1

EXPERT WITNESS WRITTEN STATEMENT: TOURISM

1. EXPERT WITNESS DETAILS

Mr Stewart Moore

Founder and Chief Executive Officer

EarthCheck Pty Ltd

Level 5, 189 Grey Street,

South Brisbane, Queensland, 4101

2. EXPERT’S QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE AND AREA OF EXPERTISE

2.1 Stewart Moore is the founder and CEO of EarthCheck. He is Executive Director for the

APEC International Centre for Sustainable Tourism and Chairman of the National Centre

for Studies in Travel and Tourism. He has over 30 years of experience in a wide range of

disciplines including business and strategic planning, tourism policy development,

tourism destination management and marketing, sustainability, risk management, and

corporate and social responsibility.

2.2 Qualifications

• Masters of Regional Science (Regional Planning and Sustainable Development)

• Bachelor of Regional and Town Planning (Honours)

• Graduate Diploma in Applied Finance and Investment (Securities Institute of Australia)

• Hotel Development and Design Course (Cornell University)

• Heritage Conservation Course (Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, University

of York)

• Certificate IV in Training and Assessment

• Diploma of Sustainability

2.3 Industry Memberships

• Fellow of the Financial Services Institute of Australia

• Fellow of the Australian Tourism Research Institute

• Corporate Member of Royal Australian Planning Institute

• Tourism Forecasting Council of Australia (10 years)

2.4 Industry Directorships

• Chairman, National Centre for Studies in Travel & Tourism Pty Ltd

• CEO & Board Director, EarthCheck PTY LTD

• Advisory Board, Griffith University Institute for Tourism

• Vice Chairman, Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) Foundation

• Director Business South Bank

• Managing Director, APEC International Centre for Sustainable Tourism

2

• Past Chairman, Queensland Chapter of Pacific Asia Travel Association (PATA) (8 years)

• Past Director Gold Coast Visitors and Convention Bureau (3 years)

• Past Director, Australian Tourism Research Institute (ATRI) (12 years)

• Past Director, Centre for Regional Tourism Research, Southern Cross University (3

years)

• Past Director, Fraser Coast South Burnett Regional Tourism Board (2 years)

2.5 EarthCheck is an international business advisory group that specialises in sustainable

tourism and destination management. We do this via a suite of products and services

including software as a service platforms, certification programs for destinations,

businesses, and new infrastructure; and key insights and advice via our consulting team

and network of university research centres. The concept of total tourism management

underpins our approach to project and program delivery.

2.6 EarthCheck has first-hand knowledge of Phillip Island’s visitor economy, having been

commissioned by Bass Coast Shire Council to prepare the Phillip Island And San Remo

Visitor Economy Strategy 2035.

3. DETAILS OF OTHER SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS TO THE STATEMENT, AND THEIR

EXPERTISE.

Support on preparing the expert witness statement was provided by the following EarthCheck

staff:

3.1 Nigel Russell, General Manager – Consulting

Nigel Russell is a senior destination management professional, practising in the UK and

Australia for over 25 years. He has wide-ranging experience in market research, project

feasibility program management, research & development, and stakeholder

management experience in the tourism and economic development sectors. During his

career, Nigel has developed a broad range of senior level experience in tourism

3

management and delivery including; tourism development, marketing, change

management, research, and intelligence and business support.

3.2 Dr Tramy Ngo, Research Analyst

Dr Tramy Ngo leads EarthCheck’s tourism research and analysis functions. Tramy is a

tourism expert with a specialist interest in tourism management and research. She is

skilled in both qualitative and quantitative research methods, including visitor

market analysis and Tourism Research Australia database analysis. Tramy is a Research

Fellow at Griffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith University.

4. INSTRUCTIONS ON SCOPE OF STATEMENT

4.1 EarthCheck CEO, Stewart Moore was engaged by Harwood Andrews on behalf of Bass

Coast Shire Council to provide expert evidence on the value of tourism (specifically,

nature based tourism) on Council’s economy and the potential impact on the same and

Council’s local economy from the construction and operation of a gas import facility and

an underground gas transmission pipeline (‘the project’), in the event the Project

detrimentally impacts Western Port. The instruction covered:

1. Review the exhibited EES documents relevant to your area of expertise, in particular:

a. Summary Document;

b. Main Report:

i. Chapter 3: Project development

ii. Chapter 4: Project description

iii. Chapter 5: Key approvals and assessment framework

iv. Chapter 19: Business

v. Chapter 25: Environmental Management Framework;

c. Technical Report N: Business impact assessment;

d. Attachment II: Legislation and policy report;

e. Attachment III: Environmental risk report;

f. Attachment VI: Draft Planning Scheme Amendment C272morn including the

Draft Incorporated Document;

g. Attachment VII: Map Book.

2. Review the Ministerial Guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the

Environmental Effects Act 1978 (2006).

3. Review Council’s public submission lodged in response to exhibition of the EES. 2

zzemail\P.2 - S.1\P:18/09/20 5:46 ha.

4. Prepare an expert witness statement before 2 October 2020 containing your opinion

on the following matters, as relevant to your area of expertise:

a. Does the EES adequately document investigation, avoidance, and minimisation

of the potential impact of the Project on tourism (specifically, nature based

tourism) on Phillip Island and surrounding areas within Council’s municipality,

and its value to Council’s local economy and the Victorian economy, in the

4

event the Project detrimentally impacts Western Port? If not, why not and

what impact is it likely to have?

b. Are there any specific measures or changes (including to the design or

management of the Project via the draft Amendment, works approval and

environmental management framework) you recommend to avoid, mitigate or

manage the effects of the Project on the economic value of tourism to

Council’s municipality within acceptable limits having regard to the draft

evaluation objectives in the EES scoping requirements, relevant policy,

legislation, best practice, and the principles and objectives of “ecologically

sustainable development”?

c. If you do recommend such measures, then to the extent that it is within your

expertise to do so, please provide you opinion on whether or not such

measures are feasible.

The expert witness statement must:

i. Comply with Planning Panels Guide to expert evidence, April 2019;

ii. Provide a summary of key issues, opinions, and recommendations.

5 DETAILS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF ANY PERSON WHO CARRIED OUT ANY TESTS OR

EXPERIMENTS UPON WHICH THE EXPERT HAS RELIED IN PREPARING THE STATEMENT.

5.1 Nigel Russell, General Manager-Consulting

• Pg Dip Tourism, Strathclyde University

• BSc: Hons Town and Regional Planning, Dundee University

5.2 Dr Tramy Ngo, Research Analyst

• PhD Tourism Management, Griffith University

• Master of Tourism Administration, Christ University, India.

• Bachelor of Economics (Tourism Management), Hue University of Economics, Vietnam

6. EXPERT WITNESS DECLARATION

6.1 I have made all the inquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters

of significance which I regard as relevant have to my knowledge been withheld from the

Panel.

5

7. SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES, OPINONS AND STATEMENTS

Value of tourism and nature-based tourism to the Phillip Island Tourism Region

7.1. Tourism is an important component of Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire’s economy.

Tourism policy and strategy objectives clearly demonstrate that nature-based tourism is

at the forefront of the region’s appeal as a tourism destination. Section 8.1 of this

statement provides a summary of tourism policy and strategy, setting out the importance

of nature-based and sustainable tourism. This information sets out a clear agenda in

marketing and destination management policy and strategic directions at the following

levels:

• Commonwealth;

• Victorian;

• Tourism Region (Mornington, Phillip Island and Gippsland); and

• Local government (Bass Coast Shire).

These documents set out economic, social, and environmental ambitions for this

important economic sector. Consideration of tourism policy and strategy is absent from

the EES review at present.

7.2. The importance of nature-based tourism in policy terms is most clearly expressed at local

level in the Phillip Island and San Remo Visitor Economy Strategy 2035. The strategy’s

vision is “Phillip Island (including San Remo) is recognised nationally and globally as a

world leading sustainable tourism destination, where tourism is embraced by the

community”. The strategy notes that; “If the Visitor Economy Strategy is a success, in

2035: Phillip Island and San Remo in Victoria will have become synonymous the world-

over with sustainable island tourism communities. One of a handful of Australia's

destinations certified to the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria, Phillip Island and San

Remo will set a new benchmark for sustainable tourism communities, tourism working in

harmony with the environment and community demonstrated through measurable

results.”

7.3. At a national level, environment and nature is an essential component for Australia’s

tourism industry as a whole. Of Australia’s top 12 international markets for high value

travellers identified by Tourism Australia in 2018, 11 placed ‘Nature and wildlife’ as their

number one reason to visit Australia. Countries include China, Germany, Hong Kong,

India, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, United Kingdom, USA.

For Japanese visitors, ‘Nature and wildlife’ is the second driver of destination choice after

‘Food and wine’.

7.4. Nature-based tourism is also identified as a high level priority for Victoria. The Victorian

Visitor Economy Strategy1 places a focus on generating more opportunities for

Melburnians to be enticed to travel to regional Victoria. Specifically, nature-based

experiences are the top experience grouping recorded by visitors across the state, with

1 Victoria State Government 2016, Victoria Visitor Economy Strategy, available at: https://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1340979/Visitor_Economy_Strategy.pdf

6

18.8 million or 19.6% of all visitors to Victoria.2 The contribution of nature-based tourism

is reflected in the Visitor Economy Strategy, the document stating “Strategic public

investment is required for Victoria to maintain its competitive advantage. Investment by

governments in high quality sports, arts and cultural, nature-based and local

infrastructure helps to attract visitors and spur private sector investment”. Government

has also prioritised investment at key visitor attractions, include the Penguin Parade at

Phillip Island Nature Park, a key tourism attraction for the region. This is reflected in the

allocation of some 47.7% of investment from the Regional Tourism Infrastructure Fund,

delivering some $48.2 million to the development of Phillip Island Nature Parks.3 This

contribution of nature-based tourism to local and regional economies cannot be

understated.

7.5. Other evidence of the strategic interest and support for nature-based tourism by the

State Government is presented in the priority to build on the potential of regional and

rural Victoria with the key output to “Increase nature-based tourism”15

7.6. In 2019, the Phillip Island Tourism Region4 generated $579 million in visitor expenditure,

and $255.8 million in Gross Value Added.

