Quantifying inter-sectoral values within and among the Indigenous, commercial and recreational sectors

Project number: 2020-088
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $92,972.00
Principal Investigator: Buyani Thomy
Organisation: Natural Capital Economics
Project start/end date: 10 Jan 2021 - 29 Jun 2021
Contact:
FRDC
TAGS
Values &Amp; Ethics
Social Science
Social Science
Resource Access And Allocation
Recreational Fishing

Need

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.
 

Objectives

1. To collect, analyse and report on the values held by the Indigenous, commercial and recreational sectors using a robust and systematic methodology that is repeatable (i.e., using Q-methodology).
2. To identify complementary and contrasting values among Indigenous, commercial and recreational sectors through an extensive survey.
3. To report findings and provide recommendations for efficient and practical data collection mechanisms to FRDC. Findings from the project will be used to inform resource management and to support 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

ISBN: 978-0-6489972-1-4
Authors: Schultz T. Thomy B. Hardaker T. Perry M. Faranda A. Gustavsson M. Chudleigh P. and Binney J.
Final Report • 2022-03-31 • 1.91 MB
2020-088-DLD.pdf

Summary

This study explored the extent to which values are shared (or not shared) by fishers across three key sectors (i.e., Indigenous, commercial and recreational). The study was run online using Q-Method Software (https://qmethodsoftware.com), a semi-quantitative technique used to explore human perspectives in a systematic and repeatable manner.
Fishers across the three sectors were required to sort and rank the pre-listed value statements. Participants were recruited through emailed invitations, social media posts and newsletters from key fishing sector representative bodies as well as snow-ball sampling. In response to a very low response rate from the Indigenous sector, additional participants (n = 6) were recruited by a member of the project team at a conference held in Far North Queensland. A total of 116 fishers completed the Q study. The collected data was analysed using inverted factor analysis to allow for the identification of distinct sub-groups of people whose responses are highly correlated. Through examining the Q-methodology outputs, five distinct sub-groups emerged: Sub-group A – “social-value fishers” (n = 39); Sub-group B – “economic-value fishers” (n = 19); Sub-group C – “environmental-value fishers” (n = 24); Sub-group D – “traditional-value” fishers (n = 10); and Sub-group E – “fish-focused” fishers (n = 15). Each subgroup comprises fishers who ranked the value statements similarly in terms of those statements they felt were very important to them and those that were less important to them. As such, the analysis provided information about complementary and contrasting values among different groups of fishers. 

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.
 
The three lowest ranked values across the five distinct groups were cultural values: (1) fishing’s support of cultural practices and requirements, (2) fishing provides a connection to ancestors/previous generations, and (3) opportunity to barter and trade goods. Some of the social values not considered to be important by any of the sub-groups included catching lots of fish or large fish, and spending time fishing alone. 
 
In terms of contrasting values across the five sub-groups, economic type values were generally not highly ranked except by one group which was dominated by commercial fishers (sub-group B). Statements like fishing’s economic returns and employment/income from fishing, industry innovation and advancement, fishing’s contribution to the local economy were not considered to be important by the remaining groups.
 
The use of Q-methodology to identify values for the different sectors revealed that online survey may not also be practical and effective. For example, there was very limited responses to the online survey by Indigenous sector participants and further effort was required to capture their values in a face-to-face approach. It is recommended that future research should seek to include face-to-face data collection methods to improve efficiency in capturing views of diverse groups.
 
Values play a key role in decision-making and in creating public policy. One of the primary implications of the current study is that it would likely be ineffective and inefficient to make decisions or set policies based on sectoral classifications in the fishing industry such as Indigenous, commercial and/or recreational. The project findings strongly demonstrate that the values held by fishers cannot be neatly delineated into standard industry sector classifications. However, the project findings also show that there are a number of values shared by all fishers across sectors that may provide ‘common ground’ and ‘common language’ that in turn would provide a basis for better engagement and communication both between the sectors and between researchers, fisheries managers, Government and Australian fishers. 
 
Dissemination of the findings that all sectors have several complementary values will help improve engagement and communication between the sectors and enhance effective and efficient implementation of future fisheries policies. Notably, the dissemination of the findings of this study is a step towards building a shared understanding of complementary values among different sectors and contrasting values within individual sectors. The shared knowledge will help improve trust among the sectors and between regulators and resource users. The improvements in trust among the various stakeholders will further enhance effective decision-making processes, particularly co-management and resource access.
 

