Environment - Main findings for the draft network (released ... · Web viewIt also includes the waters surrounding Lord Howe and Norfolk islands. Commonwealth waters extend from 3

Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network: social and economic assessment of the impacts on commercial 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 (ABARES) 2012, Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network: social and economic assessment of the impacts on commercial fishing. Report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, June 2012. CC BY 3.0.

Cataloguing dataAustralian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) 2012 Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network: social and economic assessment of the impacts on commercial 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, June 2012.

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.

AcknowledgementsABARES thanks the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries for their assistance in providing data and reviewing this report. ABARES also acknowledges the comments and contributions of commercial fishers and industry group representatives, including those from the Commonwealth Fisheries Association.

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]

mailto:[email protected]

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

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

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

Draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal.........................13

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

The Temperate East Marine Region..............................................................................................14

Fisheries in the Temperate East Marine Region......................................................................17

Demographics of the Temperate East Marine Region...........................................................20

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

The social and economic assessment...........................................................................................22

2 Potential displacement of fishing...................................................................................................24

Area closures and entitlement values..........................................................................................26

Commercial fishing potential displacement..............................................................................26

Prospective fishing................................................................................................................................33

Fisheries management........................................................................................................................ 35

3 Flow of potential impacts to ports and supply chains...........................................................36

Flow of gross value of production to ports................................................................................36

Inputs to fishing businesses (upstream impacts)...................................................................38

Output from fishing businesses (downstream impacts)......................................................40

Town and local area summary.........................................................................................................42

Potential impacts on the economy.................................................................................................44

Potential impacts on employment.................................................................................................46

Summary of flow of impacts.............................................................................................................48

4 Impacts on fishing businesses..........................................................................................................49

Survey data caveats and notes.........................................................................................................49

Commercial fishery qualitative value mapping........................................................................50

Direct displacement impacts on fishing businesses...............................................................53

Fishing business plans and future investments.......................................................................59

Other issues and cumulative factors impacting fishing businesses................................60

Ability to adapt—fishing businesses.............................................................................................62

Fishing business impacts summary...............................................................................................62

5 Personal and community impacts..................................................................................................64

Personal impacts....................................................................................................................................64

Ability to adapt—personal................................................................................................................67

iii

Community impacts..............................................................................................................................69

Community and personal impacts summary............................................................................70

6 Case studies.............................................................................................................................................. 72

Telling the fisher’s story: a narrative approach.......................................................................72

Macroeconomic context......................................................................................................................72

Case study: Cumulative issues impacting fishing businesses in the Temperate East Marine Region...............................................................................................................................75

Case study: Prospective fishing in the Deepwater Prawn Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery..................................................................................................80

Case study: Potential impacts on fishermen’s cooperatives in the Temperate East Marine Region...............................................................................................................................82

Case study: Impact of the draft Jervis marine reserve on an individual operator in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Commonwealth Trawl Sector: the importance of Jervis......................................................86

Case study: Sydney Fish Markets....................................................................................................89

Case study: Economic modelling of Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba...................................93

7 Appendixes............................................................................................................................................ 102

A: Fisheries data processing methods.......................................................................................102

B: Social impact assessment methods.......................................................................................108

C: Developing an index of community vulnerability...........................................................114

D: Estimating job reduction using the survey........................................................................118

E: Profile of survey respondents..................................................................................................119

F: Summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities.....................................................................................................................................124

8 References.............................................................................................................................................. 128

Supplementary report: Final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal............................................................................................................................... 132

Overview................................................................................................................................................. 133

Changes to the Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network...........134

Potential displacement of fishing.................................................................................................138

Flow of potential impacts to ports..............................................................................................140

Fishing business impacts.................................................................................................................143

Personal and community impacts...............................................................................................144

Case studies........................................................................................................................................... 144

Summary tables for the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal...........................................................................................................146

iv

TablesTable 1 Comparison of estimates of catch and gross value of production (GVP)

potentially displaced by the draft (released November 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserve networks in the Temperate East Marine Region..........................................................................................................8

Table 2 Reference information for potentially impacted fisheries in the Temperate East Marine Region...............................................................................................................................18

Table 3 Estimated direct employment in the fishing industry by sector in New South Wales and Australia-wide (full-time equivalent positions)...................................20

Table 4 Estimates of Commonwealth and New South Wales fishery catch and gross value of production (GVP) that would be potentially displaced by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network (Map 2)...........................27

Table 5 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10 reference period............................................................................28

Table 6 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production ($’000) displaced by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10 reference period...........29

Table 7 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network from New South Wales fisheries over the 2009–10 to 2010-11 reference period...................................................30

Table 8 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production (GVP) displaced by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network from New South Wales fisheries over the 2009–10 reference period.......31

Table 9 Community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity —draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.....................................................................43

Table 10 Estimated paid job reduction anticipated by survey respondents due to the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network..........................47

Table 11 Number of value markers placed in draft marine reserve areas for each of the value categories..............................................................................................................................52

Table 12 Response to the question, 'If the reserve was declared I would have to change current fishing activities'....................................................................................................53

Table 13 Responses from fishers who declared their fishing activity would have to change if the draft reserves were declared................................................................................54

Table 14 Number of respondents with business and investment plans in place.................59

Table 15 Composition of Sydney Fish Market’s supply by jurisdiction (2010–11 quantity traded)..................................................................................................................................... 89

Table 16 Scenario one: Displacement of gross value of production (GVP) to the Sydney Fish Market from the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network................................................................................................................................. 91

Table 17 Scenario two: displacement of gross value of production (GVP) to the Sydney Fish Market from the draft South-west, North-west, North and Coral Sea reserve networks...........................................................................................................................92

v

Table 18 Reference case gross value of production projections by jurisdiction ($billion).................................................................................................................................................... 97

Table 19 Short-term (2012–13) model results of the potential impact of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on the economy and employment.................................................................................................................................... 98

Table 20 Summary of estimated short-term impacts in 2012–13 in absolute terms.........99

Table 21 Longer-term (2019–20) model results of the potential impact of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on the economy and employment..................................................................................................................................100

Table 22 Summary of long-term economic impacts in 2019–20 in absolute terms.........100

Table 23 Commonwealth commercial fishing methods and zoning implications.............105

Table 24 New South Wales fishing methods and zoning implications...................................106

Table 25 Focus group participants.........................................................................................................112

Table 26 Indicators and data.....................................................................................................................115

Table 27 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...................................................................118

Table 28 Licences held and used by survey respondents in 2010–11...................................119

Table 29 Fishing methods...........................................................................................................................119

Table 30 Fishing history..............................................................................................................................120

Table 31 Fishing business structure......................................................................................................120

Table 32 Business activities.......................................................................................................................120

Table 33 Fishing business employees...................................................................................................121

Table 34 Value of landed catch in 2010–11........................................................................................121

Table 35 Summary information of flow of impacts, supply chain, demographics and vulnerability under the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network...............................................................................................................................125

Table S1 Differences between the draft and final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposals.........................................................................................135

Table S2 Comparison of estimates of catch and gross value of production (GVP) potentially displaced by the draft (released November 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserve networks in the Temperate East Marine Region....................................................................................................139

Table S3 Comparison of estimates of flow of potentially displaced gross value of production (GVP) by the draft and final proposed Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserve Networks............................................................................141

Table S4 Community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity—final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal...............................................142

Table S5 Comparison of the short-term net economic impact and job losses between the draft and final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal............................................................................................................................... 143

vi

Table S6 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced by the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10 reference period.......................................147

Table S7 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production (GVP) displaced by the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10 reference period....................................................................................................................................................... 148

Table S8 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced by the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from New South Wales fisheries over the 2009–10 to 2010–11 reference period..........149

Table S9 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production (GVP) displaced by the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from New South Wales fisheries over the 2008–10 reference period.................................................................................................................................. 149

Table S10 Updated summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities for towns identified under the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal...............................................150

FiguresFigure 1 Conceptual model of community vulnerability.................................................................42

Figure 2 Structure of the Shoalhaven economy...................................................................................44

Figure 3 Structure of the Mooloolaba economy..................................................................................45

Figure 4 Business impacts for respondents who indicated they would continue operating by making up shortfall or moving into an alternative fishery......................56

Figure 5 Business impacts for respondents who indicated they would continue operating with a reduced catch.......................................................................................................57

Figure 6 Business impacts for respondents who indicated they would leave the fishing industry.......................................................................................................................................58

Figure 7 Fishing business considerations when making business plans and/or investments.............................................................................................................................................. 59

Figure 8 Other issues impacting fishing businesses in the Temperate East Marine Region......................................................................................................................................................... 61

Figure 9 Ability to adapt—business..........................................................................................................62

Figure 10 Indirect personal impacts for respondents who indicated they would continue operating by making up shortfall or moving into an alternative fishery......................................................................................................................................................... 65

Figure 11 Indirect personal impacts for respondents who indicated they would continue operating with a reduced catch....................................................................................66

Figure 12 Indirect personal impacts for respondents who indicated they would leave the fishing industry...................................................................................................................67

Figure 13 Ability to adapt—personal.......................................................................................................68

Figure 14 Ability to adapt—community.................................................................................................70

vii

Figure 15 Commonwealth fisheries gross value of production (GVP) and Australian dollar exchange rate, 2000–01 to 2009–10...............................................................................73

Figure 16 Real average off-road diesel price, inclusive of farm rebates and subsidies, but excluding GST, 2000–01 to 2009–10..............................................................74

Figure 17 Summary of the cooperative/fisher interdependence leading to cumulative impacts (as described by focus group participants)......................................85

Figure 18 Decision process for business in deciding where to fish............................................87

Figure 19 Structure of the Shoalhaven economy................................................................................94

Figure 20 Structure of the Mooloolaba economy................................................................................95

Figure 21 Treatment of fishing operations (lines) in relation to reserve boundaries.....105

Figure 22 Relationship among all fishers, target population, survey frame and survey respondents............................................................................................................................110

Figure 23 Conceptual model of community vulnerability............................................................114

Figure 24 Proportion of income from fishing....................................................................................122

Figure 25 Respondents' highest level of formal education..........................................................122

Figure 26 Reported number of dependents.......................................................................................123

MapsMap 1 Temperate East Marine Region draft (released November 2011) and final

proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserves networks with zone and area numbering......................................................................................................................................... 7

Map 2 Draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network with zones and area numbering............................................................................................................................. 16

Map 3 All commercial fishing gross value of production (GVP) in the Temperate East Marine Region, employment in the consolidated fishing industry and the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network..................................21

Map 4 Flow of potentially displaced gross value of production (GVP) to ports....................37

Map 5 Number of input (upstream) businesses identified as potentially impacted by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network....................38

Map 6 Number of respondents who source inputs from this location for their fishing business...................................................................................................................................... 39

Map 7 Number of output businesses identified as potentially impacted by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.............................................40

Map 8 Number of respondents who send outputs to this location from their fishing business..................................................................................................................................................... 41

Map 9 Qualitative value mapping for all value classes ('catch reliability', 'catch diversity', 'easy to access', 'a safe area', 'less competition', 'future use value').........51

Map 10 Draft Commonwealth Hunter marine reserve and the New South Wales Port Stephens –-Great Lakes Marine Park..................................................................................77

Map 11 Areas modelled by AusRegion: Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba statistical local areas............................................................................................................................................................ 93

viii

Map 12 New South Wales state fisheries 6-minute reporting grid systems overlaid on part of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network................................................................................................................................................... 107

Map S1 Temperate East Marine Region draft (released November 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserves networks......................................137

BoxesBox 1 Assessing the economic impact of marine reserves............................................................25

ix

Temperate East 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 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 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 Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal released for public comment from November 2011 – February 2012, and the final Temperate East 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 Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal (released November 2011). The consultative social and economic assessment was undertaken on the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network and forms the bulk of this report. The assessment of the draft network 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 reserves network in the early chapters, through to a finer scale covering the potential impacts to 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 New South Wales and Australian governments and fishing industry bodies.

Final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal (released 14 June 2012). An abridged assessment was undertaken on the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal, and this is contained within the supplementary section of this report. The revisions to the network were informed by the submissions received through the public consultation process and by ABARES's initial analysis on the draft network released for public consultation in November 2011. This abridged assessment provides (where possible) a comparative analysis of the changes to potential impacts between the draft and final proposed reserves networks. ABARES was not in a position to undertake additional consultation (survey or interviews) with commercial and charter fishing businesses for this abridged assessment.

1


Main findings for the draft network (released November 2011)The potential impact of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network (Map 1) is small, relative to the gross value of production (GVP) from the fisheries in the region. Some of the impact will be borne disproportionately by a small number of businesses, with the balance of the impact more diffused among a larger number of businesses. Potential impacts of the draft marine reserves may compound with other factors affecting fisheries, including economic conditions, changes to fisheries management and state marine parks. The main towns potentially impacted were in the Shoalhaven subregion (Greenwell Point and Ulladulla), Mooloolaba, Forster, Newcastle and Sydney.

Potential displacement of fishing: The draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network would potentially displace an annual average of 254 tonnes of catch with a gross value of $1.28 million. Of this, $883 360 would be displaced from Commonwealth fisheries and $303 410 from New South Wales fisheries (Table 1). These potential displacements represent a small proportion (0.7 per cent) of the collective fisheries GVP from potentially impacted fisheries ($180.1 million: $146.3 million from Commonwealth fisheries and $33.8 million from New South Wales fisheries). These values of collective fishery GVP are the totals for the potentially impacted fisheries in each jurisdiction and are not adjusted to account only for fishing in the Temperate East Marine Region.

Summary of impacts of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network (Table 1):

Seven Commonwealth fisheries and two New South Wales fisheries would potentially be impacted by the draft marine reserves network, with the degree of impact ranging from close to zero through to 51 per cent of the annual average GVP for each fishery.

In absolute terms, the greatest potential GVP displacement for Commonwealth fisheries occurs in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Commonwealth Trawl Sector ($512 000), followed by the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery ($261 700* additional confidential data has not been reported) and the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector ($67 100). The most impacted New South Wales fisheries in terms of GVP potentially displaced would be the Prawn Trawl Sector of the Ocean Trawl Fishery ($113 990* confidential data has not been reported) followed by the Fish Trawl Sector of the Ocean Trawl Fishery ($100 600*confidential data has not been reported) (Table 1).

In percentage terms, fisheries GVP displacement represents less than 1 per cent of each of the annual average fishery GVP for all currently active fisheries; of these the highest is the Prawn Trawl Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery (0.9* per cent, confidential data has not been reported).

The greatest potential impact, in percentage terms, would be to the Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery (51 per cent of average annual GVP). Although this was an exploratory fishery that ceased operation in 2003, it operated within the reference period and, therefore, remains in the estimates of displacement (see Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods; Commonwealth fisheries).

Of the nine draft marine reserves in the Temperate East Marine Region, the draft Jervis marine reserve (Map 1) had the largest potential impact ($511 100* annual average GVP [additional confidential data has not been reported]; primarily on the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Commonwealth Trawl Sector), followed by the draft Hunter

2


Marine Reserve ($185 400*; primarily on the Fish Trawl Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery [additional confidential data has not been reported]).

There may be cumulative impacts to some of the fisheries identified in the Temperate East Marine Region from draft marine reserves networks in other marine regions. This includes additional displacement by the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network to the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Gillnet, Hook and Trap and the Small Pelagic Fishery (ABARES 2012c). There is also substantial potential displacement of the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery from the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve (ABARES 2012b).

Short-term prospective fishing may be impacted in some fisheries in the Temperate East Marine Region. In these fisheries, there was evidence that businesses have made specific plans or investments or that development prospects were clearly identified by fisheries management agencies (see Case study: Prospective fishing in the Deepwater Prawn Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery). Impact to the value of fishing entitlements was also identified as a potential 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 on potentially impacted businesses:

Overall, 30 towns will potentially be impacted through flow of displaced GVP by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.

Towns with the highest potential GVP displacement were Greenwell Point ($350 700 GVP potentially displaced), Mooloolaba ($214 400), Ulladulla ($153 700) and Forster ($143 300).

The main towns for supplying inputs (such as fuel and chandlery) and receiving produce from potentially impacted fishers were identified as Ulladulla, Newcastle, Mooloolaba and Coffs Harbour. The main towns receiving outputs (including receiving, processing and transport of catch) were Ulladulla, Greenwell Point, Forster, Hervey Bay and Mooloolaba.

Greenwell Point was identified as having the highest level of exposure, based on the GVP displaced per capita ($274.60 per capita). Low levels of exposure were noted for Mooloolaba ($7.02 displaced per capita), Ulladulla ($14.93 displaced per capita) Forster ($4.37 displaced per capita), Newcastle ($1.36 displaced per capita) and Port Stephens ($1.08 displaced per capita).

Cumulative impacts may occur to towns identified in the Temperate East Marine Region from displaced flow of GVP from draft marine reserves networks in other regions. This was most notable for Mooloolaba, which is also potentially impacted by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve (ABARES 2012b).

Most survey respondents believed that the fishing industry was important to their community and supported the community. Collectively, most survey respondents felt that people within their community supported each other, although most respondents did not participate in community groups or volunteering.

Potential impacts on the economy: The ABARES AusRegion model was used to estimate the economic impact on regional, state and national economies and the corresponding impact on jobs in the short term (2012–13) and in the longer term (2019–20).

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

3


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

The potential regional economic impact (gross regional product) was estimated at $1.9 million in the short term, all of which is expected to occur in directly impacted regions.

The total potential regional job loss in directly impacted regions was estimated at four full-time equivalent jobs lost in the short term.

The potential net economic impact on the Shoalhaven (gross regional product) subregion was estimated to be a loss of $0.8 million in the short term, corresponding with an estimated loss of approximately two full-time equivalent jobs.

In the Mooloolaba subregion, the potential net economic impact in the short term was estimated to be a reduction in gross regional product of $0.3 million, with an estimated loss of approximately one full-time equivalent job. Mooloolaba is also potentially affected by the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve (ABARES 2012b).

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 26 full-time jobs in the short term, based on survey responses from fishing businesses. This higher estimate arose from the number of survey respondents who indicated that they would leave the fishing industry in response to the draft marine reserves network. Respondents reported that this intention to leave the fishing industry stems from an accumulation of factors, in addition to the draft reserves.

Potential impacts on fishing businesses: A survey was sent to 526 fishing businesses in the catching sector. These businesses were identified in consultation with fisheries agencies and industry associations as being potentially impacted by the draft marine reserves network. The results reflect a subset of potentially impacted fishing businesses operating in the Temperate East Marine Region.

Of the 142 responses received, 79 survey respondents identified that their fishing businesses would potentially be impacted. Of these, 35 indicated that they would stay and make up the shortfall (or move into another fishery), 3 indicated that they would continue operating in the same fishery or downsize their fishing operation, 21 said that they would leave the fishing industry and 20 were unsure or did not give a response.

Fishing businesses reported the main impacts from displacement as a loss of access to fishing grounds, reduction in the scale of their operation, loss of income, and devaluation of licences and capital. The qualitative findings reveal that fishers are concerned that the uncertainty surrounding potential displacement caused by the draft marine reserves network have jeopardised their business plans 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 Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.

The impacts of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network cannot be viewed in isolation. A strong and consistent theme raised by survey respondents, interviewees and focus group participants was that the potential impacts of the draft marine reserves network will be exacerbated by the cumulative pressures on the fishing industry. They indicated that the recent implementation of the New South Wales state marine reserves, decreased market

4


demand for product, high exchange rates, cheaper imported products, changes in fisheries management and rising input costs will restrict fishers’ potential to adapt to the draft marine reserves network.

Personal and community impacts: Personal impacts of the draft marine reserves network for those displaced and having to change their fishing activities were increased stress, work pressure and decreased personal time. Community impacts were centred around the reliance of regional centres on the fishing sector for employment, and the link between commercial fishing and other economic activities, such as tourism and development opportunities, both within the fishery and the community. Based on the GVP displaced per capita, the community with the highest level of exposure is Greenwell Point ($274.60 per capita). It is difficult to assess how well the Greenwell Point community will respond to the impact, because it has characteristics that will enhance adaptation and possibly impede adaptation.

Case studies: Six case studies provide a broader understanding of how potential impacts of the draft marine reserves network would emerge at different scales. Case study themes and topics were chosen through consultation with industry, state government and SEWPaC. Case studies are:

Cumulative issues impacting fishing businesses in the Temperate East Marine Region

Potential cumulative impacts are explored in the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery and the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery. In addition personal and family cumulative impacts ‘change fatigue’ are highlighted.

Industry representatives and individual fishers highlighted concerns about the cumulative impacts the draft Commonwealth marine reserves will have with the reduced access to fishing grounds already in place through the New South Wales state marine park process. This is particularly relevant for the draft Commonwealth Hunter marine reserve (area 402; Map 1), a Multiple Use Zone that would exclude demersal trawl, demersal gillnet and demersal longline gear types, as this abuts the New South Wales Port Stephens – Great Lakes Marine Park.

The Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery is subject to cumulative impacts from the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth marine reserve ($3.8 million potentially displaced GVP; ABARES 2012b), and operators have expressed concern over the cumulative impacts. Industry representatives highlighted the need to consider the impacts on this fishery as a whole and not each marine region in isolation. Industry participants were concerned that the draft reserves in the Temperate East and Coral Sea marine regions may require a fisheries management response (such as quota reduction) that could impact all Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery fishers.

Qualitative information collected during focus groups and interviews with fishing operators and their families found the continual changes in fishery management and restricted access to grounds highly stressful. Changes contributing to cumulative personal and family impacts were raised by fishing operators and their family members in the Temperate East Marine Region. Focus group participants and interviewees talked about the lack of certainty in the financial investments they had made and the inability to prepare for the future because ‘the goal posts keep changing’.

5


Prospective fishing in the Deepwater Prawn Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery

Prospective fishing in the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery (Deepwater Prawn Sector) was analysed using an example of a family fishing business that had invested in licences and assets to undertake more deepwater trawling on the upper continental slope. The draft Hunter marine reserve (Map 1) has been highlighted by the operator and industry as an area of concern because the current zoning does not allow continued access to some important grounds for targeting royal red prawns.

Potential impacts on fishermen’s cooperatives in the Temperate East Marine Region

This case study is based on focus groups, surveys and interviews with commercial fishers, fishermen’s cooperative (supply chain) managers and community representatives from Bermagui, Coffs Harbour, Port Stephens and Ulladulla. Focus group participants described how the accumulated impacts (from a range of other factors as well as marine reserves) could lead to the decline of cooperatives and smaller towns. Smaller towns rely on fishermen’s cooperatives for flow-on benefits more than larger regional centres that tend to have a more diverse economic base.

Impact of the draft Jervis marine reserve on an individual operator in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Commonwealth Trawl Sector: the importance of Jervis

This case study examines the potential impact of the draft Jervis marine reserve (Map 1) on an Ulladulla-based trawl business. The operator estimated that the Jervis marine reserve would exclude the business from one-third of its current fishing grounds. Further, the area within the draft Jervis marine reserve is an important part the local fishing ground due to its catch reliability and accessibility from Ulladulla.

Sydney Fish Market

Two scenarios were developed for the potential interruption of supply to the Sydney Fish Market resulting from the potential displacement of fisheries GVP. The first scenario looks at the impacts of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network and the second looks at the balance of the impacts from the draft reserves networks in the other four marine regions (South-west, North-west, North and Coral Sea). Results from these scenarios suggest the flow of impact to the Sydney Fish Market would approximate $1.07 million, which represents 0.89 per cent of the value of seafood product traded in the Sydney Fish Market in 2010–11.

Economic modelling of Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba subregions

The ABARES AusRegion model was used to estimate the economic effects of establishing the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on two subregions—Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba. The net regional economic impact of the final proposed network was estimated to be $1.9 million, with the loss of four jobs nationally in the short term.

6


Map 1 Temperate East Marine Region draft (released November 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserves networks with zone and area numbering

EEZ = Exclusive Economic Zone. Note: The ABARES area numbering is different between the networks due to the addition of new zoning in the final proposed network. Map compiled by ABARES, May 2012. Projection: Geographic, GDA94. Zoning is described in Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods Data sources: Marine reserve boundaries from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; coastline and bathymetry from Geoscience Australia

7


Table 1 Comparison of estimates of catch and gross value of production (GVP) potentially displaced by the draft (released November 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserve networks in the Temperate East Marine Region

Total catch (tonnes) Total GVP ($’000)

Fishery Draft Final proposed Draft Final proposed Absolute change Percentage change

Commonwealth

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery 43.6* 43.4 261.7* 248.0 * Reduced

High Seas Fisheries 1.4 1.3 10.2 10.0 –0.2 –2.2

Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery 5.3* 5.3* 27* 27* * No change

SESSF Commonwealth Trawl Sector 140.9 1.1 512.0 3.8 –508.3 –99.3

SESSF East Coast Deepwater Trawl * * * * * No change

SESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector 10.3 6.9 67.1 43.3 –23.7 –35.4

Small Pelagic Fishery * * * Removed

Commonwealth fisheries total 205.2 58.5 883.4 334.0 –549.4 –62.2

New South Wales

Ocean Trawl Fishery Fish Trawl Sector 25.0* * 100.6* * * Reduced

Ocean Trawl Fishery Prawn Trawl Sector 12.3* 12.3* 114.0* 114.0* * Reduced

Ocean Trap and Line Fishery 0.8 0.5 4.4 2.5 –1.9 –42.7

NSW fisheries total 49.0 30.7 303.4 225.3 –78.2 –25.8

Grand total 254.2 89.1 1186.8 559.3 –632.0 –53.1

Note: Commonwealth estimates have are based on shot-by-shot position data (latitude and longitude high accuracy). New South Wales estimates are based on 6-minute grids (medium accuracy) with a reference period of 2009–10 to 2010–11. Estimates are mean annual for the reference period. 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 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. 2.8*). Total displacement for each jurisdiction is not affected by confidentiality. As such, in cases where no percentage change in GVP can be provided, as it would allow the confidential displacement to be back-calculated, a description of the change has been included: no change, increase or decrease. The grand total calculations include all data and are not affected by confidentiality.

8


Main findings for the final proposed network (released 14 June 2012)SEWPaC provided a final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal (released 14 June 2012; Map 1) following consideration of submissions received during the public consultation period, as well as ABARES’ assessment of potential social and economic impacts associated with the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.

Broadly, the potential impact of the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal remains small relative to the GVP of fisheries in the region, and is substantially reduced when compared with the draft marine reserves network.

