Beyond GVP: the value of inshore commercial fisheries to fishers and consumers in regional communities on Queensland’s east coast: Final Report

This report examines the potential economic benefits to regional communities from the Queensland inshore fisheries (pot, net and line fisheries). In doing so, the project has developed a series of questionnaires and analysis tools that could be potentially applied in other regions with fairly minimal modification. The report outlines the theory underpinning these methods, as well as their application. The results of the analysis indicate that the inshore fisheries produce substantial local benefits well in excess of their own gross value product (GVP). The study was undertaken by economists and social scientists from CSIRO and JCU, with significant input from research students from QUT also. Background Fisheries in Queensland, and elsewhere, are coming under increased pressure from other potential resource users for access to the resources. These include the fish resource itself (i.e. by recreational fishers), as well as encroachment on the area of the fishery through conservation based closures and onshore activities (e.g. port development) that impact where vessels may operate (and potentially the resource itself). Quantifying the potential impact on fisheries is necessary (but not sufficient) to ensure that resources are used most effectively, and that all costs of alternative resource uses are taken into consideration in decision making. The value of fisheries, and hence the potential impact of alternative uses, goes beyond the landed value of the catch. Fisheries play a key role in many coastal communities, directly generating income for local residents as well as stimulating other sectors through the demand for inputs into fishing as well as through expenditure from the income generated. The supply of fresh fish to the local community also provides other benefits

Structural and psycho-social limits to climate change adaptation in the great barrier reef region

Adaptation, as a strategy to respond to climate change, has limits: there are conditions under which adaptation strategies fail to alleviate impacts from climate change. Research has primarily focused on identifying absolute bio-physical limits. This paper contributes empirical insight to an emerging literature on the social limits to adaptation. Such limits arise from the ways in which societies perceive, experience and respond to climate change. Using qualitative data from multi-stakeholder workshops and key-informant interviews with representatives of the fisheries and tourism sectors of the Great Barrier Reef region, we identify psycho-social and structural limits associated with key adaptation strategies, and examine how these are perceived as more or less absolute across levels of organisation. We find that actors experience social limits to adaptation when: i) the effort of pursuing a strategy exceeds the benefits of desired adaptation outcomes; ii) the particular strategy does not address the actual source of vulnerability, and; iii) the benefits derived from adaptation are undermined by external factors. We also find that social limits are not necessarily more absolute at higher levels of organisation: respondents perceived considerable opportunities to address some psycho-social limits at the national-international interface, while they considered some social limits at the local and regional levels to be effectively absolute

Future Scenarios as a Research Tool: Investigating Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation Options and Outcomes for the Great

Abstract Climate change is a significant future driver of change in coastal social-ecological systems. Our knowledge of impacts, adaptation options, and possible outcomes for marine environments and coastal industries is expanding, but remains limited and uncertain. Alternative scenarios are a way to explore potential futures under a range of conditions. We developed four alternative future scenarios for the Great Barrier Reef and its fishing and tourism industries positing moderate and more extreme (2-3°C above pre-industrial temperatures) warming for 2050 and contrasting 'limited' and 'ideal' ecological and social adaptation. We presented these scenarios to representatives of key stakeholder groups to assess the perceived viability of different social adaptation options to deliver desirable outcomes under varied contexts

Competition and conflict between recreational and commercial gillnet fishers in north Queensland estuaries: perception or reality?

Conflict between recreational and commercial fishers resulting from competition for shared fish stocks is a significant concern in the management of fisheries resources throughout Australia, with each sector calling for tighter restrictions on the activities of the other. In north Queensland, competition for a share of the barramundi resource is apparent through numerous media articles outlining opinions of both sectors. Opinions expressed in the media can influence decisions by managers and politicians who allocate and distribute access to fisheries resources, though usually it is not known whether such opinions are representative of the general fishing population. To address this uncertainty, a questionnaire program was implemented for recreational line fishers and commercial gillnet fishers. Questions focussed on fishers’ perceptions about competition and conflict between the sectors, their view and knowledge of their own and the competing sectors’ impacts, and their suggested solutions to competition. Results indicate that fishers from each sector holds negative opinions of the competing sector, and positive opinions of their own sector, perhaps indicating a likelihood for blame for negative outcomes, such as declines in catches. Negative opinions, however, appear to be based on perceptions that are not supported by scientific research, suggesting that correct information about fishing impacts of each sector is failing to reach the general fishing public. Solutions suggested by respondents include improving education and communication within and between sectors, or segregating the sectors via Recreational Only Fishing Areas (ROFAs). Overall, results suggest that current conflict between sectors may be eased through increased education and communication, highlighting the importance of social research into such situations

Recreational Only Fishing Areas: have they reduced conflict and improved recreational catches in North Queensland, Australia?