Related research

All research
research
Communities
Blank
Communities

Managing ecosystem interactions across differing environments: building flexibility and risk assurance into environmental management strategies

Project number: 2015-024
Project Status:
Current
Budget expenditure: $1,078,729.00
Principal Investigator: Jeff Ross
Organisation: University of Tasmania (UTAS)
Project start/end date: 30 Jun 2015 - 29 Jun 2018
Contact:
FRDC
TAGS
Storm Bay
Rac Tas
Climate Resilience
Aquaculture
SPECIES
Atlantic Salmon
Blacklip Abalone
Greenlip Abalone
Trouts
Whitebaits

Need

This project addresses FRDC program 1 (Environment) priority 23.
In order to double production by 2030 the Salmon industry in Tasmania must consider alternate production approaches and expansion into new areas. However, maintaining high environmental performance (a priority for both the industry and its regulators) requires an understanding of how farming in new areas might change environmental interactions. In order to ensure that management remains best practice, and farms continue to be efficient and sustainable, assessment of the local scale impact/ recovery dynamics and potential interactions with other resource users is required in newly developed farming environments and under different farming technologies. In addition understanding how farms interact with the various processes and ecosystems in the water-bodies where they occur and the various scales for those interactions (local, medium and broad-scale) will provide an important basis for establishing an effective strategy for system-wide management, including management of interactions with other users of the water-bodies.
It is clear from discussions with various resource users (i.e. fish farmers and commercial and recreational fishers) that the perception of potential risks differs between Macquarie Harbour and the southern farming regions. In Macquarie Harbour a critical issue is whether the current on-farm monitoring (and local scale impact indicators are “fit for purpose” i.e. do they support sustainable management by providing an accurate understanding of sediment conditions. Whilst in the new farming areas in the southern regions (Lower Channel/ Storm Bay), although establishing the effectiveness of the local scale monitoring is important, the key concern is whether there may be adverse effects on reef health (i.e. off-site interactions) as a result of increased aquaculture activities. Therefore a key element of this study will be to provide a better assessment of the potential risk to reef systems from sediment deposition and nutrient dispersion from fish farms directly.

Objectives

1. Establish key recovery response principles and benthic condition criteria for all areas in which farming currently occurs – building on existing understanding to identify both generic and regionally specific performance criteria
2. Improve our understanding of sediment process interactions and recovery responses, in order to ensure that monitoring and management strategies are optimised for each growing region – a key objective will be relating the findings to the most important ecological and resource interactions of salmon farming in each region.
3. To evaluate the potential for interactions between local reef systems and salmon farming – determining the main risk factors, recommending risk appropriate monitoring and assessment approaches and identifying risk mitigation strategies where relevant.
4. To improve our understanding of how local scale (site based) environmental condition data, can integrate with local scale modelling to improve management outcomes – a key goal will be identifying how local scale understanding of sediment processes and benthic pelagic interactions can inform and be informed by regional modelling and management approaches.

Final report

ISBN: 978-1-922708-14-4
Authors: Jeff Ross Catriona Macleod Camille White Scott Hadley David Moreno Flora Bush Neville Barrett
Final Report • 2022-06-01 • 23.00 MB
2015-024-DLD.pdf

Summary

Summary

The overarching aim of this research was to provide an improved understanding of the environmental interactions of Atlantic Salmon farming and to provide recommendations to both government and industry on monitoring and management strategies that are appropriate to the level of risk associated with these interactions. 

The criteria for monitoring and assessment of sediment impacts and recovery associated with intensive Atlantic Salmon farming were established more than 15 years ago. However, changes in farming practices, innovations in technology, and expansion of the industry has highlighted the need to review the underlying principles to ensure for new areas management and monitoring strategies remain best practice, and that farming operations continue to be sustainable in all regions. Consequently, a program of research was established to assess current monitoring and management strategies, provide an understanding of regional and operational variability in local scale (sediment) response, and define both common and regionally specific local scale response principles. The study itself was focussed on:

  • Macquarie Harbour in western Tasmania, a Harbour 5 times larger than Sydney Harbour with a restrictive entrance to the sea and significant inflow of freshwater creating a unique habitat.
  • Storm Bay in south-eastern Tasmania, a significant Bay at the entrance to Hobarts Derwent River which is heavily exposed to oceanic influences as well as those from the Derwent River and to some extent the D’Entrecasteaux Channel.
  • The very southern end of the D’Entrecasteaux Channel which is also influenced by oceanic conditions but also strongly from outputs of the D’Entrecasteaux Channel including the Huon River.