Potential displacement of fishing: The final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal would potentially displace an annual average of 89.1 tonnes of catch with a gross value of $559 300. Of this, $334 000 would be displaced from Commonwealth fisheries and $225 300 from New South Wales fisheries (Table 1). These potential displacements represent a small proportion (0.3 per cent) of the collective fisheries GVP from potentially impacted fisheries ($177.7 million: $143.9 million from Commonwealth fisheries and $33.8 million from New South Wales fisheries). These values are the totals for the potentially impacted fisheries in each jurisdiction and are not adjusted to account only for fishing in the Temperate East Marine Region.

Summary of impacts of the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal (Table 1):

Six Commonwealth fisheries and two New South Wales fisheries would potentially be impacted by the final proposed marine reserves network, with the degree of impact ranging from close to zero through to 51 per cent of the annual average total GVP for each fishery.

In absolute terms, the greatest potential GVP displacement for Commonwealth fisheries occurs in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery ($248 000 GVP; 0.6 per cent of fishery GVP) and the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector ($43 300; 0.2 per cent). The most impacted New South Wales fishery in terms of GVP potentially displaced would be the Prawn Trawl Sector of the Ocean Trawl Fishery ($113 990*; 0.9* per cent, confidential data has not been reported) (Table 1).

In percentage terms, active fisheries displacement represents less than 1 per cent of the annual average fishery value; the highest is the Prawn Trawl Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery (0.9* per cent, confidential data has not been reported).

The greatest impact in percentage terms would be to the Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery (51 per cent of total annual average fishery value), although this was an exploratory fishery that ceased operation in 2003.

Of the nine marine reserves in the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal, the Norfolk Island marine reserve had the largest potential impact, followed by the final proposed Hunter marine reserve (Map 1).

Overall, the potential displacement from the final proposed network was 53 per cent less, in terms of GVP, than the draft network (from $1.2 million under the draft network to $559 300 under the final proposed network); representing 62 per cent less for Commonwealth fisheries and 26 per cent less for New South Wales fisheries (Table 1). The reduction in impacts is greatest for the Commonwealth Trawl Sector of the Southern and Eastern

9


Scalefish and Shark Fishery (from $512 000 to $3 800 displaced GVP), and to New South Wales fisheries (from $303 400 to $225 200 displaced GVP).

There may be cumulative impacts to some fisheries in the Temperate East Marine Region from the final proposed marine reserves networks in other marine regions. For example, there is additional potential displacement by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal to the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector (ABARES 2012c), and substantial potential displacement of the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery from the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve (ABARES 2012b).

Assessment of the draft reserves noted potential impacts on prospective fishing, some of which may have been mitigated following the revisions. The zoning of the inshore area of the Hunter marine reserve (area 403; Map 1) to allow trawling should mitigate prospective fishing impacts identified for the Prawn Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery (see Case study: Prospective fishing in the Deepwater Prawn Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery). Impacts to the value of fishing entitlements were also identified as a potential 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 under the final proposed network:

The final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal will potentially impact 22 towns through flow of displaced GVP.

Towns with the highest potential GVP displacement were Mooloolaba ($222 900; $7.29 per capita), Forster ($74 200; $2.27 per capita) and Coffs Harbour ($54 000; $1.13 per capita).

Key changes in the flow of GVP to ports under the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal include substantial reductions in the potentially displaced GVP estimated for (in descending order) Greenwell Point, Ulladulla, Forster, Newcastle and Sydney. Small increases in potential displacement under the final proposed network were identified for Jervis Bay, Mooloolaba and Coffs Harbour.

Mooloolaba was identified as having the highest level of exposure based on the GVP displaced per capita, which increased by 4 per cent under the final proposed network. Overall, Mooloolaba is likely to have a relatively high level of adaptive capacity to ameliorate the impacts due to a high degree of economic diversity, a moderately high weekly household income, a relative lack of socioeconomic disadvantage and being located in a highly populated area.

Cumulative impacts may occur to towns identified in the Temperate East Marine Region from GVP displaced from other final proposed marine reserves networks—for example, impacts to Mooloolaba from the Coral Sea Marine Reserve (ABARES 2012b).

Potential impacts on the economy: The impact of the final proposed marine reserves 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 $0.9 million in the short term compared with the reference case and displacement of 2 jobs in directly affected regions. 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 fishing business, community and personal impacts: ABARES has not undertaken additional consultation (surveys or interviews) with potentially impacted commercial fishing, charter or supply chain businesses, or individuals based on the final Temperate East

10


Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. The nature of potential direct and secondary impacts, and other issues that may exacerbate impacts arising from the final proposed network, are likely to be broadly similar to those identified for the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.

Case studies: The case studies conducted for the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network were re-examined under the final proposed network. No further consultation (surveys or interviews) with impacted fishers or interviewees was possible for this purpose. However, the case studies include discussion of likely changes to impacts based on the changes in displacement estimates, and flow to ports, and examination of the final proposed network is provided.


Most of the concerns raised by fishers and industry in this case study should be ameliorated under the final proposed network with the introduction of an inshore area allowing demersal trawl to continue in the Hunter marine reserve (Map 1). However, many businesses owners noted the issue of 'tipping points' with regard to the additional impact of the Commonwealth marine reserve process and this may still be a concern for some operators.

Concern over the cumulative impacts for the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery are likely to remain under the final proposed network. The degree of cumulative impacts to this fishery will be contingent on the volume of displacement by the final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve (627.4 tonnes and $3.6 million; ABARES 2012b).


Revisions to the inshore component of the Hunter marine reserve to allow demersal trawl to continue are likely to have mitigated much of the impact on prospective fishing in the Deepwater Prawn Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery.


The 53 per cent reduction in the total potential displacement under the final proposed network should have ameliorated some of the impacts on the New South Wales fishermen’s cooperatives. However, there is still the potential that cooperative members may exit the industry as a result of the final proposed network, which will impact the capacity of the cooperatives to operate and offer members the associated benefits.

Impact of the draft Jervis Marine Reserve on an individual operator in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Commonwealth Trawl Sector: the importance of Jervis

Revisions to the inshore component of the Jervis marine reserve (Map 1) should have mitigated most of the impacts highlighted by the operator in this case study.

Sydney Fish Market

An overall reduction in the total potentially displaced GVP under the final proposed networks for all marine regions will have lessened the potential interruption of supply to the Sydney Fish Market. Following the methodology developed, the potential interruption of supply was recalculated. Results from these scenarios suggest the flow of impact to the Sydney Fish Market is $ 507 500 due to all five final Commonwealth marine reserves network proposals.

11


Economic modelling of Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba sub regions

Economic modelling was used to assess the potential impact of the draft marine reserves network on the Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba subregions. Assuming the impact on the economy and employment scales linearly with the magnitude of the impact, the net regional economic impact of the final proposed network was estimated to be $0.9 million, with the loss of two jobs regionally in the short term.

12


Draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposalThis section of the report provides the social and economic assessment of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal that was released in November 2011 (SEWPaC 2011b) and open for public consultation for 90 days until 28 February 2012.

13


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.

For background to marine bioregional planning in the Temperate East Marine Region and the establishment of Commonwealth marine reserves, see:

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

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

The Temperate East Marine RegionThe Temperate East Marine Region (Figure 1) encompasses all Commonwealth waters from the southern boundary of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Queensland to Bermagui in southern New South Wales (NSW). It also includes the waters surrounding Lord Howe and Norfolk islands. 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. Commonwealth waters abut the state waters surrounding Lord Howe Island; however, they extend to the high-water mark on Norfolk Island, which is a territory of the Commonwealth (Figure 1). NSW is responsible for managing two potentially affected fisheries in this region, through Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements, while the Commonwealth is responsible for five fisheries in the region.

Most of the Temperate East Marine Region encompasses waters over the continental slope that are mostly greater than 1000 metres deep, although water depths range from very shallow to over 5000 metres (DEWHA 2009). The meeting point of the shelf and slope is often referred to as the ‘shelf break’, with most fishing activity occurring inshore of the shelf break. The region is important for shipping, defence, oil, gas, commercial fishing operations, tourism and recreational fishing (DEWHA 2009). A more detailed description of the East Marine Region, of which the Temperate East Marine Region is a part, can be found in the East Marine bioregional profile (DEWHA 2009).

The Australian Government has proposed a draft marine reserves network within the Temperate East Marine Region. This draft network has different levels of zoning, based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature categories (IUCN 2008), which, if implemented, would affect whether commercial fishing activities occur within an area.

The zones for the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network are:

14


Marine National Park Zone (green)—all fishing excluded

Habitat Protection Zone (yellow)—handline, rod/reel and hand collection permitted, all other methods excluded

Recreational Use Zone (orange)—recreational fishing permitted, all commercial fishing excluded

Special Purpose Zone (mid-blue)—handline, rod/reel, hand collection and pot/trap permitted, all other methods excluded

Multiple Use Zone (light blue)—demersal trawl, demersal gillnet and demersal longline excluded (SEWPaC 2011c).

The draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network comprises new marine reserves and amendments to existing marine reserves. The draft Commonwealth marine reserves are: Jervis, Hunter, Cod Grounds (including existing reserve), Solitary Islands (including existing reserve, Commonwealth waters), Clarence, Tasmantid, Lord Howe (including existing Lord Howe Island Marine Park [Commonwealth waters], Elizabeth and Middleton Reefs Marine National Nature Reserve and proposed new areas and zone name change), Gifford and Norfolk (SEWPaC 2011c).

15


Map 2 Draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network with zones and area numbering

EEZ = Exclusive Economic Zone. Note: Map compiled by ABARES, May 2012. Projection: Geographic, GDA94. Data sources: Marine reserve boundaries from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; coastline and bathymetry from Geoscience Australia

16


Fisheries in the Temperate East 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 Temperate East Marine Region, and some of these are potentially impacted by the draft marine reserves network. Reference information is provided in Table 2 for those potentially impacted fisheries that are managed under the jurisdiction of either NSW or the Commonwealth.

A map of total fisheries gross value of production (GVP) for all jurisdictions in the Temperate East 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, which extends out to a depth of 200 metres, some additionally valuable fishing grounds occur between 200 and 1000 m. Fishing in offshore, oceanic waters is predominantly pelagic longlining for tuna.

The draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network overlaps some high-value fishing areas, particularly areas inside and along the shelf in the draft Clarence (area 405), Hunter (area 402) and Jervis (area 401) marine reserves. The majority of the draft reserves are zoned so that they do not displace most high-value fisheries. However, there is potential for displacement of some valuable fisheries, such as those that use trawl (which is excluded from all zones under the draft network).

17


Table 2 Reference information for potentially impacted fisheries in the Temperate East Marine RegionFishery Management arrangements Target species Number of

licencesNumber of vessels

Employment

Catch Sources

Commonwealth

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS)

Managed under the SESSF harvest strategy framework using individual transferable quotas, limited entry, gear restrictions and area closures

Variety of species including blue grenadier, tiger flathead, pink ling, and spotted warehou

59 CTS22 Victorian coastal waters trawl permits

39 trawl, 16 danish seine

n.a. 14 694 t Woodhams et al. 2011

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector


Alfonsino (byproduct: blue eye trevalla, boarfish, orange roughy)

10 1 (2009), 0 trips (2010)

n.a. 14 t (2009–10)

Woodhams et al. 2011

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector


Elephant fish, gummy shark, sawsharks and school shark

62 gillnet; 13 hook (2009–10);58 scalefish hook sector

63 active vessels 2009–10, 59 active vessels 2010–11, 22 scalefish hook vessels active vessels

n.a. Elephant fish (94 t), gummy shark (1717 t), sawsharks (312 t), school shark (240t ),scalefish hook sector (954 t)


18


Fishery Management arrangements Target species Number of licences

Number of vessels

Employment

Catch Sources

Small Pelagic Fishery Managed under the Small Pelagic Fishery harvest strategy framework. Sector is mainly managed by total allowable catch

Australian sardine, blue mackerel, jack mackerel and redbait

71 (2009–10) 3 purse seine, 2 midwater trawl (2009–10)

n.a. 2484 t (2009–10)


Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery

Before March 2011: input controls—gear restrictions (total allowable effort—number of hooks that can be deployed) and spatial management From March 2011: output controls

Striped marlin, broadbill swordfish, albacore tuna, bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna

110 + 10 Coral Sea zone permits (2009–10)

54 (longline) + 3 (minor line) (2009–10)

n.a. 5159 t longline, 1.2 t minor line (2010)


New South Wales

Ocean Trawl Sector (prawn and fish)

Input controls including restrictions on the number of licences, the size of boats and their engine power, the design and dimensions of trawl nets, and the locations that may be fished. Share management fishery— fishers must hold sufficient shares to be eligible for an endorsement to operate in the fishery (an endorsement authorises the use of specific gear (e.g. Ocean Prawn Trawl—Inshore)

School whiting, eastern king, school and royal red prawns, tiger flathead, silver trevally, various species of sharks and rays, squid, octopus and bugs

170 licences (2009),238 shareholdings (as at Oct 2010)

118 (2009–10)

n.a. 2008: 2965 t (1235 t fish, 1731 t prawn), 2009 (6 months): 1608 t (571 t fish, 1037 t prawn)

ABARES 2010

Ocean Trap and Line Fishery

Input controls including restrictions on the number of endorsements, the amount, design and dimensions of fishing gear, and the waters that may be worked. Share management fishery—fishers must hold sufficient shares to be eligible for an endorsement to operate in the fishery (an endorsement authorises the use of specific gear (e.g. line fishing)

Spanner crabs, snapper and bonito

301 licences (2009), 365 shareholdings (as at Oct 2010).

255 (2009–10)

n.a. 2008: 1885 t, 2009 (6 months): 766 t

ABARES 2010

19


Demographics of the Temperate East Marine RegionThe Temperate East 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 Sydney, to regional centres like Newcastle and Gosford, through to smaller towns like Ulladulla. As would be expected from such a large area, there is diversity in the range of inhabitants, industries and economies and in the standard of living.

These differences play an important role in how the potential impacts resulting from the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network will manifest for individuals, businesses and communities. They also play an important role in how businesses, communities and individuals will respond to these impacts.

Some key indicators of social and economic characteristics of these communities have been listed in Appendix F: 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 in the fishing sector by allocating them to other industries (FRDC 2004).

The 2006 census showed that NSW employs about 24 per cent of the national fishing industry (Table 3).

Table 3 Estimated direct employment in the fishing industry by sector in New South Wales and Australia-wide (full-time equivalent positions) Wild-catch

fishing Processing Wholesaling Total

New South Wales 1127* 201 1041 2369

Australia 6217* 2002 4202 12 421Note: * includes offshore aquaculture. Source: ABS 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 Temperate East Marine Region include Clarence Valley – Coast, Great Lakes, Bega Valley, Greater Taree, Eurobodalla and Port Stephens.

20


Map 3 All commercial fishing gross value of production (GVP) in the Temperate East Marine Region, employment in the consolidated fishing industry and the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network

Data sources: commercial fishing GVP from Larcombe et al. 2006; draft marine reserve boundaries from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; consolidated fishing industry (including catching, processing and wholesale sectors) employment from ABS 2006

21


Scope of workThe Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) has been 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 Temperate East Marine Region. The assessment focuses on impacts to commercial fisheries, and the implications for associated local communities and regional economies.

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

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.

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 impacts on commercial and charter fishing of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network that was open for public consultation during November 2011 – February 2012.

The Australian Government produced a final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal following consideration of public submissions. ABARES completed an abridged assessment on the final proposed network, which 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 fishing by the draft marine reserves

This analysis aimed to provide an indication of the potential fishery catch that would be displaced by the draft marine reserves network and place a value on those displaced catches. This was undertaken using the best available fisheries logbook data from each jurisdiction within the period 2000–10.

22


2) Social impact assessment

The 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 modelling

Economic modelling was undertaken at two coastal subregions adjacent to the Temperate East Marine Region to determine the 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 potential impacts to ports and supply chains relied on logbook data and a survey of impacted businesses. Chapter 4: Impacts on fishing businesses and Chapter 5: Personal and community impacts are drawn predominantly from the survey of impacted businesses, but also from focus groups and interviews. Finally, the six case studies use a range of data and approaches. Some of the case studies use a narrative approach to 'tell the fishers' story' about potential impacts. For the most part, we have simply reflected the individuals' perceptions of impact in these case studies.

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, so results from these data represent this potentially impacted group and not the wider commercial fisher population in the Temperate East Marine Region.

In developing this draft assessment, ABARES consulted and was guided by a working group comprising representatives from the NSW Department of Primary Industries, NSW Seafood Industry Association, members of NSW fishing industry, the Commonwealth Fisheries Association, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, the Professional Fishermen’s Association and SEWPaC. The working group met via teleconference every 1–2 weeks. The assessment has also relied on industry liaison officers 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.

23


2 Potential displacement of fishingThis chapter provides estimates of the quantities of catch that would potentially be displaced by the draft Temperate East 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 A: Fisheries data processing methods.

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) used logbook data as collected by the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI) and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), together with price data from NSW DPI and ABARES to estimate the potential catch and GVP displaced by the draft marine reserves network. 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.

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 data for New South Wales fisheries are over a 2-year reference period (2008–09 and 2009–10). GVP was calculated from mean 'recent' prices within the reference period 2007–08 to 2009–10

The NSW 6-minute grid data provide the grid catch location where most of the fishing occurred for a given fishing trip. Some of the fishing allocated to a 6-minute grid could have occurred in nearby grids.

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

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.

24


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 proposed 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 proposed 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 economy

This 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.

25


Area closures and entitlement values Fishing 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 displacementIt is estimated that the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network would potentially displace an annual average of 254 tonnes of catch with a gross value of around $1.187 million: $883 400 would be displaced from Commonwealth fisheries and $303 410 from NSW fisheries. For comparison, the total value of potentially impacted fisheries across both state and Commonwealth jurisdictions is $180.1 million: $33.8 million for NSW fisheries (mean annual GVP for the reference period) and $146.3 million for Commonwealth fisheries.

Seven Commonwealth fisheries and two NSW fisheries would potentially be impacted by the draft marine reserve network, with the degree of impact ranging from close to zero through to 51 per cent of the annual average GVP for each fishery. In absolute terms, the greatest potential GVP displacement for Commonwealth fisheries would occur in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Commonwealth Trawl Sector ($512 000), followed by the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery ($261 700), and the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector ($67 100) (Table 4). The Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery, the High Seas Fisheries, the Small Pelagic Fishery, and the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery East Coast Deepwater Trawl accounted for the remaining potentially displaced GVP. The most impacted NSW fisheries in terms of GVP potentially displaced would be the Prawn Trawl Sector of the Ocean Trawl Fishery ($113 990), followed by the Fish Trawl Sector of the Ocean Trawl Fishery ($100 600). The Ocean Trap and Line Fishery accounted for the remaining $88 820 of potentially displaced GVP (Table 4).

In percentage terms, displacement represents less than 1 per cent of the annual average fishery value for currently active fisheries, with the highest being the Fish Trawl Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery (0.81 per cent). In percentage terms the greatest potential impact would be to the Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery (51 per cent of average annual GVP). Although this was an exploratory fishery that ceased operation in 2003, it operated within the reference period and therefore remains in the estimates of displacement (see Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods; Commonwealth fisheries).

Of the nine draft marine reserves in the Temperate East Marine Region, the Jervis marine reserve (401) had the largest potential impact ($511 143 annual average GVP; primarily on the

26


Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Commonwealth Trawl Sector), followed by the Hunter marine reserve (area 402: $185 476; primarily on the Fish Trawl Sector of the NSW Ocean Trawl Fishery). These were followed by the Clarence marine reserve (area 405), and the Marine National Park zones of the Tasmantid (area 407) and Norfolk (area 417) marine reserves (Table 5–8).

Table 4 Estimates of Commonwealth and New South Wales fishery catch and gross value of production (GVP) that would be potentially displaced by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network (Map 2)

FisheryTotal catch

(tonnes)Total GVP

($’000)Percentage of

fishery GVP

Commonwealth

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery 43.6* 261.7* 0.6

High Seas Fisheries 1.36 10.2 0.2

Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery 5.3* 27* 51.1

SESSF Commonwealth Trawl Sector 140.9 512.0 0.7

SESSF East Coast Deepwater Trawl * * *

SESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector 10.3 67.1 0.3

Small Pelagic Fishery * * *

Commonwealth fisheries total 205.2 883.4 0.6

New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery Fish Trawl Sector 25.0* 100.6* 0.4Ocean Trawl Fishery Prawn Trawl Sector 12.3* 114.0* 0.9Ocean Trap and Line Fishery 0.8 4.4 0.0

NSW fisheries total 49.0 303.4 0.9

Grand total 254.2 1,186.8 0.7SESSF = Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark FisheryNote: Commonwealth estimates have are based on shot-by-shot position data (latitude and longitude high accuracy). New South Wales estimates are based on 6-minute grids (medium accuracy) with a reference period of 2009–10 to 2010–11. Estimates are mean annual for the reference period. 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 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. 2.8*). Total displacement for each jurisdiction is not affected by confidentiality.

Links to other marine regions—fisheriesCumulative impacts to some of the potentially displaced fisheries identified in the Temperate East Marine Region may occur from other draft marine reserves networks. This includes additional displacement by the draft South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network to the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector (58.7 tonnes; $356 076 GVP; ABARES 2012c) and the Small Pelagic Fishery (although estimates are confidential). There is also potentially substantial displacement in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery from the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve (628.5 tonnes; $3 571 700 GVP; ABARES 2012b).

27


Commonwealth fisheries—catchTable 5 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10 reference period

Catch (tonnes)Jervi

sHunte

rTasmanti

dLord Howe Giffor

dNorfolk Total % of

total fishery

catchFishery 401 40240

6407

408

40941

0411

413

414 41541

6417

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery * 10.6 2.7 2.2 0.3 0.2 4.2 23.3 43.6* 0.6High Seas Fisheries * * * * * 1.4 0.1Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery

5.3 * 5.3* 59.0

SESSF Commonwealth Trawl Sector 140.6 * * * 140.9 0.7SESSF East Coast Deepwater Trawl * * * *SESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector * 0.5 7.9 * * * 10.3 0.2Small Pelagic Fishery * * *

Total140.

6* 0.6 18.9 * 2.7 2.2 0.3 0.2 6.4 0.3 5.9 23.3* 205.2 0.5

Marine National Park Zone Recreational Use Zone Habitat Protection Zone Special Purpose Zone Multiple Use Zone* = confidential dataNote: Commonwealth estimates have are based on shot-by-shot position data (latitude and longitude high accuracy), estimates are mean annual for the reference period. 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 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. 2.8*). Total displacement for each jurisdiction is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the draft marine reserves network or used incompatible methods for zoning are not included in the table. For explanation of the methodology used to estimate potential displacement, caveats and limitations of the data, see Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods.

28


Commonwealth fisheries—gross value of productionTable 6 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production ($’000) displaced by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10 reference period

GVP ($'000)Jervi

sHunte

rTasmantid Lord Howe Giffor

dNorfolk Total % of

total fishery

GVPFishery 401 40240

6407

408

409 41041

141

3414 415 416 417

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery * 69.0 15.9 13.1 1.8 1.3 24.4 136.1261.7

*0.6

High Seas Fisheries * * * * * 10.2 0.2Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery

27.0 * 27* 51.1

SESSF Commonwealth Trawl Sector 511.0 * * * 512.0 0.7SESSF East Coast Deepwater Trawl * * * *SESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector * 4.1 51.6 * * * 67.1 0.3Small Pelagic Fishery * * *

Total 511.1

* 4.9 123.6

* 15.9

13.1

1.8 1.3 38.0 1.8 31.1

136.1*

883.4 0.6

Marine National Park Zone Recreational Use Zone Habitat Protection Zone Special Purpose Zone Multiple Use Zone* = confidential dataNote: Commonwealth estimates have are based on shot-by-shot position data (latitude and longitude high accuracy), estimates are mean annual for the reference period. 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 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. 2.8*). Total displacement for each jurisdiction is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the draft marine reserves network or used incompatible methods for zoning are not included in the table. For explanation of the methodology used to estimate potential displacement, caveats and limitations of the data, see Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods.

.

29


New South Wales—catchTable 7 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network from New South Wales fisheries over the 2009–10 to 2010-11 reference period

Catch (tonnes)Jervis Hunter Cod Grounds

Solitary Islands Clarence

Total % of total fishery catchFishery 401 402 403 404 405Ocean Trawl Fishery Fish Trawl Sector 25.0 * 25.0* 0.8Ocean Trawl Fishery Prawn Trawl Sector * 0.02 12.2 12.3* 0.7Ocean Trap and Line Fishery * * * 0.01 * 0.9 0.0 Total * 36.2 * 0.03 12.2 49.0 1.0

Marine National Park Zone Multiple Use Zone* = confidential data Note: New South Wales estimates are based on 6-minute grids (medium accuracy) with a reference period of 2009–10 to 2010–11, estimates are mean annual for the reference period. 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 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. 2.8*). Total displacement for each jurisdiction is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the draft marine reserves network or used incompatible methods for zoning are not included in the table. For explanation of the methodology used to estimate potential displacement, caveats and limitations of the data, see Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods.

30


New South Wales—gross value of productionTable 8 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production (GVP) displaced by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network from New South Wales fisheries over the 2009–10 reference period

GVP ($,000)Jervis Hunter

Cod Grounds Solitary Islands Clarence

Total % of total fishery catchFishery 401 402 403 404 405Ocean Trawl Fishery Fish Trawl Sector

100.6 * 100.6

*0.4

Ocean Trawl Fishery Prawn Trawl Sector * 0.16 113.8

114.0*

0.9

Ocean Trap and Line Fishery * * * <0.1 * 4.4 0.0 Total * 185.5 * 0.2 115.7 303.4 0.9

Marine National Park Zone Multiple Use Zone* = confidential dataNote: New South Wales estimates are based on 6-minute grids (medium accuracy) with a reference period of 2009–10 to 2010–11, estimates are mean annual for the reference period. 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 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. 2.8*). Total displacement for each jurisdiction is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the draft marine reserves network or used incompatible methods for zoning are not included in the table. For explanation of the methodology used to estimate potential displacement, caveats and limitations of the data, see Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods.

31


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 Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods.

Potentially displaced catch and GVP are thought to be reasonably well estimated overall across the entire draft marine reserves network. The estimates of historical displaced catch for Commonwealth fisheries have high accuracy because they are based on operation-level position reporting. The estimates for NSW fisheries have moderate accuracy because they are based on 6-minute grid scale data.

Time trends in total annual GVP for each potentially impacted Commonwealth and NSW fishery are shown in Figure 1, and expressed in relative terms (percentage change relative to the mean). Some fisheries exhibited substantial falls in production over the reference period, including the NSW Ocean Prawn Trawl Fishery and the Commonwealth Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery, which closed in 2003. These falls have resulted from a number of factors, including management, economic conditions and stock availability. In addition, the New South Wales Fish Trawl fishery declined in 2006–07, and the East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery declined sharply in 2004 due to the introduction of permanent trawl closures.

