Community Perceptions of Aquaculture: Report on the Eyre Peninsula

Nicki Mazur, Heather Aslin, Allan Curtis, Ian Byron & Cynthia Magpantay

Social Sciences Program Bureau of Rural Sciences

© Commonwealth of Australia 2004 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth available from the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Commonwealth Copyright Administration, Intellectual Property Branch, Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, GPO Box 2154, Canberra ACT 2601 or at http://www.dcita.gov.au/cca.

The Australian Government acting through the Bureau of Rural Sciences has exercised due care and skill in the preparation and compilation of the information and data set out in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Bureau of Rural Sciences, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence, for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying upon any of the information or data set out in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

Postal address: Bureau of Rural Sciences GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601

Copies available from: Social Sciences Program, BRS GPO Box 858 Canberra ACT 2601 Ph: 02 6272 4282 Fax: 02 6272 4747

Email: social_sciences@brs.gov.au

Internet: http://www.brs.gov.au/social_sciences

Acknowledgements

The project team would like to thank the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry (DAFF) for their overall support of this project, particularly Glenn Hurry, John Talbot, and Emily Stutterd. We also appreciate the cooperation and support of Ian Nightingale, Michael Deering and Greg Ryan of the Department of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA). We would like to acknowledge the Eyre Regional Development Board, Peter Mitchell in particular, for the considerable support lent to us when we conducted the pretest workshops in Port Lincoln and Coffin Bay for the mail survey component of this case study. We also thank the workshop participants for their time. We would like to thank all those people with an interest in aquaculture who gave up their valuable time to participate in the stakeholder/community interviews. We also appreciate the time that the residents of Port Lincoln, Coffin Bay, Cleve, Streaky Bay and Ceduna took to respond to the household mail survey. Bruce Shindler of Oregon State University shared his extensive knowledge of communicating effectively with the public about primary industries and natural resource management. Finally, the project team would like to acknowledge Social Sciences Program staff who contributed some of their time to support this project: Anne Maree Casey, Con Charalambou, Jean Chesson, Jasmine Green, David Hyndman, Shannon Kelson and Trevor Webb.

iii

Executive Summary

A case study of community and stakeholder perceptions of aquaculture on the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia

This report provides a case study of community and stakeholder views of aquaculture. The work focused on the Eyre Peninsula, South Australia – a sparsely populated region with 1,400km of coastline and a significant aquaculture industry.

Data were gathered through a literature review, 34 in-depth interviews with State and Local government agency staff, aquaculture industry representatives, researchers, conservation organisations, and community members. Mail surveys were also undertaken of approximately 500 households in the region.

Interviewees see benefits and challenges

Data from the stakeholder and community interviews revealed that people recognise aquaculture’s social and economic benefits.

Interviewees perceived varied and multi-dimensional challenges and solutions. Some of these challenges were seen to threaten the aquaculture industry, while others were seen to result from aquaculture activities. The challenges interviewees believed needed to be overcome included:

• inferior industry practices; • negative environmental and social impacts; • insufficient knowledge and approaches; • business/marketing and scientific challenges; • the need for resource security; and • negative community perceptions.

Interviewees offer range of pathways to overcome challenges

Interviewees suggested the need for: • time to build industry experience skills, and environmental

stewardship; • improve industry career structures; • targeted support for Indigenous Australians’ involvement; • more timely and independent ecological science undertaken

at regional scales to inform integrated planning and to help build stronger regulatory processes;

• more industry information to improve public awareness; and • better and more timely multi-stakeholder dialogues.

Variable degree of trust suggests need to build bridges across different interests

Interviewees had varied trust in governments’ and the aquaculture industry’s decisions and suggested a range of strategies to improve relations across groups with different values and interests in aquaculture.

Mail survey attracts strong interest

The mail survey achieved a high response rate of 68% and the majority of respondents were male (72%), long-standing residents of the Region, had visited an aquaculture farm (78%) and/or knew someone in the industry (85%).

Strong support for the industry alongside divided opinions about environmental impacts and management

A majority of respondents (81%) approved of the overall industry. The data also suggests they recognise the inherent challenge of balancing economic and environmental priorities relating to aquaculture. Nearly half (48%) agreed industry was concerned about environmental management. They were divided about how well the industry responded to environmental controversy (12% disagree, 32% neutral, 46% agreed).

v

Some industry sectors attract greater trust and lower perceived risk

Respondents had strong trust in decisions made by the oyster sector (71%) and abalone sector (51%), and low trust in the kingfish (45%) and tuna sectors (28%).

