Maritime Studies
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Maritime Studies |
|
Ian Cartwright[2]
Fisheries management, or the process of managing the activities of fishermen, has met with little success worldwide. This has resulted in declining fish stocks, too many boats chasing too few fish and the disruption of human communities and biological systems.
In an attempt to keep ailing fishing fleets viable, subsidies have been applied in a number of fisheries, particularly in the northern hemisphere. This has tended to make the problem worse. Politically motivated fisheries management decisions, focused on maintaining fishing fleets and infrastructure rather than fish stocks, frequently contribute to the problem.
Australia manages fisheries by seeking to maintain healthy stocks and their supporting ecosystems as well as a profitable fishing industry. It has approached these objectives by establishing a strong, transparent and relatively effective system of fisheries management. This system provides fishermen with rights and matching obligations, within a highly consultative or ‘co-management’ process.
The rights take the form of a stake in the fishery by Government guaranteeing fishermen access or ‘property rights’ to the fishery. This encourages fishermen to take a long-term view and provides an incentive to fish sustainably. Fishermen are in turn obliged to meet a substantial portion of the costs of managing their activities. They also contribute to the costs of research on the species and ecosystems vital to the sustainability of their fishery. These contributions enable fishermen to have a strong voice on fisheries management and research issues.
Subsidies are virtually unknown in Australia, and current systems promote economic self-sufficiency and profitable operations. In this way, industry and government work together to find ways to tackle problems. These may include the removal of excess fishing boats, rebuilding depleted stocks or implementing measures to preserve healthy ecosystems and marine habitats.
Much still needs to be done. Some Australian fisheries are overfished and research is continuing to learn more about the effects of fishing on the status of stocks and their sustaining environment. Where there is unsustainable fishing, it is being dealt with. Recovery of living marine resources is a paramount concern and tough decisions are being taken on fishing controls, in collaboration with industry and other interest groups. It is a legal requirement that politicians and fisheries managers act in a precautionary manner and not procrastinate, which would risk further declines. The health of fisheries in Australian waters is scrutinised by a government environment agency that will not permit the export of fish taken in an ecologically unsustainable manner or with inadequate management. This adds an additional level of assurance for the future.
In summary, the Australian fishing industry operates efficiently, makes a profit, and has a long-term, sustainable future. It does this without harmful subsidies while contributing significant funds to support research and management.
Fishing was once associated with romantic notions of men toiling on the oceans in a struggle with nature to harvest abundant resources. Now fishing is more likely to conjure up notions of failing fish stocks, conflict between regulators and fishermen, and environmental concerns. Continuous efforts to match catches to the ability of fisheries resources to reproduce and grow have been spectacularly unsuccessful. What went wrong?
After the Second World War, many developed economies paid industry to build new vessels, subsiding their construction and ever more efficient fishing gear in an attempt to capitalise on what was then perceived to be abundant marine resources. This support was usually provided through direct and indirect subsidies. It was hoped that this public investment in fishing would result in employment, the maintenance of lifestyles in coastal communities and provide food for increasing populations.
As it turned out, this was not to be the case. In an attempt to get out of the mess, more subsidies have been thrown at the problem, often in an attempt to reduce levels of fishing without addressing the root cause – ineffective fisheries management. Many countries, particularly in the EU, have talked and talked about reducing catches and vessel numbers, in many cases to no avail. This has left a heritage of depleted fisheries and economically depressed fishing communities propped up by financial assistance. These declines are often associated with a woeful lack of understanding of the impacts of fishing and other activities on our marine fisheries resources and ecosystems.
Most of these situations have been presided over by centrally controlled, top-down bureaucracies that have created an atmosphere of uncertainty and distrust between regulators and fishermen.
There is another way. Australia has addressed many of these problems and manages to operate economically efficient and environmentally sustainable fisheries without recourse to the use of damaging subsidies.
