Integrating recreational fishing information into harvest strategies for multi-sector fisheries
Integration of recreational fishing (RF) into harvest strategies (HS) is necessary for many fisheries in Australia, to account for catches that can equal or exceed commercial catch for some key species and to address biological and experiential objectives of the RF sector. Both the Productivity Commission’s report Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture (2016) and the ICES Report from the Working Group Recreational Fishing Surveys (2018) recommend formal integration of RF into stock assessments and harvest strategies. Failure to do so puts sustainable management goals and legislated state and Commonwealth fisheries requirements at risk.
Equitable and quantitative inclusion of RF in harvest strategies is rare. This stems from a traditional focus on the commercial sector and budgetary challenges involved with representatively sampling RF. It is therefore unclear: 1) what types of RF data and monitoring best service stock assessments, (2) which data also track indicators of recreational objectives (often related to the fishing experience), and (3) how to integrate harvest strategy components for multiple sectors. The need to address these knowledge gaps was highlighted by the FRDC priority research call in 2018 - “Integrating recreational fishery data into harvest strategies for multi-sector fisheries in New South Wales”. NSW provides an important test case for addressing issues around RF integration that are faced by most jurisdictions.
Harvest strategy development for multi-sector fisheries requires a transparent and defensible process due to complexities in addressing diverse objectives and apprehension among stakeholder groups. Structured workshops that use easily-understandable, interactive decision support tools and involve independent experts and stakeholder representatives are likely to provide best outcomes. ‘FishPath’ is a leading harvest strategy decision support tool and “bottom up” engagement philosophy that allows experts and stakeholders to interactively contribute to harvest strategy development in a transparent workshop setting. However, it requires additional development in recreational and multi-sector contexts.
Report
Quantifying inter-sectoral values within and among the Indigenous, commercial and recreational sectors
In developing the 2020-25 Strategic Plan, FRDC identified five outcomes and associated enabling strategies, including Outcome 4: Fair and secure access to aquatic resources. In developing Outcome 4, FRDC realized that it did not have a shared appreciation of the different beliefs and values that underpin perceptions of fairness and security. Furthermore, it was acknowledged that such values differ within and between different sectors of the fishing and aquaculture sector and can be the source of tension and conflict.
The FRDC is therefore seeking to understand contrasting and complementary values among Indigenous, commercial, and recreational fishing sectors. The proposed project will provide valuable information towards building trust across the industry through an improved understanding of the social, economic and ecological values within and among the three sectors. It will also provide FRDC with the basis for monitoring progress towards the achievement of Outcome 4.
The primary objective of the project is to collect, analyse and report on the values held by the Indigenous, commercial and recreational sectors. Findings from the project will be used to inform resource management and support for fair and secure access to aquatic resources. The findings will also be valuable to regulators’ through an enhanced understanding of values across the different sectors leading to more efficient and effective consultation processes.
Final report
This study indicated that values (i) do not “neatly” align to the different industry sectors; and (ii) do not differ based on the different industry sectors. However, the Q-methodology analysis indicated that there were five distinct groups based on how values were ranked.
Across the five distinct groups the top four complementary values were: (1) fishing is environmentally sustainable, (2) accountability for industry participants who break the rules, (3) having access to fish and fishing, and (4) access to the ocean/sea. Environmental sustainability was the highest ranked value even among the sub-group that was dominated by economic type values (sub-group B), suggesting that even for productivity-based research and development (R&D), the focus should be on R&D that drives productivity and/or profitability improvements without reducing/ compromising environmental sustainability. Environmental sustainability is also key driver of production and there seem to be general appreciation of its importance across the fishing sectors.