32


Figure Trends in total fisheries gross value of production since 2000 (percentage deviation from the mean) for (a) Commonwealth fisheries and (b) New South Wales fisheries

20012002

20032004

20052006

20072008

20092010

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

a)Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery

High Seas Fisheries

Norfolk Island Off-shore Demersal Finfish Fishery

SESSF Commonwealth Trawl Sector

SESSF East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sec-tor

SESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector

Small Pelagic Fishery

Ch

ange

re

lati

ve t

o a

vera

ge (

%)

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

20

10

/11

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80b)

Ocean Trawl Fishery Fish Trawl Sector

Ocean Trawl Fishery Prawn Trawl Sector

Ocean Trap and Line Fishery

Ch

ange

re

lati

ve t

o a

vera

ge (

%)

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 Temperate East 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, where potential for expansion has been clearly identified by fisheries management, and where there are strong, well-defined rights of access. This section provides a brief overview of the concepts of prospective fishing, and highlights several fisheries where evidence is available and where these prospects were raised during the ABARES consultation process.

33


Prospective fishing includes:

development of completely new fisheries (e.g. for new species and using new fishing methods, targeting practices or 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

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

redevelopment of 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.

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. 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.

The following examples of prospective fishing were identified in the Temperate East Marine Region:

34


As part of the AFMA's Upper-slope Dogfish Management Strategy, the Barcoo and Taupo seamounts were closed to SESSF fishing activities in June 2010. The Barcoo and Taupo seamounts lie within the draft Tasmantid marine reserve in the Marine National Park Zone. The seamounts are regarded as valuable for the commercial take of species such as blue eye trevalla; however, dogfish are a bycatch that must be avoided. An experimental fishing study is determining the impact of certain line fishing methods on dogfish and testing mitigation devices. Depending on the research outcome, the AFMA may reopen the Barcoo and Taupo seamounts to some fishing methods.

The NSW Ocean Trawl Fishery (deepwater prawns) catches predominately deepwater royal red prawn. Historically, this was a productive fishery, which developed in the 1970s and peaked in the mid-1980s at approximately 600 tonnes, and then declined in the late 1990s (Rowling et al. 2010). The introduction of imported prawns and the strong Australian dollar over the last decade added to the decline in market demand for Australian deepwater prawns. Industry suggests that fishing for royal red prawns holds strong prospects and that the Temperate East Marine Region could support expansion of the fishery and an increase in effort (see Case study: Prospective fishing in the Deepwater Prawn Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery) (PFA 2012).

Most survey respondents indicated that they considered much of the Temperate East Marine Region to be important for future use, even if they were not currently fishing the area. The survey also suggested that many fishers consider that there is potential for expansion of their current activities to new grounds.

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 management agencies may need to consider changes to the 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.

35


3 Flow of potential impacts to ports and supply chains

This chapter examines the ‘flow’ of impacts, from the proposed exclusion of fishing and associated catches within an area of ocean 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) survey Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers’ values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions 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, see Appendix F: Summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities.

Flow of potential impacts was examined using three approaches:

1) 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.

2) 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 (such as fuel, bait, ice, fishing gear and maintenance). Reductions in catch volumes or changes to fishing behaviour would be expected to flow ‘upstream’ to those businesses and towns that supply inputs to affected fishers.

3) 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 be expected to flow ‘downstream’ to those businesses and towns that receive outputs from affected fishers.

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 management agencies. Map 4 illustrates the flow of potential GVP impacts for fisheries managed by the Commonwealth and New South Wales (NSW). Overall, 30 towns will be potentially impacted through flow of displaced GVP by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. In terms of gross total impact, the primary towns would be Greenwell Point (including Nowra), Mooloolaba, Ulladulla, Foster (including Tuncurry) and Newcastle (Map 4).

The potentially most impacted subregions, in terms of the flow of catch and GVP to towns were Shoalhaven and southern Queensland around Mooloolaba. These two subregions were the subject of economic modelling (refer to the Case study: Economic modelling of Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba).

36


Map 4 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. New South Wales estimates are based on recorded landing location. Data source: Commonwealth and New South Wales logbook data.

37


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 limited to those indicating that they would be impacted by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.

Respondents reported the largest number of upstream businesses that would potentially be impacted by the draft marine reserve network were in Coffs Harbour (63 businesses), Mooloolaba (51 businesses), Newcastle (48 businesses) and Ulladulla (45 businesses) (Map 5). As not all potentially impacted fishers returned a survey there are likely to be other businesses that have not been identified here.

Map 5 Number of input (upstream) businesses identified as potentially impacted by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network

Note: Input businesses provide goods and services such as fuel and lubricants, bait, ice, fishing gear, repairs/maintenance, boat slipping and accessories/chandlery. Data sources: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia; logbook data.

38


Map 6 shows the number of survey respondents who source inputs from each location. The most frequently identified towns for supplying inputs were Brisbane (22 respondents), Sydney (21 respondents) and Coffs Harbour (17 respondents).

Map 6 Number of respondents who source inputs from this location for their fishing business

Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia; logbook data

39


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 limited to those indicating they would be impacted by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. There were a large number of towns with a small number of businesses receiving outputs—Mooloolaba (six businesses), Hervey Bay (five businesses), Forster (five businesses), Ulladulla (four businesses) and Greenwell Point (four businesses), with the remaining towns having three or less output businesses identified by respondents (Map 7). Towns with potentially impacted output businesses are evenly distributed along the coast.

Map 7 Number of output businesses identified as potentially impacted by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network

Note: Output businesses provide goods and services related to receiving, transport and processing of catch. Data sources: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia; logbook data

40


Map 8 shows the number of survey respondents who send outputs to each location. The most frequently identified towns for outputs were Coffs Harbour (nine respondents sent product there), Salamander Bay (eight respondents) and Forster, Newcastle, Ulladulla and Mooloolaba (seven respondents each). As with potentially impacted output businesses, the number of survey respondents who send outputs to each location are evenly distributed along the coast.

Map 8 Number of respondents who send outputs to this location from their fishing business

Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia; logbook data

41

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 Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network, data on flow of impacts to towns was combined with demographic and socioeconomic data. Figure 1 summarises the elements that make up community vulnerability. Community vulnerability is a function 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 in Appendix C: Developing an index of community vulnerability regarding construction, caveats and limitations before interpreting the vulnerability index.

Figure 1 Conceptual model of community vulnerability

Source: Allen Consulting Group 2005, based on Schröter and the ATEAM Consortium 2004

To identify which communities would be impacted most by the displacement of GVP resulting from the declaration of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves 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 Appendix F: Summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities. Methods, caveats and limitations on the index are provided in Appendix C: 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 displaced GVP per capita is greater than or equal to $20 per person.

Communities were identified 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.

42


Community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacityTable 9 presents community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures. Six communities had a potential flow of GVP impact greater than $50 000 per year. These were, in descending order, Greenwell Point, Mooloolaba, Ulladulla, Forster, Newcastle, Port Stephens and Sydney. Greenwell Point is the only community with an exposure measure (GVP displaced per person) of greater than or equal to $20 per person

Table 9 Community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity —draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves NetworkData source SENSITIVITY

Town Population geography

GVP displaced

($'000 point)Population

(2006)GVP displaced per capita ($)

Fishing industry employment (% of total employment)

Economic diversity index

ARIA remoteness

index

Median household

income ($ weekly)

SEIFA index of relative

disadvantage

Greenwell Point Shoalhaven (C) - Pt B 350.7 1 277 274.6 0.32 0.95 1 626 4

MooloolabaMaroochy (S)-Mooloolaba + Caloundra (C)-Kawana 214.4 30 563 7.0 0.60 0.88 0 935 7

Ulladulla Shoalhaven (C) - Pt B 153.7 10 301 14.9 0.32 0.95 1 626 4

Forster Great Lakes (A) 143.3 32 760 4.4 1.56 0.88 1 611 3

Newcastle Newcastle (C) - Inner City 65.4 48 065 1.4 0.07 0.96 0 902 4

Port Stephens Port Stephens (A) 65.4 60 486 1.1 0.66 0.97 1 830 5

Sydney Sydney (statistical division) 57.1 4 119 169 0.0 0.04 0.88 0 1255 7

EXPOSURE ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

A = areas; ARIA = Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia; C = city; GVP = gross value of production; S = shire; SEIFA =Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas 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 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.

Greenwell Point was assessed further 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 and are influenced by and are accessible to community members. Additional data for a given community should only be compared between the six communities with the highest level of GVP displaced per capita.

Greenwell PointThe maximum potential GVP displacement linked to Greenwell Point from logbook data was $350 700. Survey results identified 18 upstream and 4 output businesses that could be impacted, which may flow through to the Greenwell Point community via the supply chain. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Greenwell Point is $274.60 per capita. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Shoalhaven (shire; S)—part B, in which Greenwell Point is located, has very low employment in the consolidated fishing industry (Australian Bureau of statistics [ABS] data indicates 0.32 per cent), has a high level of economic diversity (0.95) and is not particularly disadvantaged (Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas [SEIFA] decile ranking of 4). The Shoalhaven has a relatively low median weekly household income compared with the rest of Australia ($625.80 per week), is located in an inner regional area and has a relatively low population (population for the Greenwell Point urban centre/locality [UC/L] was 1277 in 2006).

This assessment indicates that Greenwell Point is most likely to feel the greatest impact because it has the highest level of displaced GVP in the Temperate East Marine Region and the highest

43


level of exposure (GVP displaced per capita). It is difficult to assess how well the Greenwell Point community will respond to the impact, because it has characteristics that will enhance adaptation and possibly impede adaptation.

Ulladulla, Mooloolaba, Forster, Newcastle and Port Stephens also have relatively high absolute GVP displacement to port in the Temperate East Marine Region; however, their level of exposure is very low.

Links to other marine regions— towns and local area

Cumulative impacts may occur to towns in the Temperate East Marine Region from displaced GVP from other draft marine reserves networks. The most substantial include cumulative impacts to Mooloolaba from the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserves network ($1.5 million annual average GVP; ABARES 2012b).

Potential impacts on the economyTwo coastal subregions (Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba) that would potentially experience higher impacts from the draft marine reserves network were modelled to estimate the economic effects of the displacement of GVP (for a full description refer to Case study: Economic modelling of Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba).

ShoalhavenThe Shoalhaven economy accounted for around 1 per cent of the New South Wales economy in 2010–11. The fishing sector (including catching and processing, but excluding retail) accounted for less than 1 per cent of the local economy (Figure 2). Services sectors (including construction, retail and wholesale trade, restaurants and hotels, transport, public services and other services) accounted for 86 per cent of the local economy, with manufacturing accounting for around 12 per cent.

Figure 2 Structure of the Shoalhaven economy

Fisheries; <1%

Forestry/ agriculture; 1%

Mining; <1%

Manufacturing; 12%

Services; 86%

Source: ABARES AusRegion

According to the 2006 census, Shoalhaven had a population of around 88 000. The unemployment rate was 9.2 per cent, which was considerably higher than the national unemployment rate at the time of 5.2 per cent.

44


MooloolabaThe Mooloolaba economy accounted for less than 1 per cent of Queensland’s economy in 2010–11. The fishing sector (including catching and processing, but excluding retail) accounted for around 3 per cent of the local economy (Figure 3). Services sectors (including construction, retail and wholesale trade, restaurants and hotels, transport, public services and other services) accounted for 86 per cent of the local economy, a substantial proportion of which is related with tourism. The manufacturing sector was the next largest sector, accounting for around 11 per cent of the local economy.

Figure 3 Structure of the Mooloolaba economy

Fisheries; 3%

Forestry/ agriculture; <1%

Mining; <1%

Manufacturing; 11%

Services; 86%

Source: ABARES AusRegion

According to the 2006 census, Mooloolaba had a population of around 30 600. The unemployment rate was 5.3 per cent, which was marginally higher than the national unemployment rate at the time of 5.2 per cent.

Modelling was undertaken using AusRegion, which is a dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of the Australian economy specified at the national level, the level of the eight states and territories, and 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 long term (2019–20).

The modelling demonstrates how the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network is likely to affect gross regional product and employment.

Economic impacts are expected to be felt 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 Temperate East Marine Region. AusRegion does not capture impacts focussed on specific towns because of the larger scale at which the model operates. However, impacts on towns in the Temperate East 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 at the subregional, state and national levels. The results indicate a small to negligible percentage decline in gross regional product in the Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba subregions in both the short term and the long term.

45


Applying the modelled percentage impacts to economic and employment baselines, the combined effect for the two modelled subregions was estimated to be $1.4 million in the short term. As the two subregions account for 58 per cent of the $1.2 million total potential displacement from the draft Temperate East Marine Region Marine Reserves Network, linear scaling of the effects suggest a total projected decline in gross regional product of $1.9 million in the short term, compared with the baseline. 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 impacts on employmentThe potential impact of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on jobs was estimated using two methodologies: economic modelling (for a full description refer to Case study: Economic modelling of Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba) and from the survey of fishing businesses. The two approaches provide different measures of potential impacts. 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 (Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba) that would potentially experience higher impacts were modelled to estimate the economic and employment effects of the displacement of 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, job loss is estimated at around two full-time equivalent jobs from the Shoalhaven subregion and around one full-time equivalent job from the Mooloolaba subregion. This represents a small proportion of total employment in each subregion (0.01 per cent).

If these results are extended linearly to account for the entire potential GVP impact of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network, four full time jobs would be lost in the short term in directly affected regions.

Survey results (method 2)Survey and consultation with industry stakeholders suggests that the reduction in total positions in the fishing sector may be greater due to the high proportion of part-time and seasonal positions in the industry (Appendix D: Estimating job reduction from the survey; Appendix E: Profile of survey respondents; Table 33).

Job losses are likely to occur in the most affected fisheries (Table 4)—in the towns where potentially impacted catch is landed (Map 4) and in the towns and regions involved in the supply chain (Map 6 and Map 8).

Estimates of job loss derived from the survey apply only to businesses in the catching and processing sectors that completed the survey. They do not include fishing businesses that did not complete the survey, or most supply chain businesses. The estimate was also based on each surveyed business's prediction about how they would respond to the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network, how many staff they employed and whether they would need to reduce employees.

46


From the survey responses, it was estimated that there would be a reduction of 26 full-time equivalent jobs, which comprised 33.3 individual jobs (Table 10). Although it is believed that the majority of fishing businesses potentially impacted by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network were surveyed, there may be some that are not accounted for in this estimate.

The number of job losses predicted through the survey appears to be quite high given the independently derived estimates from economic modelling, the potential displacement of $1.2 million and estimates derived using this method in the other regions (see ABARES 2012b,c,d). It should be noted that the Temperate East Marine Region contains a larger number of smaller operators. Many of these operators have experienced the introduction of state reserves and a structural adjustment that will have influenced their survey responses. 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. A more detailed discussion of the potential drivers for this higher number of job losses is included in Chapter 4, in the section on Fishing business impacts—Group 3 from the survey responses.

Table 10 Estimated paid job reduction anticipated by survey respondents due to the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Employment type Positions Full-time

equivalent Casual (year round) 4.4 1.3Full-time (year round) 20.9 20.9Part-time (year round) 5.0 2.5Seasonal casual 0.6 0.1Seasonal full-time 2.0 0.8Seasonal part-time 0.4 0.1Total 33.3 25.8Note: Conversion to full-time equivalent used the following conversion factors: casual 0.3, full-time 1, part-time 0.5, seasonal casual 0.2, seasonal fulltime 0.4 and seasonal part time 0.3. For methods, see D: Estimating job reduction using thesurvey, Table 27Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

47


Summary of flow of impacts The towns most impacted by potentially displaced GVP would be Greenwell Point, Mooloolaba, Ulladulla and Forster (in descending order of GVP displacement). The main towns identified as supplying inputs (such as fuel and chandlery) and receiving produce from potentially impacted fishers were Sydney, Ulladulla, Newcastle, Mooloolaba and Coffs Harbour. The main towns receiving outputs (including receiving, transport and processing of catch) were Ulladulla, Greenwell Point, Forster, Hervey Bay and Mooloolaba. In addition, the Sydney Fish Market could be potentially affected by a reduction in products supplied by other fishing businesses, such as commercial fishermen’s cooperatives (see Case study: Sydney Fish Markets and Case study: Potential impacts on fishermen’s cooperatives in the Temperate East Marine Region).

Based on the GVP displaced per capita, the community with the highest level of exposure would be Greenwell Point. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Greenwell Point is $274.60 per person. This assessment indicates that Greenwell Point is most likely to feel the greatest degree of impact due to displaced GVP from the declaration of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network, and has a relatively low capacity to adapt. The cumulative impact of GVP displaced to Mooloolaba due to the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve ($1 548 758 annual average GVP) should be noted.

Using economic modelling, the regional net economic impact arising from the potentially displaced GVP was an annual estimated loss of $1.9 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 regional job reduction was estimated at 4 full-time equivalent jobs in the short term using the economic modelling, and 26 full-time equivalent jobs using survey data.

48


4 Impacts on fishing businessesThis chapter presents a synthesis of results from the survey Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers’ values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions 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 Temperate East Marine Region

potential business impacts

business plans and investment based on current entitlements to fish

other factors currently impacting the fishing industry (cumulative impacts)

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 Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. The following notes and caveats apply to the survey:

The target population is a subset of all fishers in the Temperate East Marine Region. The goal was to ensure that 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 Temperate East Marine Region.

The final survey frame consisted of 526 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.

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, inaccurate judgment or illogical interpretation of reality. Cognitive biases 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.

Throughout the following sections, people who participated in the survey are referred to as respondents. For further detail on the survey process see Appendix C: Social impact assessment methods.

49


Commercial fishery qualitative value mapping To understand how and to what degree commercial fishers value specific areas within the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network survey participants were asked to undertake a 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 within the region by placing up to three marks for each of six different fishing-related values: ‘catch reliability’; ‘catch diversity’; ‘easy to access’; ‘a safe area’; ‘less competition’; and ‘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 9 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 all data to be displayed.

More than 700 value stickers were applied; approximately 250 of these were placed within the marine reserves (Table 11). Nearly 25 per cent of all value stickers related to future use (prospective fishing), while ‘catch reliability’ and ‘catch diversity’ each comprised approximately 20 per cent of all values stickers.

High fishing values were found inside and on the shelf throughout most of the New South Wales (NSW) coast, notably in the draft Clarence, Hunter and Jervis marine reserves. Medium values were associated with the Tasmantid Marine National Park Zone (area 407) and Gifford marine reserve. Low or dispersed values were found on some areas of the shelf but, most notably, in offshore areas of the draft Norfolk and Lord Howe marine reserves (Map 9).

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 (e.g. longlining within the draft Tasmantid Multiple Use Zone; Map 9).

This process does not fully explore why fishers value the value the areas they 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).

50


Map 9 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 (0.1 degree) in areas with a high density of value points and at coarse scale (1 degree) where value points are less dense.Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers’ values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

51


Table 11 Number of value markers placed in draft marine reserve areas for each of the value categories Draft marine reserve Are

aCatch

diversityCatch

reliability

Ease of

access

Future use

Less competitio

n

Safe area

Total

Jervis 401 7 8 10 10 7 9 51Hunter 402 14 14 10 8 6 5 57Cod Grounds 403 0Solitary Islands 404 0Clarence 405 13 14 5 14 4 4 54Tasmantid 406 1 4 1 6 3 1 16

407 3 5 3 6 6 2 25Lord Howe 408 3 1 4

409 1 2 1 2 1 7410 1 1 2411 0412 1 1413 1 1414 2 1 2 2 1 8

Gifford 415 2 2 2 5 3 14Norfolk 416 1 1 2

417 4 2 5 2 13Outside marine reserves

85 118 69 84 52 51 459

Total values 132 170 102 147 88 75 714Marine National Park Zone Recreational Use Zone Habitat Protection Zone Special Purpose Zone Multiple Use Zone

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 Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

52


Direct displacement impacts on fishing businesses This section reports fishers’ responses to their perceived displacement and how this response will impact their fishing business.

Survey respondents were if they believed they would have to change their current fishing activities if the draft Temperate East 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 response 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. Twenty respondents indicated that they were unsure of their response to the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. These respondents were not asked about any potential business or personal impacts.

Fishing business response to displacementOut of the 142 survey respondents, 79 indicated that they would have to change their current fishing activities if the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network was declared (Table 12).

Table 12 Response to the question, 'If the reserve was declared I would have to change current fishing activities'Response

Number of respondents

Yes 79No 8Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

Of the 79 respondents who indicated that they would change their fishing activity if the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network was declared, the majority (29 respondents) indicated that they would stay in the fishery and make up the shortfall in other fishing areas. However, quite a few fishers indicated that they would leave the fishing industry (21 respondents) and 20 fishers were unsure what their response would be (Table 13).

53


Table 13 Responses from fishers who declared their fishing activity would have to change if the draft reserves were declaredResponse CountsStay in same fishery and make up shortfall from other fishing areas 29Move into an alternative fishery 6Continue operating with reduced catch in the same fishery(s) or downsize the operation 3Leave the fishing industry 21Unsure 20Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

The qualitative findings suggest that, in general, fishers operating in the Temperate East Marine Region will stay in the fishing industry. However, a significant number indicated that their response would be to leave the industry. Their response was influenced by a number of factors, including the reduced area that they could access, the fisheries they are involved in, their perception of the future of the fishing industry in Australia and the potential offer of structural adjustment assistance.

Fishing business impacts—Group 1The 35 respondents who would stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall fishing in other areas or move into an alternative fishery indicated a variety of impacts on their fishing business (Figure 4). The number of respondents answering these questions varied between 35 and 21. Most of these either agreed or strongly agreed that their business would be impacted by:

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 travel time to and from fishing grounds

increased wear and tear on boat and equipment

safety issues from fishing in adverse weather conditions.

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, which included periods of trial and error and knowledge handed down from their predecessors. Most interviewees and focus group participants indicated that the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network, in conjunction with current fisheries management restrictions, 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. This increased pressure was seen to potentially increase conflict among fishers and increase pressure on fish stocks. Concern was raised that larger boats, which generally fished further out to sea, may be forced closer inshore resulting in fishing with smaller vessels no longer being viable.

54


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. It was highlighted that finding new fishing grounds and learning to fish them was a complex task. For example, trawl operators stated that their current equipment can only effectively trawl over flat sea beds. If they were no longer able to access these trawl grounds, due to exclusion by reserves, they would be forced to find new grounds. This process can be expensive because of the high cost of fuel and repair of damaged gear. Searching for new grounds can also be dangerous, as nets can become entangled or snagged and pose a danger to the boat. In addition, concerns were raised by line fishery operators that trawlers may move into their areas and impact upon their catch.

Members of the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery suggested that a cumulative reduction in fishable area between the Temperate East and Coral Sea may require a fisheries management response, including reductions in species quota, which will have an impact on all Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery fishers. This issue is examined in more detail in the Case study: Cumulative issues impacting fishing businesses in the Temperate East Marine Region.

55


Figure 4 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

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

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

Increased tranport cost per kg of landed catch

Changes to fishing gear will be necessary

Increased wear and tear on boat and equipment

Increased travel time to and from alternative fishing grounds

Increased pressure on fish stock in areas outside of the proposed marine reserve

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagreeDisagree Strongly 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 Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

56


Fishing business impacts—Group 2Three respondents said that they would continue operating with reduced catch, or downsize their operation. Some respondents indicated there would be increased competition and conflict between fishers, and that there would be increased transport cost per kilogram of landed catch. One respondent indicated that they would have to reduce the number of employees in the business. Most respondents in this group indicated that they would not have to relocate to a different port or town.

Figure 5 Business impacts for respondents who indicated they would continue operating with a reduced catch

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

I will diversify the fishing business

Part of the fishing business will be sold

The fishing business will have to sell one or more of its fishing endorsements/entitlements

The fishing business will have to reduce the number of employees

Increased tranport cost per kg of landed catch

Increased conflict with other fishers over competition for fish

0 20 40 60 80 100




Fishing business impacts—Group 3Twenty-one respondents said that they would leave the fishing industry if the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network was declared. Most of these indicated there would be difficulties in adapting (Figure 6). The number of respondents answering these questions varied between 17 and 20. Most of these respondents:

thought their employees would be without a job

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

Qualitative interviews and focus groups found the loss of jobs for employees was a common concern for those indicating that they would leave the fishing industry. Many saw this as having impacts not only on the employees and their families, but also on the communities in which they lived in and the fishing industry as a whole. In smaller communities, it was noted that there were not many other job opportunities. This may lead to the emigration of people from the area as they search for employment opportunities. The loss of skilled workers from the fishing industry,

57


along with their accumulated knowledge of fishing, was noted as a concern. The fishing industry currently competes with other industries, most notably the mining sector. A number of fishers also reported that reduced investor confidence would make it difficult for them to sell their assets, such as licences, boats and other equipment, if they were forced out of business.

Figure 6 Business impacts for respondents who indicated they would leave the fishing industry

We will be able to sell the business

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

I am confident in my ability to secure employment elsewhere

Our employees will be without a job

0 20 40 60 80 100




Compared with survey respondents in the other marine regions, a relatively large number (21 survey respondents) said that they would leave the fishing industry if the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network was declared.

Fishers in the Temperate East Marine Region highlighted other pressures and changes, in addition to the Commonwealth reserve proposal, which already impact the fishing industry in the region. State marine parks, rising input prices, fisheries management changes, pessimism about the future viability of fishing and the possible offer of structural adjustment were highlighted as motivating factors to leaving the industry. There is also evidence that a small number fishers in the Temperate East Marine Region are looking to exit the industry regardless of the implementation of the draft Commonwealth marine reserves, and that other factors are driving this decision.

To better understand the potential reasons for fishers suggesting that they would leave the industry, key demographics and characteristics of this group (Group 3) were examined. Survey respondents in this group had spent a slightly longer time in the fishing industry compared with the other respondents. Although the majority of fishers in Group 3 felt that they were too young to retire, when compared with all respondents and respondents in Group 1, a higher proportion of them reported that they were of retirement age. A slightly higher percentage of respondents in Group 3 indicated that they had access to other income sources, when compared with all respondents and those in Group 1. A lower percentage of respondents in Group 3 reported that they had more than three dependents. Respondents in Group 3 were more likely to characterise their business as a family partnership and to be involved in leasing their licences to other fishers. Group 3 respondents also reported fewer employees in their business and lower catch returns, and were less likely to have diverse businesses (e.g. fewer involved in wholesale

58


activities). This suggests that Group 3 respondents have smaller businesses. The majority of Group 3 respondents also held shares or endorsements in the trawl fisheries (Commonwealth Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery and NSW Ocean Trawl Fishery).