It is simply not possible to manage marine fish. At best, we can attempt to manage the behaviour of fishermen and increasingly, but to a very limited extent, the factors in the ecosystem on which fisheries depend. In the absence of good fisheries management, it generally pays each fisherman to catch as much as possible today on the basis that if he does not, then someone else will catch it tomorrow. A ‘take it while it’s there’ approach which is very much a part of the hunter-gatherer psyche of fishermen is encouraged, driving the decline of poorly managed fisheries.
Generally, fishermen get blamed when stocks decline and accusations of greed and avarice are frequently made. The reality is that they are doing what they are best at – catching as much fish as possible in as short a time as possible. With families to feed, mortgage and other payments to meet, taking advantage of seasonal abundances or new ways of catching fish makes good short-term sense. As stocks decline, fishermen must work harder and catch more to maintain income – to not do so would be to jeopardise their operation in the short-term. In the face of ineffective controls, uncertainty and a lack of decisions on how to address falling fish stocks, there is simply no long-term for many fishermen. They become trapped in a downward spiral, fishing harder to catch less. This threatens both the fisherman and his quarry and becomes a trap that an individual fishermen working alone cannot escape from.
What is needed are means to deal with the special case of the fishing industry. The inevitable problem of a reduced amount of product (fish) resulting from increased activity and investment (boats and gear), is one that simply does not exist in most industries.
Fisheries management worldwide is still in a state of experiment; most fisheries have been under various forms of control for decades with questionable results. Some experiments have been more successful than others due to a range of issues, many of which are not fisheries-related and include political, social and cultural considerations. This paper will look at how Australia has approached the problem of managing fisheries, and how successful it has been. The paper will consider:
• ways that encourage the hunter that exists in every fisherman to hold back today so that there is something in the sea tomorrow and for future generations;
• the establishment of strong fishing rights to create incentives for fishermen to take a longer-term view of the future;
• how, despite a lack of subsidies, the Australian fishing industry continues to be profitable;
• the value of distancing politics from fisheries management;
• the use of a co-management or partnership approach with fishermen and other interest groups working together to improve decision-making and making controls on fishing work;
• the value of fishermen contributing to fisheries management and research costs and so increasing efficiency and getting a say in the future;
• why ecologically sustainable development (ESD) is at the heart of Australian fisheries management;
• the importance of decisive action in the face of unsustainable impacts on fish stocks and the environment; and
• the future challenges facing Australian fisheries.
Australia has the third-largest EEZ in the world, although relatively low productivity and a narrow continental shelf places it 50th in terms of catch (tonnes of fish) landed. Australia is renowned for the high value of its catch, including products such as lobster, abalone, prawns and bluefin tuna. From landings of only about 220,000 tonnes in 1999-2000, earnings of A$1.74 billion were achieved at quayside values.
With over 100 fisheries based on catching upwards of 600 species, the fisheries management challenge facing Australia has been significant. The Australian industry is generally proud of its track record in terms of safeguarding its fisheries assets. Terry Moran, fisherman for over 30 years and Chairman of the national fishing industry body considers that:
Australia is a living example of what good fisheries management can achieve in terms of stock sustainability and the broader ecosystem.
He concedes that there are some significant issues requiring further attention, including the need to deal with environmental issues and rising management costs in such a way that the industry can remain viable. Despite there being some work to do, he is adamant there is a sound long-term future for the next generation of Australian fishermen.
One of the keys to success has been a focus on maintaining healthy fish stocks rather than using fisheries to win political points. Kim Newbold, a rock-lobster and tuna fisherman from Western Australia puts it this way:
In a situation where there is a strong fisheries Minister and a weak fisheries bureaucracy there will be a tendency for the Minister to be fed with what he wants to hear politically, and that is not always best for the long term future of the resource and the fishing industry.
Since the political life cycle is generally much shorter than that of fish populations, politically motivated decision-making on fisheries issues is common. Using scientific uncertainty over the state of fish stocks to stave off politically difficult decisions to cut fleets is a typical example of this.
