A generic method of engagement to elicit regional coastal management options

Stakeholder engagement is important for successful management of natural resources, both to make effective decisions and to obtain support. However, in the context of coastal management, questions remain unanswered on how to effectively link decisions made at the catchment level with objectives for marine biodiversity and fisheries productivity. Moreover, there is much uncertainty on how to best elicit community input in a rigorous manner that supports management decisions. A decision support process is described that uses the adaptive management loop as its basis to elicit management objectives, priorities and management options using two case studies in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. The approach described is then generalised for international interest. A hierarchical engagement model of local stakeholders, regional and senior managers is used. The result is a semi-quantitative generic elicitation framework that ultimately provides a prioritised list of management options in the context of clearly articulated management objectives that has widespread application for coastal communities worldwide. The case studies show that demand for local input and regional management is high, but local influences affect the relative success of both engagement processes and uptake by managers. Differences between case study outcomes highlight the importance of discussing objectives prior to suggesting management actions, and avoiding or minimising conflicts at the early stages of the process. Strong contributors to success are a) the provision of local information to the community group, and b) the early inclusion of senior managers and influencers in the group to ensure the intellectual and time investment is not compromised at the final stages of the process. The project has uncovered a conundrum in the significant gap between the way managers perceive their management actions and outcomes, and community's perception of the effectiveness (and wisdom) of these same management actions.

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.

Nutrient loading on free range layer farms

A considerable proportion of the dietary nutrients consumed by poultry are excreted in the manure. This becomes an important issue on free range farms, if manure and/or nutrients are not removed periodically from the range areas. The nutrients and trace elements in manure can accumulate in the soil and become toxic to vegetation, while also causing pollution of ground and surface water through leaching. Soil samples were collected from fourteen free range layer farms both on the range and control areas (with no exposure to poultry) to investigate comparative soil nutrient concentrations. Nutrient concentrations were also compared between fixed and rotational ranges and between farms having different bird densities. At each site, soil was collected from 10 sampling points, arranged diagonally in a grid across both the range and control areas. A sampling probe was used to collect soil from the top 10 cm depth. These were submitted for a standardised lab analysis (Apal Agricultural Laboratory, SA, Australia). Data was subjected to analysis of variance and means considered significant at P < 0.05.

How important is the coast? A survey of coastal objectives in an Australian regional city

Defining goals and objectives is a critical component of adaptive management of natural resources because they provide the basis on which management strategies can be designed and evaluated. The aims of this study are: (i) to apply and test a collaborative method to elicit goals and objectives for inshore fisheries and biodiversity in the coastal zone of a regional city in Australia; (ii) to understand the relative importance of management objectives for different community members and stakeholders; and (iii) to understand how diverse perceptions about the importance of management objectives can be used to support multiple-use management in Australia’s iconic Great Barrier Reef. Management goals and objectives were elicited and weighted using the following steps: (i) literature review of management objectives, (ii) development of a hierarchy tree of objectives, and (iii) ranking of management objectives using survey methods. The overarching goals identified by the community group were to: (1) protect and restore inshore environmental assets; (2) improve governance systems; and (3) improve regional (socio-economic) well-being. Interestingly, these goals differ slightly from the usual triple-bottom line objectives (environmental, social and economic) often found in the literature. The objectives were ranked using the Analytical Hierarchical Process, where a total of 141 respondents from industry, government agencies, and community from across Queensland State undertook the survey. The environment goal received the highest scores, followed by governance and lastly well-being. The approach to elicit and rank goals and objectives developed in this study can be used to effectively support coastal resource management by providing opportunities for local communities to participate in the setting of regional objectives.

How important is the coast? A survey of coastal objectives in an Australian regional city

Defining goals and objectives is a critical component of adaptive management of natural resources because they provide the basis on which management strategies can be designed and evaluated. The aims of this study are: (i) to apply and test a collaborative method to elicit goals and objectives for inshore fisheries and biodiversity in the coastal zone of a regional city in Australia; (ii) to understand the relative importance of management objectives for different community members and stakeholders; and (iii) to understand how diverse perceptions about the importance of management objectives can be used to support multiple-use management in Australia’s iconic Great Barrier Reef. Management goals and objectives were elicited and weighted using the following steps: (i) literature review of management objectives, (ii) development of a hierarchy tree of objectives, and (iii) ranking of management objectives using survey methods. The overarching goals identified by the community group were to: (1) protect and restore inshore environmental assets; (2) improve governance systems; and (3) improve regional (socio-economic) well-being. Interestingly, these goals differ slightly from the usual triple-bottom line objectives (environmental, social and economic) often found in the literature. The objectives were ranked using the Analytical Hierarchical Process, where a total of 141 respondents from industry, government agencies, and community from across Queensland State undertook the survey. The environment goal received the highest scores, followed by governance and lastly well-being. The approach to elicit and rank goals and objectives developed in this study can be used to effectively support coastal resource management by providing opportunities for local communities to participate in the setting of regional objectives.