Main findings for the - Home - Department of the … · Web viewPersonal impacts will emerge differently for different people, and their ability to cope and adapt will also vary

South-west Marine Region Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network:social and economic assessment of the impacts on commercial and charter fishing

Report on the draft marine reserves network, with a supplementary report for the final proposed marine reserves network

Research by the Australian Bureau of Agriculturaland Resource Economics and Sciences

June 2012

© Commonwealth of Australia 2012

Ownership of intellectual property rightsUnless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).

Creative Commons licenceAll material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, save for content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth coat of arms.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode.

This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, 2012, South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network: social and economic assessment of the impacts on commercial and charter fishing. Report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, June. CC BY 3.0.

Cataloguing dataABARES 2012 South-west Marine Region Commonwealth Reserve Network: Social and Economic Assessment of the Impacts on Commercial and Charter Fishing. ABARES report to client prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, June.

ABARES project 43210

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES)Postal address GPO Box 1563 Canberra ACT 2601Switchboard: +61 2 6272 2010|Facsimile: +61 2 6272 2001Email: [email protected]: daff.gov.au/abares

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document should be sent to [email protected]

The Australian Government acting through the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry represented by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, has exercised due care and skill in the preparation and compilation of the information and data in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, ABARES, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence, for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying upon any of the information or data in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

AcknowledgementsThe authors wish to thank the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), Primary Industries and Regions South Australia (PIRSA), South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) and Western Australian Department of Fisheries (WA DoF) for their assistance in providing data and reviewing this report. The authors also wish to acknowledge the contributions of commercial fishers and industry group representatives in the assessment process, including those from the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA), Wildcatch Fisheries South Australia and the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC).

ABARES contributors (alphabetical): Gavin Begg, Peter Berry, Katherine Cheshire, Robert Curtotti, Alix Duncan, Saan Ecker, Marco Hatt, Edwina Heyhoe, Patty Hobsbawn, Robert Kancans, James Larcombe, Nic Marton, Rob New, Rocio Noriega, Patty Please, Nyree Stenekes, Rupert Summerson, Charlene Trestrail and Alasebu Yainshet.

mailto:[email protected]

ContentsExecutive summary............................................................................................................................................. 1

Main findings for the draft network (released May 2011)....................................................2

Main findings for the final proposed network (14 June 2012)............................................9

Draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal..................................13

1 Background and introduction..........................................................................................................14

The South-west Marine Region.......................................................................................................14

Fisheries in the South-west Marine Region...............................................................................15

Demographics of the South-west Marine Region....................................................................21

Scope of work.......................................................................................................................................... 22

The social and economic assessment...........................................................................................23

2 Potential displacement of fishing...................................................................................................25

Area closures and entitlement values..........................................................................................28

Commercial fishing potential displacement..............................................................................28

Charter fishing displacement across the South-west Marine Region.............................32

Commercial displacement in the South Australian subregion..........................................33

Commercial displacement in the Esperance–Albany subregion......................................35

Commercial displacement in the South-west Corner subregion......................................37

Commercial displacement in the Fremantle–Geraldton subregion................................39

Prospective fishing................................................................................................................................40

Fisheries management........................................................................................................................ 42

3 Flow of potential impacts to ports and supply chains...........................................................43

Flow of gross value of production to ports................................................................................44

Inputs to fishing businesses (upstream impacts)...................................................................45

Output from fishing businesses (downstream impacts)......................................................47

Town and local area summary.........................................................................................................49

Potential impacts on the economy.................................................................................................54

Potential impacts on employment.................................................................................................56

Summary of flow of impacts.............................................................................................................57

4 Impacts on fishing businesses..........................................................................................................59

Survey data caveats and notes.........................................................................................................59

Commercial fishery qualitative value mapping........................................................................60

Direct displacement impacts on fishing businesses...............................................................62

Fishing business impacts....................................................................................................................63

Fishing business plans and future investments.......................................................................70

Other issues and cumulative factors impacting fishing businesses................................71

Ability to adapt—fishing business.................................................................................................72

Fishing business impacts summary...............................................................................................74

5 Personal and community impacts..................................................................................................75

Personal impacts....................................................................................................................................75

Ability to adapt—personal................................................................................................................78

Community impacts..............................................................................................................................80

Community and personal impacts summary............................................................................81

6 Case studies.............................................................................................................................................. 82

Telling the fisher’s story: a narrative approach.......................................................................82

Macroeconomic context......................................................................................................................82

Case study: Port Lincoln..................................................................................................................... 85

Case study: New and prospective fisheries................................................................................90

Case study: Esperance.........................................................................................................................93

Case study: Windy Harbour..............................................................................................................98

Case study: Vertically integrated fishing business...............................................................103

Case study: Charter vessel impacts—South Australia........................................................106

Case study: South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery—background............................................................................................................................................ 107

Case study: Economic effects for two key subregions........................................................109

7 Fishery overviews...............................................................................................................................117

8 Appendixes............................................................................................................................................ 138

A: Summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities.....................................................................................................................................138

B: Fisheries data processing methods.......................................................................................144

C: Social impact assessment methods........................................................................................155

D: Developing an index of community vulnerability...........................................................162

E: Estimating job reduction using the survey.........................................................................167

F: Profile of survey respondents..................................................................................................168

9 References.............................................................................................................................................. 174

Supplementary report: Final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal............................................................................................................................... 181

Overview................................................................................................................................................. 182

Changes to the South-west Commonwealth Marine reserves network......................184

Potential displacement of fishing.................................................................................................187

Flow of potential impacts to ports..............................................................................................189

Fishing business impacts.................................................................................................................195

Personal and community impacts...............................................................................................196

Case studies........................................................................................................................................... 197

Summary tables for the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal............................................................................................................................... 198

TablesTable 2 Reference information for potentially impacted fisheries in the South-west

Marine Region......................................................................................................................................... 17

Table 3 Estimated direct employment in the fishing industry by sector in the South-west Marine Region and Australia-wide (full-time equivalent positions)...................................................................................................................................................21

Table 4 Estimates of fishery catch and gross value of production (GVP) potentially displaced by the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network........29

Table 5 Reserve and areas where charter fishing activity may potentially be displaced.................................................................................................................................................... 32

Table 6 Estimates of mean annual potential catch and gross value of production displaced from the South Australian subregion by the draft marine reserves and areas over the 2001–10 reference period.........................................................................34

Table 8 Estimates of mean annual potential catch and gross value of production displaced from the South-west corner subregion by the draft marine reserves and areas over the 2011–10 reference period.........................................................................38

Table 9 Estimates of mean annual potential catch and gross value of production displaced from the Fremantle–Geraldton subregion by the draft marine reserves and areas over the 2001–10 reference period......................................................40

Table 10 Community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity (draft reserves)...........50

Table 11 Estimated paid job reduction anticipated by survey respondents due to the draft Commonwealth South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network..................................................................................................................................................... 57

Table 12 Number of value markers placed in draft marine reserve areas for each of the value categories..............................................................................................................................62

Table 13 Number of survey respondents who indicated they would be excluded or displaced to some degree by the draft marine reserves......................................................63

Table 14 Number of survey respondents that indicated a defined proportion of their 2010–11 catch was taken from within draft marine reserves...............................63

Table 15 Responses to the question, 'If the draft reserves were declared I would have to change my current fishing activities'............................................................................64

Table 16 Responses from those who declared their fishing activity would have to change......................................................................................................................................................... 65

Table 17 Reference case gross value of production projections by jurisdiction ($billion)................................................................................................................................................. 113

Table 18 Short-term (2012–13) model results of the potential impact of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on the economy and employment (percentages)............................................................................................................114

Table 20 Longer term (2019–20) model results of the potential impact of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on the economy and employment.......................................................................................................................................... 115

Table 22 Summary of flow of impacts, supply chain, demographics and vulnerability (draft Southwest reserve network)................................................................140

Table 23 Commonwealth fishing methods and zoning implications.......................................147

Table 24 South Australian fisheries and zoning implications....................................................149

Table 25 Mean aggregate unit prices used to calculate gross value of production for Western Australian–managed fisheries....................................................................................150

Table 26 Depth classes assigned to fishing methods for spatial refining of the Western Australian 60-minute fishing grid............................................................................151

Table 27 Western Australian fishing methods and zoning implications...............................153

Table 28 Focus group participants.........................................................................................................160

Table 29 Indicators and data.....................................................................................................................164

Table 30 Percentages used to calculate reduction in employees based on (a) the overall response to the draft marine reserves and (b) response to a question of whether the business will reduce employees...................................................................167

Table 31 Licences held by survey respondents in 2010–11.......................................................168

Table 32 Fishing methods...........................................................................................................................169

Table 33 Fishing history..............................................................................................................................169

Table 35 Respondents role in fishing business.................................................................................170

Table 36 Fishing business structure......................................................................................................170

Table 37 Business activities.......................................................................................................................171

Table 38 Fishing business employees...................................................................................................171

Table S1 Differences between the draft and final proposed South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network............................................................................184

Table S3 Estimates of flow of potentially displaced gross value of production (GVP) by the draft and final proposed marine reserves networks in the South-west Marine Region...................................................................................................................................... 190

Table S4 Community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity—final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal.........................................................192

Table S5 Comparison of the short-term net economic impact and job losses between the draft and final proposed marine reserves networks in the South-west Marine Region........................................................................................................................... 195

Table S6 Estimates of mean annual potential catch (tonnes) displaced by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10 reference period.......................................199

Table S7 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production ($’000) displaced by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10 reference period........201

Table S8 Estimates of mean annual potential catch (tonnes) displaced by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from South Australian fisheries over the 2000–10 reference period..................................................203

Table S9 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production ($’000) displaced by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from South Australian fisheries over the 2000–10 reference period......204

Table S10 Estimates of mean annual potential catch (tonnes) displaced by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from Western Australian fisheries over the 2001–10 reference period...............................205

Table S11 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production ($’000) displaced by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from Western Australian fisheries over the 2001–10 reference period....................................................................................................................................................... 207

Table S12 Updated summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities for towns identified under the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal..............................................209

FiguresFigure 1 Trends in total fisheries gross value of production (GVP) since 2000

(change relative to average).............................................................................................................31

Figure 2 Conceptual model of community vulnerability.................................................................49

Figure 3 Structure of the Augusta–Margaret River economy........................................................54

Figure 5 Business impacts for respondents who indicated they would continue operating by making up shortfall or moving into an alternative fishery......................68

Figure 6 Fishing business impacts for respondents indicating they would continue operating with a reduced catch.......................................................................................................69

Figure 7 Business impacts for respondents indicating they would leave the fishing industry...................................................................................................................................................... 70

Figure 8 Other issues impacting fishing businesses in the South-west Marine Region......................................................................................................................................................... 72

Figure 9 Ability to adapt—fishing businesses......................................................................................73

Figure 10 Indirect personal impacts for respondents who indicated they would continue operating by making up the shortfall or moving into an alternative fishery......................................................................................................................................................... 76

Figure 11 Indirect personal impacts for respondents who indicated they would continue operating with a reduced catch....................................................................................77

Figure 12 Indirect personal impacts for respondents who indicated they would leave the fishing industry...................................................................................................................78

Figure 13 Ability to adapt—personal.......................................................................................................80

Figure 14 Commonwealth fisheries gross value of production (GVP) and Australian dollar exchange rate, 2000–01 to 2009–10...............................................................................83

Figure 15 Real average off-road diesel price, inclusive of farm rebates and subsidies, but excluding GST, 2000–01 to 2009–10..............................................................84

Figure 16 Value of marine-associated industries to Esperance...................................................93

Figure 18 Structure of the Eyre economy............................................................................................110

Figure 19 Total catch (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector, 1986–2008.............................................................................117

Figure 20 Total catch from the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery—Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector, 2000–10.................................................118

Figure 21 Total catch (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery, 1999–2009 financial years.............................119

Figure 22 Total catch (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Commonwealth Southern Squid Jig Fishery, 1996–2010.................................................120

Figure 23 Total catch (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Commonwealth Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery, 1992–2009................................121

Figure 24 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Commonwealth Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery, 1976–2010. Catches

before 2006 include those taken by the Western Skipjack Fishery; catches before 1997 include those from Japanese-registered vessels........................................122

Figure 25 Total catch (bars) and GVP (line) from the South Australian Marine Scalefish Fishery, 1984–2009 (excluding sardine catches).............................................123

Figure 26 Total catch (bars) and GVP (line) from the South Australian Rock Lobster Fishery, 1984–2009...........................................................................................................................124

Figure 27 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Joint Authority Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery, 2000–10................................................................................................................................................................ 125

Figure 28 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from (a) the Southern Rock Lobster Fishery, (b) the Esperance Rock Lobster Fishery, (c) the South Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery, 2000–10................................................................127

Figure 29 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian South Coast Trawl Fishery, 2000–10..................................................................129

Figure 30 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian South West Trawl Managed Fishery, 2000–10...............................................130

Figure 31 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Fishery, 2000–10.....................................131

Figure 32 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery, 2000–10.................................................................................................................................................. 132

Figure 33 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian West Coast Purse Managed Seine Fishery, 2000–1......................................134

Figure 34 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian West Coast Rock Lobster, 2000–10.....................................................................135

Figure 35 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery, 2000–10.........................................136

Figure 36 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian Mackerel Fishery, 2000–10.....................................................................................137

Figure 37 Illustration of treatment of fishing operations (lines) in relation to reserve boundaries............................................................................................................................ 147

Figure 38 Relationship among all fishers, target population, survey frame and survey respondents............................................................................................................................157

Figure 39 Conceptual model of community vulnerability............................................................163

Figure 40 Fishing income proportion....................................................................................................172

Figure 41 Age profile of survey respondents.....................................................................................173

MapsMap 1 South-west Commonwealth Marine Region draft (released May 2011) and

final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserve networks and zones with ABARES area numbering............................................................................................................7

Map 2 Draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network with zones and area numbering...................................................................................................................................... 15

Map 3 All commercial fishing gross value of production (GVP) in the South-west Marine Region (2000–02), employment in the consolidated fishing industry and draft marine reserves.................................................................................................................22

Map 4 Draft marine reserves and area numbering in the South Australia subregion........33

Map 5 Draft marine reserves and area numbering in the Esperance–Albany subregion...................................................................................................................................................35

Map 6 Draft marine reserves and area numbering in the South-west Corner subregion...................................................................................................................................................37

Map 7 Draft marine reserves and area numbering in the Fremantle–Geraldton subregion...................................................................................................................................................39

Map 8 Flow of potentially displaced gross value of production (GVP) to ports....................44

Map 9 Number of input (upstream) businesses identified as potentially impacted by the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.............................45

Map 10 Number of respondents who source inputs from this location for their fishing business (size of the circle), with proportional allocation to marine reserve (pie chart).................................................................................................................................46

Map 11 Number of output businesses identified as potentially impacted by the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network...........................................47

Map 12 Number of respondents who send outputs to this location for their fishing business (size of the circle), with proportional allocation to marine reserve (pie chart)................................................................................................................................................. 48

Map 13 Commercial fishery qualitative value mapping for all value classes ('catch reliability', 'catch diversity', 'easy to access', 'a safe area', 'less competition', 'future use value'....................................................................................................................................61

Map 14 Map of the south-west corner of Western Australia.........................................................98

Map 15 Areas modelled by AusRegion: Augusta–Margaret River subregion, Western Australia and Eyre subregion, South Australia...................................................109

Map 16 Depth classes used to refine the location of fishing within 60-minute reporting grids used by Western Australian fisheries.......................................................152

Map 17 State fisheries reporting grid systems overlaid on the outline of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network....................................................154

Map S1 South-west Commonwealth Marine Region draft (released May 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserve networks and zones with ABARES area numbering...................................................................................................... 186

BoxesBox 1 Assessing the economic impact of marine reserves............................................................27

South-west Marine Region social and economic assessment ABARES

Executive summaryThe Australian Government is undertaking marine bioregional planning in Commonwealth waters. This includes identifying areas for inclusion in the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas. The Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC; the lead government agency) has commissioned the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) to assess the impacts of the proposed marine reserves networks on commercial and charter fishing in each marine region.

This social and economic assessment used a range of statistical analyses, social impact assessment and economic modelling to provide a variety of perspectives on the potential impacts. It drew on data from fisheries logbooks, a survey of fishing businesses, interviews and focus groups.

The scope of work does not include potential impacts on non-commercial activities, including recreational fishing, customary fishing and tourism, nor does it attempt to cost or quantify any loss of asset values (e.g. fishing access rights, boats and shore-based infrastructure). The costing and design of any Australian Government assistance (structural adjustment) were also not part of the scope.

The assessment was undertaken in two stages that relate to the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network released for public comment during May–August 2011, and then the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal released on 14 June 2012 (Map 1). This report (and this summary) is therefore structured into two sections as follows:

Draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal (released May 2011). The consultative social and economic assessment was undertaken on the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network and forms the bulk of this report. The assessment is structured to provide a variety of information and perspectives on potential impacts. In general, the assessment progresses from large-scale aggregate impacts across the entire marine reserves network in the early chapters, through to a finer scale covering the potential impacts on towns, businesses and people. Different data were used to estimate or infer potential impacts at each scale. In developing this assessment, ABARES has consulted and been guided by a working group comprising representatives from the state and Australian governments, and fishing industry representative bodies.

Final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal (released 14 June 2012). An abridged assessment was undertaken on a revised South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network, and this is contained within the supplementary section of this report. The revisions to the network were informed by the submissions received by SEWPaC through the public consultation process and by ABARES initial analysis on the draft network released for public consultation. The abridged assessment provides (where possible) a comparative analysis of the changes to potential impacts between the draft and final proposed marine reserves networks. ABARES was not in a position to undertake additional consultation (survey and interviews) with commercial and charter fishing businesses for this abridged assessment.

1


Main findings for the draft network (released May 2011)The potential impact of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network is small to moderate relative to the gross value of production (GVP) of the fisheries in the region. However, the impacts would be borne disproportionally by some fisheries, businesses, communities and individuals. The draft marine reserves have increased uncertainty in the fishing industry and the potential impacts should be considered in the context of other factors affecting fishing businesses and communities (such as fishery management changes and proposed state marine reserves). Many fishers reported not understanding the reason for the creation of the marine reserves network or the benefits that would stem from it.

Potential displacement of fishing: The draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network (Map 1) would displace an estimated mean annual 283–304 tonnes with a GVP of $2.46–2.85 million (Table 1). This represents a small proportion (0.6–0.7 per cent) of the collective value of fisheries production from those potentially impacted fisheries (approximately $402 million). This is because most of the draft highly protected reserves are located off the continental shelf where there is less fishing. Potential displacement comprises $0.72 million (129 tonnes) from Commonwealth fisheries, $0.35 million (26 tonnes) from South Australian fisheries and $1.39–1.80 million (128–149 tonnes) from Western Australian fisheries.

Summary of impacts of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network:

Nineteen fisheries would potentially be impacted by the draft marine reserves, with the degree of impact ranging from close to zero to 32.5 per cent of the annual average fishery GVP.

In percentage terms, the largest impacts would be to the Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery (32.5 per cent of fishery GVP; $114 000) and the Esperance Southern Rock Lobster Fishery (6.9–18.9 per cent of fishery GVP; $87 000–364 000).

In absolute terms, the largest impacts would be to the Western Australian Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery ($580 000; 6.5 per cent of fishery GVP) and the Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector of the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery ($356 000; 1.4 per cent of fishery GVP).

The South-west Corner marine reserve had the largest potential impact of the eight draft marine reserves ($1.45 million), followed by the Western Eyre ($560 000) and Great Australian Bight (extension) ($208 000) marine reserves (Map 1).

The impact on charter fisheries is expected to be minor—fewer than 10 clients per year displaced from Western Australia and fewer than 80 clients displaced from South Australia from a total of around 46 000 clients per year across the two states.

Potentially displaced catch and GVP are thought to be reasonably well estimated across the entire draft marine reserves network. However, there are still some uncertainties due to the coarse scale at which some fishing data are collected, particularly for the rock lobster fisheries of South Australia and Western Australia. In these fisheries, large GVP changes can arise from relatively small changes in displaced catch due to the relatively high unit prices for catch compared with other fisheries.

Total catch and GVP from fisheries in the South-west Marine Region have typically declined over the last decade, with some exceptions. For example, potential annual average displacement of

2


the Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery was estimated at $113 500 based on a 10-year reference period; however, the estimate based on a 2010 reference period was $700 000 following recent rapid growth.

There are likely to be cumulative impacts to fisheries that also operate outside the South-west Marine Region. This includes additional displacement by the draft North-west Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network on the Commonwealth Western Deepwater Trawl (0.5 tonnes; $3500 GVP) and Western Tuna and Billfish (over 2 tonnes; $11 700 GVP) fisheries, and the Western Australian West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery (estimates are confidential).

The impact on prospective fishing (future potential fishing not accounted for in the estimates of displacement) was identified as a significant issue by some fishers in the South-west Marine Region. Prospective fishing may be impacted in several fisheries where there was evidence that businesses have made specific plans or investments to develop prospects and well-defined rights of access. Impacts to the value of fishing rights themselves were also identified as a potentially significant issue in some fisheries. However, this impact is difficult to quantify, and is beyond the scope of this report.

Flow of impacts: Potential impacts on commercial fishers were traced back to ports and coastal communities using information on landings and the supply chains of potentially impacted fishing businesses:

Towns with highest potential GVP displacement were Esperance ($278 000–473 000 GVP potentially displaced), Fremantle ($308 000–327 000), Augusta ($284 000–305 000), Hamelin Bay ($283 000–288 000), Port Lincoln ($264 000), Bunbury ($143 000–163 000), Streaky Bay ($137 000), Albany ($92 000) and Thevenard ($86 000).

Communities with highest level of exposure, based on the GVP displaced per capita, were Windy Harbour, Augusta, Streaky Bay, Coffin Bay, Eucla, Fowlers Bay, Esperance, Hamelin Bay and Thevenard.

The main centres identified as providing goods and services to potentially impacted businesses were Port Lincoln, Perth and Adelaide.

The larger urban centres, such as Port Lincoln, Perth and Adelaide, have relatively diverse economies and medium to high household income, making them more resilient to potential impacts. However, there are a number of smaller urban centres (including those identified above) that support the fishing industry in the south-west in terms of supply or receipt of goods and services, which will be more susceptible to impacts.

Potential impacts on the economy: The ABARES AusRegion model was used to estimate the economic impact on subregional, state and national economies, and the corresponding impact on jobs in the short term (2012–13) and in the longer term (2019–20). These impacts will generally be felt more acutely in affected regions, but have little effect on the national economy and labour market more broadly.

The economic modelling did not find impacts at the state or national levels and impacts to these economies are assessed as negligible (in the context of the size of those economies).

The modelled estimates of total regional impacts to the economy and to jobs are reported as the sum of impacts to modelled regions, which are scaled linearly to account for the proportion of potential GVP displacement that occurred outside regions that were modelled:

3


Total potential regional economic impact (gross regional product) was estimated to be $4.4–5.1 million in the short term (annual, in real terms).

Total potential regional job loss in directly impacted regions was estimated to be 10–12 full-time positions in the short term.

The potential net economic impact on the Augusta–Margaret River subregion was estimated to be a reduction in gross regional product of $1.4 million in the short term, corresponding with an estimated loss of 3 full-time equivalent jobs.

In the Eyre subregion, the potential net economic impact (gross regional product) in the short term was estimated to be a loss of $0.86 million, with an estimated loss of around 2 full-time equivalent jobs.

There are likely to be flow-on effects in other regions; however, changes in economic activity and employment at the state and national level are negligible in terms of the size of those economies and job markets.

Independent of the AusRegion modelling, potential job losses from the catching and processing sectors was estimated at 37 full-time jobs in the short term, based on survey responses from fishing businesses.

Potential impacts on fishing businesses: A survey was sent to 281 fishing businesses that were identified in consultation with fisheries agencies and industry associations. The survey was completed by many, but not all, potentially impacted fishing businesses operating in the South-west Marine Region.

Of the 81 responses received, 63 fishing businesses in the catching sector reported being potentially impacted. Of these, 46 indicated they would stay in the fishing industry (either make up the shortfall elsewhere, move to an alternate fishery or downsize their fishing operation). Thirteen respondents said that they would leave the fishing industry and four were unsure how they would respond. Most fishing businesses indicated that less than 20 per cent of their catch would be displaced, while some indicated larger percentage impacts (i.e. that 91–100 per cent of their catch would be displaced).

Survey respondents reported the main impacts to fishing businesses and the industry as a whole as being increased uncertainty and decreased confidence in the fishing industry, increased risk in investing in the industry, increased difficulty in accessing finance, and a devaluing of licences and capital.

For those impacted businesses staying in the industry, the perceived secondary impacts included increased time and costs in looking for new fishing grounds, and increased pressure and competition in fishing grounds outside the marine reserves network. Survey respondents who indicated that they would leave the industry also indicated that this response would impact employees and place stress on them and their families.

Other contextual factors that influenced how impacts affected businesses and how they would or could respond included environmental and biological characteristics of the fishery, licence conditions and current management protocols, scale of fishing operations and perception of the fishing industry’s future. Other factors seen by respondents to exacerbate the impact of the draft marine reserves network were changes to fisheries management, access changes (e.g. proposed state marine reserves), increasing input costs, cheaper imported fish, prices received for fish, exchange rates, interest rates and access to labour.

4


Personal and community: Impacts to communities may manifest as reduced economic activity and the loss of jobs. Further, in some communities there is a strong relationship between community service activities and functions in the commercial fishing industry. It is most likely that smaller regional and remote communities will find adapting to the impacts of the draft marine reserves network more difficult than larger regional and metropolitan centres.

Commercial fishers highlighted that fishing was an important part of their identity and that threats to their continuing in the industry were distressing and destabilising. The announcement and potential impacts of the draft marine reserves network in the South-west Marine Region have increased stress on potentially impacted fishers and their families. They are concerned about their future income sources, their retirement plans and about having to work harder and for longer. Personal impacts will emerge differently for different people, and their ability to cope and adapt will also vary. The ability to adapt is an additional concern on top of changes that fishers are already making in response to pressures on the industry, including previous fisheries management changes and, in some cases, state marine reserve proposals. However, the majority of survey respondents felt that they had community and personal support to draw on; however, stage of life, number of dependents, transferability of skills and their current financial status were identified as key factors affecting their ability to adapt.

Case studies: Eight case studies are presented and provide a broader understanding of how potential impacts of the draft marine reserves network would emerge at different levels. Case study themes and topics were chosen through consultation with industry, state governments and SEWPaC. Narrative case studies are specifically intended to 'tell the fisher's story' about potential impacts. Case studies are:

Port Lincoln

This case study examines the potential impact of the draft marine reserves network on residents of Port Lincoln, South Australia. It is based on results of a focus group held in Port Lincoln and interviews with fishers and others within fishing supply chains in Port Lincoln and Adelaide (July 2011), as well as survey results and logbook data.

The estimated annual average displacement of GVP from product going through Port Lincoln was $264 000. Fishers reported the potential impact of the draft marine reserves network would be in addition to a number of other impacts, including proposed state marine reserves, recent reductions in the South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery quota and the current high Australian dollar depressing export prices. As Port Lincoln has well-developed infrastructure to support the fishing industry, the impact of the draft marine reserves network is expected to flow through the supply chain and community; however, Port Lincoln is thought to be resilient to these potential impacts.

New and prospective fisheries

This qualitative case study explores the potential impact of the draft marine reserves on prospective fishing. Examples are given from several existing fisheries in the South-west Marine Region where operators have indicated they are looking to move to different fishing grounds, employ different techniques and target different species. These include the Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector of the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery targeting the western stock of gemfish and blue grenadier, and the Commonwealth Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery targeting bigeye tuna. An example is also discussed of an operator who has recently invested heavily in a small fishery (the Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery) and substantially increased production of saucer scallops to supply local markets.

5


Esperance

Esperance has the third highest impact in terms of annual average GVP potentially displaced by the draft reserves ($278 000–473 000), predominantly from the Western Australian Esperance Southern Rock Lobster and Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline fisheries. This case study explores the potential impacts on a community of fishers, processors and service providers in Esperance, Western Australia. Fishers suggested that likely impacts of the draft marine reserves included increased travel times and fuel use, fall in asset value and reduced profit.

Windy Harbour

This case study focuses on fishers in the small town of Windy Harbour on the south coast of Western Australia. Windy Harbour has several fishers with high levels of potential impact, and personal and business circumstances that increase their vulnerability. The estimated annual average GVP potentially displaced by the draft marine reserves was $7100–66 600 and will be spread across four businesses. Fishers reported potential impacts would be heightened by the remoteness of the community, the small permanent population and limited options to find other work in the area.

Vertically integrated fishing business

This case study explores the potential impact(s) of the draft Perth Canyon and South-west Corner marine reserves on a vertically integrated fishing business in Fremantle, Western Australia. The owner–operator of the business reported that approximately 80 per cent of their fishing area would be lost under the draft marine reserves network, rendering the fishing business unviable.

Charter vessel impacts—South Australia

This case study explores the potential impact of the draft Western Eyre Marine Reserve on the South Australian Charter Fishery. Although the overall impact on the charter fishery is not expected to be large, there could be a substantial impact on operators who make multi-day trips to remote, lightly fished locations around Flinders Island and Pearsons Isles.

Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery

This case study provides background and context for the South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery, and is particularly focused on biology, management and fishing fleet dynamics. The case study details how catches in the early part of the reference period were high; however, following declines in biomass, catches have been reduced to allow stock rebuilding.

Economic effects for two key subregions

This case study uses economic modelling to estimate the economic effects of the draft reserves on two subregions—the Eyre Peninsula and the Augusta–Margaret River subregions. The modelling estimates the net economic impact to the economy and the potential job loss in both the short and long term. In 2012–13, gross regional product in the Eyre subregion is estimated to fall by 0.05 per cent ($0.86 million) relative to the reference case, while a larger fall of 0.13 per cent ($1.4 million) is estimated for the Augusta–Margaret River subregion. This is expected to equate to approximately two full-time equivalent positions in Eyre and approximately three positions in Augusta–Margaret River.

6


Map 1 South-west Commonwealth Marine Region draft (released May 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserve networks and zones with ABARES area numbering

Data sources: Marine reserve boundaries from Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; coastline, state and maritime boundaries from Geoscience Australia. Zoning is described in Appendix B: Fisheries data processing methods.

7


Table 1 Comparison of estimates of catch and gross value of production (GVP) potentially displaced by the draft (released May 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserves networks in the South-west Marine Region

Catch (tonnes) Total GVP ($’000)Fishery Draft Final proposed Draft Final proposed Absolute change Percentage changeHigh Seas Fishery * * * RemovedSESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector 58.7 34.4 356.1 192.2 –163.8 –46.0SESSF Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector 17.7 12.3 66.8 46.7 –20.0 –30.0Small Pelagic Fishery * * * * * >100Southern Squid Jig Fishery * * * * * 38.9Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery 9.6 * 48.0 * * *Western Tuna And Billfish Fishery 42.9 19.3 246.1 114.2 –131.9 –53.6Commonwealth fisheries total 129.2 69.3 717.4 360.5 –356.9 –49.7Rock Lobster (Northern Zone) Fishery 4.0 1.7 184.0 80.4 –103.6 –56.3Marine Scalefish Fishery 22.3 25.2* 165.0 186.8* 21.6 13.1South Australian fisheries total 26.3 27.0 349.1 267.2 –81.9 –23.5Esperance Southern Rock Lobster Fishery 1.9–7.9 1.2 87–364 54.5 –32.9 –37.7FBL condition 105—South Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery 0.6 0.9 9.8 16.0 3.9 32.0Mackerel Fishery * * * NewOpen access and other conditions (crab trap) 0.1 0.6 0.6 NewOpen Access and other conditions (other) 1.7–9.2 1.0 14.2–73.7 8.4 –5.8 –41.0South Coast Trawl Fishery * 31.9 * 152.0 * *Southern Demersal Gillnet and Longline Fishery 72.5 64.6 580.1 516.9 –63.2 –10.9Southern Rock Lobster Fishery 1.5 70.2 70.2 NewSouth West Trawl Fishery 18.0 5.9 113.5 37.0 –76.6 –67.4West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery 9.1–16.3 12.2 72.7–130.8 97.5 24.7 34.0West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Longline Fishery * * * * * *West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery 11.1 42.2 309.0 1174.2 865.2 280.0West Coast Deep Sea Crustaceans Fishery 2.9 49.9 49.9 NewWindy Harbour Rock Lobster Fishery * * * * * *West Coast Purse Seine Fishery 1.3* 1.9* * NewWestern Australian fisheries total 127.8–148.6 169.5 1 394.1–1 788.6 2 227.3 833.2 59.8Grand total 283.3–304.0 265.8 2 460.6–2 855.2 2 855.0 394.4 16.0

Note: Confidential data are marked with an asterisk (*).In some fisheries, only one area is confidential. In these cases, the total does not include the confidential value as it would be possible to back-calculate the displacement from that area. However, where appropriate, a description of the change has been included: no change, increase, decrease, new or removed. For some fisheries a range estimate (with an upper bound) was presented for the draft network, this has not been done for the final proposed network because further consultation with fishers was not possible at

8


the time of writing. In these cases, the percentage change is between the two point estimates only, not the upper bound. The grand total calculations for Commonwealth and Western Australian fisheries include all data and are not affected by confidentiality. FBL = fishing boat licence; SESSF = Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery

9


Main findings for the final proposed network (14 June 2012)SEWPaC provided a final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal released on 14 June 2012 (Map 1) following consideration of submissions received during the public consultation period and ABARES assessment of potential social and economic impacts associated with the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.

The potential impact of the final network proposal remains small to moderate relative to the total size of the impacted fisheries. The revisions to the network change the relative proportion of impacts among commercial fisheries and have resulted in some shift of potential impact to communities on the Western Australian coast north of Perth.

Potential displacement of fishing: The final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal would potentially displace an annual average GVP of $2.9 million (Table 1). This represents a small proportion (0.7 per cent) of the collective value of fisheries production from those potentially impacted fisheries (approximately $402 million). Potential displacement comprises $360 500 (69 tonnes) from Commonwealth fisheries (a 49.7 per cent decrease from the draft network), $267 200 (27 tonnes) from South Australian fisheries (a 23.5 per cent decrease) and $2 227 300 (169.5 tonnes) from Western Australian fisheries (a 59.8 per cent increase).

Summary of impacts of the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal (Table 1):

Twenty-four fisheries would potentially be impacted by the final proposed network, with the degree of impact ranging from close to zero through to approximately 11 per cent of the total GVP for each fishery.

In percentage terms, the largest impacts would be to the Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery (10.6 per cent of fishery GVP; $37 000) and the South Coast Trawl Fishery (8.4 per cent of fishery GVP; $152 000).

In absolute terms, the largest impacts would be to the Western Australian West Coast Rock Lobster ($1.2 million; 0.4 per cent of fishery GVP) and Southern Demersal Gillnet and Longline ($516 900; 5.8 per cent of fishery GVP) fisheries, and the Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector of the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery ($192 200; 0.8 per cent of fishery GVP).

The location of impacts of the final proposed network has shifted compared with the draft network. While the South-west Corner marine reserve still would still have largest potential impact ($762 100), the final proposed Abrolhos marine reserve would displace considerably more ($660 760) than the draft Abrolhos marine reserve ($25 600) (Map 1).

Potential impacts to charter fishing increased under the final proposed network but remain low (estimates are confidential).

The increase in potential displacement of Western Australian fisheries under the final proposed network compared with the draft network was primarily due to increased displacement from the West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery ($865 200 increase; 280 per cent), as well as the addition of new fisheries (e.g. the Mackerel Fishery, Southern Rock Lobster Fishery, West Coast Deep Sea Crustaceans Fishery and West Coast Purse Seine Fishery). Substantial falls in potential GVP impact were estimated for the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark

10


(Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector, and Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector) and the Western Tuna and Billfish fisheries, and the Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery.

Flow of impacts: Potential impacts on commercial fishers were traced back to ports and coastal communities using information on landings of displaced catches under the final proposed network.

Towns with the highest potentially displaced GVP are, in descending order, Esperance, Hamelin Bay, Geraldton, Port Lincoln, Fremantle, Busselton, Bunbury, Eucla, Jurien Bay and Kalbarri.

In comparison with the draft reserve network, there is an increase in the flow of potentially displaced GVP for Abrolhos Islands, Busselton, Esperance, Eucla, Geraldton, Jurien Bay and Kalbarri. Significant decreases in potentially displaced GVP occurred for Augusta, Fremantle, Hamelin Bay, Port Lincoln, Streaky Bay and Thevenard. Newly impacted ports/towns with potential GVP impact more than $10 000 were Cervantes, Green Head and Port Gregory.

Towns with the highest potential GVP per capita displacement were Windy Harbour ($20 100; $803 per capita), Cervantes ($84 270; $168 per capita) and Eucla ($124 020; $116 per capita).

Smaller communities such as Windy Harbour, Cervantes, Coffin Bay, Streaky Bay, Lancelin, Kalbarri and Jurien Bay may experience greater difficulty in adjusting to impacts because of their social and economic circumstances.

Potential impacts on the economy: The net economic impact of the final proposed network is expected to scale linearly with the change in GVP impact. Under this assumption, the estimated effect is a reduction in regional economic activity of $5.1 million in the short term and displacement of around 12 jobs in directly affected regions. There are likely to be flow-on impacts in other regions; however, changes in economic activity at the state and national level are negligible in terms of the size of those economies.

Potential fishing business and personal impacts: ABARES did not undertake further consultation (surveys or interviews) with potentially displaced or impacted businesses based on the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. The final proposed network has shifted some potential impacts from southern and south-western regions to the west coast of Western Australia (north of Perth), which involves fishing businesses not consulted by ABARES in the assessment of the draft reserves (e.g. the West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery around the final Abrolhos Reserve). However, the nature of the potential impacts and broader issues exacerbating impacts identified in the assessment of the draft network are likely to be analogous to those for the final proposed network.

Case studies: The case studies for the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network were re-examined under the final proposed network. No further consultation with potentially impacted fishers or interviewees occurred. Where possible, quantitative information was used (e.g. changes to potentially displaced GVP) but assessing changes to the case studies was largely qualitative.

Port Lincoln

The potential GVP displacement linked to Port Lincoln has reduced under the final proposed network (19 per cent decrease), mainly from reduced potential displacement of adjacent Commonwealth fisheries and the South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery. The potential impacts to fishers, supply chains and the Port Lincoln community identified in the case study are expected to have been similarly reduced.

11



Some of the potential impacts on prospective fishing described in the case study may not have changed substantially due to the nature of the prospective business plans. However, changes to the South-west Corner marine reserve should reduce the impact on prospective fishing in the Commonwealth Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery in the areas identified as being historically important for this fishery. The impacts on prospective fishing in the Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery may have been slightly reduced.

Esperance

The impacts described in this case study are likely to have increased under the final proposed network, given the increase in potential displaced GVP linked to Esperance (lower bound estimates up 54 per cent to $428 100). The mix of fisheries contributing to the impact has changed, with a reduction in the displacement of the Western Australian Esperance Southern Zone Rock Lobster fishery and an increase in the displacement from the South Coast Trawl Fishery. This may have changed the relative impact among fishers and business within Esperance.

Windy Harbour

There is a substantial reduction in potentially displaced GVP linked to Windy Harbour (from $63 700 to $20 100, lower bound estimates) and a reduction in the adjacent locations of Augusta and Margaret River. The potential impacts to Windy Harbour identified in the case study are likely to have been similarly reduced. However, the case study identified some unique circumstances in Windy Harbour (e.g. house leases tied to commercial fishing), and it is not clear how relevant these issues would be under the final proposed network. In addition, GVP displacement remains high for the community ($803.39 per capita) and Windy Harbour may remain vulnerable under the final proposed marine reserves network.


The business impacts described in this case study are likely to have been substantially reduced by the final proposed network. Potential displacement of the Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery was reduced by 67 per cent to $37 000. The case study highlighted rapid growth of the fishery, so the potential impact based on recent years would be substantially greater than the 10-year mean. The case study noted historical scallop grounds (with highly variable annual production) located near Fremantle and north of Geographe Bay. It is unclear how much these historical (and prospective) grounds would be impacted by the final proposed network.

Charter vessel impacts

The impacts on charter vessel operators described in this case study related to the Marine National Park zones in the draft Western Eyre marine reserve. The locations of these Marine National Park zones was modified under the final proposed network (Map 1); however, part of the Marine National Park Zone was retained in the vicinity of Pearson Island, which was noted as a location for charter fishing in the case study. Potential impacts on the South Australian charter industry are broadly similar between the draft and final proposed networks.

12


South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster

The case study identified a number of other issues the fishery is facing, including proposed state marine reserves, recent reductions in South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery quota and the current high Australian dollar depressing export unit prices. These issues are not changed under the final proposed network.


Economic modelling was used to assess the potential impact of the draft marine reserve on the Eyre Peninsula and the Augusta–Margaret River subregions. Assuming the modelled impact on the economy and employment scales linearly with the magnitude of the impact, the net economic impact of the final proposed network was estimated to be $5.1 million and 12 full-time equivalent jobs in the short term in directly impacted regions. There are likely to be flow-on impacts in other regions; however, changes in economic activity at a state and national level are negligible in terms of the size of those economies and job markets.

13


Draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposalThis section of the report provides the social and economic assessment of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal that was released in May 2011 (SEWPaC 2011b) and open for public consultation for 90 days.

14


1 Background and introductionThe Australian Government is undertaking a marine bioregional planning program in Commonwealth waters. The program includes identifying areas for inclusion in the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas.

Background to marine bioregional planning in the South-west Marine Region and the establishment of Commonwealth marine reserves can be found in two documents:

Marine bioregional plan for the South-west Marine Region—draft for consultation (SEWPaC 2011a) describes the marine environment and conservation values (protected species, protected places and key ecological features) of the South-west Marine Region, sets out broad objectives for its biodiversity, identifies regional priorities, and outlines strategies and actions to achieve these.

Proposal for the South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network—consultation paper (SEWPaC 2011b) presents a proposal for the South-west Marine Region marine reserves network, as well as rationale and design principles.

The South-west Marine RegionThe South-west Marine Region covers an area of over 1.3 million square kilometres from Kangaroo Island, South Australia (SA), to offshore from Shark Bay in Western Australia (WA; Map 2). The region encompasses waters over the continental shelf, continental slope, continental rise and abyssal plains. The shallower waters of the continental shelf typically extend to a depth of 200 metres. The region is adjacent to the state jurisdictional waters of SA and WA, and encompasses Commonwealth waters that extend from 3 nautical miles offshore from the territorial sea baseline, out to the 200 nautical mile limit of Australia’s exclusive economic zone. There are state-managed fisheries that extend into Commonwealth waters. A detailed description of the South-west Marine Region can be found in the South-west Marine Region bioregional profile (DEWHA 2008).

The Australian government proposed a draft marine reserves network across the South-west Marine Region (SEWPaC 2011b). This draft marine reserves network has three levels of zoning (based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] categories), which affect whether fishing activities may occur within an area:

Marine National Park Zone—all fishing excluded

Special Purpose Zone—demersal (bottom) trawl excluded

Multiple Use Zone—demersal trawl, demersal gillnet and demersal longline excluded.

There are eight draft marine reserves proposed for the region: West Kangaroo Island, Western Eyre, Great Australian Bight (extension), Eastern Recherche, South-west Corner, Perth Canyon, Jurien and Abrolhos. Each area within the reserve has been ascribed an area number by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) to help distinguish areas (Map 2). ABARES has also split the draft offshore South-west Corner Marine National Park Zone into areas 17 and 18 to enable a better understanding of where impacts arise.

15


Map 2 Draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network with zones and area numbering

Data sources: Draft marine reserve boundaries from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; coastline, state and maritime boundaries from Geoscience Australia. Zoning is described in Appendix B: Fisheries data processing methods.

Fisheries in the South-west Marine RegionCommercial fishing is generally defined as the take of fish and other marine life for commercial purposes. In this report, commercial fishing refers to the wild-catch sector (as opposed to aquaculture). A range of commercial fisheries operate in the South-west Marine Region, and some of these are potentially impacted by the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. Table 2 provides reference information about potentially impacted fisheries that are managed under the jurisdiction of SA, WA or the Commonwealth.

A map of total fisheries gross value of production (GVP) for all jurisdictions in the South-west Marine Region is provided in Map 3 (note that these data are somewhat dated but the overall patterns of fishing at this scale have not changed). Generally, the most valuable fishing grounds are located on, or at the edge of, the continental shelf. Fishing in offshore, oceanic waters is predominantly pelagic tuna longline. Prominent valuable fisheries are the West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery, which uses traps and is located on the west coast of WA, and the Commonwealth Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery, which uses purse-seine nets and operates in the eastern Great Australian Bight.

The draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network overlaps some high-value fishing areas, particularly areas on the shelf in the draft Perth Canyon and Abrolhos marine reserves. Most of these reserves are zoned so that they would not displace some high-value

16


fisheries, such as rock lobster, but they would still displace a variety of other fisheries, such as trawl (which is excluded from all zones). There are also some areas of high value that do not overlap the draft marine reserves network, such as the southern bluefin tuna fishing grounds between the draft Great Australian Bight (extension) Marine Reserve and the draft Western Eyre Marine Reserve, and the West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery grounds to the south of the draft Abrolhos Marine Reserve.

Charter fishing in Commonwealth waters off SA and WA is managed by the respective state governments. Charter fishing is generally defined as a commercial fee-for-service operation that provides services relating to the taking, capture or catching of fish as part of recreational fishing activities.

17


Table 2 Reference information for potentially impacted fisheries in the South-west Marine RegionFishery Management

arrangementsTarget species Number of

licencesNumber of active vessels

Employment Catch Sources

Commonwealth

High seas

High seas permits may be issued to Australian-flagged vessels to fish the waters outside the Australian Fishing Zone and the exclusive economic zone of any country

High seas permits only allow fishing in areas that will fall in the area of competence of the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement and the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation

Various High seas permits specify conditions on fishing and are granted for a maximum of one year until the end of each calendar year. Permit holders are required to reapply each year

n.a. n.a. n.a.

SESSF—Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector

SFR, ITQ, limited entry, TAC, catch trigger limits, area closures, gear restrictions, bycatch TAC for orange roughy

Deepwater flathead, bight redfish

10 SFR holders (2009–10)

4 (2010–11) n.a. 1437 t (2010–11)

ABARES 2011; Woodhams et al. 2011

SESSF—Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector

SFR, limited entry, gear restrictions, area closures, ITQ, TAC, spatial closures, prohibited species, trip limits

Gummy shark, blue-eye trevalla, pink ling

Gillnet: 62Shark hook: 13Scalefish hook: 57 (2010–11)

Shark gillnet and hook:59 Scalefish hook: 24 (2010–11)

n.a. 2743 t (2010–11)


Small Pelagic Fishery

Limited entry, gear restrictions, TAC, catch trigger limits to 2007–08s. Move to SFR and ITQ in2010

Jack mackerel, blue mackerel, Australian sardine, redbait

71 (2009–10) 3 purse-seine2 midwater trawl (2009–10)

n.a. 2109 t (2009–10)


Southern Squid Jig SFR, TAE, limited Gould’s squid 58 SFR 7 (2010) n.a. 62 t (2010) ABARES 2011;

18


Fishery Management arrangements

Target species Number of licences

Number of active vessels


Fishery entry holders (2009–10)

Woodhams et al. 2011

Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery

Limited entry, catch trigger levels

Deepwater bugs, orange roughy, ruby snapper

11 permits (2009–10)

3 (2009–10)

n.a. 34.3 t (2009–10)


Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery

SFR, limited entry, gear and area restrictions, TAC, ITQ bycatch restrictions

Albacore tuna, bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, longtail tuna, broadbill swordfish, striped marlin

93 SFR holders3 carrier boat permits (2010)

3 longline 1minor line (2010)

n.a. 464 t (2010)


South Australia

Marine Scalefish Fishery(excluding sardinea)

Limited entry, seasonal and area closures, gear restrictions, size limits

King George whiting, snapper, southern sea garfish, southern calamari

385 primary, and 285 licences with limited access (2011)

334 (2009–10) 566 FTE (direct)945 FTE (statewide) (2009–10)

3092 t (2010–11)

PIRSA 2007, Rippen et al. 2010; Rippen 2011


Limited entry, gear restrictions, TACC, seasonal closures, size limits, no retention of spawning females, VMS

Southern rock lobster

68 (2004–05) 56 (2005) Fishing and processing: 159 FTEother direct:22 FTEFlow on: 132 FTE (2010–11)

313 t (2010–11)

PIRSA 2007 Linnane et al. 2011; Rippen & Morrison 2011

Western Australia

Joint Authority Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery

Limited entry, effort controls, temporal closures, gear restrictions, maximum legal size limit for one species

Gummy shark, dusky shark, whiskery shark

57 (2009–10) 26 (2009–10) 49–65 people between 2006–07 to 2008–09

Shark: 940.5 t Scalefish: 148.8 t(2009–10)

Fletcher & Santoro 2010, 2011

South Coast Crustacean Fisheriesb

Limited entry, gear restrictions, size limits, seasonal closuresDraft management plan to be released in

Southern rock lobster, western rock lobster, champagne crab, crystal (snow) crab, giant (king) crab

Windy Harbour/Augusta: 2Esperance: 9Great Australian

n.a. n.a. Southern rock lobster: 47.4 t: Deep-sea crab: 25.3 t (2009–10)


19






2011–12 Bight/Albany: 28 (2009–10) Outside Esperance: 24

South Coast Trawl Fishery

Limited entry, spatial and temporal closures

Saucer scallop 4 (2010) 3 (2010) 10 (2010) 112 t (2010) Fletcher & Santoro 2010, 2011

South West Trawl Managed Fishery

Limited entry, gear restrictions, spatial restrictions

Western king prawn, saucer scallop

14 (2010) n.a., but 'not all boats actively fish'

12 (2010) Prawn: 12 tScallops: 217 t (2010)


West Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery

Limited entry, minimum legal size, ITQ

Giant (king) crabs crystal (snow) crab, champagne (spiny) crab

7 (2010) 6 (2010) Not obtained, but estimate of 12 people; vessels typically run 1 skipper and 2–3 crew

Crystal crab: 139 t Champagne crab 6.3 t (2010)


West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline (Interim) Managed Fishery

Limited entry, effort controls, temporal closures, gear restrictions, maximum legal size limit for one target species

Dusky shark, sandbar shark, whiskery shark

20 (2009–10) 4 (2010) 9 (2009–10) Shark: 198.1 t Scalefish: 35.3 t(2009–10)


Open Access Fisheryc

Limited entry, gear restrictions, transferable entitlements

Dhufish, pink snapper, emperor, baldchin groper, breaksea cod

n.a. 191 (2006–07) n.a.; vessels typically operate with 2 crew

725 t (2006–07)

Fletcher & Santoro 2008

West Coast Purse Seine Managed Fishery

Limited entry, capacity setting, controls on gear and boat size, TAC

Pilchard, tropical sardine, Perth herring, yellowtail scad, Australian anchovy, maray

Limited to 12 overall Southern: 3 Northern: 3 (2010)

5 (2010) 10 people in Fremantle, 20 in Geographe Bay (2007)

10.2 t (2010) Fletcher & Santoro 2010, 2011

West Coast Rock Lobster

TAE, size limits, gear restrictions, spatial and temporal closures, protection

Western rock lobster n.a. 297Zone A: 80 Zone B: 71Zone C: 146 (2009-

832 (2009–10) 5899 t (2009–10


20






of females in breeding condition

10)

West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery

Limited entry, gear restrictions, max. no. hours annually. Maintain catch at 50% of 2005–06

West Australian dhufish and pink snapper, but also catch substantial numbers of up to a 100 other species

60 permits 50 vessels Not obtained; estimates assume on average 1-3 crew member per boat

365 t (2010)) Fletcher & Santoro 2010, 2011

Mackerel Fishery Limited entry, gear restrictions, minimum size. ITQ, TACC

Spanish mackerel and grey mackerel

65 permits(2010)

38 permits are active on 3,4 and 7 boats operating within areas 1, 2 and 3 (2009)

42 people for 6 months(2007)

296 t (2009)


FTE = full-time equivalent; ITQ = individual transferable quota; n.a. = not available; SESSF = Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery; SFR = statutory fishing rights; t = tonne; TAC = total allowable catch; TACC = total allowable commercial catch; TAE = total allowable effort; VMS = vessel monitoring systema Sardine fishing is undertaken pursuant to a MSF licence, but is managed as a separate fishery (PIRSA Fisheries ) and has not been included in calculations of displacement for the MSF in this assessment.b Includes Esperance Southern Rock Lobster Fishery, South Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery and Windy Harbour Rock Lobster Fishery.c In January 2008, the West Coast Demersal Scalefish (Interim) Management Plan 2007 began. This closed the open-access wetline fishery in the West Coast bioregion. Since then, only those people authorised under a West Coast Demersal Scalefish Interim Managed Fishery Permit have been permitted to fish by line, store and transport demersal scalefish in, or sell demersal scalefish taken from, the waters of the fishery.