Figure 1: Tourism Satellite Account - direct economic contribution of the Phillip Island

Tourism Region (2014/15-2018/19) 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19

GVA (Basic prices, $ million)

$155.9 $184.1 $199.8 $192.9 $255.8

Share in VIC’s direct tourism GVA (%)

1.6% 1.8% 1.7% 1.6% 1.9%

Tourism GRP (Basic prices, $million)

$175 $208 $224 $215 $282

Share in VIC’s direct tourism GSP (%)

1.7% 1.8% 1.8% 1.6% 1.9%

Employment (FTEs) 3,014 3,572 3,914 3,684 4,489

Share in VIC’s direct tourism employment (%)

2.1% 2.4% 2.4% 2.2% 2.5%

7.4 Regarding nature-based tourism (for definition of nature-based tourism, please refer

to section 8.7 of this statement), 665,000 visitors participated in nature-based

activities in the Phillip Island tourism region in 2019, representing a 9.4% average

2 Victoria State Government 2019, Visitor Experiences in Victoria, available at: https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1865164/Visitor-Experiences-in-Victoria-year-ending-December-2019.pdf 3 Victoria State Government 2017, Victorian Visitor Economy Strategy: Action Plan 2016-2020, available at: https://djpr.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1469314/Visitor_Economy_Strategy_Action_Plan.pdf 4 Section 8.7 of witness statement - Definition of Bass Coast Shire and Phillip Island for data purposes

7

annual increase since 2015. 25% of the Phillip Island tourism region’s visitors

participated in nature-based experiences in 2019, higher than average participation

across the whole of Victoria (19%5), illustrating the importance of the sector to the

region.

7.5 If pre-COVID tourism forecasts are applied, an additional 51,000 nature-based tourism

visitors to the region would be expected by 2025. If a broader definition of nature-

based visitation (including beach visits) was taken, participation would extend to 1.7

million visitors participating in nature-based tourism activities in 2019.

7.6 In 2019, nature-based experiences generated $191.8 million, accounting for 33% of

total visitor expenditure of the region. This sum represents a $84.4 million increase

since 2015.

Destination positioning and the important role played by destination image

7.6. Tourists are motivated to visit a particular destination by the information that they

receive through media and marketing together with the need to have their own needs

and wants satisfied (leisure, relaxation, events, bird watching etc.) Destination image

forms a vital part in the consumer’s process of selecting a destination. Images have a

strong influence on travel behaviour as they represent the destination in a tourist’s

mind and become a key component of the decision making process in the selection of

a holiday or visitor experience.

7.7. Destination attractiveness is therefore the summation of impressions, ideas and

beliefs about destinations based on information provided through direct (marketing)

and indirect (social media) sources.

Potential economic impact of the project on tourism on Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire

7.8. While modelling is not available to accurately assess the potential economic impact

on the Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire regions, it is possible to see the potential for

economic loss when the region is so heavily reliant on nature-based tourism. Based

on 2019 values, a 20% reduction in nature-based tourism would result in the loss of

approximately $38.35 million in visitor expenditure. Similarly, if the Phillip Island

tourism region lost 10% of its overall visitation due to impacts of the project, this could

see a decline in GRP of approximately $28.2 million. Further detail on this analysis is

contained in section 8.3 of this statement.

Issues and opinions regarding assessment of tourism within the EES

7.9. On review of market circumstances and project documentation, the key issue with

regard to assessment of tourism in the ESS is that it fails to consider the project’s

potential impacts on tourism in Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire, with consideration

of risks and potential impact largely limited to the construction area in Mornington

Shire, Casey, and Cardinia Local Government Areas. As such, EES documentation

5 Source: Visitor Experiences in Victoria Factsheet Dec 2019, TEVE Research Unit, Business Victoria

8

contains no consideration of investigation, avoidance, and minimisation of impact on

the region’s visitor economy.

7.10. With EES scope largely excluding Bass Coast Shire, there are two principal areas of

potential tourism impact omitted from assessment:

I. The potential for large scale development such the project to cause reputational

risk to Phillip Island’s status as a tourism destination, which has largely been built

on its status as a nature-based destination.

II. The potential for environmental damage which would directly harm the

environmental assets which tourism on the Island is built upon. This

environmental damage would have the potential to directly lead to financial loss

for businesses and communities reliant on tourism. The health of the Western

Port ecosystem and environment is of significant importance to the region’s

tourism industry and appeal.

Reputational risk

7.11. The nature of tourism in the majority of destinations, including Phillip Island, is that it

relies on the environment, heritage, and culture for much of its tourism appeal.

Destination appeal is not confined to administrative boundaries on maps - visitors

relate to broader destinations, not administrative boundaries. Many years of

investment from businesses, communities and tourism agencies have led to careful

cultivation of the destination brand and positioning. In this sense, the project has the

potential to impact directly on Phillip Island and the wider Bass Coast Shire area as a

premier tourism destination and the economic benefits which visitor spending

provides for communities and businesses.

7.12. During construction and operational phases of projects, negative news cycles have the

potential to have significant detrimental impact on tourism economies, particularly

where quality of environment and nature-based tourism experiences form leading

components of destination branding, positioning, and appeal. Research highlights the

importance of natural resources for tourism, and human-induced events impacting

ecosystems can have detrimental consequences for the tourism industry relying on

these assets as attractions and for the delivery of experiences. A destination’s success

relies on a distinctive and appealing brand, which is extremely difficult to establish and

maintain. The tourism industry is “one of the most susceptible and vulnerable to crises

or disasters” (Pforr, 2009) since the success of a destination rests heavily on “its ability

to offer tourists a perceived safe and pleasant place to visit” (Breda and Costa, 2006).

7.13. Examples in Australia, such as development within the Great Barrier Reef region,

highlight the impact that environmental damage, or even perceived damage, can have

on tourist’s perceptions and destination image. Research on the Great Barrier Reef6

identified a strong correlation between negative news events covering environmental

6 Salvatierra, J. & Walters, G. (2017). The impact of human-induced environmental destruction on destination image perception and travel behaviour: The case of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Journal of Vacation Marketing 2017, Vol. 23(1) 73–84.

9

issues and phrases such as coral bleaching, damage to the reef, dead reef, sediment,

and dull, and dips in social media sentiment from visitors regarding the destination.

The study demonstrated that environmental degradation and communication around

these issues impacts visitors’ experiences and perceptions of destinations. Quotes

from social media posts referred to specific developments such as the York Peninsula

Development Road or the Gladstone clean coal power plant and the impact these have

on the Reef. The study demonstrated that environmental degradation and

communication around these issues impacts visitors’ experiences and perceptions of

destinations.

7.13.1. Furthermore, a 2017 study demonstrated that development of the resources sector

in Roma and Gladstone led to fewer tourism products being developed and a decline

in the quality of existing products7. Self-reinforcing cycles were described, where

development led to a decline in visitors, a reduction in tourism’s quantifiable

economic impact and an institutional shift that favoured further developments in the

resources sector. This has “pushed it [leisure tourism] out” of Gladstone, which used

to be Gladstone’s main industry. Nowadays, Gladstone is seen to have little appeal to

tourists. Further information on these examples is contained in section 8.4 of this

statement.

Financial and economic risk from potential environmental impact

7.14. Commentary on the potential for the project’s development to cause environmental

damage to Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire is outside the scope of this expert witness

statement, however, it is important to note the potential for environmental impact on

the tourism economy on Phillip Island and surrounding areas as a material

consideration.

7.15. Section 8.4 of this statement presents a series of case studies where major incidents

associated with fossil fuel projects have been evidenced to have had significant

economic impact on tourism destinations, with impact extending significantly beyond

the municipality where infrastructure is developed. For instance, the 2010 Deepwater

Horizon spill generated significant economic impacts to US coastal economies (Florida,

Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama) predicted to be USD22.7billion over three

years (2010-2013). Leisure and hospitality employment in these economies estimated

to be 15% of total private employment.

7.16. Given these issues, it is concluded that the EES does not adequately assess

investigation, avoidance, and minimisation of the potential impact of the Project on

tourism (specifically, nature based tourism) on Phillip Island and surrounding areas

within Council’s municipality, and its value to Council’s local economy and the

Victorian economy, in the event the Project detrimentally impacts Western Port. With

regard to specific sections of EES documentation, section 8.5 of this statement

7 Char-lee J. Moyle, Brent D. Moyle & Susanne Becken (2017) A multi-sectoral model of tourism and resource sector transformation, Tourism Recreation Research, 42:4, 422-435

10

documents the areas where these omissions are important with regard to fully

considering potential regional tourism impact.

Opinion on expert witness statement of Chris McNeill, Ethos Urban

7.17. It is my view that the statement correctly notes that; ‘the Business Impact Assessment

did not deal with the broader question of regional tourism’.

7.18. With regard the statement (pg4) ‘In my opinion, and with reference to the Landscape

and visual elements of the EES, the impact is likely to be low’, my view is that as Bass

Coast Shire and the tourism sector was largely excluded from the EES assessment, this

statement requires further review.

7.19. In commentary which addresses tourism impact (pg 23) the following statement is

made ‘Potential impacts are likely to be restricted to the Gas Import Jetty works area.

As much of the Gas Pipeline will be located underground, the impact on regional

tourism can be expected to be negligible’. As per the content of sections 7.6 - 7.16 of

this statement, I believe that this narrow view of tourism impact fails to reflect the

broader regional dimension of the industry and the importance of destination

perception and image. The project’s large-scale nature provides scope for negative

impact on tourism which is significantly greater than has been considered.

Recommendations on measures and/ or changes to the design of the environmental

management statement

7.20. Recommendations are as follows:

• EES scope should fully incorporate the Bass Coast Shire area to enable full

consideration of regional tourism impact (as part of business considerations).

