Scientists have challenged Tanya Plibersek’s claim that Australia is protecting more than half of its oceans and has “blitzed” a 30% target, arguing industrial longline fishing will still be allowed in some areas the government says it is conserving.
The environment minister told a “global nature-positive summit” in Sydney on Tuesday the government had quadrupled the size of the sub-Antarctic Heard Island and McDonald Islands Marine Reserve, a world heritage area about 4,000km south-west of Perth.
She said the more than 300,000 sq km expansion of the marine reserve meant Australia would be protecting 52% of its ocean territory, far more than the 30% target by 2030 the government signed up to as part of a global agreement in 2022.
“I’m proud to say we’ve blitzed our 30 by 30 target when it comes to oceans,” she said.
Scientists welcomed the expansion, but said much of the area newly included in the reserve was not protected at a level that met the definition agreed in the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework.
Dr Ian Cresswell, a co-author of the last five-yearly federal State of the Environment report, said the announcement “took courage” and was “a really good step along the way” but it was “not job done”.
“Australia should not say that we’ve reached the target because we haven’t,” he said.
The global biodiversity framework commits countries to ensure at least 30% of marine and coastal regions are “effectively conserved and managed” as part of “ecologically representative” protected areas by 2030.
Cresswell, an adjunct professor at the University of Western Australia and former CSIRO research director for biodiversity, said Australia had reached about 25% of oceans protected under this definition.
He said some of the newly protected areas were not particularly ecologically sensitive, while other areas that seabirds and marine mammals used for feeding and during breeding had been deemed “habitat protection zone” – a designation that bans trawling and mining but allows fishing using bottom longlines.
“The system we have put in place is great, but it is not fully representative and misses some of the habitats we know should be protected,” Cresswell said.
Plibersek’s 52% claim was made based on definitions of protected area used by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The IUCN lists seven categories, ranging from “strict nature reserve” to “protected areas with sustainable use of natural resources”.
The government maps showing the expanded marine park said the areas described as “habitat protection zone” counted as an IUCN category four protected area, otherwise known as a “habitat or species management area”.
Fiona Maxwell, a scientist and the Pew Charitable Trusts’ national oceans manager, agreed with Cresswell. She also said it was great the protected area had been expanded, but added: “We are on the way to achieving our 30% target, but we are disappointed the government has used the 52% figure because it is misleading.”
after newsletter promotion
On Wednesday, the minister planned to announce the government would strengthen protection across 73,000 sq km of sea in 14 marine parks in the country’s south-east. The areas off the coast of Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania are home to rare and protected species including pygmy blue whales and the southern elephant seal.
Plibersek said the new protection included establishing 11 new “no-take” zones, a step that would lift 86% of the south-east park network into the highly protected category. Specific areas would be opened to “low-impact sustainable fishing”, but new deep-sea mineral mining and other industrial developments would be prevented.
Vexed question hangs over nature summit
The first day of the nature summit focused on the role of Indigenous leadership and knowledge in environment protection and the vexed question of how to pay to stop and reverse nature destruction.
In Canberra, negotiations remain stalled in parliament over legislation that would create an environment protection agency and a second body to collect environmental data. The Coalition does not believe nature laws need to be strengthened. The Greens and independents want changes so that climate impacts are considered during development approvals and an effective legal exemption for state-run native forest logging is removed.
The government has delayed a promised broader revamp of nature laws.
The Greens’ Sarah Hanson-Young said the nature-positive summit was “a flop” and accused the government of “caving to polluters and loggers”, pointing to Plibersek’s recent approval of three coalmine expansions. She blamed the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, for the stalled legislation.
Plibersek told delegates at the summit they were “at the start of the road when it comes to [being] nature positive and turning things around”. “Our job is not just to do the work, but to take others along with us [and] to build coalitions with unlikely allies as well as our traditional partners,” she said.