Short-term, vote-catching decisions to maintain the livelihoods of fishers and fishing communities by maintaining artificially high catch quotas, or subsidising the building of more efficient boats have had dramatic and lasting impacts on many northern hemisphere fisheries. For decades, the EU has been pursuing such an approach, refusing to agree on substantial measures to reduce quotas or fishing capacity. In cases where such agreements are reached, states often flagrantly breach such agreements, calling into question the value of the constraint shown by states that choose to abide by the rules.
Australia has tackled the problems of unsustainable fishing (over-fishing) and too many boats by ‘biting the bullet’ and dealing with the fundamental issue associated with capture fisheries – the fisherman’s view that fish are ‘there for me to use but someone else’s to look after’.
Australia is creating systems that allow strong and flexible access rights by fishermen to the fish stocks. These rights may take the form of being allowed to use a vessel and a certain amount of gear in a fishery, or to catch a certain amount of fish. Creating, and, just as importantly, limiting such rights provide a strong stake in the future of the fishery and an incentive for fishermen to look after the resource. Put simply, access rights result in there being a good chance that a fisherman leaving a fish to swim in the ocean today will be able to take the fish (or its offspring) tomorrow. Looking at it another way, it makes sense that the shareholders (fishermen) in a business (the fishery) will want to keep their asset (fish stocks) value high. If stocks are depleted and potential income eroded, then the value of the fishing rights will fall and the business will make less profit.
Dave Carter, ex-fisherman and senior executive with a major Australian seafood company feels that stronger property rights are the way to go.
Property rights are essential to give everyone a longer-term perspective – they have led the Australian industry into a more considered, longer term approach to fisheries.
Stuart Richey, fisherman and family fishing enterprise owner agrees:
Allocation of a strong right and the resulting feeling of ownership leads to good stewardship.
He also thinks that there is a good deal of confusion in the community about property rights in fisheries –
it is important that people understand that what we are after is a right to a catch a sustainable portion of the fish, and not to somehow remove ownership of the fish from the community.
Brian Jeffries, President of the Australian Tuna Boat Owners’ Association, feels that property rights have played a key role in the development of the southern bluefin tuna industry:
We used to say to the government – you give us property rights (secure access rights) and we will give you a tuna fishery that Australia can be proud of. That was the promise – the proof is export growth from $22 million a decade ago to $302 million now.
Going beyond tuna, Brian sees a rosy future for Australian fisheries:
Here we are as the Australian industry selling to the fastest growing population and income area of the world their favourite food – fish. Only lack of fisheries access rights can stuff it up.
Effective access rights and ecologically sustainable fisheries lead to a long-term, profitable industry. Some of these profits then become available to address management issues; it is from this profitable base that the Australian industry is now able to work.
Australia does not provide subsidy assistance to its fishing fleet to build or modernise fishing vessels and fishermen generally support this situation. Stuart Richey is adamant about subsidies.
There is simply no place for subsidies in modern fisheries, but it appears that the rest of the world has yet to cotton onto this.
There is strong evidence to support this statement and studies by the WWF and World Bank have estimated that around US$15 billion is spent annually on subsidies to support a catch of around US$70 billion.
The impacts of subsidies are felt by the Australian industry both in the market place and at sea. Stuart Richey again:
We feel the flow-on effect of the EU fisheries policy and have to compete on the high seas with heavily subsidised and poorly controlled fleets. Many of these boats seem to have come south as a result of northern hemisphere stock collapses and are creating problems down here.
Dave Carter, whose company fishes in Australian Antarctic waters for Patagonian toothfish and for other species on the high seas observes:
We have to pay licenses to fish, even on the high seas, and carry vessel monitoring systems and observers as required. There is no level playing field – we fish by the rules, are tightly controlled and still make a profit. Others are subsidised, not controlled and often fish illegally. They are threatening our operations both at sea and in the market place and placing the sustainability of some fisheries resources in critical danger. There is not enough effort being made by the flag states, owners or governments to curtail such operations.