• EES assessment fails to consider impact on regional tourism. Coverage of key

potential risk and impact areas for the tourism industry should include:

o Reputational risk to tourism destinations (Phillip Island and surrounds in this

case) from a project that conflicts with the destination’s positioning as a

premier nature-based tourism destination. Specifically, the project’s potential

to detract from the destination’s well-established environmental credentials,

destination perception, and ultimately visitation/expenditure in the

destination.

▪ Modelling and testing impact with key current visitor segments on

sentiment regarding the project and visitors’ propensity to consider

Phillip Island as a destination to visit is an example of how regional

tourism impact could be fully considered in this area.

o Potential for detrimental environmental impact resulting from the project on

Phillip Island and surrounding areas, and specifically potential impact on its

tourism industry. Examples of a range of major environmental disasters

illustrate the need to fully consider economic risk to the tourism economy of

11

Phillip Island and surrounding areas. This type of impact would extend

significantly beyond the area close to the project’s key components.

▪ An example of impact testing in this could be detailed econometric

modelling of economic impact based on a range of environmental

scenarios, building on the analysis presented in section 8.3 of this

statement.

Feasibility of implementing recommended measures

7.21. It is my opinion that EES assessment failed to consider tourism impact in the areas

(omissions) outlined.

7.22. The work components required to consider tourism impact in a comprehensive

manner are largely based on incorporating methodologies which allow full

consideration of economic impact on the regional tourism economy. I believe that it

is feasible for this type of assessment to take place as per the EES scope requirements

on tourism.

12

8. APPENDICES

13

8.1. APPENDIX 1: Tourism Policy and Strategy Review

8.1.1 This section of the statement provides a summary of tourism policy and strategy,

setting out the importance of nature-based and sustainable tourism. This information

sets out a clear policy agenda in marketing and destination management policy and

strategic directions at the following levels:

• Commonwealth;

• Victorian;

• Tourism Region (Mornington, Phillip Island and Gippsland); and

• Local government (Bass Coast Shire).

These documents set out economic, social, and environmental ambitions for this

important economic sector. Consideration of tourism policy and strategy is absent

from the EES review at present.

Federal

8.1.2. The Federal Government recognises ‘aquatic and coastal’ and ‘nature and wildlife’ as

two of three key strengths driving international visitation (the other being food and

wine).89 The Federal Government places emphasis on nature-based tourism and

recognises the country’s excellence in eco, sustainable, and conservation-based

tourism, some products rated as the best in the world.2 In fact, Tourism Research

Australia recognises that nature-based tourism is the second most popular reason for

international visitors to experience regional visitation.10

8.1.3. Tourism Australia was in the midst of preparing its Tourism 2030 as COVID-19 started

to impact the Australian Visitor Economy. This said, the planning work conducted to

that point by the Beyond 2020 Steering Committee continues to represent natural/eco

experiences as a high priority.2

State

8.1.4. The Victorian Government recognises the contribution of regional tourism to the

state’s economy as reflected in its series of documents documenting the value of

tourism. The contribution includes the number of overnight visitors, contribution to

gross regional product and the number of jobs generated from the sector. For

example, the Mornington Peninsula has the third highest number of regional

overnight visitors for the state (behind the Great Ocean Road and Geelong and the

Bellarine) with 2.3 million visitors or 7% of the total of all visitors. 11 These visitors are

8 Tourism Australia 2019, Corporate Plan 2019-2023, available at: https://www.tourism.australia.com/content/dam/assets/document/1/7/6/o/d/2014861.pdf 9 Beyond Tourism 2020 Steering Committee, Report to Government, available at: https://www.austrade.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/10371/TACA12685%20Beyond%202020%20Steering%20Committee%20-%20Gov%20update%20-%20Web.pdf.aspx 10 TRA 2019, The Beach, Bush and Beyond: Understanding regional dispersal of Australian tourists, Tourism Research Australia, available at: https://www.tra.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/185/Regional%20Dispersal%20-%20Summary%20-%20October%202019.pdf.aspx 11 Victoria State Government 2019, Regional Victoria’s Top Attractions, available at: https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1865161/Regional-Victorias-Top-Attractions-year-ending-December-2019.pdf

14

estimated to have contributed $1.1billion to the regional economy in 2019. 12 For

Phillip Island/Penguin Parade, some 1.4 million visitors were recorded, or 4% of all

visitors to regional Victoria, 13 generating some $529 million to the regional economy

there. Employment generating from the tourism sector to the Mornington Peninsula

and Phillip Island has been calculated at 12,200 jobs and 5,900 jobs, respectively.

Gippsland sees 11,000 jobs generated from the sector.

8.1.5. The Victorian Visitor Economy Strategy14 places focused attention on generating more

opportunities for Melburnians to be enticed to travel to regional Victoria. As shown in

tourism's total contribution to gross regional product and employment (direct and

indirect), 2013-2014, Victoria State Government, 2016 (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Phillip Island is recognised as the State’s leading contributor to gross regional

product (GRP) and both direct and indirect employment by percentage of GRP.

12 Victoria State Government 2020, Victoria’s Visitor Economy: Tourism GRP and jobs in Victoria’s regions, available at: https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1855603/Value-of-Tourism-to-Victoria-summary-2018-19.pdf 13 Victoria State Government 2019, Regional Victoria’s Top Attractions, available at: https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1865161/Regional-Victorias-Top-Attractions-year-ending-December-2019.pdf 14 Victoria State Government 2016, Victoria Visitor Economy Strategy, available at: https://economicdevelopment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/1340979/Visitor_Economy_Strategy.pdf

15

8.1.6. Specifically, nature-based experiences are the top experience recorded by visitors across the state, with 18.8 million or 19.6% of all visitors to Victoria.15 The contribution of nature-based tourism is reflected in the Visitor Economy Strategy, stating “Strategic public investment is required for Victoria to maintain its competitive advantage. Investment by governments in high quality sports, arts and cultural, nature-based and local infrastructure helps to attract visitors and spur private sector investment (p.24)”. Government has also prioritised investment at key visitor attractions, include the Penguin Parade at Phillip Island Nature Park, a key tourism attraction for the region in question. This is reflected in the allocation of some 47.7% of investment from the Regional Tourism Infrastructure Fund, delivering some $48.2 million to the development of Phillip Island Nature Parks.16 This contribution of nature-based tourism to local and regional economies cannot be understated.

8.1.7. Other evidence of the strategic interest and support for nature-based tourism by the State is presented in the priority to build on the potential of regional and rural Victoria with the key output to “Increase nature-based tourism” (p.22).13 The Strategy notes Parks Victoria as a key strategic partner in the delivery of the outputs, with the State suggesting, “Parks Victoria will seek to partner with operators, Regional Tourism Boards and stakeholders to grow and promote nature-based tourism in regional Victoria.” to deliver on the output of “Nature-based tourism promoted” .

8.1.8. The State’s Active Victoria strategic framework extends the focus on nature-based tourism, prioritising in their Strategic Direction 3: Additional focus on active recreation, “Connecting planning and development of outdoor recreation to nature-based tourism opportunities, with particular emphasis on potential benefits to regional economies” (p.24).17

Regional

8.1.9. Gippsland and Mornington Peninsula both reflect the value of coastal environments and nature-based tourism in their respective tourism strategies. Destination Gippsland recognise their valued assets found in nature tourism documenting in their Destination Management Plan (DMP), “Gippsland contains the largest area of public land in Victoria, with 1.6 million hectares encompassing forest, state and national parks, UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, Marine Coastal Parks and Reserves and Ramsar Wetlands,” (p.8),18 reflecting the critical nature of the Westport coastal and marine environments. Destination Gippsland plan to capitalise on the global growth of nature-based tourism in their priority areas included in the DMP – specifically, Strategic Priority 3: Develop Gippsland’s experiences to encourage new and existing markets to visit, stay and spend; and Strategic Priority 5: Invest in place making to support the visitor economy.

15 Victoria State Government 2019, Visitor Experiences in Victoria, available at: https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1865164/Visitor-Experiences-in-Victoria-year-ending-December-2019.pdf 16 Victoria State Government 2017, Victorian Visitor Economy Strategy: Action Plan 2016-2020, available at: https://djpr.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/1469314/Visitor_Economy_Strategy_Action_Plan.pdf 17 Victoria State Government 2017, Active Victoria: A strategic framework for sport and recreation in Victoria 2017-2021, available at: https://sport.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/55602/download.pdf 18 Destination Gippsland 2019, Towards 2030 – Gippsland Destination Management Plan: A Blueprint for Growth, available at: https://assets.visitgippsland.com.au/documents/Gippsland-DMP-Final-Report-26082019-1.pdf

16

8.1.10. In creating Hero and Supporting Experiences to achieve the desire outcomes, Gippsland is set to develop natural areas to reflect the outstanding natural environments offering walking, picnicking, camping, boating and a common theme of fishing.

8.1.11. Specifically, the development of the George Bass Coastal Walk has attracted commitments of $19.6 million from the State Government in 2018 to develop a world class attraction bordering the area in question. The likely benefits of this development are presented in the document as:

• Low growth: Generate an estimated 10,000 additional visitor nights and $2.0m

in additional visitor expenditure each year.

• Medium growth: Generate an estimated 19,500 additional visitor nights and

$3.2 million in additional visitor expenditure each year.

• High growth: Generate an estimated $4.0 million in additional visitor

expenditure each year.