21

South-west Marine Region social and economic assessment—ABARES

Demographics of the South-west Marine RegionThe South-west Marine Region incorporates a diverse range of individuals and communities that are linked to the fishing industry. This includes urban centres—for example, large metropolitan cities such as Perth—to small port hamlets like Windy Harbour that are scattered along the coastline. As would be expected from such a large area—some of which is very remote—there is diversity in the inhabitants, industries, economies and standard of living.

These differences play an important role in how the potential impacts of the draft marine reserves will be felt by individuals, businesses and communities, and how they will respond to these impacts.

Key indicators of social and economic characteristics of these communities have been listed in Appendix A: Summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities.

Employment in the fishing industryThe Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) collects data on direct employment within the commercial fishing sector through the census. Data from the 2006 census provides an indication of employment in the consolidated fishing industry by statistical local area (SLA). These data include direct commercial fishing and aquaculture employment, as well as wholesaling and seafood processing. It should be noted that census employment data are not collected at a level that can distinguish between Commonwealth and state fisheries. In addition, it is believed that these data tend to under-report the number of employees by allocating them to other industries (FRDC 2004).

The 2006 census shows that WA employs about 15 per cent of the national fishing industry and SA about 17 per cent (Table 3).

Table 3 Estimated direct employment in the fishing industry by sector in the South-west Marine Region and Australia-wide (full-time equivalent positions)

Wild-catch fishing

Processing Wholesaling Total

South Australia 1157 507 457 2121

Western Australia 1080 359 454 1893

Australia 6217 2002 4202 12 421

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics census data, August 2006

Map 3 shows the proportion of individuals employed in the consolidated fishing industry (commercial fishing, including aquaculture, fish wholesaling and seafood processing) based on 2006 census data. The SLAs with the highest dependency ratio for consolidated fishing industry employment adjacent to the South-west Marine Region in SA include Port Lincoln (12.0 per cent), Lower Eyre Peninsula (6.9 per cent) and Ceduna (5.9 per cent). In WA, these include Esperance (0.5 per cent) and Augusta – Margaret River (0.33 per cent).

22


Map 3 All commercial fishing gross value of production (GVP) in the South-west Marine Region (2000–02), employment in the consolidated fishing industry and draft marine reserves

Data sources: Commercial fishing GVP from Larcombe et al. 2006; marine reserve boundaries from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; fishing industry employment from Australian Bureau of Statistics census data, 2006. Zoning is described in Appendix B: Fisheries data processing methods.

Scope of workABARES was commissioned by the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) to assess the social and economic implications of the draft Commonwealth marine reserves network in the South-west Marine Region. The assessment focuses on impacts to commercial and charter fisheries, the implications for associated local communities and regional economies.

Goals To develop and refine estimates of the potential displacement of commercial fishing activity

(including charter fishing) from the draft marine reserves network.

To provide quantitative and qualitative information about the way commercial fisheries inputs and outputs interact with regional economies and associated local communities. This includes potential short-term and longer term responses of those economies and communities to the levels and types of displacement estimated for the draft marine reserves network. This information is required to assess potential short-term and longer term impacts on employment and economic flows at local (e.g. key ports) and regional levels.

23


To provide quantitative and qualitative information about the degree of economic dependence of individual fishers and local communities on fisheries that will potentially be displaced by the draft marine reserves network.

To provide sufficient data and information about the methods, structure and patterns of potentially affected fisheries to ensure that changes in the design of draft marine reserves can be evaluated for their relative social and economic impacts.

To provide suitable information to be incorporated in the regulatory impact statement for the draft marine reserves network to ensure that the economic and social costs of the proposals are transparent to government.

The social and economic assessmentThis assessment relates to the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network (SEWPaC 2011b) that was open for public consultation during May–August 2011.

The Australian Government produced the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal after considering public submissions and a draft of this assessment of the draft networks impacts on commercial and charter fishing. An abridged assessment of the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal is contained in the supplementary section at the end of this report.

The assessment centred on three main elements:

1) Estimates of direct displacement of commercial and charter fishing by draft marine reservesThis analysis aimed to provide an indication of the potential fishery catch that would be displaced by the draft marine reserves and place a value on those displaced catches. This was undertaken using the best available fisheries logbook data from each jurisdiction in the period 2000–10.

2) Social impact assessmentThe social impact assessment included an extensive survey of commercial and charter fishers and fishing businesses that may be affected by the draft marine reserves. This survey allowed ABARES to better understand the impacts on individuals and businesses, as well as indirect impacts on the supply chain. The assessment also included in-depth interviews with some industry and community stakeholders, as well as workshops and focus groups in some regions. Secondary data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics were used to understand the socioeconomic characteristics of the fishing sector and communities.

3) Subregional economic modellingEconomic modelling was undertaken at two smaller coastal regions within the South-west Marine Region to determine short-term and long-term impacts of the draft marine reserves on employment and regional production.

The assessment provides a variety of information and perspectives on potential impacts. In general, the report progresses from large-scale aggregate impacts across the entire marine reserves network in the early chapters, through to a finer scale where the potential impacts to towns, businesses and people are covered. Different data were used to estimate or infer potential impacts at each scale; for example, Chapter 2: Potential displacement of fishing relied on fisheries logbook data collected by fisheries management agencies, while Chapter 3: Flow of impacts to ports and supply chains relied on logbook data and a survey of impacted businesses. The chapters 'Impacts on fishing businesses' and 'Community and personal impacts' are drawn

24


predominantly from the survey of impacted businesses, but also from the focus groups and interviews. Finally, the eight case studies use different data and approaches. Five of the case studies use a narrative approach to 'tell the fishers' story' about potential impacts. For the most part, ABARES has simply reflected the individuals' perceptions of impact in these case studies. There is also a case study that used economic modelling to understand impacts on two subregions.

It was not always possible to cross-check information across chapters or scales—for example, cross-checking the stated business impacts with estimates of potential GVP displacement was not possible on a case-by-case basis because individual logbook data were not available. However, where possible, information from other parts of the report is given to provide context. The assessment necessarily relies on responses from individuals through the survey, focus groups or interview data collection. The survey, focus groups and interviews were specifically directed at potentially impacted parties and so results from these data represent this potentially impacted group and not the wider commercial fisher population in the South-west Marine Region.

In developing this draft assessment, ABARES consulted and was guided by a working group of representatives from Primary Industries and Regions South Australia, the South Australian Research and Development Institute, the Western Australian Department of Fisheries, the Commonwealth Fisheries Association, Wildcatch Fisheries South Australia, the Western Australian Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC) and SEWPaC. The working group met via teleconference every 1–2 weeks. The assessment also relied on industry liaison officers, operating through WAFIC, to help coordinate activities such as the survey and focus groups, relay industry information about the scope of impacts and comment on the assessment approach.

25


2 Potential displacement of fishingThis chapter provides estimates of the quantities of catch from commercial fisheries that would potentially be displaced by the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. These estimates are derived from historical catches during the period 2000–10, although reference periods for individual fisheries varied depending on data availability. The gross value of production (GVP) of the potentially displaced catch has also been estimated. This value is intended to reflect recent (2008–10) landed prices or beach prices for product. All values and prices have been adjusted to account for inflation and are expressed in 2011 dollars. A full technical explanation of methodology is in Appendix B: Fisheries data processing methods. Where a range is reported, the first figure is a best ‘point estimate’ following the methodology and the second figure is an upper bound based on commentary from the fishing industry and additional analysis. Results are first presented in aggregate for the entire draft marine reserves network and then reserve by reserve across four geographical subregions. The four subregions were separated for convenience of reporting.

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) used logbook data collected by Primary Industries and Regions South Australia (PIRSA), the Western Australian Department of Fisheries (WA DoF) and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), and price data from PIRSA, WA DoF and ABARES to estimate the potential catch and GVP displaced by the draft marine reserves network. Marine reserve boundaries and zoning were provided by the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC). The following caveats apply to the estimates:

GVP is a relatively simple aggregate measure of the level of commercial fishing activity. See Box 1 for a discussion of more complete measures of the impact of area closures.

The use of historical GVP information to estimate the impact on future fishing activities (i.e. the opportunity cost) should be interpreted with caution. This is because GVP will vary with market demand, inflation, exchange rates and the reference period of analysis. Potential displacement estimates may not incorporate the impact of any historical or long-term cyclical fluctuations in fish stocks, and ignores potential future harvests.

GVP is the assessed value of commercial fishery products at the point of landing for the quantity produced and excludes the cost of transporting, processing and marketing of fish products for wholesale and retail markets. It does not take into account flow-on effects, such as value-adding and other potential benefits to individuals and communities.

Potential displacement estimates are given as annual means spanning up to 11 years. Catches in the most recent years may have been higher or lower than the mean. For example, the Western Australian–managed South West Trawl Fishery expanded significantly from 2010 and potential displacement of catches in 2010 would be about 6 times higher than the 11-year mean.

Potential displacement calculations are based on different reference periods depending on the jurisdiction. Catch data for Commonwealth fisheries are over a 10-year reference period (2001–10), while most data for South Australian and Western Australian fisheries are over an 11-year reference period (2000–10). For three Western Australian fisheries (Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline, Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline, West Coast Demersal Scalefish and West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Longline), the reference period was 2008–10 because data at a higher spatial resolution (10 minutes) were available.

26


GVP for South Australian and Commonwealth fisheries was calculated from mean 'recent' prices in the reference period 2007–08 to 2009–10.

The estimates use data at different spatial reporting scales depending on the jurisdiction, and have correspondingly different accuracy when assessing the displacement of fishing.

The reduction in total GVP following closures of a particular fishing ground is likely to be less than the historical GVP associated with catches in those grounds. Fishers may be able to move to alternative fishing grounds and maintain a similar level of activity, catch and viability of their operations. This may not be the case in some fisheries, and will depend on a number of (potentially interrelated) factors such as economics, distance to port facilities, management arrangements, availability of target species and the suitability of fishing grounds in adjacent areas.

GVP is not directly equivalent to the likely cost of structural adjustment assistance that may occur.

27


Box 1 Assessing the economic impact of marine reservesA variety of different approaches can be used to assess the economic impact of marine reserves. Using historical commercial fishery gross value of production (GVP) and a range of qualitative information is a first step in assessing these impacts.

A full economic assessment would account for all use and non-use values associated with the relevant marine resources, and would estimate the difference between the flows of goods and services over a defined time horizon, both with and without the draft reserve arrangements.

A standard approach for commercial fishing would be to estimate the change in the net present value (NPV) of future net revenues from the affected fisheries under the draft area closures. Varying levels of sophistication can be brought to this calculation. Ideally, the assessment would take into account the effects of the closures on recruitment and catchability, changes in fishery management related to the area closures, the costs of accessing alternate fishing grounds and the behavioural response of fishers to the area closures.

Estimating historical fishery revenue is relatively straightforward, but cost information is less readily available. Regular surveys are available for Commonwealth fisheries (see ABARES 2011a).

Using a gross revenue measure, such as GVP, does not account for the costs involved in generating that revenue or net revenues generated by downstream industries. The spatial variation of these costs affect the value of different fishing grounds.

Temporal factors are important to consider under different valuation approaches. In response to area closures, fishers may shift their effort to other areas and possibly other fisheries within fishery management and profitability constraints. Historical measures give some indication of how much of a shock is applied to different fisheries, but while some fisheries may be able to adjust to a large shock with relatively little reduction in net revenues others may be forced to contract—if, for example, no other fishing grounds are available. In addition, some increase in stocks and resilience of stocks to environmental shocks may result from area closures. However, predicting the magnitude of these effects is difficult.

GVP is a relatively simple aggregate measure of the level of commercial fishing activity. However, caution should be used if historical GVP information is used to estimate the impact of marine reserves on future fishing activities. The reduction in total GVP following closure of particular fishing grounds is likely to be less than the historical GVP associated with catches in those grounds.

Impacts on the wider economyThis assessment uses a model to examine the impact of a contraction in the fisheries sector on the wider economy. The AusRegion dynamic computable general equilibrium model of the Australian economy is used to examine the net economic impact of a marine reserves network to part, or all, of the Australian economy. The economic effects of the changes are reported as changes in gross product at the regional, state and national level. As noted above, the historical GVP measures are likely to overestimate the impact of the marine reserves and thus the broader estimates of economic impact should be interpreted as upper bound estimates.

28


Area closures and entitlement valuesFishing entitlements derive their value from the profits that fishers expect to earn from the fishing access rights that entitlements provide. Restricting access to a fishery through area closures, such as marine reserves, may directly affect the future commercial returns that can be generated and as such would be expected to affect the value of fishing entitlements.

Area closures can potentially affect the value of a fishery and its entitlements in a number of ways. Most obviously, exclusion from historical fishing grounds will reduce access to known productive areas and can be expected to reduce fishery profits in the immediate and longer term. Exclusion from fishing grounds that are currently unprofitable may also affect the value of a fishing entitlement; for example, changes in fish prices or fishing costs may significantly improve the attractiveness of currently unused areas. The option to develop new areas of a fishery has some value and may be affected by changes in fishing access arrangements.

Secondary effects of area closures may also affect the value of fishing entitlements. For example, an area closure may affect stock availability in adjacent areas, changing the productivity of areas which remain open. The net effect of all of these factors will be reflected in the change in value of fishery entitlements.

Commercial fishing potential displacement The draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network would displace an estimated 283–304 tonnes of commercial fisheries annual average catch and $2.46–2.85 million GVP; 26 tonnes and $350 000 from South Australian fisheries, 128–148 tonnes and $1.4–1.8 million from Western Australian fisheries, and 129 tonnes and $717 000 from Commonwealth fisheries (Table 4).

For comparison, the total value of the fisheries that are potentially impacted across the three jurisdictions is $402 million, comprising $50 million for South Australia (SA), $303 million for Western Australia (WA) ($278 million of which was the West Coast Rock Lobster) and $49 million for the Commonwealth (mean annual 2000–10). These values are the totals for the impacted fisheries in each jurisdiction and are not adjusted to account only for fishing in the South-west Marine Region.

The most impacted fisheries in terms of tonnage would be the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark (SESSF) and Western Tuna and Billfish fisheries, and the Western Australian Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery. The most impacted fisheries in terms of GVP would be the Western Australian Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery and the Commonwealth SESSF. In terms of the percentage of the fishery potentially impacted, the greatest impact would be to the Western Australian South West Trawl and the Esperance Southern Rock Lobster fisheries (Table 4).

The draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network contains relatively large areas of marine reserve. However, because most of the highly protected areas (Marine National Park Zone) are off the continental shelf, in deeper waters, the potential impact to most fisheries is reduced. Much of the network that is on the shelf is zoned so that some valuable fisheries (such as rock lobster) can continue. Most of the potential impact occurred to fisheries operating on the shelf and relatively close to land. The exception to this was the Commonwealth Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery, which operates off the shelf in deep oceanic waters.

29


Table 4 Estimates of fishery catch and gross value of production (GVP) potentially displaced by the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves NetworkJurisdiction Fishery Potential displacement Percentage of

total fishery GVP (%)Catch

(tonnes)GVP

($'000)Commonwealth

High Seas Fisheries * * *

SESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector 59 356 1.44SESSF Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector 18 67 0.51Small Pelagic Fishery * * *Southern Squid Jig Fishery * * *Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery 10 48 4.27Western Tuna And Billfish Fishery 43 246 3.75

South Australia Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery 4 184 0.77Marine Scalefish Fishery 22 165 0.64

Western Australia

Esperance Southern Rock Lobster Fishery 2–8 87–364 6.9–18.9

South Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery 1 10 2.27Open Access and other conditions (other) 2–9 14–74 4.7–24.3South Coast Trawl Fishery * * *Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery

73 580 6.46

South West Trawl Fishery 18 114 32.49West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery 9–16 73–131 1–1.9West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery

* * *

West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery 11 309 0.11Windy Harbour Rock Lobster Fishery * * *

Total 283–304 2460–2855

Notes: Confidential data are marked with an asterisk (*). Where a range is given, the first figure is a best ‘point estimate’ and the second figure is an upper bound based on comments from the fishing industry and additional analysis.

Links to other marine regions—fisheries There may be cumulative impacts to some fisheries identified in the South-west Marine Region from draft marine reserves networks in other marine regions. This includes additional displacement by the draft North-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network in the Commonwealth Western Deepwater Trawl (0.5 t; $3 500 GVP) and Western Tuna and Billfish (over 2 t; $11 700 GVP) fisheries, and the West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery (estimates are confidential) (ABARES 2012b).

Reliability and trends over time Some important issues for interpreting the estimates of potential displacement are noted in this section. A full description of the methodology is contained in the appendix.

Potentially displaced catch and GVP are thought to be reasonably well estimated overall across the draft marine reserves network. However, individual estimates at a finer scale (e.g. a single fishery within a single marine reserve) are thought to be less reliable for fisheries that report on large spatial grids (up to one degree), such as South Australian fisheries and some Western Australian fisheries. Significant uncertainty remains for the rock lobster fisheries of SA and WA, which report on large grids. The high unit value obtained for rock lobster has the potential to generate large GVP changes from relatively small changes in displaced catch.

30


Time trends in total annual GVP for each potentially impacted fishery are shown in Figure 1. These illustrate gross trends in the fishery and are expressed in relative terms (percentage change relative to the mean). Some fisheries exhibited substantial falls in production over the reference period, including the Commonwealth Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery, the Commonwealth Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery, the Western Australian South Coast Trawl Fishery and the South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery. These falls have resulted from a number of factors, including changes to economic and business conditions (e.g. Western Deepwater Trawl) or changes to stock availability (e.g. Northern Zone Rock Lobster, where the stock is depleted and the fishery is now under a rebuilding plan). Conversely, production in the South West Inshore Trawl Fishery increased sharply in 2010, following the development of scallop grounds on the south-west coast of WA.

Some fisheries have undergone significant changes over longer timescales. The Commonwealth Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery has had annual catches of less than 500 tonnes in recent years, but has had catches as high as 6000 tonnes in the 1990s and over 17 000 tonnes in the 1980s when Japanese vessels were permitted to fish in Australia’s exclusive economic zone (see Case study: New and prospective fisheries). Annual catches in the South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery have averaged around 500 tonnes over the reference period of 2000–10, but in the 1990s averaged over 900 tonnes (see Case study: South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster).

In summary, fisheries in the South-west Marine Region have seen reducing production and GVP over the reference period (Figure 1).

31


Figure 1 Trends in total fisheries gross value of production (GVP) since 2000 (change relative to average)

20

01

-02

20

02

-03

20

03

-04

20

04

-05

20

05

-06

20

06

-07

20

07

-08

20

08

-09

20

09

-10

-100%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

SESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap sector

SESSF Great Australian Bight Trawl sector

Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery

Western Tuna And Billfish Fishery

Ch

an

ge

re

lati

ve

to

ave

rage

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010-200%

-100%

0%

100%

200%

300%

400%

500%

600%

700%

800%

Open Access and other con-ditions

South Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery

Esperance Southern Rock Lobster Fishery

South Coast Trawl Fishery

Southern Demersal Gillnet and Longline Fishery

Ch

an

ge

re

lati

ve

to

ave

rage

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010-150%

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

South West Inshore Trawl Fishery


West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Longline Fishery

West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery

Windy Harbour Rock Lobster Fishery

Ch

an

ge

re

lati

ve

to

ave

rage

20

00

-01

20

01

-02

20

02

-03

20

03

-04

20

04

-05

20

05

-06

20

06

-07

20

07

-08

20

08

-09

20

09

-10

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Marine Scalefish Fishery

Ch

an

ge

re

lati

ve

to

ave

rage

SESSF = Southern Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery

32


Charter fishing displacement across the South-west Marine RegionCharter vessel activity in SA and WA is concentrated around the major population centres. Charter fishing would only be displaced from Marine National Park zones. In WA, low levels of charter activity (less than 10 clients per year) may be displaced from the Eastern Recherche (area 13) and South-west Corner (areas 14, 18 and 23) (Table 5) reserves but, overall, the displacement of charter fishing is estimated to be low. This is consistent with feedback from charter vessel operators and Recfishwest. For comparison, in 2010, the total charter fishery in WA comprised approximately 25 000 clients.

Low levels of charter activity in SA (less than 80 clients per year) may be displaced from the Western Eyre reserve (areas 3 and 4). Potentially impacted clients departed from Cape Jervis, Port Broughton, Port Hughes or Marion Bay, which are all a substantial distance from any Marine National Park zones. Overall potential displacement of charter fishing is thought to be low for SA; however, there are a small number of operators who offer longer trips (4–5 days) who indicated that they would be impacted by the draft marine reserves—primarily areas 3 and 4 (see Case study: Charter vessel impacts—South Australia for more details). For comparison, in 2008–09, the total charter fishery in SA comprised approximately 21 000 clients.

Table 5 Reserve and areas where charter fishing activity may potentially be displacedReserve Western Eyre Eastern

RechercheSouth-west Corner

Area 3 4 13 14 18 23South Australian charter * * Western Australian charter * * * *

Note: Confidential data are and marked with an asterisk (*).

33


Commercial displacement in the South Australian subregionThe South Australian subregion comprises nine separate areas across three draft marine reserves: the Western Kangaroo Island, the Western Eyre and the Great Australian Bight (extension) marine reserves (Map 4).

Map 4 Draft marine reserves and area numbering in the South Australia subregion


The largest potential impacts in the South Australia subregion are in areas 3, 4, 5 and 7 (Table 6). The main fisheries impacted in this subregion are the Commonwealth SESSF, and the South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster and the SA Marine Scalefish fisheries.

Estimates of mean potential displacement have high accuracy for the five Commonwealth fisheries and low accuracy for the two South Australian fisheries, which are derived from 60-minute scale data. Low accuracy is a particular concern for the Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery, where any small error in catch displacement estimates will result in large errors in the GVP due to the high unit value of rock lobster. Total estimated catch displaced from the Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery was 4 tonnes (Table 6); however, industry has stated that this estimate appears low.

34


Table 6 Estimates of mean annual potential catch and gross value of production displaced from the South Australian subregion by the draft marine reserves and areas over the 2001–10 reference period

Catch (tonnes)Western

Kangaroo Island

Western EyreGreat Australian Bight

(extension)

Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9SESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap (C) 1.4 8.5 17.8 * 29.5 1.5SESSF Great Australian Bight Trawl (C)

* 5.1 * 6.6 * * 4.8 0.2

Small Pelagic (C) *Southern Squid Jig(C) *Western Tuna and Billfish (C) *Northern Zone Rock Lobster (SA) 1.1 2.7 0.2Marine Scalefish (SA) 3.8 9.7 8.6 0.2Total * 5.1 6.3 20.9 33.1 * 29.9 4.8 1.7

GVP ($'000)Western

Kangaroo Island

Western EyreGreat Australian Bight

(extension)

Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9SESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap (C) 8.3 56.4 110 * 173.9 7.5SESSF Great Australian Bight Trawl (C)

* 19.2 * 25.4 * * 17.5 0.7

Small Pelagic (C) *Southern Squid Jig(C) *Western Tuna and Billfish (C) *Northern Zone Rock Lobster (SA) 51 125.8 7.3Marine Scalefish (SA) 28.1 71.6 63.9 1.5

Total *19.

287.4 253.9

199.3

*182.

617.5 8.2

Marine National Park Zone Special Purpose Zone Multiple Use Zone

C = Commonwealth fishery; GVP = gross value of production; SA = South Australian fishery; SESSF = Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark FisheryNotes: Confidential data are marked with an asterisk (*).

35


Commercial displacement in the Esperance–Albany subregionThe Esperance–Albany subregion comprises eight areas across the Eastern Recherche and South-west Corner marine reserves. Main towns in the subregion include Esperance, Hopetoun, Bremer Bay and Albany (Map 5).

Map 5 Draft marine reserves and area numbering in the Esperance–Albany subregion


The largest potential impacts in the Esperance–Albany subregion are in the Eastern Recherche (areas 11 and 13) and South-west Corner (areas 14 and 16) (Table 7) marine reserves. The main fisheries impacted in this subregion are the Western Australian Esperance Southern Rock Lobster and Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline fisheries.

Estimates of mean potential displacement have high accuracy for the two Commonwealth fisheries, medium accuracy for the WA Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery (derived from 10 minute grid scale data) and low–medium accuracy for the remaining WA fisheries (derived from 60 minute grid scale data, with depth corrections). Low accuracy is a particular concern for the WA Esperance Southern Rock Lobster Fishery where any small error in catch displacement estimates will result in large errors in the GVP due to the high unit value for rock lobster. Industry raised particular concerns with the rock lobster displacement estimate in area 13 and this was amended to a range of 0.5–6.5 t (Table 7) which encompasses the ‘point estimate’ (following the proportional area methodology) and an upper bound estimate based on the maximum possible rock lobster catch that could have occurred in area 13.

36


Table 7 Estimates of mean annual potential catch and gross value of production displaced from the Esperance–Albany subregion by the draft marine reserves and areas over the 2001–10 reference periodCatch (tonnes) Eastern Recherche South-west CornerArea 10 11 1

213 14 15 16 17

SESSF Great Australian Bight Trawl (C) * *Western Tuna and Billfish (C) * 0.1 1.4Esperance Southern Rock Lobster (WA) 0.3 0.5–6.5 1.1Open Access and other conditions (WA) * * *South Coast Trawl Fishery (WA) * * * * * * *Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline (WA) 3.2 2.5 11.1 7.9 *Total * 3.8 * 3.4–9.3 12.6 * 9.0 1.4

GVP ($'000) Eastern Recherche South-west CornerArea 1

011 1

213 14 1

516 17

SESSF Great Australian Bight Trawl (C) * *Western Tuna and Billfish (C) * 0.3 8.1Esperance Southern Rock Lobster (WA) 15 22–299 50.0Open Access and other conditions (WA) * * *South Coast Trawl Fishery (WA) * * * * * * *Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline (WA)

25.7 20.4 89.1 63.4 *

Total * 42.1

* 44–321

141.2

* 67.8

8.1


C = Commonwealth fishery; GVP = gross value of production; SESSF = Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery; WA =Western Australian fishery Notes: Confidential data are marked with an asterisk (*). Where a range is given, the first figure is a best ‘point estimate’ and the second figure is an upper bound based on comments from the fishing industry and additional analysis.

37


Commercial displacement in the South-west Corner subregionThe South-west Corner subregion comprises seven areas in the South-west Corner marine reserve (other areas of which were discussed in the previous section). It encompasses the towns of Windy Harbour, Augusta, Margaret River and Bunbury (Map 6).

Map 6 Draft marine reserves and area numbering in the South-west Corner subregion


The South-west Corner subregion has the largest potential catch and GVP displacement impacts of the four subregions. These impacts are particularly focused on areas 18 and 23 in the Marine National Park Zone (Table 8). A range of fisheries are impacted in this subregion, particularly the Commonwealth Western Tuna and Billfish (in offshore areas), and the Western Australian Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline, West Coast Demersal Scalefish, West Coast Rock Lobster and Windy Harbour Rock Lobster fisheries.

Estimates of mean potential displacement have high accuracy for the three Commonwealth fisheries, medium accuracy for the Western Australian Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline and West Coast Demersal Scalefish fisheries (derived from 10-minute scale data) and low–medium accuracy for the remaining Western Australian fisheries (derived from 60-minute grid scale data, with depth corrections). Industry raised concerns about the estimates for two fisheries in two areas. The estimates for Open Access in area 18 was amended to a range of 1.3–8.7 tonnes (Table 8), which encompasses the ‘point estimate’ (following the proportional area methodology) and an upper bound based on the maximum possible Open Access catch that could have occurred in the area. The estimates for West Coast Demersal Scalefish in area 23 was amended to a range of 9–16 tonnes (Table 8), which encompasses the ‘point estimate’ (following the proportional area methodology) and an upper bound based on the maximum possible West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery catch that could have occurred in the area.

38


Table 8 Estimates of mean annual potential catch and gross value of production displaced from the South-west corner subregion by the draft marine reserves and areas over the 2011–10 reference period Catch (tonnes) South-west CornerArea 18 19 20 21 22 23 24SESSF Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector (C) * Western Deepwater Trawl (C) * * 7.6 * *Western Tuna And Billfish (C) 39.0 South Coast Deep Sea Crab (WA) 0.6 * Open Access and other conditions (WA) 1.3–8.7 * South Coast Trawl (WA) * * Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline (WA)

31.7 * * 13.7

South West Trawl (WA) * * * * * *West Coast Demersal Scalefish (WA) 9–16 West Coast Rock Lobster (WA) 11.1 Windy Harbour Rock Lobster (WA) * TOTAL 77–84 * * * 8.8 34–51 *

GVP ($’000) South-west cornerArea 18 19 20 21 22 23 24SESSF Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector (C) * Western Deepwater Trawl (C) * * 38.5 * *Western Tuna And Billfish (C) 224.7 South Coast Deep Sea Crab (WA) 9.8 * Open Access and other conditions (WA) 10.6–70 * South Coast Trawl (WA) * * Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline (WA)

253.7 * * 109.9

South West Trawl (WA) * * * * * *West Coast Demersal Scalefish (WA) 73–131 West Coast Rock Lobster (WA) 309.0 Windy Harbour Rock Lobster (WA) * TOTAL 658–729 * * * 47.6 497–627 *


C = Commonwealth fishery; GVP = gross value of production; SESSF = Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery; WA =Western Australian fishery Notes: Confidential data are marked with an asterisk (*). Where a range is given, the first figure is a best ‘point estimate’ and the second figure is an upper bound based on comments from the fishing industry and additional analysis.

39


Commercial displacement in the Fremantle–Geraldton subregionThe Fremantle–Geraldton subregion comprises five areas in the Perth Canyon, Jurien and Abrolhos marine reserves. It encompasses the city of Fremantle and extends northwards to Geraldton (Map 7).

Map 7 Draft marine reserves and area numbering in the Fremantle–Geraldton subregion


The largest potential impact in the Fremantle–Geraldton subregion is to the Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery in area 25 of the Perth Canyon Marine Reserve (Table 9).

Estimates of mean potential displacement have high accuracy for the three Commonwealth fisheries, medium accuracy for the Western Australian West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery (derived from 10-minute scale data) and low–medium accuracy for the Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery. The impact of area 25 to the South West Trawl Fishery was estimated to be $106 500 mean annual GVP. However, this fishery expanded rapidly in 2010 following the development of scallop grounds (see Figure 1), and estimated displaced GVP from area 25 for 2010 alone was approximately $700 000.

40


Table 9 Estimates of mean annual potential catch and gross value of production displaced from the Fremantle–Geraldton subregion by the draft marine reserves and areas over the 2001–10 reference period Catch (tonnes) Perth Canyon Jurien AbrolhosArea 25 26 27 28 29High Seas (C) *Western Deepwater Trawl (C) 1.1 * * Western Tuna and Billfish (C) 2.4South West Trawl (WA) 16.9 West Coast Demersal Gillnet & Longline (WA) * * TOTAL 18.0 * * * 2.4

GVP ($'000) Perth Canyon Jurien AbrolhosArea 25 26 27 28 29High Seas (C) *Western Deepwater Trawl (C) 4.4 * * * Western Tuna and Billfish (C) 13.0South West Trawl (WA) 106.5 West Coast Demersal Gillnet & Longline (WA) * * TOTAL 110.9 * * * 13.0


C = Commonwealth fishery; GVP = gross value of production; SESSF = Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery; WA =Western Australian fishery Notes: Confidential data are marked with an asterisk (*).

Prospective fishingIn this report, prospective fishing is treated as potential fishing that has not been accounted for in the estimates of potential direct displacement of catch and GVP. Prospective fisheries range from short-term prospects that have been clearly identified, through to long-term, speculative prospects. Establishing the full long-term set of fisheries development possibilities (i.e. the present value of all future fisheries opportunities) for the oceans within the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network is outside the scope of this report. Instead, we focus on the short-term, where there is evidence that companies or individuals have made specific plans or investments to develop prospects, and where there are strong, well-defined rights of access. This section provides a brief overview of the concepts of prospective fishing, highlights several fisheries where evidence is available and where these prospects were raised during the ABARES consultation process.

Prospective fishing includes:

developing completely new fisheries (e.g. for new species and using new fishing methods, targeting practices or new fishing areas)

fisheries where there is capacity for expansion within long-term sustainable limits based on the size or productivity of the fish stock, or recovery of depleted stocks

current fisheries expanding into new fishing areas or intermittently productive fishing areas, or movement back into historically productive areas, or by using new methods or targeting practices

41


redeveloping fisheries that have ceased operating or are operating at a reduced level (e.g. catches that are well below defined long-term sustainable management levels).

In addition, some developed fisheries such as prawns, scallops and squid are highly variable through time and space. Areas may not be fished for years but are still part of the mosaic of potentially productive grounds that make up the fishery. If historical reference periods are too short then periods of activity within a given area may not be captured. In an attempt to account for temporal variability in fisheries, where suitable, a relatively long reference period was applied when generating the estimates of potential displacement—however, in some cases the availability of finer scale data necessitated a shorter reference period.

Prospective fishing is fundamentally about the future and cannot always be predicted from past activity. It is therefore difficult to quantitatively assess and assign a value to the prospectivity of any given fishery or area of ocean.

There are several factors to consider when assessing the value a fisher places on a prospective fishery. Any value that the fisher determines would need to take account of the perceived value if the fishery is developed to its potential, the likelihood of an individual accessing the fishery, the likelihood of the fishery reaching its expected potential and the fisher’s time-value of money.

In light of this, factors that may influence the value of a prospective fishery include:

the expected abundance and quality of stocks

the expected costs of accessing, harvesting and transporting the stocks

the expected market price at the time at which the stocks will be sold

the confidence in the assessment of the fishery

the likelihood that the area will be used preferentially over other prospective areas

the expected time of accessing the prospective fishery.

Given that the value of fisheries endorsements is closely related to the value of a fishery, these factors also have the potential to affect the value of endorsements. In addition, because of the need to adjust for the risk and time involved with prospective fisheries, their value is often significantly less than the value of their expected potential.

The following examples of prospective fishing were found in the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.

The Commonwealth Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery provides an example of fishery redevelopment potential (point 4 above). This fishery was previously much larger, initially with Japanese vessels and then a domestic fishery that peaked around the year 2000. Catches from the tail end of this peak in the fishery can be seen in area 18 of the draft South-west Corner marine reserve (Table 8). Licence holders in the Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery are exploring the option of expanding fishing activity to target bigeye tuna in these waters. One company has made investments to accumulate quota and boat statutory fishing rights with a view to (re)developing the fishery. The draft marine reserves in the North-west Marine Region also affect the prospects for this fishery (see Case study: New and prospectivefisheries).

42


The South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster fishery provides an example of the capacity for expansion of an existing fishery. The rock lobster stock in this fishery is somewhat depleted, and is subject to a recovery strategy involving lowered annual catches. There are prospects for higher catches over the coming years. Note, however, that the 11-year reference period used to estimate potential displacement included a period when catches were substantially higher than at present (Figure 1) (see Case study: South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery—background).

The Commonwealth Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector of the SESSF is a sector where operators have indicated that there are significant prospects forgone from the draft South-west Corner and Eastern Recherche reserves. Industry maintain that the historical catches do not properly reflect prospective values from this area, and that loss of a significant proportion of the trawlable areas in the west of the fishery will reduce the value of fishing permits (see Case study: New and prospective fisheries).

The Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery provides an example of capacity for expansion and redevelopment. This fishery is somewhat cyclical and remained quite small through most of the last decade but increased dramatically in 2010 following the development (or re-development) of scallop grounds at several sites. A single operator in a vertically integrated business has made significant investments to fish established and prospective scallop and prawn grounds in the draft Perth Canyon and South-west Corner marine reserves (see Case study: Vertically integrated fishing business).

Other examples of prospective fishing include the operators in the Western Australian West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery, and the Joint Authority Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery. They are shifting from gillnets to longline to fish deeper water to the west of the Abrolhos Islands and further offshore around the draft South-west Corner marine reserve.

Placing a value on prospective fisheries is a difficult task and was outside the scope of this assessment. In the case of licences, it appears likely that part of the value of fishing rights is associated with the full scope of prospective fisheries that could be developed under that right. This is particularly the case for tradeable statutory fishing rights in fisheries with management measures that actively limit fishing. If the prospective values of a licence are diminished then the value of the licence may also be diminished.

Fisheries managementChanges to the current management of a fishery may be necessary after the announcement of the final marine reserve boundaries. Where a significant amount of fishing effort is displaced by a marine reserve, management may need to consider how this effort will be redistributed or removed. Any changes will need to be assessed in the context of the magnitude of the impact, and managers will need to determine if the remaining effort within the fishery triggers a reassessment of the current management arrangements. Management arrangements also need to consider any increased pressure as a result of displaced operators moving within or between fisheries. Any management changes will be fishery specific and depend on the nature of the fishery, but responsible management agencies may need to consider changes to input (e.g. limited entry, area or spatial closures) or output controls (e.g. total allowable catch, individual transferable quotas). This assessment does not attempt to assess the cost of fisheries management changes that are directly attributable to the marine reserves network.

43


3 Flow of potential impacts to ports and supply chains

This chapter examines the ‘flow’ of impacts, from exclusion of fishing and associated catches within the draft marine reserves, through to towns and communities and their resident businesses. The chapter is partly informed by results from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fisher values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region of Australia, conducted as part of this assessment. The survey contained specific questions about where respondents sourced inputs from, and where they sent their outputs to. For an explanation of the social assessment methodology refer to Appendix C: Social impact assessment methods.

Flow of potential impact was examined using three approaches:

Fishing vessel home port or landing port of the displaced catch. This approach relies on the logbook and ancillary data supplied by each jurisdiction and makes a direct link between the estimates of potential displacement (Table 4) and where that catch is landed or the home port of the fishing vessel.

The location of inputs to fishing business (upstream impacts). This approach relies on supply chain data from the survey, where respondents were asked where they source inputs to their fishing business (e.g. fuel, bait, ice, fishing gear, maintenance). Reductions in catch volumes or changes to fishing behaviour would then be expected to flow ‘upstream’ to those businesses and towns that supply inputs to affected fishers.

The location of outputs from fishing businesses (downstream impacts). This approach relies on supply chain data from the survey, where respondents were asked where their catch is landed (or distributed directly to). Reductions in catch volumes would then be expected to flow ‘downstream’ to those businesses and towns that receive outputs from affected fishers.

44


Flow of gross value of production to ports The flow of potentially displaced gross value of production (GVP) to towns and coastal communities was estimated using fisheries logbook data and ancillary fisheries data held by fisheries management agencies. Map 8 illustrates the flow of potential GVP impacts for fisheries managed by the Commonwealth, Western Australia (WA) and South Australia (SA). The towns most impacted would be Albany, Augusta, Bunbury, Esperance, Fremantle, Hamelin Bay, Port Lincoln, Streaky Bay and Thevenard–Ceduna. Over 99 per cent of catch was landed in towns adjacent to the South-west Marine Region.

The most impacted areas, in terms of the flow of GVP to towns, were the south-west Corner of WA (in the vicinity of Augusta) and the area between Port Lincoln and Thevenard–Ceduna in SA. These two areas were the subject of economic modelling (see Case study: Economic effects for two key subregions ).

Map 8 Flow of potentially displaced gross value of production (GVP) to ports

Note. Commonwealth GVP flow estimates are based on recorded home port of vessel or landing port for quota-managed fisheries. WA estimates are based on recorded landing location and SA estimates rely on stated landing port from the survey. Where potential displacement estimates are ranges, the maximum estimate has been used. Zoning is described in Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods

45


Inputs to fishing businesses (upstream impacts)The flow of impacts to upstream businesses (i.e. those that supply products to fishing businesses) was determined through the survey. The responses were filtered to exclude responses from operators where no displacement could occur (i.e. combinations of fisheries nominated and reserves fished). Respondents reported that the largest number of upstream businesses that would potentially be impacted by the draft marine reserves network were in Port Lincoln (50 businesses), Perth (47 businesses) and Adelaide (40 businesses) (Map 9). As not all potentially impacted fishers returned a survey there may be other businesses that have not been identified here.

Map 9 Number of input (upstream) businesses identified as potentially impacted by the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network

Note: Input businesses provide goods and services such as fuel, lubricants, bait, ice, fishing gear, repairs/maintenance, boat slipping and accessories/chandlery. Zoning is described in Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methodsData source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fisher values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region of Australia

46


Map 10 shows the number of survey respondents who source inputs from each location, as well as the marine reserves that potentially impacted those respondents. The most frequently identified towns for supplying inputs were Port Lincoln (26 respondents), Perth (18 respondents) and Adelaide (14 respondents). The draft marine reserves that impacted the largest number of respondents were the South-west Corner, Western Eyre and the Great Australian Bight (extension) marine reserves.

Map 10 Number of respondents who source inputs from this location for their fishing business (size of the circle), with proportional allocation to marine reserve (pie chart)

Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fisher values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region of AustraliaZoning is described in Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods

47


Output from fishing businesses (downstream impacts) The flow of impacts to downstream businesses (i.e. those that receive products from fishing businesses) was determined through the survey. The responses were filtered to exclude responses from operators where no displacement could occur (i.e. combinations of fisheries nominated and reserves fished). The largest number of potentially impacted output businesses were in Perth (10 businesses), Port Lincoln (8 businesses) and Adelaide (8 businesses), with the remaining 21 towns having less than five output businesses identified by survey respondents (Map 11). Towns in the south-west corner of WA, from Bunbury to Albany, typically only had one or two potentially impacted output businesses identified in each town; 12 businesses were potentially impacted in the area. This area also had a large proportion of the potentially displaced GVP flowing to it (see Map 8 above).

Map 11 Number of output businesses identified as potentially impacted by the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network

Note: Output businesses provide goods and services related to receiving, transport and processing of catch. Zoning is described in Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methodsData source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fisher values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region of Australia

48


Map 12 shows the number of survey respondents who send outputs to each location, as well as the marine reserves that potentially impacted those respondents. The most frequently identified towns for outputs were Port Lincoln (33 respondents sent product there), Adelaide (17 respondents), and Albany and Perth (16 respondents each). As with upstream businesses, the draft marine reserves that impacted the most operators were the South-west Corner, Western Eyre and the Great Australian Bight (extension).

Map 12 Number of respondents who send outputs to this location for their fishing business (size of the circle), with proportional allocation to marine reserve (pie chart)

Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fisher values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region of AustraliaZoning is described in Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods

49

Exposure Sensitivity

Potential impact Adaptive capacity

Vulnerability


Town and local area summaryTo identify which communities would be impacted most by the displacement of GVP from the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network, data on flow of impacts to towns was combined with demographic and socioeconomic data. Figure 2 summarises the elements that make up community vulnerability. Community vulnerability combines measures of a community's exposure (GVP displaced per capita), sensitivity (percentage employment in commercial wild catch fishing) and adaptive capacity (community socioeconomic characteristics). It provides a broad view of which communities will potentially face the biggest impacts, and which might be least able to adapt to these changes. It is important to read the methods section in Appendix D: Developing an index of community vulnerability, regarding construction, caveats and limitations of the index before interpreting the index.

Figure 2 Conceptual model of community vulnerability

Source: Allen Consulting Group 2005, based on Schröter & The ATEAM Consortium 2004

To identify which communities would be impacted most by the displacement of GVP resulting from the declaration of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network the following approach was used

A composite index of community vulnerability was constructed and analysed to provide an initial understanding of which communities may be most impacted and least adaptable. A complete set of impact flow and supply chain results, together with a community vulnerability index ranking and demographic data are presented in Summary A: Summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities. Methods, caveats and limitations on the index are provided in Appendix D: Developing an index of community vulnerability.

Communities were identified where total flow of potentially displaced GVP is greater than or equal to $50 000 or where GVP displaced per capita is greater than or equal to $20 per person.

Communities that meet either of the criteria above are reported on with the addition of data on supply chain businesses, employment in the commercial fishing industry (sensitivity) and community characteristics influencing adaptive capacity.

50


Community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacityTable 10 presents community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures. Thirteen communities had a potential flow of GVP impact greater than $50 000 per year. In descending order, these are Esperance, Fremantle, Augusta, Hamelin Bay, Port Lincoln, Bunbury, Streaky Bay, Albany, Thevenard, Eucla, Busselton, Windy Harbour and Coffin Bay.

Table 10 Community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity (draft reserves)SENSITIVITY

GVP displaced

($'000 max)Population

(2006)

GVP displaced per capita

($)

Fishing industry employment

(% of total employment)

Economic diversity

index

ARIA remoteness

index

Median household

income ($/week)

SEIFA index of relative

disadvantageEsperance Esperance (S) 473.4 12 964 36.5 0.50 0.53 3 918 5Fremantle Fremantle (C) - Inner 326.9 23 838 13.7 0.64 0.88 0 911 6Augusta Augusta-Margaret River (S) 304.9 1 072 284.4 0.33 0.73 2 922 7Hamelin Bay Augusta-Margaret River (S) 287.8 10 352 27.8 0.33 0.73 2 922 7Port Lincoln Port Lincoln (C) 264.0 13 603 19.4 12.03 0.78 3 821 3Bunbury Bunbury (C) 163.3 29 700 5.5 0.06 0.92 1 960 5Streaky Bay Streaky Bay (DC) 137.1 1 059 129.4 5.01 0.24 3 697 5Albany Albany (C) - Central 91.7 15 977 5.7 0.26 0.97 2 728 3Thevenard Ceduna (DC) 86.3 3 572 24.2 5.88 0.57 4 887 2Eucla Dundas (S) 68.9 1 068 64.5 0.00 0.12 3 844 2Busselton Busselton (S) 68.4 25 356 2.7 0.19 0.83 1 962 7Windy Harbour Manjimup (S) 66.6 25 2663.3 25.00 0.51 2 792 3Coffin Bay Lower Eyre Peninsula (DC) 51.0 584 87.3 6.87 0.28 3 845 6Geraldton Geraldton (C) 49.5 18 915 2.6 2.17 0.91 2 783 2Margaret River Augusta-Margaret River (S) 32.3 10 352 3.1 0.33 0.73 2 922 7Adelaide Adelaide (statistical division) 25.4 1 105 846 0.0 0.08 0.93 0 948 6Seabird Gingin (S) 25.2 4 318 5.8 2.38 0.30 2 827 5Fowlers Bay Unincorp. West Coast 22.0 459 48.0 0.00 0.34 4 708 1Quindalup Busselton (S) 20.5 25 356 0.8 0.19 0.83 1 962 7Mandurah Mandurah (C) 16.1 55 816 0.3 0.15 0.82 1 810 5Cowaramup Augusta-Margaret River (S) 15.2 10 352 1.5 0.33 0.73 2 922 7Mooloolaba Maroochy (S) - Mooloolaba 12.2 10 243 1.2 0.43 0.85 0 941 6Lakes Entrance E. Gippsland (S) - Bairnsdale 12.1 25 367 0.5 0.62 0.95 2 645 3Ceduna Ceduna (DC) 10.8 3 572 3.0 5.88 0.57 4 887 2Pondalowie Bay Yorke Peninsula (DC) - South 10.3 3 860 2.7 1.26 0.44 3 571 3Port Adelaide Port Adel. Enfield (C) - Port 8.8 10 356 0.8 0.23 0.92 0 647 1Beachport Wattle Range (DC) - West 8.6 8 703 1.0 1.47 0.51 2 813 3

EXPOSURE ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

Population geographyTown

ARIA = Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia; C = City; DC = District Council; GVP = gross value of production; S = Shire; SEIFA = Socio-Economic Indexes For AreasNote: The 'traffic light' indicators for each measure follow the logic of green being a positive measure through to red being a negative measure. Indicators are based on a measures distribution within the group of localities. Australian Bureau of Statistics population data are available for a variety of geographies within the Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC). To reflect the most appropriate representation of a community's population, different geographies were used to calculate the GVP displaced per capita. The sensitivity measure (% of persons employed in the fishing industry) for Windy Harbour was calculated with data from fishers that are residents of Windy Harbour.