The evidence gathered to date by organisations like TRAFFIC Oceania support these claims. For instance, it is estimated that as much as 75 per cent of the total catch of Patagonian toothfish is taken illegally, often by vessels and expertise displaced from poorly managed and heavily subsidised fisheries. Since 1997, Australia has arrested six illegal vessels fishing in Australian waters in Antarctica, while the French have arrested 20 over the last 10 years in French waters, also in Antarctica.
Ted Loveday, ex-prawn trawler skipper and now CEO of Seafood Services Australia considers that
before spending public money on fisheries, we need evidence that the cash spent will result in long term benefits in terms of sustainability – fleet restructuring (reduction) for instance.
Ted considers that subsidies on any other basis lead to an ‘umbilical cord mentality’ that is frequently accompanied by a ‘resistance to change at a fundamental level’. Some compensation and restructuring finance has been provided to fishermen to remove excess boats from some Australian fisheries, on the clear understanding that it is provided on a one-off basis.
Australian fisheries have had one major experience with subsidies. A shipbuilding subsidy operated in Australia in the 1970s and 1980s and was provided to keep Australian shipyards in business. This subsidy or ‘bounty’ fuelled a rush to build trawlers for the Gulf of Carpentaria prawn fishery. The flurry of shipbuilding created the most modern prawn trawl fleet in the world and established Australian shipbuilders as the top producers of this type of vessel. As Mike O’Brien, ex-prawn fisherman and now fleet manager for a large seafood company observes:
The problem with these sorts of subsidies is that they are double edged; we ended up with a modern fleet, but one that placed unsustainable pressure on the prawn resource.
As it turned out, the subsidy was to have a serious impact on the fishery. By 1986, catches of tiger prawns had dropped to 50 per cent of that of 1981 and it became obvious to fisheries managers that the objective of the shipbuilding subsidy was in direct conflict with that of sound fisheries management. Industry and government, working together through a co-management process involving government, fishermen, scientists and other interest groups agreed on measures to reduce the number of boats fishing. At the center of this was a scheme that saw approximately A$31 million of industry money go towards buying out operators and removing their boats from the fishery. Industry, far from going broke over the matter, eventually reaped the rewards of good management. Fishing was reduced substantially, stocks in the Northern Prawn Fishery recovered and profitability was restored. Today it remains the most valuable Commonwealth fishery, with catches of prawns in 2000-2001 year worth an estimated A$164 million. Adjustment to match fishing to the prawn stock continues in the fishery. The latest round of cuts (2001-2002) are likely to result in only 100 vessels remaining in the fishery, compared with around 237 in 1985. These boats will have a reduced impact on the fishing grounds and all operate with devices to reduce the unwanted catch (or ‘by-catch’) of fish and other marine organisms.
In the southern bluefin tuna industry there have been hard times due to severe stock depletions and reductions in allowable catches. This caused many operators to come close to bankruptcy. Despite this, they relied on their own devices to restore their industry, without attempting to seek an increase in catch. Brian Jeffries:
The tuna industry has a strong philosophy of standing on its own feet and not taking money from government, even in the grim bankruptcies of the 1980s. Now we recognise that it gained us respect and confidence – both in ourselves and from the community.
The peak management body for Commonwealth fisheries in Australia, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority or AFMA, is run like a commercial organisation in many ways. Key elements of the AFMA operational design include:
• freedom from political interference in the day-to-day business of managing a fishery;
• a partnership approach with fishermen and other industry and community interests, who are genuinely consulted on decisions, as opposed to being ‘told’;
• strong fishing rights; and
• accountability for the costs of management outcomes.