8.1.12. Fishing features strongly in the Destination Gippsland DMP – both as an activity in and of itself, and as a food tourism opportunity, with visitors connecting with Support Experiences: Destination Fishing and Fishing Villages, predicted to benefit San Remo for its ‘seaside charm’ (p. 73)

8.1.13. In their 2014 Destination Management Plan, the Mornington Peninsula Region tourism industry also acknowledge the strategic value of nature-based tourism, stating the Environment as one of their Destination Values. Specifically they highlight, “Western Port was chosen [as a key environmental need for the future] because it has outstanding natural values, including a Ramsar wetland of international importance, on the fringe of the expanding city of Melbourne. Biosphere reserves aim to keep special places-like Western Port-special by fostering conservation and sustainable development.” (p.22)19

Local

8.1.14. Bass Coast Shire Council reflects the existing and projected contribution of the natural environment to their economy in their Economic Development Strategy 2016-2021, where they state: “The natural environment underpins the Bass Coast economy and is a key driver for tourism […] and Council clearly understands that the natural environment forms the basis of the local economy.” (p.5).20 Specifically, Bass Coast Shire Council state the importance of, “developing a long term strategy for Phillip Island and San Remo that recognises the contribution of the natural environment to tourism and the significance of other locations across the Shire (p.25)

13

8.1.15. Phillip Island and San Remo Visitor Economy Strategy: 2035 Growing Tourism. This Strategy is completely underpinned by the natural assets existing in this specific

19 Mornington Peninsula Region Tourism Industry 2014, Destination Management Plan, Pt II, available at: https://industry.visitmorningtonpeninsula.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5cmsBukDALw%3D&portalid=8 20 Bass Coast Shire Council 2016, Economic Development Strategy 2016-2021, available at: https://d2n3eh1td3vwdm.cloudfront.net/general-downloads/Economic-Development-and-Tourism/Economic-Development-Strategy-and-One-Year-Action-Plan.pdf

17

tourism economy. The Strategy states, “Boasting world-class wildlife viewing, surf, coastal scenery and high octane sporting events, it is no surprise that Phillip Island and San Remo have now positioned themselves as a premier region for nature, family and fun.” (p.2). Furthermore, “While the region’s natural environment, its flora and fauna, and its natural visual and recreational amenities are already major attractors for visitors, the value of Phillip Island and San Remo in providing ready access to wildlife and recreation in natural settings is likely to grow as people become increasingly urbanised.” (p.5).21

8.1.16. The importance of nature-based tourism in the ability for Phillip Island and San Remo to achieve their projected outcomes cannot be understated. As presented in an extract from the Strategy in Table 1, there are significant contributions projected from nature-based tourism in just off-peak visitation increases.

Figure 2: Market off-peak and Growth Potential in 2035

Market Segment

Phillip Island &

San Remo Today

Goal 2035 What would drive the growth?

Increase in Spend 2035

Off-peak Spend

Nature-based Activities

151,500 visitors 77,500 nights $17.8 million

Retain the region’s share, but encourage off-peak visitation

New walks, active promotion, strict planning controls

$37.7M From current

15% Off-peak ($9.4M)

8.1.17. The vision for Phillip Island and San Remo is to be ‘World Famous for Sustainable Tourism’. They plan to “set a new benchmark for sustainable tourism communities, tourism working in harmony with the environment and community demonstrated through measurable results” (p.15).16

8.1.18. This can only be achieved through the preservation of natural assets and continued focus on preserving and conserving these assets to deliver what will become post-COVID-19 even more important as visitors seek local experiences which offer open spaces and connection to nature.

21 Bass Coast Shire Council, Phillip Island and San Remo Visitor Economy Strategy 2035: Growing Tourism, available at: https://d2n3eh1td3vwdm.cloudfront.net/general-downloads/Strategies/2016-08-29-FINAL-Phillip-Island-San-Remo-Visitor-Economy-Strategy-2035-Growing-Tourism.PDF

18

8.2. APPENDIX 2: Characteristics And Value Of Tourism And Nature-Based Tourism To The

Phillip Island Tourism Region And Bass Coast Shire

In assessing potential impact, the EES should have considered the following issues regarding

the importance of tourism in Phillip Island and throughout Bass Coast Shire:

The importance of sustainability in tourism policy and strategy

8.2.1 Tourism policy and strategy objectives clearly demonstrate that nature-based tourism

are at the forefront of the destination’s appeal as a tourism destination. This is most

clearly expressed in the Phillip Island And San Remo Visitor Economy Strategy 2035.

The strategy’s vision is “Phillip Island (including San Remo) is recognised nationally

and globally as a world leading sustainable tourism destination, where tourism is

embraced by the community”.

8.2.2 The strategy notes that; “If the Visitor Economy Strategy is a success, in 2035: Phillip

Island and San Remo in Victoria will have become synonymous the world-over with

sustainable island tourism communities. One of a handful of Australia's destinations

certified to the Global Sustainable Tourism Criteria, Phillip Island and San Remo will set

a new benchmark for sustainable tourism communities, tourism working in harmony

with the environment and community demonstrated through measurable results.”

8.2.3 From analysis of the Island’s tourism products and experiences, it is clear that nature-

based tourism dominates, with a strong overall reliance on a high quality

environment.

Figure 3: Map of Leading Phillip Island Visitor Experiences22

22 Phillip Island And San Remo Visitor Economy Strategy 2035.

19

Phillip Island’s reputation and brand as a sustainable tourism destination

8.2.4 Tourism agencies, Bass Coast Shire Council, local communities, and businesses have

spent many years investing in market positioning to cement Phillip Island as a leading

nature-based destination. To achieve the Phillip Island And San Remo Visitor Economy

Strategy 2035 vision, the destination must leverage its natural advantage. Recognising

this importance, three hero experiences23 underpin what the island offers to visitors.

8.2.5 While the impact of COVID-19 on Australia’s tourism industry is not yet fully

quantified, it is likely that it will change the way people travel in the future. It is

expected that destinations which offer rural settings and nature-based themes are

well placed to capitalise. In this sense, Phillip Island is well placed to capitalise on

future demand.

8.2.6 The importance of Phillip Island’s nature-based tourism positioning and appeal as a

premier destination is also reiterated in research and tourism positioning at

Commonwealth and Victorian Government levels.

Australia

8.2.7 Australia’s pristine natural environment is a key asset for tourism providing attractions

and experiences24.

8.2.8 International tourists

Tourism Australia has identified high value travellers as a primary target audience for

Australia. High value travellers Tourism Australia aims to attract are characterised not

only by above average trip expenditure, and likelihood to stay longer, but also by their

key drivers for destination choice. Of Australia’s top 12 markets for high value

travellers identified by Tourism Australia in 2018, 11 placed ‘Nature and wildlife’ as

their number one reason to visit Australia.

23 Phillip Island And San Remo Visitor Economy Strategy 2035. 24 Tourism Research Australia (2019). State of the Industry 2017-2018. Published April 2019. Accessed from https://assets-corporate.visitvictoria.com/documents/TRA_State-of-the-Industry-2018.pdf

20

8.2.9 Domestic tourists

For the domestic market which will play a critical role in tourism’s recovery from

COVID-19, nature and wildlife is the third most common driver of destination choice,

after ‘safety and security’ and ‘value for money’. According to Tourism Australia’s

Consumer Demand Project, almost half (47%) of Australian travellers state that ‘World

call nature and wildlife’ is important to their destination choice25. In addition, nature

is critical to Australia’s image. Over two thirds (69%) of Australian travellers associate

‘Aquatic and coastal’ with Australia, 63% associate ‘Nature’ with Australia and over

half (52%) associate ‘Wildlife’ with Australia26.

Victoria

8.2.10 Nature-based experiences are the State’s top group of experiences, with 18.8 million

visitors for the year endling December 2019. This exceeds the popularity of other

experiences such as cultural experiences (11.9 million visitors), event experiences (5.9

million visitors), food and beverage experiences (5.4 million visitors), winery

experiences (3.2. million visitors), or golf experiences (0.976 million visitors)27. Overall,

19% of all visitors to Victoria participated in nature-based experiences, whereby more

visitors to regional Victoria are more likely to participate in nature-based experiences

(22%) than visitors to Melbourne (15%)28.

8.2.11 In 2018, Visit Victoria developed a marketing campaign build on research that found

Melburnians visit regional Victoria for ‘time out’ from the confines of everyday life and

to reconnect with nature and physical space.

The economic importance of tourism to Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire

8.2.12 Visitation

The Phillip Island tourism region29 has experienced an average annual growth of 6.3% since 2015, reaching 2.7 million visitors in 2019.

25 Tourism Australia (2020). Traveller Fact Sheet 2020 – Australia. Published April 2020. Accessed from https://www.tourism.australia.com/content/dam/assets/document/1/c/1/c/t/2241245.pdf 26 Tourism Australia (2020). Traveller Fact Sheet 2020 – Australia. Published April 2020. Accessed from https://www.tourism.australia.com/content/dam/assets/document/1/c/1/c/t/2241245.pdf 27 State of Victoria (2020). Visitor Experiences in Victoria. Accessed from https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1865164/Visitor-Experiences-in-Victoria-year-ending-December-2019.pdf 28 State of Victoria (2020). Visitor Experiences in Victoria. Accessed from https://www.business.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/1865164/Visitor-Experiences-in-Victoria-year-ending-December-2019.pdf 29 Phillip Island tourism region - see appendix 4 for full detail on sources of tourism data

21

Figure 4: Visitation to Phillip Island and Victoria (2015-2019) (000’)

8.2.13 Visitors to Phillip Island generated 3.1 million visitor nights during 2019, accounting for 2% of the state’s visitor nights. 95.2% of these visitor nights were contributed by domestic visitors.

Figure 5: Visitor nights generated in Phillip Island (2015-2019) (millions)

8.2.14 International daytrip visitors

Due to its proximity to Melbourne, Phillip Island is well regarded as a daytrip destination for international visitors to Melbourne. In 2019, the destination welcomed 475,000 international daytrippers - representing a 4.1% average yearly increase from 2015. 25% of these international day visitors were Chinese visitors. Almost all these international daytrip visitors experienced nature-based tourism while visiting the Phillip Island (94% in 2019).

6.3%

9.9%

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Phillip Island Victoria

92.6% 95.7% 94.3% 92.5% 95.2%

7.4% 4.3% 5.7% 7.5% 4.8%

2.4

2.7

3.0

2.6

3.1

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019Domestic night share International night share Visitor nights

22

Figure 6: International daytrip visitors to Phillip Island (2015-2019)

8.2.15 Visitor Mix

International visitors attracted to the Phillip Island tourism region have been stable at approximately 2% of the total visitor market.

Figure 7: Visitor Mix of Phillip Island in 2015 and 2019

8.2.16 Visitor Expenditure

Visitor expenditure in the Phillip Island tourism region increased at an average annual rate of 11.2% over the past five year period, generating $579 million in 2019. Phillip Island exceeded the expenditure growth rate of Victoria (10.2%).

