National Social and Economic Survey of Recreational Fishers 2019
Currently there is a lack of national scale, consistent and robust data on the motivations and behaviours of recreational fishers, and lack of robust data on the social and economic contribution of recreational fishing. Where many commercial fisheries have regular collection and estimation process for economic data, this is not the case for recreational fishing in most of Australia. This lack of data also includes behaviour and motivations and how they are changing. These data are useful for informing discussions on resource allocation and in understanding and managing recreational fisheries more generally. If these data are to be used to inform governments and the general public, there is a need to make sure it is collected in a robust way that is representative of the Australian population. Large scale representative data sets are often expensive to acquire and as a result do not get undertaken regularly. One off surveys only provide useful data for any particular point in time, but understanding trends can often be more useful. This study aims to implement and test methodologies to provide a robust and representative sample, while trying to reduce costs to allow for more regular data gathering. To do this requires addressing another need: that of testing new survey methodologies for collecting data from recreational fishers that enables assessment of social and economic contribution. Recreational fishing surveys traditionally use probability based phone or mail surveys, however both methods are experiencing rapid decline in response rates and representativeness. It is expected that going into the future, online surveys that use a range of appropriate recruitment methods will be the most common survey method. There is a need to invest in establishing robust approaches to using these methods, and in understanding how their findings differ to those of traditional probability based surveys.
Final report
- The purpose/objectives of data collection
- Data collection methods, including design of survey instruments and survey recruitment materials, survey sample recruitment methods and sample achieved
- Data processing methods, including data coding and cleaning, and weighting methods.
Project products
Recreational fishing and human wellbeing: insights from existing data and development of best practice approaches to future measurement
This project is needed as there are knowledge gaps about the effect of recreational fishing on the health and wellbeing of recreational fishers. Recent years have seen many claims about the health and wellbeing benefits of recreational fishing, as well as growing interest in nature connection and outdoor recreation as wellbeing interventions more generally. Measuring and valuing the wellbeing benefits of recreational fishing is not currently possible due to a lack of evidence, and limited methods for monitoring, measuring and reporting wellbeing effects. The FRDC’s RD&E Plan 2015-20 aims by 2020 to have robust community net benefit metrics that enable measurement of the benefits of fishing. This project will develop robust metrics related to health and wellbeing benefits of recreational fishing. Achieving this requires better understanding both (i) whether and under what circumstances engaging in recreational fishing has measurable impacts on health and wellbeing, and (ii) how to measure these benefits to produce readily accessible and understandable metrics. This will help achieve the FRDC’s national research strategy deliverable ‘Social contribution is supported by the fishing and aquaculture sector so it can capture the non-monetary value of activities across sectors.’ This work will also contribute to national science and research priorities in the health field, specifically the priority ‘Build healthy and resilient communities throughout Australia by developing … preventative strategies to improve physical and mental well-being’ (http://www.science.gov.au/scienceGov/ScienceAndResearchPriorities/Pages/Health.aspx). Nationally, this research priority aims to develop strategies for supporting wellbeing. This project contributes by identifying the role recreational fishing can play in building healthy and resilient communities through supporting physical and mental wellbeing. This research will also contribute to the overarching aims of Australia’s rural research, development and extension strategy, which include ‘develop a range of technologies and knowledge to contribute to healthy Australian lifestyles’ (http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/ag-food/innovation2/nsrrdip-investment-plan1.pdf)
NCCP: the likely medium- to long-term ecological outcomes of major carp population reductions
NCCP: Building community support for carp control: understanding community and stakeholder attitudes and assessing social effects
Development of a fisheries stream in a new an innovative online course in environmental statistics offered by the University of Canberra
Statistics is an indispensable tool in modern research. All involved in research and development require some grounding in statistics, whether it be to design and implement a research program and analyse the results, or to properly evaluate the published results of others, or to assess the promise of a proposal put forward for funding.
Fisheries management is grounded in science, and good science requires an underpinning of sound experimental design, sampling and statistical analysis. There is a need to increase the base level of competency in statistics at the workplace and for all levels of people involved particularly in the developing countries, and in so doing, provide support for the research effort that underpins the management of our fisheries resources.
A coordinated commercial fishing industry approach to the use of marine protected areas
The numerous government initiatives related to resource access, mentioned in the Background to this application have, in the main, been prepared by groups of professionals working for months or years with the support of considerable government infrastructure. This is appropriate for issues of such significance. What is not appropriate is that draft policies are headed for finalisation without due input from the group most effected, the fishing industry.