The majority of respondents in Group 3 believed that they were less able to afford changes, and that their businesses have not dealt well with previous changes (e.g. fisheries management/state reserves). A higher percentage of respondents in Group 3 also reported that they had experienced more business impacts due to management changes and changes in access to grounds in the past 10 years than had fishers in Group 1. This suggests that respondents in Group 3 prefer the option of leaving, not only because of the potential effects of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network but because of cumulative impacts on the fishing industry in general. Some fishers believe that there will be an opportunity for structural adjustment (including licence buyouts) and/or that this is a financially sensible time to leave the commercial fishing industry.

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

Of the 142 survey respondents, 112 indicated that they had made business plans based on their current statutory right to fish, while 83 respondents indicated that they had made investments in the fishing industry (Table 14). Of the respondents who had made future business plans or investments, 99 agreed or strongly agreed that the ‘ability to access historic fishing areas’ had influenced their decisions, and 91 respondents reported that the ‘ability to access new fishing areas’ had been an important or very important consideration (Figure 7).

Table 14 Number of respondents with business and investment plans in placeI have made RespondentsBusiness plans 112Investment(s) 83Note: Respondents could nominate 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 Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

59


Figure 7 Fishing business considerations when making business plans and/or investments

Ability to access new fishing areas

Ability to access historic fishing areas

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important Important Neither important nor unimportant Slightly important

Not importantPercentage of respondents


Interviewees and focus group participants raised the following issues about the potential impacts on business plans and financial investments:

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, refurbishing of vessels and gear, and purchasing state licences given they could be out of business and the investment would be a stranded asset. Many fishers believe that the draft marine reserves are only the start and that once declared they could be expanded or their classification changed by future governments.

Ability to access finance, with some participants feeling 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 reserves announcement.

Other issues and cumulative factors impacting fishing businesses The potential impacts of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on fishing businesses cannot be viewed in isolation. A strong and consistent theme raised by survey respondents, interviewees and focus group participants was the cumulative impacts for the fishing industry.

The majority of survey respondents thought that other moderate or major problems affecting their business included cheaper imported fish, changes in fisheries management (e.g. quota), input costs, changes in access to fishing grounds (including state marine reserves), prices received for fish, illegal fishing, exchange rates and access to skilled labour (Figure 8).

Focus group and interview participants indicated that the industry has undergone significant change in the past five years, especially in terms of recent changes to fisheries management, such as the introduction of quota, and the implementation of the NSW marine reserves. Many

60


fishers mentioned that the introduction of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network would further limit their business to the extent that it would no longer be viable to keep operating.

Access to skilled labour was also mentioned by more than half of respondents as a moderate to major problem affecting their business. This was also reflected in the focus group and interview data, where many fishers said it was difficult to attract and keep skilled employees in their businesses. This was particularly the case when competing with other companies, such as those in the mining and resources industry, which were able to offer higher wages to employees in similar skills categories.

Many fishers reflected that the fishing industry is a shrinking industry and that there are various reasons for this (e.g. see Case study: Cumulative issues impacting fishing businesses in the Temperate East Marine Region).

61


Figure 8 Other issues impacting fishing businesses in the Temperate East Marine Region

My healthMy age/age of workforce

Market demand for the fish caughtFish stocks

Bycatch compliance Access to finance

Competition from other commercial fishersInterest rates

Access to skilled labourIllegal (unlicensed) fishing in Australia

Input costs (fuel, labour etc.)Changes in fisheries management (e.g. quota)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Major problem Moderate problem Minor problemNo problem Don't know


MPAs = marine protected areas Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

62


Ability to adapt—fishing businessesSurvey 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 135 and 133.

Most survey respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that ‘the fishing business can afford to make the changes necessary to adapt to the draft Commonwealth marine reserves’. Most respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that their ‘fishing business is in a good financial situation’ and that 'the fishing business has previously managed change successfully’.

Figure 9 Ability to adapt—business

The fishing business has previously managed change successfully

The fishing business can afford to make the changes necessary to adapt to the draft Commonwealth Marine Reserves

The fishing business is in a good financial situation

I have well-developed business skills

0 20 40 60 80 100




Fishing business impacts summary Based on the gross value of production displacement estimates (see Chapter 2: Potential displacement of fishing) the impacts of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network will be felt greatest by a small number of operators in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery and the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery. Smaller impacts will be felt in the Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, the Fish Trawl Sector of the NSW Ocean Trawl Fishery and the Prawn Trawl Sector of the NSW Ocean Trawl Fishery.

The magnitude of the impact would differ for each individual business due to a number of differentiating factors; in some cases it would potentially render the business unviable.

Approximately half of the survey respondents indicated that they would have to change their current fishing practises if the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network was declared.

63


The survey was completed by 142 fishers or fishing businesses. Survey findings showed that if the draft marine reserves network was declared:

79 survey respondents indicated that they would have to change their current fishing activities. Of that group, 35 indicated that they would stay in the fishery and make up the shortfall in other fishing areas, or move into an alternative fishery. Potential impacts to this group included increased fuel costs, pressure on fish stocks, time spent looking for new grounds, travel time, wear and tear on assets, competition with other fishers and safety issues from fishing in adverse weather conditions.

21 survey respondents indicated that they would leave the fishing industry. Most expressed concern that their employees would be without a job, and were worried about their ability to sell the business and secure alternative employment. The respondent’s intention to leave the fishing industry could be the result of an accumulation of factors in addition to the draft reserves.

112 survey respondents said that their business plans will be jeopardised by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network, and 83 survey respondents indicated that their financial investments will be jeopardised. 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 expressed concerned that the value of their business assets had declined since the announcement of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.

The majority of fishers interviewed felt greater uncertainty in making plans and investments to keep the business running between now and when the reserves are declared.

A strong and consistent theme raised by survey respondents, interviewees and focus group participants was the cumulative impacts for the fishing industry. Respondents indicated that the industry has undergone significant change recently, particularly with the implementation of the NSW marine reserves and changes in fishery management. 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.

64


5 Personal and community impactsSurvey respondents expected a number of community and personal impacts 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:

Group 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 in Chapter 4: Impacts on fishing businesses also apply to this chapter. References are made to case studies where relevant.

Personal impacts—Group 1Most of the 35 respondents who indicated that they would stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall fishing in other areas, or move into an alternative fishery, indicated personal impacts of (Figure 10):

increased stress levels

less time to spend with family

working longer hours

family quality of life will suffer.

Most respondents in this group disagreed or strongly disagreed that they would move to a new area or a new town if the draft marine reserves were declared.

65


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

I will move to a new town

I will need to move my family to a new town

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

I will have to work longer hours

I will have less time to spend with my family

My stress levels will increase

0 20 40 60 80 100




Personal impacts—Group 2All three respondents who would continue operating with reduced catch or downsize their operation agreed or strongly agreed that if the draft marine reserves were declared (Figure 11):

they would have less time to spend with their family

their family’s quality of life would suffer

they would have to work longer hours

their stress levels would increase.

Two of the three respondents in this group disagreed or strongly disagreed that they would move to a new area or a new town.

66


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

I will move to a new town

I will need to move my family to a new town

My stress levels will increase

I will have to work longer hours

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

I will have less time to spend with my family

0 20 40 60 80 100




Personal impacts—Group 3Of the 21 respondents who would leave the fishing industry, most agreed or strongly agreed that they would experience (Figure 12):

considerable stress on their family and relationships

increased stress levels

considerable risks in the changes they were planning

the need for their partner/spouse to find work or increase their working hours.

Almost 90 per cent of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that they had the skills to find another job. This is supported by information from the focus groups and interviews where some fishers indicated that they had spent their whole lives in the fishing industry and do not have the training to do anything else. During focus groups, several fishers indicated that if they were to leave the fishing industry they would be close to retirement by the time they retrained to work in another industry. Fishing tends to be a tradition within families, and some fishers indicated that they would be sad to see the tradition lost.

67


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 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

0 20 40 60 80 100




Ability to adapt—personalThe ability to adapt includes the inherent capacities and resources that enable people 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 skills levels and ability to assess their own health (Figure 13). These factors can provide insight into the personal ability of respondents to adapt. The number of respondents answering these questions varied between 131 and 137.

The survey results suggest that most respondents (108 respondents) were not confident in their ability to find alternative employment if they needed to. Half the respondents (73 respondents) also felt that they did not have skills that could be used in other industries. Most respondents also disagreed or strongly disagreed that they had other income opportunities (102 respondents) and that they did not want to give up fishing (119 respondents). The majority also reported that they were too young to retire (98 respondents) and did not have access to superannuation (99 respondents).

More than 40 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that:

when faced with problems, I have confidence in my ability to find solutions (78 respondents)

I am resourceful and I have been able to handle unforeseen situations in the past (70 respondents)

I remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities (57 respondents)

68


my health is good (101 respondents).

This suggests that many respondents have confidence in their ability to face challenges and manage changing circumstances. However, 80 respondents also agreed or strongly agreed that ‘I personally just can't cope with any more change’. Many fishers stated that they enjoy fishing and would try to make their business work and adapt to change, but the process of doing this would still be stressful. Further information on personal impacts is contained in the Case study: Cumulative issues impacting fishing businesses in the Temperate East Marine Region.

Figure 13 Ability to adapt—personal

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

I'm interested in adapting to the changes that occur in life

I have people I can ask to help me when problems arise

I am resourceful and I have been able to handle unforeseen situations in the past

My health is good

I feel part of my local community

I'm too young to retire

I don't want to give up fishing

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree Agree Neither disagree nor agreeDisagree Strongly disagree



69


Community impacts Community impacts relate to the connection between the fishing industry and the local community; specifically, how changes in the fishing industry are perceived to flow on to impact the community (Figure 14). The number of respondents answering these questions varied between 135 and 138.

The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that ‘other fishing businesses in my community will be impacted’ (119 respondents) if the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network was implemented. Most also reported that ‘previous changes that have affected the fishing industry have also impacted our community’ (112 respondents). In focus groups and interviews, many fishers said that their communities had undergone changes due to the NSW marine parks that were implemented within the past 10 years. Some fishers cited that this, along with other zoning and regulation changes, had led to a decline in the relevance of the fishing industry to the local economy, particularly in the Port Stephens area. However, other fishers emphasised the connection between the fishing industry and the local community through the tourist attraction that fishing creates. They stated that many tourists come to fishing towns, such as Coffs Harbour and Nelson Bay, to have fresh local seafood and to see the fishing boats unload at the wharf.

Most survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that ‘the community I live in is highly reliant on the fishing industry’. Qualitative information collected from focus groups and interviews supports this connection. Many fishers reported that they sourced many of the business inputs, such as equipment and fuel, from the community they lived in. They also stated that the fishing industry created employment, not only through direct means, such as being employed, but also through indirect means, such as using the services of local mechanics and electricians.

Many towns with fishing industries are small towns with limited economic diversity, and concern was raised that if the fishing industry was to downsize further then jobs would be lost in a community where there are few employment prospects. These results suggest that these communities are highly dependent on the fishing industry, that other businesses also rely on the fishing industry and that there are substantial potential flow-on effects to other parts of the fishing industry and communities.

Individual respondent's perception of their home port's dependence on the fishing industry varies, as the concept of dependence is construed in different ways by different people. Therefore, the fisher's perception may not be consistent with other measures of dependency, such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics data on employment or economic diversity measures.

Most respondents to the survey also agreed or strongly agreed that ‘the fishing industry supports my local community’. This was also reflected by participants in the Ulladulla focus group, who recounted how the Ulladulla Fishermen’s Cooperative has a program with Mission Australia where long-term unemployed people are given training to work in the fishing industry. Participants also stated that infrastructure provided by the cooperative (e.g. a marine fuel outlet, jetty and moorings) was used by other members of the community who owned boats but were not part of the fishing industry.

70


Figure 14 Ability to adapt—community

People around here are willing to help each other out

I have done unpaid work for a community group in the past 12 months

I am an active member of a local community group

The fishing industry supports my local community

The community I live in is highly reliant on the fishing industry

Other fishing businesses in my community will be impacted

Previous changes that have affected the fishing industry have also impacted our community

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagreeDisagree Stongly disagree



Community and personal impacts summaryThere are several key messages that emerge about the personal and community impacts and ability to adapt:

Most respondents from Group 1 who stated that they would either stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall in catch in another area, or move into an alternative fishery, reported that they would experience increased stress levels, have less time to spend with their family, need to work longer hours and that their family’s quality of life would suffer.

Most respondents in Group 2, who indicated that they would continue to operate in the same fishery with a reduced catch or downsize the business, stated that they would have less time to spend with their family and that their family’s quality of life would suffer. Most also reported that they would have to work longer hours and that their stress levels would increase.

Members of Group 4 reported that leaving the industry would place considerable stress on their family and relationships and cause their stress levels to increase. They believed that there are considerable risks in the changes they were planning and that their partner/spouse would have to find work or increase their work hours. Almost 90 per cent of respondents in this group disagreed or strongly disagreed that they had the skills to find another job.

Most survey respondents indicated that they were not confident in their ability to find alternative employment, and believed that they did not have skills that could be used in another industry. Most also reported they did not have other income opportunities, did not want to give up fishing, were too young to retire and did not have access to superannuation.

Overall, more than 40 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were confident in their ability to find solutions to problems, were resourceful and have previously been able to handle unforseen situations, and were able to remain calm when facing

71


difficulties. However, 80 respondents also agreed or strongly agreed that ‘I personally just can't cope with any more change’.

Participants of focus groups and interviewees reported a number of cumulative personal and family impacts, such as managing continual change in the fishing industry, having less time with the family, working longer hours, depression and mental health issues, pressure on marriages and children of fishing families needing to adjust their career aspirations.

Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that ‘the community I live in is highly reliant on the fishing industry’ and that ‘the fishing industry supports my local community’. This response contradicts employment numbers derived from the economic modelling and survey. Participants of interviews and focus groups reported that in many towns the fishing industry enhances tourist's experience of the area, which provides benefits to the local community.

72


6 Case studiesThe purpose of the case studies was to provide a broader understanding of how the impacts of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network would emerge at different levels. This provided a means of exploring the impact 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 in consultation with industry, state governments and the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC). Working group members agreed on six case studies and these are presented in this chapter across a range of key themes:




Impact of the draft Jervis marine reserve on an individual operator in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Commonwealth Trawl Sector: the importance of Jervis

Sydney Fish Market

Economic modelling of Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba.

Telling the fisher’s story: a narrative approachA narrative approach was adopted for case studies 1–4. The narrative case studies are specifically intended to 'tell the fisher's story' about potential impacts. For the most part, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) has simply reflected the perceptions of impact on industry and stakeholders. 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 Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. A mixed-methods social science research methodology was used to develop these narratives, with material sourced from qualitative data derived from interviews and focus groups, and 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 to the currency of a trading partner) will make the price received by Australian producers

73


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 15) and made imports cheaper relative to domestically produced seafood.

Figure 15 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

Aust

ralia

n do

llars

(mill

ions

)

$A/$US

Data source: ABARES 2011b

Fuel priceFuel is a major input to most fisheries businesses. For example, fuel accounted for around 26 per cent (in 2009–10) of average total cash costs in the Northern Prawn Fishery, and around 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 16). This has caused substantial uncertainty about costs for many fishers, placing additional pressure on the profitability of many fisheries operators.

74


Figure 16 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. This has placed additional pressure on some fishing operations where labour is a significant input to the production process. Competition for labour from the mining industry is particularly relevant in Western Australia and Queensland, given the substantial mining industries in these states.

International market effectsExporters of Australian seafood compete with other international seafood suppliers and, for many species, Australian producers are unable to be influenced 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 prawn from the developing world, particularly China, has resulted in downward pressure on prawn prices.

75


Case study: Cumulative issues impacting fishing businesses in the Temperate East Marine Region This case study explores examples of potential cumulative impacts occurring in the Temperate East Marine Region. A mixed-methods social science research methodology was used to develop this case study. Information was obtained from focus groups and interviews during February–March 2012 with potentially impacted operators and family members, supply chain businesses and community representatives as part of the social impact assessment process. Additional qualitative data was provided through relevant literature. Two specific examples are provided to place cumulative issues into context for fisheries within the Temperate East Marine Region: the New South Wales (NSW) Ocean Trawl Fishery and the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery. Personal and family impacts raised by fishing business operators and their families are also described.

The potential impacts of the draft marine reserves network on fishing businesses cannot be viewed in isolation from other factors affecting the fishing industry. It is not within the scope of this assessment to fully quantify all of these factors; however, this case study highlights the potential for cumulative impacts to occur. A strong and consistent theme raised by survey respondents, interviewees and focus group participants in the Temperate East Marine Region was the many factors impacting their businesses and their personal concerns about how these factors would compound with the draft Commonwealth marine reserves. These are collectively referred to as cumulative impacts and can arise from:

individual operators who hold endorsements to fish in multiple fisheries or across marine regions

recent changes to fishery management arrangements

changes to fishing ground access (e.g. state regulations or state marine reserves, especially where fisheries operate in both state and Commonwealth waters)

concentration of effort by displaced operators following the introduction of a marine reserve

changes to fishery management arrangements before or following the introduction of a marine reserve

economic influences, including fish prices, input costs (fuel, labour, etc.), cheaper imported fish, exchange rates and market demands

access to labour.

New South Wales Ocean Trawl FisheryThe NSW Government established a series of state marine reserves throughout coastal waters between 1998 and 2006. The NSW system of marine protected areas encompasses six multiple-use marine parks, 12 aquatic reserves and 62 national parks and reserves with marine components. The six marine parks are Cape Byron, Solitary Islands, Port Stephens – Great Lakes, Jervis Bay and Batemans Bay. These marine parks cover almost 345 100 hectares, or about 35 per cent of the NSW marine jurisdiction (Beeton et al. 2012).

Industry representatives stated that closures resulting from the state planning process, in addition to voluntary industry measures (e.g. spatial closures of juvenile prawn grounds), has decreased the available area for trawl grounds (among other methods) (PFA 2012). Consequently, there has been a concentration of the remaining effort. Industry representatives

76


and individual fishers have highlighted significant concerns about the cumulative impacts of Commonwealth marine reserves, in addition to already reduced access through the state marine park process. This is particularly relevant for the draft Commonwealth Hunter marine reserve (area 402), a Multiple Use Zone that would exclude demersal trawl, demersal gillnet and demersal longline gear types.

The draft Hunter marine reserve adjoins the current Port Stephens – Great Lakes Marine Park (Map 10). The Port- Stephens – Great Lake Marine Park was gazetted in 2005 and came into effect in 2007. The Port Stephens – Great Lake Marine Reserve is a Multiple Use Zone that allows commercial fishing in General Use zones, and limited fishing in the Habitat Protection zones (demersal gear is banned from Habitat Protection zones). Before the final declaration, the estimated economic impact on commercial fishing (excluding charter and aquaculture) by the Port Stephens – Great Lakes Marine Park was an annual reduction in catch valued at approximately $2 million (Anon. 2006). This estimate has not been validated following the declaration of the reserves and, as such, the actual impact of the state park cannot be verified. A recent impact assessment has indicated that growth in nearby regional economies has at least partially offset the loss to the fishing industry in this region (Fairweather et al. 2009).

Fishers in the Ocean Trawl Fishery stated that the introduction of the state marine reserves removed a significant proportion of accessible trawl ground in the region. This has resulted in a concentration of effort in the available trawl grounds, and fishers now spend a lot of time planning how to best access the remaining resource to ensure their businesses remain viable. They suggested that this concentration of effort seems to have reduced stock availability within certain areas. The proposal of the Commonwealth marine reserves follows the introduction of the state reserves and this ongoing series of events, and uncertainty about further exclusion, is causing high levels of stress within the families of the fishers.

Industry suggests that the current inshore extension of the draft Hunter marine reserve will further exclude already restricted trawl grounds. They suggest that the proposal removes access to the most accessible and productive trawl grounds for the Ocean Trawl Fishery (deepwater prawn and fish) (PFA 2012). In focus group discussions and interviews, trawl operators highlighted that the draft Hunter marine reserve intersects one of the productive trawl grounds remaining open to them, and that further exclusion from this area may render their businesses unviable.

Trawl boat operators reported that if the draft Hunter marine reserve was declared, it would make operation of their business very difficult because:

they would need to travel further, which would increase stress, risk and costs

if they continued to operate in the fishery, they would need to make up the catch by finding new trawling grounds through ‘trial and error’, which could lead to further damage of the ocean floor

finding new trawling grounds is not their preferred option because it is very expensive, dangerous and time-consuming

it is unclear what the best investment is in different gear or purchase of shares in response to the change.

77


Map 10 Draft Commonwealth Hunter marine reserve and the New South Wales Port Stephens –-Great Lakes Marine Park

Note: The hatched area is one of the key trawl grounds identified by Port Stephens Ocean Fish Trawl operators.Data sources: Commonwealth marine reserve boundaries from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; state marine reserve boundaries from the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries; coastline and bathymetry from Geoscience Australia

Eastern Tuna and Billfish FisheryThe annual average gross value of production (GVP) estimated to be potentially displaced from the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery by the Draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network is $261 700. This is a relatively small share (less than 1 per cent) of the total fishery GVP, which totalled $30.1 million in 2009–10 (ABARES 2011b).

The Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery extends from Cape York to the Victoria–South Australia border. Most of the catch is taken with pelagic longline, and a small quantity is caught using minor line methods. In 2010, the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Plan 2010 (AFMA 2010) was finalised, which changed the management method from effort (number of hooks set) to catch quota management for major species. Quota statutory fishing rights were allocated, and management under total allowable commercial catch began in March 2011. Under the current proposal for the Temperate East Marine Region, pelagic longlining would be excluded from the Marine National Park, Special Purpose and Recreational Use zones. Note that pelagic longlining is allowed in Habitat Protection zones within the Temperate East Marine Region but is excluded from Habitat Protection zones in the Coral Sea Marine Region.

The Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery is subject to significant additional impacts from the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve, and operators have expressed concern over the cumulative impacts. Industry representatives highlighted the need to consider the impacts to this fishery as a whole and not each marine region in isolation. Industry participants raised concerns that the draft reserves in the Temperate East and Coral Sea marine regions may

78


require a fisheries management response, which could include reductions in species quota that will impact all Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery fishers. They are uncertain whether the significant impact of the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve on the fishery will result in effort being removed under current management arrangements or whether displaced operators will need to shift effort into the remaining areas. Under the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve the annual average GVP potentially displaced in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery would be $3.8 million, which represents around 10 per cent of the fishery. Further discussion of the cumulative effects of multiple marine regions on operators in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery in the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve can be found in Case study: Pelagic longliners in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery potentially affected by the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve (ABARES 2012b).

The primary fishing method used in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery is pelagic longlining. Pelagic longlines are not anchored, but are set to drift near the surface of the ocean with radio beacons attached so that the vessel can track them to haul in the catch (AFMA 2012). Many operators have highlighted that, because of drift or gear breakages, a further 30–40 nautical miles around the reserve boundary would effectively be excluded. Further discussion of the impact of buffer zones required for pelagic longlining in the Coral Sea Marine Region can be found in Case study: Pelagic longliners in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery potentially affected by the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve (ABARES 2012b).

The change to a quota-based management system in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery means that some operators may need to change their spatial fishing patterns and fish further out to sea. These fishers have raised concerns about the Tasmantid Marine National Park Zone (area 407). Although, historically, this area was only used intermittently, changes to a quota system have made this area more important for ensuring catch diversity and fulfilling species-specific quota. One potentially impacted operator indicated that his business focused on fishing yellowfin tuna on the shelf edge. This was effective as it allowed for safer fishing practices (closer proximity to the shore and other fishing vessels), required less fuel and travel time, and provided reasonable economic returns. Following the change to the quota system, the operator is now restricted to 65 tonnes of yellowfin tuna, which makes the fishery commercially unviable. The additional catch needs to be made up from the other species for which he holds quota (10 tonnes of bigeye tuna, 12 tonnes of striped marlin, 15 tonnes of swordfish and 55 tonnes of albacore). To catch these other species, he needs to work further offshore, around the seamounts. Under the draft marine reserves network, he will be excluded from the Marine National Park Zone of the Tasmantid marine reserve (area 407). The operator states that in 2011, approximately 20 per cent of his total catch was caught in this area due to the presence of seamounts where fish naturally aggregate.

Another potentially impacted operator is currently focusing approximately 5–10 per cent of his total effort into this area. Displacement estimates using the ABARES methodology indicate a relatively low level of activity for the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery in the Tasmantid (407) marine reserve. However, the reference period (2001–10) used to estimate the potential displacement from this area may not accurately reflect the change in fishing patterns following the introduction of management quota in 2011. The operator feels that being excluded from area 407 will increase the cost of travel because he will need to find new areas to fish and will have increased travel time and costs associated with each trip, which will decrease his business viability. Although the fisher said that this would not have a significant impact on the regional economy, it may impact on specific individuals and local businesses because he employees seven people and sources all of his consumable supplies from businesses within his home port.

79


Personal and family cumulative impacts: ‘change fatigue’Qualitative information collected during focus groups and interviews with fishing operators and their families found the continual changes in fishery management and restricted access to grounds highly stressful. Changes that were contributing to cumulative personal and family impacts raised by fishing operators and their family members in the Temperate East Marine Region included:

state fishery management changes (e.g. quota system, share-based management)

state regulation changes (e.g. NSW safety regulation changes from January 2012, revised catch and effort reporting arrangements since July 2009)

establishment and review of the NSW Marine Reserve Network (e.g. changes to ‘permitted activities’ in NSW marine parks)

introduction of recreational fishing havens

current draft Commonwealth marine reserves

increases in fishing licence fees (e.g. AFMA fees)

landed catch price fluctuations

changing consumer demands for seafood.

A number of long-term personal and family impacts arising from a combination of these changes included personal financial concerns and family stresses, especially affecting other family members in the fishing business.

Personal financial concerns

Focus group participants and interviewees talked about the lack of certainty in the financial investments they had made and the inability to prepare for the future because ‘the goal posts keep changing’. Outcomes from this financial uncertainty included:

reduced income

cash flow problems impacting on income and on the ability to pay staff (e.g. family members working for no pay)

high level of debt taken on to increase or diversify future fishing income prospects (e.g. mortgage of family homes)

increased time and effort to convince banks to provide loans to fishing businesses (e.g. for gear changes, diversifying into new fisheries)

uncertain value of licences and assets during transition to new management arrangements (e.g. introduction of quota or share-based management)

difficulty in selling licences and assets due to a loss in market value

significant amount of time and effort needed to prepare submissions to the draft marine reserve changes (state and Commonwealth)

need for spouses to increase their participation in the workforce or find new work to supplement family income.