71.8% of visitor expenditure was contributed by domestic overnight visitors, followed by 23.7% from daytrippers. International travellers’ spend accounted for 4.5% of total tourist expenditure in the region in 2019 (please note, the value of international day trippers is excluded from this total).

60%

38%

2%

2015

57%

41%

2%

2019

Daytrip visitors

Domesticovernight visitors

Internationalvisitors

403,342

424,688

442,533

468,556 474,544

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

23

Figure 8: Visitor Expenditure in the Phillip Island Tourism Region (2015-2019)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Current prices, $ million

Daytrip visitors 96 108 113 120 137

Domestic overnight visitors 264 319 365 345 416

Inbound visitors 18 14 16 23 26

Total tourism spend in the Phillip Island Tourism Region

378 441 494 488 579

Shares - %

Daytrip visitors 25.4 24.5 22.9 24.6 23.7

Domestic overnight visitors 69.8 72.3 73.9 70.7 71.8

Inbound visitors 4.8 3.2 3.2 4.7 4.5

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Source: Tourism Research Australia’s regional tourism satellite accounts (Phillip Island)

8.2.17 Phillip Island tourism region’s direct economic contribution from tourism30

Figure 9 summarises the direct contribution of tourism to the visitor economy of the Phillip Island tourism region. Analysis indicated that the Phillip Island tourism region experienced a relatively positive growth in tourism value, increasing GVA share from 1.6% in 2014/15 to 1.9% in 2018/19. The employment share of the Phillip Island tourism region in Victoria’s direct tourism employment also increased by 0.4% since 2014/15 to 2.5% in 2018/19.

Figure 9: Tourism Satellite Account - direct economic contribution of the Phillip Island Tourism Region (2014/15-2018/19)

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19

GVA (Basic prices, $ million)

155.9 184.1 199.8 192.9 255.8

Share in VIC’s direct tourism GVA (%)

1.6 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.9

Tourism GRP (Basic prices, $ million)

175 208 224 215 282

Share in VIC’s direct tourism GSP (%)

1.7 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.9

30 The tourism economic value estimates using tourism satellite accounts are calculated at the financial year basis.

24

Employment (FTE) – person

3,014 3,572 3,914 3,684 4,489

Share in VIC’s direct tourism employment (%)

2.1 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.5

Source: Tourism Research Australia’s regional tourism satellite accounts (Phillip Island and Victoria)

8.2.18 Tourism businesses

In 2018/19, 466 tourism businesses were recorded in the Phillip Island tourism region. More than half of these companies (54.8%) were micro-scaled, employing between 1-4 personnel. 37.9% were small scaled with 5-19 employees, followed by 7.2% medium companies (20-199 employees).

Figure 10: Tourism business by employment size in Phillip Island (2014/15-2018/19)

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

2018/19

BUSINESSES Micro (1-4 employees) 152 167 166 149 159

Small (5-19 employees) 87 91 87 106 110

Medium (20-199

employees) 20 19 14 18 21

Large (200+

employees) 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL EMPLOYING 259 277 267 273 290

NON-EMPLOYING 165 166 149 170 176

Total 424 443 416 443 466

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS Business Register (unpublished data), compiled by Tourism Research Australia

8.2.19 Employment contributions by tourism industry

In 2018/19, businesses in the catering services accommodate more than a third of tourism employees in the region (36.7%). The accommodation sector generated 18% of tourism jobs, followed by retail trade (12.6%).

25

Figure 11: % of personnel employed by tourism industry

Importance of Nature-based tourism in the Phillip Island Tourism Region

8.2.20 Number of Nature-based Visitors

665,000 visitors participated in nature-based activities in the Phillip Island tourism region, representing a 9.4% average annual increase since 2015. If pre-COVID tourism forecasts are applied, an additional 51,000 nature-based tourism visitors would be expected by 2025.

If a broader definition of nature-based visitation (including beach visits) was taken, participation would extend to 1.7 million visitors in 2019.

Figure 12: Visitors to Phillip Island Tourism Region and participation in nature-based experiences (2015-2025) (000’)

36.7%

18.0%

12.6%

7.8%

4.8%

4.8%

4.2%

3.6%

3.3%

2.3%

1.9%

0.1%

0.0%

Cafes, restaurants and takeaway food services

Accommodation

Retail trade

Clubs, pubs, taverns and bars

Travel agency and tour operator services

Education and training

Air, water and other transport

Cultural services

Other sports and recreation services

Road transport and transport equipment rental

All other industries

Casinos and other gambling services

Rail transport

464 469 625 614 665

1,692

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

Nature-based tourism experience (historic)

Nature-based tourism experience (projected)

Extended nature-based tourism experience (historic)

Extended nature-based tourism experience (projected)

26

Visitor participation in nature-based experiences generated 1.2 million visitor nights to the region in 2019, 6.9% up from 2018 and 9.1% increase per year from 2015.

Figure 13: Visitor nights generated from nature-based experience, Phillip Island (2015-2019)

8.2.21 Nature-based Tourism in Victoria

Phillip Island accounted for 3.5% of nature-based experience participation in Victoria in 2019.

Figure 14: Phillip Island Tourism Region’s share of Victoria’s nature-based tourism activities (2015-2019)

806 721

1,153 1,069 1,143

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Nature-based tourism Extended nature-based tourism

2.9%

4.8%

2.3%

3.5%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

Daytrip segment Domestic overnightsegment

International segment Total market share

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

27

Popularity of nature-based experiences in the Phillip Island Tourism Region

8.2.22 25% of the Phillip Island tourism region’s visitors participated in nature-based

experiences in 2019, higher than average participation across the whole of Victoria

(19%31), illustrating the importance of the sector to the region.

8.2.23 In terms of market segments, approximately 90% of international visitors, 33% of

domestic overnight visitors, and 20% of day visitors to the region took part in nature-

based experiences during 2019.

8.2.24 Nature-based activities have increased in appeal over the past 5 year period. In 2019,

nature-based experiences contributed 25% of all visitors to Phillip Island, compared to

22.3% in 2015.

Figure 15: Participation in nature-based tourism experiences among visitors to Phillip Island (2015-2019)

8.2.25 Top nature-based activities in the Phillip Island Tourism Region Visit national parks and participating in bushwalks are the two most popular activities.32 Nearly half of visitors to the region enjoyed these experiences.

31 Source: Visitor Experiences in Victoria Factsheet Dec 2019, TEVE Research Unit, Business Victoria 32 Based on a five-year average to 2019

14.6%17.6% 19.0% 20.5% 18.3%

30.2%

24.0%

30.8% 31.8% 31.0%

92.9%87.7%

92.7%90.2% 89.6%

22.3% 21.4%25.1% 27.0% 25.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Daytrip visitors Domestic overnight visitors International visitors Total visitors

28

Figure 16: Participation in nature-based tourism activities (2015-2019)

Economic value of nature-based experiences in the Phillip Island Tourism Region

8.2.26 Visitor Expenditure Patterns of expenditure per day of daytrip, domestic overnight and international visitors associated with participation in nature-based tourism experiences in the Phillip Island tourism region have been used to identify a value estimate for nature-based tourism. In 2019, nature-based experiences generated $191.8 million, accounting for 33% of total visitor spend of the region, representing a $84.4 million increase from 2015.

Figure 17: Visitor spend associated with nature-based experience in Phillip Island (2015-2019)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Current prices, $ million

Daytrip visitors 14.0 19.0 21.5 24.6 25.1

Domestic overnight visitors 77.3 76.6 130.9 129.8 144.4

Inbound visitors 16.0 11.5 14.0 19.8 22.2

Total nature-based tourism spend of Phillip Island

107.3 107.2 166.3 174.1 191.8

Shares - %

Daytrip visitors 13.1 17.8 12.9 14.1 13.1

Domestic overnight visitors 72.0 71.5 78.7 74.5 75.3

Inbound visitors 14.9 10.7 8.4 11.4 11.6

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

42.9%

42.7%

30.9%

18.3%

6.6%

2.3%

0.3%

Visit national parks / state parks

Bushwalking / rainforest walks

Visit wildlife parks / zoos / aquariums

Visit botanical or other public gardens

Go whale or dolphin watching

Snorkelling

Scuba diving

29

8.2.27 GVA, GRP and employment contributions33 In 2019, participation in nature-based experiences in the Phillip Island tourism region is estimated to contribute $93.4 million to the local economy and generate 1,487 full-time jobs.

Figure 18: Nature-based tourism GVA estimates in the Phillip Island Tourism Region (2015-2019)

2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19

GVA (Basic prices, $ million)

44.3 44.7 67.3 68.8 84.7

Tourism GRP (Basic prices, $ million)

49.6 50.5 75.6 76.6 93.4

Employment (FTE) – person 856 868 1,318 1,314 1,487

33 The estimate is based on the proportion of visitor spend of nature-based tourists in overall visitors.

30

8.3. APPENDIX 3: Potential economic impact on nature based tourism in the Phillip Island

Tourism Region

8.3.1 At this stage, calculating detailed estimates of potential negative economic impact on

participation in nature based experiences in the Phillip Island tourism region caused

by the project are not possible.

8.3.2 However, as an illustration of the importance of the sector, figure 19 provides

hypothetical scenarios (using 2019 values) of the potential economic loss generated

by 10%, 15% and 20% drops in overall and nature-based visitation.

Figure 19: Potential economic loss due to decline in tourism visitation to the Phillip Island Tourism Region

Visitor

numbers (day,

international and

domestic overnight

(000s)

International daytrippers

(000s)

Decline in

Visitor spend ($M)

Decline in GVA (M$)

Decline in GRP ($M)

Decline in Employment

(persons)

10% decline in visitation

265.8 47.5 57.90 25.6 28.2 449

15% decline in visitation

398.6 71.2 86.85 38.4 42.3 673

20% decline in visitation

531.5 94.9 115.80 51.2 56.4 898

Decline in

Nature-based Visitor

numbers (000')

Decline in Visitor spend ($M)

10% decline in visitation 66.5 19.18

15% decline in visitation 99.7 28.76

20% decline in visitation 132.9 38.35

31

8.4. APPENDIX 4: The nature of tourism risk and the potential for impact from large-scale

development on tourism economies

8.4.1 When viewed from a risk identification and mitigation perspective, my experience is

that there are two principal areas where potential for tourism impact can be

generated from large scale construction and development projects (including

energy/ fossil fuel projects).