Based on the GVP displaced per capita, there are nine communities with an exposure measure greater than or equal to $20/person. These ninet communities are further assessed through the addition of data on supply chain businesses, employment in the commercial fishing industry (sensitivity) and community characteristics influencing adaptive capacity. These additional data are reported at the statistical local area (SLA) level because this better represents the regional social and economic catchments that the communities sit within, are influenced by and are accessible to community members.

51


Windy HarbourGVP estimates indicate that the maximum potential displacement linked to Windy Harbour from logbook data is $66 000. Windy Harbour is a unique settlement with a small permanent population of approximately 25 people. Survey results identified no upstream businesses and one output businesses that may be impacted, which in turn may flow through to the community via the supply chain. No seafood processing facilities in Windy Harbour were identified from state data. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Windy Harbour is $2664.00. Community sensitivity measures show that Windy Harbour has a high level of employment in the consolidated fishing industry (25.0 per cent) compared with other communities in the South-west Marine Region. Adaptive capacity measures indicate that Windy Harbour has a relatively high level of socioeconomic disadvantage (Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas [SEIFA] decile ranking of 3), a moderate level of economic diversity (0.51), a lower median household income and is located in an outer regional area.

AugustaGVP estimates indicate that the maximum potential displacement linked to Augusta from logbook data is $304 900. In terms of how this may flow through to the Augusta community via the supply chain, survey results identified two upstream businesses and one output business that may be impacted. State data identified one seafood processing facility in Augusta. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Augusta is $282.42. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Augusta–Margaret River, in which Augusta sits, has a low level of employment in the consolidated fishing industry (0.33 per cent) compared with other SLAs in the South-west Marine Region, a relatively low level of socioeconomic disadvantage (SEIFA decile ranking of 7), a high level of economic diversity (0.73), a high median household income, and is located in a outer regional area and is a relatively small population (population for the Urban Centre/Locality [UC/L] was 1072 in 2006).

Streaky BayGVP estimates indicate that the maximum potential displacement linked to Streaky Bay from logbook data was $137 100. In terms of how this may flow through to the Streaky Bay community via the supply chain, survey results identified 11 upstream businesses and 3 output businesses that could potentially be impacted. State data identified three seafood processing facilities in Streaky Bay. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Streaky Bay is $129.46. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Streaky Bay has relatively high levels of employment (compared with other SLAs in the South-west Marine Region) in the consolidated fishing industry (5.01 per cent), is not particularly disadvantaged nor lacks disadvantage (SEIFA decile ranking of 5), has a low level of economic diversity (0.24), has a low median household income, is located in a remote area and is a relatively sparsely populated area (population for the UC/L was 1059 in 2006).

Coffin BayGVP estimates indicate that the maximum potential displacement linked to Coffin Bay from logbook data is $51 000. In terms of how this may flow through to the Coffin Bay community via the supply chain, survey results identified five upstream businesses and no output businesses that could potentially be impacted. State data identified no seafood processing facilities in Coffin Bay. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Coffin Bay is $87.33. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Coffin Bay has 6.87 per cent of employment in the consolidated fishing industry (this is relatively high compared with other SLAs in the South-west Marine Region), is not particularly disadvantaged nor lacks disadvantage (SEIFA decile ranking of 6), has a low level of economic diversity (0.28),

52


has a low median household income ($844.50), is located in a remote area and is relatively sparsely populated (population for the UC/L was 584 in 2006).

EuclaGVP estimates indicate that the maximum potential displacement linked to Eucla from logbook data is $68 900. In terms of how this may flow through to the Eucla community via the supply chain, survey results identified one upstream business and one output business that could potentially be impacted. State data identified no seafood processing facilities in Eucla. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Eucla (SLA of Dundas) is $64.51. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Dundas, where the town of Eucla is situated, has no employment in the consolidated fishing industry, a relatively high level of socioeconomic disadvantage (SEIFA decile ranking of 2), a very low level of economic diversity (0.12), a low median household income ($844.20), is located in a remote area and is relatively sparsely populated (population for the SLA was 1068 in 2006).

Fowlers BayGVP estimates indicate that the maximum potential displacement linked to Fowlers Bay from logbook data is $22 000. In terms of how this may flow through to the Fowlers Bay community via the supply chain, survey results did not identify any upstream businesses or output businesses that may be impacted. State data did not identify any seafood processing facilities in Fowlers Bay. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Fowlers Bay is $48.00. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Unicorp. West Coast, in which Fowlers Bay sits, has no employment in the consolidated fishing industry, a relatively very high level of socioeconomic disadvantage (SEIFA decile ranking of 1), a low economic diversity (0.34), a low median household income ($707.90 per week) and is located in a very remote area.

EsperanceGVP estimates indicate that the maximum potential displacement linked to Esperance from logbook data is $473 400—the highest across the South-west Marine Region. In terms of how this may flow through to the Esperance community via the supply chain, survey results identified 22 upstream businesses and 4 output businesses that may be impacted. State data identified nine seafood processing facilities in Esperance. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Esperance is $36.52. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Esperance has a low level of employment in the consolidated fishing industry (0.50 per cent) compared with other SLAs in the region, is not particularly disadvantaged nor lacks disadvantage (SEIFA decile ranking of 5), has moderate economic diversity (0.53), has a moderate to high median household income, is located in a remote area and is relatively highly populated area (population for the SLA was 12 964 in 2006).

Hamelin Bay Estimates from logbook data indicated that there will be a GVP displacement of $287 800 from Hamelin Bay. Hamelin Bay is a settlement that comprises a boat ramp, holiday facilities (e.g. caravan park) and a small number of permanent dwellings. It is not expected that the displaced GVP of catch landed at Hamelin Bay would impact the Hamelin Bay ‘community’. Survey results did not identify any upstream businesses or output businesses located at Hamelin Bay that may be impacted. It is most likely that product landed at Hamelin Bay ends up in larger urban centres, such as Margaret River, Busselton, Bunbury or Perth. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita is $27.80. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Augusta–Margaret River (shire; S) has a low level of employment

53


in the consolidated fishing industry (0.33 per cent) compared with other SLAs in the South-west Marine Region, is not particularly disadvantaged nor lacks disadvantage (SEIFA decile ranking of 7), has high economic diversity (0.72), has a low median household income, is located in a outer regional area (ARIA remoteness index of 2) and is a relatively highly populated area (population for the SLA was 10 352 in 2006).

ThevenardGVP estimates indicate that the maximum potential displacement linked to Thevenard from logbook data is $86 300. In terms of how this may flow through to the Thevenard community via the supply chain, survey results identified 20 upstream businesses and 3 output businesses that may be impacted. State data identified four seafood processing facilities in Thevenard–Ceduna. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Thevenard is $24.16. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Ceduna, in which Thevenard sits, has relatively high employment in the consolidated fishing industry (5.88 per cent), a relatively high level of socioeconomic disadvantage (SEIFA decile ranking of 2), moderate economic diversity (0.57), lower median household income, is located in a very remote area and has a small population (population for Ceduna SLA was 3572 in 2006).

Links to other marine regions—towns and local areas

Cumulative impacts may occur to towns in the South-west Marine Region from the reserves networks proposed in other marine regions. The most substantial of these is cumulative impacts to Freemantle ($122 500 annual average GVP, upper estimate) from the draft North-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network (ABARES 2012b).

54


Potential impacts on the economyTwo coastal subregions (Augusta–Margaret River, Western Australia and Eyre Peninsula, South Australia) that would potentially experience higher impacts from the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network were modelled to estimate the economic effects of the displacement of GVP (for a full description refer to Case study: Economic effects for two key subregions).

Augusta–Margaret RiverThe Augusta–Margaret River economy accounted for less than 1 per cent of Western Australia’s economy in 2010–11. The fishing sector (including catching and processing, but excluding retail) accounted for approximately 1 per cent of the local economy (Figure 17). Services sectors (including construction, retail and wholesale trade, restaurants and hotels, transport, public services and other services) accounted for 57 per cent of the local economy—a substantial proportion of which is related to tourism. The manufacturing and combined forestry–agriculture sectors accounted for 24 per cent and 14 per cent of the local economy, respectively.

According to the 2006 census, the Augusta–Margaret River area had a population of approximately 10 000. The unemployment rate was 3.1 per cent—substantially lower than the national unemployment rate at the time of 5.2 per cent.

Figure 3 Structure of the Augusta–Margaret River economy

Fisheries 1%

Forestry/ agriculture 14%

Mining 4%

Manufacturing24%

Services 57%

Data source: ABARES

EyreThe Eyre economy accounted for approximately 2 per cent of South Australia’s economy in 2010–11. The fishing sector (including catching and processing, but excluding retail) accounted for around 20 per cent of the local economy (Figure 18). Services sectors (including construction, retail and wholesale trade, restaurants and hotels, transport, public services and other services) accounted for 50 per cent of the local economy, and the forestry and agriculture sectors collectively accounting for 24 per cent of the local economy.

According to the 2006 census, Eyre Peninsula (Ceduna, Streaky Bay, Elliston, Lower Eyre Peninsula and Port Lincoln SLAs) had a population of approximately 25 000. The unemployment rate was 4.8 per cent, compared with the national unemployment rate at the time of 5.2 per cent.

55


Figure 4 Structure of the Eyre economy

Fisheries; 20%

Forestry/ agriculture; 24%

Mining; <1%Manufacturing; 5%

Services; 50%

Data source: ABARES

Modelling was undertaken using AusRegion, which is a dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of the Australian economy at the national level, the level of the eight states and territories, or selected subregional levels. It was used to examine the net economic impact to the economy and to employment in both the short term (2012–13) and the long term (2019–20).

The modelling demonstrates how the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network is likely to affect gross regional product (GRP) and employment.

Economic impacts are expected to be felt both directly through reduced fisheries production and indirectly through decreased activity for those businesses that supply inputs to, and process outputs from, the fishing industry. These impacts are expected to occur in towns within, and to some extent adjacent to, the South-west Marine Region. AusRegion does not capture impacts focused on specific towns due to the larger scale at which the model operates. However, impacts on towns in the South-west Marine Region are incorporated in the results for the whole region. The combined effects of the direct and indirect impacts are captured in changes to economic activity and employment in the subregions. The results indicated a negligible percentage decline in GRP in the Eyre subregion, and a slightly larger percentage decline in the Augusta–Margaret River subregion in both the short and long terms.

Applying the modelled percentage impacts as a result of the decline in GVP, the projected decline in GRP from the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network in the two modelled subregions was estimated to be $2.2 million in the short term and $3.0 million in the long term each year. As the two subregions account for approximately 44–51 per cent of total estimated GVP displacement, linear scaling of the effects suggest a total projected decline in GRP of $4.4–5.1 million in real terms each year in the short term, compared with the baseline. All of these economic impacts would occur in regions directly affected by displacement. There are likely to be flow-on effects in other regions; however, changes in economic activity at the state and national level are negligible in terms of the size of these economies.

56


Potential impacts on employmentThe potential impact of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on jobs was estimated using two methodologies: economic modelling (for a full description refer to Case study: Economic effects for two key subregions) and the survey of fishing businesses. The two approaches provide different measures. The economic modelling estimated job loss from the economy as a whole, including the supply chain (businesses that supply inputs to, and process outputs from, the fishing industry). The survey provided an estimate of job loss from impacted fishing businesses in the catching sector, and to some extent the processing sector, for respondents that completed the survey.

Economic modelling (method 1)Two coastal subregions that would potentially experience higher impacts were modelled to estimate the economic and employment effects of the displaced GVP. Employment impacts were forecast for the short term, where adaptation in the economy was limited, and in the longer term where adaptation (labour and capital mobility) was free to occur.

Using the modelling of the potential impact in the short term ($1.2 million annual average potential GVP displacement) on the two subregions, ABARES estimated the loss of three jobs from the Augusta–Margaret River subregion and two jobs from the Eyre subregion, which represents a small proportion of total employment in the Augusta–Margaret River (0.05 per cent) and Eyre (0.02 per cent) subregions.

If these results are extended linearly to account for the entire potential GVP impact of the draft South-west Marine Reserves Network ($2.5–2.9 million annual average potential GVP displacement), 10–12 jobs would be lost in the short term and around 1 full-time equivalent job in the long term in directly affected regions.

Survey results (method 2)Estimates of job loss derived from the survey apply only to businesses in the catching and processing sectors that completed the survey. The estimates do not include fishing businesses that did not complete the survey, or supply chain businesses. The estimate was also based on each surveyed business' prediction about how they would respond to the draft South-west Marine Reserves Network, how many staff they employed and whether they would need to reduce employees.

From the survey responses, it was estimated that there would be a reduction of 37 full-time equivalent jobs (Table 11), comprising 77 individual jobs most of which were seasonal (Table 11). The majority of fishing businesses potentially impacted by the draft South-west Marine Reserves Network were believed to be surveyed; however, there are some that are not accounted for in this estimate.

Survey and consultation with industry stakeholders suggests that over both the long and short term, the reduction in total positions in the fishing sector may be greater than indicated because of the high proportion of part-time and seasonal positions in the industry (Appendix F, Table 38).

Job losses are likely to occur in the most affected fisheries (Table 4), in the towns where potentially impacted catch is landed (Map 8), as well as to towns and regions involved in the supply chain (Map 10 and Map 12).

57


The issue of 'tipping points' was raised by a number of business operators, whereby as the level of impact increases, staff numbers are cut at certain critical points. Similarly, for a business as a whole, there may come a point where it is not viable and all paid positions in the business are lost. This issue can present difficulties for businesses when predicting potential job loss from the draft marine reserves in isolation from other factors affecting the business (see Chapter 4: Impacts on fishing businesses).

Table 11 Estimated paid job reduction anticipated by survey respondents due to the draft Commonwealth South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Employment type Number of

positionsFull-time equivalent

Casual 17 5.1

Fulltime 13 13

Part time 5 2.5

Seasonal 42 16.8

TOTAL 77 37.4

Note: Conversion to full-time equivalent used the following conversion multipliers: casual 0.3, full-time 1, part-time 0.5 and seasonal 0.4. For methods, see Appendix E: Estimating job reduction using the survey.Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region of Australia

Summary of flow of impacts The main towns supplying inputs (such as fuel) and receiving produce from potentially impacted fishers are Perth, Port Lincoln and Adelaide. These larger urban centres had relatively diverse economies and medium–high household income. However, there are a number of smaller urban centres that supply inputs to, and receive outputs from, the fishing industry in the south-west.

Outside the urban centres in SA, the smaller centres of Kingscote, Warooka, Coffin Bay, Streaky Bay and Thevenard–Ceduna were identified as having the highest number of potentially impacted input and output businesses. In WA, the number of impacted businesses was highest in the medium-sized urban centres of Esperance, Albany and Bunbury.

The areas with the highest amount of displaced flow of catch and GVP to towns were between Port Lincoln and Thevenard–Ceduna in SA, and in Esperance and Eucla in the east and the south-west corner of WA (from Windy Harbour to Fremantle).

Communities with highest level of exposure, based on the GVP displaced per capita, were Windy Harbour, Augusta, Streaky Bay, Coffin Bay, Eucla, Fowlers Bay, Esperance, Hamelin Bay and Thevenard. Smaller communities with a higher reliance on fishing-related employment, low economic diversity, a high degree of relative socioeconomic disadvantage, low household income and in remote regions are potentially least able to adapt to the impacts presented by the displaced flow of catch and GVP. It should be noted that adaptive capacity is context specific, and varies from community to community, among individuals and over time. A community's ability to adapt goes beyond the static measures presented, and relies on the community being able to effectively mobilise resources.

Using economic modelling, the regional net impact on the economy arising from the potentially displaced GVP was an annual estimated loss of $4.4–5.1 million in real terms in the short term. There are likely to be flow-on effects in other regions; however, changes in economic activity at the state and national level are negligible in terms of the size of those economies. Potential

58


regional job reduction was estimated at 10–12 full-time jobs lost in the short term using economic modelling, and 37 full-time equivalent positions using the survey data.

59


4 Impacts on fishing businessesThis chapter presents a synthesis of results from the survey, Your marine area matters: a survey of commercial fisher values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region of Australia, and qualitative data from focus groups and interviews with potentially impacted fishers, supply chain businesses and community representatives. The synthesis explores the potential impacts of the draft marine reserves on fishing businesses and investigates:

values held by fishers in the South-west Marine Region

potential displacement of current fishing activities

response to displacement and indirect impacts

business plans and investment based on current entitlements to fish

other factors currently impacting the fishing industry

ability to adapt.

Survey data caveats and notesThe survey instrument and survey frame were developed in consultation with industry and governments. The target group for the survey was state and Commonwealth commercial fishers with a likelihood of being displaced and impacted by the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. The following notes and caveats apply to the survey.

The target population is a subset of all fishers in the South-west Marine Region. The goal was to ensure the highest number of potentially displaced and impacted licence holders would be identified for the survey. The survey results are intended to be representative of the potentially impacted businesses and not all fishing businesses operating in the South-west Marine Region.

The final survey frame consisted of 281 businesses, and the consultative process used to develop the frame gave a high degree of confidence that the majority of potentially impacted fishing businesses were given an opportunity to participate.

There was some oversampling of South Australian licence holders (inclusions of non-impacted businesses in the sampling frame), which suggests that the target population was substantially less than 281.

Measurement error may result from inaccurate responses to questions, an inability of the respondent to recall information, differences in how respondents interpreted a question or socially desirable responding.

Cognitive biases can affect survey responses and lead to response error. These are difficult to address because the respondent may unintentionally or deliberately provide inaccurate information due to a perceptual distortion, an inaccurate judgment or illogical interpretation of reality. Cognitive biases of this type may be an issue in this study due to the sensitive nature of the study topic and general objections within the fishing industry to the draft Commonwealth marine reserves.

60


Throughout the following sections, people who participated in the survey are referred to as respondents. This further reinforces that all results refer only to those that participated in the survey. For further detail on the survey process see Appendix C: Social impact assessment methods.

Commercial fishery qualitative value mapping To understand how and to what degree commercial fishers value specific areas within the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network survey participants were asked to undertake a qualitative value mapping exercise as a part of the survey. Respondents were given a map of the region (which included a graticule, the draft marine reserve boundaries and significant regional ports) and asked to identify valued areas by placing up to three stickers for each of six different fishing-related values: ‘catch reliability’, ‘catch diversity’, ‘easy to access’, ‘a safe area’, ‘less competition’, ‘future use value’ (for a maximum of 18 marks per respondent). These qualitative data allow a better understanding of which areas within the draft marine reserves network have higher values according to the survey respondents.

Map 13 provides a summary of all the value points provided in the survey, across all six value classes. Data were summarised at both fine and coarse scales to protect confidentiality and to allow display of all data.

High fishing values concentrated on the shelf, notably in the draft Kangaroo Island Marine Reserve, in the Marine National Park zones of the draft Western Eyre Marine Reserve, and in parts of the draft South-west Corner and Perth Canyon marine reserves (Map 13). Low or dispersed values were found on some areas of the shelf, but were most notable in offshore areas of the draft Western Eyre and South-west corner marine reserves.

It is important to note that this qualitative value mapping is not the same as impact mapping. Some areas of high value to fishers do not have high impact because zoning will allow continued use—most notably rock lobster and scalefish fishing within the draft Kangaroo Island Marine Reserve (Map 13).

More than 600 value stickers were applied; approximately 400 of these were within the marine reserves network (Table 12). Of the stickers applied, 25 per cent related to catch reliability and nearly 20 per cent related to future use (i.e. prospectivity).

This process does not fully explore why fishers value the areas they have marked. It may be best to interpret the qualitative value mapping as though it largely reflects areas valued by impacted fishers; however, there may be some bias towards areas of high impact (e.g. no-take areas).

61


Map 13 Commercial fishery qualitative value mapping for all value classes ('catch reliability', 'catch diversity', 'easy to access', 'a safe area', 'less competition', 'future use value'

Note: Mapping is at fine scale in areas with a high density of value points and at coarse scale (1 degree) where value points are less dense. Zoning is described in Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methodsData source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region of Australia

62


Table 12 Number of value markers placed in draft marine reserve areas for each of the value categories

Draft marine reserve

Area Safe area

Catch diversit

y

Catch reliabilit

y

Ease of access

Future use

value

Less competitio

n

Area

total

Western

Kangaroo

Island1 3 6 13 6 12 8 48

Western

Eyre

2 4 7 9 7 4 3 343 2 5 10 11 5 3 364 6 7 9 5 4 3 345 1 2 1 2 1 76 1 1 2

Great

Australian

Bight

(extension

)

7 2 2 2 1 4 3 14

8 1 4 4 4 13

9 2 2

Eastern

Recherche

10 1 2 1 41112 1 113 1 1 3 1 6

South-

west

Corner

14 1 1 1 315 2 1 1 416 1 3 2 1 1 817 2 2 2 2 818 4 6 12 8 12 5 4719 1 1 2 1 2 1 820 1 2 2 2 721 2 6 6 2 4 8 2822 2 2 3 1 11 4 2323 1 2 5 1 1 1024 6 3 6 3 3 1 22

Perth

Canyon 25 5 7 5 6 2 3 28

Jurien 26 1 1 1 3

Abrolhos2728 1 1 1 1 429 48


Note: Respondents could place up to three marks on a map for each of six different fishing-related values (for a maximum of 18 marks per respondent). See Map 2 for area numbering.Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region of Australia

Direct displacement impacts on fishing businesses This section presents results from the survey where respondents were asked about direct displacement of fishing from the draft marine reserves. For this analysis of direct impacts, the

63


responses have been filtered to exclude responses from operators where no displacement could occur (i.e. combinations of fisheries nominated and reserves fished).

Table 13 indicates the marine reserves that respondents identified they would be excluded from (or were unsure if they were excluded). The draft South-west Corner, Western Eyre and Great Australian Bight (extension) marine reserves had the highest number of respondents who indicated that they would be excluded.

Table 13 Number of survey respondents who indicated they would be excluded or displaced to some degree by the draft marine reservesDraft marine reserve Excluded UnsureWestern Kangaroo Island 1 1Western Eyre 20 8Great Australian Bight (extension) 16 5Eastern Recherche 8 1South-west Corner 21 1Perth canyon 3Jurien 2Abrolhos 2

Note: Respondents could choose multiple marine reserves.Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region of Australia

People who identified themselves as being excluded by the draft marine reserves provided estimates for the proportion of their total catch in 2010–11 that was taken from within the draft marine reserves (Table 14). Not all respondents completed this question, so counts in Table 13 and Table 14 are not equal. Most respondents indicated a level of displacement between 0 and 20 per cent, and nine respondents indicated that more than 50 per cent of their catch would be displaced.

Table 14 Number of survey respondents that indicated a defined proportion of their 2010–11 catch was taken from within draft marine reservesReserve Per cent of catch displaced

0-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71-80

81-90

91-100

Western Kangaroo Island 1Western Eyre 4 6 1 1 2Great Australian Bight (extension) 1 1 1Eastern Recherche 1 1South-west Corner 2 2 2 1 1 3Perth canyon 1 1Jurien 1Abrolhos 1

Note: Respondents could choose more than one reserve. Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region of Australia

Fishing business impactsThis section reports fishers’ responses to their perceived displacement and how this response will then impact their fishing business.

64


Survey respondents were asked to indicate if they believed they would have to change their current fishing activities if the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network was declared. Respondents who indicated that their current fishing activities would have to change were asked to indicate what their most likely response would be:

1) Stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall from other fishing areas.

2) Move into an alternative fishery.

3) Continue operating with reduced catch in the same fishery(s) or downsize the operation.

4) Leave the fishing industry.

5) Unsure.

Based on the likely response to displacement, each respondent then indicated how strongly they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about potential impacts.

The potential impacts on the fishing businesses have been collated into three groups based on the above responses options—Group 1 (responses 1 and 2), Group 2 (response 3) and Group 3 (response 4). Where applicable, potential impacts are further supported by qualitative data collected through interviews and focus groups with potentially impacted fishers.

Fishing business response to displacementOut of the 81 survey respondents, 63 indicated that they would have to change their current fishing activities if the draft South-west marine reserves were declared (Table 15).

Table 15 Responses to the question, 'If the draft reserves were declared I would have to change my current fishing activities'

Respondents (counts)

SA (n = 55) WA (n = 26) Total (n = 81)Ye

s 40 23 63

No 15 3 18

SA = South Australia; WA = Western Australia Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region of Australia

Of the 63 respondents who indicated that they would have to change their fishing activities (Table 16):

34 respondents indicated that they would stay in the fishery and make up the shortfall in other fishing areas. One respondent indicated that they would move into an alternative fishery

11 respondents said that their most likely response would be to continue operating in the same fishery with a reduced level of catch or might downsize their fishing operation

13 respondents said that their most likely response would be to leave the fishing industry

4 respondents were unsure of what their response to the displacement would be.

65


Table 16 Responses from those who declared their fishing activity would have to changeRespondents (counts)

Response SA (n = 40) WA (n = 23) Total (n = 63)Stay in same fishery and make up shortfall

from other fishing areas25 9 34

Move into an alternative fishery 0 1 1Operate with reduced catch in the same

fishery(s) or downsize the operation6 5 11

Leave the fishing industry 5 8 13Unsure 4 0 4

SA = South Australia; WA = Western Australia Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region of Australia

Most respondents said they would prefer to stay in the fishing industry and either make up the shortfall in catch, move to an alternative fishery or operate with a reduced catch. There was a marked difference in the responses of respondents from South Australia (SA) compared with those from Western Australia (WA) (Table 16):

A much larger number of respondents in SA (25 out of 40) said they would stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall compared with those in WA (9 out of 23).

More fishers in WA said they would respond by leaving the industry (8 out of 23) compared with SA (5 out of 40) if the reserves were declared.

The qualitative findings show that there were varied responses about whether to leave the industry or stay, depending on what fisheries business operators were involved in, the scale of their business, their financial situation and financial viability, their perception of the future of the fishing industry in Australia and the potential offer of structural adjustment assistance. These factors are outlined below, but note that the basis for individual choice is usually complex and includes multiple factors:

Current fisheries management protocols, the amount of area the fishery had to currently operate in, the species targeted and the number of fisheries entitlements held were identified as factors influencing a fisher’s decision to remain in or leave the industry. For example, one fisher involved in shark fishing felt that changing public opinion in the catching and consumption of sharks would eventually make this fishery unviable and therefore make the entitlements undesirable.

A number of fishers expressed a pessimistic view of the future of the fishing industry. These fishers believed that, 'it was all getting too hard', and that leaving the industry would be the best option. Increasing levels of uncertainty around access, fisheries management, increasing input costs, increased competition and high variability in prices were all seen to be further exacerbated by the draft Commonwealth marine reserves.

Fishers that operated smaller owner–operator businesses were concerned that any access restrictions or requirements to find new fishing grounds could render their business unviable. These operations have tight margins and limited ability to absorb any downturn. Some larger operations, although displaced by the draft marine reserves, indicated that they may be able to absorb these impacts in the short term.

A number of respondents with high levels of debt or who were operating a marginal business felt their best option would be to leave the industry. Conversely, others in the same situation did not see leaving the industry as an option because they still needed to pay bills and support their families. If these operators were to sell their business they believed that

66


they would not receive adequate proceeds from the sale to cover their debt. This situation was seen as being exacerbated by the draft marine reserves, due to the belief that the announcement of the draft marine reserves was impacting the value of entitlements and business assets.

The potential for structural adjustment assistance was identified as a factor that would influence some fishers to leave the industry.

67


Fishing business impacts—Group 1Group 1 (respondents who would either stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall in other areas, or move into an alternative fishery) included 35 respondents. The majority of these either agreed or strongly agreed that they would be impacted by (Figure 5):

increased fuel costs

increased pressure on fish stocks in areas outside the draft marine reserves

increased time spent looking for new fishing grounds

increased conflict with other fishers over competition for fish

increased wear and tear on boat and equipment

increased safety issues from fishing in adverse weather conditions.

In addition, the majority of survey respondents indicated they would have to become more innovative in the way they fish; this may include changing gear types and purchasing/leasing quota in alternative fisheries.

These impacts were also raised by interviewees and focus group participants and are reflected in the case studies. Most interviewees and focus group participants indicated that displacement would lead to increases in fuel usage, wear and tear on vessels and gear, and an increase in time spent looking for new areas to fish.

A number of interviewees noted that making up a shortfall in their catch required increased effort to locate viable, productive fishing grounds. Current fishing activities were in many cases based on years of experience, trial and error, and knowledge of the marine environment handed down from their fathers and grandfathers. It was highlighted that finding new fishing grounds and learning to fish them was not a simple or straightforward task. For example, rock lobster fishers highlighted that the settlement location of rock lobster varied from year to year, but that once settled they did not move too far. This meant that a patch of ground currently containing small or juvenile rock lobster would be ear-marked for future harvesting. If this area fell inside a no-take area then all potential take from this settlement would be lost as the rock lobster would not migrate out of the area. Another example comes from the West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery. This fishery is partly managed through limited access and input restrictions (fishing days), which restricts fishers being able to travel long distances and requires them to be actively fishing. If fishers are using a lot of time to find new areas to fish, continued operation may become unviable.

The majority of interviewees and focus group participants indicated that the draft south-west marine reserves, in conjunction with current fisheries management restrictions, significantly reduced the area that could be fished. If fishers were to attempt to make up the shortfall from displacement, there was a perception that this would apply greater pressure on the remaining areas open to fishing, which would potentially increase conflict among fishers and increase pressure on fish stocks.

In some areas, especially in the south-west area of WA, interviewees raised safety concerns in relation to looking for new areas to fish. Operators with small vessels were particularly concerned about venturing further offshore to find productive fishing grounds at certain times of the year.

68


Figure 5 Business impacts for respondents who indicated they would continue operating by making up shortfall or moving into an alternative fishery

The fishing business will have to reduce the number of employees

Bait costs will increase because of intensifying fishing effort

Changes to fishing grear will be necessary

We will have to become more innovative in the way we fish

There will be safety issues from fishing in adverse weather conditions

There will be increased conflict with other fishers over competition for fish

There will be increased pressure on fish stock in areas outside of the proposed marine reserves

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagreeDisagree Stongly disagree

Percentage of respondents

Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region of Australia

Fishing business impacts—Group 2Group 2 (respondents who would either continue operating with reduced catch or downsize their operation) included 11 respondents. The majority of these indicated that there would be increased competition and conflict between fishers, and half indicated that they would have to reduce the number of employees in their business (Figure 6). Most respondents in this group indicated that they would not have to relocate to a different port or town, and that they would not sell entitlements or part of the business.

69


Figure 6 Fishing business impacts for respondents indicating they would continue operating with a reduced catch

Part of the fishing business will be sold

I will diversify the fishing business

The fishing business will have to relocate to a different port/town

The fishing business will have to sell off one or more of its fishing encorsements or entitlements

The fishing business will have to reduce the number of employees

There will be increased conflict with other fishers over competition for fish

0 20 40 60 80 100




Fishing business impacts—Group 3There were 13 respondents in Group 3 (respondents who would leave the fishing industry). Most of these indicated there would be difficulties in adapting (Figure 7):

Most thought their employees would be without a job.

Most expressed concerns about their ability to sell the business and secure alternative employment.

These respondents also indicated a range of personal impacts (on self and family) and on their employees (see Chapter 5).

70


Figure 7 Business impacts for respondents indicating they would leave the fishing industry

There are plenty of alternative job opportunities for our employees in the local area

We will be able to sell the business

I am confident in my ability to secure employment elsewhere

Our employees will be without a job

0 20 40 60 80 100




Qualitative findings from interviews and focus groups support the impacts observed from the survey. The loss of jobs for employees was a common theme for those indicating that they would leave the fishing industry. Many saw this as having impacts not only on the employee and their families, but also on the communities in which they lived and the fishing industry as a whole. In smaller communities there were not many other job opportunities, especially for unskilled labour, which may cause people to move from the area in search of employment. The loss of skilled workers from the fishing industry was a concern—the fishing industry currently competes with other industries, particularly the mining sector, for skilled labour.

There was often a pessimistic view of the future of the fishing industry, with very high levels of uncertainty. This was thought to make entering the industry a risky and unattractive investment. In addition, business assets, in the form of licences and vessels, could become stranded assets with little value.

Fishing business plans and future investmentsThe potential impact of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on future plans and investments based on currently held fishing entitlements was raised as a major concern by the fishing industry and individual fishers.

Of the 81 respondents, 16 indicated that they had made short-term business plans based on their current statutory right to fish, while 57 respondents indicated that they had made long-term business plans. Most respondents (60) said that these business plans will be jeopardised by the draft marine reserves network.

Forty-eight of the 81 survey respondents indicated they had made financial investments to expand the fishing business based on their current fishing access right. All respondents who answered this question said that this financial investment was jeopardised by the draft marine reserves.

71


The impact on business plans and financial investments was raised by interviewees and focus group participants. Potentially impacted fishers raised the following issues:

Uncertainty in making plans and investments to keep the business running between now and when the reserves are declared. For example, fishers questioned whether it would be wise to invest in essential maintenance and refurbishing of vessels and gear given they could be out of business and the investment would be a stranded asset. Another example is that many fishers believe that the currently draft marine reserves are only the start, and that once declared they could be expanded or their classification changed by future governments.

Difficulty accessing finance. Some participants felt that banks and financial institutions were already aware of the changes facing the fishing industry and were therefore reluctant to provide finance.

Loss of asset value. A number of operators indicated that they have purchased licences as part of future business expansion and for risk management strategies. They feared that these investments had already depreciated as a result of the marine reserve announcement. A number of fishers had planned to use their investment in the fishing business—especially licences—as a form of superannuation. They feared these investments had now depreciated.

Other issues and cumulative factors impacting fishing businessesThe potential impacts of the draft marine reserves on fishing businesses should not be viewed in isolation. A strong and consistent theme raised by survey respondents, interviewees and focus group participants was that many factors impact their businesses and they were concerned that these factors would compound with the draft Commonwealth marine reserves (Figure 8). Some survey respondents believed that the declaration of the draft marine reserves would further marginalise the industry. Particular issues raised were:

changes in fisheries management in the past 20 years

changes in access to fishing grounds (including state marine reserves)

input costs

cheaper imported fish

prices received for fish

interest rates

access to and retention of skilled labour

competition from other fishers.

All of these issues (except interest rates) were also raised as issues in the interviews and focus groups.

72


Figure 8 Other issues impacting fishing businesses in the South-west Marine Region

Food safety regulationsClimate change

My health My age/age of workers

Market demandAccess to finance

Animal welfare campaigns Competition from recreational fishers

Access to labourExchange rates

Cheaper imported fishChanges to fishing ground access

0 20 40 60 80 100

Major problem Moderate problem Small problemNo problem Don’t know



Ability to adapt—fishing businessSurvey respondents were asked questions about the ability of their fishing business to adapt to changes, and whether they could retire or draw on superannuation or the pension. The number of respondents answering these questions varied between 76 and 80 (Figure 9).

Most survey respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that their fishing business is in a good financial situation (i.e. low level of debt repayments, adequate non-fishing–related assets). Furthermore, only seven respondents agreed that ‘the fishing business can afford to make the changes necessary to adapt to the draft Commonwealth marine reserves’. Most believed that they are not too young to retire but that they cannot yet access superannuation or pension benefits (61 respondents).

73


The qualitative information supports many of these findings. One additional point that arose from the qualitative interviews and focus groups is that the ability to adapt may be linked with the size of the business. In Port Lincoln, for example, small business operators generally expressed uncertainty about their future and were not positive about opportunities to adapt. The larger businesses expected that they could adapt but would incur financial impacts, including a time of adjustment (see Case study: Port Lincoln). The scale of the business was not always the main factor; the owner of a vertically integrated business in WA also reported that he would leave the industry if the draft marine reserves were declared (see Case study: Vertically integrated fishing business).

Figure 9 Ability to adapt—fishing businesses

The fishing business is in a good financial situation

I'm too young to retire

I can access superannuation or pension benefits

The fishing business can afford to make the changes necessary to adapt

I have other income opportunities

I am confident in my ability to secure employment elsewhere if I need to

I have job skills that I can use in other industries

I have well-developed business skills

The fishing business has previously managed change successfully

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagreeDisagree Strongly disagree



74


Fishing business impacts summaryThe potential impacts to fishing businesses were examined using the survey, focus groups and interviews. The survey was completed by 81 fishers or fishing businesses. In general, it appears that the impacts of the draft marine reserves will fall to a moderate number of fishing business across the region relative to all fishing businesses operating in the region (63 survey respondents indicated they would have to change their current fishing activities if the draft marine reserves were declared). The size of the impact will differ for each individual business and, in some cases, it would potentially render the business unviable.

The following potential impacts of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network were identified:

Three-quarters of survey respondents indicated that they would have to change their current fishing activities, and of these, over half indicated that they would stay in the fishery and make up the shortfall in other fishing areas.

More fishers in WA said that they would respond by leaving the industry compared with SA.

Although the survey responses give a clear picture on fishers responses about whether to leave the industry or stay, the qualitative results gave a more nuanced picture, with fishers' decisions to stay or leave depending on what fisheries they were involved in, the scale of their business, and their financial situation and financial viability in the face of the draft marine reserves.

Survey and qualitative findings verified that the secondary impacts on the businesses that continued to operate despite displacement would include increased fuels costs, increased pressure on fish stocks, increased time spent looking for new grounds, increased travel time, increased wear and tear on assets and more competition with other fishers.

For those downsizing their operations or leaving the business, impacts would include: reducing the number of employees; selling fishing endorsements, entitlements or their whole business; and possibly relocating to a new town.

A number of survey respondents said that their business plans (60 respondents) and financial investments (48 respondents) would be jeopardised by the draft marine reserves. This result is supported by the consistent theme from fishers that the threat of displacement produced a high level of uncertainty around their businesses and the future viability of the fishing industry.

Most fishers surveyed and interviewed were concerned that the value of their business assets had declined since the announcement of the draft marine reserves.

A strong and consistent theme raised by survey respondents, interviewees and focus group participants was the cumulative impacts for the fishing industry. They indicated that the industry has undergone significant change in the past 20 years and, when combined with the many external pressures, such as changes in market demand, high exchange rates and increasing input costs, the viability of many fishing businesses was jeopardised.

75


5 Personal and community impactsSurvey respondents expected a number of community and personal impacts to occur if the draft marine reserves were declared. Many of the comments about impacts reflect people’s attempts to understand what the changes would mean for themselves, their families and their communities. Note that there is inherent uncertainty when predicting or speculating about the future based on what respondents know of the proposed changes, their current personal circumstances and that of their communities.

Personal impactsPersonal impacts are discussed in terms of three response options indicated by respondents:

Groups 1: Stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall fishing in other areas, or move into an alternative fishery

Group 2: Continue operating with reduced catch or downsize operation

Group 3: Leave the fishing industry.

The caveats regarding the survey frame discussed at the start of the previous chapter (Impacts on fishing businesses) also apply to this chapter. References are made to case studies where relevant.

Personal impacts—Group 1 Thirty-five respondents indicated that they would stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall in other areas, or move to an alternative fishery, in response to the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. Most of these respondents indicated the following personal impacts (Figure 10):

Increased stress levels.

Working longer hours.

Less time to spend with family.

Family quality of life will suffer.

Most respondents in this group did not indicate an intention to move to a new area or a new town if the draft marine reserves were declared.

76


Figure 10 Indirect personal impacts for respondents who indicated they would continue operating by making up the shortfall or moving into an alternative fishery

I will move to a new town

I will need to move my family to a new area

My family's quality of life will suffer as a result of this change

I will have less time to spend with my family

I will have to work longer hours

My stress levels will increase

0 20 40 60 80 100




Personal impacts—Group 2 Eleven respondents indicated that they would continue operating with reduced catch or downsize their operation in response to the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. Most of these respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the following personal impacts would occur if the draft marine reserves were declared (Figure 11):

My family’s quality of life will suffer.

My stress levels will increase.

I will have to work longer hours.

I will have less time to spend with my family.

This suggests that most respondents in this group believed there would be significant personal impacts resulting from their response option of continuing in the fishery with a reduced catch. Most respondents in this group did not indicate an intention to move to a new area or a new town.

The heightened stress levels and impacts on personal relationships and family are themes that also emerge in the case studies (see Case study: Esperance).

77


Figure 11 Indirect personal impacts for respondents who indicated they would continue operating with a reduced catch

I will need to move to a new town


I have the skills to find a second job

I will have less time to spend with my family

I will have to work longer hours


My family's quality of life will suffer as a result of this change

0 20 40 60 80 100




Personal impacts—Group 3Thirteen respondents indicated that they would leave the fishing industry in response to the draft North Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. The majority of these respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they would experience the following personal impacts (Figure 12):

My stress levels will increase.

My partner/spouse will have to find or increase their employment.

It will place considerable stress on my family and relationships.

There are considerable risks in the changes I am planning.

These results are reflected in the case studies. The Windy Harbour case study illustrates the emotional and psychological impacts on fishers and their families from the changes. Several of the fishers said they would be likely to leave the industry if the reserves were declared. Some fishers said their plans to use the fishing business as their retirement package would be affected if the marine reserves were declared, causing them stress. The impacts of these changes are likely to be heightened in such a small community in a remote area where there are limited options available to find alternative employment or sell the business.

78


The case study of the vertically integrated fishing business shows how reduced viability of the business and the difficulty in selling the business if the draft marine reserves were declared can increase stress levels of the individual owner–operator and their family.

Figure 12 Indirect personal impacts for respondents who indicated they would leave the fishing industry

I will still be able to make a living

I am enthusiastic about leaving the industry

I will retire

I will move to a new town


I have the skills to find another job

I will look for alternative employment

There are considerable risks in the changes I am planning

It will place considerable stress on my family and relationships

My partner/spouse will have to find or increase their employment


0 20 40 60 80 100




Ability to adapt—personalThe ability to adapt includes the potential inherent capacities that enable people to adapt to manage change and cope with stress. Questions in the survey were specifically aimed at understanding the extent to which respondents felt connected to their communities, how they respond to challenges, their confidence in their skill levels and their ability to assess their own health (Figure 13). These factors can provide insight into the personal ability of respondents to adapt. Between 76 and 80 respondents answered these questions.

Most survey respondents had strong community connections, with 46 respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that people in their community were willing to help each other out, and 66 respondents saying they feel part of their local community. Most respondents (40) said they did unpaid work for a community group in the last 12 months and were an active member of a

79


local community group. These results suggest that respondents have some degree of social capital—the social ties and reciprocal bonds that bind a community together—to draw on, which could assist them in responding and adapting to change.

The survey results suggest that most (51 respondents) were not confident in their ability to find alternative employment if they needed to. However, many felt that they have skills that they could use in other industries and that there were other income opportunities for them (Figure 13). For example, many respondents agreed or strongly agreed that:

I have job skills I can use in other industries (22 respondents)

I have other income opportunities (16 respondents)

I have well-developed business skills (30 respondents).

As noted in the previous chapter, most respondents were concerned about the financial status of their fishing businesses, and many were at an age when they could retire, but might not be able to access superannuation or the pension. More than 60 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that:

thanks to my resourcefulness, I have been able to handle unforeseen situations in the past (47 respondents)

when faced with problems, I have confidence in my ability to find solutions (47 respondents).

These results suggest that many respondents have confidence in their ability to face challenges and manage changing circumstances. However, 38 respondents also agreed or strongly agreed that ‘I personally just can't cope with any more change’.

80


Figure 13 Ability to adapt—personal

My health is goodI don't want to give up fishing

When faced with problems, I have confidence in my ability to find solutionsPlanning, learning or reorganising doesn't seem 'exhausting' to me

I'm interested in adapting to the changes that occur in lifeThanks to my resourcefulness, I have been able to handle unforeseen situations in the past

I have people I can ask to help me when problems ariseI remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities

I personally just can't cope with any more changeI am an active member of a local community group

I have done unpaid work for a community group in the past 12 monthsI feel part of my local community

People around here are willing to help each other out

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagreePercentage of respondents


Community impacts Information about community impacts was largely derived from the focus groups and interviews with fishers and community members.

In large and small-scale regional centres and towns, it was reported that the tourist industry could be impacted if fishing activities were lost, because the commercial fishing industry is a tourist attraction and iconic part of the local tradition and culture in these areas. In Esperance and Windy Harbour there was concern about the potential loss of the sea rescue, general maritime surveillance and other community functions that the commercial fishers provide.

Many of the fishers are second and third generation fishers and want to keep the family tradition going. However, many are actively discouraging their children from thinking about employment in the fishing industry. The competitive advantage of employment in the mining sector means

81


that many are looking to that sector for employment. In Port Lincoln, some of the infrastructure and training institutions are changing focus from the fishing industry to offshore mining.

It was perceived by interviewees and focus group participants that there is a growing lack of investment confidence in the fishing industry, which is linked to the draft marine reserves network. This lack in confidence was seen to have flow-on effects to the rest of the community, potentially leading to fishing and fishing-related businesses closing or being put up for sale. There would also be flow-on impacts to communities adjacent to fishing communities through a loss of social and economic interactions.

Community and personal impacts summaryThere are several key messages that respondents identified in surveys, focus groups and interviews that relate to personal and community impacts and their ability to adapt:

Fishing is an important part of the identity of fishers. Personal impacts include increased stress on individuals, their families and personal relationships; having to work harder; and concerns about retirement, income, and whether they have the skills and capacity to adapt. In Windy Harbour, the impacts extend to house ownership (see Case study: Windy Harbour).

Small communities are likely to have more difficulty in managing and responding to the impacts of the draft marine reserves in comparison with medium to larger scale communities.

Stage of life, the number of dependants, financial security and transferable skills are all highlighted as key factors in determining a fisher’s ability to adapt.

The ability to adapt is an additional concern to changes that fishers are already making in response to pressures on the industry, including previous fisheries management changes and, in some cases, state marine reserve proposals.

Most respondents indicated that they had a level of personal and community support, and were resourceful and interested in adapting to change.

82


6 Case studiesThe purpose of the case studies was to provide a broader understanding of how potential impacts of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network would emerge at different levels. This provided a means of exploring potential impacts through a number of different perspectives, from an individual business’s perspective through to that of a community. Case study themes and topics were chosen through consultation with industry, state governments and the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC). Working Group members agreed on eight case studies, presented in this chapter across a range of key themes:

Port Lincoln

new and prospective fisheries

Esperance

Windy Harbour

vertically integrated business

charter vessel impacts—South Australia

Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery background

economic effects for two key subregions.

Telling the fisher’s story: a narrative approachA case study narrative approach was adopted for case studies 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The narrative case studies are specifically intended to 'tell the fisher's story' about potential impacts. For the most part, perceptions of impact have simply been reflected in the report. This approach provides a broader contextual understanding of the perceived impacts that representatives of fishing communities think they will experience as a result of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. A mixed-methods social science research methodology was used to develop these narratives, with material sourced from qualitative data from interviews and focus groups, with additional quantitative and qualitative data provided by the survey and literature.

Macroeconomic contextThe success of a fisheries operation depends on a wide range of factors, some of which are within the control of the operator, and many of which are outside their control. These include broader economic trends such as the exchange rate, the fuel price, competition for labour and international market effects. The following case studies should be read in this context.

Exchange rateThe value of the Australian dollar is outside the control of fisheries operators, but has been a significant factor in determining profitability, particularly in highly export dependent fisheries. The value of the Australian dollar relative to the value of the currencies of major trading partners can have a significant impact on the value of exported fisheries products. An appreciation of the Australian dollar (i.e. an increase in the value of the Australian dollar relative

83


to the currency of a trading partner) will make the price received by Australian producers decrease and make imports more competitive. A depreciation of the Australian dollar will result in an increase in the price received by Australian producers and make imports less competitive. Producers who supply domestic markets may also be affected if they compete with imported products. Since 2000, the Australian dollar has appreciated significantly, which has placed downward pressure on the price of Australian fisheries product exports (Figure 14) and made imports cheaper relative to domestically produced seafood.

Figure 14 Commonwealth fisheries gross value of production (GVP) and Australian dollar exchange rate, 2000–01 to 2009–10

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5Commonwealth fisheries GVP

Exchange rate

2009

-10

A$m

$A/$US

Data source: ABARES 2011b

The value of the Australian dollar is outside the control of fisheries operators, but has been a significant factor in determining profitability, particularly in highly export-dependent fisheries.

Fuel priceFuel is a major input to most fisheries businesses. For example, fuel accounted for approximately 26 per cent (in 2009–10) of average total cash costs in the Northern Prawn Fishery, and approximately 14 per cent (in 2008–09) in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (ABARES 2010, 2012a).

The price paid for fuel by fishers has been volatile in recent years (Figure 15). This has caused substantial uncertainty about costs for many fishers, placing additional pressure on the profitability of many fisheries operators.