AFMA has a corporate plan based on a government act, against which its performance is measured. A Board of Directors is responsible for management decisions and their success at maintaining healthy fisheries is assessed on an annual basis. The Minister sets key policy and other strategic input under his portfolio and oversees the operation of AFMA. The Minister can direct AFMA in writing concerning its performance, but this has never occurred in the ten-year history of the Authority.
Where a fish stock is overfished, AFMA must work with industry to rebuild stocks, by taking tough decisions to reduce allowable catches or the amount of fishing. These discussions are made easier by the fact that industry holds considerable assets in the fishery in the form of fish quota or licences. Legislatively, AFMA must act in accordance with its objectives, preventing the sorts of decision-making paralysis and resultant stock declines that have occurred in such cases as the EU and Canada.
A co-management partnership between government and industry as well as other stakeholders lies at the heart of Australian fisheries management. Most Australian fisheries operate through Management Advisory Committees (MACs)
on which all key groups are
represented, including fishermen, processors, conservationists, researchers and managers. These MACs provide high-level advice direct to decision-makers (either the AFMA Board or the Director or Fisheries/Minister in the case of State fisheries). In the opinion of Mike O’Brien:
A pro-active industry has to adopt co-management or efforts at fisheries management will fall apart as we saw in Australia in the early days.
Brian Jeffries, quoting from the Croatian community who are major players in the southern bluefin tuna industry:
The Croatian fishermen have a saying that the team of a donkey and an average man will together always be smarter than the smartest man. The same applies to fisheries management. I am not sure whether the fisheries manager is the donkey or the average man – but the combination certainly works.
Fisheries management is not cheap. Science is needed to monitor and predict the status of the stocks and related ecosystems. Costs of licensing, consultation processes, and ways to deal with illegal fishing can be high for intensively managed fisheries. Under AFMA’s partnership approach, the beneficiaries of fisheries management (fishermen) are obligated to pay for many of those services under a ‘user pays’ approach. On the other hand, fishermen are entitled to significant participation in the decision-making process on how fisheries will be managed.
The fishing industry contribution to the research and management budget of Australian Commonwealth fisheries is substantial. In 2000-2001 about 2.8 per cent (A$13.5 million) of the gross value of fisheries production (GVP) was collected from industry through levies to cover costs of management under a cost recovery policy. For research, 1.3 per cent (A$6.2 million) of GVP was collected. As a result, Commonwealth fisheries are close to being self-sustaining financially.
AFMA is accountable to the industry it serves and provides annual budget proposals. Within an overall requirement to maintain sustainability, industry is fully involved in the management and budgeting process and thereby feels committed to supporting agreed solutions. Mike O’Brien is supportive:
Cost recovery leads to more responsible fishing, since we bear the brunt of the costs of managing boats in the fishery. It forces managers and industry alike to be more careful about how money is spent. I have also noticed the way in which industry, by contributing to, and participating in research, has resulted in more control over priorities, making research projects more focused and targeted.
Building on the global agreement on environmental issues made in Rio in 1992, Australia has taken the application of ESD seriously, under the following definition:
Using and conserving the community’s resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased.
While many fishing states pay lip service to ESD principles Australia has made it clear that sustainability cannot be compromised under any circumstances. The fish that are the primary target of the fisherman are just one part of the ESD picture. Incidental catch or by-catch must remain within sustainable limits, and damage to the ecosystem, e.g. by the effect of fishing gear on sensitive seabed habitats, must be minimised. To help achieve this, ‘environmentally friendly’ fishing gear and devices have been developed. These include devices to release turtles from trawls unharmed, which are now mandatory in Australia’s largest prawn fishery, and strategies that reduce the incidental killing of seabirds by longlines. The increasing demands for the creation of marine reserves and habitat protection are the next challenges to be faced by the fishing industry
Australian fishermen are now spending less time and money fighting against ESD-related controls and more on working with scientists and NGOs on means to protect vulnerable species like turtles and albatross. Frequently, the Australian industry has adopted by-catch reduction devices to reduce mortalities ahead of a legal requirement to do so.