Competition and conflict between commercial and recreational fishers over shared fish\ud stocks is a historic and current reality, and has been documented in all developed and\ud some developing countries (Ruello and Henry 1977; Gartside 1986; Aas and Skurdal\ud 1996; Sumaila 1999; Kearney 2002a, b; Pitcher and Hollingworth 2002; Sumaila 2002;\ud McPhee and Hundloe 2004; Arlinghaus 2005). Although recreational and commercial\ud fishing sectors are often in competition to the point of conflict with other users\ud (including within their own sector), apparent conflict between recreational and\ud commercial fishers is currently one of the most significant issues for fisheries\ud management in Australia and many other countries (West and Gordon 1994; Brayford\ud 1995; van Buerren et al. 1997; McPhee and Hundloe 2004; Arlinghaus 2005). Conflicts\ud may be severe and expensive of management resources, regardless of whether they\ud are “real” or only perceived (i.e. based on fishers’ beliefs but not substantiated) by one\ud or more of the involved fishing sectors (Jacob and Schreyer 1980; Aas and Skurdal\ud 1996).\ud \ud Many authors suggest conflict between recreational and commercial fishing\ud sectors is increasing as contact between the sectors increases, particularly in coastal\ud areas and close to population centres (Gartside 1986; Edwards 1991; Hannah and\ud Smith 1993; Brayford 1995; Ramsay 1995; Scialabba 1998; O'Neill 2000; McPhee et\ud al. 2002; Steffe et al. 2005b). Increasing contact between the sectors may be due to a\ud number of factors including: increased population; increased recreational fishing\ud participation; and improved accessibility to previously remote fishing areas (Smith\ud 1980; Henry 1984; Edwards 1990; van der Elst 1992; Hannah and Smith 1993; Green\ud 1994; West and Gordon 1994; Kearney 2001, 2002b; Williams 2002a; Sumner 2003;\ud Steffe et al. 2005b). Although conflict can occur when commercial and recreational\ud fishers target different species, the conflict situation is enhanced when the same\ud species are targeted by both sectors (Arlinghaus 2005).\ud \ud In an attempt to reduce contact between competing sectors and hence reduce\ud conflict, sector-specific closures are introduced in previously shared areas (Samples\ud 1989; Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries 2003). Recreational Only Fishing\ud Areas (ROFAs) (i.e. areas where commercial fishing is banned, leaving exclusive\ud access to recreational fishers (anglers)) are becoming increasingly common in\ud Australia and other developed countries (Owen 1981; Rogers and Gould 1995;\ud Kearney 2002b; McPhee et al. 2002; Walters 2003). All States and Territories in Australia have implemented ROFAs, particularly in coastal areas. For instance, in New\ud South Wales (NSW) in May 2002, 30 areas along the coast became “Recreational\ud Fishing Havens” (termed ROFAs here), where commercial fishing was either\ud completely banned or significantly restricted. These ROFAs resulted in the closure of\ud 24% of the State’s estuarine waters to commercial fishing (NSW Department of\ud Primary Industries 2004; Steffe et al. 2005b). In the Northern Territory, the rise of the\ud recreational fishing sector in the 1980s shifted the focus of barramundi management to\ud the allocation of the resource between the competing sectors. This resulted in the\ud exclusion of commercial fishing from some areas including all freshwater areas, plus\ud Darwin Harbour, Kakadu National Park, and the Daly, Mary and Roper Rivers (Pender\ud 1995; Griffin 2003). In Victoria, only 4 of 25 bays and inlets allow commercial finfish\ud fishing, making the remaining areas effectively ROFAs for finfish (Murray MacDonald,\ud Department of Primary Industries Victoria, pers. comm., 2006

The effectiveness of recreational only fishing areas in North Queensland estuaries for reducing conflict and improving recreational catches\ud \ud