84


Figure 15 Real average off-road diesel price, inclusive of farm rebates and subsidies, but excluding GST, 2000–01 to 2009–10

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2009

-10

cent

s/Lit

re

Data source: ABARES 2011a

Competition for labourThe competitive nature of the labour market and the need to compete with other industries has presented some issues for the fishing sector in attracting employees with desired skill sets. The Australian mining industry has grown strongly over the past decade, with the value of resources and energy exports increasing at an average annual rate of around 12 per cent from 2000–01 to 2010–11 (BREE 2011). This has increased labour demand from the industry, resulting in increased competition for labour economy-wide. This includes unskilled workers (who could be employed as fishing crew) and people with transferrable skills, such as skippers and engineers, resulting in some people leaving the fishing industry to work in the mining industry for higher and more secure income. Competition for labour from the mining industry is particularly relevant in Western Australia and Queensland, given the substantial mining industries in these states. This has placed additional pressure on some fishing operations where labour is a significant input to the production process.

International market effectsExporters of Australian seafood compete with other international seafood suppliers and, for many species, Australian producers are unable to influence the world price. Therefore, changes in supply in other countries can have a significant impact on the price that Australian producers receive for their product. For example, the increased supply of aquaculture shrimp from the developing world, particularly China, has resulted in downward pressure on shrimp prices.

85


Case study: Port LincolnThis case study examines the potential impact of the draft marine reserves network on residents of Port Lincoln, South Australia (SA). It is based on results from a focus group held in Port Lincoln, interviews with fishers and others within fishing supply chains in Port Lincoln and Adelaide in late July 2011, and survey results. Port Lincoln is an important centre for fishing and aquaculture and was identified as a potentially impacted town through the analysis of gross value of production (GVP) flows and supply chains (see Chapter 3: Flow of potential impacts to ports and supply chains).

Background to fishing businessesPort Lincoln, is a major centre for fishing (under both South Australian and Commonwealth jurisdiction) and aquaculture. A number of potentially impacted fishers are based here, including fishers from the Commonwealth Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF), the South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery and the South Australian Marine Scalefish Fishery. Fishers representing all these fisheries were interviewed and/or surveyed, as were operators of upstream or downstream businesses. Ten survey respondents reported Port Lincoln as their home port, and 14 people were interviewed. Of the 10 survey respondents, 3 were also processors, 2 were also wholesalers and 3 exported produce overseas.

There are also 14 charter boat operators in Port Lincoln; however, it is not clear if these operators would be impacted.

The reported average value of catch in 2010–11 was $250 000–1 million and businesses were valued, on the basis of their fishery business assets, at $500 000–5 million. On average, respondents had been fishing commercially for 35 years and their business had been operating for 34 years.

The main fishing grounds reported were around Port Lincoln, Streaky Bay, Kangaroo Island and the Great Australian Bight.

Port Lincoln has total GVP inflows of several hundred million dollars each year. The estimated displacement of GVP from product going through Port Lincoln was $264 000. Estimated potential displacement from adjacent fisheries linked to Port Lincoln was $184 000 for the Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery, $165 000 for the Marine Scalefish Fishery and $356 000 for the SESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector.

Fisher impacts Fishing activity in the Port Lincoln area has recently been restricted by:

proposed South Australian state marine reserves boundaries

recent reductions in South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery quotas

high Australia dollar decreasing export unit prices

new gillnet area closures for the Australian sea lion

previously declared Commonwealth marine reserves boundaries in the South-east Marine Region.

86


Fishers suggested that these factors would be compounded by the introduction of the draft Commonwealth marine reserves. To many, the new boundaries were seen as potentially being the ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’.

Business impactsFishers and business owners that support the fishing industry in Port Lincoln were concerned about the impacts of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network, particularly for the rock lobster, trawl and gillnet fisheries.

The South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery would be excluded from areas 3 and 4 of the draft Western Eyre marine reserve and from area 7 of the draft Great Australian Bight (extension) marine reserve. Area 4 was reported as important to lobster fishers, and also encompasses a key area in which leatherjacket are taken by the South Australian Marine Scalefish Fishery.

Many of the fishers interviewed likened the potential impacts of the draft Commonwealth marine reserves to impacts from previous quota reductions in the South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery or other restrictions they had faced in the past.

Immediate impacts anticipated as a result of the draft marine reserves included:

reduced catch—for example, some rock lobster fishers suggested they could lose a significant proportion of their historic fishing grounds

costs incurred in exploratory fishing to identify and research new fishing grounds

increased costs due to travelling further to replace catch lost through area closures

foregone opportunity, where reductions in the fishing area would result in a commensurate reduction in potential catch and therefore value of their assets (e.g. vessel, gear, and quota).

quota reductions due to smaller areas being available to supply quota

concentrating effort into smaller areas, thereby increasing pressure on resources and competition between fishers.

Following these immediate impacts, fishers defined longer term impacts of the draft marine reserves on their businesses as:

overall decline in business investment, making refinancing difficult

decline in business value and difficulty selling the business

increased competition with other fishers

retirement plans no longer being viable

uncertainty restricting their business options.

Supply chain impactsDownstream—processor, wholesale and retailPort Lincoln has well-developed infrastructure to support fishing (e.g. diesel mechanics, refrigeration, fuel, boating, fishing equipment supplies), processing and retail facilities. Port Lincoln–based fishers also supply wholesale, processing and retail businesses in Adelaide.

87


This loss of product through Port Lincoln would impact processors linked to the potentially impacted fisheries. One Port Lincoln–based processor suggested the number of processors in the town had reduced in recent years. A lot of fish are not processed in Port Lincoln and go directly to domestic and international markets. If catches were reduced, processors said they may not have viable options for replacing product. Processers commented that without an adequate supply of local fish they would be out of business, and could not identify viable business alternatives. It should be noted that until reserves are declared and fishing businesses operate under these new conditions, it is difficult to determine the degree of impact on downstream businesses.

An Adelaide–based fisher/processor/retailer said the scale of the impact was difficult to estimate. However, the extent of the impact could be far-reaching as they have bases in Western Australia (WA) and Streaky Bay (SA); factories in Port Lincoln, Adelaide and Victoria; and employ approximately 100.

Upstream suppliers and servicing Upstream suppliers of fishing equipment, resources and servicing expected impacts from the draft marine reserves network. One mechanic estimated up to 30 per cent of his business may be fishers who operate in the draft marine reserves area. Specific impacts suggested were:

less boats operating because of the sale of fishing businesses

amalgamation of two licences onto one boat, which means that equipment from two boats is consolidated onto one, resulting in less need for equipment and servicing.

Suppliers interviewed were small business owners facing the following potential impacts:

reductions in staff and reluctance to put on new staff

working longer hours (including not taking holidays)

delaying retirement (suppliers interviewed were in the older age bracket)

concerns over being able to sell the business in the current climate.

Businesses that were entirely or mostly dedicated to supporting the fishing industry, such as chandleries and boat mechanics, were considered to be most at risk.

Community impactsIn 2006, the consolidated fishing industry (comprising commercial fishing, aquaculture, fish wholesaling and seafood processing) employed 12.03 per cent of the workforce in the Port Lincoln statistical local area (SLA) (ABS 2006), which is the second highest of any SLA in Australia. The fishing and offshore aquaculture industries employ 5.47 per cent of the workforce in the Port Lincoln SLA. Other important industries in the town include store-based retailing (7.47 per cent), preschool and school education (5.98 per cent), and construction services (5.2 per cent) (ABS 2006). Note that statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) are believed to under-report the number of employees in the fishing industry by allocating them to other industries (FRDC 2004). Fishing is also important to the culture of the community, and forms an important part of the town’s identity and tourist attractions.

Focus group members said that investment confidence in the fishing industry was at a low point and that this lack of investment confidence flows on to the rest of the community. They reported that businesses were affected by the proposed state marine reserves and other restrictions to

88


the fishing industry, to the extent that businesses were closing. A large marine supplier had closed recently and focus group members said that two more in town were for sale.

Businesses that represented luxury spending, such as restaurants and florists, were also being impacted by changes in the fishing industry, and focus group members suggested that many of these businesses had closed or were thinking of closing.

Participants expressed concern about impacts on the fishing culture of the town, with children being actively discouraged from thinking about employment in the fishing industry. Many young people are leaving the town, and fishers suggested that it was a combination of the lack of fishing industry opportunities and high-paying mining jobs elsewhere that were drawing them away.

Another issue for the town was the significant infrastructure being established for offshore mining facilities. For example, marine-based training, such as safety and boat handling training, which was previously targeted at the fishing industry, is now also focusing on training for the offshore mining industry. Some people saw this as competition for the fishing industry.

Ability to adaptFor most fishers, adaptation would involve dealing with reduced catch and the other issues this brought, as discussed earlier. Many had already considered selling their businesses. The most concerned fishers were those where the entire family and even extended family were involved in the business and therefore had no other income streams. Stresses on families due to the changing circumstances for fishers was apparent, with some fishers saying that conflict over whether to stay or leave the industry had pushed people to consider divorce.

Some fishers were concerned about what they would do if they left the fishing business. These individuals stressed that they would not be leaving the industry by choice, and expressed a sense of powerlessness about future prospects.

In general, fishers with small businesses expressed uncertainty about their future and were not positive about opportunities to adapt, while those representing larger businesses were less likely to say they would be forced to leave the industry but, nevertheless, expected financial impacts, including a time of adjustment that would incur costs.

Stakeholder views on how the Commonwealth government can assistBetter communication of the rationale behind the draft marine reserves networkFishers and supply chain business operators frequently said they were not confident that the rationale behind the boundaries had been adequately thought through or explained. Fishers expressed their confidence in recent efforts to maintain the sustainability of fish stocks, and many expressed confusion about why marine reserves were required on top of these existing efforts.

Structural adjustment assistanceA number of fishers commented on the role of structural adjustment assistance. This related to mediating impacts on individual businesses and reducing pressure on the remaining fishery (after restrictions). Upstream suppliers also commented on the need for adjustment support, particularly as they saw their businesses reducing in value with further restriction in the industry.

89


Improved collaboration Some individuals, usually from larger businesses, felt that they had adequate opportunity to comment on the draft Commonwealth marine reserves process. Others felt disempowered by the process. This was particularly true for the lobster fishing community, which predominantly comprises small businesses. To some extent, people felt that the boundaries had been imposed without sufficient investigation and without full use of valuable local knowledge. Respondents advocated for a more iterative and formative approach with the community to avoid the sense of disempowerment.

90


Case study: New and prospective fisheriesThe potential impact of the draft marine reserves network on existing, well-established fisheries can be assessed through a combination of catch and GVP displacement analyses, social surveys and economic modelling. However, the impact on fisheries prospectivity (i.e. fisheries that have not yet developed or those that are still developing) cannot be easily quantified.

This qualitative case study explores the potential impact of the draft marine reserves on prospectivity. Examples are given from several existing fisheries in the South-west Marine Region where operators have indicated they are looking to move to different fishing grounds, employ different techniques and target different species. An example is also given of an operator who has recently invested heavily in a small fishery and substantially increased production.

Fisheries' prospectivity can affect the value of a licence, fishing area or other fishery resource. Fishers have stated that when trading licences they are valued not only on what catches have been achieved, but also on potential catches that could be taken in the future. It has been suggested that this prospective value is more evident in fisheries where there are management arrangement that actively limit capacity (e.g. limited entry or quotas), have low levels of latent (i.e. unused) capacity and large geographical areas available for exploration and development.

The Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector of the SESSF has been identified by industry as having significant prospectivity. Industry maintains that using historical GVP displacement to place a value on the impact is unlikely to accurately reflect the future value of the fishery and that the loss of prospectivity from the creation of marine reserves that impact a significant proportion of the trawlable areas of the fishery will reduce the value of fishing permits.

Operators in the Great Australian Bight Trawl Fishery (GABTF) have argued that the draft South-west Corner and Eastern Recherche reserves between 115°E and 124°E will have a significant impact on access rights, the value of statutory fishing rights, operational flexibility and the ability to adapt to climate change, and will have other impacts. The GABTF operates primarily on the edge of the continental shelf and on the upper continental slope, between depths of 200 metres and 1200 metres. An analysis has shown that approximately 60 per cent of this area, between 115°E and 124°E—nearly 500 nautical miles—potentially available to trawling would be lost to fishing using demersal trawl. In addition to the direct impacts as measured by potential direct displacement of catch and GVP, industry has indicated that the draft marine reserves would essentially render the entire area of the fishery west of 124°E (the eastern Recherche reserve) unviable, due to the costs of travelling to the limited areas remaining open to fishing. Industry has indicated that this far western area is prospective for a range of potential slope species and the sustainable future harvest of orange roughy (should such a harvest be recommended scientifically).

GABTF operators have identified the western stock of gemfish and blue grenadier on the upper slope as having scope for development and increased levels of catch in future.

Another example of prospectivity is of a fishery moving away from a target species, and then moving back to it. For example, interest in orange roughy in the Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector (GABTS) increased in the late 1980s when commercial quantities of orange roughy were discovered. Catches peaked in 1989 (when up to 27 boats were permitted to target the species), then declined rapidly and have remained low since the fishery was limited to a maximum of 10 boats. Further management changes in 2007 closed areas of the fishery where approximately 97 per cent of the orange roughy catch was historically taken. Renewed orange roughy fishing

91


will be dependent on the outcomes of scientific stock assessments and would be subject to a quota. Industry has indicated that the draft marine reserves, in addition to the existing fisheries management closures over known orange roughy ‘grounds,’ would have a considerable impact on the prospects of the fishery and the value of statutory fishing rights.

The area draft for the South-west Corner marine reserve supported large catches of tuna in the late 1980s and again through the late 1990s to the early 2000s. A joint arrangement initiated in 1987 for Japanese longline, large-capacity vessels to fish within the region was terminated in 1997. After this, the domestic Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery developed, with 28 vessel in 1998 and 51 in 2000 when catches for the domestic fishery peaked at 3700. However, due to low prices and high operating costs, effort declined sharply, and by 2008 there was only one active vessel in the fishery (Wilson et al. 2010). Participation has remained low since then with only four active vessels in 2009; currently, only two vessels are actively fishing in the region. Given the history of fishing, areas of the South-west Corner reserve have clear prospectivity value.

Licence holders in the Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery are exploring the option of expanding fishing activity to target bigeye tuna in the temperate waters near the draft South-west Corner marine reserve. A main driver for this is the suitability of bigeye tuna for the sashimi market because its high fat content attracts better returns. Tasmanian Seafoods is one company that has indicated their intention to target bigeye tuna. The company currently owns approximately 23 per cent of the total quota in the Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery across mixed species, and holds 25 boat statutory fishing rights. Tasmanian Seafoods intends to lease substantially more quota and contract a company that has Taiwanese and Japanese longline vessels to fish the cumulative allocation. Because this has not yet occurred, prospectivity is not well reflected in the recent fishery data used to calculate potential displacement.

Industry in the Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery has stated that the separation of the South-west and North-west marine reserve processes presents a problem when considering potential displacement impacts (i.e. cumulative impacts). The regions are fished at different times and provide different target species (e.g. bigeye tuna and broadbill swordfish are caught only in the South-west Marine Region, while yellowfin tuna is caught predominantly in the North-west Marine Region) and therefore contribute separately to the whole Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery. One operator indicated that exclusion of the fishery by the South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network would potentially result in an unviable fishery because the North-west Marine Region produces lower quality products (at higher volumes) that could not support the industry sufficiently (C Hammond, pers. comm., 2012). It has been suggested that the dynamic nature of world economic trends will mean that the fishery has significant potential to continue to expand but that this requires the area to be considered holistically.

The Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery provides a good example of the dynamic nature of some fisheries (see Case study: Vertically integrated fishing business). This fishery remained quite small for most of the past decade but increased dramatically in 2010 following the development (or redevelopment) of scallop grounds at several sites.

There are other examples of prospectivity where fishers have plans to move to different fishing grounds, employ different techniques and target different species. These include the operators in the Western Australian West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery (WCDGDLF) and the Joint Authority Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery (JASDGLF) who are shifting from gillnets to longline with aspirations to fish deeper water to the west of the Abrolhos Islands (in the case of the WCDGDLF) and further offshore around the draft South-west Corner marine reserve (in the case of the JASDGLF) (CFA et al. 2011).

92


Clearly, it is not always easy to predict the likely development of new fisheries or new approaches to fishing. However, where such intentions exist, this case study has sought to bring them to light.

93


Case study: EsperanceBased on ABARES analysis of flow of GVP from draft marine reserves (Table 4), Esperance was the landing port for the third largest amount of GVP that would potentially be displaced by the draft marine reserve network. This case study explores the potential impacts of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on a community of fishers, processors and service providers in Esperance, WA. Information used in this case study was obtained from surveys, interviews and a focus group of 12 people, comprising commercial fishers, processors and representatives from the Esperance community.

General background to EsperanceEsperance is one of the major Western Australian south-coast ports that underpins much of the region’s economic activity and provides benefits to south-coast communities, catchments and WA. In 2008, the estimated population of the Shire of Esperance was 14 443 people (South Coast Regional Marine Planning Working Group 2010).

Esperance is known as a fishing community. It is a growing town (ABS 2006) and is seen primarily as a transport hub, with major industries around the port, tourism and, to a lesser extent, fisheries. A study of the value of marine-associated industries in the Esperance region reported that commercial fishing contributes around $8.1 million in value to the local economy and employs around 50 people (Figure 16; Lazarow & Noriega 2005).

The estimated displacement of GVP flowing through Esperance was between $278 000 and $473 000 (mean annual 2000–10). This comprised primarily catches from the Western Australian Esperance Southern Rock Lobster Fishery and the Western Australian Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery.

Figure 16 Value of marine-associated industries to Esperance

Commercial fishing, $8 187 000

Aquaculture, $37 000

Shipping, $24 196 000

Tourism, $7 208 100

Recreational fishing, $3 800 000

Other commercial activities, $500 000

Data source: Lazarow & Noriega 2005

94


Background to fishing businessesFishers in this area own licences in several fisheries, notably the Western Australian Esperance Rock Lobster, West Coast Rock Lobster, Deep Sea Crab and Joint Authority Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline fisheries. Survey respondents reported seven fishing businesses in Esperance that together hold nine licences; however, only around half of these licences were actively used.

Fishing businesses reported their asset values of $0.5-2 million and annual catch for 2010–11 of $0.25-2.5 million. There are two main processing facilities in the Esperance area, both of which primarily export product.

The majority of Esperance-based survey respondents identified themselves as second or third generation fishers. Conversely, the two main seafood processors moved to the region within the past six years.

Those who participated in the survey or interviews together employed 21 full-time, 7 part-time and 12 seasonal workers. It was noted that this has declined in recent years.

Impacts Esperance fishers suggested they lacked the political clout of other stakeholder groups such as the oil and gas industry. Consequently, there was a high level of stress associated with the impacts of the marine reserves network because interviewees did not believe that they would be able to influence shifts in boundaries

Reserve impacts The draft Eastern Recherche marine reserve (particularly areas 11 and 13) potentially has the greatest impact on the Esperance fishing community. Surveyed fishers reported that a significant percentage of their total landed catch was taken from this marine reserve in 2010–11. Some also reported that they would be impacted by the draft South-west Corner marine reserve, but to a lesser extent.

Impacted fisheriesSurveyed fishers suggested that the Western Australian Esperance Rock Lobster and South Coast Deep Sea Crab fisheries would be the main fisheries impacted. While this is consistent with ABARES fishery analysis for the Esperance Rock Lobster Fishery, it contrasts to the results for the South Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery, for which the ABARES analysis shows no displacement from the adjacent marine reserves.

One interviewed fisher who is active in the Joint Authority Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery played down the impact of the draft marine reserves network on his business because he also held endorsements to fish the Esperance Rock Lobster Fishery and the Deep Sea Crab Fishery. The fisher suggested that he would be able to make up lost income in these fisheries and by fishing other areas of the Joint Authority Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery.

Survey respondents believed that the target species were being fished at sustainable levels. They suggested that the marine reserves were being established as a fisheries management tool and so were critical of the benefits of the draft marine reserves.

95


Displacement Fishers suggested that displacement of fishing led to an overall reduction of approximately 30–40 per cent in rock lobster catch and concentrated effort in all impacted fisheries to other areas. The potential GVP displacement for the Esperance Southern Zone Rock Lobster fishery was difficult to estimate accurately due to large spatial reporting grids. Estimates ranged from $87 000 to $377 000, or up to 18.9 per cent of the fishery.

Interviewed fishers expressed concern that displacement could lead to new management rules and have flow-on impacts to operators who were not displaced by the marine reserves network, and therefore were not engaged in the marine bioregional planning process. Interviewees also expressed concern that the draft marine reserves would be mirrored inside the Recherche Archipelago by the Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation.

Interviewees expressed concern that some of the best rock lobster grounds occur in draft areas 11 and 13 of the draft Eastern Recherche marine reserve. They suggested that costs of fishing are likely to remain the same but that income will reduce.

Fishing business impactsFishers estimated that 5–7 boats and 20–25 people from Esperance fishing businesses would potentially be impacted by the draft marine reserves network. Overall, the anticipated impacts of the draft marine reserves on the businesses were described as:

increased travel times

increased costs for fuel

increased number of operational hours required to obtain the same amount of catch

limited ability to operate in a different fishery due to management arrangements restricting the number of licences

increased pressure on open areas

fall in the value of assets

reduced profit margin and the potential that it will be uneconomical to fish

loss of income leading to reduced ability to meet financial commitments

loss of local knowledge of fishing grounds and subsequent time required to find new grounds and develop a sustainable business.

Of the five fishers who responded to the survey, one said that they would leave the industry, one said that they would continue operating with reduced catch, two said that they would stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall from other areas, and one did not believe that he would experience too many impacts as his business was more diversified.

Fishing businesses reported that reduced available fishing area, and therefore reduced potential catch and profit, is leading to increased uncertainty around their viability. This is impacting on future investments and business plans, with some people in the process of selling their business or considering this as an option.

Processors suggested that they would be particularly exposed to lost fishing grounds through the creation of marine reserves because they have few alternative suppliers to source fish from. One processor already has the business on the market and observed that the business is

96


becoming less viable. They observed that potential investors are walking away as a result of the draft marine reserves. Another processor commented that six years ago he was confident of passing on his business to his son and then retiring. However, he is now very concerned that the business is no longer viable and that retiring is no longer an option in the short term.

Individual (personal) impactsThe impacts on individual fishers in the Esperance region are summarised as:

loss of projected income and asset value impacting retirement plans

stresses created in personal relationships and family

loss of hopes and plans to pass on the fishing business to children; some fishers are encouraging their children to follow non-fishing career paths.

Community impactsThe impacts on the Esperance region are summarised as follows:

Perceived loss of fishing industry from the region: representatives from the Esperance region fishing industry care about the fishing industry in Australia, and see it as a significant and iconic part of Australian tradition and culture, as well as an important aspect to tourism in the region.

Loss of skilled employees and secure employment: many are second and third generation fishers and want to keep the family tradition going, as well as pass on their specialist knowledge. Survey respondents identified themselves as having specialised skills and knowledge specific to south-coast weather conditions and rock lobster fishing that would be lost if there was no one to pass them on to. There appears to be limited incentives for new or young people to enter or stay in the fishing industry, particularly against the competition from the mining sector.

Possible loss of sea rescue service and provision of a general surveillance function.

Survey respondents also outlined mixed benefits to the local (non-fisher) community:

The distant location of the draft marine reserves means limited access for locals and tourists and therefore has minimal benefits to them.

There was concern that closing areas would result in fishers not accessing some areas and therefore not being able to contribute their knowledge of the area to research and marine management.

Positive benefits for the broader marine environment.

Ability to adaptInformation from the surveys and interviews indicate that the ability of Esperance-based fishers to adapt to potential changes through the draft marine reserves is highly varied. Several fishers indicated that they are in a good financial situation or have the capacity to make the necessary changes. These fishers have diversified their fishing businesses, and therefore have some flexibility to manage the potential impacts of the draft marine reserves.

Other fishers, particularly those who have greater financial commitments or primarily operate in the Esperance Rock Lobster Fishery, had more mixed responses, some indicating that they had less capacity to adapt. This could mean selling off fishing entitlements, relocating the business to

97


a different port or town, or leaving the business and finding work in the oil and gas sector. Fishers all commented on the increased stress levels for themselves and their personal relationships that would result from the need to make these changes. Fishers identified this as being on top of other pressures such as rising input costs, finding reliable skilled staff and increased competition from cheaper fish from overseas.

Personal story of limited options for adaptationOne fisher highlighted the difficulties associated with having a low level of literacy and computer skills while trying to manage the impacts of the marine reserve process. This fisher struggles to use the internet to gain access to information and had difficulty providing a written submission to SEWPaC.

A low level of literacy combined with a narrow skills base (highly specific fishing skills) is proving problematic for this particular fisher. This person is exploring options for work in the oil and gas industry as he expects the draft marine reserves network to substantially impact his fishing business. However, due to low level of literacy, narrow field of expertise and lack of formal qualifications, he feels poorly placed to compete for jobs in this, or other, sectors.

This fisher indicated that he is currently feeling very 'flat' and 'low'. At the time of the interview, he suggested that he would normally be making an effort to prepare his boat for the season but, with all the uncertainty related to the draft marine reserves, has not felt motivated to get started. The fisher identified the added stress that his employees depend on him for employment and are keen for the business to continue.

In summary, while many of the Esperance fishers reported a reasonable capacity to adapt to impacts from the draft marine reserves, there were variable responses as to what action they might take in the future—ranging from not needing to make too many changes to leaving the industry—depending on their individual situations and what fisheries they participate in.

Stakeholder views on how the Australian government can assistMany fishers commented that they support marine reserves in principle. However, they were unhappy with the current boundaries of the draft marine reserves network and suggested amendments to it:

Fishers clearly indicated that structural adjustment assistance should be made available for businesses impacted by the marine reserves network.

Interviewees reported that they felt the importance of the fishing industry to local culture, society and economy was not adequately recognised, nor were efforts by fishers to fish sustainably.

98


Case study: Windy HarbourThis case study focuses on fishers in the small town of Windy Harbour (Map 14), on the south coast of WA. It is based on quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews of fishers based in Windy Harbour and contributions provided at a focus group held in Augusta, in early August 2011. Windy Harbour was identified through consultation as having several fishers with high levels of potential impact, as well as a set of personal and business circumstances that increased its vulnerability.

Map 14 Map of the south-west corner of Western Australia

Zoning is described in Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods

General background to Windy HarbourWindy Harbour is primarily a holiday settlement with a small permanent population of approximately 25 people, most of whom are commercial fishers. Approximately 220 cottages have been developed on individual leases since the early 1900s. Leasehold tenure, seasonal occupation and a strong community spirit characterise the town. Windy Harbour is the only two-wheel drive access to the south coast between Augusta and Walpole (100 kilometres east), and provides the safest anchorage along this stretch of coast. A new concrete boat ramp is being built at Windy Harbour that will make it easier to launch and retrieve vessels. The Windy Harbour Sea Rescue Group has a vessel located there.

The estimated displacement of GVP from product going through Windy Harbour was between $7100 and $66 600. Area 18 in the draft South-west Corner marine reserve is likely to have the largest impact on Windy Harbour fishers (Map 2).

99


Background to fishing businessesThere are four households of first generation commercial fishers who operate out of Windy Harbour. They have been fishing for between 8 and 40 years, and are all full-time owner–operators with small-scale operations. Business asset value ranged from $60 000 to $500 000, while the total landed catch in 2010–11 ranged from less than $50 000–250 000.

A total of 13 people are employed by these businesses. Survey results indicated that 10 people were employed full-time, although fishing season lasts for approximately nine months. The weather is considered to be too severe during the winter months for fishing.

One fisher holds a licence for both the Joint Authority Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery and the Western Australian Open Access Fishery, while the other three fishers only hold a permit for the Open Access Fishery. The Western Australian state government is presently reviewing the Open Access Fishery and proposes to make it a managed fishery with catch restrictions and limited entry. As such, fishers operating in this fishery are uncertain as to how the review will impact on them, in addition to planning and responding to the draft Commonwealth marine reserves.

Fishers commented that they make efforts to fish sustainably by being selective in the fish they take and operating under management rules set up for sustainability. As such, they expressed confusion about the purpose of the marine reserves, and annoyance that marine reserves were being brought in when they already saw their fisheries as being sustainable.

Supply chainMost of the fishers generally provide their own ice, motor and boat repairs, and maintenance for their businesses. Fuel is sourced from local towns, and more substantial gear and marine accessories are obtained from further afield, mainly in Perth and Fremantle but also from Augusta and Albany.

Fish are landed at Windy Harbour, and much of the product is transported to processors and markets at Pemberton, Manjimup, Margaret River and Perth. It was emphasised by survey respondents that the restaurant and tourism industry of south-west WA values being able to source local fish for their businesses.

ImpactsBusiness impactsWindy Harbour fishers reported that the draft marine reserves network would lead to reductions in total catches.

Fishers stressed that they have already experienced area closures and that the impact of the draft marine reserves network would further impact them by reducing available fishing area, increase steaming time (and therefore reduce possible fishing time) and present difficulties in learning how to fish new areas. There was also concern that restrictions are being imposed on a relatively undeveloped industry in this region.

Survey respondents reported that fishery management has so far been sustainable and that fishers have been making an effort to pass the industry on to the next generation in a good shape.

The individuals who participated in the survey and interviews defined the impacts of the draft marine reserves on their businesses as:

100


probable reduced value of vessels, fishing licences, plant and equipment, vehicles and processing infrastructure

increased travel time to fishing areas and corresponding increased wear on boats and equipment

increased time and effort needed to look for new areas to fish when it is thought that many of the areas remaining open are relatively unproductive

concentrated fishing effort into smaller areas, which will increase pressure on stocks and may lead to conflict between fishers

difficulty selling their fishing businesses due to lack of interested buyers

potential need to relocate fishing business or move to a new town

perception of a ‘cloud of uncertainty’ hanging over them restricting their business aspirations and options.

Three of the Windy Harbour fishers said the draft closure of fishing grounds will make their businesses unviable and ultimately mean closing their businesses. Survey respondents suggested that very few people are interested in entering the fishing industry due to the many restrictions and challenges, together with the perception that the mining sector offers far better pay and conditions. As a result, fishers anticipate having difficulty selling their fishing business.

An additional uncertainty for fishers in the Western Australian Open Access Fishery is the current Western Australian Government Wetline Review, which will define eligibility criteria for the managed fishery that will replace the Open Access Fishery. For one fisher, this process, in combination with the draft marine reserve network has major implications for his future business plans. It will determine whether he invests in a bigger boat to be able to stay out for longer, which has flow-on implications to his son’s involvement in the business. The fisher reported that his son is currently following a different career path due to the uncertainties in the fishing industry.

Individual (personal) impactsSurvey respondents reported that impact would be heightened by the remoteness of the community, the small, permanent population and the limited options available to adapt to the draft marine reserves network.

Fishers expressed concern about finding other employment because there are limited opportunities in the area. The nearest town, Augusta, is approximately 170 kilometres away and there are likely to be limited employment opportunities available there. As a result, all the fishers are considering leaving the area. A fourth fisher, who is in a strong financial position with no debt, envisages that he will stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall from fishing other areas, but also suggested that he may have to relocate.

The psychological and emotional impacts of these possibilities are summarised as:

individual and family stress levels will increase

mental health issues.

One fisher commented that it is unlikely many fishers would admit to their emotional and psychological struggles. The fisher suggested that more people are severely impacted by stress from the draft marine reserves than are speaking about it.

101


Some survey respondents had been planning to use their businesses as their retirement packages. They see their business losing value due to the draft marine reserves, with an equivalent loss in their retirement savings.

Another area of concern has to do with the hopes and plans of business owners to pass on the fishing business to their children. Several survey respondents said that was no longer possible as their children did not want to take the business on. One interviewee reported that this situation was causing them stress and affecting relationships in the family.

A significant impact at a personal level has to do with the fishers' house leases in Windy Harbour. To limit competition and therefore make housing affordable for commercial fishers in the area, one of the leasing conditions states that the tenant must be a commercial fisherman. Should their fishing businesses become unviable due to the draft marine reserves, the fishers will be unable to sell the lease because no one would be able to fish commercially and therefore would be unable to buy the lease.

Community impactsImpacts on the community from the draft marine reserves as perceived by those interviewed can be summarised as:

flow-on impacts to the local tourism industry because the local fishing culture attracts tourists

fishers enjoy the remote, quiet, close-knit lifestyle the town offers and would have the challenge of starting all over again if they were displaced

loss of the sea rescue function and other community functions that the commercial fishers provide

flow-on losses to nearby communities through social and economic interactions.

Ability to adaptWindy Harbour fishers have variable adaptive capacity, depending on a number of factors such as stage of life, the number of dependants they have, financial security and transferable skills. Some survey respondents viewed the situation as critical with seemingly limited options. The issue of their house leases being tied to their fishing activities was central for all survey respondents.

All of the fishers have been responding to increased challenges to their fishing businesses over recent years. Some of the current issues affecting the businesses include rising input costs, challenges accessing skilled labour and changing management. Some survey respondents suggested dealing with these challenges in the past has led to them being less able to adapt to further challenges.

Stakeholder views on how the Australian Government can assistMany respondents agree with marine reserves in principle; however, most did not agree with all the draft boundaries. Suggestions as to how the government can assist fishers included:

structural adjustment assistance to assist with fishing business assets that have lost value due to the draft Commonwealth marine reserves

community-level assistance (e.g. ‘community building’ projects—town halls, new tourism programs, community services assistance to fund sea rescue, emergency services)

102


personal transition assistance

counselling, business advice and legal advice

new skills development

assistance in negotiating with Manjimup Shire to have the conditions of their leases altered so that it no longer requires them to be commercial fishers

relocation assistance.

103


Case study: Vertically integrated fishing business This case study explores the potential impact(s) of the draft Perth Canyon and South-west Corner marine reserves on a vertically integrated fishing business in Fremantle, WA.

Information used in the case study was collected and analysed from a survey of fishers and qualitative interviews with fishers throughout August and September 2011 as part of the Commonwealth social impact assessment process. The owner–operator of the business provided insights about the likely effects of the draft marine reserves on his business.

Background to the fisheryThe Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery (SWTF) is a multi-species fishery containing two of WA’s smaller scallop fishing grounds near Fremantle and north of Geographe Bay (Kangas et al. 2010). Fourteen vessels are licensed to fish in the SWTF, however, only a small number of boats have been active in recent years. The total area impacted by fishing in the SWTF is thought to be confined to a small area of fishable scallop grounds on sandy habitats (Fletcher & Santoro 2010). While the total recorded scallop landings have been highly variable over the past 20 years, the fishery underwent a large expansion in 2010.

Potential annual average displacement of the SWTF was estimated at $106 500 (10-year average); however, the estimate for 2010 was $700 000 because of the rapid growth of the fishery. Estimates are uncertain because of the large-scale reporting grids and the small scale of the scallop beds.

Structure of the businessThe integrated business has three components: a consultancy, a fishing business and a processing business. The consultancy is the overarching business and owns part of the fishing business. The fishing business and processing business are linked through the processing business being a partner in the fishing business.

Fishing businessThe current fishing business has operated for 12 months in the SWTF. It lands scallop, king prawn, whiting, flounder, flathead, squid, sole and goat fish. Approximately 80 per cent of this catch was taken from within the draft Perth Canyon marine reserve.

In the 2010–11 financial year the consultancy and fishing business employed 3 full-time, 1 part-time, 12 casual and 4 seasonal workers. The owner–operator indicated that the fishing business currently has assets valued at over $1 million.

Inputs to the fishing business are sourced from businesses in Fremantle, Henderson and Canning Vale in WA. The fishing business supplies domestic markets in WA, SA and Victoria.

Processing businessThe processing business holds a share of the fishing business. The fishing business is the catcher and subcontracts the processing of its catch to the processing business. Currently, the processing business relies on the fishing business for a significant proportion of its business. The processing provides seasonal (4 months) employment of five days per week to 12–15 workers. People employed are a mixture of locals—mainly students— and transitory people.

104


Consultancy businessThis business provides goods and services to commercial fishing businesses across the South-west Marine Region, including fishing gear technologies, fishing strategies, and the supply of oils and lubricants.

Business impactsThere are multiple ways in which the integrated businesses may be impacted by the draft marine reserves network. Some are direct impacts on the individual businesses while other impacts will result from the financial links between the businesses.

Impact on the fishing businessThe owner–operator identified impacts on the fishing business as:

loss of around 80 per cent of fishing area—the owner–operator suggested this loss could not be made up in other areas and would render the fishing business unviable

reduced value of vessels, licences and gear—this concern has already been realised with the completion and acquisition of a recently commissioned second vessel currently on hold

delayed decisions to action business plans in a climate of uncertainty—challenges to maintain their bank’s confidence in the businesses and therefore access to funds has made it difficult to follow through on business plans

need to reduce the number of employees and subsequent loss of highly skilled workers from the industry, where opportunities for employment in the fishing industry are already limited.

Impact on the processing businessAt present, the processing business relies on the fishing business for 75 per cent of its product. The main impacts on the processing business as a result of the draft marine reserves are:

need to source product from alternative fishing

possibility of closing the business in the short or longer term if replacement product could not be found.

Impact on the consultancy businessThe draft marine reserves network is likely to impact on the consultancy business through:

reduced demand for goods and services from external clients

reduced financial viability of the overall vertically integrated business because the consultancy is financially liable for the fishing business. If the fishing business was rendered unviable, the debt liability from the purchase of fishing licences and vessels would fall to the consultancy business. The consultancy business may not have the capacity to service this debt.

Ability to adaptThe owner–operator demonstrated a high level of personal resilience while at the same time facing potentially significant stress and worry from the draft changes.

If the draft Perth Canyon and South-west Corner marine reserves were declared, the owner–operator indicated they would probably stop fishing. This would result in the sale of the fishing business and laying off a number of skilled employees. The owner-operator considered that

105


selling the business might prove difficult because the lower potential value of the business would make it less attractive to buyers. This would place considerable stress on the owner–operator and his family.

The owner–operator would prefer not to leave the fishing industry and is not ready to retire. He described how fishing is an important part of his identity and is a key source of income, and that he would like to be able to pass on the business to his children.

106


Case study: Charter vessel impacts—South AustraliaCharter vessel operators in SA will be impacted by areas 3 and 4 in the draft Western Eyre marine reserve. These areas are promoted by a number of charter operators as remote, lightly fished locations. It was estimated by one charter operator that approximately 80–100 trip days occur each year in and around these areas, generating an estimated $600 000–800 000 income. This estimate includes the total trip, not just the income derived from visiting the draft marine reserves.

Charter trips to this area are generally for 4–5 days. Vessels are anchored at night in protected bays around Flinders and Pearsons islands and the deeper outside waters are fished during the day. The quantities of fish taken from the area are limited because clients usually fly in to nearby areas and have limited luggage capacity. Catch and release fishing is common.

Operators identified potential impacts as:

live-aboard charters would have reduced appeal if these areas were no longer accessible to fishing

safety risks for vessels and clients if forced to fish in more exposed waters

increased competition in state waters currently accessed by smaller vessels, resulting in reduced income

reduced fishing tourism in the area because clients hoping for fishing adventures may avoid travelling to these areas,

increased costs and decreased safety due to the need to travel further.

Adaptation would require finding alternative fishing grounds or no longer marketing remote locations as fishing tourism destinations. It was suggested that it could take years to re-educate clients. Businesses may also have to revert to day charters, which would be less profitable, or move to other locations, increasing competition in those areas.

107


Case study: South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery—backgroundThis case study provides additional background information on the South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery (NZRLF), and is particularly focused on biology, management and fishing fleet dynamics. The NZRLF targets southern rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii) between the mouth of the Murray River and the SA-WA border. Most of the fleet is based out of Port Lincoln but although the area of the fishery is quite large (stretching over 3700 kilometres of coastline [PIRSA 2011]), the main area fished comprises only approximately one-quarter of the available area due to the patchy distribution of southern rock lobster in the fishery. This contrasts with the SA Southern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery, which operates across only about 425 kilometres of coastline, but accounts for more than twice the rock lobster caught in the NZRLF.

Both fisheries are predominantly export orientated, with over 90 per cent of the catch exported alive to overseas markets such as Hong Kong. The SA southern rock lobster fisheries accounted for 43 per cent of the total value of wild-catch production in SA in 2009–10. This equates to $85.8 million and is a decrease of 18 per cent from 2008-09 (ABARES 2011).

Catches in the NZRLF peaked at 1222 tonnes in 1991–92 and remained high (above 890 tonnes) until 2001–02 when catches commenced a decline to 310 tonnes in 2009–10.

The NZRLF is managed through input controls such as limited entry (currently 68 licences) and gear restrictions, and output controls such as minimum legal size and a total allowable commercial catch (TACC) (Linnane et al. 2011). The fishery also has a management plan (Sloan & Crosthwaite 2007) that sets out the rules for setting a TACC and sustainably managing the fishery. This management plan is currently under review. A draft harvest strategy is being compiled that will use biological performance indicators and reference points in conjunction with the decision rules and guidelines for setting the TACC. Recent management discussions have suggested that incentives should be provided to encourage fishers to fish more evenly throughout the region.

Activity in the NZRLF has declined rapidly in recent times due to a reduction in available biomass (Linnane et al. 2011). A TACC for the fishery was introduced in 2003 and has been set every year since then, with reductions in 2004, 2008 and 2009. The TACC was consistently set above the catch of the preceding year and only constrained catch for the first time in 2009. The TACC is set based on the estimated population size, which is determined in part through settlement of juvenile (puerulus) rock lobsters, catch of undersize (pre-recruit) lobster and length–frequency data. Settlement of juvenile rock lobsters gives an indication of the likely size of fishable stock in four years time. Settlement in 2006 indicated that there would be a good recruitment into the fishery in 2010 (spanning the 2010-11 financial year); however, recruitment into the fishery in 2011, 2012 and particularly 2014 are expected to be reduced. As a response, conservative TACCS may be required during this period.

The Northern Zone is characterised by isolated reef communities that are lobster habitat and therefore fishing effort is patchily distributed throughout the NZRLF. Geographically the Northern Zone comprises two regions:

western Gulf Saint Vincent to the SA–WA border (reef communities and habitats for lobsters are confined to relatively small patches where basement granite projects through overlying sand)

108


eastern Gulf Saint Vincent to the Murray Mouth (where intrusion produces peaked reefs providing discrete habitat that is interspersed by large areas of sand) (Linnane et al. 2011).

Spatial patterns in fishing within the Northern Zone have also changed, partly as a response to the reduction in TACC in recent years, change in market preference and the exit of knowledgeable, experienced fishers from the industry. These changes have resulted in a contraction of effort within the fishery and more heavy fishing pressure in the shallower eastern region, as the western region is less economically viable. Licence holders now have specified quota rather than an allocated number of fishing days, and so the trend has been to fish in a reduced area, using as little fuel and time as possible. There has also been a return to smaller, less powerful boats for cost saving and as a result there is now less ability to fish deeper regions. Current market demand is for smaller red lobsters that are generally more prevalent in shallower eastern regions. Beach prices (per kilogram) are also often higher in the eastern region and therefore provide increased incentive for fishers to fish this region. Consequently, the areas further west (and also deeper southern waters) in the Northern Zone have been fished less heavily in recent years, than they have in the past (Sloan & Crosthwaite 2007).

An estimate of the displacement of fishing effort within the NZRFL is problematic due to the coarse scale of the data available (Stevens et al. 2011). Data available for the Northern Zone are mostly from logbook reporting, where the location comprises only the marine fishing area where catches are taken and the GPS positioning of pot sampling, which is only available for approximately one per cent of the total number of pot lifts in the fishery. At state-level planning and evaluation, attempts to further define the fishing zones through discussions with fishers were ineffectual due to the small size and highly dispersed nature of lobster habitat in the NZRLF (Currie & Ward 2011). The historical spread of effort through the NZRLF is uncertain due to limitations in the spatial resolution of the data for the fishery and recent shifts in fishing patterns. However, because of changes in the spatial dynamics of the fishery over the past 20–30 years as a result of management and incentives, estimates based on the most recent 10 years of data may be inaccurate.

Redistribution of fishing effort within state fishing waters as a result of South Australian marine sanctuary zones was examined by an expert panel (Stevens et al. 2011). The panel noted that the impact would be partially offset by movement out of the sanctuary zones and by increased egg production, but that the extent to which redistribution would offset displaced effort was uncertain and required further investigation.

109


Case study: Economic effects for two key subregions

The subregions assessed using AusRegionAusRegion is a dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of the Australian economy that depicts the Australian economy at the national level, the level of the eight states and territories and the subregional level. It can be used to examine the net economic impact of a policy change to part of the economy.

The ABARES AusRegion model was used to estimate the economic effects of establishing the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on two subregions. In South Australia, the Eyre Peninsula subregion is modelled—this subregion is an aggregation of the statistical local areas (SLAs) of Ceduna, Streaky Bay, Elliston, Lower Eyre Peninsula and Port Lincoln (Map 15). In Western Australia, the Augusta–Margaret River SLA is modelled (Map 15). These two subregions together account for $1.25 million (or approximately 44–51 per cent) of the $2.5–2.9 million total GVP that would potentially be displaced by the entire draft marine reserves network. The relatively higher potential displacement of GVP from these subregions would be expected to have relatively stronger economic impacts than for other subregions adjacent to the South-west Marine Region or further afield.

Map 15 Areas modelled by AusRegion: Augusta–Margaret River subregion, Western Australia and Eyre subregion, South Australia.

Zoning is described in Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods

Augusta–Margaret RiverThe Augusta–Margaret River economy accounted for less than 1 per cent of Western Australia’s economy in 2010–11. The fishing sector (including catching and processing, but excluding retail)

110


accounted for approximately 1 per cent of the local economy (Figure 17). Services sectors (including construction, retail and wholesale trade, restaurants and hotels, transport, public services and other services) accounted for 57 per cent of the local economy, a substantial proportion of which is connected to tourism. The manufacturing and combined forestry–agriculture sectors accounted for 24 per cent and 14 per cent of the local economy, respectively.

Figure 17 Structure of the Augusta–Margaret River economy

Fisheries; 1%

Forestry/ agriculture, 14%

Mining; 4%Manufacturing, 24%

Services; 57%

Data source: ABARES, AusRegion

According to the 2006 census, the Augusta–Margaret River area had a population of approximately 10 000 people. The unemployment rate was 3.1 per cent, substantially lower than the national unemployment rate at the time of 5.2 per cent.

EyreThe Eyre economy accounted for approximately 2 per cent of South Australia’s economy in 2010–11. The fishing sector (including catching and processing, but excluding retail) accounted for approximately 20 per cent of the local economy (Figure 18). Services sectors (including construction, retail and wholesale trade, restaurants and hotels, transport, public services and other services) accounted for 50 per cent of the local economy, and the forestry and agriculture sectors collectively accounting for 24 per cent of the local economy.

Figure 18 Structure of the Eyre economy

Fisheries; 20%

Forestry/ agriculture; 24%

Mining; <1%Manufacturing; 5%

Services; 50%

Data source: ABARES, AusRegion

111


According to the 2006 census, Eyre Peninsula (Ceduna, Streaky Bay, Elliston, Lower Eyre Peninsula and Port Lincoln SLAs) had a population of approximately 25 000 people. The unemployment rate was 4.8 per cent, compared with the national unemployment rate at the time of 5.2 per cent.

The AusRegion framework of analysisAusRegion allows the impact of changes in economic variables on different sectors and subregions to be analysed. This makes AusRegion highly suited for the analysis of economic effects on regional fishing communities from the creation of Commonwealth marine reserves. The CGE framework for analysing these effects allows impacts on key economic variables to be reported at subregional, state and national levels. For example, the economic effects from these changes can be reported in terms of changes in gross domestic product, employment and industry activity levels at the national, state and subregional level. A detailed description of the AusRegion modelling framework is provided in ABARE (2010).

A key strength of CGE analysis is being able to identify how effects arising from changes in the economic environment affect different sectors of the economy. This ability stems from the underlying strong trade links between sectors and subregions, and the mobility of factors of production, such as labour, that are built into CGE models.

AusRegion has four factors of production—land, labour, capital and natural resources—that combine with other business inputs to reflect the productive capacity of national, state and regional economies. AusRegion is flexible, and allows the user to select the subregions to be modelled and the sectors to be analysed.

In practical terms, changes to any given sector (or sectors) in a regional economy are applied as an externally imposed shock to the equilibrium (or economic status quo) operating in that subregion. The results from the change are compared with the reference case that shows how the economy evolves over time without any externally imposed changes. This allows the net economic impact of the policy change to be determined. Changes from the reference case arising from any change in government policy, or economic shock, are typically reported as a percentage deviation in key economic variables—for example, regional income levels or employment—from the reference case at particular points in time. Absolute level changes, for example number of jobs lost or the dollar amount of reduction in regional income, can then be inferred outside the modelling process from the percentage changes.

The AusRegion model typically estimates the long-term effects of a given policy change. For the analysis in this report, the temporary effects of the policy change have also been examined. The main difference between the short-term and longer term effects is the assumed flexibility in resource mobility. In the short term, it is assumed that resources are restricted in their ability to move between sectors of the economy. As a result, a policy change results in some productive resources being not fully used in the short term. For example, unemployment rates can rise as workers from affected industries are temporarily displaced before being absorbed in other industries or regions over time. Over the longer term, however, it is assumed that both capital and labour resources move to sectors where their productive value is highest. When this occurs, the sector or region has fully adjusted in response to the changed economic environment.

Modelling limitationsEconomic modelling allows complex policy changes to be analysed within a disciplined analytical framework. Economic modelling of the impacts of the draft marine reserves aims to estimate the potential economic effect of a given scenario relative to a defined reference case

112


scenario, while holding other variables constant. As such, these modelling estimates should not be interpreted as forecasts of future fisheries production or economic activity, as these will depend on a wide range of external uncertain variables not incorporated into modelling frameworks. General uncertainties include future changes in the price of fisheries products, future changes in fisheries productivity, changes to fisheries management and future climatic conditions.