80


Case study: Prospective fishing in the Deepwater Prawn Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery This case study explores prospective fishing in the Deepwater Prawn Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery using an example of a family fishing business that invested in licences and assets. In the context of prospective fishing, this case study provides an example of the redevelopment of fisheries that have ceased operating or are operating at a reduced level (catches well below long-term sustainable, defined management levels). A mixed-methods social science research methodology was used to develop this case study. Information was obtained from an interview with the operator of the business in February 2012. Additional qualitative data was obtained from relevant literature.

The Prawn Trawl Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery is split into the inshore, offshore and deepwater sectors. The majority of the current fishery focuses on the inshore and offshore sectors of the fishery. Royal red prawns are the main catch in the deepwater sector, but scarlet prawns are also caught. Royal red prawns are a demersal species inhabiting depths between 230–825 metres, although it is more commonly found in water 400–550 metres deep. Historically, this was a productive fishery, which developed in the 1970s, peaked in the mid-1980s at approximately 600 tonnes, and then declined in the late 1990s (Rowling et al. 2010). The introduction of imported prawns and the strong Australian dollar over the last decade added to the decline in market demand for Australian deepwater prawns. In addition, they are not currently a popular table species in Australia due to their small size and strong flavour. The current lack of demand and low wholesale price mean that the fishery is currently relatively lightly fished (Rowling et al. 2010). Industry and the operator suggest that fishing for royal red prawns holds strong prospects and that the Temperate East Marine Region could support expansion of the fishery and an increase in effort (‘the operator’, pers comm. 2012; PFA 2012).

The operator currently holds inshore, offshore, deepwater and fish trawl licences within the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery. The family operates one vessel and an export processing business. The operator and his family recognised a need to restructure the business following the introduction of state marine parks in 2007 and voluntary industry spatial closures to protect juvenile prawn grounds. The operator indicated that deepwater prawns are a significant resource, but that they are relatively inaccessible with traditional fishing methods due to the depth and distance of the fishing grounds from land. The operator recently developed handling techniques for royal red prawns which have improved the palatability of the product and enhanced market interest. The business is currently selling royal red prawns at the local farmers' market, and through Bellingen IGA, Dorrigo IGA and an Inverell butchery; they have received a lot of positive feedback from the public. The operator has also identified significant interest in deepwater prawns in the Japanese and other international markets for up to 1000 tonnes of royal red prawn. Since 2009, the operator has been in negotiations with interested international parties, and has invested significant time and money.

Following this interest, the family decided to upgrade the fishing capacity of the business and recently purchased a second larger vessel, which has better capability to fish deep water in a safe and effective manner. The family has borrowed money to buy the boat, with the fishing company and family home as equity. This vessel has increased fuel storage and a freezer for product, allowing access to deepwater areas and saving fuel by staying at sea for longer, which is more economically viable in deep waters. Having a second vessel will also allow their current vessel to fish for royal red prawns, as the two vessels will be able to accompany each other.

81


Current effort management of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery required the operator to increase his current boat size licence (to operate the new larger boat), but to do this he needed to sacrifice fishing trawl shares (187 shares or the equivalent of 4.5 boat licence shares, or 6 full endorsements). The operator stated that if the family had not invested in the new boat, the business would have had to reduce its staff of five people. With the introduction of the second boat, an additional four people are expected to be employed. Furthermore, the new boat's fishing activity has not yet commenced and therefore is not reflected in historical logbook data.

The operator is concerned about the introduction of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network because he has made a significant investment on the basis of retaining access to deepwater trawl regions. The draft Hunter marine reserve has been highlighted by the operator and industry as an area of concern, because the current zoning does not allow for continued access to some of the most important grounds for royal red prawns (‘the operator', pers. comm., 2012; PFA 2012). Of most concern is that the area from the northern boundary (at 32 degrees south) to the southern boundary of the Hunter marine reserve, near the Seal Rocks region, encompasses the most productive trawl grounds for royal red prawns. The operator feels that this reserve has reduced his prospective fishing grounds. In addition, the operator highlights that the deep waters around this reserve hold significant potential as prospective grounds and that if access to these areas is removed, or if trawl grounds are divided by reserves, this will concentrate effort, possibly in shallower inshore regions, which might lead to competition with other smaller scale fishers and jeopardise his investment in the new vessel.

82


Case study: Potential impacts on fishermen’s cooperatives in the Temperate East Marine RegionThis case study explores the potential impacts of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on fishermen’s cooperatives that service fisheries operating off the coast of New South Wales. It is based on information from focus groups, surveys and interviews with commercial fishers, fishermen’s cooperative (supply chain) managers and community representatives from Coffs Harbour, Port Stephens, Ulladulla and Bermagui. Note that until reserves are declared and fishers operate under new conditions, it is difficult to determine the degree of impact on the upstream and downstream businesses in these communities. However, this case study has attempted to highlight the potential impacts on cooperatives from the perspective of those who manage them or are members.

Background to cooperatives in New South WalesFishermen’s cooperatives were originally set up by the NSW Government in the 1940s to encourage economic development in regional coastal towns and to obtain the collective benefits of shared services and infrastructure for commercial fishing businesses, including fish receiverships, cold storage facilities, input supplies, transport and seafood marketing advantages. Cooperatives are a supply chain structure found mostly in NSW. In other states and territories, fish receiving is done by any registered persons or organisations. Since 1999, however, NSW has also had deregulated registered fish receiver arrangements. Nonetheless, fishermen’s cooperative organisations persist as an important onshore supply chain entry point for many NSW fishers.

There are a number of flow-on benefits to local communities from the presence of a fishermen’s cooperative, including fresh local seafood for consumers and restaurants, employment, services and facilities at the wharf (e.g. for other sectors, such as recreational boats and yachts), tourist moorings, marine fuel outlets, maintenance and repair services, ice and bait. In addition, fishermen’s cooperatives can be associated with less tangible benefits to a community, such as providing a focal point for community activities and events (e.g. fishing tournaments, festivals, etc.), boosting the working harbour as a tourist attraction, and contributing to the social and economic identity of communities.

Supply chain impactsThere are a number of coastal towns adjacent to the Temperate East Marine Region that are likely to experience a reduction in GVP due to the draft Commonwealth marine reserves network of between $22 000 and $350 000 (see Chapter 3: Flow of potential impacts to ports and supply chains). Since a number of registered fish receivers began operating in NSW, landed catch is no longer exclusively accepted by fishermen’s cooperatives. Therefore, only a proportion of this lost GVP will flow through to fishermen’s cooperatives. Quantifying the flow of lost GVP to cooperatives is difficult without data to attribute the proportion of displaced GVP. The following sections attempt to describe the context and types of impacts that key informants and focus group participants raised in relation to cooperatives, with a particular focus on the cooperatives in Coffs Harbour, Port Stephens and Ulladulla.

How the cooperatives are structured

Cooperatives:

are owned and operated democratically by shareholders

have shareholders who are local commercial fishers

83


are managed in accordance with the New South Wales Cooperatives Act 1992

are dependent on income sourced from commissions of between 5 and 15 per cent of the value of fish processed through the cooperative (handling fees are also charged at some cooperatives).

Several main cooperatives in northern and southern NSW supply a large quantity of seafood to Sydney Fish Markets: Commercial Fish Cooperative (Newcastle), Nelson Bay Cooperative, Wallis Lakes Cooperative (Tuncurry) and Ulladulla Cooperative.

Commercial Fishermen's Cooperative (Newcastle)

The Commercial Fishermen's Cooperative (Newcastle) is one of the largest cooperatives in northern NSW. Its member fishers operate between the Hawkesbury River and Seal Rocks. Members of the Commercial Fishermen's Cooperative hold licences in the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery and the NSW Ocean Trawl, and Ocean Trap and Line Fishery fisheries. The cooperative has a membership of about 120 active commercial fishers, which represents about 80 per cent of the fishers operating in the area (Cooperative manager, pers. comm. 2012). The cooperative employs 50 people and offers a range of services to its members, including providing fuel, ice, gas, cold storage, mooring facilities and transport, and marketing seafood locally or in Sydney. The turnover of the cooperative has been fairly constant at about $8.5million of net landed value over the past few years.

If the draft Commonwealth marine reserves were declared, the estimated annual average GVP lost to the regional centre of Newcastle would be approximately $100 000. Given that most fishers are members of the cooperative, this could translate into a small but noticeable reduction of catch being processed at the Commercial Fishermen's Cooperative (Newcastle). The Newcastle cooperative also receives landed catch from the Gorokan, Tacoma, Swansea, Nelson Bay, Tea Gardens and Bungwahl cooperatives, which could also be affected if their shareholder members are displaced by the draft reserves. Displacement for these towns adds up to an additional estimated annual average GVP of $11 000.

It was difficult for participants to quantify the impact of the draft Commonwealth marine reserves on the cooperative because its member fishers have yet to decide how to respond. However, members and cooperative managers identified a number of potential impacts on the cooperative, including:

less product being landed through the cooperative

reduction in the commissioned income to the cooperative

potential loss of active fishers from the cooperative membership

requirement to pay out exiting fishers for their share holdings (up to $25 000 per member)

potential need to lay-off staff at the cooperative or reduce their working hours

loss of onshore services and infrastructure provided by cooperatives to commercial fishers, recreational vessels and the wider community due to lower income to the cooperative.

Coffs Harbour Fishermen’s Cooperative

The Coffs Harbour Fishermen’s Cooperative in northern NSW has 46 member fishers and employs 8 permanent staff and 40 casual staff. Members of the cooperative who are likely to be displaced hold licences in the NSW Ocean Trap and Line Fishery, and Ocean Trawl fisheries. The GVP displacement to Coffs Harbour was estimated to be $48 000; however, it is not known how

84


much of this would flow through to the cooperative. The fishing fleet at Coffs Harbour has been shrinking over the last 10 years and some co-ops have reportedly closed.

Coffs Harbour focus group participants and interviewees identified potential impacts to the cooperative as:


reduction in the commissioned income to the cooperative

potential loss of active fishers from the cooperative membership

potential need to pay out any exiting fishers of up to $10 000 per member and consequently fishermen having to buy up more of the remaining shares

loss of onshore services and infrastructure provided by the cooperative to commercial fishers, recreational vessels and the wider community due to the lower income to the cooperative.

Ulladulla (and district) Cooperative

The Ulladulla Cooperative in southern NSW has 26 members who hold licences in the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery, the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery and the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery, as well as the NSW Ocean Trap and Line Fishery, and Ocean Trawl fisheries. Membership of the cooperative represents about one-third of the active fishers based in the Ulladulla district (not including licence or quota holders that are not active). The cooperative provides a range of input and output services including weighing, icing and packing, freight, wharfage, store purchases, refuelling, cold storage of product, cold storage of bait, slipping of vessels and ordering goods. The annual turnover of the cooperative was about $6.7million in 2009–10 and $6 million in 2010–11. Around half of the catch is transported to the Sydney Fish Market.

Logbook data analysis estimated that the potential annual average GVP loss to Ulladulla if the draft Commonwealth marine reserves were declared would be about $154 000. Note that potential GVP displacement into the Shoalhaven area (including Ulladulla, Jervis Bay, Nowra and Greenwell Point) was estimated at $504 000, with the portion to Ulladulla or Greenwell Point quite variable depending on the year. As there are a number of separate registered fish receivers operating in Ulladulla and Greenwell Point, not all of this GVP will flow through to the cooperative. The relative reduction in GVP to the cooperative due to the draft marine reserves network will potentially be a loss of 2.7 per cent annual turnover. However, this represents a cumulative loss on top of other historical changes that have impacted the cooperative.

Focus group participants and key informants identified potential impacts of draft Commonwealth marine reserves on the Ulladulla Cooperative (and other cooperatives in the surrounding south coast districts of NSW) as:


reduction in commissioned income to the cooperative

requirement to pay exiting fishers $20 000

need to lay-off staff at the cooperative or reduce their working hours

85

Co-op

Fishers

Less fish coming in Loss of member fishersPay out of shares (co-op loses equity)

Fees/levy increasesInput costs increase (e.g. fuel)Existing and proposed reserves (state/Commonwealth)Structural adjustment 2006–07Reduced access and landed catch

Advertising, sponsorship, services lostLess infrastructure/services to communityCosts go up for co-op members


cumulative impacts of previous changes affecting the district’s cooperatives (i.e. recreational fishing havens, state marine reserves and the Commonwealth Securing Our Fishing Future structural adjustment process in 2006–07)

loss of onshore services and infrastructure used by commercial fishers, smaller boats and recreational vessels

loss of freighting efficiencies by cooperatives in surrounding districts

more effort needed to diversify the cooperative’s income sources (e.g. renting retail shop space and leased tourist moorings).

Cumulative effects of previous changes on cooperatives

Fishermen’s cooperatives have been affected in a cumulative way by a series of resource access changes. This issue was raised in all the Temperate East Marine Region focus groups, but was more apparent in southern NSW. The main previous changes included the establishment of state marine reserves (Bateman’s Bay Marine Park, Solitary Islands Marine Park), which reduced access in 2002, and the Commonwealth Securing Our Fishing Future structural adjustment process, which reduced effort and numbers of vessels in the industry in 2006–07. These changes, when combined with the draft Commonwealth marine reserves, were described as bringing the cooperatives closer to their viability thresholds. The decline in fish throughput and commissioned income, based on descriptions from focus group participants’, is summarised in Figure 17.

Figure 17 Summary of the cooperative/fisher interdependence leading to cumulative impacts (as described by focus group participants)

Focus group participants described how the accumulated impacts on cooperatives could lead to faster decline in smaller towns. Smaller towns rely more heavily on fishermen’s cooperatives for flow-on benefits than do larger regional centres that tend to have a more diverse economic base. For example, the Ulladulla fishermen’s cooperative has a turnover of about $6 million (2010–11). This turnover could be significant relative to the population of 10 301 people (ABS census data, August 2006). If this organisation were to become unviable, the impacts could be considerable, and might include a loss of business activity, infrastructure, services, employment, community identity as a fishing town and the availability of freshly caught local seafood.

86


Case study: Impact of the draft Jervis marine reserve on an individual operator in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Commonwealth Trawl Sector: the importance of JervisThis case study explores the potential impacts of the draft Jervis marine reserve on a fishing business, and why the draft Jervis marine reserve and surrounding region is important to the fishing business. The case study is based on survey information collected from the business, in-depth interviews with the principal director of the fishing business, and the business's submission to SEWPAC for the draft Commonwealth Temperate East Marine Reserves Network and draft Marine Bioregional Plan for the Temperate East Marine Region.

BackgroundThe business has operated in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery—Commonwealth Trawl Sector, out of Ulladulla, Wollongong and Bermagui, since 1999. The business is located in Ulladulla and currently employs 6 full-time staff and 3 casual staff. The business accesses inputs from 11 Ulladulla businesses, as well as individual businesses in Bermagui, Batemans Bay, Nowra, Port Kembla, Wollongong, Varsity Lakes and Mooloolaba. The business lands and transports all product to the Sydney Fish Market.

The Commonwealth Trawl Sector is managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority through the setting of a total allowable catch and a system of individual transferable quotas, as well as input restrictions. The sector was one of the target fisheries of the Securing Our Fishing Future structural adjustment package (2006–07), which substantially reduced the number of vessels.

ABARES estimates indicate that operators in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector in the Jervis Bay region could potentially be displaced by an annual average of 140.6 tonnes of catch, with a gross value of around $511 000, as a result of the draft Jervis Bay marine reserve.

Why the Jervis region is important to the businessThe principal director suggested that the key to the viability of the business is the ability to make good decisions in an uncertain environment. The business must consider a number of factors when deciding where to fish each day (Figure 18).

Change and variability in market conditions can quickly impact the fishing business’s operating environment. This is because fishing businesses are price takers and must respond to the market (Principal director, Ulladulla fishing business, pers. comm., 2012). For example, the business reported that in the last six months flathead prices have fallen due to imports from South Africa and Argentina. This price change makes it uneconomical to target this species at the moment and therefore the business will target other species located in different areas. The business would also catch different species with leased quota, depending on prevailing market prices. The business needs to be flexible to respond to these changes.

87


Figure 18 Decision process for business in deciding where to fish

The draft Jervis marine reserve is an important part of the range of fishing grounds available. Because of the complexity of the factors in decision making (Figure 18), access to a variety of locations suitable for demersal trawling is regarded as imperative to the viability of the business. Although use of the draft Jervis marine reserve fluctuates seasonally, it remains important to fishers year round:

The area within the draft Jervis marine reserve contains a productive trawl ground. In the last three years, the principal director reported that the business has recorded some of its biggest catches in this area (up to 5 tonnes of fish in one shot). Other fishers from the region have also described it as a very productive trawl ground.

The area within the draft Jervis marine reserve is close to Ulladulla and is therefore a very profitable place to fish due to low input costs and a good return.

Ulladulla provides a safe harbour and is the 'home port’ for the business directors and crew. The business director cited that he, his family, his employees and his employees families have a strong attachment to Ulladulla.

88

Quota—amount currently held, availability to purchase and cost

Market prices, supply and demand for different species

Business decides where to fish

Weather conditions—wind direction and storm activity

Marine environment—currents, water temperature and trawl-suitable ground

Time of year – seasonality, species migration and species mix

Knowledge of fishing grounds for species

Fisheries management—limited entry, gear restrictions, area closures, total allowable catch, individual transfer quota and trip limits

Business weighs factors on a day-to-day basis

Input costs—fuel


Ulladulla is close to the Sydney Fish Market, which results in lower transport costs, fresher fish bringing better prices, and the ability for the business to take into account market conditions of supply and demand for daily fishing operations.

The operator knows the area very well, which results in greater efficiency, profitability and safer operation.

Impacts on the business if the draft Jervis marine reserve is declaredThe principal director has estimated that, if declared, the Jervis marine reserve will exclude the business from one-third of its current fishing ground. The principal director estimated that this would result in:

annual reduction of fishing effort by 67 fishing days

annual loss of net profit estimated at $100 000

reduction in self-funded retirement savings

reduced value of currently held licences and quota

reduced ability to service current debt

possible retrenchment of employees that may in turn impact ability to crew and maintain current fishing operations and business viability

reduced ability to maintain the viability of product transport operation

cessation of future plans for business expansion.

The principal director has indicated that if the currently draft Jervis marine reserve is declared the business will remain in the industry and attempt to make up the shortfall. The principle director sees this as the only option because:

fishing is the only job he has done

he values the industry and the role it plays in supplying fish to the Australian public

he wants to pass the business on to his children and maintain his family’s tradition in the industry

the business is important to his employees and their families

the business is economically and culturally important to the Ulladulla community.

The principal director believes that the decision to remain in the fishing industry will result in business and personal impacts, including:

increased time and resources spent looking for alternative fishing grounds

increased competition with other trawl operators

possible changes to gear and fishing methods

increased stress, hours of work and time away from his family.

89


Case study: Sydney Fish MarketsThis case study explores the potential flow of displaced catch to the Sydney Fish Market by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. Information was obtained from focus groups, surveys and interviews with commercial fishers, fishermen’s cooperative (supply chain) managers, and industry and community representatives from Coffs Harbour, Port Stephens, Ulladulla and Bermagui. Additional qualitative data was provided from literature, including the Sydney Fish Market annual report (Sydney Fish Market 2011) and the Australian fisheries statistics (ABARES 2011b).

In general, quantifying the flow of displaced GVP to supply chain businesses was not within the scope of this assessment. However, an exception was made for the Sydney Fish Market because it is a major receiving business for potentially displaced catch, particularly for NSW.

Accurate information on the flow of the estimated potential displaced GVP to the Sydney Fish Market was not available. Therefore, two scenarios of potential flow of GVP displacement to the Sydney Fish Market from the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network were developed that provide a guide to potential impacts but which are not intended to be definitive.

Background to the Sydney Fish MarketSince opening on its current site in 1989, the Sydney Fish Market is reported to have grown to the largest market of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere. Product is sourced from wild-catch fisheries as well as aquaculture, with most from Australian sources. During 2010–11, 14 825 tonnes of product was traded, with total seafood sales equating to $114.8 million. A general upward trend in Sydney Fish Market revenue and selling facilities has been recorded over the last four years; total sales in 2010–11 increased by $6 million or 5.5 per cent from the previous year (Sydney Fish Market 2011).

The Sydney Fish Market employs approximately 57 staff (full-time equivalent) across all areas of operations. Onsite, the Sydney Fish Market hosts six seafood retailers, a bottle shop, fruit and vegetable market, bakery, sushi bar, restaurants, gift shop and delicatessen (Sydney Fish Market 2011).

In 2011, the Sydney Fish Market sourced the majority of product from NSW (55.6 per cent by weight, and 44.6 per cent by value) (Table 15). The proportion of product sourced from other Australian states and territories has been increasing over the last 15 years.

Table 15 Composition of Sydney Fish Market’s supply by jurisdiction (2010–11 quantity traded) Region Weight Value

Tonnes Percent of total $ million Percentage of totalNew South Wales 8 239 55.6 51.2 44.6Domestic (non NSW) 4 881 32.9 46.7 40.7International 1 705 11.5 16.9 14.7Grand total 14 825 114.8Source: Sydney Fish Market 2011

90


Estimating flow of displaced GVP to the Sydney Fish MarketTwo scenarios were developed for the potential interruption of fish supplied to the Sydney Fish Market for sale (not including the other retail businesses within the market) resulting from the potential displacement of fisheries catch and GVP. The first scenario looks at the impacts of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network and the second looks at the balance of the impacts from the draft reserve networks in the other four marine regions (South-west, North-west, North and Coral Sea).

The estimates were developed using the best data and ancillary information available to ABARES, and are intended to provide an illustration of the potential impact to the Sydney Fish Market by the draft Commonwealth marine reserves networks. Enough information is supplied in each case study (notably on the percentage attribution of catch and GVP to the Sydney Fish Market) so that alternative scenarios may be examined.

The following notes and caveats apply to the scenarios:

It is assumed that potentially displaced catch for each of the fisheries by the draft reserves is not made up from the wider fishery area.

It is assumed that at the supply chain level, displaced product attributed to the Sydney Fish Market is not replaced by product from a different source or location.

The estimates are highly sensitive to the proportion of potentially displaced product attributed to the Sydney Fish Market.

Scenario two assumes an even distribution of potential impact regardless of the impact on individual species by the different reserve networks.

Scenario one: Temperate East Marine Region

This scenario relates only to the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. It attributes a percentage of each fisheries total potential displacement (detailed in Chapter 2: Potential displacement of fishing) to the Sydney Fish Market. Table 16 gives the potential displacement of GVP by fishery as well as the percentage allocated to the Sydney Fish Market, allowing the supply interruption to the Sydney Fish Market to be estimated. The percentage allocations were developed from discussions and interviews with potentially impacted fishers, processors and cooperative representatives. Allocation to the Sydney Fish Market ranged from 10 per cent for the Small Pelagic Fishery to 90 per cent for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery—Commonwealth Trawl Sector. Note that these allocations relate to the activities of the impacted fishing businesses and are not intended to be representative of each fishery.

Under this scenario, the potential interruption of supply to the Sydney Fish Market due to the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network was estimated to be $780 600 (Table 16). Most of this is attributable to potential displacement from the Commonwealth Trawl Sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery ($460 800).

91


Table 16 Scenario one: Displacement of gross value of production (GVP) to the Sydney Fish Market from the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Fishery Total potential GVP

displacement ($’000)

Percentage allocated to Sydney Fish Market

Potential displacement to Sydney Fish Market ($'000)

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery 261.7* 35 91.6*

High Seas Fisheriesa 10.2 40 4.1

Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fisheryb

27* 50 13.5*

SESSF Commonwealth Trawl Sector

512.0 90 460.8

SESSF East Coast Deepwater Trawl

* 80 *

SESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector

67.1 85 57.0

Small Pelagic Fishery * 10 *

Ocean Trawl Fishery Fish Trawl Sector

100.6* 50 50.3*

Ocean Trawl Fishery Prawn Trawl Sector

114.0* 50 56.9*

Ocean Trap and Line Fishery 4.4 50 2.2

Total 1191.2 780.6

* = confidential dataa Catch reported for the High Seas Fishery has been retained because although it may represent a misreporting of catch from other fisheries, it is still relevant to potential displacement estimates. b The Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery has been included to remain consistent with the methodology employed by ABARES in the displacement estimates. Note, however, that this was an exploratory fishery that ceased operation in 2003. Note: In some fisheries, only one area is confidential. In these cases, the total does not include the confidential value 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. 2.8*).

Scenario two: other marine regions

This scenario relates only to the potential impact of the draft reserves in the other four marine regions: South-west, North-west, North and Coral Sea. For these regions there is insufficient information to attribute a percentage of each fishery's total potential displacement to the Sydney Fish Market. Most of the potentially displaced GVP in these regions is landed into the adjacent state or territory, and not in NSW.

The approach taken was to determine the percentage of the total production from Australian jurisdictions outside of NSW that passes through the Sydney Fish Market. This percentage was then used to estimate how much of the potential GVP displacement from the other marine regions passes through the Sydney Fish Market.

The Sydney Fish Market sourced $46.7 million of its product from domestic sources outside NSW, which represented 2.36 per cent of the total fisheries and aquaculture production in those jurisdictions. The upper estimate of the potential displacement of GVP for the draft marine reserves in the other four marine regions is approximately $12.5 million. Therefore, under this scenario, the potential interruption of supply to the Sydney Fish Market due to the draft reserve networks in the South-west, North-west, North and Coral Sea regions was estimated to be $294 000 (Table 17).

This scenario assumes that a consistent proportion of product from all fisheries within the regions passes through the Sydney Fish Market; however, this is not likely to occur in practice.

92


Table 17 Scenario two: displacement of gross value of production (GVP) to the Sydney Fish Market from the draft South-west, North-west, North and Coral Sea reserve networks

Sydney Fish Market product($'000)a

Total product ($'000)b

Sydney Fish Market percentage

Potential displacement (upper estimate, $'000)c

Potential displacement to Sydney Fish Market($'000)

Domestic, non-NSW 46 711 1 983 384 2.36 12 477 294

a Source: Sydney Fish Market 2011 b Source: ABARES 2011b c ABARES estimates of potential displacement from draft reserves in the South-west, North-west, North and Coral Sea marine regions.Note: ‘Sydney Fish Market product’ and ‘Total product’ included both wild-caught and aquaculture production.

ConclusionEstimates for the two scenarios may be added together to give an estimated potential interruption of supply to the Sydney Fish Market of $1.07 million due to all five draft Commonwealth reserve networks. This represents 0.9 per cent of the product traded in the Sydney Fish Market in 2010–11. Note that these estimates are intended as a guide to potential impacts on the Sydney Fish Market and are not definitive.