The industry will of course respond most positively to proposals for conservation and management of resources which lead to greater certainty for healthy and prosperous fisheries resources and ecosystems which support them. But, to do so, all levels of industry need to understand the principles of these proposals and be convinced of the merit of the logic which underpins them. For issues as fundamental as access to fishing grounds extensive and intensive consultation and debate must be anticipated. For peak bodies to coordinate the compliance and support necessary for the cost-effective implementation of new management strategies the great majority of fishers must back the initiatives. For a new national initiative such as NRSMPA industry must be coordinated nationally.
Support from the majority of fishers will be dependent upon clear and unambiguous answers to questions which currently cloud understanding of the efficacy of using MPA’s as resource conservation and allocation tools.
Questions which researchers, and many resource managers would like answered include:
How do we accommodate series of isolated, closed areas within the broader context of the total ecosystem management (Total Catchment Management) necessary for efficient and cost effective resource conservation, utilisation and allocation?
Is the restriction of access by groups primarily a resource allocation (fisheries management by AFMA or State agencies) issue or biodiversity conservation (Environment Australia)?
What are the implications for further utilisation of the multiple-use model of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) for which Australia has received international acclaim?
Questions to which industry must have answers in order to deliver orderly harvest of our seafood resources include:
Is concern over access to protected areas (resource access) being confused by industry and Government with security of long-term access to maximum sustainable yields (resource security)?
Is the principle of (maximum) economic efficiency (AFMA) compromised by restriction of access to areas (MPA) closed for reasons other than efficient yield management?
Questions which industry itself must address if it is to fully understand the principles and then provide full support to the design, implementation, monitoring and adaptive management of a national system of MPA’s include:
What contribution can industry make to the selection of areas which justify categorisation as representative, or which may need some form of protection for other purposes? Can an area which is unique (such as the one spawning or nesting area) be “representative”? If not is there also a need for a series of “unique protected areas”?
What protection is required for each of these areas and what impact will such measures have on current and future seafood supplies and on activities of the fishing industry?
Will industry be required to meet totally, or contribute to, enforcement or other management costs associated with protected areas?
What data and/or other assistance can industry provide to help assess the effectiveness of protection, and the impact of protection on the ecosystem?
What measures are necessary within the industry to ensure understanding by all of the role of MPA’s, and to engender full cooperation and support for the appropriate use of MPA’s?
The numerous state and national peak bodies do not all have permanent staff with training and expertise to respond immediately and appropriately to the numerous Government initiatives which affect resource security and allocation. When shifts in Government policy are likely industry is compelled to employ consultants or submit project proposals to potential funding sources, such as FRDC. The latter process normally results in more considered and more professional outputs and therefore better quality advice to industry, but unfortunately requires several months lead time for submission of applications and often years to complete the task. Therefore with an issue as fundamental as the principles of access to areas of resource distribution, it is essential to take a national approach and to be given time to prepare a considered and positive response which has the support of at least the majority of fishers.
Access to the resource is of fundamental concern to both commercial and recreational users of this resource; the principles of restricted access to areas as a conservation or management tool are relevant to both groups. The common interest is acknowledged, however this project has arisen directly from state and national peak commercial industry bodies and has been designed to specifically assess policy impacts on commercial industries. It is proposed that the project proceed with commercial industry focus until at least the end of first year, at which time a major milestone report is envisaged. This would allow FRDC to consult with recreational fishing interests and then, if appropriate, negotiate including additional recreational perspectives with the Steering Committee.
Final report
Government agencies, NGO’s and local and international conservation groups are increasingly advocating the use of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) for the conservation and management of Australia’s oceanic and estuarine resources. In December 1998, the Australian Commonwealth Government launched its Oceans Policy, which included as a key component the acceleration of the establishment of a National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA).
For industry to effectively and appropriately respond to a new national initiative such as the development of the NRSMPA requires a national approach. However, State, Territory and national peak industry bodies do not always have the required resources and expertise to develop a national approach. One of the major aims of the project was to assist industry in developing a nation-wide uniform understanding of, and consistent response to, the principles and tools used in developing MPAs in order to promote its participation in the process. This requires first identification and acknowledgement of industry’s needs and concerns.
Assessing Australia's future resource requirements to the Year 2020 and beyond: strategic options for fisheries
As shown in Figures 1 and 2 world human population growth is increasing at the greatest rate in history, but fisheries production has stagnated or declined since 1990. The oceans can produce only marginally more than they do at present. Demand for fisheries resources continues to increase, perhaps even faster than population growth as the culinary and health advantages of seafoods are being increasingly realised.