Modelling necessarily requires some degree of simplification. An understanding of the limitations of modelling is necessary to correctly interpret estimates. As such, some of the study’s key model and data limitations are provided below. The modelling:

does not account for interannual variability and uncertainty in the economic shock

- the economic shock calculated for the AusRegion model was based on the estimates of GVP displacement; therefore, the caveats and limitations of the methodology to reach this estimate also apply to the economic modelling

provides estimates only for large aggregated regions

- the economic modelling presents estimates of changes in the regional, state and national economies. In practice, economic effects are likely to be highly variable within these large regions and concentrated in small fisheries-dependent communities

does not include transition costs

- AusRegion presents estimates of changes in employment, assuming that labour is able to move between regions and industries in the long run, without cost. The AusRegion model does not take into account the costs of transition that individuals may encounter to find new employment in alternative industries or regions

does not include threshold effects

- the AusRegion CGE modelling framework cannot predict threshold effects such as the closure of particular processing facilities

does not include feedback effects

- a two-stage approach is used that involves separately estimating GVP displacement through logbook analyses and using these results as input into AusRegion. This approach does not allow for any feedback effects between the logbook analyses and the AusRegion model.

Model reference case ABARES was asked to model the potential subregional, state/territory and national economic impact of the reduction in commercial fishing activity associated with establishing marine reserves. The model operates under the assumption that the local fishing fleet is predominantly only capable of short-range fishing activities and/or that fishing boats are geared to fish for particular species, but not others (i.e. the fleet would have limited capacity to fish further afield or target different species if key fishing grounds were made inaccessible). The closure of some areas to commercial fishing would therefore lead to a reduction in fisheries GVP at ports of landing. Parts of the fishing industry and associated factors of production (capital and labour)

113


would be free to move to other regions that are not affected by the establishment of marine reserves, in search of higher returns.

Reference case assumption regarding fishery sector growthABARES used available data to construct a reference case dataset to represent the long-term average catch and fisheries GVP in each of the modelled subregions over the period to 2019–20. The fisheries data used in AusRegion for establishing the reference case level of fisheries production in the modelled subregions were sourced from South Australian and Western Australian state fisheries departments and from ABARES’ own fisheries databases. Table 17 indicates that GVP is forecast to remain constant or grow in all states between 2009–10 and 2019–20, reaching a national total of $2.8 billion in 2019–20.

Table 17 Reference case gross value of production projections by jurisdiction ($billion)2009–10 2010–11 2015–16 2019–20

NSW 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2NT 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Qld 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5SA 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5Tas 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7Vic 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1WA 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6Total 2.2 2.1 2.5 2.8

Source: ABARES estimates and projections

ScenariosScenarios were defined for each subregion being analysed, reflecting the level of GVP potentially displaced from the draft marine reserves (see Chapter 2: Potential displacement of fishing). The value of fisheries production represents a higher proportion of the total fisheries sector in the Augusta–Margaret River subregion due to its smaller size compared with the fishing sector in the Eyre subregion. The reference case represents a 15.5 per cent reduction in the fisheries output of the Augusta–Margaret River subregion and only a 0.3 per cent reduction in the fisheries output of the Eyre subregion.

This analysis uses a period of one year (2012–13) to represent short-term economic impacts and 2019–20 to represent longer term impacts. The mobility of resources between different sectors of the economy is assumed to be restricted in the short term, while resources are assumed to be fully mobile when assessing longer term impacts.

ResultsShort-term effects (2012–13)The potential employment impacts of the draft South-west marine reserves is greater in the short term than over the longer term. This is because labour and capital that are displaced from the fisheries sector take time to be redeployed to other sectors and regions (Table 19).

The economic modelling did not find impacts at the state or national levels; impacts to these economies are assessed as negligible relative to the size of those economies. The modelled estimates of total potential impacts to the regional economy and jobs are reported as the sum of impacts to subregions, scaled linearly to account for the proportion of potential GVP displacement that occurred outside the subregions that were modelled.

114


The model results are expressed in percentage terms (Table 18). These results demonstrate that the effect on the local economy and local employment is small, with the largest impact expected in the Augusta–Margaret River subregions, with a 0.13 per cent decline in gross regional product (GRP) and a 0.05 per cent decline in employment. These results are consistent with the relatively small share the fishing industries have in the regional economies and the relatively small size of the economic shock in the context of the state and national economies and job markets. Given the computational limits of the model, the smaller the percentage impact on a region (subregion, state or nation), the greater the uncertainty around the results. As a result, percentage changes of less than 0.005 were considered to be negligible and actual values derived from them are not reported.

Table 18 Short-term (2012–13) model results of the potential impact of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on the economy and employment (percentages)Economic impact Eyre Augusta–Margaret RiverGross regional product –0.05 –0.13Gross state product – –Gross domestic product – –EmploymentSubregional –0.02 –0.05State – –National – –– = negligible modelled impact (less than 0.005 per cent)Note: Gross regional product refers to the subregion modelled (i.e. the Eyre or Augusta–Margaret River subregion).

Absolute results for economic and employment effects are calculated externally to the AusRegion model. AusRegion results for regional employment impacts (in percentage terms) can be applied to Australia Bureau of Statistics data to calculate estimates of impacts in absolute terms. Reference case model estimates can be applied to the impacts in percentage terms to provide an indication of impacts in absolute dollar and employment values (Table 19).

The total short-term regional economic impact from the South-west Marine Region Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network was estimated to be $4.4–5.1 million. In the short term, the effect on employment was estimated to be the loss of 10–12 full-time equivalent jobs. There are likely to be flow-on impacts in other regions; however, changes in economic activity at the state and national level are negligible in terms of the size of these economies.

GRP in the Eyre subregion is estimated to fall by 0.05 per cent ($860 000) relative to the reference case in 2012–13. A larger percentage effect is estimated for the Augusta–Margaret River subregion in 2012–13 of 0.13 per cent ($1.39 million in absolute terms). State and national impacts were assessed as negligible.

In the short term, employment was projected to be slightly lower as a result of the establishment of the draft South-west Marine Reserves Network. Modelling estimated that around two full-time equivalent jobs would be lost in the Eyre subregion, and about three full-time jobs in the Augusta–Margaret River subregion. The impacts at state and national levels were assessed to be negligible in the context of those labour markets.

115


Table 19 Summary of estimated short-term impacts in 2012–13 (absolute terms) Economic impact (2010–11 A$million) Eyre Augusta-Margaret RiverEconomic shock (displacement) –0.62 –0.63Gross regional product –0.86 –1.39Gross state product – –Gross domestic product – –Employment (full-time equivalent)Subregional –2 –3State – –National – –

– = negligible modelled impact (less than 0.005 per cent)Note: Economic and employment impacts at regional, state and national levels are cumulative and should not be added. Calculated employment numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Longer term effects (2019–20)Long term effects reflect the impact of the reduction in commercial fishing activity on overall economic activity and employment compared with the reference case, where the national, state/territory and regional economies are projected to grow over the period to 2019–20. In the long term, the economy would have adjusted to the reduced fishing activity, with factors of production such as labour and capital being redeployed to where they are used most productively.

In the longer term, it is projected that GRP will remain lower in both regions relative to the reference case (Table 20). Long-term changes in the value of production reflect both continued growth assumed to occur in the regional, state and national economies, and the ability of resources and capital to be redeployed in the economy to its next most productive use.

Gross regional product is estimated to fall in the long term by 0.06 and 0.14 per cent in the Eyre and Augusta–Margaret River subregions, respectively. Employment in the Augusta–Margaret River subregion is estimated to fall by 0.01 per cent. All other impacts are assessed as negligible (less than 0.005 per cent). Absolute values for economic and employment impacts have been estimated externally to the model (Table 21).

Table 20 Longer term (2019–20) model results of the potential impact of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on the economy and employment Economic impact (percent) Eyre Augusta–Margaret RiverGross regional product –0.06 –0.14Gross state product – –Gross domestic product – –

EmploymentSubregional – –0.01State – –National – –

– = negligible modelled impact (less than 0.005 per cent)

In the long term, the total economic impact is estimated to be $5.1 million, reflecting the sum of estimated regional impacts in the Eyre and Augusta–Margaret River subregions, and scaled linearly to account for the proportion of potential GVP displacement occurring outside of the subregions that were modelled. In 2019–20, estimated job loss from the draft marine reserves network was around 1 full-time equivalent job. There are likely to be flow-on impacts at the

116


state and national level; however, changes in economic activity and employment are negligible in terms of the size of those economies and labour markets.

Table 21 Summary of long term regional economic impacts in 2019–20 (absolute terms)Economic impact (2010–11 A$million) Eyre Augusta–Margaret River Economic shock (displacement) –0.62 –0.63Gross regional product –1.12 –1.86Gross state product – –Gross domestic product – –Employment (full-time equivalent)Subregional – –1State – –National – –

– = negligible modelled impact (less than 0.005 per cent)Note: Economic and employment impacts at regional, state and national levels are cumulative and should not be added. Calculated employment numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Concluding commentsThe model demonstrates how the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network is likely to affect economic activity and employment across the selected subregions. Economic impacts are expected to be felt both directly through reduced fisheries production and indirectly through decreased activity for those businesses that supply inputs to, and process outputs from, the fishing industry in affected subregions and the broader economy. The combined effects of the direct and indirect impacts are captured in changes to economic activity and employment at the subregional level. The modelled impacts at the state and national levels were negligible in the context of those economies.

The results indicated a small percentage decline in GRP in the Eyre subregion and a slightly larger percentage decline in the Augusta–Margaret River subregion in both the short term and the long term. These economic impacts will generally be felt more acutely in affected regions, but have little effect on the state and national economies.

The effect of the loss of GVP on employment levels in the subregions was larger in the short term and declined over the longer term, which is consistent with increasing labour and capital mobility over time.

Survey and consultation with industry stakeholders suggests that over both the long and short terms, the reduction in total jobs in the fishing sector may be greater than modelled owing to the high proportion of part-time positions in the industry (Appendix F, Table 38).

117


7 Fishery overviewsSouthern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery—Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector (Commonwealth)

Target speciesBight redfish (Centroberyx gerradi), deepwater flathead (Neoplatycephalus conatus) and ocean jacket (Nelusetta ayraudi).Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) now a byproduct species.

Management arrangements

The sector is managed under the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Plan 2003. Management arrangements include limited entry (10 SFRs); TACs allocated as SFRs are distributed as ITQs for deepwater flathead, bight redfish, a ‘bycatch’ TAC orange roughy; catch trigger-limits for other main species, and area closures. Industry has developed a number of co-management arrangements.

Fishing methods Demersal otter trawl

Patterns of exploitation

The Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector is often divided into two fisheries: a continental-shelf fishery in depths of 200 m or less, which targets deepwater flathead and bight redfish; and a continental-slope fishery in depths down to about 1000 m, which historically targeted orange roughy. In continental-shelf waters, trawlers usually operate at depths of 120–160 m. The fishery operates year round; deepwater flathead catches and catch rates peak in October–December and bight redfish in February–April.

Data and information issues

Catch data for the sector are good, with low levels of misreporting. For the past five years, a fishery-independent survey has been conducted. Data from these surveys form the index of abundance in the stock assessment.Data used to estimate potential displacement were shot-by-shot records with latitude/longitude positioning, and spanned the period 2001–10.

Active Vessels 4 active vessels (2010–11)

Sources Moore et al. 2010; Morison et al. 2009; Woodhams et al. 2011

ITQ = individual transferable quota; SFR = statutory fishing right; TAC = total allowable catch

Figure 19 Total catch (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector, 1986–2008

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Catc

h (to

nnes

)N

umber of vessels

118


Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery —Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector (Commonwealth)

Target species

Shark hook and gillnet sector: gummy shark (Mustelus antarcticus). Other important species include school shark (Galeorhinus galeus) (which has a bycatch TAC), southern sawshark (P. nudipinnis), common sawshark (Pristiophorus cirratus) and elephant fish (Callorhinchus milii). Scalefish-hook sector: blue-eye trevalla (Hyperglyphe antarctica) and pink ling (Genypterus blacodes).


The buyout of fishing effort from the Australian Government’s Securing Our Fishing Future package removed 26 gillnet boat SFRs from the sector (leaving 62) and 17 shark hook boat SFRs (leaving 13).This may impact the location and intensity of fishing effort. Management arrangements in the shark sector include SFRs (granted in 2010), gear restrictions and ITQs for target species, and minimum length restrictions. Management arrangements in the scalefish sector include limited entry, gear restrictions, quotas, SFRs and area closures. TACs are set each year that could potentially impact on the patterns of exploitation. School shark has been listed as a conservation-dependent species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Fishing methods Dropline, demersal gillnet, demersal longline, trap


Gummy sharks are endemic to the temperate waters off the continental shelf and continental slope off southern Australia. They are found from intertidal waters to about 80 m. School shark move extensively throughout the waters of southern Australia, probably forming a single genetic stock within the fishery. They are mostly caught at depths of less than 200 m. Elephant fish are distributed on the continental shelf to depths of at least 200 m in southern waters from Sydney, New South Wales, to Esperance, Western Australia. Species in this sector are generally fished all year round; however, fishing intensity is dependent on demand. Blue-eye trevalla are generally found in slope waters at depths of 300–550 m. Pink ling are also most abundant at these depths. Both species are taken all year round.


There may be errors in historical catch data as a mercury ban in the 1970s led to school shark being marketed as gummy shark. Due to imposed quotas, there are few issues with misreporting or data quality in recent years.Data used to estimate potential displacement were shot-by-shot records with latitude/longitude positioning, and spanned the period 2001–10.

Active vessels Shark, gillnet and hook: 59, scalefish hook: 24 (2010–11)Sources McLoughlin & Wood 2009; Stobutzki et al. 2010; Woodhams et al. 2011

ITQ = individual transferable quota; SFR = statutory fishing rights; TAC = total allowable catch

Figure 20 Total catch from the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery—Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector, 2000–10

200

0

200

1

200

2

200

3

200

4

200

5

200

6

200

7

200

8

200

9

201

0

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

Cat

ch (

tonn

es)

119


Small Pelagic Fishery (Commonwealth)

Target speciesAustralian sardine (Sardinops sagax) and redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus), jack mackerels (Trachurus declivis and T. symmetricus) and blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus)


The fishery is divided into four management zones, with one of these off the coast of South Australia. A new management plan that was introduced in 2009 replaces the permit system with SFRs that will be distributed as ITQs. Until rights are allocated, permit and zoning systems remains in place and include limited entry (75 licences), TAC, and trigger catch levels in each of the four management zones. Rapid development is not expected in the fishery unless market demands change.

Fishing methods Purse seine and mid-water trawl


Historically, Zone A (off eastern and southern Tasmania) has been the main area for effort in the fishery. In 2006, there was a marked increase in catches off South Australia, which is a trend that continued into 2007. Small pelagic species are usually associated with land masses and rarely occur in deep oceanic waters. There was a high level of latent effort in the fishery in recent years. As most of the catch off South Australia is used as southern bluefin tuna feed, any changes in exploitation will most likely be influenced by changes in the demand for fish meal by the southern bluefin tuna industry.


Catch data for Zone B in the fishery is quite good. The small number of operators in the fishery and the low value of the species caught means that there are currently few issues with misreporting.Data used to estimate potential displacement were shot-by-shot records with latitude/longitude positioning, and spanned the period 2001–10.

Active vessels 3 purse seine, 2 mid-water (2009–10)

Sources Hobsbawn et al. 2009; Woodhams et al. 2011

ITQ = individual transferable quota; TAC = total allowable catch

Figure 21 Total catch (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery, 1999–2009 financial years

1999

-00

2000

-01

2002

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

2007

-08

2008

-09

2009

-10

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

14 000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Catc

h (to

nnes

)N

umber of vessels

120


Southern Squid Jig Fishery (Commonwealth)

Target species Gould’s squid (Nototodarus gouldi)


Management arrangements include gear-based statutory fishing rights and annual determination of total allowable effort. A harvest strategy has been in place since January 2008, which includes catch triggers, fishing effort triggers and catch per unit effort triggers.

Fishing methods Squid jigging


The majority of fishing occurs off Portland, Queenscliff and Lakes Entrance in Victoria. Squid are also taken in the Great Australian Bight Trawl Fishery as byproduct. The presence of arrow squid off South Australia has been confirmed by resource surveys and feasibility fishing. Fishing can occur all year round; however, most occurs between February and July. Currently, there is a high level of latent effort in the fishery with only a small proportion (<15 per cent) of concession holders actively fishing.


Generally, data in this fishery are quite reliable as there are no incentives to misreport. Catches are also validated through catch disposal records.Data used to estimate potential displacement were shot-by-shot records with latitude/longitude positioning and spanned the period 2001–10.

Active vessels 7 (2010)

Sources Sahlqvist & Curtotti 2009; Sahlqvist et al. 2010; Woodhams et al. 2011

Figure 22 Total catch (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Commonwealth Southern Squid Jig Fishery, 1996–2010

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Catc

h (to

nnes

)N

umber of vessels

121


Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery (WDTF; Commonwealth)

Target speciesOver 50 species are caught in the fishery. Main target species include deepwater bugs (Ibacus spp.), orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) (not targeted since 2005–06) and ruby snapper (Etelis carbunculus).


Limited entry (11 permits) since 1998. With the recent exit of vessels from the Northern Prawn Fishery under the Securing our Fishing Future package, effort may be redirected to the WDTF. However, this is unlikely as the WDTF is currently unviable.

Fishing methods Demersal trawl


Fishing occurs in waters exceeding 200 m,, in habitats ranging from temperate-subtropical in the southern region to tropical in the north. Most fishing is concentrated along the 200 m isobath (the eastern boundary of the WDTF). The WDTF is open to fishing all year round; however, it has historically been an off-season diversification for Northern Prawn Fishery vessels. The WDTF is an opportunistic fishery and currently there is a high level of latent effort. The decline in fishing effort since 2002 is largely due to high fuel costs and labour shortages.


Logbooks containing catch-and-effort data have been collected in the WDTF since 1985. However, as the WDTF is a low-value fishery, has a large number of species caught and effort is sporadic, the overall data for the fishery is quite poor due to the reduced fishing effort. As the fishery is mainly managed through input controls, there are no real incentives to misreport.Data used to estimate potential displacement were shot-by-shot records with latitude/longitude positioning and spanned the period 2001–10.

Active vessels 3 (2009–10)

Sources Rodgers et al. 2010; Sampaklis et al. 2009; Woodhams et al. 2011

Figure 23 Total catch (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Commonwealth Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery, 1992–2009

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2002

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

2007

-08

2008

-09

2009

-10

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Catc

h (to

nnes

)N

umber of vessels

122


Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (Commonwealth)

Target speciesBigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), yellowfin tuna (T. albacares), albacore tuna (T. alalunga), broadbill swordfish (Xiphias gladius) and striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax)


Input controls, including limited entry, gear and area restrictions, bycatch restrictions and output controls, via ITQs. Australia is a member of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and usually implements any resolutions from commission meetings. The fishery moved to SFRs in 2010.

Fishing methods Pelagic longline, minor line


Fishing activities are concentrated in oceanic waters (>200 m deep) along the southern and western coasts of Western Australia. There was an increase in fishing effort outside of the Australian Fishing Zone in recent years due to the replacement of small longliners with larger vessels. Longlining trips used to last for 3–10 days; however, this has increased to around 20 days for larger vessels with bigger freezer facilities. Fishing depths are dependent on target species. Fishing generally occurs year round.Fishing activities peaked in the early 1980s when more than 20 longliners were active. Activity subsequently declined, with 1–3 longliners active in recent years. Consequently, the reference period used in the current analysis does not capture historical high levels of catch and effort. Currently, there is a high level of latent effort in the fishery, although the introduction of SFRs in 2010 may decrease it.The decline in recent effort is attributed to high fuel, bait and freight costs, labour shortages and poor market prices. New markets could develop for these species. New developments can occur rapidly but are difficult—if not impossible—to predict.


Pelagic fisheries logbooks were introduced in the early 1980s; however, they were not collected regularly so the quality of the data series is considered to be poor. Returns improved in the mid-1990s when the longline fishery expanded and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority required the returns as a condition of their fishing permits. However, the quality of the data is still uncertain. Data used to estimate potential displacement were shot-by-shot records with latitude/longitude positioning and spanned the period 2001–10.

Active vessels 4 (2010)

Sources Wilson et al. 2009, 2010

ITQ = individual transferable quota; SFR = statutory fishing right; TAC = total allowable catch

Figure 24 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Commonwealth Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery, 1976–2010. Catches before 2006 include those taken by the Western Skipjack Fishery; catches before 1997 include those from Japanese-registered vessels

1976

1978

1980

198

2

1984

1986

1988

199

0

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

200

6

2008

2010

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

14 000

16 000

18 000

20 000

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Cat

ch (

tonn

es) N

umber of vessels

123


Marine Scalefish Fishery (South Australia)

Target species

Multi-species fishery comprising more than 50 species. Main target species include King George whiting (Sillaginodes punctata), snapper (Pagrus auratus), southern sea garfish (Hyporhamphus melanochir) and southern calamari (Sepioteuthis australis). Other key species include Australian salmon (Arripis truttacea), ocean jackets (Nelusetta ayraudi), sand crabs (Ovalipes australiensis), mud cockles (Katelysia spp.), snook (Sphyraena novaehollandiae), Australian herring (Arripis georgiana), mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), yellowfin whiting (Sillago schomburgkii) and yellow-eye mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri). Australian sardine (Sardinops sagax) is also taken under a Marine Scalefish Fishery licence with quota and a sardine net endorsed on the licence. This component is managed separately.


The current management plan is currently under review. Management arrangements include limited entry, seasonal and area closures, gear restrictions, size limits, owner–operator restrictions, limits on the number of agents, licence transfers subject to amalgamation scheme and catch limits for some species. Mud cockles and sardines (including anchovies) have a total allowable commercial catch with individual transferable quotas. There are 340 primary and restricted Marine Scalefish Fishery licences, and 285 licences with limited access to marine scalefish species, some of which are held by fishers operating in other fisheries that may take scalefish as byproduct. Bag and boat limits apply to the recreational sector.

Fishing methods

Main gears are handline, haul net, gillnet, trap and longline. Other gear may also be used.


The fishery operates all year round with some seasonal closures. King George whiting is a demersal species and typically occurs in bays, inlets and open coastal waters to depths of approximately 100 m. It is distributed from north of Perth, Western Australia (WA), to southern New South Wales. Snapper are demersal species found in coastal waters from Shark Bay, WA, to southern Queensland. Southern sea garfish are associated with seagrass beds in southern Australian coastal waters, from Kalbarri, WA to Eden, NSW, and Tasmania. Southern calamari are associated with seagrass beds in gulf waters and other inshore bays.


Commercial fishing catch-and-effort data have been recorded since 1983–84. No specific observer programs operate in the fishery to validate logbook data. On occasion, observers are deployed on commercial vessels for data collection. There are no issues associated with the misreporting or high grading of catch because the fishery is largely managed by effort controls.Data used to estimate potential displacement were mean annual catch from 60-minute scale blocks over the period 2000–10.

Active vessels, employment

334 active vessels and 566 people (2010)

SourcesDEH 2005a; Knuckey et al. 2002; PIRSA 2006, 2007, 2008; Rippen 2011; Rippen et al. 2010; Zacharin 2006

124


Figure 25 Total catch (bars) and GVP (line) from the South Australian Marine Scalefish Fishery, 1984–2009 (excluding sardine catches)

19

84

-85

19

85

-86

19

86

-87

19

87

-88

19

88

-89

19

89

-90

19

90

-91

19

91

-92

19

92

-93

19

93

-94

19

94

-95

19

95

-96

19

96

-97

19

97

-98

19

98

-99

19

99

-00

20

00

-01

20

02

-02

20

02

-03

20

03

-04

20

04

-05

20

05

-06

20

06

-07

20

07

-08

20

08

-09

20

09

-100

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

Catc

ht

(tonnes)

GV

P ($'0

00)

Northern Zone Lobster Fishery (South Australia)Target species Southern rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii)


The management plan is currently under review by PIRSA. The current management plan (Sloan & Crosthwaite 2007) is designed to promote stock rebuilding; however, that both legal sized catch rate and pre-recruitment index need to be triggered before a management response is instituted. Management arrangements include limited entry (68 licences), maximum of 100 pots per licence, TACC quotas distributed among ITQs and closed season from 1 June to 31 October to protect spawning females.A minimum size limit applies and spawning females cannot be retained. Fishers are required to fill out daily logbooks and catch disposal records; they are also required to provide landing reports one hour before landings. Vessel monitoring systems are required on all vessels operating in the northern zone.

Fishing methods Trap (beehive pot)—commercial sector


Southern rock lobsters can be found at depths of between 1 m and 200 m. Fishery covers all marine waters between the Murray Mouth and the Western Australian border. The fishery targets patches of mainly granite reef formations separated by large stretches of flat, sandy bottom. Vessels generally fish for 1–10 days per trip.


Comprehensive catch-and-effort data have been collected for the fishery since 1970. Assessment of the fishery depends mainly on these data, but puerulus settlement data are also used. Voluntary catch sampling data have been collected since 1991 and provide critical information on length frequency, pre-recruit (juvenile) abundance and reproductive condition of females.Data used to estimate potential displacement were mean annual catch from 60-minute scale blocks over the period 2000–10. Catches were adjusted to include only those from Commonwealth waters (following Currie & Ward 2011)

Active vessels and employment

56 active vessels and 159 people e (2010–11)

SourcesLinnane et al, 2007, 2011; PIRSA 2007; Rippen & Morrison 2011; Sloan & Crosthwaite 2007

125


Figure 26 Total catch (bars) and GVP (line) from the South Australian Rock Lobster Fishery, 1984–2009

1984

-85

1985

-86

1986

-87

1987

-88

1988

-89

1989

-90

1990

-91

1991

-92

1992

-93

1993

-94

1994

-95

1995

-96

1996

-97

1997

-98

1998

-99

1999

-00

2000

-01

2002

-02

2002

-03

2003

-04

2004

-05

2005

-06

2006

-07

2007

-08

2008

-09

2009

-10

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

30 000

35 000

Cat

ch (t

onne

s) GV

P ($'000)

126


Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery (Western Australia–Commonwealth; Joint Authority)

Target speciesGummy sharks (Mustelus antarcticus), dusky sharks (Carcharhinus obscurus) and whiskery sharks (Furgaleus macki). Most of these stocks overlap with the West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline (Interim) Managed Fishery.


Limited entry (57 licences), effort controls, temporal closures, gear restrictions and maximum legal size limits for one of the target species. Since 2006–07, the Western Australian Department of Fisheries has been working with operators to transition the fishery to a more explicit hourly effort management system. Once formally implemented, 27 m of gillnet or 9 hooks on a longline for 264 hours (in Zones 1 and 3) or 380 hours (in Zone 2) will be permitted.

Fishing methods Demersal gillnets and demersal longlines


Overall, shark catches have remained relatively steady since the early to mid-1990s; however, the proportion of individual species within the total catch has varied by region and over time. Most of the observed fishing effort over the last 15 years has occurred in waters between 10 m and 120 m depth, and between 200 m and 50 km from shore. Gummy sharks and juvenile dusky sharks are primarily (but not necessarily) targeted inshore and other species are targeted further offshore. Catch rates are somewhat seasonal, peaking in autumn and, to a lesser extent, spring. Fishing activity is primarily constrained by weather conditions, but has also traditionally been loosely timed to occur around the full moon, when catch rates of some target species are perceived to increase. There is a seasonal closure of the fishery from 16 August to 15 October in inshore waters (landward of the 200 m depth contour) west of 118 E to protect whiskery sharks during their pupping season.


Catch-and-effort data were historically reported by broad spatial (one degree block) and temporal (monthly) scales, and therefore lack fine-scale resolution. Daily/trip catch-and-effort logbooks were introduced in June 2006 to improve the resolution of these data. Two methods have been used to calculate an ‘effective’ annual CPUE for each species to account for changes in CPUE through a change in reporting. Further assessment of recreational and indigenous fishery impacts on stocks taken in these fisheries is required.Data used to estimate potential displacement were mean annual catch from 10-minute scale blocks over the period 2008–10.


26 active vessels (2009–10), 49–65 skippers and crew employed from 2006–07 to 2008–09

Sources Fletcher & Santoro 2011; McAuley & Leary 2010; McAuley & Simpfendorfer 2003

cpue = catch per unit effort

Figure 27 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Joint Authority Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery, 2000–10

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Ca

tch

(to

nn

es)

Nu

mb

er o

f vesse

ls

127


South Coast Crustacean fisheries (Western Australia)

Target speciesThe fisheries are multi-species and take southern rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii), western rock lobster (Panulirus cygnus), champagne crab (Hypothalassia acerba), crystal (snow) crab (Chaceon albus) and giant (king) crab (Pseudocarcinus gigas).


Several fisheries come under the umbrella of ‘south coast crustacean fisheries’; the Windy Harbour–Augusta Rock Lobster Managed Fishery, Esperance Rock Lobster Managed Fishery, Rock Lobster Pot Fisher, and Deep Sea Crab Fishery. The fishing season for rock lobster in the South Coast Crustacean fisheries is based on the West Coast Rock Lobster fishing season (15 November to 30 June). Fishing occurs for deep-sea crabs all year round.The fisheries are managed through limited entry (Windy Harbour–Augusta 2, Esperance 9, Great Australian Bight 28, Outside Esperance 24), pot numbers, size limits and seasonal closures. Since the release, in January 2009, of Fisheries Management Paper 232, the Western Australian Department of Fisheries has been developing a management plan for the fishery as outlined within the paper.

Fishing methods Batten (baited) pots


The fishery operates over a variety of areas with the take of crabs limited to silty seabeds and rock lobster taken from rock ledges. Southern rock lobsters are found down to depths of 200 m. Champagne crabs occur at depths of around 200 m, while crystal crabs are typically found at depths of 300–1220 m. The giant crab is found at depths of 18–400 m. Fishers mostly operate in waters shallower than 200 m depth for rock lobster, deep-sea crabs are targeted from 500–1000 m depth. The fisheries have experienced declines in catches recently, especially for southern rock lobster. More research is needed to determine whether the downturn in catches is a result of natural fluctuations or reductions in fishing effort.


There are no missing data; the problem with data, especially in the Albany area, is that effort cannot be separated between rock lobster and crabs. Therefore, it is hard to identify if effort has reduced in comparison with catch. There have been claims that the reporting of catches of king and champagne crabs in the mid-1980s were exaggerated because of rumours that the crab part of the fishery would be managed in the future; however, nothing has been substantiated. Information for the fishery is lacking—for example, it is still not known at what size southern rock lobster mature in this region.Data used to estimate potential displacement were mean annual catch from 60-minute scale blocks over the period 2010–10. Blocks were refined to include only depths where gear was active.


Not available

SourcesDEWR 2007b; Fletcher & Santoro 2011; Melville-Smith & Unsworth 2008a; Thomson & Unsworth 2010a

128


Figure 28 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from (a) the Southern Rock Lobster Fishery, (b) the Esperance Rock Lobster Fishery, (c) the South Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery, 2000–10

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

5

10

15

20

25

a)

Cat

ch (t

onne

s)

Num

ber of vessels

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

b)

Cat

ch (t

onne

s)

Num

ber of vessels

129


2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

c)C

atch

(ton

nes)

Num

ber of vessels

* = data are confidential and cannot be reported

130


WA South Coast Trawl Fishery (WA)

Target speciesSaucer scallops (Amusium balloti) and associated byproduct such as finfish, squid and bugs. Finfish are also targeted in years of low scallop abundance.


Limited entry fishery (maximum of four), spatial and temporal closures.

Fishing methodsDemersal trawl gear to target scallops and demersal or mid-water trawl gear to target finfish.


The south-west corner of the fishery is considered the most important, while the area around the Recherche Archipelago is also of high value. Fishing occurs year round, although scallop trawling is prohibited in the area of the Recherche Archipelago between 1 December and 31 March. Saucer scallops typically live on bare sand, rubble or soft sediment surfaces in sheltered environments found in the lee of islands and reef systems at depths of between 10 m and 75 m. Scallop landings have varied dramatically over the years, with the value of commercial harvests ranging from $5000 to $14.3 million, with an average value of around $1.3 million. This variability is primarily due to the strength of recruitment; however, product prices and the cost of fishing can also influence catches and fishing activity. Under new management arrangements, fishing will be restricted to depths shallower than 200 m.


Data from the fishery are good and are improving with the introduction of a more detailed logbook. There are no issues with misreporting or uncertainty in the fishery.Data used to estimate potential displacement were mean annual catch from 60-minute scale blocks over the period 2010–10. Blocks were refined to include only depths where gear was active.


3 active vessels (2010), and 10 people employed (2009)

Sources DEH 2006; Fletcher & Santoro 2011; Kangas et al. 2008, 2010

Figure 29 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian South Coast Trawl Fishery, 2000–10

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Cat

ch (t

onne

s)

Num

ber of vessels

*** **


131


South West Trawl Managed Fishery (Western Australia)

Target speciesA multi-species fishery that targets western king prawns (Penaeus latisulcatus) and saucer scallops (Amusium balloti).


Input controls that limit licences (14 licences), gear sizes and fishing areas. The South West Trawl Fishery is split into four management zones: A, B, C and D. Zone A and Zone B vessels may fish between 1 January and 15 November, and Zone B vessels may fish all year round. Vessels are no longer able to access Zone C.

Fishing methods Demersal trawl


Western king prawns are found over a variety of substrates, although they have a preference for sandy substrates. Adults are typically found in deeper open waters in depths to 90 m, while juveniles can be found in shallow coastal areas. Saucer scallops typically live on bare sand, rubble or soft sediment surfaces in more sheltered environments found in the lee of islands and reef systems at depths of between 10 m and 75 m.Effort fluctuates widely from year to year, depending on scallop and prawn recruitment. Vessels tend to operate inshore of the 200 m isobath.


There are no known issues with misreporting, or missing or poor catch data. Not all licensed boats actively fish, reflecting the marginal fishing economics and viability of boats.Data used to estimate potential displacement were mean annual catch from 60-minute scale blocks over the period 2010–10. Blocks were refined to include only depths where gear was active.


Not available, but 'not all boats actively fish' and 12 people were employed in the fishery in 2010.

Sources Fletcher & Santoro 2011; Kailola et al. 1993; Kangas 2008; Kangas et al. 2010

Figure 30 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian South West Trawl Managed Fishery, 2000–10

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Cat

ch (t

onne

s)

Num

ber of vessels

* = data are confidential

132


West Coast Deep Sea Crustaceans Fishery (Western Australia)

Target speciesGiant (king) crab (Pseudocarcinus gigas), crystal (snow) crab (Chaceon albus) and champagne (spiny) crab (Hypothalassia acerba)


Quota based (since 2008), minimum legal sizes (in place or being introduced for all deep-sea crab species), individual transfer quotas for permit holders (currently 7)

Fishing methods Batten and beehive rock lobster pots


The fishery mostly operates at depths of between 500 m and 1000 m, with the majority of catch taken between depths of 500 m and 800 m. The fishery largely operates over soft mud. Fishing occurs all year round. Since around 2000, the fishery is thought to have been fully exploited; however, catches of crystal crabs have decreased slightly over the last couple of years, with 2006 being the lowest since 2000. Catches of giant and champagne crabs remain small.


There is little long-term data on deep-sea crabs; they were first caught off the Western Australian coastline in the late 1980s and only caught at substantial quantities in the late 1990s. Given its recent history, sustainable levels of fishing are still being determined. The annual total crystal crab catches from 2000 to 2008 have historically been used to monitor this fishery for ecologically sustainable development assessment. Since the introduction of the quota system in 2008, performance measures based on whether the quota is achieved and the catch rate and effort required to achieve catch will be required. Data used to estimate potential displacement were mean annual catch from 60-minute scale blocks over the period 2010–10. Blocks were refined to include only depths where gear was active.


Six vessels operated in 2010. Employment is not available but vessels typically have a skipper and two or three crew.

SourcesDEWR 2007a; Fletcher & Santoro 2011; Melville-Smith & Unsworth 2008b; Thomson & Unsworth 2010b

Figure 31 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian West Coast Deep Sea Crustacean Fishery, 2000–10

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Cat

ch (t

onne

s)

Num

ber of vessels

**

133


West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery (Wester Australia)

Target species

Primarily targets dusky sharks (Carcharhinus obscurus), sandbar shark (Carcharhinus plumbeus) and whiskery sharks (Furgaleus macki). Most of these stocks overlap with the Joint Authority Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Managed Fishery.


Limited entry (20 licences), effort controls, temporal closures, gear restrictions, and maximum legal size limits for one of the target species. Since 2006–07, the Western Australian Department of Fishery has been working with operators to transition the fishery to a more explicit hourly effort management system.

Fishing methods Demersal gillnets and demersal longlines


Most of the catch is taken using demersal gillnets. This form of fishing occurs in waters shallower than 100 m. Longlining is the only viable fishing method in deeper waters.Shark catches have remained relatively steady since the early to mid-1990s. Most of the observed fishing effort over the past 15 years has occurred at depths between 10 m and 120 m, and between 200 m and 50 km from shore. Typically, gummy sharks and juvenile dusky sharks are targeted in inshore areas and other species are targeted further offshore. Fishing activity is constrained by weather conditions, but has also traditionally been loosely timed to occur around the full moon, when catch rates of some target species are thought to increase. There is a seasonal closure of the fishery from 16 August to 15 October in inshore waters (landward of the 200 m depth contour) west of 118°E to protect whiskery sharks during their pupping season. The Abrolhos area has become more important following the closure of Perth Canyon. A voluntary adjustment scheme is currently under way to remove effort.


Catch and effort data were historically reported by broad spatial (one-degree block) and temporal (monthly) scales and therefore lack fine-scale resolution. Daily/trip catch and effort logbooks were introduced in June 2006 to improve the resolution of these data.Data used to estimate potential displacement were mean annual catch from 10-minute scale blocks over the period 2008–10.


There were four active vessels in 10 and 9 people employed in the fishery in 2009–10.

Sources Fletcher & Santoro 2011; McAuley & Leary 2010; McAuley & Simpfendorfer 2003

Figure 32 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery, 2000–10

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Cat

ch (t

onne

s)

Num

ber of vessels

134


Open Access Fishery (West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery [WCDSF] and Gascoyne Demersal Scalefish Fishery [GDSF]), Western Australia

Target species

WCDSF: Historically dhufish (Glaucosoma hebraicum), pink snapper (Pagrus auratus), emperors (Lethrinus miniatus and L. nebulosus) and breaksea cod (Epinephelides armatus)GDSF: pink snapper (Pagrus auratus), goldband snapper (Pristipomoides spp., mainly P. multidens), red emperor (Lutjanus sebae), emperors (Lethrinidae, includes spangled emperor, Lethrinus nebulosus, and redthroat or sweetlip, L. miniatus), cods (Serranidae), ruby snapper (Etelis carbunculus), pearl perch (Glaucosoma buergeri), mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus) and trevallies (Carangidae)


Activities associated with the ‘open-access wetline’ fishery involve any commercial fishing that is not covered by fisheries legislation. WCDSF: 1 January 2008, the West Coast Demersal Scalefish (Interim) Management Plan 2007 commenced operation, closing the open-access wetline fishery in the West Coast bioregion. Since that time, only those persons authorised under a West Coast Demersal Scalefish Interim Managed Fishery Permit have been permitted to fish by line, store and transport demersal scalefish in, or sell demersal scalefish taken from, the waters of the fishery. Limited entry, gear restrictions and an individual transferable effort system came into place at the start of 2009.GDSF: Open-access fishery still present in the area outside the Shark Bay Snapper Managed Fishery. Minimum legal sizes apply for many of the commercial target species.

Fishing methods Handline and dropline, also some demersal gillnet and demersal longline


WCDSF: The main target species were typically taken over shallow grounds (depth less than 100 m). The highest proportion of dhufish catch is taken from the Mid-west Zone, while the majority of pink snapper is caught in the Kalbarri and Mid-west Zones.GDSF: In waters between 23º34'S and 23º07'S, this area will be incorporated within the Gascoyne Demersal Scalefish Fishery Management Plan in the future.


WCDSF: Recent major change in management from open-access to limited-entry fishery means there is little catch and effort data available for the current management regime.GDSF: The status of three indicator species (pink snapper, goldband snapper and spangled emperor) are used to indicate the status of the entire Gascoyne demersal suite of scalefish species. Catch and effort monitoring for the ‘open-access’ fishery includes monthly returns for vessels. Data used to estimate potential displacement were mean annual catch from 60-minute scale blocks over the period 2010–10. Blocks were refined to include only depths where gear was active.


WCDSF: 191 active vessels in 2006–07. Employment was not available but vessels typically operate with two crew members.

Sources Jackson et al. 2010

135


West Coast Purse Seine Managed Fishery (Western Australia)

Target species

Pilchards (Sardinops sagax) and tropical sardines (Sardinella lemuru). Management for the fishery also covers Perth herring (Nematalosa vlaminghi), yellowtail scad (Trachurus novaezelandiae), Australian anchovy (Engraulis australis) and maray (Etrumeus teres).


Limited entry (12 licences), capacity setting and controls on gear and vessel size. Currently a combined TAC, covering both the Metropolitan Fishery and the Southern Development Zone is set for pilchards, and another for other small pelagic species. TACs are allocated to fishery participants, but may not be traded. A new management plan is in development to move to a formal quota system with individual transferable quota s and a TAC.

Fishing methods Purse seine


The fishery operates between latitudes 33°S and 31°S (the Metropolitan Fishery). There are also two purse-seine development zones operating north and south of this area. The Metropolitan Fishery mainly targets pilchards and Sardinella, the Southern Development Zone targets pilchards and the Northern Development Zone targets Sardinella. In Western Australia, the biggest catches of pilchards are made in winter, although the fishing season is open all year round. Pilchards are typically found in bays and inlets, although they also occur in waters out to the edge of the continental shelf and from surface waters down to depths of 200 m. Fishers tend to operate within 40 km of port. Effort levels remained low in 2009.


Fishers report the behaviour of both sardine and pilchard populations as less predictable than in past decades. It appears that the influence of oceanographic variation plays a strong role in determining the relative availability and catchability of pilchards and Sardinella. There are no issues with misreporting. The time series of eight fishery-independent spawning biomass surveys conducted between 1993 and 2004 indicated that the pilchard stock off the west coast varies in size between 8000 t and 45 000 t. Fluctuations in biomass of both pilchards and Sardinella, are thought to be driven by environmental conditions and recruitment.Data used to estimate potential displacement were mean annual catch from 60-minute scale blocks over the period 2010–10. Blocks were refined to include only depths where gear was active.

Active vessels and Employment

Five active vessels in 2010. There were 10 people from the Fremantle region (crew and processors) and 20 from the Geographe Bay region (crew only) employed in the fishery in 2007. There are no estimates of employment from the Bunbury region. No recent updates are available.

Sources DEH 2005b; Fletcher & Santoro 2011; Leary & Malony 2008;

TAC = total allowable catch

Figure 33 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian West Coast Purse Managed Seine Fishery, 2000–1

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Catc

h (

tonnes) N

um

ber o

f vessels


136


West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery (Western Australia)Target species Western rock lobster (Panulirus cygnus)


Total allowable effort (and individual transferable effort) is managed through the number of pots licensed to the fishery, minimum and maximum size limits, gear restrictions, and spatial and temporal closures. Proposed management arrangements (updated from the changes implemented in 2005–06, 2008–09 and 2009–10) include reductions in the pot usage rate, the protection of setose and maximum size females, and the closure of Big Bank and a number of temporal closures. The overall breeding stock—projected five years into the future—should remain at, or above, the target levels of the early to mid-1980s, with a probability greater than 75 per cent.

Fishing methods Batten and beehive rock lobster pots


The fishery lies between latitudes 21°44´ to 34°24´S. The fishery is managed in three zones: south of latitude 30°S (C Zone), north of latitude 30°S (B Zone) and, within this northern area, a third offshore zone (A Zone) around the Abrolhos Islands The fishing season is open annually from 15 November to 30 June in Zone B (Northern Zone), from 25 November to 30 June in Zone C (Southern Zone) and from 15 March to 30 June in Zone A (Abrolhos Islands Zone). Fishing generally occurs on sand areas around robust limestone reef habitats covered with coralline and macro-algae, such as kelp. Most catch is taken up to depths of 160 m, although some catch is taken at 200 m. Variation in catch is primarily due to environmental conditions experienced by larvae and post-larvae, as well as levels of fishing effort. For example, there is generally a positive relationship between levels of puerulus settlement and the strength of the Leeuwin Current.


Continued poor puerulus settlement in 2009, despite apparently favourable environmental conditions and overall breeding stock estimates being above threshold levels, resulted in the Western Australian Department of Fishery initiating a structured process to investigate the cause of the low settlement. Additional effort reductions have been trialled and implemented. Data used to estimate potential displacement were mean annual catch from 60-minute scale blocks over the period 2010–10. Blocks were refined to include only depths where gear was active.


297 vessels (Zone A: 80, Zone B: 71, Zone C: 146) and 832 people were directly employed in the fishery in 2009–10.

Sources de Lestang et al. 2010; DEWR 2007c; Fletcher & Santoro 2011

Figure 34 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian West Coast Rock Lobster, 2000–10

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

14 000

16 000

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Cat

ch (t

onne

s)

Num

ber of vessels

137


West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery (Western Australia)

Target species

Primary target species: West Australian dhufish (Glaucosoma hebraicum) and pink snapper (Pagrus auratus), but substantial numbers of up to 100 other species are caught, particularly, emperors (Lethrinus nebulosus, Lethrinus miniatus), baldchin groper (Choerodon rubescens) bight redfish (Centroberyx gerrardi) and breaksea cod (Epinephelides armatus).


Limited entry (restricted to 61 permits) gear and other restrictions apply (in the form of maximum numbers of lines and hooks, and arrangements regulating the carriage of lines and fish). Fishery divided into five management areas comprising four inshore zones and one offshore zone. The inshore zones are allocated a maximum number of hours of fishing time that may be fished on an annual basis. The primary management objective is to maintain scalefish catches to at least 50 per cent of catches recorded in the West Coast Bioregion during 2005–06.

Fishing methodsHandlines and droplines. Demersal gillnets and longlines used in other managed commercial fisheries


The commercial fishery encompasses waters off the west coast south of 26°30´S and west of longitude 115°30´ E and extending seaward to the boundary of the Australian Fishing Zone. Annual licences are issued from 1 January until 31 December. Catches are greatest in the Kalbarri and mid-west regions. Recruitment success of both Western Australian dhufish and pink snapper is highly variable and influenced by environmental variables. Future recruitment success of pink snapper may be influenced by ongoing industrial development in the Cockburn Sound region.


The status of three indicator species (West Australian dhufish, snapper and baldchin groper) are used to indicate the status of the entire west coast demersal suite of scalefish species. Catch and effort data for the commercial sector were monitored from fishers’ daily/trip logbooks, which provide fine-scale data from 10 nm × 10 nm and 5 nm × 5 nm blocks, respectively. Onboard validation of logbook entries will be conducted in the future.Data used to estimate potential displacement were mean annual catch from 10-minute scale blocks over the period 2008–10.

Employment61 permits were used on 50 permitted vessels in the fishery during 2010 and, on average, each boat employed one crew member.

Sources Fairclough et al. 2010; Fletcher & Santoro 2011

Figure 35 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery, 2000–10

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Cat

ch (t

onne

s)

Num

ber of vessels

138


Mackerel Fishery (Western Australia)

Target speciesSpanish mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson) and grey mackerel (S. semifasciatus), with other species from the genera Scomberomorus, Grammatorcynus and Acanthocybium also contributing to commercial catches


Limited entry, gear restrictions and minimum size. Individual transferable quotas were introduced, including setting total allowable commercial catches for each area of the fishery, allocation of the entitlement to take quota in the form of units and establishment of minimum unit holding requirements to operate in the fishery.

Fishing methodsNear-surface trolling gear from small vessels in coastal areas around reefs, shoals and headlands, and jig fishing


The fishery extends from the West Coast Bioregion to the Western Australian – Northern Territory border. Catches are reported for three areas: Area 1—Kimberley (121ºE to Western Australian – Northern Territory border); Area 2—Pilbara (114ºE to 121ºE); Area 3—Gascoyne (27ºS to 114ºE) and West Coast (Cape Leeuwin to 27ºS). Current management plan is due to expire in December 2011. Most effort and catches are recorded north of Geraldton, especially from the Kimberley and Pilbara coasts of the Northern Bioregion. Management changes were instituted in 2006. Following declines in catches from 2003, fishing effort has since stabilised and catch rate has increased.


Estimates of catches are monitored through mandatory logbook systems. These estimates do not include fish caught and released or lost to sharks. Separate reporting of grey mackerel since 2000 has improved the reliability of catch data. In 2007, a review of logbook records led to further improvements and a significant shift in data from other mackerel to Spanish mackerel.Data used to estimate potential displacement were mean annual catch from 10-minute scale blocks over the period 2008–10.

Employment38 active vessels (2009). Approximately 42 people were employed for 6 months in the commercial mackerel fishery during 2007. No more recent updates are available.

Sources Fletcher & Santoro 2011; Molony & Lai 2010

Figure 36 Catch total (bars) and number of active vessels (line) from the Western Australian Mackerel Fishery, 2000–10

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Catc

h (to

nnes

)

Number of vessels

139


8 AppendixesA: Summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities.Table 22 on the following pages summarises a range of information useful in assessing potential impacts of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network to towns and areas. The following information is in the table:

Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia

An index that measures the physical road distance between where people reside and where those people travel to in order to obtain goods and services and enjoy opportunities for social interaction. Values range from 0 to 5, high scores indicate more remote. Source: ABS census 2006.

Community vulnerability index An index that combines potential impact and social data to provide a guide to compare community vulnerability (see Appendix D). Scores range between 0 and 1, where a score of 1 indicates the highest level of vulnerability. Community vulnerability was analysed only for towns with GVP displacement. Source: this study.

Economic diversity index An index that compares the proportion of the workforce employed in 19 industry sectors with those in the entire Australian workforce. The closer a score is to 1.0, the more it represents the distribution of employment across industries for Australia (more diverse). Source: ABS census 2006.

