Our marine parks and sanctuaries are the last refuges for precious wildlife, ecosystemsHow ecosystems function An ecosystem is a community of lifeforms that interact in such an optimal way that how ecosystems function best, is when all components (including humans and other animals) can persist and live alongside each other for the longest time possible. Ecosystems are fuelled by the energy created by plants (primary producers) that convert the Sun's heat energy More and biodiversityWhat is the definition of biodiversity? When we ask, what is the definition of biodiversity? It depends on what we want to do with it. The term is widely and commonly misused, leading to significant misinterpretation of the importance of how animals function on Earth and why they matter a great deal, to human survival. Here I will try to More to flourish. Natural processes are supposed to be allowed to rebuild with quiet encouragement. As it’s been proved worldwide, nature has the power to restore fast, if given the chance. Which is why it’s disappointing to finally be allowed to read, via media releases and fanfare, details behind a joint project between The Nature Conservancy, Parks Victoria, Melbourne University and Deakin University. This has now, with certainty, permanently reduced the value of the Ricketts Point Marine Sanctuary.
The community has been excluded from this decision, coerced into a believing scientists without begin given all the evidence. Approval processes that are supposed to protect the site have been circumvented. The baseline surveys, on which decisions were made, fall well short of scientific best practice. This leaves no rationale for doing the work in a marine park.
Interviews with the project leaders
Before the current round of work began, we met with Parks Victoria’s Chief Scientist Michael Sams, on the request of the State Environment Minister. We first expressed our concerns about this work in early 2023.
This month (June 2024) we interviewed The Nature Conservancy’s Oceans Project Coordinator, Scott Breschkin.
These discussions and the recently-published information are enough to confirm our fears. That our most precious and important marine sanctuary is being used as a sandbox, to manipulate the ecosystem and create a new, wholly man-made and artificial ecosystem.
Permanent and irreversible change
In the first week of June, 2024, Senior Lecturer in Marine Science Prue Francis published an article on LinkedIn titled ‘Kelping Port Phillip Bay’. In that article, it is stated that up to 2km of twine and 450kg of ‘green gravel’ had already been placed in marine parks, to plant 300,000 Golden Kelp seedlings. This is the first information the public has received about this project.
The placement of artificial substrate in the park has now created permanent and irreversible change to the existing biotopes. For reasons explained below (Table 1), these existing systems were overlooked. The baseline work was done at the wrong time of year and long-term monitoring data was ignored. The rationale for this project is entirely experimental, which begs one serious question.
Why was it done inside the marine park?
The community is not qualified to understand
The Public Relations program used in this work has been influential but has not asked questions. Instead, it has told the public what the lead scientists believe.
We don’t expect anyone to take any alternative opinions ‘as read’ … but that’s the point. No-one has read the reasons for the opinions being given to them in the first place.
When questioned last year, Chief Scientist Michael Sams refused to provide information about how this project will be done. He stated unequivocally in our meeting, that the university scientists are the only people qualified to know and to make the decisions on our behalf. Parks Victoria has no intention of releasing any information to the public. Sams remarked that this information is ‘confidential’ despite being paid for from taxpayer-funded sources.
The only advice anyone will receive, is after the work had been done, peer reviewed and published by academic authors; or agreed to be released as part of the PR campaign.