In addition, the Managing Director of the Sydney Fish Market has noted that there may be flow-on effects to its wholesale and retail tenants. If these wholesalers and retailers lose volume, the viability of their businesses may be affected, which in turn will affect their ability to pay rental for their premises to the Sydney Fish Market. This rental is a key component of the Sydney Fish Market’s income (G Turke, Managing Director, Sydney Fish Market, pers. comm., 10 May 2012).

93


Case study: Economic modelling of Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba

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 has been used to estimate the economic effects of establishing the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on two subregions: Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba (Map 11). The Shoalhaven is a local government area that includes Nowra, Jervis Bay, Greenwell Point and Ulladulla (Map 11). These two subregions together account for $0.68 million (or 58 per cent) of the $1.19 million total GVP that would potentially be displaced by the 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 Temperate East Marine Region or further afield.

Map 11 Areas modelled by AusRegion: Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba statistical local areas

ShoalhavenThe Shoalhaven economy accounted for approximately 1 per cent of the NSW economy in 2010–11. The fishing sector (including catching and processing, but excluding retail) accounted for less than 1 per cent of the local economy (Figure 19). Services sectors (including construction, retail and wholesale trade, restaurants and hotels, transport, public services and other services) accounted for 86 per cent of the local economy, with manufacturing accounting for approximately 12 per cent.

94


Figure 19 Structure of the Shoalhaven economy

Fisheries; <1%

Forestry/ agriculture; 1%

Mining; <1%

Manufacturing; 12%

Services; 86%

Source: ABARES, AusRegion

According to the 2006 census, Shoalhaven had a population of around 88 000. The unemployment rate was 9.2 per cent, which was considerably higher than the national unemployment rate at the time of 5.2 per cent.

MooloolabaThe Mooloolaba economy accounted for less than 1 per cent of Queensland’s economy in 2010–11. The fishing sector (including catching and processing, but excluding retail) accounted for approximately 3 per cent of the local economy (Figure 20). Services sectors (including construction, retail and wholesale trade, restaurants and hotels, transport, public services and other services) accounted for 86 per cent of the local economy, a substantial proportion of which is connected with tourism. The manufacturing sector was the next largest sector, accounting for approximately 11 per cent of the local economy.

According to the 2006 census, Mooloolaba had a population of around 30 600. The unemployment rate was 5.3 per cent, which was marginally higher than the national unemployment rate at the time of 5.2 per cent.

95


Figure 20 Structure of the Mooloolaba economy

Fisheries; 3%

Forestry/ agriculture; <1%

Mining; <1%

Manufacturing; 11%

Services; 86%

Source: ABARES, AusRegion

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 to analysing the economic effects on regional fishing communities from the creation of Commonwealth marine reserves. The CGE framework for analysing these effects allows reporting of impacts on key economic variables at the 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 levels. A detailed description of the AusRegion modelling framework is provided in ABARES (2010).

A key strength of CGE analysis is the ability 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 subregional economies. AusRegion also allows user flexibility in terms of the subregions 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 model resulting from the change is then compared with the reference case to show 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-run effects of a given policy change. For the analysis in this report, the temporary effects of the policy change have also been examined. The

96


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 and subregions 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 subregions over time. Over the longer term, however, it is assumed that both capital and labour resources move to sectors and subregions where their productive value is highest. When this occurs, the sector or subregion 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 scenario, while holding other variables constant. As such, these modelling estimates presented here 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 region, 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 experience to find new employment in alternative industries or regions.

does not include threshold effects

- The AusRegion CGE modelling framework cannot predict ‘tipping point’ effects such as the closure of particular processing facilities.

does not include feedback effects

- Two-stage approach is used that involves separately estimating GVP displacement through logbook analyses and uses these results for input into AusRegion. This approach does not allow for any feedback effects between the logbook analyses and the AusRegion model.

97


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, 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) would be free to move to other areas that are not affected by the establishment of marine reserves, in search of higher returns.

Reference case assumption regarding fishery sector growth

ABARES 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 the AusRegion model for establishing the reference case level of fisheries production in the modelled subregions were sourced from the NSW Department of Primary Industries and from ABARES own fisheries databases. Table 18 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 18 Reference case gross value of production projections by jurisdiction ($billion)Jurisdiction 2009–10 2010–11 2015–16 2019–20

NSW 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

NT 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Qld 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5

Tas 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7

SA 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

Vic 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

WA 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6

Total 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 Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network (see Chapter 2: Potential displacement of fishing). The potential displacement of fisheries output represents a 6.3 per cent reduction in the fisheries output of the Shoalhaven subregion and a 0.7 per cent reduction in the fisheries output of the Mooloolaba subregion.

This analysis uses a period of one year (2012–13) to represent short-term economic impacts and eight years (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 Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network 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 areas.

98


The economic modelling did not find impacts at the state or national levels; impacts to these economies are assessed as negligible. The modelled estimated of total potential regional impacts to the 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 regions that were modelled.

The model results are expressed in percentage terms (Table 20). These results demonstrate that the effect on the local economy and local employment is small, with the impact in the Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba subregions estimated as a 0.02 per cent decline in gross regional product (GRP) and a 0.01 per cent decline in employment. These results are consistent with the relatively small share of the fishing industries in the regional economies and the relatively small size of the economic shock in the context of the regional economy. Modelled impacts at the state and national level are negligible 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 19 Short-term (2012–13) model results of the potential impact of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on the economy and employmentEconomic Impact Shoalhaven Mooloolaba

Gross regional product –0.02 –0.02

Gross state product - -

Gross domestic product - -

Employment

Subregion -0.01 –0.01

State/territory - -

National - -

Note: dash (“-“) represents negligible modelled impact (less than 0.005 per cent)

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 Australian 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 20).

The total short term regional economic impact from the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network was estimated to be $1.9 million after scaling the results to account for GVP displacement that occurred outside of the subregions that were modelled. In the short term, the effect on regional employment was estimated to be the loss of 4 full-time equivalent positions. 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 these economies.

GRP in the Shoalhaven subregion is estimated to fall by 0.02 per cent ($0.8 million) relative to the reference case in 2012–13. A smaller dollar effect on GRP is estimated for the Mooloolaba subregion of $0.33 million (0.02 per cent).

In the short term, employment is projected to be slightly lower as a result of the establishment of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. Modelling estimates of a

99


loss of 2 full-time positions in the Shoalhaven subregion, and 1 full-time position in the Mooloolaba subregion were obtained. State and national impacts were assessed as negligible (in the context of the state and national economies).

For the fisheries sector, these job losses are projected to result in 0.01 per cent fewer full-time positions in the Shoalhaven subregion and 0.01 per cent fewer full-time positions in the Mooloolaba subregion.

Table 20 Summary of estimated short-term impacts in 2012–13 in absolute terms Economic impact (2010-11 A$million) Shoalhaven Mooloolaba

Economic shock (displacement) 0.50 0.18




Employment (full-time equivalent jobs)Subregion –2 –1

State/territory - -

National - -

– = negligible modelled impact (less than 0.005 per cent) Notes: Gross regional product refers to the subregion modelled (i.e. the Shoalhaven or Mooloolaba subregion). Calculated employment numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Longer term effects (period to 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 subregions relative to the reference case (Table 22). Long-term changes in the value of production reflect both continued growth assumed to occur in the subregional, state and national economies, and the ability of resources and capital to be redeployed in the economy to its next most productive use.

In 2019–20, under the assumption of full capital and labour mobility, GRP is projected to be 0.02 per cent lower in the Shoalhaven subregion ($1.13 million lower in absolute terms) than in the reference case. In the Mooloolaba subregion, GRP is projected to be 0.02 per cent lower than in the reference case ($0.45 million lower in absolute terms). The results indicate a negligible subregional employment impact in the long term.

Results for impacts on the state and national economies and employment are less than 0.01 per cent. Absolute values for economic and employment impacts have been estimated externally to the model (Table 22).

100


Table 21 Longer-term (2019–20) model results of the potential impact of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on the economy and employment Economic impact Shoalhaven Mooloolaba




Employment

Subregion - -

State/territory - -

National - -

– = negligible modelled impact (less than 0.005 per cent)

In the long term, the total regional economic impact is estimated to be $1.9 million, reflecting the sum of estimated impacts in the Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba subregions, and scaled linearly to account for the proportion of potential GVP displacement not modelled. In 2019–20, total job loss from the draft marine reserves network was assessed as negligible. There are likely to be flow-on impacts to regions outside of the Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba subregions; however changes in economic activity and employment were negligible in terms of the size of those economies and job markets.

Table 22 Summary of long-term economic impacts in 2019–20 in absolute termsEconomic Impact(2010–11 A$million) Shoalhave

nMooloolaba

Economic shock (displacement) 0.50 0.18




Employment (full-time equivalent jobs)Subregion - -

State/territory - -

National - -

Notes: Gross regional product refers to the subregion modelled (i.e. the Shoalhaven or Mooloolaba subregion). Economic and employment impacts at subregional, state and national levels are cumulative and should not be added. Dash (“-“) represents negligible modelled impact.

Concluding commentsThe models demonstrate how the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network is likely to affect economic activity and employment across the selected subregional, state/territory and national economies. 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 Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba subregions in both the short term and the long term.

101


These economic impacts will generally be felt more acutely in affected areas, 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 results and consultation with industry stakeholders suggests that over both the long term and the short term, the reduction in total positions in the fishing sector may be greater than modelled because of the high proportion of part-time positions in the industry (Table 33).

102


7 AppendixesA: Fisheries data processing methodsThe analysis of commercial fishing gross value of production (GVP) within the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network was based on Commonwealth and New South Wales (NSW) state fishers operating in Commonwealth waters. Commonwealth waters extend from 3 nautical miles offshore from the territorial sea baseline 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; SEWPaC 2011) 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 Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.

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), the NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI) and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES).

Fishing methods were included or excluded from the different zones based on the zoning framework provided by SEWPaC (Table 23 and Table 24):

The estimates use data at different spatial reporting scales and have correspondingly different accuracy when assessing displacement of fishing. These estimates are identified in the displacement tables (Table 5 to Table 8).

NSW fisheries report catch aggregated to the cell level (1-degree bands or 6-minute grids). This 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 overlap with the reporting cell. It is assumed that catch is taken uniformly across the area of the reporting cell; however, this may not be the case.

The NSW 6-minute grid data provide the grid catch location where most of the fishing occurred for a given fishing trip. Some of the fishing allocated to a 6-minute grid could have occurred in nearby grids.

Input from fishing industry representatives and NSW DPI was used to refine the analyses, where possible. A number of assumptions were made about calculating GVP and the reference period used. These are discussed below, in ‘Rationale for gross value of production calculations’. Potential displacement estimates are given as annual means spanning up to 10 years. Catches in recent years may have been higher or lower than the mean. For example, the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery was a large fishery in the late 1990s, but fishing effort declined sharply in the 2000s.

This report uses commercial fishery logbook data. These are generally a good reflection of actual catches but are largely unverified. Because 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. For example,

103


pelagic longline operations are assumed to occur in a straight line because only start and end coordinates are recorded in logbooks. In reality, operations are unlikely to occur in a perfectly straight line.

This analysis assumes that dropline, as reported by the relevant data providers, conforms to the specification provided by SEWPaC: ‘a dropline is a line that is vertically set or suspended in the water column; with no more than a single anchor point in contact with the seabed or substrate; and not operated with or as a trotline’.

Estimates of potential displacement do not fully address issues of prospectivity. Fisheries that were productive before the reference period may be productive again. Furthermore, previously unfished areas may have the potential to be productive. These potential catches will not be captured in these GVP displacement estimates.

Estimates of potential displacement may be affected by data confidentiality constraints such that no estimate can be reported for some fisheries. However, the estimates of overall displacement across all fisheries and reserves are not affected by confidentiality constraints.

This analysis assumes fishing is at optimum levels with no scope for further expansion of catch. However, it is possible, where a fishery is displaced by a marine reserve, that fishers may be able to move to alternative fishing grounds and maintain the same level of activity, catch and viability of their operation. This may not be the case in other fisheries, but either way will depend on a number of (potentially interrelated) factors such as economics, distance to port facilities, management arrangements, availability of target species or even the suitability of fishing grounds in adjacent areas.

ConsultationABARES consulted industry and NSW DPI representatives to refine the estimates of potential catch and GVP displacement.

Rationale for gross value of production calculationsThe objective of this analysis is to provide an indication of the potential fishery catch that the draft marine reserves in the Temperate East Marine Region would displace, and to place a value on the displaced catch. As such, the analysis uses a historical reference period to provide an indication of the magnitude of catches from the areas where fishing would be excluded.

To determine annual average catches in the areas of the draft marine reserves, a 10-year reference period (2001–10) was used for Commonwealth fisheries and a 2-year reference period (2009–10) was used for NSW fisheries. In NSW a 2-year reference period was used because higher spatial resolution data was available for this period.

Fishery yields may fluctuate over time, and a 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.

To place a value on the displaced catch, the ‘preferred approach’ was to use more 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 affects would be experienced. In addition, this removes some interannual variability. In all analyses, prices and GVP were adjusted to 2010–11 dollars using the consumer price index. Under this preferred approach, prices were taken from a three-year reference period (2007–08 to 2009–10). GVP was calculated by multiplying the volume of catch recorded in logbooks by the average ‘beach price’.

104


Beach prices exclude the cost of transporting, processing, value-adding and marketing of fish products for wholesale and retail markets. Where no records existed in the price reference period, the most recent year of data was used.

Commonwealth fisheries

1) 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 catch estimates, while the GVP calculations were derived using ABARES-supplied market data. Commonwealth operators also record the 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 longline). 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 marine reserve. Where an operation’s line intersected a marine reserve but did not fall entirely within the reserve, the catch and GVP for that operation were allocated in proportion to the length of line within the marine reserve (Figure 21).

3) Estimates of displaced catch from the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery were adjusted to account for a consistent discrepancy between logbook data, which are estimates, and catch disposal records, which are measured. Logbook data were scaled up on a species-by-species basis, based on the average discrepancy during the period 2006–10 (Campbell 2012).

4) Commercial fishing in the Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery extends back to the 1970s, but has been sporadic and has had variable success; there is currently no commercial fishing in this region. The Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery was an exploratory fishery that operated for three years between 2000 and 2003. AFMA issued two trawl and five demersal-line permits, which excluded the 40 × 67 nautical mile Norfolk Island box. Following review, fishing was discontinued, as only two of the permit holders met the requirements for one fishing trip per year, and none met the required 50 days. Although this fishery is currently not in operation, future fishing arrangements are under review and fishing occurred during the reference period; therefore, displacement estimates have been included for this fishery.

5) GVP was calculated using the preferred approach, where prices were taken from a three-year reference period (2007–08 to 2009–10). GVP was calculated by multiplying the volume of catch recorded in logbooks by the average ‘beach price’. In all analyses, prices and GVP were adjusted to 2010–11 dollars according to the consumer price index.

6) Fishing methods were included or excluded from the different zones based on the zoning framework provided by SEWPaC (Table 23 and Table 24).

7) This report has been filtered so confidential data (representing fewer than five vessels) are not shown.

Figure 21 Treatment of fishing operations (lines) in relation to reserve boundaries

105


Note: The green area represents a marine reserve, and the red lines indicate lines of fishing operations.

Table 23 Commonwealth commercial fishing methods and zoning implicationsMethod (designated by Commonwealth fisheries)

Multiple Use Zone

Recreational Use Zone

Special Purpose Zone

Habitat Protection Zone

Marine National Park Zone

Autolongline Bottom longline Dropline Handline Pelagic longline Minor line Poling Purse seine Rod and reel Trotline Troll Demersal trawl = method would be excluded

New South Wales fisheriesThe NSW DPI provided ABARES with complete NSW commercial fisheries data. These data contained information that identified confidential data (fewer than five vessels) that could not be reported. ABARES, in consultation with the NSW DPI, analysed the data. Some NSW fisheries, such as rock lobster, were excluded because they would not be affected by the draft reserves.

NSW fishers record data in their mandatory logbooks, which can be used to determine where, when and how each species is caught. Fishing positions are recorded at the scale of sites (6-minute reporting blocks) (Map 12). The reference period was 2009–10 to 2010–11. In the analysis:

6-minute reporting blocks were intersected with the draft Commonwealth marine reserves and displacement was estimated according to the proportion of the reporting block that intersected the reserve. This approach assumed fishing was distributed uniformly within the reporting block

estimates of potential displacement for NSW fisheries were derived from operations using excluded methods (Table 24) that intersected with, or were wholly within, a marine reserve. GVP was calculated using 2009–10 price data for the main species caught in each fishery, as supplied by the NSW DPI.

106


Table 24 New South Wales fishing methods and zoning implicationsMethod Multiple

Use ZoneRecreational Use Zone

Special Purpose Zone

Habitat Protection Zone

Marine National Park Zone

Bait net Dropline Danish-seine trawl net (fish) Driftline Fish trap (bottom/demersal) Handline Hauling net (general purpose) Jigging Otter trawl net (fish) Otter trawl net (prawns) Poling Prawn net (hauling) Purse-seine net Spanner crab net Setline (demersal) Setline Trolling Trotline (bottom set) = method would be excluded

107


Map 12 New South Wales state fisheries 6-minute reporting grid systems overlaid on part of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network

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

108


B: Social impact assessment methodsSocial impact assessment (SIA) is a process to assess or estimate, the social consequences that are likely to follow from specific policy actions, including programs, or the adoption of new policies.

Scope of the social impact assessmentThe scope of the SIA is outlined in the Record of Understanding (ROU) provided to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (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 (see ABARES scope of work in Chapter 1). The type of assessment 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 regions. This document reports on the Temperate East Marine Region SIA. The SIA focused on the commercial and charter boat operators that will potentially be displaced by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network and other stakeholders (i.e. operators that fish outside of the marine reserves, supply chain and communities) who will be impacted by displaced fishing activity. Recreational and Indigenous fishers, and any other resource users, were outside the 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 persons 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 approachSocial impact assessment has been increasingly used by decision makers, including both government and private sector organisations, to predict potential consequences of proposed 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.

Core components of SIA are:

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.

To assess the potential impacts of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network, three primary data collection methods were used.

109


Method 1: Survey of commercial fishersA mail-based survey of potentially displaced and impacted commercial fishers in the Temperate East Marine Region was undertaken in January and February 2012.

Survey scope and sampling frame

The 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 all individual fishers and fishing businesses currently holding licences in state and Commonwealth fisheries with a likelihood of being displaced and impacted by the draft Temperate East 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 enumerate all individuals and businesses that would fall within this target population, largely because many of the impacts will take place in the future.

Figure 22 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 Temperate East Marine Region that are potentially displaced and impacted by the draft 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).

110


Figure 22 Relationship among all fishers, target population, survey frame and survey respondents

The primary goal in designing and developing the survey frame was to ensure that the highest number of potentially displaced licence holders would be identified for the survey. As far as possible, potentially displaced fishers were identified using logbook records of catch within the draft reserves (refer to Chapter 2: Potential displacement of fishing).

The survey frame for the target population was developed as described below:

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 in consultation with state and Commonwealth fishery agencies to determine which fisheries would be displaced by the draft Temperate East 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 ABARES with a list of licence holders operating in the identified displaced fisheries.

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority provided a preliminary list of displaced licence holders operating in Commonwealth fisheries. The Temperate East working group reviewed the list and supplemented it with licence holders they believed would be potentially displaced.

The resulting survey frame consisted of 526 licence holders across Commonwealth (91 licence holders) and NSW state fisheries (435 licence holders). The use of Commonwealth and state licensing data and the expert knowledge of the working group in constructing the survey frame

111

ALL COMMERCIAL FISHING LICENCE HOLDERS (state and Commonwealth) operating in the marine region

TARGET POPULATION—all fishing businesses currently holding licences in state and Commonwealth fisheries with a likelihood of being displaced and impacted

SURVEY FRAME—accessible population (n = 526)

SURVEY RESPONDENTS (n = 142)


provide a high level of confidence that the 526 licence holders in the survey frame would cover more than 90 per cent of licence holders in the target population.

Survey error

It is important to understand the types of survey error and bias that are most likely to occur. Error and bias can be introduced at two points in the survey process: in how survey participants are selected and in how survey participants respond to survey questions. Most surveys report the sampling error. However, in many instances this is quite small relative to other sources of error. The main sources of error and bias that need to be considered when interpreting the survey findings are discussed below (following de Leeuw et al. 2008).

Coverage error

Coverage error is the difference between the survey frame and the target population. In this case, the process undertaken to develop the survey frame (described above) gives reasonable confidence that undercoverage was minimised. There was a degree of undercoverage in the survey frame due to the leasing of entitlements to fishing businesses not included in the lists provided by fisheries management agencies.

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 North-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.

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). This means that we did not need to make any inferences to the target population because there is a reasonable probability that our survey frame covered the whole target 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, 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, illiterate)

112


accidental loss of the data or questionnaire.

The overall response rate was 27 per cent (142 out of 526 surveys). Individual non-respondents were not followed up so we cannot determine the non-response error or the characteristics of the non-respondents.

Response error

Cognitive biases can affect survey responses and lead to response error. Some cognitive biases (such as impact bias and bandwagon bias) are more difficult to address because the respondent may wilfully or unintentionally provide inaccurate information. Cognitive biases of this type may be an issue in this study due to the sensitive nature of the study topic and general objection within the fishing industry to the draft Commonwealth marine reserves. It could also be argued that impact bias encouraged valid responses from impacted fishers because those who thought they would be impacted by the draft marine reserves were more likely to provide a survey response.

Measurement error

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.

Measurement error did occur in our survey as follows:

Misinterpretation of methods of fishing permitted in the different zones of marine reserve areas. This was evident in survey responses where individuals believed they were displaced, but in fact were not, based on the fishery they operate in and the marine reserve zonings. We used a post-survey filtering process to ensure these out-of-scope respondents were not included in further analysis of displacement.

Respondents having difficulty interpreting the questions. For example, the ‘safe area’ question in the value mapping section of the survey could be interpreted as a safe area to fish or a safe area to go in bad weather. Such errors were minimised through testing before administering the survey, and remaining errors were factored out through careful analysis and interpretation of the data.

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 Coffs Harbour, Nelson Bay and Ulladulla (Table 25). The location of the focus groups was determined through consultation with the Temperate East working group (Commonwealth and state fishing industry representatives and the SEWPaC Industry Liaison Officer) and reflected where impacts were likely to be greatest.

Table 25 Focus group participantsFocus group location Fishing industry representatives Community representativesCoffs Harbour 6 2Nelson Bay 4 3Ulladulla 8 0Note: Not all invitees attended the focus groups.

113


The key questions asked were:

Which fisheries, related fishing businesses, supply chain businesses and communities are going to potentially be impacted by the draft Commonwealth marine reserves?

What are the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on businesses, individuals and communities?

How will those impacted respond to the change?

Method 3: InterviewsEighteen in-depth interviews were conducted with commercial fishers, charter boat operators and supply chain businesses; 5 interviews were face-to-face and 13 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. Qualitative data was analysed by summarising, sorting and thematically interpreting the information provided by the fishers and community representatives.

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.

114

Exposure Sensitivity

Potential impact Adaptive capacity

Vulnerability


C: Developing an index of community vulnerabilityThis assessment explores community vulnerability to the impacts of the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. The outputs from this study indicate which communities that depend on the consolidated fishing industry for their livelihood 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 A Team Consortium (2004). This model has been widely adopted and is generally accepted by researchers (Johnston & Williamson 2007; Parkins & MacKendrick 2007). In the model, vulnerability (V) is a function of a system’s exposure (E), sensitivity (S) and adaptive capacity (A) (see Figure 23).

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).

Figure 23 Conceptual model of community vulnerability

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

115


Developing the 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, wellbeing and disadvantage (Adger & Vincent 2005; Armitage 2005; Beckley 1998; Brooks & Adger 2004; Burnside 2007; Ellis 2000; Fenton 2005; Herreria 2008; Machlis 1990; Marshall 2007; Nelson et al. 2005; Patriquin 2007; Smit & Wandel 2006; Stenekes 2010; Turton 1999; Yohe & Tol 2002). The approach is therefore theoretical and does not differentiate variables that maybe more relevant at a local level in identifying factors that influence vulnerability. Table 24 provides the indicators used in this assessment to measure the component concepts of the vulnerability model.

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 26 presents the indicators, data items and the geographical scale used to measure the sub-index of sensitivity and the sub-index of adaptive capacity. All data used in this study are derived from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)—namely, the Census of Population and Housing 2006, Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas (SEIFA) and Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) 2001.

Table 26 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 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 et al. 2008). For this study, neutral weightings of 1.0 were used 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 gross value of production (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 26), which was standardised based on the distribution of values for the SLAs of interest within the marine region.

116


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 marine bioregion. 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 26.

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 a index score of 0 indicates the lowest rank of vulnerability.

Data used in this study is derived from the ABS—namely, the Census of Population and Housing 1996 and 2006, SEIFA and ARIA 2001. In addition to these datasets, an index of economic diversity was constructed from ABS data.

Caveats and limitationsA number of general caveats and limitations are relevant to the interpretation of the community 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. 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.

117


Other index definitionsSEIFA Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage

The 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.

ARIA: Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia

The ABS defines the underlying the 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.

The 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 workforce. 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.

118


D: Estimating job reduction using the surveyThe survey was used to estimate the potential jobs lost from the surveyed businesses as a result of the draft Temperate East 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 of the wider commercial fisher population in the Temperate East Marine Region (see also B: Social impact assessment methods). The estimates are also based on each surveyed business's prediction about how they would respond to the draft Temperate East marine reserves.

For each respondent, potential job loss was calculated as a percentage reduction in their reported numbers of employees. The percentage reduction was dependent 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 27). For example, if a respondent stated that they had 10 full-time employees, would 'continue operating with reduced catch or downsize operation' and strongly agreed that they would reduce employees, following Table 27, there would be a 30 per cent reduction in employees for that business resulting in three job losses.

Table 27 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

27 10

Continue operating with reduced catch or downsize operation 67 0

Leave the fishing industry 50 100

Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers’ values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

119


E: Profile of survey respondentsThis appendix provides background and profile information on the survey respondents.

FisheriesThe most common licences held by respondents were:

New South Wales Ocean Trap and Line Fishery (57.7 per cent)

New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery (35.9per cent)

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (14.8 per cent)

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark—Commonwealth Trawl Sector (13.3 per cent).