Reputational Risk to Tourism

8.4.2 The nature of tourism in the majority of destinations, including Phillip Island, is that

they rely on their environment, heritage, and culture for much of their tourism

appeal. Destination appeal is not confined to administrative boundaries on maps -

visitors relate to broader destinations, not administrative boundaries. Many years

of investment from businesses, communities and tourism agencies have led to the

careful cultivation of the destination’s brand and positioning. As such, large scale

development in neighbouring areas has the potential to cause significant direct

impact.

8.4.3 Tourists are motivated to visit a particular destination by the information that they

receive through media and marketing together with the need to have their own

needs and wants satisfied (leisure, relaxation, events, bird watching etc.) Destination

image forms a vital part in the consumer’s process of selecting a destination. Images

have a strong influence on travel behaviour as it represents the destination in a

tourist’s mind and becomes a key component of the decision making process in the

selection of a holiday or visitor experience. Destination attractiveness is therefore

the summation of impressions, ideas and beliefs about destinations based on

information provided through direct (marketing) and indirect (social media) sources.

8.4.4 During construction and operational phases, negative news cycles have the potential

to have significant detrimental impact on tourism economies, particularly where the

quality of the environment and nature-based tourism experiences form leading

components of destination branding, positioning, and appeal.

8.4.5 Research highlights the importance of natural resources for tourism, and human-

induced events impacting ecosystems can have detrimental consequences for the

tourism industry relying on these assets as attractions and for the delivery of

experiences. A destination’s success relies on a distinctive and appealing brand,

which is extremely difficult to establish and maintain34. The tourism industry is “one

of the most susceptible and vulnerable to crises or disasters” (Pforr, 2009) since the

success of a destination rests heavily on “its ability to offer tourists a perceived safe

and pleasant place to visit” (Breda and Costa, 2006).

34 Pike, S. (2005). Tourism destination branding complexity. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(4), 258-259.; Pike, S. (2005). Tourism destination branding complexity. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 14(4), 258-259.

32

8.4.6 Examples in Australia, such as development within the Great Barrier Reef, highlight the impact that environmental damage, or even perceived damage, can have on tourist’s perceptions and destination image. Research on the Great Barrier Reef35 identified a strong correlation between negative news events covering environmental issues and phrases such as coral bleaching, damage to the reef, dead reef, sediment, and dull, and dips in social media sentiment from visitors regarding the destination. Quotes from social media posts referred to specific developments such as the York Peninsula Development Road or the Gladstone clean coal power plant and the impact these have on the Reef. The study demonstrated that environmental degradation and communication around these issues impacts visitors’ experiences and perceptions of destinations.

8.4.7 Furthermore, a study showed that media on the extension of Abbot Point port

terminal, approved in January 2014, negatively impacted the image perception of

the adjacent Great Barrier Reef36. The construction of the port was of particular

concern because it involved dredging of large amounts of sediment. Another study

demonstrated that development of the resources sector in Roma and Gladstone led

to fewer tourism products being developed and a decline in the quality of existing

products37. Self-reinforcing cycles were described, where development led to a

decline in visitors, a reduction in tourism’s quantifiable economic impact and an

institutional shift that favoured further developments in the resources sector. This

has “pushed it [leisure tourism] out” of Gladstone, which used to be Gladstone’s

main industry. Nowadays, Gladstone is seen to have little appeal to tourists. While

time series data at a local level is limited, Figure 19 illustrates the inverted

relationship between the sectors (the correlation between the growth rates was

−0.44) at a Queensland state level.

35 Salvatierra, J. & Walters, G. (2017). The impact of human-induced environmental destruction on destination image perception and travel behaviour: The case of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Journal of Vacation Marketing 2017, Vol. 23(1) 73–84. 36 Salvatierra, J. & Walters, G. (2017). The impact of human-induced environmental destruction on destination image perception and travel behaviour: The case of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. Journal of Vacation Marketing 2017, Vol. 23(1) 73–84. 37 Char-lee J. Moyle, Brent D. Moyle & Susanne Becken (2017) A multi-sectoral model of tourism and resource sector transformation, Tourism Recreation Research, 42:4, 422-435

33

Figure 19: Illustration of relationship between tourism and mining income – Gladstone

Region

Source38

Financial/Economic Risk from Environmental Impact

8.4.8 Commentary on the potential for the project to cause environmental damage to Phillip

Island and Bass Coast Shire is outside the scope of this expert witness statement,

however, it is important to note the potential for environmental impact on Phillip

Island and surrounding areas as a material consideration.

8.4.9 Paragraph 8.4.13 presents a series of case studies where major incidents associated

with fossil fuels have been evidenced to have had significant economic impact on

tourism destinations, with impact extending significantly beyond the municipality

where infrastructure is developed.

8.4.10 For instance, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill generated significant economic

impacts to US coastal economies (Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama)

predicted to be USD22.7billion over three years (2010-2013). Leisure and hospitality

employment in these economies estimated to be 15% of total private employment39.

8.4.11 Paragraph 8.4.13 also contains a summary table of economic impacts to tourism

destinations from recent major oil spills. While it is accepted that oil spills provide

their own unique set of environmental and economic risks, the examples do illustrate

the need to fully consider economic risk to the tourism economy of Phillip Island and

surrounding areas.

38 Char-lee J. Moyle, Brent D. Moyle & Susanne Becken (2017) A multi-sectoral model of tourism and resource sector transformation, Tourism Recreation Research, 42:4, 422-435 39 Oxford Economics 2010, Potential Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill on Tourism, available at: https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/download/222563

34

8.4.12 My evidence on tourism matters is presented through the lenses of these potential

reputational and financial/economic risks and impacts.

8.4.13 A range of events have provided evidence of major fossil fuel projects’ potential to

impact on tourism economies. These are presented in figures 20 and 21.

Figure 20: Impacts to tourism from anthropogenic and natural disasters: Case Studies

Event Place Year Tourism impact

BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Disaster

Gulf of Mexico

2010 Economic impacts to US coastal economies (Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama) predicted to be USD22.7billion over three years (2010-2013);40 Leisure and hospitality employment in these economies estimated to be 15% of total private employment;41

Exxon Valdez Oil Spill disaster

Prince William Sound, Alaska

1989 Tourism dramatically declined in the region in 1989; USD19 million in visitor spending was lost in just one season; Continued oil contamination of shorelines in the 10 years following the incident;42 59% of tourism businesses in the spill area reported spill-related cancellations; 43

Ammonium nitrate explosion

Beirut, Lebanon

2020 90% of Beirut hotels damaged;44 Central tourist hub destroyed;45

Tokyo Electric Power Company's Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant No. 1

Fukushima Prefecture, Japan

2011 Estimated loss of tourism income over three years 2011-2014) USD9.4 billion;46 Loss of tourism confidence in visiting the region;47

40 Oxford Economics 2010, Potential Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill on Tourism, available at: https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/download/222563 41 Oxford Economics 2010, Potential Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill on Tourism, available at: https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/download/222563 42 Oxford Economics 2010, Potential Impact of the Gulf Oil Spill on Tourism, available at: https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/download/222563 43 Chang, S.E., Stone, J., Demes, K., and Piscitelli, M. 2014, Consequences of oil spills: a review and framework for informing planning, Ecology and Society, vol.19, no. 2, art.26 44 CNN 2020, Beirut explosion rocks Lebanon’s capital city, CNN Media, available at: https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/lebanon-beirut-explosion-live-updates-dle-intl/h_5372a5d4a996a45c2a92adfd03525251 45 Mehan, A. and Jansen, M. 2020, Beirut Blast: A port city in crisis, Port City Futures, Leiden University, The Netherlands, available at: https://philpapers.org/archive/MEHBBA-2.pdf 46 Narukawa, M. and Nohara, K. 2018, Zero-truncated panel Poisson mixture models: Estimating the impact on tourism benefits in Fukushima Prefecture, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 211, pp. 238-246. 47 Handler, I. 2016, The impact of the Fukushima disaster on Japan's travel image: An exploratory study on Taiwanese travellers, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, vol.27, pp.12-17.

35

Marcellus Shale Atlantic Coast Pipeline project

Western and Central Virginia, United States

2016 Loss of comparative advantage reducing recreation tourism expenditures by USD41.3 million which supports 387 jobs;48 “These businesses, which depend on the scenic and other amenities noted above, would simply not have enough business in the form of visitors and others to justify their now-on-hold expansions and new developments.” (Phillips et al., 2016, p.8);

Chemung, Schuyler, And Steuben Counties, New York, United States (STC Region)

2011 2008 visitor spend of USD239 million across all counties predicted to decline due to loss of ‘brand’ that is intertwined with nature based vistas and activities. Cumulative change to an industrial, rather than a scenic landscape, will generate substantial damage to the brand;49

China Petroleum Company Corporation explosion

Xingang Harbour, Dalian

2010 Impacts to tourism through environmental damage from 60,000 litres of oil leaking;50 51

Pacific Adventurer sinking; overboard containers and bunker fuel leakage

Moreton Bay Coast

2009 Impacts to sensitive ecosystems and tourist beaches along the Queensland Coast; Clean up and non-government claims (tourism interests) estimated at least AUD30 million.52

48 Phillips, S., Bottorff, C. and Wang, S. 2016, Economic Costs of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline: Effects on Property Value, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Development in Western and Central Virginia, Key-Log. Economics LLC, available at: https://www.banktrack.org/download/economic_costs_of_the_atlantic_coast_pipeline/economic_costs_of_the_atlantic_coast_pipelinekeylogic_21616_1.pdf 49 Rumbach, A. 2011, Natural gas drilling in the Machellus Shale: Potential impacts on the tourism economy of the Southern Tier, Cornell University, available at: http://greenchoices.cornell.edu/resources/publications/drilling/Impacts_on_Tourism_Economy.pdf 50 Greenpeace 2010, Oil spill damage in Dalian, available at: https://media.greenpeace.org/archive/Oil-Spill-Damage-in-Dalian-27MZIFIA1D3E.html 51 Stanway, D.2010, China oil pill could be 60,000 metric tons: Greenpeace, Reuters Green Business News, available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-dalian-oil/china-oil-spill-could-be-60000-metric-tons-greenpeace-idUSTRE66T2LQ20100730 52 Cogliati-Bantz, V., Derrington, D., Forrest, C., Gaskell, N. and White, M. 2012, Marine Oil and Gas Pollution Spills in Australian Waters, in Chircop, A. Letalik, N., McDorman, T.L., and Rolston, S.J. (eds.), The Regulation of International Shipping: International and Comparative Perspectives, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp.371-400.