ESD is not just concerned with biological systems. It deals also with the need for resources to be used in such a way as to develop a productive fisheries economy that has the ability to address environmental performance. This is sometimes known as a need to be ‘in the black to be green’. It is almost impossible to implement draconian cuts to either vessel numbers or catch when investment is high and stocks and profitability are low. The same applies to developing and fitting environmentally friendly fishing gear.
Fishing is not the only impact on the marine environment. In Australia, there is a strategy to ensure that fisheries ecosystems are considered in a holistic manner. Particular focus is given to coastal and other critical habitats including mangrove and seagrass nursery areas that are under threat from land-based impacts. These impacts include those associated with agriculture (e.g. pesticide and nutrient run-off into rivers and estuaries) and development (e.g. destruction of mangroves and other wetland nursery grounds).
ESD is viewed by industry as a necessary burden that has to be faced, although the way in which it is introduced and who pays is a matter of some controversy. Stuart Richey:
ESD is a good thing for our fisheries – of course we need long term sustainability or there will be no future. The costs of ESD should be recovered from other sectors in the fishery addition to fishermen – industry is tired of being expected to meet all the costs involved. We cannot simply slap the costs of meeting all the ESD hurdles onto the price of fish. Our industry takes the price they get for their fish from the market, one which is accessed by subsidised and unsustainable fleets who can afford to sell fish at lower prices.
Bill Cull, fisherman and vessel owner has seen many changes in the last 20 years.
My Dad was a fisherman and only used to think one season ahead – it was all he needed to do. Now we are all doing things on the basis of a 20 year time horizon, thinking of our children’s future. I have a son and nephew both wanting a future career in fishing and it’s up to me to adapt to the ESD view of life and make sure they have one.
As a parallel process to the efforts of AFMA, by December 2003 all Australia’s export fisheries products will require approval from the Minister of the Environment prior to export. This approval will be based on a thorough assessment of the fishery to make sure that not only the main fish species are sustainable, but equally importantly, that the supporting ecosystem is not compromised by fishing operations. If approval is not given the species will be removed from the list of permitted export fish, with the resulting loss of invaluable export markets.
Achieving sustainability standards has an additional economic spin-off by being eligible for eco-libelling at retail level. Well-known examples of this are the ‘dolphin free’ tuna campaign and the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) accreditation. These schemes seek to reward producers of sustainable marine products with a price premium in the market. The Western Australia rock lobster fishery was the first to achieve MSC certification as a sustainable fishery, and a number of other fisheries in Australia are at various stages of moving towards MSC certification.
Deciding on an allowable annual level of catch or the numbers of boats that should operate in a fishery is not easy. Scientific advice inevitably has uncertainty and risk attached to because of the difficulty and cost associated with gaining an adequate understanding of marine fish species and their supporting ecosystems.
Those who do not wish to see the fishing industry constrained, even in the face of apparently undeniable facts about declining fish stocks, frequently exploit this uncertainty. Political inertia or intense industry lobbying can and does delay action, sometimes to the point where stock recoveries are compromised. The world is full of examples of this, including perhaps the most spectacular stock collapse of modern times, the Newfoundland cod fishery.
Stuart Richey feels that:
When a resource is in trouble, action needs to be taken quickly – delay can lead to long-term problems. Indecision can lead to uncertainty, a lack of confidence and investment. This will usually mean that the industry is worn down and short of capital just when adjustment is needed by taking boats out of the industry.
The reverse of this situation is the ability of a well-managed, profitable fishery to ride out times when catches need to be low due, say, to long-term stock fluctuations.
The difference between procrastination and action is summed up nicely by fisherman and enterprise owner Kim Newbold:
When you get down to it, it is better that a few fishermen go extinct with some compensation than try and keep everybody happy and fishing, and cause the resource to go extinct. No resource, no fishing, no community.