They also saw greater risk of environmental impacts from the kingfish (61%) and tuna sectors (41%), and low risk from the oyster (61%) or abalone (58%) sectors.

Respondents rate their overall knowledge of aquaculture as low

Most respondents gave themselves low ratings for their knowledge about aquaculture, coastal management, government roles and marine ecology. Knowledge ratings were lower for the mussel, abalone and kingfish sectors than for the other aquaculture sectors. Respondents felt they knew the least about coastal management, marine ecology and governmental roles in aquaculture planning and management.

Local media are significant information sources

Most respondents depend on local newspaper and radio and direct industry contact to obtain information about aquaculture. Other studies show media and industry are not always seen as ‘credible.’

Community participation is valued by respondents

A majority (71%) supported community input into aquaculture planning and management, and a majority (68%) felt that the aquaculture industry needed to listen more to the community. Not all respondents were interested in being involved themselves. However, 60% of respondents were moderately interested in contributing to aquaculture planning.

Significant differences detected among respondents’ views

Statistical tests showed marked differences across a range of respondent variables.

Female respondents were more likely to be concerned about aquaculture’s impacts and were less trusting of the industry and of government. Respondents with higher levels of education were more aware of issues affecting aquaculture and coastal management, and questioned unlimited aquaculture growth in the region. Respondents who had been to aquaculture farms and/or had social links with the industry were more trusting and supportive of its benefits. They were also more inclined to acknowledge limits to the industry’s growth in the region, and to prioritise environmental management and community involvement in the industry. Recreational fishers were significantly more concerned about aquaculture’s aesthetic impacts and were less trusting of the kingfish and tuna industries.

Varied perceptions of risk, industry, resource management, and sustainability are pertinent to a viable aquaculture industry

Background research and the interview and survey data show that while ‘sustainability’ is understood differently according to people’s values and beliefs, the public appears to appreciate the difficulties in finding appropriate ways to balance economic, social and environmental imperatives.

Given varying degrees of interest in and knowledge about industry specifics and the complexities of resource management and ecosystems, industries and government need to tailor their communications and engagement strategies to suit different audiences.

Providing public information is valuable. However, there is declining public trust in government and some industries and growing public concerns about the risks and uncertainties of health and environmental impacts from scientific, agricultural and technical practices. Given this trend, we need particularly

vi

sensitive approaches that engage communities and ensure their concerns are acknowledged, listened to and addressed.

South Australian case study and future work can assist governments and industry to engage communities

The Community perceptions of aquaculture project supports the Australian Government’s policy and initiatives to develop a viable and sustainable aquaculture industry. The SA Case Study and remaining project findings will help governments and industry build the social acceptability of aquaculture by providing information about: • comparable work on public perceptions and participation in

other fields; • public concerns about minimising risks of environmental and

health impacts and ‘best practice’ models for engaging communities in dialogues about risk;

• baseline data about current public views and knowledge about Australian aquaculture;

• direct lessons about key messages and credible information sources to use in communications;

• information about public participation; and • means for on-going monitoring of social aspects of

aquaculture to evaluate success of communications, consultation policies and programs.

vii

viii

Contents

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary .....................................................................................................v Contents ........................................................................................................................1 Chapter One: Introduction .........................................................................................5

Report structure..........................................................................................................7 Government responsibilities ......................................................................................8

The Australian Government...................................................................................9 South Australia.....................................................................................................10

Chapter Two: Related Research...............................................................................13 Valuing environment, economy and sustainability..................................................14 Perceptions of governments’ resource management approaches.............................15 Risk perceptions.......................................................................................................16

What is special about risk perception?.................................................................16 Risk communication ............................................................................................17

Community engagement and resource management ...............................................17 Chapter 3: Methods ...................................................................................................21

Key terms and concepts ...........................................................................................21 Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches ................................................22 Regional case studies ...............................................................................................22 Key informant interviews ........................................................................................22

Interview sampling procedures ............................................................................23 Mail survey ..............................................................................................................24 Statistical analysis....................................................................................................24

Chapter 4: Eyre Peninsula Regional Profile ...........................................................27 Demographics ..........................................................................................................29 Education and Employment .....................................................................................30 Industry, commerce and industry employment........................................................31 The aquaculture industry..........................................................................................32

Economic impacts of aquaculture........................................................................34 Chapter 5: Interview Findings..................................................................................37

Respondent demographics .......................................................................................37 Involvement and influence in aquaculture matters ..................................................37 Aquaculture’s value, challenges and opportunities .................................................38

Aquaculture values...............................................................................................38 Aquaculture challenges and opportunities ...........................................................39

