region. Here, some of the world’s most pristine and biologically diverse marine ecosystems overlay internationally significant oil and gas reserves.

Australia’s gas production has almost doubled since the turn of the century and is expected to quadruple by 2035. In a time of transition, following a decade-long mining boom, the government is seeking to maximise access to the nation’s oil and gas resources. With the majority (92%) of Australia’s conventional gas resources located in Australia’s northwest, finding the right balance between biodiversity conservation and industry interests is difficult and potentially expensive.

In fact, disasters have happened. In 2009, this region experienced the worst offshore oil spill in Australia’s history. The blowout from PTTEP’s Montara wellhead, located 250km off the Kimberley coast, resulted in 10 weeks of continuous release of oil and gas into the Timor Sea.

In total, the oil spill was estimated to cover an area of 90,000 square kilometres. Ongoing aerial spraying with dispersants was the primary early response to the spill with tens of thousands of litres of chemical dispersants sprayed into Australian waters.

We learned two very important lessons from the spill. First, the threat of an oil spill was realised and one of our most pristine and ecologically diverse marine environments was put at risk of irreversible damage.

Second, it highlighted what we don’t know. We lack the ecological data for the region to be able to identify and manage the impacts of an oil spill.

The proposed strict no-take marine reserves for Australia’s northwest leave many ecological communities unprotected. Cordelia Moore

Protecting hidden reefs and biodiversity hotspots

After the spill, scientists hurried to start filling the gaps in what we know. While we lacked pre-existing ecological data, there was little evidence of a substantial impact from the oil spill. To improve this process in the future we now have some baseline monitoring sites in place. In addition, we have a new regulator focused on the implementation of more stringent oil spill response plans and risk management procedures and individual companies have had to upgraded their response and management plans.

One important discovery was the rich coral reef communities of the submerged banks and shoals. These abrupt geological features pepper the continental shelf and shelf edge. However, as these underwater mounds plateau beneath the sea surface they have previously gone unnoticed, hidden beneath the waves.

Intensive post-spill surveys revealed the shoals to support fish diversity greater that that seen on similar features within the Great Barrier Reef. They are also positioned to act as important stepping stones for biological connectivity across Australia’s north west and may serve as an important refuge for species vulnerable to climate change.

However, the current national marine reserves system offers almost no protection for these areas (less than 2% fall within the no take marine reserves).

“World’s largest marine park network”

The previous government aimed to create the “world’s largest marine park network”. With the current network falling just shy of 30% of Australia’s territorial waters, they came very close.

Although, as Bob Pressey detailed in his article on Australia’s marine protected areas, size isn’t everything.

Last month I lead a workshop at the University of Western Australia to assess the marine park network to the north west of Australia (north of Broome). The workshop included universities, government and industry.

During the workshop we assessed just how representative the marine parks of this region actually are. With little data available on biodiversity, we used the proxy of undersea geomorphology.

What we found is that of 19 different ecological communities, only four are adequately represented, two are over-represented, seven are under-represented and six aren’t represented at all.

Because we don’t exactly know what’s under the sea, we use geomorphology as a proxy. Cordelia Moore

The most vulnerable section of our marine region is the continental shelf (less than 200m depth), where threats to biodiversity are concentrated. Despite this, the majority (75%) of the proposed no take areas focuses on the abyssal plain 3000-6000 metres below the surface.

Why? Protecting biodiversity to the north west of Australia comes with substantial opportunity costs to the oil and gas industry and commercial fishers. As a result, the proposed marine reserves of Australia’s north west have weighed heavily in favour of industry.

A way forward

With a reserve system already struggling to be representative, there are very real concerns associated with making any changes outside a robust conservation planning process. Currently the federal government proposes to maintain the outer boundaries of the marine parks network, while changing zoning within the reserves to allow recreational and commercial fishers access. But without closing alternative areas, this will only compromise our limited ability to manage threatening processes and conserve biodiversity.

Examining a small fraction of the problem will only ever provide a small fraction of the solution.

At the workshop in WA, we tried to come up with a better solution. We looked at a way to maximise representativeness, while minimising costs to user groups using an advanced systematic conservation planning approach.

Preliminary analyses demonstrated that entirely excluding whole regions prospective for oil and gas reserves makes a system of marine protected areas unrepresentative while including these regions makes a reserve system very expensive.

One cost-effective solution could be found for this region by bringing industry users into the management process and agreeing that prospective areas for oil and gas extraction are not incompatible with marine biodiversity conservation. Oil and gas developments often have stringent biodiversity protection targets and with people present on most sites all the time, enforcement of adjacent no take areas is potentially far cheaper.

The possibility for the oil and gas industry to be actively engaged in the protection of marine biodiversity may be a way of offering presently unrepresented marine ecosystems some level of protection too. In general the industry’s infrastructure footprint is quite small. Major oil spills from exploration and production activities world-wide are relatively rare with just one occurring on the west coast of Australia. While the risk is low, the consequences can be high. Therefore implementing multiple protected areas is one way of ‘hedging our bets’.

In a region highly valuable to industry the costs of biodiversity protection will be high if we continue to see oil and gas interests as incompatible with conservation. But leaving these unique ecosystems without management and protection may cost us even more in the long term.

Read more about marine parks here.