Australia has no specific policies to provide increased seafood resources for future generations. We already import more than half the seafood we consume. The lack of long-term policy is directly linked to the lack of understanding of the factors which truly influence supply and demand. No Australian fisheries management agency plans beyond resolution of current resource use problems. Recent crises resulting from the realisation of the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation highlight the urgency for Australia to look much further ahead for all natural resource use and management strategies.
Modern economies depend on the concept of growth as a key element of their success. Notwithstanding the emergence of the service industries as an increasing proportion of this economic growth, the Australian economy still depends on an increasing primary production base to supply both domestic and export demand. While the proportion that fisheries might supply to Australia’s export demand might be stable as a percentage, the physical output in terms of tonnes per year grew considerably over the last 50 years. Most significantly, production has levelled, or even declined, in recent years. This physical aspect of growth often goes unnoticed in discussions around environmental sustainability, yet it is of critical importance to all our assumptions about the future of this country and therefore of our management of our fisheries resource base.
Fish, as food, and fisheries, both commercial and recreational, are tremendously important, fundamental components of most Australian's perception of what the future should hold. For the many tens of thousands employed directly or indirectly in fish related industries the social implications of long-term sustainability use of fish resources is even more pressing. Yet our resources and the ecosystems which underpin them are streteched or even over-taxed. It is extremely important for all associated with fish resource use and conservation that the status of individual fish resources be increasingly used by Governments as indicators of ecosystems health and therefore play an expanding role in Australia's total resource use projections. A current FRDC commissioned review of threats to, and potential solutions for, Australia's freshwater fisheries has identified increased use of fish as indicators of river health as the highest priority policy/management initiative.
While the recognition that many of our natural resources are linked across many aspects of a modern economy is hardly a new insight the CSIRO modelling initiative has attempted to bring quantitative data together to allow these linkages to be explored. The purpose of this work is to explore and choose sets of management and policy options which might contribute to more sustainable modes of operation for the Australian physical system. Many contemporary expressions such as “the weightless economy”, “the factor 4 economy” and “the zero waste economy” are meant to describe these new modes of more sustainable (or less physically impacting) operation.
This research proposal aims to describe from a national viewpoint the operation of the fisheries industries (commercial and recreational) in relation to their own long-term potential, and in relation to the other resource industries which might depend on, or impact on the fisheries resource. The particular modelling framework is designed to deal with long-term issues on time scale of 25, 50 or even 100 years. It attempts to define the quantities of fish demanded by both domestic and export requirements, as well as drawing on our current knowledge of the quantities that might be supplied from our fish stocks.
Currently the ASFF model is being used in long-term studies of Australia’s population requirements (Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs), its long-term energy position (CSIRO internally funded) and its long-term land and water position (LWRRDC funded for 3 years).
As FRDC’s portfolio of research investment is being revamped to include the multiple demands being made by societal expectation, the commercial industry and the recreational fishery, now is the time for a considered investment in a long-term viewpoint. Current shortfalls in total fishery production dictate a certain urgency in defining some long-term options which provide a strategic framework where more focussed and local investments can contribute their part in unison, rather than in isolation.
Final report
Issues affecting the sustainability of Australia's freshwater fisheries resources and identification of research strategies
It is accepted that the plight of our fresh water systems necessitates urgent action. FRDC itself identified the need for this project.
It is indeed significant that the comments provided in “Australia : State of the Environment” on each of the ten key threats to sustainability confirm that indicators of all ten show continuing deterioration.
While most of this broad spectrum of issues has been the subject of at least some research our knowledge of the interrelationships betwen fisheries and fresh water ecosystems remains seriously inadequate. Urgent requirements include:
· a current review of the factors which influence productivity of Australia’s inland fisheries,
· correlation of cause and effect for the major threats identified,
· correlation of cause with the relevant management or regulatory authority,
· an assessment of data and knowledge (research) needed to facilitate management action,
· an assessment of areas where research is most likely to lead to significant management action,
. an evaluation of what strategies have worked, or are working, in one or more State or
Territory and assessment of the likelihood of success from nationalising, or at least broadening
or transposing, this strategy,
. an assessment of potential cooperative approaches to commissioning and funding priority
research
Final report
inland fisheries;
• correlation of cause and effect for the major threats identified;
• an assessment of data and knowledge needed to facilitate management action;
• an assessment of areas where research is most likely to lead to significant
management action;
• an evaluation of strategies that have worked, or are working/ in one or more
State or Territory and assessment of the likelihood of success from broadening
or transporting these strategies; and
• an assessment of potential cooperative approaches to commissioning and
supporting priority research
• habitat degradation;
• pollution/water quality/water temperature;
• reduced environmental flows;
• introduced species/carp; and
• fishing.