Ecological sustainability and aquaculture................................................................44 Informing the public ................................................................................................48 Issues of trust ...........................................................................................................50

Building trust in government ...............................................................................50 Trusting aquaculture’s environmental performance ...........................................52 How the aquaculture industry can gain the trust of governments and communities..............................................................................................................................54

Working with individuals and groups with different interests.................................55 Chapter 6: Household Mail Survey – Eyre Peninsula............................................57

Response rates..........................................................................................................57 Respondent profile ...................................................................................................57 Issues of Importance to the Community ..................................................................61 Public Awareness/ Attitudes to Aquaculture and Coastal Management..................63

1

Attitudes to coastal management .........................................................................65 Attitudes towards aquaculture’s effects and characteristics ................................66 Attitudes towards industry behaviour ..................................................................67

Public Trust in Government and Industry................................................................68 Perceptions of environmental risks of aquaculture ..................................................69 Respondents’ Knowledge about Aquaculture and Related Topics..........................70

Knowledge of aquaculture sectors and techniques ..............................................70 Knowledge of aquaculture’s environmental and socio-economic impacts..........70 Knowledge of coastal management and marine ecology.....................................71 Knowledge of government roles in aquaculture ..................................................72

Information Sources.................................................................................................72 Community participation .........................................................................................74 Respondent differences............................................................................................76

Age.......................................................................................................................76 Gender..................................................................................................................77 Formal education .................................................................................................77 Time lived in local area........................................................................................78 Involvement in an organised group with a coastal management focus ...............79 Visited an aquaculture site ...................................................................................80 Self, relative or close friend work in aquaculture industry for over six months..81 Participation in coastal recreational activities......................................................82 Recreational fishers..............................................................................................82 Attendance at public meetings about aquaculture ...............................................83 Attended open days and displays about aquaculture ...........................................84

Chapter 7: Summary and Conclusions ....................................................................85 Related research findings.........................................................................................85 Regional profile .......................................................................................................85 Interview findings ....................................................................................................86

Challenges and solutions......................................................................................86 ESD and aquaculture............................................................................................89 Public preferences for information ......................................................................89 Trust issues Community and industry interviewees’ trust in government ...........89

Mail survey highlights .............................................................................................91 Coastal management ............................................................................................91 Aquaculture..........................................................................................................91 Risk perceptions...................................................................................................91 Trust issues...........................................................................................................91 Respondents’ knowledge .....................................................................................92 Information sources .............................................................................................92 Community participation .....................................................................................92

Mail survey respondent differences .........................................................................92 Gender..................................................................................................................92 Education .............................................................................................................92 Time lived in the local area..................................................................................93 Involvement in an organised group with a coastal management focus ...............93 Visits to aquaculture sites/farms ..........................................................................93 Social links to the industry...................................................................................93 Participation in coastal recreation and fishing .....................................................93 Attendance at public events .................................................................................93

Project implications and benefits .............................................................................94 Potential areas for further development ...............................................................95

Communicating findings......................................................................................96 References...................................................................................................................99

3

Chapter One: Introduction

This project examines community and stakeholder perceptions and responses to aquaculture. It has used a case study approach to answer the following key questions:

1. What are the different kinds of perspectives that communities and stakeholders

have about aquaculture? • What do people value about aquaculture? • What challenges do people believe are associated with marine and coastal

aquaculture? • How much do people trust aquaculture decision-making? • What kind of information do people rely on, and how interested are they

in making contributions to decision-making? • How do people think differences can be reconciled? • How do perceptions of different kinds of respondents compare and

contrast?

2. What are the relevant social and regulatory contexts that inform these perspectives on aquaculture and that underpin aquaculture development in different jurisdictions?

• How do we distinguish between ‘community’ and ‘stakeholder’? • What are the key social and economic features of aquaculture regions? • How is aquaculture planned, regulated and managed?

3. How can consultation, participation and communication processes about aquaculture by industry and government be improved?

• What other situations in industry development and natural resource management can inform the aquaculture industry experience?

• What ‘best practice’ models exist and how might they be applied to aquaculture?

