Cumulative Impact Risk Assessment Tool for Aquaculture in Australia
Difficulties with current legislation in Australia at State and Federal level make it challenging for marine farms to protect themselves, but equally for the community to have faith that aquaculture development is not harming the marine environment. An example from Tasmania is the recent contamination of Macquarie Harbour, whereby tailings from Copper Mines Tasmania (CMT) dam in Queenstown entered the harbour and undoubtedly caused environmental harm to salmon and other species. Because CMT and salmon farmers operate under different Acts CMT was not responsible for the incident but rather the government. Consequently, no investigation or clean-up ensued.
Additionally, the scope of statutory tools, such as EIS under the Tasmanian Marine Farm Planning Act 1995, is not regional and does not consider the compound interactions of and on production activities. A good example is the recent Storm Bay salmon farming expansion; while the EPBC listed handfish species in Tasmania were listed in the marine farming development plan, with a brief context, management of these species was not considered in the EIS because that process only includes direct impact of the lease position. Arguably, cumulative impacts from all development in the area will have varying impacts on the species, impacts which are not being considered under current government legislation, but are potentially the source of public ire.
For aquaculture to pursue sustainable efforts environmentally, economically and socially in the increasingly crowded near shore space requires proactive planning and transparency that is not currently possible given existing assessment tools. In particular, assessment of cumulative impacts must be addressed. Cumulative impact assessments (CIA) are gaining momentum across multiple industries due to a recognised need to apply them in the pursuit of sustainable management. CIAs are being undertaken with the protection of marines resources at front of mind, but so far there has been little consideration of aquaculture. An approach to CIA that makes aquaculture the centre point is required if we are to consider its impacts or conversely, its effectiveness.
Cracking the code on captive breeding of Macquarie Perch
Currently, the inability to consistently produce Macquarie perch from captive held broodstock is severely constraining its recovery. Being able to captively breed Macquarie perch will firstly save the species from extinction from a conservation standpoint and secondly, re-establish recreational fisheries for Macquarie perch across its former range in Victoria, NSW and ACT. Establishing captive breeding may also provide new and unique opportunities for aquaculture in Australia for the commercial production of Macquarie perch, suitable for the restaurant industry, akin to Murray cod.
This proposal details four key focus areas of research and development to achieve captive breeding of Macquarie perch within three years, such that Government and in the future, private aquaculture hatcheries, can adopt commercial production of the species. The project seeks $698,630 of investment from FRDC and is supported with over $3 million of co-investment (including matching $605,000 cash and $2.41 million in-kind) from 9 partners across Victoria, NSW, Qld, and ACT. The project aligns with the FRDC R&D Plan 2020-2025, as well as priorities, actions and outcomes in other key national and state plans (Table 4).
Media release
Read the joint media release from Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator the Hon Murray Watt and Victorian Minister for Planning and Outdoor Recreation, Hon Sonya Kilkenny.
Seafood Trade Advisory Group - transitioning to a new communications, governance and operating model
Enhancing the understanding of the value provided to fisheries by man-made aquatic structures
The north west of Western Australia has productive commercial and recreational fisheries and extensive offshore oil and gas (O&G) infrastructure. These man-made structures support a range of demersal and pelagic fishes which are targeted by recreational and commercial fishers. As this O&G infrastructure reaches the end of its productive life, decisions on the best practice option for decommissioning must be made. The current policy for decommissioning requires complete removal. Regulators may support alternative strategies, such as leaving infrastructure in place, if risks and impacts are minimised and there are clear environmental, social and economic benefits to do so. It is thought that removal of infrastructure will decrease catch rates and have negative ecological, economic (direct and downstream) and social consequences.
At the same time as the discussion is occurring about removing O&G infrastructure, there have been large investments in constructing and installing purpose built man-made aquatic structures on the seafloor for the express purpose of enhancing the experience of recreational fishers and SCUBA divers.
There is a need to deliver critical information on: 1) the ecological, economic and social value of these man-made structures to recreational and commercial fishers and other stakeholders; 2) the attitudes of stakeholders to man-made structures; and 3) the opportunities and risks of decommissioning strategies to fishers and other groups (e.g. tourism).
Policy regarding the removal of decommissioned structures will benefit from the increased clarity that this project will provide in regards to data requirements for socio-economic models and stakeholder consultation methods. Comparative assessments of decommissioning options rely on the existence of appropriate socio-economic data, a knowledge gap this project aims to fill. An understanding of the impact of man-made aquatic structures on recreational and commercial fisheries is a global priority, and as such this project has strong international importance and relevance.
Final report
Ensuring market-focused value adding capabilities are available to SA Seafood companies today and through to 2030
Implementing and evaluating the Australian Seafood Trade Agenda 2016 - 2018 - Seafood Trade Advisory Group (STAG)
Cumulative impacts across fisheries in Australia's marine environment
The need for cumulative impact assessment (CIA) is increasingly being recognized. The development process for Australia's Harvest and Bycatch Policies, and their associated guidelines have reinforced the need for assessment of cumulative impacts, and the EPBC Act has also explicitly required consideration of cumulative impacts.
Where multiple activities occur or are planned, an understanding of their combined effects on the environment is necessary to address policy requirements and achieve sustainability. The concept of cumulative impact assessment is not new – indeed cumulative assessment has been recognized for many years, and a range of methods have been proposed around the globe. However, no methodology for undertaking cumulative assessments has been accepted nationally or globally. In addition to considering the impacts across all fishing sectors (commercial, recreational, indigenous, as required by recent changes to the Fisheries Administration Act 1991) and all fisheries, there is also an increasing need to consider other users of marine resources and coastal waters (e.g. renewable energy, shipping etc), especially where space crowding may be an issue.
Target species stock assessments typically consider the species of interest as well as other sources of fishing mortality (e.g. discards), but they do not usually consider their effects on other fisheries sectors or the effects of other sectors on the focal fishery. CIA methods therefore need to consider interactive and indirect effects. To date, interactive effects are often viewed as additive (simple linear addition of one impact to another) with little consideration given to synergistic, antagonistic or non-linear effects. While the ERAEF toolbox used for assessment of bycatch and protected species has some potential options for cumulative impacts (e.g. SAFE method), at this stage they are insufficient for moving to the scales and complexities across multiple fishing sectors and fisheries.
Thus, sustainable fisheries management requires new approaches that consider all sectors and all fisheries and how they impact the environment. Such CIAs will be challenging given that empirical data are often lacking - a dedicated research effort is needed.