36

MV Wakashio striking of coral reef

Mauritius 2020 1000 tonnes of fuel spilt into the marine ecosystem with over 1700 species;53 54 Impacts the natural environment upon which tourism is built for decades.55 Mauritius is a tourism dependent economy; Losses add to existing COVID-19 losses of MUR12 billion (AUD422 million).14

Figure 21: Impacts to tourism from anthropogenic and natural disasters: Case Studies

Source: Economic impacts of oil spills in island tourism destinations. An application to the

Canary Islands, Walo, 2016

53 The Japan Times 2020, The focus turns to damages owed by Japan ship owner for Mauritius spill, available at: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/08/13/national/nagashiki-wakashio-oil-spill-mauritius/ 54 McEvoy, J. 2020, ‘Damage To The Coral Reefs May Be Irreversible’: Japanese Tanker Drained Of Oil, Forbes, available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/08/13/damage-to-the-coral-reefs-may-be-irreversible-japanese-tanker-drained-of-oil/#188a28aa549a 55 ABC 2020, Japanese ship MV Wakashio breaks up on Mauritius reef after causing oil spill, available at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-16/japanese-ship-mv-wakashio-mauritius-oil-spill-breaks-apart/12563154

37

8.5 APPENDIX 5: Review of EES Documentation

Does the EES adequately document investigation, avoidance, and minimisation of the

potential impact of the Project on tourism (specifically, nature based tourism) on Phillip

Island and surrounding areas within Council’s municipality, and its value to Council’s local

economy and the Victorian economy, in the event the Project detrimentally impacts

Western Port? If not, why not and what impact is it likely to have?

8.5.1 EES fails to consider impact on regional tourism.

8.5.2 On review of documentation, there are two principal areas of potential tourism

impact omitted from impact assessment:

I. The potential for large scale development such the project to cause

reputational risk to Phillip Island’s status as a tourism destination, which has

largely been built on its status as a nature-based destination.

II. The potential for environmental damage which would directly harm the

environmental assets which tourism on the Island is built upon. This

environmental damage would have the potential to directly lead to financial

loss for businesses and communities reliant on tourism. The health of Western

Port ecosystem and environment is of significant importance to the region’s

tourism industry and appeal.

8.5.3 The key issue with regard to both of these points is that the EES statement fails to

consider the project’s potential impact on tourism in Phillip Island and Bass Coast

Shire, with risks and potential impact largely limited to the construction area in

Mornington Shire, Casey, and Cardinia local government areas. As previously noted,

visitors are motivated to visit a particular destination by the information that they

receive through media and marketing together with the need to have their own

needs and wants satisfied, and destination image forms a vital part in the consumer’s

process of selecting a destination. As such, the nature of tourism destinations is that

visitors do not recognise boundaries and have a broader view of the destination – in

that sense, the project has the potential to impact directly on Phillip Island as a

premier tourism destination and the economic benefits which visitor spending

provides for communities and businesses.

8.5.4 As Bass Coast Shire and Phillip Island are omitted from impact considerations, EES

documentation contains no consideration of investigation, avoidance, and

minimisation of impact on the region’s visitor economy. The sector’s economic value

and potential impact of the project on it, have not been considered.

8.5.5 Given the issues set out in this statement, it is concluded that the EES does not

adequately document investigation, avoidance, and minimisation of the potential

impact of the Project on tourism (specifically, nature based tourism) on Phillip Island

and surrounding areas within Council’s municipality, and its value to Council’s local

economy and the Victorian economy, in the event the Project detrimentally impacts

Western Port.

38

8.5.6 While modelling is not available to accurately assess the potential economic impact

on the Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire regions, it is possible to see the potential

for economic loss when the region is so heavily reliant on nature-based tourism.

Based on 2019 values, a 20% reduction in nature-based tourism would result in the

loss of approximately $38.35m in visitor expenditure. If the Phillip Island tourism

region lost 10% of its overall visitation due to impacts of the project, this could see a

decline in GRP of approximately $28.2 million.

EES Summary Document, Environment Effects Statement, July 2020

8.5.7 While a broad range of community, economic and environmental impacts are

considered within the EES, scope of impact is largely limited to the local government

areas of Mornington Shire, Cardinia, and Casey. From a tourism impact perspective,

Bass Coast Shire and Phillip Island are excluded from consideration.

8.5.8 With the scale of development proposed in the project, potential tourism impact

would be expected to be significantly wider than this core area. Tourism in Phillip

Island and surrounds is set firmly within the context of the wider region, and

proximity of the project is highly likely to impact on the region. Development activity

in Western Port Bay has the potential to have a significant impact on surrounding

tourism destinations.

8.5.9 As previously noted, the types of tourism impact that should be considered as a

minimum include;

• The impact of reputational risks to Phillip Island and Bass Coast Shire - the

negative PR and communications (during construction and operations) linked to

a major fossil fuel development project has clear ramifications for the region’s

long-established positioned as a sustainable tourism destination and premier

Victorian nature-based tourism destination. The fossil fuel focus of the project is

directly at odds with Phillip Island’s market positioning and appeal.

• Financial and economic risk to the region’s tourism sector from a potential

environmental impact event.

EES Main Report, Chapter 3 - Project Development

8.5.10 In addition to the points raised in commentary to the EES Summary Document

Environment Effects Statement July 2020 (8.3.6 -8.3.8), the following issues should

be considered:

• Project design alternatives have not factored in consideration of impact on Bass

Coast Shire and the region’s tourism industry centred on Phillip Island.

• Project design does not consider reputational risk to nearby visitor destinations

such as Phillip Island.

39

EES Main Report, Chapter 3 - Project Description

8.5.11 In addition to the points raised in commentary to the EES Summary Document

Environment Effects Statement July 2020 (8.3.6 -8.3.8), the following issues should

be considered:

• Project design alternatives have not factored in consideration of impact on Bass

Coast Shire and the region’s tourism industry centred on Phillip Island.

• Project design does not consider reputational risk to nearby visitor destinations

such as Phillip Island during construction and operational phases. This type of

reputational risk is particularly acute for the tourism sector. Phillip Island has

built its reputation and offers a clear brand imagery centred on nature-based

and sustainable tourism. Remedying a damaged tourism brand in a competitive

market place would require sustained investment over a number of years.

EES Main Report, Chapter 5 - Key Approvals and Assessment Framework

8.5.12 In addition to the points raised in commentary to the EES Summary Document

Environment Effects Statement July 2020 (8.3.6 -8.3.8), the following issues should be

considered:

• In the interests of a comprehensive evaluation, the evaluation framework could

have usefully included an assessment of impact against tourism policy and

strategy objectives at State, Regional and local levels. A summary of extant

tourism policy and strategy is contained in Appendix 3. Each of these documents

contains a series of objectives, which can form a useful set of criteria to assess

potential impact against.

EES Main Report, Chapter 19 – Business

8.5.13 As noted in commentary to the EES Summary Document Environment Effects

Statement July 2020 (8.3.6 -8.3.8), consideration of business impact excludes Phillip

Island and the Bass Coast Shire area. EES assessment has also failed to consider impact

on regional tourism. Specific considerations in this regard include:

• Methodology 19.3: a review of relevant Commonwealth, state and local

legislation and policy. This review shows no evidence of tourism policy and

strategy being considered.

• Study Area 19.4: the study area as defined excludes Bass Coast Shire Council area.

As previously noted, the tight study area related to project construction is

insufficient for consideration of tourism impact. Philip Island’s tourism economy

is inextricably linked to the setting and health of the Western Port ecosystem.

8.5.14 The result of the Bass Coast LGA area being excluded from the study area is that

potential tourism impact has not been fully considered, with the associated

mitigation, minimisation, and avoidance areas also not considered.

40

EES Main Report, Chapter 25 – Environmental Management Framework

8.5.15 In addition to the points raised in commentary to the EES Summary Document

Environment Effects Statement July 2020 (8.3.6 -8.3.8), the following issues should be

considered:

• Figure 25.4 (mitigation measures) fails to take a holistic view of impact on business

across the Western Port setting, meaning that reputational and environmental

risks for Phillip Island as a destination and its individual nature-based tourism

businesses have not been identified. As such, appropriate recognition of level and

likelihood of risks and impact on tourism is absent, along with associated

mitigation measures.

• Landscape and visual: This section although referring to regional impact, excluded

Bass Coast Shire and the regional dimension required to assess potential impact

on regional tourism. This regional scope is required to capture potential

reputational risks as well as physical and environmental issues.

EES Technical Report N – Business Impact Assessment

8.5.16 Comments on omissions as per response to on previous section - EES Main Report,

Chapter 19 – Business (8.3.12 -8.3.13.)

EES Report - Attachment II Legislation and policy report

8.5.17 Comments on omissions as per response to on previous section - Chapter 5 - Key

Approvals and Assessment Framework (8.3.11). Extension of relevant policy

frameworks include: the relevant extant policy framework of Bass Coast Shire

Council and State, regional and local tourism policy, and strategy. Consideration of

these policies would have provided for a more comprehensive assessment of

pertinent tourism issues.

