Recfishwest Policy
Guiding Principles for Responding to Coastal, Marine, Riverine, and Impoundment Development Proposals

Recfishwest will always comment on proposals which will impact directly on our constituency as well as many, such as near coastal road proposals, which might have indirect access benefits, or perhaps present long term but indirect environmental threats. In so doing we take seriously the interests of our constituency, recreational fishers, but will do so in a way that is consistent and which is responsible to the interests of the broad public good.

Preamble

This policy should be read in conjunction with Recfishwest policy on marine reservation and no-take zones.

Recfishwest regularly comments on proposals for development; recent examples include proposals for a HIsmelt smelter at Kwinana, a marina development at Catherine Point; a major condominium at Mauds Landing; and harbour developments in Cockburn Sound.

Recfishwest supports ecologically sustainable development - that is; using, conserving and enhancing the community's resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and that the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased (CoA 1994). Our primary objective, for the purpose of this policy, is to ensure that recreational fishers have fair access to marine resources and that those resources are managed sustainably.

We represent the interests of recreational fishers, but also acknowledge the needs of other community interests in sharing the benefits of coastal and marine usage.

Recfishwest has been struck by the underlying ad-hoc nature of the originating process for various developments, noting the plethora of statutory and administrative frameworks, which offer varying levels of support and protections to developers. As well, it often seems that proposals are not always generated from a 'best usage of land or resources' process, but simply arise from the historical accident of land zoning decisions taken long ago.

With the benefit of hindsight the original decisions, for example, to provide extensive tracts of coastal freehold land, might well not be taken today. However, we now live with the legacy of inherited vested interests being not necessarily (even usually?) aligned with modern planning principles and which are not necessarily synchronised with the interests of a greatly expanded population with its contingent demands on resources.

Considerations taken into account in supporting proposals

Recfishwest will tend to support or oppose proposals for development to the extent that the proposals:

• impede or create general access to coastal, riverine, impoundment, or marine areas;
• create visual or noise or other nuisances pollution;
• cause environmental pollution or other environmental damage;
• create offsets to any negative impacts;
• arise from a planning framework which has undergone proper community consultation;
• provide broad community benefits, including economic and social impacts such as job employment.

Recfishwest recognises that, in evaluating proposals, it will be necessary to weigh the total benefits and costs which flow from individual proposals and to whom those flows benefit or impact upon. As an example Recfishwest might not oppose a proposal that limits a relatively small level of coastal access if the proposal also provides significant benefit to a local, or to the broad, community. However, the same proposal might not gain endorsement if the only beneficee was an individual aiming to maximize personal benefits.

In many cases, Recfishwest's commentary will be predictable. However, just as frequently, the relative costs and benefits of a project will be ambiguous and will require careful weighing of the varying factors integral to the proposal.

Four case studies

Recent examples on which we have provided extensive submissions include:

• Mauds Landing (Coral Coast resort condominium) proposal which was supported on the grounds that the proposal would, while providing benefit to a sectoral private interest, also create greatly enhanced access for fishers in a remote location and assist in resolving some long term environmental benefit to the adjacent Coral Bay community; at the same time, in our judgment, not greatly impacting on the Ningaloo marine park and adjacent waters, provided the park continues to be effectively managed.

• Catherine Point canal style development proposal south of Fremantle which we opposed on the principal ground that it would alienate a significant length of increasingly rare public foreshore in the area between Rockingham and Fremantle while providing insufficient public benefit through, primarily, proposed seawall access plus the saving to Government via a privately funded remediation of the currently polluted and degraded site. That is, Recfishwest considers that the 'balance of advantage' will accrue principally to the developer and to those fortunate enough to be able to buy lots.

• Kwinana HIsmelt proposal which was neither 'opposed nor supported'. This proposal will likely lead to some visual dust pollution from ore feedstock loading operations as well as probably create some limited and localized environmental damage at the loading jetties. As such Recfishwest would normally have opposed this proposal. However, we recognise that this will be a major project conferring significant economic benefits to the State and will be located on land which has been specifically allocated to heavy industry and which had previously been used for the exact same purpose. Nevertheless, our submission to not actually oppose is conditional on the proponent meeting all its environmental commitments as well as producing a further series of environmental studies. If the latter requirement were not met, Recfishwest would reconsider its position.

• Cockburn Sound harbour developments, which we have consistently opposed on the key grounds of cumulative loss of coastal access to our constituency, cumulative losses of remaining seagrass beds, and the serious environmental damage and public nuisance that has accompanied virtually all these projects.

Note that the above rationales are very abbreviated and given for illustrative purposes only. The full submissions are available at the Recfishwest website - www.recfishwest.org.au. as is Recfishwest policy on marine reservation and no-take areas.



This page last updated on 30 December 2003.