Allocation of fisheries resources to recreational fishers via Recreational Only Fishing\ud Areas (ROFAs) is becoming increasingly common in all developed countries,\ud particularly in coastal areas. ROFAs are often introduced with the expectation that such\ud action will segregate competing recreational and commercial fishers (by excluding\ud commercial fishers) and thus resolve apparent conflict over previously shared fisheries\ud resources. ROFAs also have the expected benefit of improving recreational catch\ud quality for previously shared species. Whether these benefits are realised, however, is\ud unknown because little monitoring of outcomes occurs post-ROFA implementation.\ud \ud Using questionnaires of recreational and commercial fishers and collection of\ud fishery-dependent and fishery-independent recreational catch data, this study\ud investigated the outcomes of ROFAs in north Queensland estuaries. Specifically, the\ud study examined: the nature and source of conflict between recreational and\ud commercial fishers competing for shared barramundi stocks; whether current estuarine\ud ROFAs are successful in segregating and reducing conflict between these sectors; and\ud whether ROFAs result in improved recreational catches of barramundi.\ud \ud Results from the questionnaires show that while recreational fishers (anglers)\ud have high expectations of ROFAs and would like more implemented, most anglers are\ud unaware of locations of current ROFAs, and do not deliberately choose to use them.\ud Consequently, current ROFAs are not increasing segregation of recreational and\ud commercial fishers. Moreover, contact between the recreational and commercial\ud sectors appears to already be limited due to time segregation (commercial netting is\ud not allowed in estuaries on weekends) and the finding that most commercial fishers\ud avoid areas heavily occupied by recreational fishers. Thus the conflict between these\ud sectors does not appear to be due to high levels of direct contact.\ud \ud Investigations of the perceptions of fishers from both sectors via the\ud questionnaire program revealed that the underlying conflict between commercial and\ud recreational fishers in north Queensland appears to be based on mutual\ud misperceptions of the competing sector’s operations and impacts, particularly from\ud anglers. Such misperceptions lead to blame (i.e. anglers blame commercial fishers) for\ud negative outcomes such as (real or perceived) catch declines. ROFAs do not address\ud this problem of mutual misperceptions of fishers and are therefore unlikely to resolve\ud this conflict in the long-term. Increased communication between sectors and education\ud from fisheries managers and researchers and stakeholder representatives regarding\ud each sector’s operations and impacts on the resource is more likely to reduce conflict. Such actions should reduce misperceptions, adjusting attitudes of fishers to be more\ud positive towards the competing sector, and hence reducing conflict.\ud \ud Despite anecdotal claims and expectations of improved recreational catches of\ud barramundi in ROFAs compared to open estuaries in north Queensland, fishery dependent\ud (from charter fishing records, voluntary recreational catch logbooks, and\ud personal fisher time series records) and fishery-independent (in the form of structured\ud fishing surveys) recreational catch data collected though this study did not reveal\ud improvements in catch per unit effort or success rates for barramundi in ROFAs.\ud Results did show that the average size of barramundi caught in ROFAs was larger than\ud those caught in the open estuaries, though the reason for this difference in size\ud structure is unknown. Further investigation into why recreational catch benefits are not\ud being realised and what this may mean for barramundi populations is required. Results\ud imply natural variation may be more influential on barramundi populations than fishing,\ud or that recreational fishing is highly variable and not a good indicator of stock structure\ud and abundance.\ud \ud Overall, results of this project suggest current estuarine ROFAs in north\ud Queensland are not resulting in the expected benefits: i.e. they are not reducing conflict\ud between recreational and commercial fishers or resulting in improved recreational\ud catches of barramundi. This study highlights the importance of determining the source\ud of conflict, and collecting quality time-series recreational catch data before and after\ud ROFA implementation. Future studies should aim to examine both the costs and\ud expected benefits of ROFAs to determine whether benefits outweigh the costs\ud involved. Costs and benefits should be examined from a multi-disciplinary approach,\ud including social, ecological and economic aspects

The effectiveness of recreational only fishing areas in North Queensland estuaries for reducing conflict and improving recreational catches