Join the conversation

14 Comments sorted by

  1. Robert Smith

    retired

    Major spills may be "relatively rare" but lets just mention Florida....
    It's hard to trust that oil and gas companies will ever do anything but place profit ahead of all else, that is what they've always done. Companies like Chevron for example like to boast about their green credentials in relation to the Gorgon project, but in reality they are only being so caring about the environment because the legislation surrounding that development enforces it. No compliance, no project.
    The chances that our current federal government will insist on stringent environmental compliance for future oil and gas developments seems pretty remote given their retoric so far.
    Still as long as some multinationals can make a lots more billions of dollars from our natural resources what's the problem?

    report
    1. Chris Reynolds

      Education Consultant

      In reply to Robert Smith

      The issues with spills it seems to me is not that they are infrequent but that when they occur they are dire in their consequences. this is why marine parks should be off limits to exploration for raw materials. Then they are real marine parks and not just say-so-when-it-suits you marine parks like the ones the Abbott government thinks we should have.

      report
  2. Jack Arnold

    Polymath

    Cordella, Euan and Hugh, we got the balance correct in the 1970s when we successfully prevented oil and gas drilling on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). Read the book. Look for the statue of the lay researcher who stood up in the Mining Warden's Court and declared that oil & gas exploration would ruin the GBR ... then went to UQ to get the evidence from the professionals.

    Getting into bed with the petroleum industry or the CSG industry is a one way ticket to a third world economy, just like West Africa (thank you Dutch Shell) or the Gulf of Mexico (thank you BP).

    Then consider the vast income derived by the tourism industry from exploiting, rather than ruining, the pristine waters of the GBR over those 40 years. Dead coral is not a tourist attraction. What is done in other countries is irrelevant to Australia.

    report
  3. Chris Reynolds

    Education Consultant

    The issue is when is a recreational fisherman a commercial fisherman in disguise? If the answer is so simple, how easy is it to enforce/ What compliance practices will government put in place? Will there be more rather than less green/red tape? Are the politicians simply pandering or are they trying to find a genuine and fair and practicable solution?

    Doesn't seem to me have any of the answers to these fundamental questions - just a lot conservative kite-flying.

    report
  4. Wade Macdonald

    Technician

    Quote..."But leaving these unique ecosystems without management and protection may cost us even more in the long term."

    I don't think this is an accurate statement. You are advocating bans not management.

    Species specific conservation, closed seasons, aquatic reserves, spatial closures, boat and bag limits, plus more already exist for fishing.

    Mining has strict terms and conditions as well but it is the amount of approvals in specific areas that is of concern.

    There are many ways to manage activities without baning areas for infinity. Sometimes delay should be used before bans to manage impacts.

    report
  5. Dustin Welbourne

    PhD Candidate in Biogeography + Science Communicator at UNSW Australia

    I think we need to re-frame the conversation here as the language in two sentences in this article illustrates how far askew the discussion has become.

    “It is particularly difficult in regions that support both important biodiversity values and industry assets such as oil and gas resources and important commercial and recreational fisheries.” & “Protecting biodiversity to the north west of Australia comes with substantial opportunity costs to the oil and gas industry and commercial fishers…

    Read more
    1. Wade Macdonald

      Technician

      In reply to Dustin Welbourne

      So Dustin,

      Should the citizenry be able to ban said activities because the cashed up the conservation movement paint a distorted picture in the meedja at every opportunity?

      report
    2. Suzy Gneist
      Suzy Gneist is a Friend of The Conversation.

      Multi-tasker at Graphic Design & Montville Coffee

      In reply to Dustin Welbourne

      I agree, Dustin, the underlying assumption seems to be that natural assets are the property of those private interests who want to exploit them for financial profit, and their intrinsic value to the World or even Australian ecosystem is not accepted apart from a partial trade off to allow a portion to (maybe) be less impacted by exploitation.
      Unless we change these assumptions, more and more irreplaceble natural resources will be lost to future generations - apart from the oil and gas long burned and profits squirrelled out of sight of taxation by the time the longterm impacts hit.

      report
    3. Dustin Welbourne

      PhD Candidate in Biogeography + Science Communicator at UNSW Australia

      In reply to Wade Macdonald

      Hi Wade,
      Not only is your comment a non-sequitur, it is also a loaded question. You may as well asked me when I stopped beating my children. Good attempt at a troll though.

      report
    4. Ben Diggles

      Aquatic animal health specialist at DigsFish Services

      In reply to Suzy Gneist

      Suzy is correct in saying these natural assets are the property of all Australians. The development costs as well as distribution of the money benefits should be closely studied and properly weighed up prior to any development based on natural resource extraction, whether they be near MPAs or not.

      "prospective areas for oil and gas extraction are not incompatible with marine biodiversity conservation"

      As demonstrated by the fiasco in Gladstone Harbour, even downstream areas far away from the…

      Read more
  6. Cordelia Moore

    Postdoctoral Research Fellow at University of Western Australia

    The reality is that we have a multibillion dollar oil and gas industry already in operation in the region and a reserve system that is not representative of Australia’s north west. Oil spill risk modelling has shown the entire region could be at risk of exposure to another major spill. So the question is, do we avoid the region entirely and provide no protection or management options for these unique ecosystems? Or do we look at ways to hedge our bets and work with industry to ensure these ecosystems are afforded some kind of protection?

    report
    1. Wade Macdonald

      Technician

      In reply to Cordelia Moore

      Can you please outline your understanding of all the existing regulations put in place before claiming the only way for 'representative' protection is through marine park exclusion on both mining and fishing please?

      report
  7. solarcity.org

    logged in via Twitter

    There is no such thing as a free lunch. The Conversation my be 'free' but obviously lives of paid ads such as this one, disguised as articles. Oil and gas combustion figure among the mega-threats to human civilisation - so how do we deserve this disinformation?

    report