Social objectives of fisheries management: What are managers' priorities?

Increasingly, social considerations are having an influence on fisheries policy as well as day-to-day management decision making. Social objectives, unlike economic or conservation objectives, are often poorly defined in fisheries policy, providing substantial leeway for managers to develop management plans in response to the perceived importance of different social outcomes, and potential inconsistencies between different fisheries and jurisdictions. In this paper, through a literature review and workshop with managers across different Australian jurisdictions, we develop a set of social objectives that may be applicable in Australian fisheries. We assess the importance of these different objectives using the Analytic Hierarchy Process, and find considerable diversity in opinion as to which social objectives fisheries management should prioritise to achieve. This diversity of opinion is not directly related to jurisdiction, but does seem related to the context and social environment in which fisheries managers are operating.

Satisfaction with fishing and the desire to leave

Predicting who may leave a fishery is an important consideration when designing capacity reduction programs to enhance both ecological and economic sustainability. In this paper, the relationship between satisfaction and the desire to exit a fishery is examined for the Queensland East Coast Trawl fishery. Income from fishing, and changes in income over the last 5 years, were key factors affecting overall satisfaction. Relative income per se was not a significant factor, counter to most satisfaction studies. Continuing a family tradition of fishing and, for one group, pride in being a fisher was found to be significant. Satisfaction with fishing overall and the challenge of fishing were found to be the primary drivers of the desire to stay or leave the fishery. Surprisingly, public perceptions of fishing, trust in management and perceptions of equity in resource allocation did not significantly affect overall satisfaction or the desire to exit the fishery.

Selecting and assessing social objectives for Australian fisheries management

This paper details Australian research that developed tools to assist fisheries managers and government agencies in engaging with the social dimension of industry and community welfare in fisheries management. These tools are in the form of objectives and indicators. These highlight the social dimensions and the effects of management plans and policy implementation on fishing industries and associated communities, while also taking into account the primacy of ecological imperatives. The deployment of these objectives and indicators initially provides a benchmark and, over the life of a management plan, can subsequently be used to identify trends in effects on a variety of social and economic elements that may be objectives in the management of a fishery. It is acknowledged that the degree to which factors can be monitored will be dependent upon resources of management agencies, however these frameworks provide a method for effectively monitoring and measuring change in the social dimension of fisheries management.Essentially, the work discussed in this paper provides fisheries management with the means to both track and begin to understand the effects of government policy and management plans on the social dimension of the fishing industry and its associated communities. Such tools allow the consideration of these elements, within an evidence base, into policy arrangements, and consequently provide an invaluable contribution to the ability to address resilience and sustainability of fishing industries and associated communities.

The growth, reproduction and survival of 'Cascabela thevetia' seedlings under two levels of canopy cover

The ornamental tree 'Cascabela thevetia', from tropical America, has naturalised and formed large infestations at several locations in northern Australia. Some understanding of its ecology and invasiveness was gleaned from a field experiment undertaken in North Queensland. The experiment quantified the growth, time to seed formation and survival of seedlings of the peach biotype growing under light and dense canopy cover within a riparian habitat. Growth, reproduction and survival of young plants varied. Growth was most rapid for seedlings away from, or on the edge of infestations because they were constrained by parent plants. The findings also suggested that land managers have at least 12 months following control to detect new plants, or regrowth, before plants set seed and replenish soil seed banks.

Multijurisdictional fisheries performance reporting: How Australia’s nationally standardised approach to assessing stock status compares

Australian marine wild-capture fisheries are managed by eight separate jurisdictions. Traditionally, fishery status reports have been produced separately by most of these jurisdictions, assessing the fish stocks they manage, and reporting on the effectiveness of their fisheries management. However, the format, the type of stock status assessments, the thresholds and terminology used to describe stock status and the classification frameworks have varied over time and among jurisdictions. These differences complicate efforts to understand stock status on a national scale. They also create potential misunderstanding among the wider community about how to interpret information on the status of fish stocks, and the fisheries management and science processes more generally. This is especially true when considering stocks that are shared across two or more jurisdictional boundaries. A standardised approach was developed in 2011 leading to production of the first national Status of key Australian fish stocks reports in 2012, followed by a second edition in 2014 (www.fish.gov.au). Production of these reports was the first step towards a broader national approach to reporting on the performance of Australian fisheries for target species and for wider ecosystem and socioeconomic consequences. This paper outlines the challenges associated with moving towards national performance reporting for target fish stocks and Australia’s successes so far. It also outlines the challenges ahead, in particular those relating to reporting more broadly on the status of entire fisheries. Comparisons are drawn between Australia and New Zealand and more broadly between Australia and other countries.