Allocation of fisheries resources to recreational fishers via Recreational Only Fishing Areas (ROFAs) is becoming increasingly common in all developed countries, particularly in coastal areas. ROFAs are often introduced with the expectation that such action will segregate competing recreational and commercial fishers (by excluding commercial fishers) and thus resolve apparent conflict over previously shared fisheries resources. ROFAs also have the expected benefit of improving recreational catch quality for previously shared species. Whether these benefits are realised, however, is unknown because little monitoring of outcomes occurs post-ROFA implementation. Using questionnaires of recreational and commercial fishers and collection of fishery-dependent and fishery-independent recreational catch data, this study investigated the outcomes of ROFAs in north Queensland estuaries. Specifically, the study examined: the nature and source of conflict between recreational and commercial fishers competing for shared barramundi stocks; whether current estuarine ROFAs are successful in segregating and reducing conflict between these sectors; and whether ROFAs result in improved recreational catches of barramundi. Results from the questionnaires show that while recreational fishers (anglers) have high expectations of ROFAs and would like more implemented, most anglers are unaware of locations of current ROFAs, and do not deliberately choose to use them. Consequently, current ROFAs are not increasing segregation of recreational and commercial fishers. Moreover, contact between the recreational and commercial sectors appears to already be limited due to time segregation (commercial netting is not allowed in estuaries on weekends) and the finding that most commercial fishers avoid areas heavily occupied by recreational fishers. Thus the conflict between these sectors does not appear to be due to high levels of direct contact. Investigations of the perceptions of fishers from both sectors via the questionnaire program revealed that the underlying conflict between commercial and recreational fishers in north Queensland appears to be based on mutual misperceptions of the competing sector’s operations and impacts, particularly from anglers. Such misperceptions lead to blame (i.e. anglers blame commercial fishers) for negative outcomes such as (real or perceived) catch declines. ROFAs do not address this problem of mutual misperceptions of fishers and are therefore unlikely to resolve this conflict in the long-term. Increased communication between sectors and education from fisheries managers and researchers and stakeholder representatives regarding each sector’s operations and impacts on the resource is more likely to reduce conflict. Such actions should reduce misperceptions, adjusting attitudes of fishers to be more positive towards the competing sector, and hence reducing conflict. Despite anecdotal claims and expectations of improved recreational catches of barramundi in ROFAs compared to open estuaries in north Queensland, fishery dependent (from charter fishing records, voluntary recreational catch logbooks, and personal fisher time series records) and fishery-independent (in the form of structured fishing surveys) recreational catch data collected though this study did not reveal improvements in catch per unit effort or success rates for barramundi in ROFAs. Results did show that the average size of barramundi caught in ROFAs was larger than those caught in the open estuaries, though the reason for this difference in size structure is unknown. Further investigation into why recreational catch benefits are not being realised and what this may mean for barramundi populations is required. Results imply natural variation may be more influential on barramundi populations than fishing, or that recreational fishing is highly variable and not a good indicator of stock structure and abundance. Overall, results of this project suggest current estuarine ROFAs in north Queensland are not resulting in the expected benefits: i.e. they are not reducing conflict between recreational and commercial fishers or resulting in improved recreational catches of barramundi. This study highlights the importance of determining the source of conflict, and collecting quality time-series recreational catch data before and after ROFA implementation. Future studies should aim to examine both the costs and expected benefits of ROFAs to determine whether benefits outweigh the costs involved. Costs and benefits should be examined from a multi-disciplinary approach, including social, ecological and economic aspects

Constraints on community engagement with Great Barrier Reef climate change reduction and mitigation

Engaging stakeholders in Great Barrier Reef climate change reduction and mitigation strategies is central to efforts aimed at reducing human impacts on the reef and increasing its resilience to climate change. We developed a theoretical framework to investigate subjective and objective constraints on cognitive, affective, and behavioural engagement with the Great Barrier Reef climate change issue. A survey of 1623 Australian residents revealed high levels of cognitive and affective engagement with the Great Barrier Reef climate change issue, but that behavioural engagement was limited by objective constraints that intervene between individuals' desire to become engaged (affective engagement) and their ability to take relevant actions. Individuals were constrained from increasing their engagement with the Great Barrier Reef climate change issue primarily by lack of knowledge about actions they can take, lack of time, and having other priorities. Individuals' age, gender, education level, income, and place of residence influenced the probability that they would experience these and other specific constraints on engagement. We suggest that future Great Barrier Reef engagement strategies must endeavour to identify specific behaviour that individuals can undertake to help reduce the impact of climate change on the reef, and find ways to help people overcome the constraints they face on engagement in those activities. The theoretical framework we developed should be useful for investigating constraints on engagement with other environmental issues, but further empirical and conceptual work is necessary

Constraints on community engagement with Great Barrier Reef climate change reduction and mitigation

Engaging stakeholders in Great Barrier Reef climate change reduction and mitigation strategies is central to efforts aimed at reducing human impacts on the reef and increasing its resilience to climate change. We developed a theoretical framework to investigate subjective and objective constraints on cognitive, affective, and behavioural engagement with the Great Barrier Reef climate change issue. A survey of 1623 Australian residents revealed high levels of cognitive and affective engagement with the Great Barrier Reef climate change issue, but that behavioural engagement was limited by objective constraints that intervene between individuals' desire to become engaged (affective engagement) and their ability to take relevant actions. Individuals were constrained from increasing their engagement with the Great Barrier Reef climate change issue primarily by lack of knowledge about actions they can take, lack of time, and having other priorities. Individuals' age, gender, education level, income, and place of residence influenced the probability that they would experience these and other specific constraints on engagement. We suggest that future Great Barrier Reef engagement strategies must endeavour to identify specific behaviour that individuals can undertake to help reduce the impact of climate change on the reef, and find ways to help people overcome the constraints they face on engagement in those activities. The theoretical framework we developed should be useful for investigating constraints on engagement with other environmental issues, but further empirical and conceptual work is necessary