In addition, it was noted there was increasing concern in the community about the potential for broader scale interactions with reef systems and it was recommended this should be a feature of any resultant research plan seeking to inform monitoring and management. It was also recognised that modelling capabilities have increased markedly since the original research was conducted, and so an important component of this study was to evaluate how currently available modelling tools could support monitoring.

Key Findings

Comparison of the biotic and abiotic factors in Macquarie Harbour and the two new growing areas in southern Tasmania showed the sediments in Macquarie Harbour were inherently depauperate (low faunal abundance, species richness and diversity) whilst Storm Bay and Southern Channel sites supported diverse and species rich communities. Differences in sediment grain size, a factor that influences the macrofauna community composition, were also apparent with Macquarie Harbour sediments being much finer than those of the other two study regions. Measurements of sediment redox levels indicated Macquarie Harbour sediments were highly reducing (i.e. inherently low in oxygen/ anaerobic) for much of the system whereas the two southern study regions were generally oxidising (i.e. aerobic). This is not surprising given Macquarie Harbour’s highly stratified water column, deep central basin and shallow entrance to the ocean that has been shown to result in reduced mixing of bottom waters and naturally low dissolved oxygen conditions (Ross et al. 2021). In contrast, the sediment conditions at the other two study regions reflect the open nature of those systems and the increased levels of water exchange, which result in higher oxygen concentrations in the bottom waters and sediments. The carbon and nitrogen signatures of the sediments also highlighted the different background sources of organic material in each of the regions. In Macquarie Harbour the isotopic signature of the sediments indicated a far greater contribution of terrestrial and freshwater inputs to the organic matter pool. In addition, there was a clear change in the signal along the harbour, with the terrestrial signal increasing with distance from the harbour entrance. Isotopic signals from the two southern study regions were consistently marine.

The review highlighted there is the potential for dissolved and particulate nutrient inputs from salmon farming to interact with reef ecosystems, both directly and indirectly. Outcomes vary depending on environmental conditions; the level of wave exposure and water movement will influence not only the basic ecology but can also affect the response to particulate and dissolved inputs. Understanding how reef systems respond to inputs from Atlantic Salmon farming requires a detailed understanding of the local environment, the broader regional and global pressures, and the inherent characteristics of the reef community itself. These factors need to be considered carefully in the design and implementation of any monitoring programs and in the interpretation of the resultant data.

In terms of the modelling aspects both versions of the commercially available model DEPOMOD performed well at predicting total sediment deposition (loads) at the Storm Bay 1 lease, with NewDEPOMOD performing well at the Franklin lease in Macquarie Harbour. DEPOMOD is a model developed for modelling the deposition of solid farm wastes from fish pens at a scale of the farming lease to determine the benthic footprint of the farming activity.  

NewDEPOMOD was designed with an updated sediment transport module that more realistically captures the flow of waste over dramatic shifts in bathymetry as seen for example at the Franklin lease in Macquarie Harbour. At the Lippies lease in the Southern D’Entrecasteaux Channel neither model accurately predicted total sediment deposition. We suggest this is because Lippies is a more dispersive site owing to the much higher bottom currents and deeper bathymetry.  However, challenges with the sediment trap deployment may have also compromised our assessment at this site.

There were also differences between the study locations in how well the models predicted overall benthic footprint (i.e. the area affected by both deposition and re-suspension), and this too would seem to be largely due to differences in bathymetry and current speeds.  At the Storm Bay 1 lease where the seabed was quite level and bottom current speeds were relatively low, the predictions from both DEPOMOD and NewDEPOMOD were similar and closely resembled the measured benthic footprint.  However, at Lippies where current speeds were higher and at Table Head in Macquarie Harbour where the bathymetry is steep, DEPOMOD and NewDEPOMOD predicted quite different footprints.  NewDEPOMOD provided a more accurate assessment due to its improved ability to adjust for complex bathymetry and account for sediment resuspension at dispersive sites.