Fishing industry employment (% of total employment)

Employment in the consolidated fishing industry (catching, processing and wholesale) as a percentage of total employment for the statistical local area. Employment in onshore aquaculture activities was excluded. Source: ABS census 2006.

GVP displaced ($’000 max) Estimate of the potentially displaced catch that flows to this location (if this was a range then the upper bound is reported here). Source: logbook data.

Home port Number of survey respondents that identified this location as home port. Source: survey.

Median household income ($ per week)

Source: ABS census 2006.

Number of potentially impacted input businesses

Count of potentially impacted input businesses at this location. Source: survey.

Number of potentially impacted output businesses

Count of potentially impacted output businesses at this location. Source: survey.

140


Population Number of persons. Source: ABS census 2006.

Seafood processors Number of registered seafood processors at this location. Source: State government registers.

SEIFA index of relative disadvantage

An index that is useful in profiling a community’s resilience and ability to adapt to change. High scores indicate a lack of disadvantage. Source: ABS census 2006.

141


Table 22 Summary of flow of impacts, supply chain, demographics and vulnerability (draft Southwest reserve network)Data source Logbook State ABARES

Town Population geography GV

P d

isp

lace

d (

$'00

0 m

ax)

Hom

e p

ort

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

inp

ut

busi

nes

ses

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

ou

tpu

t bu

sin

esse

s

Seaf

ood

pro

cess

ors*

Vu

lner

abil

ity

ind

ex

Fish

ing

ind

ust

ry

emp

loym

ent

(% o

f tot

al

emp

loym

ent)

SEIF

A in

dex

of r

elat

ive

dis

adva

nta

ge

Econ

omic

div

ersi

ty

ind

ex

AR

IA r

emot

enes

s in

dex

Med

ian

hou

seh

old

in

com

e ($

/wee

k)

Pop

ula

tion

Abrolhos Geraldton (C) 3.0 0.34 2.17 2 0.91 2 783 18 915Adelaide Adelaide (statistical division) 25.4 40 8 3 0.15 0.08 6 0.93 0 948 1 105 846Albany Albany (C) - Central 91.7 2 11 2 9 0.32 0.26 3 0.97 2 728 15 977Ardrossan Yorke Peninsula (DC) - North 1 0.52 3 0.28 2 608 7 333Augusta Augusta-Margaret River (S) 304.9 3 2 1 1 0.26 0.33 7 0.73 2 922 1 072Baird Bay Streaky Bay (DC) 4.6 0.48 5.01 5 0.24 3 697 2 020Beachport Wattle Range (DC) - West 8.6 1 2 1 2 0.40 1.47 3 0.51 2 813 8 703Bremer Bay Jerramungup (S) 2.2 3 0.45 2.39 7 0.10 3 848 1 128Broome Broome (S) 1.0 2 0.35 2.00 2 0.88 3 1129 13 060Bunbury Bunbury (C) 163.3 1 12 2 4 0.21 0.06 5 0.92 1 960 29 700Busselton Busselton (S) 68.4 1 5 1 0.18 0.19 7 0.83 1 962 25 356Canal Rocks Busselton (S) 0.0 0.18 0.19 7 0.83 1 962 25 356Cape Jaffa Kingston (DC) 3.4 0 1 0 0.47 3.44 4 0.19 2 700 2 328Cape Jervis Yankalilla (DC) 0.0 1 0 0 1 0.37 4 0.59 1 635 4 151Carnarvon Carnarvon (S) 1.1 6 0.46 4.23 2 0.53 3 858 5 683Ceduna Ceduna (DC) 10.8 1 1 4 0.50 5.88 2 0.57 4 887 3 572Coffin Bay Lower Eyre Peninsula (DC) 51.0 2 5 0.44 6.87 6 0.28 3 845 584Cowaramup Augusta-Margaret River (S) 15.2 0.26 0.33 7 0.73 2 922 10 352Darwin Darwin City (statistical subdivision) 0.1 1 0.24 0.47 6 0.72 2 1277 66 289Devonport Devonport (C) 4.6 0 0 0.30 0.66 2 0.96 1 692 24 015Dongara Irwin (S) 0.8 1 0.37 4.98 5 0.42 2 869 3 054Dunsborough Busselton (S) 3.9 1 0.18 0.19 7 0.83 1 962 25 356Elliston Elliston (DC) 4.8 2 2 0.49 3.20 6 0.12 3 707 1 132Esperance Esperance (S) 473.4 4 22 4 9 0.39 0.50 5 0.53 3 918 12 964Eucla Dundas (S) 68.9 1 1 1 0.55 0.00 2 0.12 3 844 1 068Fowlers Bay Unincorp. West Coast 22.0 1 0.59 0.00 1 0.34 4 708 459

Survey Census

142


Data source Logbook State ABARES


P d

isp

lace

d (

$'00

0 m

ax)

Hom

e p

ort

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

inp

ut

busi

nes

ses

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

ou

tpu

t bu

sin

esse

s

Seaf

ood

pro

cess

ors*

Vu

lner

abil

ity

ind

ex

Fish

ing

ind

ust

ry

emp

loym

ent

(% o

f tot

al

emp

loym

ent)

SEIF

A in

dex

of r

elat

ive

dis

adva

nta

ge

Econ

omic

div

ersi

ty in

dex

AR

IA r

emot

enes

s in

dex

Med

ian

hou

seh

old

in

com

e ($

/wee

k)

Pop

ula

tion

Fremantle Fremantle (C) - Inner 326.9 6 7 0.15 0.64 6 0.88 0 911 23 838Geraldton Geraldton (C) 49.5 3 10 0.34 2.17 2 0.91 2 783 18 915Hamelin Bay Augusta-Margaret River (S) 287.8 1 0.26 0.33 7 0.73 2 922 10 352Hillarys Joondalup (C) - South 3.3 0.00 0.08 10 0.96 0 1313 100 000Hobart Greater Hobart (statistical subdivision) 5.6 1 0 0.24 0.59 5 0.88 1 884 200 516Hopetoun Ravensthorpe (S) 0.6 0.43 0.26 7 0.30 4 1068 1 953Johns Creek Roebourne (S) 0.6 0.28 0.11 7 0.19 3 2010 16 421Jurien Bay Dandaragan (S) 5.9 3 0.41 1.63 5 0.28 2 860 2 883Kalbarri Northampton (S) 0.1 1 0.51 2.50 3 0.31 3 659 1 333Kalgoorlie Kalgoorlie/Boulder (C) - Pt A 1 0.00 6 0.22 2 1518 28 243Kettering Kingborough (M) - Pt B 0.0 0 0 0.27 3.60 6 0.88 2 724 2 619Kingscote Kangaroo Island (DC) 3.4 9 5 2 1 0.46 1.84 4 0.41 3 749 4 259Kingston Kingston (DC) 1 0 3 3.44 4 0.19 2 700 2 328Lakes Entrance E. Gippsland (S) - Bairnsdale 12.1 0 0 0.33 0.62 3 0.95 2 645 25 367Lancelin Gingin (S) 0.9 1 0.41 2.38 5 0.30 2 827 665Ledge Point Gingin (S) 1.7 1 0.41 2.38 5 0.30 2 827 4 318Leeman Coorow (S) 0.2 0.46 3.46 6 0.16 3 877 1 202Mandurah Mandurah (C) 16.1 1 5 2 0.25 0.15 5 0.82 1 810 55 816Manjimup Manjimup (S) 3 1 2 0.14 3 0.51 2 792 9 255Margaret River Augusta-Margaret River (S) 32.3 1 2 0.26 0.33 7 0.73 2 922 10 352Marion Bay Yorke Peninsula (DC) - South 1 1.26 3 0.44 3 571 3 860Melbourne Melbourne (statistical division) 1 0 0.05 7 0.89 0 1133 3 592 580Meningie The Coorong (DC) 2 0 5 0.63 3 0.18 2 643 5 668Millicent Wattle Range (DC) - West 1 0 1 1.47 3 0.51 2 813 8 703Mindarie Wanneroo (C) - North-West 1.0 0.11 0.23 7 0.89 0 1084 37 652Minlaton Yorke Peninsula (DC) - North 1 0.52 3 0.28 2 608 7 333Mooloolaba Maroochy (S) - Mooloolaba 12.2 0 0 0.16 0.43 6 0.85 0 941 10 243Mt Gambier Mount Gambier (C) 3 0 7 0.26 3 0.91 1 814 23 494

Survey Census

143




P d

isp

lace

d (

$'00

0 m

ax)

Hom

e p

ort

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

inp

ut

busi

nes

ses

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

ou

tpu

t bu

sin

esse

s

Seaf

ood

pro

cess

ors*

Vu

lner

abil

ity

ind

ex

Fish

ing

ind

ust

ry

emp

loym

ent

(% o

f tot

al

emp

loym

ent)

SEIF

A in

dex

of r

elat

ive

dis

adva

nta

ge

Econ

omic

div

ersi

ty in

dex

AR

IA r

emot

enes

s in

dex

Med

ian

hou

seh

old

in

com

e ($

/wee

k)

Pop

ula

tion

Naracoorte Naracoorte and Lucindale (DC) 1 0 0 0.00 6 0.36 2 928 8 081Northcliffe Manjimup (S) 1 0.14 3 0.51 2 792 9 255Perth Central Metropolitan (stat. subd.) 47 10 0.11 9 0.75 0 1408 124 949Point Samson Roebourne (S) 1 1 1 0.11 7 0.19 3 2010 16 421Point Turton Yorke Peninsula (DC) - South 6 1 1 1.26 3 0.44 3 571 3 860Pondalowie Bay Yorke Peninsula (DC) - South 10.3 2 1 0.50 1.26 3 0.44 3 571 3 860Ponde Mid Murray (DC) 3.4 0 0 0 0.42 0.00 2 0.43 1 616 8 038Port Adelaide Port Adel. Enfield (C) - Port 8.8 3 0 0 3 0.28 0.23 1 0.92 0 647 10 356Port Albert Wellington (S) - Alberton 0.0 0 0 0.39 0.17 4 0.37 1 643 5 472Port Hedland Port Hedland (T) 1.5 0.33 0.06 5 0.26 3 1865 11 961Port Lincoln Port Lincoln (C) 264.0 10 50 8 32 0.39 12.03 3 0.78 3 821 13 603Port Macdonnell Grant (DC) 1 0 6 2.51 7 0.43 2 1067 7 869Port Moorowie Yorke Peninsula (DC) - South 4.8 1 0.50 1.26 3 0.44 3 571 3 860Port Pirie Port Pirie C Dists (M) - City 1 2 0.38 1 0.87 2 615 13 613Port Victoria Yorke Peninsula (DC) - North 1 0.52 3 0.28 2 608 7 333Port Welshpool South Gippsland (S) - East 1 0 0.73 5 0.33 1 632 5 636Portland Glenelg (S) - Portland 4.6 0 0 0.33 1.32 3 0.83 2 833 10 370Quindalup Busselton (S) 20.5 1 0.18 0.19 7 0.83 1 962 25 356Robe Robe (DC) 0.0 2 1 4 0.40 5.45 6 0.27 2 795 1 702Safety Bay Rockingham (C) 0.6 0.13 0.14 6 0.89 0 1037 84 307Sceale Bay Streaky Bay (DC) 4.6 0.48 5.01 5 0.24 3 697 2 020Seabird Gingin (S) 25.2 0.41 2.38 5 0.30 2 827 4 318Smoky Bay Ceduna (DC) 1 0.49 5.88 2 0.57 4 887 3 572Southend Wattle Range (DC) - West 1 0 2 1.47 3 0.51 2 813 8 703Streaky Bay Streaky Bay (DC) 137.1 5 11 3 3 5.01 5 0.24 3 697 1 059Sydney Sydney (statistical division) 4.6 0 1 0.10 0.04 7 0.88 0 1255 4 119 169The Pines Yorke Peninsula (DC) - South 1 1.26 3 0.44 3 571 3 860

Survey Census

144




P d

isp

lace

d (

$'00

0 m

ax)

Hom

e p

ort

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

inp

ut

busi

nes

ses

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

ou

tpu

t bu

sin

esse

s

Seaf

ood

pro

cess

ors*

Vu

lner

abil

ity

ind

ex

Fish

ing

ind

ust

ry

emp

loym

ent

(% o

f tot

al

emp

loym

ent)

SEIF

A in

dex

of r

elat

ive

dis

adva

nta

ge

Econ

omic

div

ersi

ty in

dex

AR

IA r

emot

enes

s in

dex

Med

ian

hou

seh

old

inco

me

($/w

eek)

Pop

ula

tion

Thevenard Ceduna (DC) 86.3 4 20 3 0.50 5.88 2 0.57 4 887 3 572Two Rocks Wanneroo (C) - North-West 5.8 0.11 0.23 7 0.89 0 1084 37 652Venus Bay Elliston (DC) 4.1 1 0.49 3.20 6 0.12 3 707 1 132Victor Harbor Elliston (DC) 0.0 0 0 1 3.20 6 0.12 3 707 1 132Walpole Manjimup (S) 0.1 0.41 0.14 3 0.51 2 792 9 255Warooka Yorke Peninsula (DC) - South 6.9 6 1 1 0.50 1.26 3 0.44 3 571 3 860Windy Harbour Manjimup (S) 66.6 4 1 1.00 25.00 3 0.51 2 792 25Wollongong Wollongong (C) - Inner 2.1 0 0 0.16 0.05 5 0.96 0 903 93 846Yorketown Yorke Peninsula (DC) - South 3 1.26 3 0.44 3 571 3 860

Survey Census

* = only available for Western Australia and South Australia; ARIA = Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia; C = city; DC = District Council; GVP = gross value of production; SEIFA =Socio-Economic Indexes For Area; S = shire; T = town

Note:The 'traffic light' indicators for each measure follow the logic of green being a positive measure through to red being a negative measure. Indicators are based on a measures distribution within the group of localities. Australian Bureau of Statistics population statistics are available for a variety of geographies within the Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC). To reflect the most appropriate representation of a community's population, different geographies have been used to calculate the GVP displaced per capita as follows: urban centre / locality is used for Kalbarri, Streaky Bay, Cervantes, Augusta, Coffin Bay, Lancelin, Carnarvon, Broome and Point Samson; local government area is used for population and employment in the consolidated fishing industry for Fremantle. This assessment includes towns that do not have a GVP displacement and therefore do not have a vulnerability ranking; however, these towns were identified as locations of input and output business through the survey and therefore may potentially be impacted. The vulnerability index is calculated on the draft and final GVP scenarios for all impacted towns in the region. The global scaling approach enables comparison of ranked scores across the two GVP scenarios.

145


B: Fisheries data processing methodsThe analysis of commercial fishing gross value of production (GVP) within the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network was based on Commonwealth, South Australian and Western Australian state fishers operating in Commonwealth waters. Commonwealth waters extend from 3 nautical miles offshore from the territorial sea baseline, out to the 200 nautical mile limit of Australia’s exclusive economic zone. Under Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements, state fisheries may operate in Commonwealth waters to target agreed species, under the management jurisdiction of state fisheries agencies.

Draft marine reserve boundaries and zoning provided by the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC 2011b) form the basis of these analyses. Fisheries logbook data and market data were used to calculate the annual average GVP that may be displaced by the draft marine reserves in the South-west Marine Region.

Notes and caveatsThe estimates of catch and GVP in this report are derived from logbook and market data supplied by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI), Western Australian Department of Fisheries (WA DoF) and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES):

The estimates use data at two spatial reporting scales

- Commonwealth data, where the latitude and longitude of each fishing operation is reported—this gives accurate results when assessing the displacement of fishing.

- Western Australian and South Australian data, where the fishing activity is reported by statistical reporting cells (grids of size 10 minutes [18 kilometres] or 60 minutes [111 kilometres])—these data give less accurate results when assessing displacement because marine reserve boundaries do not align with fisheries reporting boundaries. Potential displacement for individual areas and fisheries may therefore be higher or lower than that reported here.

A statistical reporting cell often occupies only a portion of a draft marine reserve. In such cases the catch and GVP are apportioned based on the percentage of the reporting cell that is taken up by the marine reserve. It is assumed that catch is taken uniformly across the area of the reporting cell; however, this may not be the case.

Input from fishing industry representatives and South Australian and Western Australian state fisheries agencies was used to refine the analyses, where possible.

GVP is not equivalent to the likely cost of structural adjustment assistance that may occur.

All prices used for GVP calculations are average beach prices that have been adjusted to 2010–11 dollars to account for consumer price index (i.e. inflation). Individual operators may obtain higher or lower prices over the course of a year.

GVP is the assessed value of commercial fishery products at the point of landing for the quantity produced and excludes the cost of transporting, processing and marketing of fish

146


products for wholesale and retail markets. It does not take into account flow-on effects, such as value-adding and other potential benefits to individuals and communities.

Potential displacement calculations are based on different reference periods depending on the jurisdiction. Catch data for Commonwealth fisheries are over a 10-year reference period (2001–10), while most data for South Australian and Western Australian fisheries are over an 11-year reference period (2000–10). The reference period was 2008-10 for three Western Australian fisheries (Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline, West Coast Demersal Scalefish and West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Longline) where data at a higher spatial resolution (10 minutes) were available. GVP for all fisheries was calculated from mean 'recent' prices in the reference period 2007–08 to 2009–10.

Potential displacement estimates are given as the mean annual catch estimated to have been displaced over the reference period. Catches in the most recent years may have been significantly higher or lower than the mean. For example, the Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery expanded significantly from 2010 so that potential displacement of catches in 2010 would be some 6 times higher than the 11-year mean.

This report uses commercial fishery logbook data. These are generally a good reflection of actual catches but are largely unverified. Commercial fisheries logbook data are provided by fishers, then processed and stored by fisheries agencies—misreporting and data entry errors may arise. In addition, reporting of an operation’s spatial coordinates is not necessarily a completely accurate representation of where fishing occurred. However, logbook data are accepted as a reasonable representation of where fishing occurred.

Historical GVP information to estimate the impact on future fishing activities should be used with caution. This is because GVP will vary with market demand, inflation, exchange rates and the reference period of analysis. Potential displacement estimates may not incorporate the impact of any historical or long-term cyclical fluctuations in fish stocks and may ignore potential future harvests.

Some estimates of potential displacement may be affected by lack of data due to confidentiality constraints. This did not affect estimates for Western Australian and the Commonwealth fisheries, but did have a small affect on estimates for South Australian fisheries (slight underestimation).Confidentiality constraints prevented reporting of estimates for some fisheries and areas, and these are identified in the summary tables.

ConsultationABARES consulted industry, AFMA, PIRSA, SARDI and WA DoF representatives to refine coarse-level state reporting cells to more accurately reflect actual areas fished. This comprised a series of workshops and meetings where preliminary results were presented and discussed with fishers, fishery managers and researchers.

Several refinements were made to the analyses as a result of the workshops and further discussions with fisheries agencies and industry representatives. These include changes to the way GVP was calculated for Commonwealth and South Australian fisheries, cropping data to depths of operation, inclusion of confidential Western Australian data into the total displacement where it came from more than one reserve and inclusion of confidential data where a data release was obtained, such as in the Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery. Additional data was also obtained from WA DoF at the 10-minute grid level for the Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline, West Coast Demersal Scalefish and West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline fisheries.

147


Rationale for gross value of production calculationsThe objective of the logbook analysis is to provide an indication of the potential fishery catch that would be displaced by the draft marine reserves network, and to place a value on the displaced catch. As such, the analysis uses an expansive historical reference period to provide an indication of the magnitude of catches from the areas where fishing would be prohibited.

A 10-year reference period was used for Commonwealth, South Australian and some Western Australian fisheries, and an 11-year reference period for most Western Australian fisheries, to determine annual average catches in the areas of the draft marine reserves. A long reference period has been used because catches in some fisheries fluctuate over time. A longer reference period allows for a better understanding of what catches have been achieved in an area, and is not limited to current activity. However, this approach cannot fully account for a number of factors, such as maximum sustainable resource limits; whether the fishery is in development, fully fished at long-term sustainable levels or recovering from depletion; or large changes in catch over time due to external drivers.

A shorter reference period (2008–10) was used for three Western Australian fisheries (Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline, West Coast Demersal Scalefish and West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Longline) where high spatial resolution data have recently become available. In these fisheries, the increase in spatial resolution (from 60-minute grids to 10-minute grids) was considered most important to resolve catches inside or outside of the draft marine reserves.

To place a value on the displaced catch, the preferred approach was to use recent prices instead of prices obtained in the year of capture. This is because contemporary prices are thought to better reflect likely near-term future prices when impacts would be experienced. Under this approach, prices were taken from a three-year reference period (2007–08 to 2009–10). This was thought to reflect contemporary prices while removing some interannual variability, as well as increasing accuracy in price estimates by averaging across the years where there was price data.

The preferred approach to calculate GVP was applied to Commonwealth and South Australian fisheries. Due to data constraints, GVP for Western Australian fisheries was calculated using average prices obtained in the year of the catch. All prices were adjusted for inflation.

Commonwealth fisheries1) Commonwealth fishers record data in their mandatory AFMA logbooks, which can be

used to determine where, when and how each species is caught. AFMA logbook data were used to develop the estimates, while the GVP calculations were derived using market data supplied by ABARES. Commonwealth operators also record the actual latitude and longitude of each fishing operation in logbooks—this can be either a single position, or a start and finish position for certain gear (such as trawl). The position information of each operation was converted to a line, generated from start and finish coordinates, if available. For operations with only one reported position, a very short line of approximately 100 metres was generated from the single position.

2) Estimates of potential displacement for Commonwealth fisheries were derived from operations that intersected with, or were wholly within, a draft marine reserve. Where an operation’s line intersected a marine reserve but did not fall entirely within the marine reserve, the catch and GVP for that operation were allocated in proportion to the length of line within the reserve (Figure 30).

148


3) The GVP was calculated by multiplying the volume of catch recorded in logbooks by the average recent ‘beach price’ of each species. Where there were no records in the price reference period, the most recent year of data was used.

4) Fishing methods were included or excluded from the different zones based on the zoning framework provided by SEWPaC (Table 23). For example, a purse-seine operation in a Multiple Use Zone would not be excluded and catch was therefore not included in the displacement calculations, whereas trawl operations are excluded from all zones and are therefore included in the displacement calculations.

5) This report was filtered so that confidential data (representing fewer than five vessels) are not shown.

Figure 37 Illustration of treatment of fishing operations (lines) in relation to reserve boundaries

Note: The green area represents a proposed marine reserve, and the red lines indicate lines of fishing operations. Fishing operations can be entirely in the marine reserve or entirely outside it; those that cross the reserve boundary had their potentially displaced catch and GVP allocated proportionally.

Table 23 Commonwealth fishing methods and zoning implicationsMethod Marine National

Park ZoneMultiple

Use ZoneSpecial

Purpose ZoneDemersal gillnet

Demersal longline Demersal trawl

Dropline Handline

Jig Other line

Pelagic longline Purse seine

= method would be excluded

South Australian fisheriesSouth Australian commercial fisheries data were provided to ABARES by PIRSA. Confidential South Australian–managed fisheries logbook data were not provided and therefore could not be included in the analysis, thus underestimating catch and GVP in some cases. However, missing confidential data are not likely to have had a significant effect on the overall estimates. In addition to the fisheries reported in Table 6, the West Coast Prawn Fishery, the Sardine Fishery and the Abalone Fishery all had catch reported in cells that partially

149


overlapped the draft Commonwealth marine reserves. However, upon consultation with industry, PIRSA and SARDI, it was concluded that there was likely to be no impact on these fisheries and that the apparent displacement was an artefact of the large reporting grids in the fisheries and that ABARES apportioned catch evenly across the reporting grids. Consequently, only the South Australian Marine Scalefish Fishery, Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery and Charter Fishery are reported here. Methods used to analyse these fisheries are provided in more detail below.

The Marine Scalefish Fishery was analysed as follows:

1) SARDI provided non-confidential data with combined total catches from the fishery by marine fishing area (MFA) block for the years 2000–10. MFA blocks with less than five vessels were flagged as confidential.

2) The 60-minute MFA blocks (Map 16) were intersected with the draft Commonwealth marine reserves and displacement was estimated according to the proportion of the reporting block that was occupied by the reserve. This approach assumed fishing was distributed uniformly within the MFA block.

3) Estimates of potential displacement were based on mean annual catch for the period 2000–01 to 2009–10. GVP was calculated using annual mean prices for Marine Scalefish Fishery product for the period 2007–08 to 2009–10, obtained from Knight and Tsolos (2010). Prices were converted to 2010–11 dollars using a consumer price index (CPI) adjustment, and the mean of prices in the three years was used to calculate GVP.

4) The Marine Scalefish Fishery was excluded from Marine National Park and Multiple Use zones, and was allowed in Special Purpose zones (Table 24).

The Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery was analysed as follows:

1) SARDI provided non-confidential data with combined total catches from the fishery by MFA block for the years 2000-01 to 2009-10. MFA blocks with less than five vessels were flagged as confidential.

2) Rock lobster catch within each MFA block was adjusted to represent only the catch from Commonwealth waters following the method of Currie and Ward (2011), who used rock lobster pot lift data to determine the percentage of catch within South Australian state waters (see Table 5-2 of Currie & Ward 2011).

3) The 60-minute MFA blocks were adjusted to include only Commonwealth waters and were then intersected with the draft Commonwealth marine reserves. Displacement was estimated according to the proportion of the reporting block (Commonwealth waters) that was occupied by the marine reserve. This approach assumed fishing was distributed uniformly within the Commonwealth waters of the MFA block.

4) Estimates of potential displacement were based on mean annual catch for the period 2000–01 to 2009–10. GVP was calculated using annual mean prices for Northern Zone rock lobster for the period 2007–08 to 2009–10, obtained from Knight and Tsolos (2010). Prices were converted to 2010–11 dollars using a CPI adjustment, and the mean of price in the three years was used to calculate GVP.

5) The Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery was excluded from Marine National Park zones, and allowed in Multiple Use and Special Purpose zones (Table 24).

The Charter Fishery was processed as follows:

150


1) SARDI provided non-confidential data on the number of clients and catch for MFA blocks over the period 2007-08 to 2009-10, aggregated across all years. MFA blocks with less than five vessels were flagged as confidential. SARDI also provided data on the number of clients for vessel home ports, aggregated over the same period.

2) The 60-minute MFA blocks (Map 16) were intersected with the draft Commonwealth marine reserves and displacement of the number of fish retained was estimated according to the proportion of the reporting block that was occupied by the reserve. This approach assumed fishing was distributed uniformly within the MFA block.

3) The Charter Fishery was excluded from Marine National Park zones and was allowed in Multiple Use zones and Special Purpose zones (Table 24).

Table 24 South Australian fisheries and zoning implicationsFishery Marine National

Park ZoneMultiple Use

Zone Special Purpose

Zone Marine Scalefish Fishery

Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery Charter Fishery

= method/fishery would be excluded

Western Australian fisheriesComplete Western Australian commercial fisheries data, not filtered for confidentiality, were provided to ABARES by WA DoF. The data contained a vessel count flag that was used to identify which data were confidential (fewer than three vessels) and could not be revealed. Spatial refining of the data was undertaken in consultation with WA DoF and the WA Fishing Industry Council (WAFIC). This included exclusion of some fisheries because they operate only in Western Australian state waters, and applying a correction based on the depths over which the fishery or gear was used. A number of other adjustments were made to remove fisheries from areas where they could not operate due to fisheries management boundaries.

GVP data were supplied by WA DoF but, following discussions with WA DoF and WAFIC, these were regarded as unreliable. Catches were therefore converted to GVP according to the estimated recent fishery-level aggregate prices given in Table 25.

151


Table 25 Mean aggregate unit prices used to calculate gross value of production for Western Australian–managed fisheriesFishery Price/kg Basis

Esperance Southern Rock Lobster Fishery

46.21 Same as SA Northern Zone Rock Lobster

FBL condition 105—South Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery

17.12 2008–09 mean price from WA DoF–supplied data, adjusted for CPI

Open Access and other conditions

8.00 Input from industry; SA Marine Scalefish Fishery mean aggregate price

South Coast Trawl Fishery 4.76 Scallop price quoted in WA State of the Fisheries 2009–10 assumed constant over 3 years, adjusted for CPI

Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery


South West Trawl Fishery 6.31 2008–09 mean price from WA DoF–supplied data, adjusted for CPI


8.00 Input from industry; SA Marine Scalefish Fishery mean aggregate price; 2008–09 mean price from WA DoF

West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Longline Fishery


West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery 27.82 2008–09 mean price from WA DoF supplied data, adjusted for CPI

Windy Harbour Rock Lobster Fishery

37.02 Mean of WA West Coast Rock Lobster and SA Northern Zone Rock Lobster

FBL = fishing boat licence; CPI = consumer price index; DoF = Department of Fisheries; SA = South Australian; WA = Western Australian

Data for all marine commercial fisheries managed by Western Australia in the South-west Marine Region were analysed using one of two methods depending on the spatial scale of data available.

60-minute grid scale dataAll Western Australian fisheries were analysed using a 60-minute reporting grid, except the three fisheries that were analysed using a 10-minute reporting grid.

1) WA DoF provided non-confidential catch data summarised by 60-minute reporting grids, fishery, fishing gear and year for the period 2000–10. Cells with less than three vessels or licensees were specified as confidential. Each fishing method was assigned to one of three depth classes (0–40 metres, 0–200 metres and 0-800 metres) based on discussions with WA DoF and WAFIC (see Table 26 Map 16). These depth classes were used to refine the large (60-minute) reporting grids on which the data are collected (Map 16). For example, gillnet was assigned the 0–200 metre depth class, so further analysis of gillnet fishing was confined to waters between the coastline and 200 metres, and no fishing was deemed to have occurred in deeper waters. This has the effect of concentrating fishing effort into a smaller, more realistic area, and may result in a higher or lower estimate than would otherwise be obtained if no depth refinements were made.

2) Estimates of potential displacement were based on mean annual catch and GVP for the period 2000–10. The 60-minute grid, modified for each of the depth classes, was intersected with the draft Commonwealth marine reserves. Displacement was estimated according to the proportion of the depth-modified reporting block that was occupied by the marine reserve. This approach assumed fishing was distributed uniformly within the depth-modified reporting block.

3) Fishing was excluded or allowed in the different marine reserve zones based on the fishing methods used (Table 27).

152


4) Based on discussions with WA DoF and WAFIC, some fisheries were excluded from the analysis because they occurred only in Western Australian state waters (generally within 3 nautical miles of the coastline): South Coast Salmon, Abalone, Abrolhos Island Trawl, Australian Herring (FBL condition 42), all Cockburn Sound fisheries, South Coast Purse Seine, West Coast Beach Bait Fish Net Fishery, South West Coast Salmon Fishery, Open Access (Line methods) and Open Access (Net methods).

5) Western Australian fishery management conditions were used to filter the resulting displacement tables to remove entries that could not occur in practice. A management boundary means that no catch in area 18 (Map 2) could have come from the West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery, and no catch in area 23 could have come from the Windy Harbour Rock Lobster Fishery. Recent management changes mean that no catch from the West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery can now come from area 25.

Table 26 Depth classes assigned to fishing methods for spatial refining of the Western Australian 60-minute fishing grid

Method Depth range (m) Method Depth range (m)Beach seine 0–40 Handline 0–200

Beach seine and gillnet 0–40 Handline and trolling 0–200Beach seine and haul net 0–40 Haul net 0–200

Beach seine and purse seine 0–40 Line and fish trap 0–200Beam tide trawl 0–200 Line and potting 0–200

Crab pot 0–800 Longline 0–200Crab pot and potting 0–800 Lift net 0–200

Dropline 0–200 Octopus pot 0–200Dropline and handline 0–800 Octopus pot and potting 0–40Dropline and longline 0–200 Other 0–200

Drop net 0–200 Purse seine 0–40Diving 0–40 Potting 0–200

Fish trawl 0–200 Squid jigging 0–200Fish trap 0–200 Trolling 0–200

Gillnet 0–200 Trap net 0–200Gillnet and haul net 0–200 Trawling 0–200Gillnet and longline 0–200 Wading 0–40

153


Map 16 Depth classes used to refine the location of fishing within 60-minute reporting grids used by Western Australian fisheries

Note: a) shows a typical 60-minute reporting grid adjacent to the coast, b) shows the same grid after it has been broken down into the 0–40 metre depth class, c) shows the same grid after it has been broken down into the 0–200 metre depth class, and d) shows the same grid after it has been broken down into the 0–800 metre depth class. Zoning is described in Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods

10-minute and 5-minute grid scale dataThree fisheries, the Southern Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline, the West Coast Demersal Scalefish and the West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline fisheries, and data for the charter sector were analysed using 10-minute and 5-minute grid scale data:

1) WA DoF provided non-confidential catch data summarised by 10-minute reporting grids (Map 17), fishery, fishing gear and year that was complete for the period 2008–10 for the three fisheries. Cells with less than three vessels or licensees were specified as confidential. Confidential data for the charter sector detailing the number of participants, the number of fish retained and the number of licences summarised by 5-minute and 10-minute reporting grids were provided for the period 2002–10. Data at the 5-minute reporting grid were filtered for confidentiality (less than three vessels) by ABARES.

2) No dollar value was assigned to catches in the charter sector as recreational fishers are not permitted to sell their catch.

3) The reporting blocks were intersected with the draft Commonwealth marine reserves and displacement was estimated according to the proportion of the reporting block that was occupied by the marine reserve. This approach assumed fishing was distributed uniformly within the reporting block.

154


4) Estimates of potential displacement were based on mean annual catch for the period 2008–10 for the three commercial fisheries and the number of fish retained for the charter sector.

5) Fishing was excluded or allowed in the different marine reserve zones based on the fishing methods they use (Table 27). As 10-minute grid data gives far better resolution than 60-minute grid data, it was not necessary to assign fishing method to depth classes for the 10-minute grid commercial data. Similarly, no refinements were made to the charter sector as this was at an even finer scale.

Table 27 Western Australian fishing methods and zoning implicationsMethod Marine National

Park ZoneMultiple Use Zone

Special Purpose Zone

Beach seine Beach seine and gillnet Beach seine and haul net Beach seine and purse seine Beam tide trawl Charter Crab pot Crab pot and potting Dropline Dropline and handline Dropline and longline Drop net Diving Fish trawl Fish trap Gillnet Gillnet and haul net Gillnet and longline Handline Handline and trolling Haul net Line and fish trap Line and potting Line (miscellaneous) Longline Lift net Net (miscellaneous) Octopus pot Octopus pot and potting Other Purse seine Potting Squid jigging Trolling Trap net Trawling Wading

= method would be excluded

Industry raised concerns where potential displacement estimates were regarded as too low for specific fisheries and areas. These were the West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery in area 23, the Open Access Fishery in area 18 and the Esperance Rock Lobster Fishery in area 13. In these cases the data were re-analysed to determine what the maximum possible annual average catch could be based on logbook data across the reference period. This was achieved by allocating all catch from a reporting grid that intersects a marine reserve to inside the

155


marine reserve boundary, thereby assuming that all catch from the cell was taken inside the marine reserve (i.e. not allocated proportionally). Where these additional analyses were undertaken the potential displacement estimates are presented as a range, where the first figure is a best ‘point estimate’ following the standard methodology, and the second figure is an upper bound based on the above approach.

Map 17 State fisheries reporting grid systems overlaid on the outline of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network

Notes: MFA = marine fishing area; SA = South Australia; WA = Western Australia. Zoning is described in Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods

156


C: Social impact assessment methodsSocial impact assessment (SIA) is a process to assess or estimate, in advance, the social consequences that are likely to follow from specific policy actions, including programs, or the adoption of new policies.

Scope of social impact assessmentThe scope of the SIA is outlined in the Record of Understanding (ROU) provided to ABARES by the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC), as well as in the draft objectives and scope of work activities. The type of assessment undertaken and the methods applied therefore reflect the requirements of the ROU, within the constraints of time and resources available.

The SIA covers the South-west, North, North-west and East marine bioregions. This document reports on the South-west Region SIA. The SIA focused on the commercial and charter boat operators that will potentially be displaced by the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network and other stakeholders (i.e. operators that fish outside of the draft marine reserves, supply chain and communities) who will be impacted by displaced fishing activity. Recreational and Indigenous fishers, and any other resource users, were out of scope of the assessment. An attempt was made to provide an opportunity for all in-scope persons to provide input to the assessment; however, participation of all relevant people could not be guaranteed. This may affect the ability to disaggregate the assessment results to an individual impact level; therefore, impacts were assessed at the fishery, regional and community scales.

Social impact assessment approachSIA has been increasingly used by decision makers, including both government and private sector organisations, to predict potential consequences of draft changes in access to natural resources. SIA is a useful tool to help understand the potential range of impacts of a proposed change, and the likely responses of those impacted if the change occurs. This understanding can be used to help design impact mitigation strategies that can minimise negative, and maximise positive, impacts of any change.

The following steps are considered as core components of SIA:

scoping an impact assessment

profiling the current context and identifying who is likely to be impacted

assessing direct social impacts

assessing indirect social impacts.

The process used in this SIA broadly followed these steps. Efforts were made to incorporate cumulative impacts into the assessment.

Three primary data collection methods were used to assess the potential impacts of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.

157


Method 1: Survey of commercial fishersA mail-based survey of potentially displaced and impacted commercial fishers in the South-west Marine Region was undertaken in August and September 2011.

Survey scopeThe scope of the survey was developed in consultation with industry, state and Commonwealth fisheries institutions and SEWPaC. It was agreed that the study target population would be individual fishers and fishing businesses currently holding licences in state and Commonwealth fisheries with a likelihood of being displaced and impacted by the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. The intent was not to survey all fishery licence holders in the region, but to create a target population and provide all accessible people and businesses in the target population with a survey. Although the target population was identified in theory, it is difficult to identify all individuals and businesses that would fall within this target population, largely because many of the impacts will take place in the future.

Figure 38 illustrates the different population groups referred to when developing the survey scope and sampling frame. The target population is a subset of all fishers in the South-west Marine Region who are potentially displaced and impacted by the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. The precise number of fishery licence holders in this target population was unknown. Those included in the target population are potentially impacted via:

reduced access to resource due to displacement

loss of business income

increased competition with displaced fishers

changes to fisheries management as a result of displacement

decreased value of licences and capital

loss of essential infrastructure (e.g. supply chain businesses and facilities).

158

ALL COMMERCIAL FISHING LICENCE HOLDERS (state and Commonwealth) operating within the marine region

TARGET POPULATION—fishing businesses currently holding licences in state and Commonwealth fisheries with a likelihood of being displaced and impacted

SURVEY FRAME—accessible population (n = 281)

SURVEY RESPONDENTS (n = 81)


Figure 38 Relationship among all fishers, target population, survey frame and survey respondents

Survey frame design and developmentThe primary goal in designing and developing the survey frame was to ensure that the highest number of potentially displaced and impacted licence holders would be identified for the survey. To the extent possible, potentially displaced and impacted fishers were identified using logbook records of catch within the draft marine reserves (refer to Chapter 2: Potential displacement of fishing). Industry, state and Commonwealth fisheries institutions, and SEWPaC also contributed to this process.

The survey frame was developed through the following processes:

ABARES obtained fishery logbook data from state and Commonwealth agency data holders. Logbook data contains information on the spatial position and times of fishing operations and is compulsorily acquired from all licensed fishing businesses.

ABARES analysed fishers' logbook data from state and Commonwealth fishery agencies to determine which fisheries would be displaced by the draft South-west marine reserves; that is, fisheries with operators who had recently fished within the draft marine reserve boundaries.

Commonwealth and State fishery agencies were informed of the potential displaced fisheries and provided a preliminary list of displaced licence holders from the identified fisheries.

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority provided a preliminary list of displaced licence holders operating in Commonwealth fisheries. The Commonwealth Fisheries Association reviewed the list and provided additional licence holders they believed would be displaced based on recent fishing activity.

In Western Australia, state fisheries agencies provided a preliminary list of displaced licence holders. The West Australian Fisheries Industry Council reviewed the list and provided additional licence holders they believed would be displaced.

159


In South Australia, Primary Industries and Regions South Australia (PIRSA) supplied a complete list of licence holders in the affected Marine Scalefish and Northern Zone Rock lobster fisheries. Due to confidentiality, PIRSA were unable to refine this list, however, with assistance from Wild Catch Fisheries SA the list was refined using the addresses of licensees who were adjacent to the draft reserves. This resulted in a disproportionate number of South Australian licence holders in the survey frame.

The resulting survey frame consisted of 281 licence holders across Commonwealth (32 licence holders), Western Australian state fisheries (50 licence holders) and South Australian state fisheries (199 licence holders). The use of Commonwealth and state licensing data and the expert knowledge of industry in constructing the survey frame provide a high level of confidence that the 281 licence holders in the survey frame would cover more than 90 per cent of licence holders in the target population. Further, as there was an over sampling of licences holders in South Australia, it is highly probable that the target population was less than 281.

Survey errorIt is important to understand the types of survey error that are most likely to occur in any survey. Most surveys report the sampling error. However, in many instances this is quite small relative to other sources of error. The main sources of survey error that need to be considered when interpreting the survey findings in this impact assessment are discussed below (following de Leeuw et al. 2008).

Coverage error

Coverage error is the difference between the survey frame and the target population. Because we do not know the size of the target population, and constructed the target population based on state and Commonwealth agency logbook data analysis, we most likely had both under coverage and over coverage error. We were unable to address undercoverage error as we were not sure all displaced licence holders were in the survey frame and we were unable to contact non-respondents. There is a possibility of overcoverage due to the oversampling of South Australian fisheries. This was evident in survey responses where individuals believed they were displaced but, based on the fishery they operate in, gear type and reserve zonings, were not displaced. We employed a post-survey filtering process to ensure that these out-of-scope respondents were not included in the analysis of displacement.

Usually, the target population would be identified through a filtering process such as a mail-out card to all fishers in the region with a question (e.g. ‘Are you likely to be displaced by the South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network?’ (Yes/No), then administering the full survey to the group that answered ‘Yes’. This would establish the target population. However, the difficulty with this filtering approach is that it would have required the respondent to have a complete knowledge of the marine reserve system zoning, and their spatial use pattern of the resource. It would have been impractical to include this information in a simple card.

160


Sampling error

Sampling error can occur if a sample is taken instead of measuring the entire population. It is usually not feasible to send a survey to every individual in the target population, and a random or purposive sample is selected from which inferences can be made about the target population. However, we believe that the sampling error is less relevant in this study because a survey was sent to all licence holders in the survey frame (i.e. we did not take a sample from our survey frame). Therefore, we are confident that we covered a high proportion of the accessible population.

Non-response error

Non-response error can occur if particular groups of people do not complete and return survey forms, thus under-representing those groups and skewing the survey results. For example, ‘impact bias’ could arise if people who think they may be impacted by the draft marine reserves are more motivated to respond to the survey than those who do not; or if larger fishing operations that are well connected to industry groups or have attended industry briefing sessions are more likely to respond than smaller operators who may be less well informed. In general, the reasons for non-response could include:

failure of the data collector to identify the individual (e.g. incorrect address)

refusal to participate (e.g. deciding not to answer, or forgetting to answer the survey)

inability to participate due to health, absence, etc.

inability to communicate (e.g. requiring an interpreter)

accidental loss of the data or questionnaire.

The response rate was 29 per cent (81 out of 280 surveys). We cannot determine the response error because we did not follow up any of the non-respondents to determine what characteristics they had.

Measurement error

Measurement error can include inaccurate responses to questions, an inability of the respondent to recall information or differences in how respondents interpreted a question.

In this survey, measurement error arose through:

misinterpretation of zoning of marine reserve areas (although we used filters to help screen for actually displaced fishers)

misinterpretation of methods of fishing that related to the zones (e.g. limitations of the gear risk assessment process)

difficulty for people to determine future events and how they would respond to the changes

respondents having difficulty in interpreting the questions (e.g. the ‘safe area’ question in the qualitative value mapping section of the survey could be interpreted as a safe area to fish or a safe area to go in bad weather).

161


To reduce these errors, we tested the survey before administering it, and also modified wording and questions from region to region as the project progressed, thereby improving the measurement.

Method 2: Focus groupsFocus groups were held with fishing industry and community representatives to gain an understanding of the relationships between the fisheries and communities.

Focus groups were held in Port Lincoln, Streaky Bay, Fremantle, Augusta and Esperance (Table 28). The location of the focus groups was determined through consultation with the South West working group (Commonwealth and state fishing industry representatives and the SEWPaC Industry Liaison Officer) and reflected where impacts were likely to be greatest.

Table 28 Focus group participantsFocus group location Fishing industry

representativesCommunity representatives

Port Lincoln 4 1Fremantle 4 0Augusta 17 2Esperance 5 3

Note: Not all fishing industry and community invitees attended the focus groups.

The key questions asked were:

Which fisheries, related fishing businesses, supply chain businesses and communities will potentially be impacted by the draft Commonwealth marine reserves?

What are the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on businesses, individuals and communities?

How will impacted people respond to the change?

Method 3: InterviewsTwenty-four in-depth interviews were conducted with commercial fishers, charter boat operators and supply chain businesses. Twenty-two interviews were face-to-face and two were by telephone.

Many of the interviewees were also involved in the focus groups. We took the opportunity after the focus groups to interview individual fishers to gain a deeper understanding of how the change would impact on their business, personal life and community.

Data management and analysisSurvey data were entered into the computer program Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Routine data checking and cleaning processes were applied to produce a final data set.

Focus groups and interviews were recorded either by hand notes or digital audio recordings. These recordings were transcribed and used as a basis for analysis. A qualitative analysis package, NVivo8, was used to help summarise, sort and thematically interpret the information provided by the fishers and community representatives. Note that all survey results are reported as valid percentages in this report (valid percentages will change depending on the question because not all respondents answered all questions).

162


Ethical processSeveral processes were undertaken to maintain ethical standards in this SIA.

Survey participants were provided with an introductory letter outlining the purpose of the SIA, who should fill out the survey and details on confidentiality. It was emphasised that their name will never be placed on the survey and only aggregate data will be used in reports. Similar information about confidentiality was provided inside the front cover of the survey.

Focus group invitees were sent a fact sheet outlining the purpose and approach of the SIA. Verbal approval for audio recording of the focus group discussion was obtained at the start of the focus group meeting.

Interviewees received information about the SIA via the survey process or the focus group process, and were asked for verbal approval to record at the start of the interview.

Care was taken to remove any personal information from case study reports that would allow individuals to be identified (unless the participants explicitly indicated to ABARES that this information could be included).

Participants were informed that all information would be stored in a secured system and no individual would be identified except where permission was granted.

163


D: Developing an index of community vulnerabilityThis appendix outlines the approach take to measure community vulnerability to the impacts of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. The outputs from this study indicate the communities that depend on the consolidated fishing industry (includes fishing and offshore aquaculture [excludes onshore aquaculture], seafood processing, fish and seafood wholesaling [Australian Bureau of Statistics, ABS, industry of employment categories]) for their livelihood, and which of these communities are potentially more vulnerable to the impacts of the draft marine reserves. The following section outlines the approach taken to measure community vulnerability.

Communities of place and interestIn this study, the emphasis is on communities of place and interest. Communities of place refer to people living within a defined geographical boundary, which in this study is the Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) spatial unit, statistical local area (SLA). Communities of interest refer to people who share a common interest, which in this case are those employed in the consolidated commercial fishing industry.

Community vulnerabilityThe concept of vulnerability has gained increasing popularity in understanding the socioeconomic dimensions of change within communities (Stenekes et al. 2010). The following vulnerability assessment is based on a conceptual model used by the Allen Consulting Group (2005), which was based on Schröter and The ATEAM Consortium (2004). This model has been widely adopted and is generally accepted by researchers (Johnston & Williamson 2007; Parkins & MacKendrick 2007). In the model, vulnerability is a function of a system’s exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity (see Figure 39).

To put the conceptual model in operation, an indicator approach was applied. Indicators of social change are widely accepted as reliable and practical tools to summarise complex socioeconomic phenomena (Herreria et al. 2008). The authors acknowledge that vulnerability is a dynamic construct that changes over time and space. However, in this assessment, vulnerability is measured as a static phenomenon using indicators selected a priori. In reducing complex phenomena to a single metric, local contextual differences are masked. However, the approach does allow for a consistent assessment over large spatial units (Stenekes et al. 2010). The resulting summary metric of vulnerability indicates that adaptation efforts should be directed at those communities with the greatest sensitivity and least adaptive capacity to changes in access to marine resources (Smit & Wandel 2006).

164

Exposure Sensitivity

Potential impact Adaptive capacity

Vulnerability


Figure 39 Conceptual model of community vulnerability

Source: Allen Consulting Group 2005, based on Schröter & The A Team Consortium2004

Developing the community vulnerability indexThe approach applied to develop the index of vulnerability in this study synthesises previous applied research on indicators used to understand the relationship between community resource dependence and the concepts of resilience, adaptive capacity, well-being and disadvantage (Adger & Vincent 2005; Armitage 2005; Beckley 1998; Brooks & Adger 2004; Burnside 2007; Ellis 2000; Fenton 2005; Herreria et al. 2008; Machlis et al. 1990; Marshall et al. 2007; Nelson et al. 2005; Patriquin et al. 2007; Smit & Wandel 2006; Stenekes et al. 2010; Turton 1999; Yohe & Tol 2002). The approach is therefore theoretical and does not differentiate variables that may be more relevant at a local level in identifying factors that influence vulnerability.

Measures of community vulnerabilityThe conceptual framework and literature were used as a guide to select indicators to measure the vulnerability of communities that depend on fishery resources. Table 29 presents the indicators, data items and the geographical scale used to measure the sub-index of sensitivity and the sub-index of adaptive capacity. The majority of data used in this study are derived from the ABS namely, the Census of Population and Housing 2006; Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas (SEIFA) and Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) 2001. In addition to these datasets, an index of economic diversity was constructed from ABS data

165


Table 29 Indicators and dataConcept sub-index

Indicator and ABS data used Scale

Exposure Potential GVP displaced per person within a nominated geography Town and SLA

Sensitivity Proportion of total labour force employed in the consolidated commercial fishing industry (excluding onshore aquaculture), based on ABS data from the 2006 Census of Population and Housing

SLA

Adaptive capacity

ABS Socio-economic Indexes For Areas. Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage – Australia decile ranking, ABS 2006

SLA

Economic Diversity Index. Diversity of local economy relative to the Australian economy, calculated using employment by sector data from the ABS 2006 Census of Population and Housing

SLA

ABS Accessibility/Remoteness Index for Area, ABS 2001 n.a.