EES Report - Attachment III Environmental Risk Report

8.5.18 In addition to comments in the previous section - Chapter 25 – Environmental

Management Framework (8.3.14), the key issue to reiterate is the failure to include

Bass Coast Shire within the scope of the EES process with regard to its tourism

economy.

8.5.19 With regard to business, this section of the report notes “ The non-agricultural

businesses with the potential to be materially impacted by the Project are in Hastings.

Most of these businesses are considered small businesses in terms of revenue (less

than AU$2 million dollars per annum in turnover) and employees (fewer than 20

employees). In addition, businesses are very car dependent, with a large majority of

employees, customers and suppliers accessing the sites by private vehicle”.

8.5.20 If a full regional perspective is taken where pertinent in regard to economic sectors

such as tourism, it is clear that the significant scale of the project also has the

potential to extend impact to Phillip Island tourism businesses, the majority of which

41

are also SMEs, as well as the destination’s signature nature-based businesses

including Phillip Island Nature Parks.

EES Report - Attachment IV Draft planning scheme amendment

8.5.21 In relation to section 4.12 Business Impact Assessment, the limited geographic scope

for business impact assessment, provides an incomplete assessment of business

(tourism) impact, excluding the potential for regional impact of the project on the

tourism industry. As previously noted, the limited scope results in conclusions that

only businesses (non-agricultural) in Hastings will be impacted.

42

8.6 APPENDIX 6: Ramsar wetland tourism values

8.6.1 As one example of nature-based tourism where the main motivation of the tourist is

to observe and appreciate nature as well as cultures which function in the natural

areas,56 International tourism to global wetland areas is estimated to generate tourism

expenditure of USD925 billion (AUD1286 billion) annually.57 With domestic visitors

and day trips to be added to this figure, the value generated for local communities

from wetland tourism is significant.

8.6.2 Australia is one of 171 countries that are parties to the Ramsar Convention.58 The

mission of the Ramsar Convention is to conserve and support the ‘wise use’ of all

wetlands, including that activities encouraged for the wetlands do not lead to loss of

biodiversity or diminish the values of the designated areas.59 The United Nations

World Tourism Organisation recognises wetlands, and particularly Ramsar designated

wetlands, as significant contributors to tourism economies (UNWTO 2012).

8.6.3 Ramsar Sites globally attract hundreds of thousands of visitors each year, delivering

direct and indirect economic contributions.60. For example, at the Rudrasagar Lake in

India, estimates of 350,000 visitors per annum frequent the site, a Ramsar declared

wetland.61 In a study of 26 Ramsar sites in Africa, tourism features as a consistent

contributor to wetland awareness among locals and visitors, and importantly, income

to surrounding communities – both from cultural (recreation and aesthetics including

tourism) and from provisioning services (such as fishing to supply visiting tourists).62

For example, in Algeria, one lake of 842 hectares is an Important Bird Area providing

habitat for migratory birds. More than 150,000 tourists visit the lake supporting local

youth employment. In another example, Lake Naivasha in Kenya recognises the

56 The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and UNWTO 2012, Wetland Tourism: A great experience: responsible tourism supports wetlands and people, available at: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/ramsar-wwd2012-leaflet-en.pdf 57 The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and UNWTO 2012, Wetland Tourism: A great experience: responsible tourism supports wetlands and people, available at: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/ramsar-wwd2012-leaflet-en.pdf 58 The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands 2019, Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention, available at: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/annotated_contracting_parties_list_e.pdf 59 Australian Government 2012, Australia’s Obligations under the Ramsar Convention: Legislative Support for Wetlands, available at: https://www.environment.gov.au/water/wetlands/publications/australias-obligations-under-ramsar-convention-legislative-support-wetlands-fact-sheet 60 The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and UNWTO 2012, Wetland Tourism: A great experience: responsible tourism supports wetlands and people, available at: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/ramsar-wwd2012-leaflet-en.pdf 61 Taran, M. and Deb, S. 2017, Valuation of provisional and cultural services of a Ramsar site: A preliminary study on Rudrasagar Lake, Tripura, Northeast India, Journal of Wetlands Environmental Management, vol,5, no.1, pp 37-43. 62 Gardner, R.C., Connolly, K.D., and Bamba, A. 2009, African wetlands of international Importance: Assessment of benefits associated with designations under the Ramsar Convention, Georgetown International Law Review, vol.21, no.2, pp. 257-294.

43

benefits of tourism to its local economy through livelihood opportunities. Several

other sites reported increased visitor numbers from birdwatching activities.63

8.6.4 The economic benefits of visitors to Ramsar sites are documented in local examples.

For example, in the Mekong Delta, popular water bird viewing sites in the U Minh

Thuong National Park receive 44,000 visitors annually, 97.5% of which are domestic

visitors contributing more than USD1 million (AUD1.4 million) in revenue to the local

economy.64 In Southern Thailand, the use value of a Ramsar site on the Krabi River was

estimated at USD9.7 million (AUD13.6 million) for recreation and tourism per year.65

In Nepal, a study of the travel cost for visitors to the Ramsar site of Ghodaghodi Lake

Complex, including food and other miscellaneous expenses for a one hour journey to

the site, provided economic benefit of USD7.71 (AUD10.80) per visitor per visit.66. In

another study from Nepal, the Jagadishpur Ramsar Site received a conservative

estimate of 10,200 visitors per year, with 98% domestic visitors, generating around

NPR 9,076,950 (AUD107,000) per year from tourism based on travel cost calculation

alone.67

8.6.5 Direct contributions from entry fees to Ramsar designated wetlands are another

income source. As reflected elsewhere in this statement, fees charged by the Phillip

Island Nature Park, a key element of the Ramsar declared area, are dependent on the

natural attributes of the wetlands. Another key Australian Ramsar designated wetland

is the Kakadu National Park. Economic benefit from entry fees there are distributed

between the Aboriginal Lands Trust to disburse to Traditional Owners and the park

itself. The former receives 40% of entry fees from the 200,000+ visitors per year, while

the remaining 60% supports operating costs and conservation initiatives within the

park.68

63 Gardner, R.C., Connolly, K.D., and Bamba, A. 2009, African wetlands of international Importance: Assessment of benefits associated with designations under the Ramsar Convention, Georgetown International Law Review, vol.21, no.2, pp. 257-294. 64 Loc, H.H., Diep, N.T.H., Tuan, V.T., and Shimizu, Y. 2018, An analytical approach in accounting for social values of ecosystem services in a Ramsar site: A case study in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, Ecological Indicators, vol. 89., pp.118-129. 65 Janekarnkij, P. 2010, Assessing the Value of Krabi River Estuary Ramsar Site: Conservation and Development, ARE Working Paper No. 2553/4, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart University, Bangkok 66 Lamsal, P., Atreya, K., Prasad Pant, K., and Kumar, L. 2016, Tourism, and wetland conservation: application of travel cost and willingness to pay an entry fee at Ghodaghodi Lake Complex, Nepal, Natural Resources Forum, vol. 40, pp. 51-61. 67 Baral, S., Basnyat, B., Khanal, R., and Gauli, K. 2016, A Total Economic Valuation of Wetland Ecosystem Services: An Evidence from Jagadishpur Ramsar Site, Nepal, The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2016, pp. 1-9. 68 The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands and UNWTO 2012, Wetland Tourism: A great experience: responsible tourism supports wetlands and people, available at: https://www.ramsar.org/sites/default/files/documents/library/ramsar-wwd2012-leaflet-en.pdf

44

8.7. APPENDIX 7: Tourism Data Sources and Definitions

8.7.1. Unless specifically noted, all data used in this statement is sourced from Tourism

Research Australia’s National and International Visitor Surveys. Annual growth is

estimated on the compound annual growth rate basis.

Definition of Nature-based Tourism

8.7.2. Nature-based tourism refers to visitor activities to discover natural beauty and enjoy

natural connectedness. These activities include visiting national/state parks, botanical

or other public gardens, whale or dolphin watching, bushwalking or on a rainforest

walk, scuba diving, snorkelling, and visiting wildlife parks, zoos and aquariums1.

8.7.3. The nature-based experience spectrum can also be extended to other activities such

as going to the beach, fishing, cycling, and surfing69. To be consistent with Business

VIC’s publications on tourist experience, the scope of nature-based tourism defined

by Business VIC is applied in this statement. The analysis of extended nature-based

tourism is supplementary to further capture the potential of this experience in Phillip

Island.

8.7.4. The identification of a nature-based tourist is based on the participation of visitors to

at least one of the above listed activities. For domestic visitors, these participated

activities were undertaken at the stopovers (Phillip Island or Victoria) whereas

international visitors might experience these activities somewhere else during their

Australian trip, not necessarily at the stopover levels.

Definition of Bass Coast Shire and Phillip Island for data purposes (Phillip Island Tourism

Region)

8.7.5. All data used in the statement unless otherwise specified, relates to the Phillip Island

Tourism region as noted in Figure 22. The boundaries of the Phillip Island tourism

region equate closely to that of the Bass Coast Shire Council area.

69 Tourism Research Australia’s IVS and NVS datasets, outdoor/nature activities, in alignment with Phillip island’s activity offerings.

45

Figure 22: Phillip Island Tourism Region and Bass Coast Shire map – data boundaries

Figure 23: Research acronyms used in this statement

ACRONYMS

VIC Victoria

NVS National Visitor Survey

IVS International Visitor Survey

GVA Gross Value Added

GRP Gross Regional Product

GSP Gross State Product

AGR Annual Growth Rate

TEVE Victoria's Tourism, Events and Visitor Economy

46

Figure 24: Definitions of tourism experiences referenced in this statement

Experiences Enclosed activities

Cultural Attend theatre, concerts

Visit museums

Visit art or craft workshops

Attend festivals. Fairs or events

Visit history, heritage buildings sites

Experience Aboriginal art

Visit Aboriginal sites

Attend Aboriginal performance (IN only)

Event Attend festivals, fairs, or events

Attend an organised sport event

Food and beverage Visit a winery

Visit breweries

Visit farmgate

Visit food market (DOM only)

Winery Visit a winery

Golf Play golf

Source: Tourism Research Australia’ IVS and NVS surveys