Inadequate management controls and overfishing by a number of countries has taken stocks of southern bluefin tuna (SBT) to the verge of collapse. Today, scientists estimate that the SBT stock remains at less than 10 per cent of the stock existing prior to the commencement of fishing. In the late 1980s severe cuts were introduced to agreed catches by the fishing nations that were part of the Treaty established to conserve tuna (Australia, Japan and New Zealand). While this move secured the management of the fishery in the waters of the Treaty countries, the stock continued to be fished on the high seas, driving stocks even lower to the point where the Australian industry was on the verge of economic collapse.
SBT was one of the first fisheries in Australia to adopt strong property rights. These took the form of individual shares of the overall catch of SBT or an individual transferable quota expressed in tonnes. This created a strong association of SBT fishermen who were determined to make the most of what little stake they had in the future of the overall fishery.
The SBT is not out danger yet. Sustained effort will be needed to maintain catches at levels that will permit demonstrable rebuilding of the stock. Australia is playing an increasing role in international forums to promote responsible fishing, particularly of high seas fish stocks such as SBT.
There is growing acknowledgement that fisheries resources are not the sole domain of commercial fishermen and other key groups are increasingly involved with fisheries management in Australia. The main three key groups are recreational fishermen, indigenous groups and the general community.
The recreational lobby in Australia is one of the most powerful of these, since 25-30 per cent of all Australians fish recreationally. The number of car bumper stickers ‘I fish and I vote’ that appear around elections underscores the strength of this lobby. They argue that recreational anglers are a legitimate user of fisheries resources, particularly in inshore areas. Anglers are forming a growing and effective lobbying group, urging politicians to provide for their full recognition as a stakeholder in fisheries management arrangements. They argue that the true economic value of the recreational catch is far in excess of that of the commercial catch. Their evaluation takes account of the ancillary industries such as boats and gear, fishing tackle and bait supply that add considerable value to the local economies. Since the attraction and quality of the ‘angling experience’ is based on the availability of fish, they then claim a strong and legitimate stake in fisheries management.
In some Australian fisheries, recreational anglers make a significant contribution to the total amounts of fish landed. Their total catch is estimated to be of the order of 30,000 tonnes, or about the same as the catch of Australia’s highest tonnage commercial fishery. The equity of a growing number of anglers taking as much fish as they like from the sea while the commercial sector is cutting back in response to stock declines has been questioned, particularly by the commercial sector. Kim Newbold remarks:
While the commercial sector is subject to strict controls, the recreationals seem to be allowed to expand without a limit on total licenses. They don’t contribute fully to the costs of management either – it seems like one rule for us and another for the recreational sector.
While the catches and effects of recreational fishing are not well-known, almost all sea fisheries in Australia have controls of one sort or another on catches by anglers. These are usually on the number of fish of a particular species that can be kept at any one time and on minimum size limits. These regulations are usually legally enforceable, with fines for those who break them. Some states have gone further and require a licence for sea fishing.
Indigenous (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) communities are increasingly pushing for recognition of traditional rights, in much the same way as other indigenous groups, such as the Maori in New Zealand and American Indian groups in North America, have done. Indigenous fishermen and communities are becoming increasingly involved in management processes, although their involvement has not generally matched that of the commercial sector to date.
The Australian community is becoming more concerned about the environment generally, and that of the ocean in particular. Non-governmental organisations now have full participation on all fisheries management advisory committees, contributing to a growing, if not always smooth, relationship between them and the fishing industry.
While Australian fisheries management has been relatively successful, the path to long-term sustainable fisheries is not an easy one to tread. In some instances, controls were brought in after the amount of fishing had already built up to a point where there were more boats and fishermen than there were sustainable quantities of fish. This has required some government money to buy out surplus fishing operations (licences). In many cases, this has been done not by using taxpayers’ money, but by industry themselves, as was the case of the Northern Prawn Fishery described earlier.