Median household income, ABS 2006 SLA

ABS = Australian Bureau of Statistics; GVP = gross value of production; n.a. = not available; SLA = statistical local area

Calculation of community vulnerability indexA key consideration in developing a composite index is the relative weight of each component or indicator that contributes to the index (Herreria 2008). For this study, weightings of 1.0 were used for all components and each of the indicator values were standardised to a value between 0 and 1 based on the distribution of scores for all SLAs of interest in the marine bioregion.

The exposure sub-index is a calculated score based on the GVP displacement divided by the number of persons residing within the nominated geography, which was then standardised.

The sensitivity sub-index has only one indicator (see Table 29), which was standardised based on the distribution of values for the SLAs of interest within the South-west Marine Region.

The potential impact (PI = E × S) is a sub-index made up of standardised exposure multiplied by standardised sensitivity scores for each SLA of interest in the South-west Marine Region. This sub-index score was then standardised.

The adaptive capacity sub-index was calculated as the sum of the standardised values for the indicators listed in Table 29.

The vulnerability index (V = PI – A) was calculated by subtracting the standardised value of the adaptive capacity sub-index from the standardised potential impact sub-index.

The resulting index of community vulnerability provides a distribution of ranked scores between 0 and 1, where an index score of 1 indicates the highest rank of vulnerability and an index score of 0 indicates the lowest rank of vulnerability.

166


Caveats and limitationsA number of general caveats and limitations are relevant to the interpretation of the town vulnerability assessment. These are summarised below:

The vulnerability index is a relative unweighted ranked order measure. It indicates a community's ranked position within the set of communities examined in the given marine region. The indices generated should not be interpreted as absolute values. Hence, a score of 1.0 in the community vulnerability index does not mean that area is twice as vulnerable as an area with a score of 0.5, only that it is relatively more vulnerable.

Relative community vulnerability is a summary indicator and, to understand the factors contributing to the composite index, it is necessary to look at the potential impact and adaptive capacity sub-indices and their contributing indicators.

A community’s degree of vulnerability and adaptive capacity has many dimensions; this complexity makes it difficult to reduce these concepts to a single numeric value that covers all factors influencing the concept. Inclusion of other indicators, such as the mobility of people between regions, can significantly change these relative rankings. Therefore, this type of assessment should include supplementary quantitative and qualitative data and research (such as the case studies in this report).

The index is constructed using data from a range of sources at different units of measurement and scales, including GVP displacement estimates, employment data, SEIFA relative disadvantage, remoteness at a regional level, and census housing and population data at SLA level. Therefore, there are smoothing effects that will affect the rankings.

Consideration must be given to how accurately a sub-index measures the concept. For example, the sensitivity measure is based on the proportion of people employed in the commercial fishing industry in a given community. This measure includes all people in the fishing industry and does not differentiate between those in fisheries that are impacted and those that are not. Therefore, it may result in an overestimation of the sensitivity of a community to the impact.

Aggregated data at the SLA level is applied across all towns in that SLA. This will influence some dimensions of the index and in some cases decrease the overall index ranking. Therefore, the impact on small towns that sit within SLAs needs to be considered within this context.

Other index definitionsSEIFA: index of relative socio-economic disadvantageThe study applies the ABS SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage—Australia decile rank. The SEIFA index is considered useful in profiling communities and can be applied to indicate a community's resilience and ability to adapt to change. The SEIFA Index of Relative Disadvantage score used in the analysis is a comparative decile ranking that indicates an SLAs rank in comparison with all other SLAs within Australia. High scores on the index indicate a lack of disadvantage while low scores indicate higher levels of disadvantage. Scores that occur at the tails of the distribution are of most interest because those around the middle (i.e. around 5) are neither particularly disadvantaged nor lacking disadvantage relative to other areas.

167


ARIA: Accessibility/Remoteness Index of AustraliaThe ABS defines the underlying concept of remoteness in the ARIA as ’the measure of the physical road distance between where people reside and where those people travel to in order to obtain goods and services, and to enjoy opportunities for social interaction’. The ABS Remoteness Structure defines the level of remoteness with values from 0 to 5:

0—Major cities of Australia

1—Inner regional Australia

2—Outer regional Australia

3—Remote Australia

4—Very remote Australia

5—Migratory

EDI: Economic Diversity IndexThe Economic Diversity Index (EDI) compares the proportion of the workforce employed at the SLA geography in the 19 industry sectors identified by the ABS Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) (2006) with those in the entire Australian work force. The closer an EDI score for a SLA is to 1.0, the more it represents the distribution of employment across industries for Australia, and thus its economy is considered to be more diverse. Conversely, a lower EDI closer to zero suggests less diversity compared with that of Australia.

168


E: Estimating job reduction using the surveyThe survey was used to calculate an approximate estimate of the potential jobs lost from the surveyed businesses as a result of the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine reserves Network. The comments at the beginning of Chapter 4: Impacts on fishing businesses about interpreting the survey data are very relevant here, notably that the survey specifically targeted impacted businesses and is not representative the wider commercial fisher population in the South-west Marine Region (see also Appendix C: Social impact assessment methods). The estimates are also based on each surveyed business's prediction about how they would respond to the draft South-west marine reserves.

The survey was filtered to exclude responses from operators where no displacement could occur. These were scenarios where either fishing methods were compatible with the zoning of a particular reserve, or where logbook analysis indicated no displaced fishing effort.

For each respondent, potential job loss was calculated as a percentage reduction in their reported numbers of employees. The percentage reduction was dependant on their overall response to the draft marine reserves (stay and make up shortfall, stay with reduced catch, leave fishing industry) and their subsequent response to a question about reducing employees (Table 16 and Figure 6). For example, if a respondent stated that they had 10 full-time employees, would continue operating with reduced catch or downsize their operation and strongly agreed that they would reduce employees, following Table 30, there would be a 30 per cent reduction in employees for that business resulting in three job losses.

The percentage reductions in Table 30 were partly based on counts of survey responses indicating what proportion of their total catch during 2010–11 they estimate would be displaced by the draft marine reserves (Table 14).

Table 30 Percentages used to calculate reduction in employees based on (a) the overall response to the draft marine reserves and (b) response to a question of whether the business will reduce employees(a) If the draft Commonwealth marine reserves were declared, would the fishing business need to change its fishing activities? [yes]

(b) The fishing business will have to reduce employeesAgree (%) Strongly agree (%)

Stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall fishing in other areas or move into an alternative fishery

10 20

Continue operating with reduced catch or downsize operation 15 30

Leave the fishing industry 50 100

169


F: Profile of survey respondentsThis appendix provides background and profile information on the survey respondents.

FisheriesThe most common licences held by respondents were:

Marine Scale Fish, South Australia (SA) (44.6 per cent)

Northern Zone Rock Lobster, SA (27.7 per cent)

South Coast Wetline (mainly the West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery), Western Australia (WA) (12.0 per cent)

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark—Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector, Commonwealth (13.3 per cent).

Table 31 Licences held by survey respondents in 2010–11Fishery Percentage of

respondents holding licence

Percentage of respondents fishing

Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery—Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector

7.2 4.8

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark—Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector

13.3 9.6

Small Pelagic 6.0 0Southern Bluefin Tuna 1.2 1.2Southern Squid Jig 3.6 1.2Western Deepwater Trawl 4.8 1.2Western Skipjack 1.2 0Western Tuna and Billfish 2.4 1.2 Western Australia Abalone 2.4 1.2South Coast Wetline 12.0 8.4Esperance Rock Lobster 2.4 2.4Windy Harbour Rock Lobster 2.4 2.4Rock Lobster Pot Regulation Licence 7.2 6.0Deep Sea Crab Condition 105 4.8 4.8Abrolhos Islands and Mid-west trawl 1.2 1.2West Coast Demersal Scalefish interim managed 2.4 2.5Joint Authority Southern Demersal Gillnet and Longline 12.0 10.8South Coast Purse Seine managed 1.2 0.0South Coast Trawl 3.6 2.4South and South West Coast Salmon 1.2 0.0South-west Trawl managed 4.8 3.6West Coast Deep Sea Crab 1.2 1.2West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline (interim) 0.0 0.0West Coast Purse Seine 2.4 0.0West Coast Rock Lobster 2.4 1.2 South Australia Abalone 1.2 2.4Giant Crab (northern zone) 2.4 3.6Marine Scalefish 44.6 34.9Northern Zone Rock Lobster 27.7 22.9Sardine 0 0West coast Prawn 1.2 1.2

170


Fishing methodThe most common methods of fishing used by survey respondents were handlining, lobster potting, squid jig, longlining (bottom set) and droplining. Respondents could use more than one method.

Table 32 Fishing methodsPercentage of respondents

Method South Australia Western Australia South-west systemHandline 7.3 44.4 55.4Lobster pot 3.6 29.6 38.6Squid jig 10.9 14.8 32.5Longline (bottom set) 43.6 3.7 30.1Drop line 3.7 29.6 22.9Gillnet (bottom set) 16.4 29.6 18.1Troll 61.8 11.1 14.5Bottom trawl 41.8 29.6 14.5Fish trap 1.8 3.7 6.0Pelagic longline 7.3 7.4 4.9Midwater trawl 41.8 3.7 3.6Purse seine 20 0 1.2


Fishing history Survey respondents had been working in the commercial fishing industry for 32 years

(median); the longest time in the industry was 55 years.

Nearly 60 per cent of respondents had been working in commercial fishing for more than 30 years.

Fishing businesses had been operating for 30 years (median); the longest time of operation was 62 years.

More than 40 per cent of businesses had been operating for 30 years or more.

Table 33 Fishing historyMedian Minimum Maximum

Years worked in commercial fishing 32 1 55Years fishing business has been operating 30 1 62


171


Generations in fishing More than 50 percent of respondents said their families had been involved in fishing for

two or more generations.

Table 34 Generations in fishingPercentage of respondents

Generation South Australia Western Australia South-west system1 42.9 55.6 45.82 17.9 37.0 24.13 33.9 3.7 25.34 5.4 3.7 4.8


Respondents role in business Most respondents (81.9 per cent) were owner–operators of their businesses, while a

smaller proportion were non-fishing owners (7.2 per cent).

Table 35 Respondents role in fishing businessPercentage of respondents

Role South Australia Western Australia South-west systemOwner–operator 82.1 81.5 81.9Non-fishing owner 5.4 11.1 7.2Employee skipper 3.6 0 2.4Business manager 8.9 7.4 8.4


Fishing business structure Most businesses operated as sole traders (39.8 per cent) or were family partnerships

(30.1 per cent). There were also a large proportion of incorporated companies (26.5 per cent) among the businesses.

There was a higher proportion of sole traders among respondents in SA (44.6 per cent) compared with WA (25.9 per cent). Conversely, there was a higher proportion of incorporated companies in WA (37.9 per cent) than in SA. This suggests that there was a higher proportion of smaller businesses among SA respondents to the survey.

Table 36 Fishing business structurePercentage of respondents

Structure South Australia Western Australia South-west systemSole trader 44.6 25.9 39.8Family partnership 28.6 37.0 30.1Other partnership 5.4 0 3.6Incorporated company 21.4 37.0 26.5


172


Business activities All the businesses in the south-west included fishing operations. However, some

businesses also undertook other supply-chain related activities such as processing (32.5 per cent), wholesale–distribution (20.5 per cent) and retail (10.8 per cent).

A higher proportion of respondents in WA were involved in downstream activities, such as wholesale–distribution, retail and export, compared with SA.

Table 37 Business activitiesPercentage of respondents

Activity South Australia Western Australia South-west systemFishing 100 100 100Processing 30.4 37.0 32.5Wholesale/distribution 12.5 37.0 20.5Retail 7.1 18.5 10.8Export 8.9 22.2 13.3Input supply 0 0 0


Fishing business employees

Businesses in the south-west had an average of 5.2 full-time, 1.7 part-time, 4.2 casual paid employees and 6.8 paid seasonal employees. Businesses also had on average less than one unpaid employee working for the business.

Each surveyed business had an average of 14 paid employees and 1 unpaid employee; however, this mean was skewed to some extent by one particular large business that had over 200 employees.

The most common employment type was seasonal (mean 5.78), followed by full-time, casual and part-time.

Table 38 Fishing business employeesEmployment type Mean MaximumCasual paid 2.54 127Full-time Paid 3.90 99Part-time paid 1.65 90Seasonal paid 5.78 200Casual unpaid 0.42 20Full-time unpaid 0.37 6Part-time unpaid 0.13 4Seasonal unpaid 0.09 3


173


Value of total landed catch A higher proportion of Western Australian respondents (37.0 per cent) reported that they

had larger values of landed catch (i.e. above $500 000) than South Australian respondents (14.9 per cent). This is consistent with the previous finding that a higher proportion of businesses among South Australian respondents are smaller businesses.

Table 39 Value of landed catch in 2010–11Percentage of respondents

Value of catch South Australia Western Australia South-west systemLess than $50 000 16.7 22.2 18.5$50 001–100,000 25.9 7.4 19.8$100 001–250,000 18.5 7.4 14.8$250 001–500,000 24.1 25.9 24.7$500 001–1 million 3.7 18.5 8.6$1–2.5 million 3.7 7.4 4.9$2.5 million–5 million 1.9 3.7 2.5Greater than $5 million 5.6 7.4 6.2


Fishing income and dependence 51.9 per cent of respondents received income from sources other than fishing.

69 per cent of respondents received over 90 per cent of personal income from fishing.

63.8 per cent of respondents planned to hand the business to their children.

Figure 40 Fishing income proportion

<= 10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91+0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

What proportion of your personal income is from fishing related employment?What proportion of your household income is from fishing related employment?

Percentage income from fishing

Resp

onde

nts (

%)


174


Age 97.5 per cent of respondents were male, and most were 41–70 years of age.

Figure 41 Age profile of survey respondents

0-10 10-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71+0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45


Age

(yea

rs)


175


9 ReferencesABARES 2010, Australian fisheries surveys report 2010: results for selected fisheries, 2007–08 and 2008–09; preliminary estimates for 2009–10, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABARE 2010, Introduction and overview of Ausregion, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, viewed 28 October 2011, <http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_abares20030101.01/Ausregion.pdf>.

ABARES 2011a, Agricultural commodity statistics 2011, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABARES 2011b, Australian fisheries statistics 2010, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABARES 2012a, Australian fisheries surveys report 2011: results for selected fisheries, 2008–09 to 2010–11, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABARES 2012b, North-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network: social and economic assessment of the impacts on commercial and charter fishing. Report on the draft marine reserves network, with a supplementary report for the final proposed marine reserves network, Report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, 2012.

ABS 2006, Census of population and housing, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

ABS 2001, Census of population and housing, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

Adger, W & Vincent, K 2005, 'Uncertainty in adaptive capacity', Comptes Rendus Geoscience, vol. 337, pp. 399–410.

Allen Consulting Group 2005, Climate change risk and vulnerability, report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

Armitage, D 2005, 'Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management', Environmental Management, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 703–715.

Beckley, T 1998, 'The nestedness of forestry dependence: a conceptual framework and empirical exploration', Society and Natural Resources, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 101–120.

BREE 2011, Resources and energy statistics 2011, Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics Canberra.

Brooks, N & Adger, W 2004, 'Technical Paper 7: Assessing and enhancing adaptive capacity', in: B Lim & E Spanger-Siegfried (eds), Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: developing strategies, policies and measures, United Nations Development Programme, Cambridge University Press.

Burnside, D 2007, The relationship between community vitality, viability and health and natural resources and their management: a brief review of the literature, final report prepared for the National Land & Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

176


CFA, Wildcatch Fisheries SA & WAFIC 2011, Commercial fishing industry submission: South-west Commonwealth marine reserve network proposal, Commonwealth Fisheries Association, Wildcatch Fisheries SA & Western Australian Fishing Industry Council, Canberra.

Currie, DR & Ward, TM 2011, Estimating historical catches from preliminary sanctuary zones scenarios in South Australia’s marine parks, report to Primary Industries and Resources South Australia Fishery and Aquaculture, South Australian Research and Development Institute.

DEH 2005a, Assessment of the South Australian Marine Scalefish Fishery, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

DEH 2005b, Assessment of the South Coast Purse Seine Managed Fishery and the West Coast Purse Seine Managed Fishery, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

DEH 2006, Assessment of the Western Australia South Coast Trawl Fishery, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

de Leeuw, ED, Hox, JJ & Dillman, DA 2008, International handbook of survey methodology, Routledge Academic.

de Lestang, S, Thomson, A & Rossbach, M 2010, 'West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery status report', in WJ Fletcher & K Santoro (eds), State of the fisheries and aquatic resources report 2009/10, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, pp. 28–38.

DEWHA 2008, The South-west Marine Bioregional Plan: Bioregional Profile, Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

DEWR 2007a, Assessment of the West Coast Deep Sea Crab Interim Managed Fishery, Australian Government Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra.

DEWR 2007b, Assessment of the Western Australian South Coast Crustacean Fishery, Australian Government Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra.

DEWR 2007c, Assessment of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery, Australian Government Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, Canberra.

Ellis, F (ed.) 2000, Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Fairclough, D, Lai, E & Bruce, C 2010, 'West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery status report', in WJ Fletcher & K Santoro (eds), State of the fisheries and aquatic resources report 2009/10, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia, pp. 80–90.

Fenton, M 2005, Guidebook on social impact assessment, prepared for the Comprehensive Coastal Assessment (Department of Planning) by Environment and Behaviour Consultants, Townsville.

Fletcher, WJ & Santoro, K (eds) 2008, State of the fisheries report 2007/08, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth.

Fletcher, WJ & Santoro, K (eds) 2010, State of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Report 2009/10, Western Australia Department of Fisheries, Perth.

177


Fletcher, WJ & Santoro, K (eds) 2011, State of the fisheries and aquatic resources report 2010/11, Western Australia Department of Fisheries, Perth.

FRDC 2004, Annual report 2003–04, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Herreria, E, Byron, I, Kancans, R & Stenekes, N 2008, Water 2010: assessing dependence an water for agriculture and social resilience, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Hobsbawn, P, Summerson, R & Ansell, E 2009, 'Small Pelagic Fishery', in D Wilson, R Curtotti, G Begg & K Phillips (eds), Fishery status reports 2008: status of fish stocks managed by the Australian Government, Bureau of Rural Sciences & Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, pp. 96–105.

Jackson, G, Marriott, R & Lai, E 2010, 'Gascoyne Demersal Scalefish Fishery status report', in WJ Fletcher & K Santoro (eds), State of the fisheries and aquatic resources report 2009/10, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth, pp. 122–128.

Johnston, M & Williamson, T 2007, 'A framework for assessing climate change vulnerability of the Canadian forest sector', The Forestry Chronicle, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 358–361.

Kailola, PJ, Williams, MJ, Stewart, PC, Reichelt, RE, McNee, A & Grieve, C 1993, Australian fisheries resources, Bureau of Resource Sciences, Canberra.

Kangas, M 2008, 'South West Trawl Fishery status report', in WJ Fletcher & K Santoro (eds), State of the fisheries report 2007/08, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth, pp. 38–45.

Kangas, M, Sporer, E & Brown, S 2008, 'South Coast Trawl Fishery status report', in WJ Fletcher & K Santoro (eds), State of the fisheries report 2007/08, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth, pp. 214–215.

Kangas, M, Sporer, E, & Brown, S 2010, 'Abrolhos Islands and Mid West, South West Trawl Managed Fisheries and South Coast Trawl Fishery status report', in WJ Fletcher & K Santoro (eds), State of the fisheries and aquatic resources report 2009/10, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth, pp. 49–53.

Knight, M & Tsolos, A 2010 South Australian Wild Fisheries Information and Statistics Report 2008/09, South Australian Research and Development Institute, Adelaide.

Knuckey, IA, Morison, AK & Ryan, DK 2002, The effect of haul seining in Victorian bays and inlets, FRDC Project No. 1997/210, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Larcombe, J, Charalambou, C, Herrería, E, Casey, AM & Hobsbawn, P 2006, Marine matters: national atlas of Australian marine fishing and coastal communities, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Lazarow, N & Noriega, R 2005, Recherche Archipelago socio-economic study: a profile of users of the Recherche Archipelago, Technical Report No. 30, CRC for Coastal Zone, Estuary & Waterway Management, Indooroopilly, Queensland.

178


Leary, T & Malony, B 2008, 'West Coast Purse Seine Managed Fishery status report', in WJ Fletcher & K Santoro (eds), State of the fisheries report 2007/08, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth, pp. 65–67.

Linnane, A, McGarvey, R & Feestra, J 2007, Northern Zone Rock Lobster (Jasus edwardsii) Fishery, fisheries assessment report to PIRSA, SARDI Publication No. F2007/000320–1, Adelaide.

Linnane, A, McGarvey, R, Feenstra, J & Hoare, M 2011, Northern Zone Rock Lobster (Jasus edwardsii) Fishery 2009/10, SARDI Publication No. F2007/000714-4. SARDI Research Report Series No. 513, South Australian Research and Development Institute, Adelaide.

Machlis, G, Force, J & Balice, R 1990, 'Timber, minerals and social change: an exploratory test of two resource-dependent communities', Rural Sociology, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 411–424.

Marshall, NA, Fenton, DM, Marshall, PA & Sutton, SG 2007, 'How resource dependency can influence social resilience within a primary resource industry', Rural Sociology, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 359–390.

McAuley, R & Simpfendorfer, C 2003, Catch composition of the Western Australian Temperate Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline fisheries, 1994–1999, Fisheries Research Report No. 146, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth.

McAuley, R & Leary, T 2010, 'Demersal Gillnet and Longline fisheries status report', in WJ Fletcher & K Santoro (eds), State of the fisheries and aquatic resources report 2009/10, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth, pp. 246–259.

McLoughlin, K & Wood, R 2009, 'Shark Gillnet and Shark Hook Sectors', in D Wilson, R Curtotti, G Begg & K Phillips (eds), Fishery status reports 2008: status of fish stocks managed by the Australian Government, Bureau of Rural Sciences & Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, pp. 186–200.

Melville-Smith, R & Unsworth, P 2008a, 'South Coast Crustacean Fisheries status report', in WJ Fletcher & K Santoro (eds), State of the fisheries report 2007/08, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth, pp. 204–207.

Melville-Smith, R & Unsworth, P 2008b, 'West Coast Deep Sea Crab (Interim) Managed Fishery status report', in WJ Fletcher & K Santoro (eds), State of the fisheries report 2007/08, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth, pp. 46–48.

Molony, B & Lai E 2010, 'Mackerel Managed Fishery report: statistics only', in: State of the fisheries and aquatic resources report 2009/10, eds. WJ Fletcher & K Santoro, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth, pp. 190–191.

Moore, A, Patterson, H & Pham, T 2010, ‘Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector’, in D Wilson, R Curtotti & G Begg (eds), Fishery status reports 2009: status of fish stocks managed by the Australian Government, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics– Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, pp. 232–249.

Morison, A, Patterson, H & Pham, T 2009, 'Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector', in D Wilson, R Curtotti, G Begg & K Phillips (eds), Fishery status reports 2008: status of fish stocks managed by the Australian Government, Bureau of Rural Sciences & Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, pp. 173–185.

179


Nelson, R, Kokic, P, Ellisto,n L & King, J 2005, 'Structural adjustment: a vulnerability index for Australian broadacre agriculture', Australian Commodities, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 171–179.

Parkins, JR & MacKendrick, NA 2007, 'Assessing community vulnerability: a study of the mountain pine beetle outbreak in British Columbia, Canada', Global Environmental Change, vol. 17, pp. 460–471.

Patriquin, M, Parkins, J & Stedman, RC 2007, 'Socio-economic status of boreal communities in Canada', Forestry, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 279–291.

PIRSA 2006, Management plan for the South Australian Marine Scalefish Fishery, SA Fisheries Management Series Paper No. 45, Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, Adelaide.

PIRSA 2007, South Australian fisheries resources current status and recent trends 2006, SA Fisheries Management Series Paper No. 49, Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, Adelaide.

PIRSA 2008, Ecological assessment of the South Australian Marine Scalefish Fishery, report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts, SA Fisheries Management Series, Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, Adelaide.

Rippen, L 2011, Economic indicators for the SA Marine Scalefish Fishery, 2009/10, report prepared for Primary Industries and Regions South Australia, EconSearch Pty Ltd, Marryatville.

Rippen, L & Morrison, J 2011, Economic indicators for the SA Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery, 2009/10, report prepared for Primary Industries and Regions South Australia. EconSearch Pty Ltd, Marryatville.

Rippen, L, Clark, E, Ferris, M & Morison, J 2010, Economic indicators for the SA Marine Scalefish Fishery 2008/09, report prepared by EconSearch Pty for Primary Industries and Regions South Australia, EconSearch Pty Ltd, Marryatville.

Rodgers, M, Sampaklis, A & Pham, T2010,’Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery’, in D Wilson, R Curtotti & G Begg (eds), Fishery status reports 2009: status of fish stocks managed by the Australian Government, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics– Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, pp. 337–349.

Sahlqvist, P & Curtotti, R 2009, 'Southern Squid Jig Fishery', in D Wilson, R Curtotti, G Begg & K Phillips (eds), Fishery status reports 2008: status of fish stocks managed by the Australian Government, Bureau of Rural Sciences & Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, pp. 201–211.

Sahlqvist, P, Hobsbawn P & Curtotti, R 2010, ‘Southern Squid Jig Fishery’, in D Wilson, R Curtotti & G Begg (eds), Fishery status reports 2009: status of fish stocks managed by the Australian Government, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics– Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, pp. 270–280.

Sampaklis, A, Rodgers, M & Pham, T 2009, 'Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery', in D Wilson, R Curtotti, G Begg & K Phillips (eds), Fishery status reports 2008: status of fish stocks managed

180


by the Australian Government, Bureau of Rural Sciences & Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra, pp. 254–263.

Schröter, D & The ATEAM consortium 2004, Global change vulnerability—assessing the European human-environment system, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, viewed 23 May 2012, <http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/workshops/other_meetings/application/pdf/schroeter.pdf>.

SEWPaC 2011a, Marine bioregional plan for the South-west Marine Region: draft for consultation, Australian Government Department of Sustainability Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

SEWPaC 2011b, Proposal for the South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network: consultation paper, Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

Sloan, S & Crosthwaite, K. 2007, Management plan for the South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery, South Australian Fisheries Series Paper Number 51, Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (Fisheries and Aquaculture), Adelaide.

Smit, B & Wandel, J 2006, 'Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability', Global Environmental Change, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 282–292.

South Coast Regional Marine Planning Working Group 2010, Oceans of opportunity: a proposed strategic framework for marine waters of Western Australia’s South Coast, report to the Minister for Environment, Government of Western Australia.

Stenekes, N, Kancans, R, Randall, L, Lesslie, R, Stayner, R, Reeve, I & Coleman, M 2010, Indicators of community vulnerability and adaptive capacity across the Murray-Darling Basin-a focus on irrigation in agriculture, report prepared for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics – Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Stevens, R, Morgan, G & Smith, T 2011, Displaced commercial fishing activities, expert advisory panel final report to Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (Fisheries and Aquaculture), Adelaide.

Stobutzki, I, Moore, A & Perks, C2010,’Shark Gillnet and Shark Hook sectors’, in D Wilson, R Curtotti & G Begg (eds), Fishery status reports 2009: status of fish stocks managed by the Australian Government, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics– Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, pp. 337–349.

Thomson, A & Unsworth, P 2010b, 'South Coast Crustacean fisheries report: statistics only', in: WJ Fletcher & K Santoro (eds), State of the fisheries and aquatic resources report 2009/10, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth, pp. 218–220.

Thomson, A & Unsworth, P 2010a, 'West Coast Deep Sea Crab (Interim) Managed Fishery status report', in WJ Fletcher & K. Santoro (eds), State of the fisheries and aquatic resources report 2009/10, Western Australian Department of Fisheries, Perth, pp. 62–64.

Turton, A 1999, Water scarcity and social adaptive capacity: towards an understanding of the social dynamics of water demand management in developing countries, MEWREW Occasional Paper No. 9, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

181


Wilson, DT, Curtotti, R, Begg, GA & Phillips, K (eds) 2009, Fishery status reports 2008: status of fish stocks and fisheries managed by the Australian Government, Bureau of Rural Sciences & Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra.

Wilson, DT, Curtotti, R, & Begg, GA (eds) 2010, Fishery status reports 2009: status of fish stocks and fisheries managed by the Australian Government, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics – Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Woodhams, J, Stobutzki, I, Vieira, S, Curtotti, R & Begg, GA (eds) 2011, Fishery status reports 2010: status of fish stocks and fisheries managed by the Australian Government, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

Yohe, G & Tol, RS J 2002, 'Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity', Global Environmental Change, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 25–40.

Zacharin, W 2006, 'Maintaining allocation shares in addressing stock sustainability: a case study in a multispecies fishery in South Australia', paper presented to the conference Sharing the fish '06: allocation issues in fisheries management, Perth, Western Australia, 27 February – 2 March 2006.

182

Supplementary Report: South-west Marine Region social and economic assessment—ABARES

Supplementary report: Final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposalAs part of the Marine Bioregional Planning process, the Australian Government, through the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC; the lead government agency) revised the proposal for the South-west Commonwealth Marine reserves network. These revisions arose from consideration of submissions received during the public consultation period, and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) social and economic assessment of the draft marine reserves.

This supplementary report provides, where possible, a comparative analysis of the changes to the potential social and economic impacts on commercial and charter fishers between the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network released for public comment in May–August 2011 and the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal released on 14 June 2012. ABARES was not able to undertake additional consultation (survey and interviews) with commercial and charter fishing businesses for the supplementary assessment due to timing constraints.

183


OverviewThe final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal would potentially displace an annual average of 265.8 tonnes of catch with a GVP of $2.9 million (Table S1). This represents a small proportion (0.7 per cent) of the collective value of fisheries production from those potentially impacted fisheries (approximately $402 million). Potential displacement comprises $360 500 from Commonwealth fisheries (a 49.7 per cent decrease from the draft network), $267 200 from South Australian fisheries (a 23.5 per cent decrease) and $2 227 300 from Western Australian fisheries (a 59.8 per cent increase).

Twenty-four fisheries would potentially be impacted by the final proposed marine reserves, with the degree of impact ranging from close to zero through to approximately 11 per cent of the total GVP for the fishery. In percentage terms, the largest impacts would be to the Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery (10.6 per cent of fishery GVP; $37 000) and the South Coast Trawl Fishery (8.4 per cent of fishery GVP; $152 000). In absolute terms, the largest impacts would be to the Western Australian West Coast Rock Lobster ($1.2 million; 0.4 per cent of fishery GVP) and Southern Demersal Gillnet and Longline ($517 000; 5.8 per cent of fishery GVP) fisheries, and the Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector of the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (over $192 200; 0.8 per cent of fishery GVP).

The potential displacement of commercial fisheries GVP increased by $394 400 (16 per cent) overall when compared with the draft network (Table S1). This stems from a 59.8 per cent higher impact on Western Australian fisheries, which outweighs a 49.7 per cent lower impact on Commonwealth fisheries and a 23.5 per cent lower impact on South Australian fisheries.

Of the 24 potentially impacted fisheries, 11 fisheries had a decreased impact under the final proposed network compared with the draft network, one fishery would no longer be displaced, five additional fisheries would be displaced by the final proposed network and eight fisheries were displaced to a greater extent (see Table S1).

The increase in potential displacement of Western Australian fisheries under the final proposed network was primarily due to increased displacement from the West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery ($865 200 increase; 280 per cent), as well as the addition of new fisheries (including the Mackerel Fishery, Southern Rock Lobster Fishery, West Coast Deep Sea Crustaceans Fishery and West Coast Purse Seine Fishery). Substantial falls in potential GVP impact were estimated for the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector, and Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector), the Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery, and the Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery.

There may be cumulative impacts to some fisheries identified in the final proposed network in the South-west Marine Region from draft marine reserves networks in other marine regions, particularly the North-west Marine Region (ABARES 2012b).

The potential impact on prospective fishing (future potential fishing not accounted for in the estimates of displacement) was identified as a significant issue by some fishers during discussions of the draft marine reserves network. Several fisheries were identified where prospective fishing was likely to be impacted. In these fisheries there was evidence that businesses have made specific plans or investments to develop prospects and well-defined rights of access. Impacts to the value of fishing rights were also identified as a potentially significant issue in some fisheries, but are outside the scope of this project. The final proposed marine reserves network reduces the potential impacts to prospective fisheries in some cases.

184


Potential impacts to charter fishing increased under the final proposed network but remain low (estimates are confidential).

The location of impacts has shifted slightly in the final proposed network. While the South-west Corner marine reserve would still have the largest potential impact ($762 100 displaced GVP), the final proposed Abrolhos marine reserve would displace considerably more ($660 760 GVP) than the draft Abrolhos marine reserve ($25 600).

The final proposed network will potentially impact a large number of ports/towns through flow of displaced GVP; however, impacts to most towns are small. Towns with the highest potentially displaced GVP are, in descending order, Esperance, Hamelin Bay, Geraldton, Port Lincoln, Fremantle, Busselton, Bunbury, Eucla and Jurien Bay.

In comparison with the draft reserve network, there is an increased flow of potentially displaced GVP (of more than $50 000) for Abrolhos, Busselton, Esperance, Eucla, Geraldton, Jurien Bay and Kalbarri. Decreases (of more than $45 000) in potentially displaced GVP occurred for Augusta, Fremantle, Hamelin Bay, Port Lincoln, Streaky Bay and Thevenard. This represents a shift in potential impact from the south western corner of Western Australia to some locations on the west coast of Western Australia.

The final proposed marine reserves network in the North-west Marine Region may also impact towns in the South-west Marine Region, such as Geraldton ($77 400 displaced GVP from the final proposed North-west Marine Reserves Network) and Fremantle ($93 200 displaced GVP).

Assuming the results of economic modelling scale linearly with the magnitude of the impact, the final proposed marine reserves network is expected to result in a decline in regional economic activity of $5.1 million in the short term, with 12 jobs lost in directly affected regions. There are likely to be flow-on impacts to other regions; however, changes in economic activity and employment at the state and national levels are negligible relative to the size of those economies and labour markets.

ABARES did not undertake further consultation (including survey and interviews) with potentially displaced or impacted businesses based on the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. Survey and interview data collected previously was specific to the draft network, and may not be applicable to the final proposed network. The final proposed network has shifted potential impacts from southern and south-western regions to the west coast of Western Australia (north of Perth), which involves a set of fishing businesses not consulted by ABARES in the assessment of the draft reserves (such as the West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery around the draft Abrolhos reserve).

The nature of the potential impacts and broader issues exacerbating impacts identified in the assessment of the draft network, such as uncertainty around state marine reserves, the current high Australian dollar and competing for labour against the mining sector, are likely to be analogous to those for the final proposed network.

The case studies were re-examined under the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal, noting that further consultation with impacted fishers or interviewees was not possible.

185


Changes to the South-west Commonwealth Marine reserves network The changes to the draft reserve network are summarised in Table S0 and illustrated in Map S1.

Table S0 Differences between the draft and final proposed South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves NetworkMarine reserves (previous ABARESarea number)

Final proposed network

Southern Kangaroo Island(new)

New reserve, zoned as Special Purpose Zone with a total area of 630 km2

(203 km2 of which extends into the South-east Marine Region).Western Kangaroo Island(1)

Revision of boundaries, resulting in an increase in area from 1930 km2 to 2335 km2. This represents an increase in area of 21%.Introduction of a Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II) with an area of 120 km2.

Western Eyre (2–6)

Revision to boundaries to reduce the area of the reserve around the shelf break and increase the area in the southern part of the reserve, resulting in an overall increase in area from 51 220 km2 to 57 946 km2 (17 439 km2 of which extends into the South-east Marine Region). This represents an increase in area of 13%.Shift of two northern Marine National Park zones, maintaining a similar overall area (1761 km2 compared to 1925 km2).Reconfiguration of the southern Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II), resulting in an increase in area from 11 725 km2 to 15 774 km2.

Murat (new)

Introduction of a new proposed reserve south-west of Ceduna, zoned as Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II) and with an area of 938 km2.

Great Australian Bight (extension)(7–9)

Revision to boundaries, removing area on the shelf, resulting in a decrease in area from 49 660 km2 to 45 926 km2 (56 km2 of which extends into the South-east Marine Region). This represents a decrease in total area of 8%. Reconfiguration of the Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II), increasing area from 3843 km2 to 7728 km2.

Twilight(new)

Introduction of a new proposed reserve off Twilight Cove, zoned as Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II) and with an area of 4641 km2.

Eastern Recherché (10–13)

Revision of the reserve boundaries to include area to the east on the continental shelf, resulting in an increased size from 19 240 km2 to 20 574 km2. This represents an increase in area of 7%.Shift eastward of the shelf Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II).Shift of the southern boundary of the Special Purpose Zone (IUCN Category VI) to outside the 1000 m depth contour.

South-west Corner(14–24)

Revision of the reserve boundaries resulting in a reduction in the size of the draft South-west Corner reserve from 322 380 km2 to 271 898 km2. However, revisions to boundaries have also created two proposed new reserves: Geographe and Bremer. After accounting for theses reserves, the area proposed for inclusion in the reserve decreased from 322 380 km2 to 277 347 km2. In total, this represents a combined decrease in area of 14% (or if just the proposed south-west reserve is considered, a decrease of 16%). Change of boundary and zoning west of the Capes region to include a Multiple Use Zone (IUCN Category VI) transect extending over Naturaliste Plateau and the Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II) over the far western part of the Naturaliste Plateau.Introduction of a new zone, Special Purpose Zone (oil and gas exclusion) (IUCN VI) that extends along the Capes coast. With respect to fishing, this zone has the same restrictions that apply to Special Purpose zones.Revision of boundaries and zoning south-west of Augusta, resulting in a reduction in the footprint over the shelf and slope area, and rezoning of the offshore area from Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II) to Habitat Protection Zone (IUCN Category IV).Shift of the Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II) transect off Windy Harbour to east of Walpole, and ‘fanned’ the offshore component in a westerly direction.

186


Marine reserves (previous ABARESarea number)

Final proposed network

Change of boundaries south and west of Esperance, reducing the overall size of the reserve in this region.Shift of the Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II) around Investigator Island to the east, and reduced the area of the Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II) offshore.

Bremer (new)

Introduction of a new proposed reserve east of Bremer Bay incorporating parts of the previous South-west Corner reserve over the Bremer Canyon and extending onto the shelf, with a Special Purpose Zone (IUCN Category VI) (1350 km2) and small Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II) east of Bremer Bay (284 km2).

Geographe (new)

Revision of the reserve boundary of the draft South-west Corner reserve resulting in a separate proposed reserve in Geographe Bay (977 km2).Introduction of a Multiple Use Zone (IUCN Category VI) of 291 km2 and two small Marine National Park zones (IUCN Category II) totalling 36 km2 in the proposed Geographe reserve.

Two Rocks (split from Perth Canyon)

Revision of the reserve boundary of the draft Perth Canyon reserve, resulting in a separate proposed reserve off the coast from Two Rocks next to state waters. The proposed Two Rocks reserve is 882 km2 and is predominantly Multiple Use Zone (875 km2). Introduction of a small Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II) in the proposed Two Rocks reserve (7 km2).

Perth Canyon (25)

Reduction in the total area of the reserve from 11 720 km2 to 7409 km2. The combined area of the proposed Perth Canyon reserve and the proposed Two Rocks reserve has decreased from 11679 km2 to 8291 km2. In total, this represents a combined decrease in area of 29% (or if just the proposed Perth Canyon reserve is considered, a decrease of 37%).Introduction of a Habitat Protection Zone (IUCN Category IV) in the proposed Perth Canyon reserve (2569 km2).Introduction of two Marine National Park zones (IUCN Category II) in the proposed Perth Canyon (with a combined total area of 1107 km2).

Jurien (26)

Revision of the outer boundary of the reserve, resulting in a small decrease to the total area from 1880 km2 to 1851 km2. The proposed Jurien reserve is predominantly Special Purpose Zone.Introduction of a small Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II) (31 km2) within the boundaries of the proposed reserve.

Abrolhos(27–29)

Revision of the outer boundary of the reserve, resulting in a reduction in the total area from 80 210 km2 to 62 255 km2 (within the South-west Marine Region). The proposed Abrolhos reserve now extends into the North-west Marine Region, creating the Wallaby extension and the Kalbarri extension. Within the South-west Marine Region this represents a 22% decrease in area of the proposed Abrolhos reserve.Change in zoning of the north-west corner from Multiple Use Zone (IUCN Category VI) to Habitat Protection Zone (IUCN Category IV) (4230 km2).Shift of the offshore Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II) to cover Houtman Canyon, and introduction of a small Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II) to north of Houtman Abrolhos (with a combined total area of 2342 km2).

Data source: Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

187


Map S0 South-west Commonwealth Marine Region draft (released May 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserve networks and zones with ABARES area numbering

Data sources: Marine reserve boundaries from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; coastline, state and maritime boundaries from Geoscience Australia. Zoning is described in Appendix B: Fisheries data processing methods.

188


Potential displacement of fishing

Commercial fishing It is estimated that the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal would displace an annual average of 265.8 tonnes of catch with a GVP of $2 855 000. Of this, $360 500 would be displaced from Commonwealth fisheries, $267 200 from South Australian fisheries and $2 227 000 from Western Australian fisheries (Table S1).

For comparison, the total annual average GVP of the potentially impacted fisheries for the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network proposal is $408.3 million: $49 million for Commonwealth fisheries, $50 million for South Australian fisheries and $309 million for Western Australian fisheries. These values are the totals for the impacted fisheries in each jurisdiction and are not adjusted to account only for fishing that occurred in the South-west Marine Region.

The displacement estimates for the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal indicate an overall increase of 16.0 per cent in the potential displaced GVP when compared with the draft network (Table S1). Under the final proposed network there was a 49.7 per cent decrease in the potential displacement of Commonwealth fisheries, a 23.5 per cent decrease in potential displacement of South Australian fisheries and a 59.8 per cent increase in the potential displacement of Western Australian fisheries.

The increase in potential displacement of Western Australian fisheries under the final proposed network was due to a significant increase in potential displacement estimates for the West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery (278 per cent) and the addition of new fisheries (notably the Mackerel Fishery, Southern Rock Lobster Fishery, West Coast Deep Sea Crustaceans Fishery and West Coast Purse Seine Fishery).

Substantial falls in potential GVP impact were estimated for the Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark (Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector) and Western Tuna and Billfish fisheries, South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery and the Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery.

The location of impacts has shifted within the final proposed network. The South-west Corner marine reserve would still have the largest potential impact in terms of GVP displacement ($762 100). The final proposed Abrolhos marine reserve had the next highest potential impact in terms of GVP ($660 700), mainly associated with potential displacement of the Western Australian West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery, followed by the final proposed Western Eyre marine reserve ($360 700). Of the newly introduced reserves, the Twilight marine reserve had the highest potential displacement (approximately $234 000) associated primarily with the Southern Demersal Gillnet and Longline Fishery and the Southern Rock Lobster Fishery.

Links to other marine regionsThere may be cumulative impacts to some fisheries identified in the South-west Marine Region from final marine reserves networks proposed in other marine regions. This includes additional displacement by the final North-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal in the Commonwealth Western Deepwater Trawl (0.5 tonnes; $3300 GVP) and Western Tuna and Billfish (over 2 tonnes; $11 700 GVP) fisheries, and the West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery (estimates are confidential) (ABARES 2012b). In addition, there may be cumulative impacts to fishers operating across multiple impacted fisheries.

189


Table S1 Comparison of estimates of catch and gross value of production (GVP) potentially displaced by the draft (released May 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserves networks in the South-west Marine Region

Catch (tonnes) Total GVP ($’000)

Fishery Draft Final proposed Draft Final proposed Absolute changePercentage

changeHigh Seas Fishery * * * RemovedSESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector 58.7 34.4 356.1 192.2 –163.8 –46.0SESSF Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector 17.7 12.3 66.8 46.7 –20.0 –30.0Small Pelagic Fishery * * * * * >100Southern Squid Jig Fishery * * * * * 38.9Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery 9.6 * 48.0 * * *Western Tuna And Billfish Fishery 42.9 19.3 246.1 114.2 –131.9 –53.6Commonwealth fisheries total 129.2 69.3 717.4 360.5 –356.9 –49.7Rock Lobster (Northern Zone) Fishery 4.0 1.7 184.0 80.4 –103.6 –56.3Marine Scalefish Fishery 22.3 25.2* 165.0 186.8* 21.6 13.1South Australian fisheries total 26.3 27.0 349.1 267.2 –81.9 –23.5Esperance Southern Rock Lobster Fishery 1.9–7.9 1.2 87–364 54.5 –32.9 –37.7FBL condition 105—South Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery 0.6 0.9 9.8 16.0 3.9 32.0Mackerel Fishery * * * NewOpen access and other conditions (crab trap) 0.1 0.6 0.6 NewOpen Access and other conditions (other) 1.7–9.2 1.0 14.2–73.7 8.4 –5.8 –41.0South Coast Trawl Fishery * 31.9 * 152.0 * *Southern Demersal Gillnet and Longline Fishery 72.5 64.6 580.1 516.9 –63.2 –10.9Southern Rock Lobster Fishery 1.5 70.2 70.2 NewSouth West Trawl Fishery 18.0 5.9 113.5 37.0 –76.6 –67.4West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery 9.1–16.3 12.2 72.7–130.8 97.5 24.7 34.0West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Longline Fishery * * * * * *West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery 11.1 42.2 309.0 1174.2 865.2 280.0West Coast Deep Sea Crustaceans Fishery 2.9 49.9 49.9 NewWindy Harbour Rock Lobster Fishery * * * * * *West Coast Purse Seine Fishery 1.3* 1.9* * NewWestern Australian fisheries total 127.8–148.6 169.5 1394.1–1788.6 2227.3 833.2 59.8

Grand total283.3–

304.0 265.8 2460.6–2855.2 2855.0 394.4 16.0

Note: Confidential data are marked with an asterisk (*).In some fisheries, only one area is confidential. In these cases, the total does not include the confidential value as it would be possible to back-calculate the displacement from that area. However, where appropriate, a description of the change has been included: no change, increase, decrease, new or removed. For some fisheries a range estimate (with an upper bound) was presented for the draft network, this has not been done for the final proposed network because further consultation with fishers was not possible at

190


the time of writing. In these cases, the percentage change is between the two point estimates only, not the upper bound. The grand total calculations for Commonwealth and Western Australian fisheries include all data and are not affected by confidentiality. FBL = fishing boat licence; SESSF = Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery

191


Charter fishing Charter fishing potentially displaced by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine reserves network proposal is estimated to be small in the Western Australian and South Australian charter industries.

The displacement remains low for the entire South Australian charter fishery (less than 80 clients per year), and estimates (although confidential) remain roughly equivalent between the draft and final proposed networks. Charter fishing in South Australia is potentially displaced from the final proposed Western Kangaroo Island, Western Eyre and Murat marine reserves.

Potential displacement of the Western Australian charter fishing network (67 clients per year) increases under the final proposed network compared with the draft network (estimates confidential), but remains low relative to the size of the charter industry. Charter fishing in Western Australia is potentially displaced primarily from the final proposed Two Rocks marine reserve, but also from the South-west Corner, Geographe, Perth Canyon and Abrolhos marine reserves.

Prospective fisheriesA number of potential prospective fishing impacts were identified under the draft reserve network (see Chapter 2: Potential displacement of fishing). These are listed below with a comment on how potential impacts may have changed under the final proposed network:

Commonwealth Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery—prospective impacts should have been reduced with the introduction of the Habitat Protection Zone and the changes to the South-west Corner reserve.

South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery—no obvious change although potential displacement has been reduced.

Commonwealth Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector—prospective impacts may have been slightly reduced with changes to the South-west Corner and Western Eyre marine reserves.

Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery—prospective impacts should have been substantially reduced with changes to the South-west Corner and Perth Canyon marine reserves. Prospective impacts may remain for the final proposed Geographe marine reserve.

Flow of potential impacts to portsThe final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal will potentially impact a large number of ports/towns through flow of displaced GVP (Table S2). The highest potentially displaced GVP is associated with Esperance, Hamelin Bay, Geraldton, Port Lincoln, Fremantle, Busselton, Bunbury, Eucla and Jurien Bay (in descending order).

Key changes in the flow of GVP to ports under the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal include a significant increase (greater than $50 000) in the flow of potentially displaced GVP estimated for Abrolhos, Busselton, Esperance, Eucla, Geraldton, Jurien Bay and Kalbarri. Significant decreases in potential displacement of GVP to ports under the final proposed network occur for Augusta, Fremantle, Hamelin Bay, Port Lincoln, Streaky Bay and Thevenard.

Newly impacted ports/towns with potential GVP impact greater than $10 000 under the final proposed network were Cervantes, Green Head and Port Gregory (Table S2).