Table 28 Licences held and used by survey respondents in 2010–11Fishery Percentage of

respondents with a licence

Percentage of respondents who used

their licenceCommonwealthEastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery 14.8 7.0Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery—Commonwealth Trawl Sector

13.4 7.7

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark—Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sectors

6.3 2.8

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery—East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector

7.0 1.4

Small Pelagic 3.5 1.4Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery

0.0 0.0

New South WalesOcean Trap and Line Fishery 57.7 18.3Ocean Trawl Fishery 35.9 9.9Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

Fishing methodThe most common fishing methods used by survey respondents were handline/rod and reel, demersal trawl, dropline and demersal longline. Respondent could use more than one method.

Table 29 Fishing methodsMethod Percentage of

respondentsDemersal trawl 38.7Gillnet (demersal) 5.6Gillnet (pelagic) 2.1Gillnet (set mesh nets) 8.5Dropline (fished vertically with single anchor point) 37.3Demersal longline (including set [fixed] dropline, demersal autolongline and bottom-set trotline)

29.6

Pelagic longline 9.9Handline/rod and reel 50.0Squid jig 6.3Purse seine 5.6Danish seine 2.8Fish trap 33.1Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

120


Fishing history Survey respondents had been working in the commercial fishing industry for 30 years

(median); the longest time in the industry was 65 years.

Nearly 65 per cent of respondents had been working in commercial fishing for more than 25 years.

Fishing businesses had been operating for 30 years (median) and the longest time of operation was 65 years.

More than 60 per cent of businesses had been operating for 20 years or more.

Table 30 Fishing historyMedian Minimum Maximum

Years worked in commercial fishing 30 3 65

Years fishing business has been operating 25 1 115


Fishing business structure Most businesses operated as sole traders (41.3 per cent) or were family partnerships

(40.6 per cent). There were also a large proportion of incorporated companies (15.2 per cent) among the businesses.

Table 31 Fishing business structureStructure Percentage of

respondentsSole trader 41.3Family partnership 40.6Other partnership 2.9Incorporated company 15.2Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

Business activities Almost all the businesses included fishing operations (99.3 per cent). However, some

businesses also undertook other supply chain–related activities such as processing (14.2 per cent), wholesale/distribution (16.3 per cent) and retail (12 per cent).

Some business also engaged in leasing licences (17 per cent).

Table 32 Business activitiesActivity Percentage of

respondentsFishing 99.3Processing 14.2Wholesale/distribution 16.3Retail 12.1Export 7.1Input supply 4.3Leasing licences 17.0Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

121


Fishing business employees

Each surveyed business employed an average of four paid workers and one unpaid worker.

The most common employment type was full-time paid (mean 2.33), followed by casual paid and part-time paid.

Table 33 Fishing business employeesEmployment type Mea

nMaximum

Full-time paid 2.33 25

Full-time unpaid 0.40 5

Part-time paid 0.55 12

Part-time unpaid 0.26 6

Casual paid 0.84 20

Casual unpaid 0.16 10

Seasonal full-time paid 0.13 5

Seasonal full-time unpaid 0.02 2

Seasonal part-time paid 0.12 4

Seasonal part-time unpaid 0.06 3

Seasonal casual paid 0.17 10

Seasonal casual unpaid 0.03 2


Value of total landed catch Most business reported values of landed catch at either $100 001–250 000 (26.4 per cent) or

less than $50 000 (22.1 per cent).

Table 34 Value of landed catch in 2010–11Value Percentage of respondentsLess than $50,000 22.1$50 001–100 000 16.4$100 001–250,000 26.4$250 001–500,000 12.1$500 001–1 million

12.9

$1–2.5 million 7.1$2.5–5 million 2.1$5–10 million 0.7Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

Fishing income dependence 30.2 per cent of respondents received income from other sources than fishing.

79.7 per cent of respondents received over 90 per cent of personal income from fishing.

49.3 per cent of respondents planned to hand the business to their children.

122


Figure 24 Proportion of income from fishing

5 10 25 30 35 40 50 60 66 80 90 95 96 98 99 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

What proportion of your personal income is from fishing related employment?What proportion of your household income is derived from the fishing business?

P e r c e n t a g e o f r e s p o n d e n ts

Percentage income from fishing


Level of formal education Most respondents reported having technical/TAFE/trade qualifications (34.1 per cent).

Figure 25 Respondents' highest level of formal education

No formal s

chooling

Primary

school

Some secondary

Year 1

0/form

4

Year 1

2/Form

6

Technical

/TAFE/

trade

Universit

y degr

ee

Postgrad

uate unive

rsity d

egree

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Perce

ntag

e of r

e-

spon

dent

s


123


Number of dependents Most respondents reported that they had between one to three dependents (80.4 per cent).

Figure 26 Reported number of dependents

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 11 180

5

10

15

20

25

30

Perc

enta

ge o

f esp

onde

nts

Number of dependents


124


F: Summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities.Table 35 summarises a range of information that is useful in assessing the potential impacts of the draft Temperate East 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 B: Social impact assessment methods). 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.

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.

125


Table 35 Summary information of flow of impacts, supply chain, demographics and vulnerability under the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves NetworkData source Logbook ABARES

Town Population geography GVP d

ispla

ced (

$'00

0 poi

nt)

Hom

e por

t

Num

ber

of p

oten

tial

ly

impac

ted in

put

busi

nes

ses

Num

ber

of p

oten

tial

ly

impac

ted o

utp

ut

busi

nes

ses

Vuln

erab

ilit

y in

dex

Fish

ing

indust

ry

emplo

ymen

t (%

of

tota

l em

plo

ymen

t)

SEIF

A in

dex

of r

elat

ive

dis

adva

nta

ge

Econ

omic

div

ersi

ty

index

AR

IA r

emot

enes

s in

dex

Med

ian h

ouse

hol

d

inco

me

($/w

eek)

Pop

ula

tion

Apollo Bay Colac-Otway (S) - South 0.74 6 0.58 1 709 3 373

Bairnsdale E. Gippsland (S) - Bairnsdale 1 0.62 3 0.95 2 645 25 367

Ballina Ballina (A) 0.5 1 17 3 0.27 0.22 5 0.95 1 779 38 462

Batemans Bay Eurobodalla (A) 0.0 1 0.49 0.76 3 0.89 1 632 35 014

Bermagui Bega Valley (A) 0.0 1 25 1 0.59 1.50 4 0.87 2 697 31 062

Bowen Bowen (S) 0.76 2 0.40 2 826 12 381

Brisbane Brisbane (statistical division) 0.7 34 0.00 0.13 7 0.91 0 1192 1 763 124

Brooms Head Clarence Valley (A) - Coast 0.1 0.52 2.58 3 0.88 1 608 19 425

Brunswick Heads Byron (A) 0.12 5 0.91 1 738 28 768

Bundaberg Bundaberg (statistical subdivision) 12 1 0.42 4 0.93 1 735 59 774

Bungwahl Great Lakes (A) 5 1.56 3 0.88 1 611 32 760

Byron Bay Byron (A) 0.12 5 0.91 1 738 28 768

Caboolture Caboolture (S) - Central 1 0.13 2 0.97 0 764 18 271

Cairns Cairns City Part A (statistical subdivision) 1 0.39 6 0.88 2 1050 122 736

Clarence Lithgow (C) 0.00 2 0.54 1 738 19 760

Coffs Harbour Coffs Harbour (C) - Pt A 48.0 5 63 3 0.40 0.29 3 0.92 1 714 47 709

Crescent Head Kempsey (A) 0.38 2 0.93 2 614 27 385

Devonport Devonport (C) 1 7 1 0.66 2 0.96 1 692 24 015

Eden Bega Valley (A) 0.1 1 14 2 0.59 1.50 4 0.87 2 697 31 062

Evans Head Richmond Valley (A) Bal 1 0.27 2 0.69 1 682 10 811

Forster Great Lakes (A) 143.3 3 18 5 0.56 1.56 3 0.88 1 611 32 760

Gladstone Gladstone (C) 1 6 1 0.23 6 0.83 1 1189 29 083

Gold Coast Gold Coast (statistical division) 5 0.11 7 0.87 0 1019 482 326

Survey Census

126


Data source Logbook ABARES

Town Population geography GVP

dis

pla

ced

($'

000

poi

nt)

Hom

e p

ort

Num

ber

of p

oten

tial

ly

impac

ted in

put

busi

nes

ses

Num

ber

of p

oten

tial

ly

impac

ted o

utp

ut

busi

nes

ses

Vu

lner

abil

ity

ind

ex

Fish

ing

ind

ust

ry

emplo

ymen

t (%

of

tota

l em

plo

ymen

t)

SEIF

A in

dex

of

rela

tive

dis

adva

nta

ge

Econ

omic

div

ersi

ty

index

AR

IA r

emot

enes

s in

dex

Med

ian

hou

seh

old

inco

me

($/w

eek)

Pop

ula

tion

Gosford Gosford (C) - West 1 5 1 0.06 5 1.00 0 889 92 819

Grafton Clarence Valley (A) - Grafton 5 0.12 2 0.95 1 669 22 811

Greenwell Point Shoalhaven (C) - Pt B 350.7 5 18 4 1.00 0.32 4 0.95 1 626 1 277

Gympie Cooloola (S) - Gympie only 4 0.05 2 0.96 1 716 16 449

Hat Head Kempsey (A) 0.38 2 0.93 2 614 27 385

Hervey Bay Hervey Bay (C) - Pt A 3 15 5 0.60 3 0.89 1 655 48 155

Hobart Greater Hobart (statistical division) 1.1 1 0.38 0.59 5 0.88 1 884 200 516

Huskisson Shoalhaven (C) - Pt B 0.3 1 0.36 0.32 4 0.95 1 626 57 450

Iluka Clarence Valley (A) - Coast 37.9 3 20 3 0.56 2.58 3 0.88 1 608 19 425

Jervis Bay Shoalhaven (C) - Pt B 0.0 21 0.36 0.32 4 0.95 1 626 57 450

Kempsey Kempsey (A) 2 0.38 2 0.93 2 614 27 385

Kiama Kiama (A) 0.0 0.05 0.04 9 0.94 1 1052 18 982

Lake Macquarie Lake Macquarie (C) - West 0.0 0.11 0.04 5 0.95 0 840 51 103

Lakes Entrance E. Gippsland (S) - Bairnsdale 1.6 1 11 1 0.51 0.62 3 0.95 2 645 25 367

Launceston Launceston (C)-Inner + Launceston (C)-Pt B 1 0.11 5 0.78 1 811 59 446

Mackay Mackay (C) - Pt A 0.10 6 0.71 1 1144 72 847

Maclean Clarence Valley (A) - Coast 12 2 2.58 3 0.88 1 608 19 425

Maitland Maitland (C) 1 0.02 5 0.93 0 1025 61 882

Maroochydore Maroochy (S) - Mooloolaba + Caloundra (C) - Kawana 3 0.60 7 0.88 0 935 30 563

Maryborough Maryborough (C) 3 0.21 2 0.95 1 677 25 702

Melbourne Melbourne (statistical division) 3 1 0.05 7 0.89 0 1133 3 592 580

Mooloolaba Maroochy (S)-Mooloolaba + Caloundra (C)-Kawana 214.4 4 51 6 0.20 0.60 7 0.88 0 935 30 563

Moruya Eurobodalla (A) 0.0 0.49 0.76 3 0.89 1 632 35 014

Mount Gambier Mount Gambier (C) 1 0.26 3 0.91 1 814 23 494

Survey Census

127


Data source Logbook ABARES

Town Population geography GV

P d

isp

lace

d (

$'00

0 p

oin

t)

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

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

Nambour Maroochy (S) - Nambour 1 0.11 3 0.93 1 728 13 278

Nambucca Heads Nambucca (A) 0.2 0.64 0.17 2 0.91 2 562 17 895

Newcastle Newcastle (C) - Inner City 65.4 5 48 3 0.12 0.07 4 0.96 0 902 48 065

Nowra Shoalhaven (C) - Pt A 7 0.08 3 0.91 1 776 30 952

Port Kembla Wollongong (C) Bal 2 9 1 0.05 4 0.98 0 968 90 362

Port Lincoln Port Lincoln (C) 2 1 12.03 3 0.78 3 821 13 603

Port Macquarie Hastings (A) - Pt A 5.9 1 21 2 0.50 0.33 5 0.83 1 707 39 508

Port Stephens Port Stephens (A) 65.4 4 0.22 0.66 5 0.97 1 830 60 486

Portland Glenelg (S) - Portland 0.2 0.64 1.32 3 0.83 2 833 10 370

Queenscliffe Queenscliffe (B) 0.0 0.31 0.55 8 0.86 1 811 3 018

Rainbow Beach Cooloola (S) (excl. Gympie) 1 0.69 3 0.71 1 676 19 618

Salamander Bay Port Stephens (A) 3.6 1 25 3 0.21 0.66 5 0.97 1 830 60 486

Sandon Clarence Valley (A) - Coast 1 2.58 3 0.88 1 608 19 425

Scotts Head Nambucca (A) 0.17 2 0.91 2 562 17 895

Seal Rocks Great Lakes (A) 1 2 1 1.56 3 0.88 1 611 32 760

South West Rocks Kempsey (A) 22.9 3 22 1 0.59 0.38 2 0.93 2 614 27 385

Sydney Sydney (statistical division) 57.1 4 35 2 0.05 0.04 7 0.88 0 1255 4 119 169

Torquay Surf Coast (S) - East 1 0.06 9 0.96 1 1134 13 197

Townsville Northern (statistical division) 5 1 0.08 4 0.53 2 914 53 344

Tweed Heads Tweed (A) - Tweed-Heads 3.5 1 0.36 0.38 3 0.89 0 656 50 453

Ulladulla Shoalhaven (C) - Pt B 153.7 5 45 4 0.39 0.32 4 0.95 1 626 10 301

Wollongong Wollongong (C) - Inner 9.8 24 2 0.08 0.05 5 0.96 0 903 93 846

Woy Woy Gosford (C) - West 1 0.06 5 1.00 0 889 92 819

Wyong Wyong (A) - South and West 0.08 4 0.98 0 829 67 613

Yamba Clarence Valley (A) - Coast 1 20 1 2.58 3 0.88 1 608 19 425

Survey Census

A = areas; ARIA = Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia; C = city; GVP = gross value of production; S = shire; SEIFA =Socio-Economic Indexes For Area. 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: statistical division or Statistical sub-division is used for Brisbane, Cairns, Darwin, Perth, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Hobart, Townsville, Cairns and Gold Coast; urban centre / locality is used for Ulladulla and Greenwell Point. 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. This global scaling approach enables comparison of ranked scores across the two GVP scenarios.

128


8 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, Australian commodity statistics 2010, 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, Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve: social and economic assessment of the impacts on commercial and charter fishing. ABARES report to client prepared for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABARES 2012c, South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network: social and economic assessment of the impacts on commercial and charter fishing. ABARES report to client prepared for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

Adger, WN & Vincent, K 2005, ‘Uncertainty in adaptive capacity’, Comptes Rendus Geoscience, vol. 337, pp. 399–410.

AFMA 2010, Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Management Plan 2010, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.

AFMA 2012, Pelagic Longline (website), Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra: available at: http://www.afma.gov.au/resource-centre/teachers-and-students/about-fishing-methods-and-devices/longlines/pelagic-longline/, last accessed 22 February 2012.

Allen Consulting (2005) Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability. Canberra: Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, Department of the Environment and Heritage.

Anon. 2006, Socio-economic assessment of the Port Stephens – Great Lakes Marine Park, NSW Marine Parks Authority, viewed 14 June 20102, <www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pdf/psglmp-socio-economic-report.pdf>.

Armitage, D 2005, ‘Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management’, Environmental Management, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 703–715.

129

http://www.afma.gov.au/resource-centre/teachers-and-students/about-fishing-methods-and-devices/longlines/pelagic-longline/

http://www.afma.gov.au/resource-centre/teachers-and-students/about-fishing-methods-and-devices/longlines/pelagic-longline/


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.

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.

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.

Beeton, RJS, Buxton, CD, Cutbush, GC, Fairweather, PG, Johnston, EL & Ryan, R 2012, Report of the Independent Scientific Audit of Marine Parks in New South Wales, NSW Department of Primary Industries and Office of Environment and Heritage, New South Wales.

Campbell, R 2012, Comparison of logbook and catch-disposal-record catch data for the ETBF, Advice to ABARES (unpublished), March.

de Leeuw, ED, Hox, JJ & Dillman, DA 2008, International handbook of survey methodology, Taylor & Francis Group, New York.

DEWHA 2009, The East Marine Bioregional Plan: Bioregional Profile—a description of the ecosystems, conservation values and uses of the East Marine Region, Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

Ellis, F (ed.) 2000, Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Fenton, M 2005, Guidebook on social impact assessment, prepared for the Comprehensive Coastal Assessment (Department of Planning) by Environment and Behaviour Consultants, Townsville.

Fairweather, PG, Buxton, CD & Robinson, J 2009, Marine park science—an independent review, report prepared for the Marine Parks Advisory Council, NSW.

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 on water for agriculture and social resilience, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

IUCN 2008, Guidelines for applying protected area management categories, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

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.

Koopman, M, Hudson, R, Knuckey, I & Leck, I 2009, SESSF Industry Development Subprogram: field trials of a high-lift trawl net for bycatch reduction, AFMA Project 2007/039,. Fishwell Consulting, Queenscliff.

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.

130


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.

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.

PFA 2012, 'Industry submission on the Temperate East Marine Region', Professional Fishermen’s Association of NSW.

Rowling K, Hegarty, A & Ives, M (eds) 2010, Status of fisheries resources in NSW 2008–09, Industry and Investment NSW, Cronulla.

Schröter, D & The ATEAM Consortium 2004, Global change vulnerability: assessing the European human–environment system, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, viewed 10 May 2012, <http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/workshops/other_meetings/application/pdf/schroeter.pdf>.

SEWPaC 2011a, Marine bioregional plan for the Temperate Marine Region: draft for Consultation, Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

SEWPaC 2011b, Proposal for the Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network: consultation paper, Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.

SEWPaC 2011c, Proposal for the Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network: consultation paper, Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, viewed 14 June 2012, <http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/publications/east/index.html>.

Smit, B & Wandel, J 2006, ‘Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability’, Global Environmental Change, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 282–292.

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.

Sydney Fish Market 2011, Sydney Fish Market annual report 2011, Sydney Fish Market, Sydney.

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.

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.

131


Yohe, G & Tol, RSJ 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.

132

Supplementary report: Temperate East Marine Region social and economic assessment—ABARES

Supplementary report: Final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposalAs part of the Marine Bioregional Planning process, the Australian Government, through the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC; the lead government agency) revised the proposal for the Temperate East 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 proposed reserves.

This supplementary report provides, where possible, a comparative analysis of the changes to the potential social and economic impacts between the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal released for public comment in November 2011 (SEWPaC 2011b) and the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves released on 14 June 2012. ABARES was not able to undertake additional consultation (surveys or interviews) with commercial fishing businesses for the supplementary assessment due to timing constraints.

133


Overview Broadly, the potential impact of the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal remains small relative to the magnitude of fisheries in the region, and is substantially reduced when compared with the draft marine reserves network.

The final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal would potentially displace an annual average of 89.1 tonnes of catch with a gross value of $559 300. Of this, $334 000 would be displaced from Commonwealth fisheries and $225 300 from New South Wales fisheries (Table S1). These potential displacements represent a small proportion (0.3 per cent) of the collective fisheries GVP from potentially impacted fisheries ($177.7 million: $143.9 million from Commonwealth fisheries and $33.8 million from New South Wales fisheries). These values are the totals for the potentially impacted fisheries in each jurisdiction and are not adjusted to account only for fishing in the Temperate East Marine Region.

In absolute terms, the greatest potential GVP displacement for Commonwealth fisheries occurs in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery ($248 000 GVP; 0.6 per cent of fishery GVP) and the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector ($43 300; 0.2 per cent). The most impacted New South Wales fishery in terms of GVP potentially displaced would be the Prawn Trawl Sector of the Ocean Trawl Fishery ($113 990*; 0.9* per cent, confidential data has not been reported).

Overall, the potential displacement from the final proposed network was 53 per cent less GVP than the draft network (from $1.2 million under the draft network, to $559 300 under the final proposed network). This reduction in impact is largely due to a reduced impact on the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Gillnet—Commonwealth Trawl Sector (from $512 000 to $3800) as well as a reduced impact to New South Wales fisheries ($303 400 to $228 300). Overall, the potential displacement from the final proposed network was 62 per cent less for Commonwealth fisheries and 26 per cent less for New South Wales fisheries compared with the draft network (Table S1).

The final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal removed potential impacts on the Small Pelagic Fishery, and no additional fisheries would be impacted. The largest reductions in GVP displacement occurred in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Commonwealth Trawl Sector (99 per cent decrease), the New South Wales Ocean Trap and Line Fishery (43 per cent), and the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector (35 per cent). The Fish Trawl Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery also reduced considerably, although estimates are confidential.

There may be cumulative impacts to some of the fisheries identified in the Temperate East Marine Region from final proposed marine reserves networks in other marine regions. This includes additional displacement by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal to the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector (BARES 2012c). There is also substantial potential displacement of the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery from the final Coral Sea Marine Reserve (ABARES 2012b).

The final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal will potentially impact 22 ports/towns through flow of displaced GVP; the primarily locations being Mooloolaba, Forster, Coffs Harbour, Newcastle and Port Stephens (in descending order). Key changes in the flow of GVP to ports under the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal include the substantial reductions in potentially displaced GVP estimated for Greenwell Point, Ulladulla, Forster, Newcastle and Sydney (in descending order). An increase in potential

134


displacement under the final proposed network was identified in Jervis Bay, followed by Port Stephens, Mooloolaba, Salamander Bay and Coffs Harbour (in descending order).

Cumulative impacts may occur to towns identified in the Temperate East Marine Region from displaced flow of GVP from other draft marine reserves networks. Importantly, cumulative impacts to Mooloolaba from the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve (ABARES 2012b) are likely to be substantial.

Mooloolaba was identified as having the highest level of exposure, based on the GVP displaced per capita, which increased 4 per cent under the final network ($222 900; $7.29 per capita). Overall, Mooloolaba has a relatively high level of adaptive capacity to ameliorate the impacts brought about by the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal due to a high degree of economic diversity, moderately high weekly household income, a relative lack of socioeconomic disadvantage and being located in a highly populated area.

Assuming the results of the economic modelling scale linearly with the magnitude of the impact, the final marine reserves network is expected to result in a decline in regional economic activity of $0.9 million in the short term and displace 2 jobs in directly affected regions. There are likely to be flow-on impacts on other regions; however, changes in economic activity and employment at the state and national levels are negligible in terms of those economies and job markets.

The nature of potential direct and secondary impacts and issues, exacerbating impacts arising from the final network, are likely to be broadly similar to those identified for the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.

The case studies for the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network were re-examined under the final network. No further consultation (surveys or interviews) with impacted fishers or interviewees was possible for this purpose. However, likely changes in displacement estimates, flow to ports and discussion of likely changes in impacts from the final network is provided. The impacts previously described in two of the case studies (Case study: Prospective fishing in the Deepwater Prawn Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery and Case study: Impact of the draft Jervis marine reserve on an individual operator in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Commonwealth Trawl Sector: the importance of Jervis) are likely to have been mitigated or eliminated under the final network. Although a lessening of the impacts, or a reduced scale of impact, is expected for the remaining case studies, the underlying impacts are likely to be broadly similar.

Changes to the Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network The changes to the draft reserves network are summarised in Table S0 and illustrated in Map S1.

The zones for the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal are:

Marine National Park Zone (green)—all fishing excluded (no change from the draft network)

Habitat Protection Zone (yellow)—purse seine, dropline, handline, rod/reel and hand collection permitted, all other methods excluded (revised from the draft network)

Habitat Protection Zone-Lord Howe (yellow hashed)— handline, rod/reel, hand collection and pot/trap permitted, all other methods excluded (revised from special purpose zone in the draft network, no change to allowable activities in this area)

135


Recreational Use Zone (orange)—recreational fishing permitted, all commercial fishing excluded (no change from the draft network)

Multiple Use Zone (light blue)—demersal trawl, demersal gillnet and demersal longline excluded (no change from the draft network).

Special Purpose Zone (mid-blue)—gillnetting excluded, all other methods permitted (new zoning from the draft network)

Table S0 Differences between the draft and final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposalsMarine Reserves (previous ABARES area number)

Final proposed network

Jervis (401) Area number: 401 - 402Boundaries: No change to outer boundaryArea: No change to total area, change to two zone typesZoning: Introduction of a Special Purpose Zone from the western extent of the marine reserve to the 500 fathom / 1 000m depth contour. Special Purpose Zone (IUCN VI) - 508 km2 (area 401) and Multiple Use Zone (IUCN VI) – 1 965 km2 (area 402)

Hunter (402) Area number: 403 - 404Boundaries: Northern boundary moved south and southern boundary extended south.Area: Increase area of reserve across shelf and increase area in southern part of reserve. 65% increase (3 782 km2 to 6 257 km2)Zoning: Introduction of a Special Purpose Zone from the western extent of the marine reserve to meet state waters. This zone extends east to the 500 fathom / 1000 m depth contour. Special Purpose Zone (IUCN VI) – 1 739 km2 (area 403) and Multiple Use Zone (IUCN VI) – 4 518 km2 (area 404)

Cod Grounds (403) Area number: 405 Boundaries: No change. Area: No change. Zoning: No change.

Solitary Islands Pimpernel Rock (404)

Area number: 406 Boundaries: No change. Area: No change. Zoning: No change.

Clarence (405) Area number: 407 Boundaries: Revision to boundaries extension of western boundary as a result of amendments to Tasmantid reserve. The western boundary connects to the amended Tasmantid reserve. Area: 28% increase (7 714 km2 to 9 878 km2). Zoning: No change.

Tasmantid (406 and 407)

Area number: 408 to 410 Boundaries: Revision of the reserve boundaries: removal of some area (area 406) to east and west and an extension north to include Queensland and Brittania seamounts.Area: 29% reduction (84 346 km2 to 60 176 km2) Zoning: Change of zone type from Marine National Park to Habitat Protection over the southern-most Barcoo and Taupo seamounts (Area 410). This zone extends north to meet the Derwent Hunter seamount. Change to Marine National Park Zone (IUCN II) over Derwent Hunter seamount (area 409). Inclusion of Queensland and Brittania seamounts in a Habitat Protection Zone (IUCN IV) (area 408).

136


Marine Reserves (previous ABARES area number)

Final proposed network

Lord Howe (408 to 414) Area number: 411 to 416 Boundaries: No change. Area: No change (110 139 km2) Zoning: Change the Multiple Use Zone (IUCN VI) west of Lord Howe Island to Habitat Protection Zone (IUCN IV), change narrow strip of Marine National Park Zone (IUCN II) east of Lord Howe Island and a name change in the same area from Special Purpose Zone (IUCN VI) to Habitat Protection Zone – Lord Howe (IUCN IV). Recreational Use Zone (area 415) category is changed from IUCN VI to IUCN IV.