Aquaculture is a growing industry that has the potential to help meet increased demand for fish supplies, given the decline in many wild fish stocks (AAAT 2002). Australian aquaculture is a diverse industry that has a strong focus on exporting premium value species, such as southern blue fin tuna, pearls, oysters, Atlantic salmon and prawns. Growth of Australian aquaculture is affected by a multitude of factors including low levels of industry cohesion, a lack of strategic research and development and the need for investment, policy, regulatory and social environments that work towards ecologically sustainable development (ESD)(AFFA & NADC 2001). Achieving ESD is thought to be the overriding strategic issue and challenge for global aquaculture. It requires shifting current perceptions of aquaculture development and management, and highlights the need to find ways of farming that achieve a balance between food security and the environmental and resource costs of production (FAO 1999:23). The successful development of a viable aquaculture industry is inextricably intertwined with access to and the sustainable use and development of natural resources (i.e. marine and coastal environments)(see Figure 1). Consequently, it is valuable to identify and understand the complexities of primary industry development and natural resource management as they relate to aquaculture.

5

the overlap = Complex web of interests & tradeoffs between different sets of actors

Natural systems

Human systems

Australian Aquaculture KKeeyy cchhaalllleennggee == eeccoollooggiiccaallllyy ssuussttaaiinnaabbllee ddeevveellooppmmeenntt ooff

sshhaarreedd mmaarriinnee && ccooaassttaall rreessoouurrcceess

Figure 1. The complex social environment of aquaculture industry development Natural resource management is about influencing the interactions between people and the ecosystems they depend on for their livelihood and well being, as well as the physical outcomes of these interactions (Aitken 2001: 1; Clark et al. 2000). This system is characterised by a complex web of interests and trade offs between different sets of actors. The sets of issues relating to developing aquaculture has many similarities to natural resource management situations that involve:

• Natural systems that cut across social, economic, administrative and political units;

• Resources with multiple and potentially conflicting uses; • Challenges associated by marketing imperfections (i.e. negative externalities,

unclear property rights/access to resources, natural resource products priced without consideration of resource value/cost of depletion);

• Uncertainties about appropriate rates of resource extraction and investment in conservation; and

• Differences in economic, social and environmental viewpoints and competing interests of different stakeholders (Grimble and Wellard 1997: 178-179).

The final point about varied perspectives and interests serves as the primary focus of this project. It is now recognised in Australia and internationally that there are mixed opinions about aquaculture that need to be considered and that aquaculturalists often have to deal with issues about access to and the use of natural resources (PMSEIC 2002; FAO 1999). These issues involve differences in views about which natural resources humans can or should use (and alter) and how sustainable are the various uses of renewable natural resources. There is increasing recognition that primary industry development and its associated natural resource management challenges call for a focus on stakeholder and community knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, on highlighting the contexts in which they occur, and on finding constructive ways to manage conflicts (Harding 1998; Taylor & Braithewaite 1996). This understanding enables decision-making that is responsive to wide ranging interests and concerns and increases the effectiveness of consultation, public education, and marketing and communications programs.

6

The Fisheries Division of the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) is responsible for developing and implementing national policy on aquaculture development and management. The Division funded this project because it recognised the need for governments and industry to understand the wide-ranging perspectives on aquaculture as a way informing efforts to address concerns about aquaculture. While the Fisheries Division is in regular communication with national and state-level industry and government stakeholders, it has a more limited capacity to access and monitor regional and local-level aquaculture interests and issues. This project is providing information at that scale.

Report structure The Community and Stakeholder Perceptions of Aquaculture Project will have several outputs. This report is the first instalment in a series of reports that will help to improve understanding about the varied ways people perceive aquaculture’s challenges and opportunities. This report presents findings from a case study undertaken on the Eyre Peninsula region in South Australia. The case study entails:

• A regional profile; • In-depth stakeholder interviews; and • A household mail survey.

Figure 2 shows the relationships between our key research questions, our methods and the report structure.

CHAPTER 7 – Discussion/Conclusion

CHAPTER 6 – Mail survey results

CHAPTER 5 – Interview results

CHAPTER 4 – Regional profile

CHAPTER 3 – Methods

CHAPTER 2 – Related research

CHAPTER 1 - Introduction

Mail survey

In-depth interviews

Regional profile

Background research

What are the different views on aquaculture?

What can be done to improve communication?

Where can information be found in this report?

What methods did we use?

Key Study Questions

What are some relevant contexts?

Figure 2. Community Perceptions of Aquaculture Project – SA case study report

7

Chapter 1 introduces the project and specifies the report structure. This Chapter also briefly outlines the Australian and South Australian governmental responsibilities for aquaculture policy and management. This overview is the starting point for a more in-depth examination of the policy and regulatory contexts at a national and State-scale that both influence and are influenced by stakeholder and community views on the most effective ways to regulate and manage coastal and marine aquaculture. This analysis will appear in a later report, which integrates findings from the South Australian and Victorian case studies. Chapter 2 provides a brief review of a selection of relevant research. This body of work considers public values and beliefs about:

• Industry; • How particular natural resources are used and managed; • Uncertainties and risks related to environmental impacts and human health; and • Ways to inform and involve communities.