192


Table S2 Estimates of flow of potentially displaced gross value of production (GVP) by the draft and final proposed marine reserves networks in the South-west Marine RegionTown or locality Potentially displaced GVP ($’000)

Draft Final proposed Absolute change Abrolhos 3.0 60.4 57.3Adelaide 25.4 15.4 –10.0Albany 84.7 91.3 6.6Augusta 284.2 69.4 –214.8Baird Bay 4.6 2.0 –2.6Beachport 8.6 9.7 1.1Bremer Bay 2.0 5.5 3.5Broome 0.2 <0.1 –0.2Bunbury 142.7 126.6 –16.1Busselton 49.7 133.5 83.7Canal Rocks <0.1 0.3 0.3Cape Jaffa 3.4 3.9 0.5Carnarvon 0.6 1.7 1.1Ceduna 10.8 4.7 –6.0Cervantes 84.3 NewCoffin Bay 51.0 47.3 –3.7Coral Bay <0.1 NewCowaramup 8.4 5.6 –2.8Darwin <0.1 <0.1 0.0Denham <0.1 NewDenmark 0.7 NewDevonport 4.6 RemovedDongara 0.8 7.6 6.8Dunsborough 3.5 9.7 6.2Easter Group 0.5 NewElliston 4.8 2.1 –2.7Esperance 278.1 428.1 150.0Eucla 68.8 124.0 55.2Exmouth <0.1 NewFowlers Bay 22.0 2.9 –19.1Fremantle 308.1 167.6 –140.4Freshwater Point <0.1 NewGeraldton 49.5 233.9 184.3Green Head 51.5 NewHamelin Bay 282.6 236.0 –46.6Hardy Inlet <0.1 NewHillarys 3.3 6.5 3.2Hobart 5.6 7.7 2.1Hopetoun 0.2 0.1 0.0Johns Creek 0.6 0.4 –0.2Jurien Bay 5.9 107.3 101.4Kalbarri <0.1 100.9 100.9Kettering <0.1 <0.1 0.0Kingscote 3.4 3.9 0.5Lakes Entrance 12.1 6.2 –5.8Lancelin 0.9 48.7 47.7Ledge Point 1.7 29.6 28.0Leeman 0.2 3.5 3.3Mandurah 15.9 23.6 7.7Margaret River 28.0 10.0 –18.0Mile End 2.0 NewMindarie 1.0 13.7 12.7

193


Town or locality Potentially displaced GVP ($’000)Draft Final proposed Absolute change

Mooloolaba 12.2 6.0 –6.2Normans Beach 2.0 NewParrys Inlet <0.1 New

continued

Peaceful Bay 1.6 NewPelsart Group 1.7 NewPerth <0.1 NewPoint Turton 15.2 13.8 –1.3Pondalowie Bay 10.3 11.7 1.4Ponde 3.4 3.9 0.5Port Adelaide 8.8 19.6 10.9Port Albert <0.1 0.1 0.1Port Geographe 0.7 NewPort Gregory 10.0 NewPort Hedland 0.3 0.3 0.0Port Lincoln 264.0 212.6 –51.4Port Moorowie 4.8 2.1 –2.7Portland 4.6 2.3 –2.3Quindalup 14.6 22.1 7.6Quinns Rocks <0.1 NewRobe <0.1 <0.1 0.0Rockingham <0.1 NewSafety Bay 0.6 0.6 0.0Sceale Bay 4.6 2.0 –2.6Seabird 25.2 39.9 14.7Streaky Bay 137.1 77.9 –59.2Sydney 4.6 2.0 –2.6Thevenard 86.3 40.0 –46.3Torbay <0.1 NewTwo Rocks 5.8 45.9 40.1Venus Bay 4.1 5.7 1.6Victor Harbour <0.1 NewWallabi Group 1.4 NewWalpole <0.1 <0.1 0.0Warooka 6.9 7.8 0.9Wedge Island 3.6 NewWindy Harbour 63.7 20.1 –43.6Wirrina Cove 2.8 NewWollongong 2.1 1.9 –0.1Yanchep 1.7 New

Total 2460.6 2854.8 394.2

Note: Only point (not upper) estimates are provided for comparison.

Town and local area summaryTable S3 presents community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures for the 19 communities with a potential flow of GVP impact greater than $50 000 per year, or an exposure value greater than $20 per capita. The 11 communities that have an exposure value of greater than or equal to $20 per capita are further assessed below in descending order of GVP displaced per capita.

This assessment indicates that the smaller communities in the South-west Marine Region will experience the greatest impacts as a result of the final South-west Commonwealth Marine

194


Reserves Network proposal. Some of these smaller communities, such as Windy Harbour, Cervantes, Coffin Bay, Streaky Bay, Lancelin, Kalbarri and Jurien Bay, may experience greater difficulty in adjusting to the impacts because of higher relative levels of employment in the commercial fishing industry (compared with other communities in the South-west Marine Region) and lower levels of relative adaptive capacity resulting from low economic diversity, higher levels of socioeconomic disadvantage and being located in relatively remote locations.

Fishing communities in Fremantle, Kalbarri and Geraldton also receive catch that would be displaced by the proposed North-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.

Table S3 Community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity—final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal

SENSITIVITY

Town Population geography

GVP displaced revised -

($'000 point)

Population (2006)

GVP displaced per capita - revised ($)

Fishing industry

employment (% of total

employment)

Economic diversity

index

ARIA remoteness

index

Median household

income ($/week)

SEIFA index of relative

disadvantageEsperance Esperance (S) 428.1 12 964 33.0 0.50 0.53 3 918 5Hamelin Bay Augusta-Margaret River (S) 236.0 10 352 22.8 0.33 0.73 2 922 7Geraldton Geraldton (C) 233.9 18 915 12.4 2.17 0.91 2 783 2Port Lincoln Port Lincoln (C) 212.6 13 603 15.6 12.03 0.78 3 821 3Fremantle Fremantle (C) - Inner 167.6 23 838 7.0 0.64 0.88 0 911 6Busselton Busselton (S) 133.5 25 356 5.3 0.19 0.83 1 962 7Bunbury Bunbury (C) 126.6 29 700 4.3 0.06 0.92 1 960 5Eucla Dundas (S) 124.0 1 068 116.1 0.00 0.12 3 844 2Jurien Bay Dandaragan (S) 107.3 2 883 37.2 1.63 0.28 2 860 5Kalbarri Northampton (S) 100.9 1 333 75.7 2.50 0.31 3 659 3Albany Albany (C) - Central 91.3 15 977 5.7 0.26 0.97 2 728 3Cervantes Dandaragan (S) 84.3 502 167.9 1.63 0.28 2 860 5Streaky Bay Streaky Bay (DC) 77.9 1 059 73.6 5.01 0.24 3 697 5Augusta Augusta-Margaret River (S) 69.4 1 072 64.7 0.33 0.73 2 922 7Abrolhos Geraldton (C) 60.3 18 915 3.2 2.17 0.91 2 783 2Green Head Dandaragan (S) 51.5 2 883 17.8 1.63 0.28 2 860 5Lancelin Gingin (S) 48.7 665 73.2 2.38 0.30 2 827 5Coffin Bay Lower Eyre Peninsula (DC) 47.3 584 81.0 6.87 0.28 3 845 6Two Rocks Wanneroo (C) - North-West 45.9 37 652 1.2 0.23 0.89 0 1084 7Thevenard Ceduna (DC) 40.0 3 572 11.2 5.88 0.57 4 887 2Seabird Gingin (S) 39.9 4 318 9.2 2.38 0.30 2 827 5Ledge Point Gingin (S) 29.6 4 318 6.9 2.38 0.30 2 827 5Mandurah Mandurah (C) 23.6 55 816 0.4 0.15 0.82 1 810 5Quindalup Busselton (S) 22.1 25 356 0.9 0.19 0.83 1 962 7Windy Harbour Windy Harbour - settlement 20.1 25 803.4 25.00 0.51 2 792 3

ADAPTIVE CAPACITYEXPOSURE

ARIA = Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia; C = City; DC =District Council; GVP = gross value of production; S = Shire; SEIFA = Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas Note: The 'traffic light' indicators for each variable follow the logic of green being a positive measure through to red being a negative measure. Indicators are based on the measure of a variable within the distribution of scores for all localities that have a GVP displacement. Australian Bureau of Statistics population data are available for a variety of geographies within the Australian Standard Geographical Classification. To reflect the most appropriate representation of a community's population, different geographies were used to calculate the GVP displaced per capita. The sensitivity measure (% of persons employed in the fishing industry) for Windy Harbour was calculated with data from fishers that are residents of Windy Harbour.

Windy HarbourThere has been a $43 600 decrease in the estimate of GVP displacement to Windy Harbour (from $63 700 to $20 100) under the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. The degree of exposure—GVP displacement per capita—remains relatively high for the community at $803.39. Windy Harbour is a unique settlement with a small permanent population of approximately 25 people. Survey results identified no upstream businesses and one output business in the community that may be impacted by this displacement. State data did not identify any seafood processing facilities in Windy Harbour. Community sensitivity measures show that Windy Harbour has a high level of employment in the consolidated fishing

195


industry (25.0 per cent) compared with other communities in the South-west Marine Region. Adaptive capacity measures indicate that Winy Harbour has a relatively high level of socioeconomic disadvantage (Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas [SEIFA] decile ranking of 3), a moderate level of economic diversity (0.51), a low median household income ($792/week) and is located in an outer regional area.

CervantesCervantes is a new inclusion under the final proposed network and has the second highest GVP displacement per capita. GVP linked to Cervantes is $84 300. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement is $167.87 per capita. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Dandaragan, in which Cervantes is located, has medium levels of employment in the fishing industry (1.63 per cent) relative to other areas with displaced GVP. Cervantes is not particularly disadvantaged (SEIFA score of 5), has low economic diversity (0.28), moderate median household income ($859/week), is classified as an outer regional area and has a relatively small population (502 in 2006).

EuclaThe estimate of GVP displacement to Eucla increased by $55 200 (from $68 800 to $124 000) under the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. Survey results identified one upstream business and one output business in the community that could potentially be impacted by this displacement. State data did not identify any seafood processing facilities in Eucla. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Eucla (statistical local area [SLA] of Dundas) is $116.12 per capita. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Dundas, in which the town of Eucla is situated, has no employment in the consolidated fishing industry; however, statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics are thought to under-represent employment in the fishing industry by assigning workers to other related industries (FRDC 2004). The Dundas SLA has a relatively high level of socioeconomic disadvantage (SEIFA decile ranking of 2), a very low level of economic diversity (0.12), low median household income ($844 per week), is located in a remote area and has a relatively small population (1068 in 2006).

Coffin BayThe estimate of GVP displacement to Coffin Bay decreased by $3700 (from $51 000 to $47 300) under the final network proposal. Survey results identified five upstream businesses and no output businesses in the community that would be impacted by this displacement. State data did not identify any seafood processing facilities in Coffin Bay. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement for Coffin Bay is $80.99 per capita. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Coffin Bay has relatively high employment (6.87 per cent) in the commercial fishing industry compared with other SLAs in the South-west Marine Region, is not particularly disadvantaged (SEIFA decile ranking of 6), has a low level of economic diversity (0.28), low median household income ($845 per week), is located in a remote area and has a relatively small population (584 in 2006).

Streaky BayThe estimate of GVP displacement to Streaky Bay decreased by $59 200 (from $137 100 to $77 900) under the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. Survey results identified 11 upstream businesses and 3 output businesses in the community that may potentially be impacted by this displacement. State data identified three seafood processing facilities in Streaky Bay. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement for Streaky Bay is $73.57 per capita. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of

196


Streaky Bay has relatively high employment in the commercial fishing industry (5.01 per cent), is not particularly disadvantaged (SEIFA decile ranking of 5), has a low level of economic diversity (0.24), low median household income ($697 per week), is located in a remote area and has a relatively small population (1059 in 2006).

LancelinThe estimate of GVP displacement to Lancelin increased by $47 700 (from $900 to $48 700) under the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement is $73.22 per capita. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Gingin (Shire; S), in which Lancelin is located, has moderate levels of employment in the fishing industry (2.3 per cent) relative to other areas with displaced GVP, is not particularly disadvantaged (SEIFA score of 5), has low economic diversity (0.30), low median household income ($827 per week), is classified as an outer regional area and has a relatively small population (665 in 2006).

Kalbarri The estimate of GVP displacement to Kalbarri increased by $100 900 (from <$100 to $100 900) under the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement is $75.70 per capita. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Northampton, in which Kalbarri is located, has moderate levels of employment in the fishing industry (2.5 percent) relative to other areas with displaced GVP, a high level of socioeconomic disadvantage (SEIFA score of 3), low economic diversity (0.31), low median household income ($659 per week), is classified as remote and has a relatively small population (1333 in 2006).

AugustaThe estimate of GVP displacement to Augusta decreased by $214 800 (from $284 200 to $69 400) under the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement for Augusta is $64.73 per capita. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Augusta–Margaret River, in which Augusta is located, has a low level of employment in the consolidated fishing industry (0.33 per cent), a low level of socioeconomic disadvantage (SEIFA decile ranking of 7), high economic diversity (0.73), high median household income ($922 per week), is located in a outer regional area and has a relatively small population (1072 in 2006).

Jurien BayThe estimate of GVP displacement to Jurien Bay increased by $101 400 (from $5900 to $107 300) under the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement is $37.22 per capita. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Dandaragan (S) has a medium level of employment in the consolidated fishing industry (1.63 per cent) compared with other SLAs in the South-west Marine Region, is not particularly disadvantaged (SEIFA decile ranking of 5), has low economic diversity (0.21), low median household income, is located in a remote area (Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia [ARIA] remoteness index of 2) and has a relatively small population (2883 in 2006).

EsperanceThe estimate of GVP displacement to Esperance increased by $150 000 (from $278 100 to $428 100) under the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. Survey results identified 22 upstream businesses and 4 output businesses in the community that may be impacted. State data identified nine seafood processing facilities in Esperance. The

197


exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement for Esperance is $33.02 per capita. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Esperance has a low level of employment in the commercial fishing industry (0.50 per cent) compared with other SLAs in the South-west Marine Region, is not particularly disadvantaged (SEIFA decile ranking of 5), has moderate economic diversity (0.53), moderate to high median household income ($918 per week), is located in a remote area (ARIA remoteness index of 3) and has a relatively large population (12 964 in 2006).

Hamelin BayThe estimate of GVP displacement to Hamelin Bay decreased by $46 600 (from $282 600 to $236 000) under the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. Hamelin Bay is a settlement that comprises a boat ramp, holiday facilities and a small number of permanent dwellings. It is not expected that the displaced GVP of catch landed at Hamelin Bay would impact the Hamelin Bay ‘community’. Survey results did not identify any upstream businesses or output businesses located at Hamelin Bay that may be impacted. It is most likely that product landed at Hamelin Bay ends up in larger urban centres such as Margaret River, Busselton, Bunbury or Perth. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement is $22.80 per capita for the SLA of Augusta–Margaret River (S). Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Augusta–Margaret River (S) has a low level of employment in the consolidated fishing industry (0.33 per cent) compared with other SLAs in the South-west Marine Region, is not particularly disadvantaged (SEIFA decile ranking of 7), has high economic diversity (0.72), low median household income, is located in a remote area (ARIA remoteness index of 2) and is a relatively highly populated area (10 352 in 2006).

Links to other marine regions—townsThe final marine reserves network proposal in the North-west Marine Region may have a cumulative impact on towns in the South-west Marine Region, such as Geraldton ($77 400 GVP from the final proposed North-west Marine Reserves Network) and Fremantle ($93 200) (ABARES 2012b).

Economic impact and employmentNo new economic modelling was undertaken for the final proposed network. However, it is reasonable to expect aggregate economic and employment impacts to scale linearly with the magnitude of the impact. Under this assumption, it was estimated that the final proposed network would have a net regional economic impact of $5.1 million in the short term and would result in a loss of 12 jobs in directly affected regions. There are likely to be flow-on impacts in other regions; however, changes in economic activity and employment at the state and national level are negligible in terms of the size of those economies and labour markets.

Table S4 Comparison of the short-term net economic impact and job losses between the draft and final proposed marine reserves networks in the South-west Marine Region

Draft network Final proposed network

Net regional economic impact ($ million)

–4.4 to –5.1 –5.1

Regional job loss (full-time equivalent)

–10 to –12 –12

198


Fishing business impactsABARES has not undertaken further consultation with potentially displaced or impacted businesses based on the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. Survey and interview data collected previously were specific to the draft network, and may not be applicable to the final proposed network. It should be noted that the final proposed network has shifted potential impacts from southern and south-western regions to the west coast of Western Australia (north of Perth) and involves fishing businesses not consulted by ABARES in the assessment of the draft reserves (e.g. the West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery around the final proposed Abrolhos Reserve).

The nature of the potential impacts and broader issues exacerbating impacts identified in the assessment of the draft network are likely to be analogous to those for the final proposed network. Impacts that could be applicable to fishing businesses under the final proposed network include:

direct displacement impacts–loss of access, reduction in scale of operation, loss of income, devaluation of licences and capital

secondary impacts resulting from having to change current fishing activities—spending more time, effort and resources on locating new fishing grounds, increased pressure and competition within fishing grounds outside of the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal

industry-wide impacts—heightened uncertainty and decreased confidence, increased risk in investing and difficulty in accessing finance

broader issues that exacerbate potential impacts—exchange rates, fish prices and input costs.

Personal and community impactsThe potential personal impacts identified in the assessment of the draft network are likely to be analogous to the potential personal impacts of the final proposed network. Personal impacts that could be applicable to individuals under the final South-west Commonwealth Marine reserves network proposal include:

loss of current income source

loss of future income source (i.e. superannuation)

increased stress (individual and family)

increased work hours

decreased personal time, time spent with family and quality of life

not having the skills to adapt.

The potential community impacts identified in the assessment of the draft network are likely to be analogous to the potential community impacts of the final proposed network. Community impacts that could be applicable under the final proposed network include:

199


economic impacts on fishing-related industries and supply chain businesses, as well as on tourism

potential impacts on maritime infrastructure

loss of cultural identity in communities where the fishing industry is an iconic part of the local tradition and culture

impact on community services supported by the fishing industry (e.g. loss of the sea rescue and general maritime surveillance functions, loss of sponsorship of community groups).

Case studiesThe likely changes to circumstances identified in the case studies are discussed here, noting that no further consultation occurred following the final proposed network. Where possible, quantitative information was used (e.g. changes to potentially displaced GVP) but assessing changes to the case studies was largely qualitative.

Port Lincoln

The potential GVP displacement to Port Lincoln has reduced under the final proposed network (19 per cent decrease). This results mainly from reduced potential displacement of adjacent Commonwealth fisheries and the South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery. The potential impacts to fishers, supply chains and the Port Lincoln community identified in the case study are expected to have been similarly reduced.


Some of the potential impacts on prospective fishing described in the case study may not have changed substantially due to the nature of the prospective business plans. However, the decrease in area and modified zoning of the South-west Corner marine reserve should lessen the impact on prospective fishing in the Commonwealth Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery, allowing pelagic longlining to occur in the area identified as being historically important for this fishery. The impacts on prospective fishing in the Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery may have been slightly reduced.

Esperance

The impacts described in this case study are likely to have been increased under the final proposed network, given the increase in potential displaced GVP linked to Esperance (point estimates up 54 per cent to $428 100). The mix of fisheries contributing to the impact has changed, with a reduction in the displacement of the Western Australian Esperance Southern Zone Rock Lobster fishery and an increase in the displacement from the South Coast Trawl Fishery. This may have changed the relative impact amongst fishers and business within Esperance. Potential impacts to the Esperance community, fishing businesses and supply chains are expected to have increased.

Windy Harbour

There was a substantial reduction in potentially displaced GVP to Windy Harbour (from $63 700 to $20 100) and a reduction in the adjacent locations of Augusta and Margaret River from the revisions to the nearby Marine National Park zones in the South-west Corner reserve. The potential impacts to Windy Harbour identified in the case study are likely to have been similarly

200


reduced. However, the case study identified some unique circumstances in Windy Harbour (e.g. as house leases tied to commercial fishing) and it is not clear how relevant those issues are under the final proposed network. The indicator of exposure—GVP displacement per capita—remains high for the community ($803.39 per capita). The town has a high level of employment in the consolidated fishing industry, has a relatively high level of socioeconomic disadvantage, moderate levels of economic diversity, low median household income and is located in an outer regional area. These factors mean Windy Harbour may remain vulnerable under the final proposed marine reserves network.


The business impacts described in this case study are likely to have been substantially reduced by the final proposed network. Potential displacement of the Western Australian South West Trawl Fishery was reduced by 67 per cent to $37 100 (10-year mean) by changes to the Perth Canyon and South-west Corner reserves. The case study highlighted rapid growth of the fishery, so the potential impact based on recent years would be substantially greater than the 10-year mean. The case study noted historical scallop grounds (with highly variable annual production) located near Fremantle and north of Geographe Bay. It is unclear how much these historical (prospective) grounds would be impacted by the final proposed network.

Charter vessel impacts

The impacts on charter vessel operators described in this case study related to the Marine National Park zones in the draft Western Eyre marine reserve (areas 3 and 4). The locations of these Marine National Park zones were modified under the final proposed network (Map S1); however, some of Marine National Park Zone was retained near Pearson Island, which was noted as a location for charter fishing in the case study. Gross potential impacts on the South Australian charter industry are broadly similar between the draft and final proposed networks.

South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster

The case study identified a number of other issues the fishery is facing, including proposed state marine reserves, recent reductions in South Australian Northern Zone Rock Lobster Fishery quota and the current high Australian dollar depressing export unit prices. These issues are not changed under the final proposed network.


Economic modelling was used to assess the potential impact of the draft marine reserves network on the Eyre and Augusta–Margaret River subregions. Assuming the impact on the economy and on employment scales linearly with the magnitude of the impact, the short-term net regional economic impact of the final proposed network was estimated to be $5.1 million, with job losses of 12 full-time equivalent positions in directly affected regions.

Summary tables for the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposalTable S5 to Table S10 provide estimates of catch and GVP potential displacement for each reserve area, fishery and jurisdiction. Descriptions of newly impacted fisheries are included in Table 2.

201


Commonwealth fisheries—catch and gross value of production displacementTable S5 Estimates of mean annual potential catch (tonnes) displaced by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10 reference period

Reserve Area no.SESSF Gillnet, Hook

and Trap Sector

SESSF Great Australian Bight

Trawl SectorSmall Pelagic

Fishery

Southern Squid Jig

Fishery

Western Deepwater

Trawl Fishery

Western Tuna And Billfish

Fishery Total

Southern Kangaroo Island 01e * *Western Kangaroo Island 02e * *Western Kangaroo Island 03e 3.6 3.6Western Eyre 04e 4.7 * 4.7*Western Eyre 05e 3.5 * * 3.6Western Eyre 06e 8.9 * * 8.9Western Eyre 07e 6.7 2.6 9.3Western Eyre 08e * *Murat 09e 2.0 2.05Great Australian Bight (extension) 10e * *Great Australian Bight (extension) 11e 8.2 * * 9.7Great Australian Bight (extension) 12e * *Great Australian Bight (extension) 13e 4.5 4.5Great Australian Bight (extension) 14e 1.5 0.2 1.7Twilight 15e * *Eastern Recherche 16e * *Eastern Recherche 17e Eastern Recherche 18e * *South-west Corner 19e South-west Corner 20e South-west Corner 21e South-west Corner 22e 5.95 5.9Bremer 23e Bremer 24e Bremer 25e South-west Corner 26e South-west Corner 27e * *South-west Corner 28e 4.27 4.3South-west Corner 29e South-west Corner 30e * *

202


Reserve Area no.SESSF Gillnet, Hook

and Trap Sector


Trawl SectorSmall Pelagic

Fishery

Southern Squid Jig

Fishery

Western Deepwater

Trawl Fishery


Fishery TotalSouth-west Corner 31e * * *South-west corner 32e * 0.1 0.1*South-west corner 33e * *South-west Corner 34e Geographe 35e Geographe 36e Geographe 37e Geographe 38e Perth Canyon 39e * *Perth Canyon 39ee * *Perth Canyon 40e * *Perth Canyon 41e * 4.3 4.3*Perth Canyon 42e * *Two Rocks 43e Two Rocks 44e Jurien 45e Jurien 46e Abrolhos 47e * *Abrolhos 48e * *Abrolhos 49e Abrolhos 50e * *Abrolhos 51e 4.5 4.5Abrolhos 52e * *Abrolhos 53e Total 34.4 12.3 * * * 19.2 69.3Percentage of total fishery 0.8 0.3 * * * 1.7

Marine National Park Zone Habitat Protection Zone Special Purpose Zone Multiple Use Zone

* = confidential data; SESSF = Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery

203


Table S6 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production ($’000) displaced by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10 reference period

Reserve Area No.SESSF Gillnet, Hook

and Trap Sector


Trawl Sector


Southern Squid Jig

Fishery

Western Deepwater Trawl

Fishery


Fishery Total

Southern Kangaroo Island 01e * *Western Kangaroo Island 02e * *Western Kangaroo Island 03e 20.5 20.5Western Eyre 04e 17.9 * 17.9*Western Eyre 05e 21.4 * * 21.5Western Eyre 06e 54.4 * * 54.5Western Eyre 07e 41.7 10.5 52.2Western Eyre 08e * *Murat 09e 8.4 8.4Great Australian Bight (extension) 10e * *Great Australian Bight (extension) 11e 38.4 * * 38.9Great Australian Bight (extension) 12e * *Great Australian Bight (extension) 13e 16.7 16.7Great Australian Bight (extension) 14e 7.5 0.7 8.2Twilight 15e * *Eastern Recherche 16e * *Eastern Recherche 17e Eastern Recherche 18e * *South-west Corner 19e South-west Corner 20e South-west Corner 21e South-west Corner 22e 34.3 34.3Bremer 23e Bremer 24e Bremer 25e South-west Corner 26e South-west Corner 27e * *South-west Corner 28e 25.8 25.8South-west Corner 29e South-west Corner 30e * *South-west Corner 31e * * *South-west Corner 32e * 0.1 0.1*

204


Reserve Area No.SESSF Gillnet, Hook

and Trap Sector


Trawl Sector


Southern Squid Jig

Fishery

Western Deepwater Trawl

Fishery


Fishery TotalSouth-west Corner 33e * *South-west Corner 34e Geographe 35e Geographe 36e Geographe 37e Geographe 38e Perth Canyon 39e * *Perth Canyon 39ee * *Perth Canyon 40e * *Perth Canyon 41e * 25.1 25.1*Perth Canyon 42e * *Two Rocks 43e Two Rocks 44e Jurien 45e Jurien 46e Abrolhos 47e * *Abrolhos 48e * *Abrolhos 49e Abrolhos 50e * *Abrolhos 51e 28.2 28.2Abrolhos 52e * *Abrolhos 53e Total 192.2 46.7 * * * 114.2 360.5Percentage of total fishery 0.8 0.4 * * * 1.7


* = confidential data; SESSF = Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark FisheryNote: Estimates are mean annual for the reference period. In some fisheries, only one area is confidential. In these cases, the total does not include the confidential data because it would be possible to back-calculate the displacement from that area. These are denoted by showing the sum of the non-confidential areas followed by an asterisk (e.g. 2.0*). The total at the bottom right includes all data and is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the draft marine reserves network or did not use incompatible methods for the zoning are not included in the table. Estimates have high accuracy as they are based on shot-by-shot position data (latitude and longitude). Prices used to calculate GVP are based on recent year prices.

205


South Australian fisheries—catch and gross value of production displacementTable S7 Estimates of mean annual potential catch (tonnes) displaced by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from South Australian fisheries over the 2000–10 reference periodReserve Area no. Rock Lobster (northern zone) Marine Scalefish Fishery TotalSouthern Kangaroo Island 01e Western Kangaroo Island 02e Western Kangaroo Island 03e 0.2 0.6 0.8Western Eyre 04e Western Eyre 05e 0.2 ** 0.2**Western Eyre 06e 0.6 17.2 17.8Western Eyre 07e 6.7 6.7Western Eyre 08e Murat 09e 0.5 0.5 1.0Great Australian Bight (extension) 10e Great Australian Bight (extension) 11e 0.2 0.2 0.4Great Australian Bight (extension) 12e Great Australian Bight (extension) 13e Great Australian Bight (extension) 14e Total 1.74 25.2** 27.0Percentage of total fishery 0.3 0.7


* = confidential data; ** = missing data (do not appear in the total)Note: Data have been processed from 60-minute collecting grids.

206


Table S8 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production ($’000) displaced by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from South Australian fisheries over the 2000–10 reference period

Reserve Area no. Rock Lobster (northern zone)Marine Scalefish

Fishery TotalSouthern Kangaroo Island 01e Western Kangaroo Island 02e Western Kangaroo Island 03e 7.7 4.4 Western Eyre 04e Western Eyre 05e 9.2 ** 9.2**Western Eyre 06e 27.8 127.4 155.2Western Eyre 07e 49.9 49.9Western Eyre 08e 0.0Murat 09e 24.7 3.7 28.4Great Australian Bight (extension) 10e Great Australian Bight (extension) 11e 11.1 1.4 12.4Great Australian Bight (extension) 12e Great Australian Bight (extension) 13e Great Australian Bight (extension) 14e Total 80.43 186.8** 267.2Percentage of total fishery 0.3 0.7


** = missing data (do not appear in the total)Note: Data have been processed from 60-minute collecting grids.

207


Western Australian fisheries—catch and gross value of production displacementTable S9 Estimates of mean annual potential catch (tonnes) displaced by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from Western Australian fisheries over the 2001–10 reference period

ReserveArea no. ESP WCDSC MAC

OA (CT) OA other

SCTF SGL

SRL SWTF WCDS

WCGL WCRL WDSC WHRL WPSM Total

Twilight 15e * * 21.9 1.3 23.2Eastern Recherche 16e 0.3 22.8 10.7 33.8Eastern Recherche 17e * *Eastern Recherche 18e South-west Corner 19e * *South-west corner 20e 0.9 * * 8.7 * 10.1South-west corner 21e South-west corner 22e 0.6 * 0.1 * 4.4 0.1 5.4Bremer 23e 0.2 0.1 * 4.1 0.1 4.5*Bremer 24e * *Bremer 25e * *South-west corner 26e * *South-west corner 27e South-west corner 28e South-west corner 29e South-west corner 30e * *South-west Corner 31e * * * * 5.1 * 5.5South-west Corner 32e * * 6.7 * 6.9 7.4 21.2South-west Corner 33e * *South-west corner 34e * 0.1 3.9 * * 4.8Geographe 35e * * *Geographe 36e 0.1 0.1 * * * 0.1 0.3Geographe 37e 0.1 0.1 * * * * 0.3 0.7Geographe 38e * *Perth Canyon 39e 0.2 0.2Perth Canyon 39ee * * *Perth Canyon 40e Perth Canyon 41e * *

208


ReserveArea no. ESP WCDSC MAC

OA (CT) OA other

SCTF SGL

SRL SWTF WCDS

WCGL WCRL WDSC WHRL WPSM Total

Perth Canyon 42e 0.7 0.7Two Rocks 43e 4.8 4.8Two Rocks 44e 0.0 0.1 3.5 0.8 4.3Jurien 45e Jurien 46e * * * 6.6 6.6Abrolhos 47e Abrolhos 48e * 5.0 * 19.7 26.4Abrolhos 49e Abrolhos 50e * *Abrolhos 51e * *Abrolhos 52e Abrolhos 53e Total 1.2 0.9 * 0.1 1.1 31.9 64.6 1.5 5.9 12.2 * 42.2 2.9 * 1.3* 169.5Percentage of total fishery 3.7 3.7 * 0.4 2.8 8.4 5.8 5.1 10.6 1.4 * 0.4 2.3 * 0.1


* = confidential dataNote: ESP=Esperance Southern Rock Lobster Fishery, MAC=Mackerel Fishery, OA (CT)=Open Access and other conditions (crab trap), OA (other)=Open Access and other conditions (other fishing gears), SCTF=South Coast Trawl Fishery, SGL=Southern Demersal Gillnet and Longline Fishery, SRL=Southern Rock Lobster Fishery, SWTF=South West Trawl Fishery, WCDS=West Coast Demersal Scalefish Fishery, WCDSC=FBL condition 105—South Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery, WCGL=West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Longline Fishery, WCRL=West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery, WDSC=West Coast Deep Sea Crustaceans including West Coast Deep, WHRL=Windy Harbour Rock Lobster Fishery, WPSM=West Coast Purse Seine Fishery

Estimates are a combination of 10-minute grids (medium accuracy) with a reference period of 2008–10 (MAC, SGL, WCDS, WCGL) and 60-minute grids (low–medium accuracy) with a reference period of 2000–10 (remaining fisheries). In some fisheries, only one area is confidential. In these cases, the total does not include the confidential data because it would be possible to back-calculate the displacement from that area. These are denoted by showing the sum of the non-confidential areas followed by an asterisk (e.g. 2.0*). The total at the bottom right includes all data and is not affected by confidentiality.

209


Table S10 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production ($’000) displaced by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from Western Australian fisheries over the 2001–10 reference period

Reserve Area no. ESP WCDSCMA

C OA (CT) OA other SCTF SGL SRL SWTF WCDS WCGL WCRL WDSC WHRL WPSM TotalTwilight 15e * * 175.3 58.4 234.0

Eastern Recherche 16e 13.5 108.

4 85.8 207.7Eastern Recherche 17e * *Eastern Recherche 18e

South-west Corner 19e * *South-west Corner 20e 40.9 * * 69.8 * 114.3South-west Corner 21e South-west Corner 22e 9.8 * 0.9 * 35.2 6.3 53.1

Bremer 23e 3.6 0.6 * 32.9 5.5 42.7*Bremer 24e * *Bremer 25e * *

South-west Corner 26e * *South-west Corner 27e South-west Corner 28e South-west Corner 29e South-west Corner 30e * *South-west Corner 31e * * * * 142.2 * 145.3South-west Corner 32e * * 53.3 * 54.8 204.7 316.7South-west Corner 33e * *

210


Reserve Area no. ESP WCDSCMA

C OA (CT) OA other SCTF SGL SRL SWTF WCDS WCGL WCRL WDSC WHRL WPSM TotalSouth-west Corner 34e * 1.2 31.2 * * 58.2

Geographe 35e * * *Geographe 36e 0.2 0.1 * * * 0.2 1.4Geographe 37e 0.4 0.3 * * * * 0.5 3.2Geographe 38e * *

Perth Canyon 39e 1.5 1.5Perth Canyon 39ee * * *Perth Canyon 40e Perth Canyon 41e * *Perth Canyon 42e 12.4 12.4

Two Rocks 43e 30.5 30.5Two Rocks 44e 0.0 0.2 96.2 1.2 97.6

Jurien 45e Jurien 46e * * * 182.5 183.0

Abrolhos 47e Abrolhos 48e * 40.1 * 548.6 601.1Abrolhos 49e Abrolhos 50e * *Abrolhos 51e * *Abrolhos 52e Abrolhos 53e

Total 54.5 16.0 * 0.6 8.4152.

0 516.9 70.2 37.0 97.5 * 1174.2 49.9 * 1.9* 2227.3

Percentage of total fishery 3.7 3.7 * 0.4 2.8 8.4 5.8 5.1 10.6 1.4 * 0.4 2.3 * 0.1


* = confidential dataNote: ESP=Esperance Southern Rock Lobster Fishery, MAC=Mackerel Fishery, OA (CT)=Open Access and other conditions (crab trap), OA (other)=Open Access and other conditions (other fishing gears), SCTF=South Coast Trawl Fishery, SGL=Southern Demersal Gillnet and Longline Fishery, SRL=Southern Rock Lobster Fishery, SWTF=South West Trawl Fishery, WCDS=West Coast

211


Demersal Scalefish Fishery, WCDSC=FBL condition 105—South Coast Deep Sea Crab Fishery, WCGL=West Coast Demersal Gillnet and Longline Fishery, WCRL=West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery, WDSC=West Coast Deep Sea Crustaceans including West Coast Deep, WHRL=Windy Harbour Rock Lobster Fishery, WPSM=West Coast Purse Seine Fishery

Estimates are a combination of 10-minute grids (medium accuracy) with a reference period of 2008–10 (MAC, SGL, WCDS, WCGL) and 60-minute grids (low–medium accuracy) with a reference period of 2000–10 (remaining fisheries). In some fisheries, only one area is confidential. In these cases, the total does not include the confidential data because it would be possible to back-calculate the displacement from that area. These are denoted by showing the sum of the non-confidential areas followed by an asterisk (e.g. 2.0*). The total at the bottom right includes all data and is not affected by confidentiality.

212


Summary information on flow of impacts and demographics of communitiesTable S11 Updated summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities for towns identified under the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal

213




P d

isp

lace

d (

$'00

0 p

oin

t) -

FIN

AL

Hom

e p

ort

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

inp

ut

busi

nes

ses

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

ou

tpu

t bu

sin

esse

s

Seaf

ood

pro

cess

ors*

Vu

lner

abil

ity

ind

ex

Fish

ing

ind

ust

ry

emp

loym

ent

(% o

f tot

al

emp

loym

ent)

SEIF

A in

dex

of r

elat

ive

dis

adva

nta

ge

Econ

omic

div

ersi

ty

ind

ex

AR

IA r

emot

enes

s in

dex

Med

ian

hou

seh

old

in

com

e ($

/wee

k)

Pop

ula

tion

Abrolhos Geraldton (C) 60.3 0 0 0 0 0.34 2.17 2 0.91 2 783 18 915Adelaide Adelaide (statistical division) 15.4 0 40 8 3 0.15 0.08 6 0.93 0 948 1 105 846Albany Albany (C) - Central 91.3 2 11 2 9 0.32 0.26 3 0.97 2 728 15 977Augusta Augusta-Margaret River (S) 69.4 3 2 1 1 0.26 0.33 7 0.73 2 922 1 072Baird Bay Streaky Bay (DC) 2.0 0 0 0 0 0.48 5.01 5 0.24 3 697 2 020Beachport Wattle Range (DC) - West 9.7 1 2 1 2 0.40 1.47 3 0.51 2 813 8 703Bremer Bay Jerramungup (S) 5.5 0 0 0 3 0.45 2.39 7 0.10 3 848 1 128Broome Broome (S) 0.0 0 0 0 2 0.35 2.00 2 0.88 3 1129 13 060Bunbury Bunbury (C) 126.6 1 12 2 4 0.21 0.06 5 0.92 1 960 29 700Busselton Busselton (S) 133.5 1 5 1 0 0.18 0.19 7 0.83 1 962 25 356Canal Rocks Busselton (S) 0.3 0 0 0 0 0.18 0.19 7 0.83 1 962 25 356Cape Jaffa Kingston (DC) 3.9 0 0 1 0 0.47 3.44 4 0.19 2 700 2 328Carnarvon Carnarvon (S) 1.7 0 0 0 6 0.46 4.23 2 0.53 3 858 5 683Ceduna Ceduna (DC) 4.7 1 0 1 4 0.50 5.88 2 0.57 4 887 3 572Cervantes Dandaragan (S) 84.3 0 0 0 0 0.41 1.63 5 0.28 2 860 502Coffin Bay Lower Eyre Peninsula (DC) 47.3 2 5 0 0 0.44 6.87 6 0.28 3 845 584Coral Bay Carnarvon (S) 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.46 4.23 2 0.53 3 858 5 683Cowaramup Augusta-Margaret River (S) 5.6 0 0 0 0 0.26 0.33 7 0.73 2 922 10 352Darwin Darwin City (statistical subdivision) 0.1 1 0 0 0.24 0.47 6 0.72 2 1277 66 289Denham Shark Bay (S) 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.52 2.42 3 0.44 4 780 856Denmark Denmark (S) 0.7 0 0 0 0 0.35 0.31 5 0.68 2 641 4 510Devonport Devonport (C) 0.0 0 0 0 0.30 0.66 2 0.96 1 692 24 015Dongara Irwin (S) 7.6 0 0 0 1 0.38 4.98 5 0.42 2 869 3 054Dunsborough Busselton (S) 9.7 0 0 0 1 0.18 0.19 7 0.83 1 962 25 356Easter Group Geraldton (C) 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.34 2.17 2 0.91 2 783 18 915Elliston Elliston (DC) 2.1 2 2 0 0 0.49 3.20 6 0.12 3 707 1 132Esperance Esperance (S) 428.1 4 22 4 9 0.39 0.50 5 0.53 3 918 12 964Eucla Dundas (S) 124.0 1 1 1 0 0.55 0.00 2 0.12 3 844 1 068Exmouth Exmouth (S) 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.34 6.24 6 0.82 4 1059 2 064

Survey Census

214



P d

isp

lace

d (

$'00

0 p

oin

t) -

FIN

AL

Hom

e p

ort

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

inp

ut

busi

nes

ses

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

ou

tpu

t bu

sin

esse

s

Seaf

ood

pro

cess

ors*

Vu

lner

abil

ity

ind

ex

Fish

ing

ind

ust

ry

emp

loym

ent

(% o

f tot

al

emp

loym

ent)

SEIF

A in

dex

of r

elat

ive

dis

adva

nta

ge

Econ

omic

div

ersi

ty

ind

ex

AR

IA r

emot

enes

s in

dex

Med

ian

hou

seh

old

in

com

e ($

/wee

k)

Pop

ula

tion

Fowlers Bay Unincorp. West Coast 2.9 1 0 0 0 0.59 0.00 1 0.34 4 708 459Fremantle Fremantle (C) - Inner 167.6 6 0 0 7 0.15 0.64 6 0.88 0 911 23 838Freshwater Point Sarina (S) 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.35 0.38 4 0.52 2 1090 10 721Geraldton Geraldton (C) 233.9 0 3 0 10 0.34 2.17 2 0.91 2 783 18 915Green Head Dandaragan (S) 51.5 0 0 0 0 0.41 1.63 5 0.28 2 860 2 883Hamelin Bay Augusta-Margaret River (S) 236.0 1 0 0 0 0.26 0.33 7 0.73 2 922 10 352Hardy Inlet Augusta-Margaret River (S) 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.26 0.33 7 0.73 2 922 10 352Hillarys Joondalup (C) - South 6.5 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.08 10 0.96 0 1313 100 000Hobart Greater Hobart (stat. subd.) 7.7 0 1 0 0.24 0.59 5 0.88 1 884 200 516Hopetoun Ravensthorpe (S) 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.43 0.26 7 0.30 4 1068 1 953Johns Creek Roebourne (S) 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.28 0.11 7 0.19 3 2010 16 421Jurien Bay Dandaragan (S) 107.3 0 0 0 3 0.41 1.63 5 0.28 2 860 2 883Kalbarri Northampton (S) 100.9 0 0 0 1 0.52 2.50 3 0.31 3 659 1 333Kettering Kingborough (M) - Pt B 0.1 0 0 0 0.27 3.60 6 0.88 2 724 2 619Kingscote Kangaroo Island (DC) 3.9 9 5 2 1 0.46 1.84 4 0.41 3 749 4 259Lakes Entrance E. Gippsland (S) - Bairnsdale 6.2 0 0 0 0.33 0.62 3 0.95 2 645 25 367Lancelin Gingin (S) 48.7 0 0 0 1 0.41 2.38 5 0.30 2 827 665Ledge Point Gingin (S) 29.6 0 0 0 1 0.41 2.38 5 0.30 2 827 4 318Leeman Coorow (S) 3.5 0 0 0 0 0.46 3.46 6 0.16 3 877 1 202Mandurah Mandurah (C) 23.6 1 5 2 0 0.25 0.15 5 0.82 1 810 55 816Margaret River Augusta-Margaret River (S) 10.0 0 0 1 2 0.26 0.33 7 0.73 2 922 10 352Mile End Adelaide (C) 2.0 0 0 0 0 0.13 0.13 7 0.85 0 1020 16 657Mindarie Wanneroo (C) - North-West 13.7 0 0 0 0 0.11 0.23 7 0.89 0 1084 37 652Mooloolaba Maroochy (S) - Mooloolaba 6.0 0 0 0 0.16 0.43 6 0.85 0 941 10 243Normans Beach Albany (C) Bal 2.0 0 0 0 0 0.23 0.40 7 0.82 2 996 15 596Parrys Inlet Denmark (S) 0.1 0 0 0 0 0.35 0.31 5 0.68 2 641 4 510Peaceful Bay Denmark (S) 1.6 0 0 0 0 0.35 0.31 5 0.68 2 641 4 510Pelsart Group Geraldton (C) 1.7 0 0 0 0 0.34 2.17 2 0.91 2 783 18 915Perth Central Metropolitan (stat. subd.) 0.0 0 47 10 0 0.05 0.11 9 0.75 0 1408 124 949

215




P d

isp

lace

d (

$'00

0 p

oin

t) -

FIN

AL

Hom

e p

ort

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

inp

ut

busi

nes

ses

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

ou

tpu

t bu

sin

esse

s

Seaf

ood

pro

cess

ors*

Vu

lner

abil

ity

ind

ex

Fish

ing

ind

ust

ry

emp

loym

ent

(% o

f tot

al

emp

loym

ent)

SEIF

A in

dex

of r

elat

ive

dis

adva

nta

ge

Econ

omic

div

ersi

ty

ind

ex

AR

IA r

emot

enes

s in

dex

Med

ian

hou

seh

old

in

com

e ($

/wee

k)

Pop

ula

tion

Point Turton Irwin (S) 13.8 6 1 1 0.38 4.98 5 0.42 2 869 3 054Pondalowie Bay Yorke Peninsula (DC) - South 11.7 2 1 0.50 1.26 3 0.44 3 571 3 860Ponde Mid Murray (DC) 3.9 0.42 0.00 2 0.43 1 616 8 038Port Adelaide Port Adel. Enfield (C) - Port 19.6 3 3 0.28 0.23 1 0.92 0 647 10 356Port Albert Wellington (S) - Alberton 0.1 0.39 0.17 4 0.37 1 643 5 472Port Geographe Busselton (S) 0.7 0.18 0.19 7 0.83 1 962 25 356Port Gregory Northampton (S) 10.0 0.51 2.50 3 0.31 3 659 3 209Port Hedland Port Hedland (T) 0.3 0.33 0.06 5 0.26 3 1865 11 961Port Lincoln Port Lincoln (C) 212.6 10 50 8 32 0.39 12.03 3 0.78 3 821 13 603Port Moorowie Yorke Peninsula (DC) - South 2.1 1 0.50 1.26 3 0.44 3 571 3 860Portland Glenelg (S) - Portland 2.3 0.33 1.32 3 0.83 2 833 10 370Quindalup Busselton (S) 22.1 1 0.18 0.19 7 0.83 1 962 25 356Quinns Rocks Joondalup (C) - North 0.0 0.02 0.06 9 0.95 0 1337 49 673Robe Robe (DC) 0.0 2 1 4 0.40 5.45 6 0.27 2 795 1 702Rockingham Rockingham (C) 0.0 0.13 0.14 6 0.89 0 1037 84 307Safety Bay Rockingham (C) 0.6 0.13 0.14 6 0.89 0 1037 84 307Sceale Bay Streaky Bay (DC) 2.0 0.48 5.01 5 0.24 3 697 2 020Seabird Gingin (S) 39.9 0.41 2.38 5 0.30 2 827 4 318Streaky Bay Streaky Bay (DC) 77.9 5 11 3 3 0.49 5.01 5 0.24 3 697 1 059Sydney Sydney (statistical division) 2.0 1 0.10 0.04 7 0.88 0 1255 4 119 169Thevenard Ceduna (DC) 40.0 4 20 3 0.50 5.88 2 0.57 4 887 3 572Torbay Albany (C) Bal 0.0 0.23 0.40 7 0.82 2 996 15 596Two Rocks Wanneroo (C) - North-West 45.9 0.11 0.23 7 0.89 0 1084 37 652

Survey Census

216




P d

isp

lace

d (

$'00

0 p

oin

t) -

FIN

AL

Hom

e p

ort

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

inp

ut

busi

nes

ses

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

ou

tpu

t bu

sin

esse

s

Seaf

ood

pro

cess

ors*

Vu

lner

abil

ity

ind

ex

Fish

ing

ind

ust

ry

emp

loym

ent

(% o

f tot

al

emp

loym

ent)

SEIF

A in

dex

of r

elat

ive

dis

adva

nta

ge

Econ

omic

div

ersi

ty

ind

ex

AR

IA r

emot

enes

s in

dex

Med

ian

hou

seh

old

in

com

e ($

/wee

k)

Pop

ula

tion

Venus Bay Elliston (DC) 5.7 1 0.49 3.20 6 0.12 3 707 1 132Victor Harbour Victor Harbor (C) 0.1 0.26 0.15 5 0.89 1 617 12 015Wallabi Group Geraldton (C) 1.4 0.34 2.17 2 0.91 2 783 18 915Walpole Manjimup (S) 0.1 0.41 0.14 3 0.51 2 792 9 255Warooka Yorke Peninsula (DC) - South 7.8 6 1 1 0.50 1.26 3 0.44 3 571 3 860Wedge Island Dandaragan (S) 3.6 0.41 1.63 5 0.28 2 860 2 883Windy Harbour Manjimup (S) 20.1 4 1 0.59 25.00 3 0.51 2 792 25Wirrina Cove Yankalilla (DC) 2.8 0.34 0.37 4 0.59 1 635 4 151Wollongong Wollongong (C) - Inner 1.9 0.16 0.05 5 0.96 0 903 93 846Yanchep Wanneroo (C) - North-West 1.7 0.11 0.23 7 0.89 0 1084 37 652

Survey Census

* = only available for Western Australia and South Australia; ARIA = Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia; C = City; DC = District Council; GVP = gross value of production; SEIFA =Socio-Economic Indexes For Area; S = Shire; T = TownNote: The 'traffic light' indicators for each variable follow the logic of green being a positive measure through to red being a negative measure. Indicators are based on the distribution of a measure within the group of localities. Australian Bureau of Statistics population statistics are available for a variety of geographies within the Australian Standard Geographical Classification. To reflect the most appropriate representation of a community's population, different geographies have been used to calculate the GVP displaced per capita: urban centre / locality is used for Kalbarri, Streaky Bay, Cervantes, Augusta, Coffin Bay, Lancelin, Carnarvon, Broome and Point Samson; and local government area is used for population and employment in the consolidated fishing industry for Fremantle. This assessment includes towns that do not have a GVP displacement and therefore do not have a vulnerability ranking; however, these towns were identified as locations of input and output business through the survey and therefore may be impacted. The vulnerability index is calculated on the draft and final GVP scenarios for all impacted towns in the region. The global scaling approach enables comparison of ranked scores across the two GVP scenarios.

217

Documents

Main findings for the - Home - Department of the … · Web viewPersonal impacts will emerge differently for different people, and their ability to cope and adapt will also vary