Pitfalls and benefits of involving industry in fisheries research: A case study of the live reef fish industry in Queensland, Australia

Including collaboration with industry members as an integral part of research activities is a relatively new approach to fisheries research. Earlier approaches to involving fishers in research usually involved compulsory accommodations of research, such as through compulsory observer programs, in which fishers were seen as subjects of rather than participants in research. This new approach brings with it significant potential benefits but also some unique issues both for the researchers and the participating industry members. In this paper we describe a research project involving the Queensland Coral Reef Finfish Fishery that originated from industry and community concerns about changes in marketing practices in an established commercial line fishery. A key aspect of this project was industry collaboration in all stages of the research, from formulation of objectives to assistance with interpretation of results. We discuss this research as a case study of some of the issues raised by collaboration between industry and research groups in fisheries research and the potential pitfalls and benefits of such collaborations for all parties. A dedicated liaison and extension strategy was a key element in the project to develop and maintain the relationships between fishers and researchers that were fundamental to the success of the collaboration. A major research benefit of the approach was the provision of information not available from other sources: 300 days of direct and unimpeded observation of commercial fishing by researchers; detailed catch and effort records from a further 126 fishing trips; and 53 interviews completed with fishers. Fishers also provided extensive operational information about the fishery as well as ongoing support for subsequent research projects. The time and resources required to complete the research in this consultative framework were greater than for more traditional, researcher-centric fisheries research, but the benefits gained far outweighed the costs.

Down scaling to regional assessment of greenhouse gas emissions to enable consistency in accounting for emissions reduction projects and national inventory accounts for northern beef production in Australia

This paper explores the effect of using regional data for livestock attributes on estimation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the northern beef industry in Australia, compared with using state/territory-wide values, as currently used in Australia’s national GHG inventory report. Regional GHG emissions associated with beef production are reported for 21 defined agricultural statistical regions within state/territory jurisdictions. A management scenario for reduced emissions that could qualify as an Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) project was used to illustrate the effect of regional level model parameters on estimated abatement levels. Using regional parameters, instead of state level parameters, for liveweight (LW), LW gain and proportion of cows lactating and an expanded number of livestock classes, gives a 5.2% reduction in estimated emissions (range +12% to –34% across regions). Estimated GHG emissions intensity (emissions per kilogram of LW sold) varied across the regions by up to 2.5-fold, ranging from 10.5 kg CO2-e kg–1 LW sold for Darling Downs, Queensland, through to 25.8 kg CO2-e kg–1 LW sold for the Pindan and North Kimberley, Western Australia. This range was driven by differences in production efficiency, reproduction rate, growth rate and survival. This suggests that some regions in northern Australia are likely to have substantial opportunities for GHG abatement and higher livestock income. However, this must be coupled with the availability of management activities that can be implemented to improve production efficiency; wet season phosphorus (P) supplementation being one such practice. An ERF case study comparison showed that P supplementation of a typical-sized herd produced an estimated reduction of 622 t CO2-e year–1, or 7%, compared with a non-P supplemented herd. However, the different model parameters used by the National Inventory Report and ERF project means that there was an anomaly between the herd emissions for project cattle excised from the national accounts (13 479 t CO2-e year–1) and the baseline herd emissions estimated for the ERF project (8 896 t CO2-e year–1) before P supplementation was implemented. Regionalising livestock model parameters in both ERF projects and the national accounts offers the attraction of being able to more easily and accurately reflect emissions savings from this type of emissions reduction project in Australia’s national GHG accounts.