Evidence that may have changed the decision, had details not been kept from the community
Table 1: Evidence that may have changed the decision, had details not been kept from the community
| Remark by scientists | Evidence to the contrary | Consequence for decision |
|---|---|---|
| The work is being done because of ‘an explosion of sea urchins inside the park’ | • Authors of the most pertinent study of urchin abundance in the marine parks demonstrate absolutely no difference in the average density of urchins inside, or outside parks; • The State government’s own long-term data series, shows urchin numbers have gone both up and down (they fluctuate). These do not show an increase. | Evidence from the park has been ignored. The assumption is conflated by concerns about overabundance elsewhere, regarding non-native urchins. Native urchins in the park remain a critical habitat component, especially for green coral. |
| The work is being done because there has been a huge decline in Golden Kelp in the park. The presence of a barren indicates the area of greatest decline. | • The State government’s own long-term data series, shows that Golden Kelp was always scarce in the park. There is also important data from the middle of the last century that shows this. • The resident algal biotopes are Sargassum/Caulerpa assemblages and green coral. • The dominant cover habitat, Caulerpa, is poisonous to sea urchins. | A critical oversight has occurred. The dominant biotopes have been ignored. The Caulerpa cannot be affected by sea urchins and kelp never occurred much, so barrens cannot possibly be caused by sea urchin abundance. Absence of kelp is not an indication of its decline. |
| Baseline work was only being in the summer. | • Scientific best practice always dictates a minimum of 2 replicate studies, one in each season. This is why it’s an ecological assessment standard imposed on every assessment before important planning decisions are made. • The resident algae biotopes grow in winter when no surveys were done. • We have presented simple time series that show a barren that is covered in lush growth a few months later. • The resident algal assemblages grow in the winter. A barren revegetates in the colder months. | The baseline work did not survey at the time when most algae grows. It surveyed when barrens are naturally prevalent. If it had been done properly, it would have revealed a more dynamic system and revealed the actual resident algae growth. |
| No consideration was given to establishment of the noxious weed pest Undaria. Parks Victoria’s Chief Scientist exclaimed that he would prefer a park with Undaria than no kelp at all. | • Undaria is considered one of the world’s worst marine pests. • It is grazed by urchins in winter. • it grows in winter but no monitoring was done in winter. | The establishment of this pest is high risk, given the removal of the urchins that graze on it As this work is premised under the guise of a plan to limit invasive species and improve habitat, this negates the benefits of removing urchins, unless this extreme risk can also be ruled out. |
| Urchin culls are done by reducing the average density over the whole area. | • Some urchins are very old (decades) and others are ‘zombie’ urchins. • Urchins are particularly important for the Green Coral biotope, which is significant at Ricketts Point. • Any sensible culling process would need to be abnle to tell these apart. • Average density culls don’t work. There is a peer-reviewed study that shows this, but it’s also common sense. • Urchins move. A density of 30 per m2 could, in theory, become a density of 1 per 30m2 over a few days. | The culls are more likely to increase risks to existing biotopes, especially Green Coral (which Parks Victoria admitted to not including in their assessment). Average culls will alter the existing ecosystem dynamic by removing the wrong urchins and result in further decline in the integrity of existing biotopes. This could take decades to recover from impacts already caused. |
| The work is to ‘prove if it’s possible then find out what it ends up looking like.’ | • There is no benchmark for what the scientists believe the ecosystem will look like after, any idea how to get there, how long it will take, or how it will behave. • Existing habitat has a certain significance ‘score’. The creation of a new, wholly artificial biotope, is guaranteed to remove existing vegetation. | This statement from the project head at The Nature Conservancy proves this is purely experimental. There is no existing rationale for the work, other than as an academic investigation into the possibility that kelp ‘may’ grow. In doing so, this creates an artificial substrate and biotope and guarantees the value of the park drops, due to the destruction of existing biotopes. |
The work needs to stop
Before any more damage is done, this work needs to stop. We requested this in our meeting with Parks Victoria Chief Scientist last year. We asked for a pause on the work, while information about the project was reviewed and advice sought. This request was ignored.
Now, over a year later, the damage has been done.
Whether or not you believe the opinions of the scientists, or the evidence provided her, is immaterial. It is a simple fact that evidence critical to decision-making was not taken into account. Expected standards of assessment, approval and community engagement have been seriously compromised. The approach is twenty years out of date with modern scientific thinking about how to co-manage, co-develop and co-implement nature-based solutions and park management. It also compromises on the state government’s policies for Marine Spatial Planning and contravenes the Auditor General’s directions given to Parks Victoria after a recent review of the agency’s misconduct.
The decision to allow this to proceed has been made as a ‘Captain’s Call’ by Parks Victoria, who licence the work. It has not gone through a Marine and Coastal Act Consent process. It is questionable whether this was the correct decision, given that they are not the compliance authority, only the enforcement authority.
All that aside, this comes down to two simple questions that everyone who cares about Ricketts Point Marine Sanctuary need to be asking is this:
- Given this is an entirely experimental project, why is this happening in the park at all? There are perfectly suitable places to trial these ideas outside the park.
- Why have Parks Victoria’s Chief Scientist, The Nature Conservancy, Melbourne University and Deakin University, been allowed to keep all details of this project confidential and avoid any third party consultation or review of their opinions and evidence for the project?