Gifford (415) Area number: 417 Boundaries: Extension of north boundary to Exclusive Economic Zone boundary. Area: 63% increase (3 580 km2 to 5 828 km2)Zoning: No change.

Norfolk (416 to 417) Area number: 418 to 420 Boundaries: Extension to the boundary east of Norfolk Island to become a new Habitat Protection Zone (IUCN IV) (area 419) and extension to the south-eastern extent of the Multiple Use Zone (area 418).Area: 19% increase (158 923 km2 to 188 443 km2)Zoning: Introduction of new zone east of Norfolk Island (Habitat Protection Zone (IUCN IV).

Note: ABARES area numbers refer to the draft and final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal (Map S1). Data source: Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

137


Map S0 Temperate East Marine Region draft (released November 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserves networks

Note: The ABARES area numbering is different between the networks due to the addition of new zoning in the final proposed network. Map compiled by ABARES, April 2012; projection: geographic, GDA94. Data sources: Marine reserve boundaries from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; coastline and bathymetry from Geoscience Australia

138


Potential displacement of fishing

Commercial fishing The final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal is estimated to displace an annual average of 89.1 tonnes of catch and $559 300 GVP across all fisheries operating in the Temperate East Marine Region (Table S1). Of this, $334 000 would be displaced from Commonwealth fisheries and $225 300 from New South Wales fisheries. The largest potential impacts of the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal occur in the Norfolk, Hunter and Clarence marine reserves (Table S5 to Table S8).

For comparison, the total annual average GVP of the potentially impacted fisheries for the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal is $177.7 million: $143.9 million for Commonwealth fisheries and $33.8 million for New South Wales fisheries. The potential displacement represents a small proportion (0.31 per cent) of the collective fisheries GVP from potentially impacted 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 Temperate East Marine Region.

The largest absolute potential displacement in terms of catch and GVP occurs in the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery ($248 000, representing 0.61 per cent of total annual average fishery value). The next most impacted fishery absolute terms is the Prawn Trawl Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery (greater than $114 000, representing 0.85 per cent of total annual average fishery value).

In percentage terms, the greatest potential impacts occurred in the Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery (51 per cent of total annual average fishery GVP). However, this was an exploratory fishery that ceased operation in 2003, but it operated during the reference period and has therefore been included (for details on inclusion of this fishery in these estimates refer to the Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods; Commonwealth fisheries).

The final proposed network represents a reduction from $1.2 million (annual average GVP) under the draft network, to $559 300 under the final proposed network. This is a reduction of 53 per cent in the potential annual average GVP displacement overall, comprised of a 62.2 per cent decrease for Commonwealth fisheries and a 25.8 per cent decrease in the potential displacement of New South Wales fisheries (Table S1).

The final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal would impact two New South Wales fisheries and six Commonwealth fisheries. Potential impacts to the Small Pelagic Fishery are removed and no additional fisheries would be impacted. Under the final proposed network, a decrease in potentially displaced catch and GVP was identified for all fisheries.

The largest reductions in GVP displacement occurred in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Commonwealth Trawl Sector (from $512 000 to $3800, a 99.2 per cent decrease), the New South Wales Ocean Trap and Line Fishery (42.7 per cent decrease) and the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector (35.4 per cent decrease). The demersal fish trawl Sector of the NSW Ocean Trawl Fishery also reduced considerably, although estimates are confidential.

139


Table S1 Comparison of estimates of catch and gross value of production (GVP) potentially displaced by the draft (released November 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserve networks in the Temperate East Marine Region

Total catch (tonnes) Total GVP ($’000)

Fishery Draft Final proposed Draft Final proposed Absolute change Percentage change

Commonwealth

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery 43.6* 43.4 261.7* 248.0 * Reduced

High Seas Fisheries 1.4 1.3 10.2 10.0 –0.2 –2.2

Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery 5.3* 5.3* 27* 27* * No change

SESSF Commonwealth Trawl Sector 140.9 1.1 512.0 3.8 –508.3 –99.3

SESSF East Coast Deepwater Trawl * * * * * No change

SESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector 10.3 6.9 67.1 43.3 –23.7 –35.4

Small Pelagic Fishery * * * Removed

Commonwealth fisheries total 205.2 58.5 883.4 334.0 –549.4 –62.2

New South Wales

Ocean Trawl Fishery Fish Trawl Sector 25.0* * 100.6* * * Reduced

Ocean Trawl Fishery Prawn Trawl Sector 12.3* 12.3* 114.0* 114.0* * Reduced

Ocean Trap and Line Fishery 0.8 0.5 4.4 2.5 –1.9 –42.7

NSW fisheries total 49.0 30.7 303.4 225.3 –78.2 –25.8

Grand total 254.2 89.1 1186.8 559.3 –632.0 –53.1

Note: Commonwealth estimates have are based on shot-by-shot position data (latitude and longitude high accuracy). New South Wales estimates are based on 6-minute grids (medium accuracy) with a reference period of 2009–10 to 2010–11. Estimates are mean annual for the reference period. 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 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. 2.8*). Total displacement for each jurisdiction is not affected by confidentiality. As such, in cases where no percentage change in GVP can be provided, as it would allow the confidential displacement to be back-calculated, a description of the change has been included: no change, increase or decrease. The grand total calculations include all data and are not affected by confidentiality.

140


Links to other marine regions-fisheries

There may be cumulative impacts to some of the fisheries identified in the Temperate East Marine Region from the final marine reserves proposals in other marine regions. This includes additional displacement by the final South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal to the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector (35.4 tonnes*; $199 700* GVP; ABARES 2012c). There is also substantial potential displacement in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery from the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve (627.4 tonnes and $3.6 million; ABARES 2012b).

Prospective fisheriesAssessment of the draft marine reserves noted potential impacts to prospective fishing, some of which may have been mitigated and some of which remains following the revisions. The zoning of the inshore area of the Hunter marine reserve (area 403) to allow demersal trawl should mitigate prospective fishing impacts identified for the Prawn Trawl Sector of the NSW Ocean Trawl Fishery (see Case study: Prospective fishing in the Deepwater Prawn Sector of the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery). Impacts to the value of fishing entitlements were also identified as a potential issue in some fisheries. However, this impact is difficult to quantify, and is beyond the scope of this report.

Flow of potential impacts to portsThe final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal will potentially impact 22 towns through flow of displaced GVP; the highest potentially displaced GVP is associated with Mooloolaba, Forster, Coffs Harbour, Newcastle and Port Stephens (in descending order; Table S2).

Key changes in the flow of GVP to ports under the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal include the removal of eight potentially impacted ports and substantial reductions in the potential displaced GVP estimated for Greenwell Point (decrease from $350 670 to $460), Ulladulla ($153 740 to $1020), Forster ($143 300 to $74 240), Newcastle ($65 440 to $41 270) and Sydney ($57 080 to $15 800) (Table S2). There were small increases in potential displacement under the final proposed network identified in Jervis Bay, Mooloolaba and Coffs Harbour (Table S2).

141


Table S2 Comparison of estimates of flow of potentially displaced gross value of production (GVP) by the draft and final proposed Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserve Networks Port Total displaced GVP ($’000)

Draft Final proposed

Absolute change

Ballina 0.49 0.49 0.00

Batemans Bay 0.03 Removed

Bermagui 0.04 Removed

Brisbane 0.68 0.24 –0.44

Brooms Head 0.06 0.07 0.01

Byron Bay 0.01 New

Coffs Harbour 48.05 54.03 5.98

Eden 0.09 0.04 –0.05

Forster 143.30 74.24 –69.06

Greenwell Point 350.67 0.46 –350.21

Hobart 1.10 Removed

Huskisson 0.25 Removed

Iluka 37.95 37.95 0.00

Jervis Bay 0.00 26.77 26.76

Kiama 0.01 Removed

Lake Macquarie 0.05 0.05 0.00

Lakes Entrance 1.64 Removed

Mooloolaba 214.42 222.88 8.46

Moruya 0.03 Removed

Nambucca Heads 0.20 0.20 0.00

Newcastle 65.44 41.27 –24.17

Port Macquarie 5.87 4.33 –1.55

Port Stephens 65.44 41.27 –24.17

Portland 0.20 0.09 –0.11

Queenscliffe 0.04 Removed

Salamander Bay 3.64 11.77 8.13

142


South West Rocks 22.95 22.95 0.00

Sydney 57.08 15.80 –41.28

Tweed Heads 3.51 3.49 –0.02

Ulladulla 153.74 1.02 –152.73

Wollongong 9.76 Removed

Town and local area summary There are three towns/cities with a potential flow of GVP impact greater than $50 000 per year (Table S3). In descending order of impact, these were Mooloolaba, Forster and Coffs Harbour. The GVP displaced per capita was less than $20 in these communities.

Table S3 Community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity—final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal

SENSITIVITY

Town Population geography

GVP displaced

($'000 point)

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

disadvantage

MooloolabaMaroochy (S)-Mooloolaba + Caloundra (C)-Kawana 222.9 30 563 7.3 0.60 0.88 0 935 7

Forster Great Lakes (A) 74.2 32 760 2.3 1.56 0.88 1 611 3

Coffs Harbour Coffs Harbour (C) - Pt A 54.0 47 709 1.1 0.29 0.92 1 714 3

EXPOSURE ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

A = areas; ARIA = Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia; C = city; 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 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.

Mooloolaba

There has been a 3.95 per cent increase in the estimate of GVP displacement to Mooloolaba under the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. The potentially displaced GVP linked to Mooloolaba was $222 880 based on the final proposed network. In terms of how this may flow through to the Mooloolaba community via the supply chain, survey results identified 51 upstream businesses and 6 downstream businesses that may be impacted. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Mooloolaba is $7.29, which is below the $20 per capita criterion. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the statistical local areas (SLA) of Maroochy (shire; S) and Caloundra (city; C)–Kawana, which represent Mooloolaba, have relatively low levels of employment in the commercial fishing industry (0.6 per cent). Mooloolaba is not considered disadvantaged (Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas [SEIFA] decile ranking of 7); it has a high level of economic diversity (0.88), a moderate median household income ($935.53 per week average), is not located in a remote area (Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia [ARIA] 0) and has a relatively large population (population for the SLAs was 30 563 in 2006). Overall, Mooloolaba can be classed as having a relatively high capacity to adapt to ameliorate the impacts brought about by the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal.

143


Forster

Under the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal, the estimated GVP displacement for Forster has decreased 48.2 per cent. The potentially displaced GVP linked to Forster was $74 240 based on the final proposed network. In terms of how this may flow through to the Forster community via the supply chain, survey results identified 18 upstream businesses and 5 downstream businesses that may be impacted. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Forster is $2.27, which is below the $20 per capita criterion. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Forster has relatively moderate levels of employment in the commercial fishing industry (1.56 per cent), compared with other towns in the Temperate East Marine Region. Forster is classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (SEIFA decile ranking of 3); it has a high level of economic diversity (0.88), a low median household income ($611.20 per week average), is not located in a remote area (ARIA 1) and has a relatively large population (population for the SLA was 32 760 in 2006). Overall, it is predicted that Forster will have a moderate capacity to adapt to the changes brought about by the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal.

Coffs Harbour

Under the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal, the estimated GVP displacement for Coffs Harbour has increased 12.4 per cent. The GVP linked to Coffs Harbour was $54 030 based on the final proposed network. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita is $1.13, which is below the $20 per capita criterion. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLA of Coffs Harbour has low levels of employment in the fishing industry (0.29 per cent) relative to other areas with displaced GVP. Coffs Harbour is classed as being socioeconomically disadvantaged (SEIFA score of 3); it has a high economic diversity (0.92), a moderate median household income ($714.10 per week), is classified as inner regional (ARIA 1) and has a relatively large population (population for the SLA was 47 709 in 2006). Overall, it is predicted that Coffs Harbour will have a moderate capacity to adapt to the changes brought about by the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal.

Links to other marine regions-towns and local areas

Cumulative impacts may occur to towns identified in the Temperate East Marine Region from GVP displaced from other final marine reserves networks proposals. The most substantial is the cumulative impacts to Mooloolaba from the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve ($1.3 million; ABARES 2012b).

Economic impact and employmentNo new economic modelling was undertaken for the final proposed network. However, it is reasonable to expect 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 $0.9 million in the short term and would result in the loss of 2 jobs (Table S4) 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 those economies and job markets

Table S4 Comparison of the short-term net economic impact and job losses between the draft and final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal

Draft Final proposed

Net regional economic impact ($ million) 1.9 0.9

Regional job loss (full-time equivalent) 4 2

144


Fishing business impactsABARES has not undertaken further consultation (surveys or interviews) with potentially displaced or impacted businesses based on the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. Survey and interview data collected previously were specific to the draft network, and are not necessarily directly applicable to the final proposed network.

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. 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—potential increased pressure on fish stocks and non-target species outside of the draft marine reserves; increased travel time to fishing grounds; increased fuel costs; increased conflict with other fishers; increased time spent looking for new fishing grounds; increased safety issues from fishing in adverse weather conditions; and devaluing of licences, quota and capital resulting from increased uncertainty

industry-wide impacts on future development of fishing (noting that some fisheries are perceived to be underdeveloped)—increased business risk; reduced access to finance; devaluation of licences, quota and capital; and possibly losses from investment in future development plans

broader issues that exacerbate potential impacts—competition from imported fish, prices received for product, exchange rates, input costs, difficulty in accessing labour and changes to fisheries management(including state and territory marine parks)

cumulative impacts resulting from the final Temperate East Marine Resaves Network combined with the impact from the NSW state marine reserves and recent changes in fishery management.

Personal and community impactsABARES has not undertaken further consultation (surveys or interviews) with potentially displaced or impacted businesses based on the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. Survey and interview data collected previously were specific to the draft network, and are not applicable to the final proposed network.

The personal impacts identified in the assessment of the draft network are likely to be analogous to those for the final network. Personal impacts that could be applicable to individuals under the final proposed network include:

loss of current income source

loss of future income source, including superannuation

increased personal and family stress

increased work hours

decreased personal time and quality of life

145


decreased time spent with family.

Impacts to communities where fishing and other related business are located that were identified under the draft network are likely to be analogous to those under the final proposed network—noting the substantial decline in GVP impacts linked to some communities (Table S2). Community impacts were centred around the reliance of regional centres on the fishing sector for employment, the link between commercial fishing and other economic activities, such as tourism, and development opportunities both within the fishery and the community.

Case studiesSix case studies were presented in the main report. The likely changes to circumstances identified in the case studies are discussed here, noting that no further consultation (surveys or interviews) occurred following the final proposed network.


Industry representatives and individual fishers highlighted concerns about the cumulative impacts of Commonwealth marine reserves, in addition to already reduced access through the NSW state marine park process, with particular reference to the draft Commonwealth Hunter marine reserve (draft network area 402; Table S1; Map S1). Most of these concerns should be ameliorated under the final proposed network with the introduction of an inshore area allowing all fishing methods (final proposed network area 403; Table S1; Map S1). However, many businesses owners noted the issue of 'tipping points' with regard to the additional impact of the Commonwealth marine reserve process and this may still be a concern for some operators.

Concern over the cumulative impacts for the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery are likely to remain under the final proposed network. Estimates of potential displacement of the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery are slightly reduced under the final proposed network; however, the degree of cumulative impacts to the fishery will be contingent on the volume of displacement by the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve (714.3 tonnes and $3.97 million; ABARES 2012b).

Prospective fishing in the Deepwater Prawn Sector of the NSW Ocean Trawl Fishery

Revisions to the inshore component of the draft Hunter marine reserve (draft network area 402; Table S1; Map S1) to allow demersal trawl (area 403 under the final proposed network; Table S1; Map S1) are likely to have mitigated much of the impact on prospective fishing in the Deepwater Prawn Sector of the NSW Ocean Trawl Fishery. Revised zoning in the final proposed network should allow continued access to some of the most important grounds for royal red prawns, which were highlighted by the operator and industry in this case study.


The 53 per cent reduction in the total potential displacement under the final proposed network should have ameliorated some of the impacts on the NSW fishermen’s cooperatives. However, there is still the potential that cooperative members may exit the industry as a result of the final proposed network, which will impact the capacity of the cooperatives to operate and offer members the associated benefits. Although the potential impacts of the Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network are lessened under the final proposed network, the range of other factors (besides marine reserves) negatively impacting cooperatives are still present. Potential impacts under the final proposed network are likely to remain, particularly for smaller towns with cooperatives.

146


Impact of the draft Jervis Marine Reserve on an individual operator in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Commonwealth Trawl Sector: the importance of Jervis

Revisions to the inshore component of the draft Jervis marine reserve (allowing demersal trawl, final proposed network area 401; Table S1; Map S1) should have mitigated most of the impacts highlighted by the operator in this case study.

Sydney Fish Market

An overall reduction in the total potentially displaced GVP under the final proposed networks for all marine regions will have lessened the potential interruption of supply to the Sydney Fish Market. Following the methodology developed in the case study, the potential interruption of supply was recalculated for both scenarios.

Under scenario one (relating only to the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal) the 53 per cent reduction in the total potentially displaced GVP will have directly lessened the potential interruption of supply to the Sydney Fish Market. The flow of potentially displaced GVP to the Sydney Fish Market is estimated to have been reduced to $258 700 (a 66.9 per cent reduction compared with the draft network).

Estimates for scenario two (relating to interruption of supply due to the reserve networks in the other four marine regions) are assumed to scale linearly with the 15.3 per cent reduction in total potentially displaced GVP under all final proposed networks (from $ 12.5 million to $10.6 million). Under this assumption the flow of potentially displaced GVP to the Sydney Fish Market from other regions is estimated to have been reduced to $249 000.

Estimates for the two scenarios may be added together to give an estimated potential interruption of supply to the Sydney Fish Market of $ 507 498 due to all five final proposed Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposals (a 52.8 per cent reduction compared with the draft network). Note that these estimates are intended as a guide to potential impacts on the Sydney Fish Market and are not definitive.

Economic modelling of Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba

Economic modelling was used to assess the potential impact of the draft marine reserves network on the Shoalhaven and Mooloolaba subregions. Assuming the impact on the economy and employment scales linearly with the magnitude of the impact, the net regional economic impact of the final proposed network was estimated to be $0.9 million, with the loss of 2 jobs nationally in the short term.

Summary tables for the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposalTables S6 – S9 provide estimates of catch and GVP potential displacement for each reserve area, fishery and jurisdiction for the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal. No additional fisheries were impacted by the final proposed marine reserves network. Table S9 provides updated summary information on flow of impact to communities and community demographic information.

147

Supplementary report: Temperate East Marine Region Social and Economic Assessment—ABARES

Table S5 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced by the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10 reference periodCatch (tonnes)

Jerv

is

Hu

nte

r

Tas

man

tid

Gif

ford

Nor

folk

Total

% of total fishery catch

Fishery 402 404 408 409 410 412 413 415 416 417 418 420

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery 10.5 2.7 2.6 0.2 4.2 23.3 43.4 0.6

High Seas Fisheries * * * * * * 1.3 <0.1Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery 5.3 * 5.3* 59.0

SESSF Commonwealth Trawl Sector 1.0 * * 1.1 <0.1

SESSF East Coast Deepwater Trawl * * * *

SESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector * 3.8 1.0 * * * 6.9 0.2

Total 1.0 * *14.2

* 1.4 2.7 2.6 0.2 6.4 * 5.9 23.3* 58.5 0.2

Marine National Park Recreational Use Zone Habitat Protection Zone Habitat Protection Zone - Lord Howe Multiple Use Zone

* = confidential dataNote: Commonwealth estimates have are based on shot-by-shot position data (latitude and longitude high accuracy), estimates are mean annual for the reference period. 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 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. 2.8*). Total displacement for each jurisdiction is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the final proposed marine reserves network or used incompatible methods for zoning are not included in the table. For explanation of the methodology used to estimate potential displacement, caveats and limitations of the data, see Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods.

148


Table S6 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production (GVP) displaced by the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10 reference periodGVP ($'000)

Jerv

is

Hu

nte

r

Tas

man

tid

Gif

ford

Nor

folk Total % of

total fishery GVPFishery 402 404 408 409 410 412 413 415 416 417 418 420

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery 55.4 15.9 15.0 1.3 24.4 136.1 248.0 0.6

High Seas Fisheries * * * * * * 10.0 0.2Norfolk Island Offshore Demersal Finfish Fishery 27.0 * 27* 51.2

SESSF Commonwealth Trawl Sector 3.5 * * 3.8 <0.1

SESSF East Coast Deepwater Trawl * * * *

SESSF Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector * 22.6 7.4 * * * 43.3 0.2

Total 3.5 * * 78*10.

415.

915.

0 1.3 38.0 * 31.1 136.1* 334.0 0.2

Marine National Park Recreational Use Zone Habitat Protection Zone Habitat Protection Zone - Lord Howe Multiple Use Zone

* = confidential dataNote: Commonwealth estimates have are based on shot-by-shot position data (latitude and longitude high accuracy), estimates are mean annual for the reference period. 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 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. 2.8*). Total displacement for each jurisdiction is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the final proposed marine reserves network or used incompatible methods for zoning are not included in the table. For explanation of the methodology used to estimate potential displacement, caveats and limitations of the data, see Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods.

149


Table S7 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced by the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from New South Wales fisheries over the 2009–10 to 2010–11 reference period

Catch (tonnes)

Jervis HunterCod Grounds


TOTAL

% of total fishery catchFishery 402 404 405 406 407

Ocean Trawl (fish trawl) * * * *

Ocean Trawl (prawn trawl) * 0.02 12.3 12.3* 0.7Ocean Trap and Line Fishery * * * 0.01 * 0.6 <0.1

Total * * * 0.03 12.3* 30.7 0.6

Marine National Park Zone Multiple Use Zone

* = confidential data Note: New South Wales estimates are based on 6-minute grids (medium accuracy) with a reference period of 2009–10 to 2010–11, estimates are mean annual for the reference period. 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 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. 2.8*). Total displacement for each jurisdiction is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the final proposed marine reserves network or used incompatible methods for zoning are not included in the table. For explanation of the methodology used to estimate potential displacement, caveats and limitations of the data, see Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods.

Table S8 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production (GVP) displaced by the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal from New South Wales fisheries over the 2008–10 reference period

GVP ($'000)

Jervis HunterCod Grounds


TOTAL

% of total fishery catchFishery 402 404 405 406 407

Ocean Trawl (fish trawl) * * * *

Ocean Trawl (prawn trawl) * 0.16 113.8 114.0* 0.9

Ocean Trap and Line Fishery * * * 0.06 * 2.5 <0.1

Total * * * 0.22 113.8* 225.3 0.7

Marine National Park Zone Multiple Use Zone

* = confidential data Note: New South Wales estimates are based on 6-minute grids (medium accuracy) with a reference period of 2009–10 to 2010–11, estimates are mean annual for the reference period. 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 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. 2.8*). Total displacement for each jurisdiction is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the final proposed marine reserves network or used incompatible methods for zoning are not included in the table. For explanation of the methodology used to estimate potential displacement, caveats and limitations of the data, see Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods.

150


Summary information on flow of impacts and demographics of communities

Table S9 Updated summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities for towns identified under the final Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposalData source Logbook ABARES

Town Population geography GV

P d

isp

lace

d (

$'00

0 p

oin

t)

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

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

Ballina Ballina (A) 0.5 1 17 3 0.27 0.22 5 0.95 1 779 38 462

Brisbane Brisbane (statistical division) 0.2 34 0.00 0.13 7 0.91 0 1192 1 763 124

Brooms Head Clarence Valley (A) - Coast 0.1 0.52 2.58 3 0.88 1 608 19 425

Byron Bay Byron (A) 0.0 0.35 0.12 5 0.91 1 738 28 768

Coffs Harbour Coffs Harbour (C) - Pt A 54.0 5 63 3 0.40 0.29 3 0.92 1 714 47 709

Eden Bega Valley (A) 0.0 1 14 2 0.59 1.50 4 0.87 2 697 31 062

Forster Great Lakes (A) 74.2 3 18 5 0.54 1.56 3 0.88 1 611 32 760

Greenwell Point Shoalhaven (C) - Pt B 0.5 5 18 4 0.36 0.32 4 0.95 1 626 57 450

Iluka Clarence Valley (A) - Coast 37.9 3 20 3 0.56 2.58 3 0.88 1 608 19 425

Jervis Bay Shoalhaven (C) - Pt B 26.8 21 0.36 0.32 4 0.95 1 626 57 450

Lake Macquarie Lake Macquarie (C) - West 0.0 0.11 0.04 5 0.95 0 840 51 103

Mooloolaba Maroochy (S)-Mooloolaba + Caloundra (C)-Kawana 222.9 4 51 6 0.20 0.60 7 0.88 0 935 30 563

Nambucca Heads Nambucca (A) 0.2 0.64 0.17 2 0.91 2 562 17 895

Newcastle Newcastle (C) - Inner City 41.3 5 48 3 0.12 0.07 4 0.96 0 902 48 065

Port Macquarie Hastings (A) - Pt A 4.3 1 21 2 0.50 0.33 5 0.83 1 707 39 508

Port Stephens Port Stephens (A) 41.3 4 0.22 0.66 5 0.97 1 830 60 486

Portland Glenelg (S) - Portland 0.1 0.64 1.32 3 0.83 2 833 10 370

Salamander Bay/Nelson BayPort Stephens (A) 11.8 1 25 3 0.21 0.66 5 0.97 1 830 60 486

South West Rocks Kempsey (A) 23.0 3 22 1 0.59 0.38 2 0.93 2 614 27 385

Sydney Sydney (statistical division) 15.8 4 35 2 0.05 0.04 7 0.88 0 1255 4 119 169

Tweed Heads Tweed (A) - Tweed-Heads 3.5 1 0.36 0.38 3 0.89 0 656 50 453

Ulladulla Shoalhaven (C) - Pt B 1.0 5 45 4 0.36 0.32 4 0.95 1 626 57 450

Survey Census

A = areas; ARIA = Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia; C = city; GVP = gross value of production; S = shire; SEIFA =Socio-Economic Indexes For Area Note: The 'traffic light' indicators for each variable follow the logic of green being a positive measure through to red being a negative measure for a given variable. Indicators are based on a variables measure within the distribution of scores for all localities that have a GVP displacement. Population statistics from the Australian Bureau of 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. The vulnerability index is calculated on the draft and final GVP scenarios for all impacted towns in the region. This global scaling approach enables comparison of ranked scores across the two GVP scenarios.

151

Documents

Environment - Main findings for the draft network (released ... · Web viewIt also includes the waters surrounding Lord Howe and Norfolk islands. Commonwealth waters extend from 3