The latest report on the status of Australian Commonwealth fisheries (1999) notes that 12 species or fishery/species groups were fully fished, one was under-fished, 13 had an uncertain status and four were over-fished. This ‘report card’ shows that there remains much to be done to prevent further declines in Australian fish stocks. The rebuilding of over-fished stocks has not been as rapid as was hoped and a high degree of uncertainty concerning the status of many stocks remains. Similar uncertainty exists regarding the health of some marine ecosystems.
Management must be responsive to significant changes in stocks or the environment, or new information. Scientific assessments are being revised as we learn more about fisheries resources and their supporting ecosystems. Where there is over-fishing, the requirement to reduce fleet sizes is continuing in many Australian fisheries. Any adjustments are usually met with initial resistance from fishermen, concerned about the erosion of their assets both in terms of investments in vessels and gear, as well as the value of the licence. Fritz Drenkhahn, a trawler skipper and now vessel and quota owner is troubled by the restructuring of his trawl fishery and the possible effects on the value of his property rights. He does, however, feel that:
What we have now is way ahead of the old days of open slather and everybody going for it – I feel that despite the short term issues there is a real life for the fishery in the future.
The introduction of tough management measures, a reducing fleet size and greater profitability means that license values have increased. To own the right to go commercial fishing for some species in Australia can mean a substantial investment. This is a major shift from the days when a fisherman could start as a deckhand and work his the way up to owning a couple of boats. To some extent this is changing the nature of the fishing industry, including that of coastal communities. The rights to fish are increasingly being traded and owned by investors, a number of whom never set foot on a boat. This allows these rights to reach a true market value and permits the free passage of capital, much as would occur in a land-based industry. It also allows (and encourages) fishermen to exit the fishery with dignity and with some reward for their past labours. Perhaps most significantly, it helps assure economic and biological sustainability of the industry by increasing efficiency, within clear and unequivocal sustainability guidelines.
Some concerns exist concerning the potential social impacts of losses of jobs in the fishing and processing sectors as a result of strong rights-based fisheries, particularly where rights are fully transferable. The dominance of ‘big business’ and a corporate mentality resulting from free-market arrangements are also frequently raised as concerns. Since effective fisheries management is about rationalising fleets and removing over-capacity such effects are not unexpected. There are some arguments for special treatment, including restrictions on transferability and ownership of fishing rights, the maximum size of fishing operations (vessels, or holding of allowable catch) and allocation of fishing rights to non-vessel owners. These may have particular application in the case of isolated communities and where there is special dependence on fisheries. Special treatment is certainly possible, and may be desirable in some circumstances. However, these provisions are very difficult to apply fairly and effectively, since they usually rely primarily on government’s ability to control the activity of fishermen – the success rate on this score is self-evident.
Despite its complexity, the Australian fishing industry operates efficiently, makes a profit, and has a long-term, sustainable future. It does this with a lack of harmful subsidies, contributes funds to support research and management and plays a significant role in decisions about its future.
The economic health of a fishery relies on sustaining the essential ecological processes. In Australian fisheries there is an overriding commitment to achieve this sustainability as a core objective of fisheries management. With this overall framework in place, strong property rights are provided, which lead to fishermen having a greater ownership and responsibility for management outcomes. Finally, a meaningful and effective consultative process helps to develop the details of management strategies that meet ESD criteria.
In the long term, there is little doubt that the Australian model will result in more profitable outcomes than systems that rely on subsides and do not have the ecological sustainability of the fish and environment, as well as the profitability of fishers as their key objectives.
[1] This paper is based on a Report which was commissioned and funded in 2002 by the Endangered Seas Programme of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, Geneva. It was presented at the AUSMARINE EAST conference held in Brisbane, 28-29 October 2003, and is republished with kind permission of Baird Publications and the author.
[2] Thalassa Consulting Pty Ltd, Tasmania, Australia
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MarStudies/2003/21.html