Rebuilding Southern Rock Lobster stocks on the east coast of Tasmania: informing options for management
Non-market values to inform decision-making and reporting in fisheries and aquaculture – an audit and gap analysis
Most Australian fisheries policies require that fisheries management take account of the cumulative effect of all human users of marine resources, including professional, recreational and Indigenous Australian fishers. The triple bottom line (TBL) approach is the general framework used to assess performance against economic, social, and environmental dimensions. TBL requires articulation of these broad values, but these may be qualitatively assessed. Significant progress has been made in incorporating some of these elements into fisheries management decision, particularly prioritising different objectives of fishery management [e.g. 1, 2]. In some cases, development of semi-quantitative approaches have been used to assist in decision-making across these multiple dimensions [e.g. 3], including in some cases indigenous value [e.g. 4]. Recent research has also extended this focus to develop a robust articulation of Indigenous Australian customary fishing values to enable their inclusion when developing fisheries management policies [5].
Optimal decisions require the trade-off between costs and benefits to be considered. TBL approaches do not explicitly consider this trade-off, resulting in challenges in identifying optimal outcomes. Where these costs and benefits are expressed as explicit monetary values, assessing the trade-off requires deducting the expected costs from the expected benefits (commonly referred to as cost-benefit analysis (CBA)).
However, in fisheries, many costs and benefits do not have an explicit monetary value. Hence, decisions about the use and management of marine resources increasingly requires objective information on the non-market value of benefits (and costs). Some attention has been focused on the estimation of non-market values of recreational fishing [e.g. 6, 7], although only limited attempts to-date have been made to use these values in supporting management decision making [e.g. 8]. Many other values have not been quantified, and their use in fisheries management has not been fully explored.
Final report
The project identified thirteen types of non-market values that fisheries and aquaculture managers considered as potentially important to their decision making. Of these, the top four involved values related to users of the fisheries resources, including fisher satisfaction, values to Indigenous Australian fishers, and the value of fish and experience to recreational fishers. The next four involved impacts of fishing on others, including habitats, species, local communities and other users of the marine environment.
The gap analysis identified that recent values for most of the values of potential use to fisheries and aquaculture management were unavailable. This limits the role of benefit transfers and identifies a need for further primary studies of non-market values.
Knowledge to improve the assessment and management of Giant Mud Crabs (Scylla serrata) in Queensland
Resource Sharing in Australian Fisheries Workshop - Progress to Date, Lessons Learnt and Next Steps towards a harmonised approach
Opportunities and impacts of range extending scalefish species: understanding population dynamics, ecosystem impacts and management needs
Voluntary behaviour change in recreational fisheries to support sustainability and amenity
This project responds to an FRDC identified opportunity to review and build on previous experiences aimed towards encouraging recreational fishers to voluntarily diversify their target species.
This project targets three outcomes in the FRDC R&D Plan 2020-25:
-Outcome 1. Growth for enduring prosperity
-Outcome 2. Best practices and production systems
-Outcome 4. Fair and secure access to aquatic resources
Our project consists of two phases, each addressing a discrete need identified through conversations with stakeholders.
Phase 1 – Developing a knowledge base and roadmap:
A robust knowledge base, including data on the the magnitude of behaviour changes achieved by previous initiatives, is required to support the use of voluntary behaviour change interventions for diversifying target species as alternatives to direct regulations. Phase 1 will consist of a backwards looking scan of past-experience to construct this knowledge base from case studies that have implemented an initiative to promote voluntary diversification of recreational target species. This will include a global literature scan, and interviews with stakeholders and managers in Australia to document case studies, identify their successes or failures and compile data on the magnitude of behaviour change achieved. The knowledge base will then be used to identify key knowledge gaps and develop a roadmap of research and information needed to support voluntary behaviour change strategies aimed at diversifying target species as genuine alternatives to direct regulations.
Phase 2 – Improving effectiveness:
Effective behavioural change interventions require careful targeting to ensure they are appropriate and acceptable within a specific context. Phase 2 will look forward with a focus on the future implementation of voluntary approaches that can confidently be applied to promote the voluntary diversification of target species for recreational fishers. This will include a forward-looking test of approaches identified through Phase 1 through interviews, focus groups and a survey of recreational fishers to delve deeply into which approaches are acceptable, where they are acceptable and which approaches are most likely to influence change. The outputs of Phase 2 will include clear advice on which strategies are likely to work in different situations relevant to Australian recreational fisheries.
A project evaluation will take place at the end of phase 1 to evaluate the feasibility of the remaining components, and guide case study selection and strategy for phase 2. This will be based on the interim short report based on phase 1 submitted to the FRDC in the milestone schedule below, as well as progress report 1.
To facilitate co-design and research impact, the research team have engaged with the Australian Fisheries Management Forum (AFMF), the AFSB Fisheries Management Committee (on advice from the AFMF), and the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation (ARFF). Input from recreational fishing stakeholders into the project will be facilitated through an ARFF advisory panel, with representatives from different jurisdictions across Australia. The advisory panel plan to meet with the research team on 5 occasions across the project (front loaded to facilitate co-design). The model for input from fisheries managers is an on-going discussion but will likely take a similar advisory panel across jurisdictions.
Project risks:
The project relies heavily on the inputs of recreational fishing stakeholders and managers, with potential risks around a lack of availability to participate as well as lack of interest. To manage this risk the project team will work closely with the ARFF advisory group to identify and manage relationships with participants. A secondary project risk is the potential for sharing and disclosure of sensitive information from interviews and focus groups. To manage this risk, the research protocol will be subject to a human ethics review against the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. Through this process, issues of anonymity, data management and retention and data sharing will be addressed in-line with national standards and carried throughout the project.