Chapter 3 outlines the methods of the broader project, as well as this case study. It discusses the key terms and concepts used, the mix of qualitative and quantitative strategies employed in the case studies, and how the interview schedule and mail survey were designed and implemented. Chapter 4 provides a profile of the Eyre Peninsula. It includes key social and economic details about the Region and information about the aquaculture industry, including features of the different industry sectors and their respective economic contributions to the Region. Chapter 5 provides detailed findings from the stakeholder and community interviews conducted in March 2003. The Chapter discusses findings from each of the questions in the interview schedule. The discussion is supplemented by tables, which list the key ideas arising from the interviews as per stakeholder groups. Chapter 6 lists results from the household mail survey, which was distributed across five Local Government Areas (LGAs) on the Eyre Peninsula during June and July 2003. These data are presented in graphs and discussed in the text. Key differences in views as per respondent demographics are discussed at the end of the Chapter. As a supplement to the extensive detail provided in earlier Chapters, Chapter 7 provides a summary of highlights from the regional profile, related research, and the interview and mail survey data chapters. The Chapter also discusses preliminary implications of the findings as they related to our key research questions.

Government responsibilities Government has a historic concern and a primary role in managing marine and coastal resources. Management of coastal and marine environments involves each level of government. The States provide the legislative basis for planning and management of the land area in the coastal zone (Zann 2000). Land use planning and approval for development in the littoral zone is generally a Local Government responsibility, which is subject to State government oversight and, where applicable, Australian Government investment guidelines (Haward 2003: 37). Aquaculture is generally regulated and managed by State and Territory Governments. All the States, other than South Australia, have fisheries legislation that regulates aquaculture and other sectors, such as the wild capture fisheries. In addition, each of the States has passed regulations in accordance with their respective primary fisheries legislation. Apart from the

8

relevant fisheries legislation, each State has additional (and usually separate) planning, land use, conservation, and environmental legislation (Ciffolilli 2003). The impact of these disparate legislative mechanisms that regulate and approve aquaculture have been the subject of considerable discussion. Several States have undertaken reviews of their regulatory and approval mechanisms, with a view to streamlining these processes to ensure that they do not negatively impact the aquaculture industry. Some States are considering the merits of an independent Act for aquaculture. It has been suggested that the potential benefits of a separate Act for aquaculture, such as recognition of unique needs, greater profile, greater certainty and clarity for investors, needs to be weighed against the time and energy required to enact new legislation and against the diversion of managerial and developmental resources (Lendich 2003: 60). The Productivity Commission has also recognised that the growth of aquaculture faces a number of regulatory and management challenges, and is currently investigating how environmental impacts can be efficiently and effectively managed without unnecessarily restricting the development of the aquaculture industry (Hughes, P. pers comm. 2003).

The Australian Government The Federal Government supports aquaculture through national programs for research, ecologically sustainable development, quarantine, fish health, food safety, Market Access and Trade, business development farm management assistance and by working with the States and the Northern Territory on aquaculture issues requiring national coordination. DAFF is the first point of contact for aquaculture issues in the Australian Government. The Primary Industries Ministerial Council (PIMC) endorsed the National Aquaculture Policy Statement (2003), which calls upon all Australian governments to work closely with the aquaculture industry to achieve sustainable growth, while meeting national and international expectations for environmental, social and economic performance. The Policy states that all Australian governments will commit to:

• Facilitating effective, efficient, timely and transparent planning and approval processes;

• Supporting and recognising continual improvement of ecologically sustainable aquaculture practices and developing environmental performance standards for aquaculture;

• Providing and encouraging investment for industry growth; and • Ensuring participation of the Australian industry and broader community in

aquaculture planning and management.

Indigenous aquaculture There is recognition of Indigenous communities’ cultural affinity for fishing and aquaculture related activities and acknowledgement of the particular challenges that these communities face in realising their aspirations to participate and achieve greater economic independence. DAFF and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) through the Indigenous Aquaculture Unit based in DAFF, have commenced implementation of the National Aquaculture Development Strategy for Indigenous Communities in Australia (Lee & Nel 2001). The Strategy is designed to help Indigenous communities participate successfully in aquaculture and related ventures. The Strategy seeks to coordinate the resources of the Commonwealth, States and Territory governments in order to best facilitate development of aquaculture ventures in Indigenous communities. Under this strategy basic bioregions have been identified and efforts will be concentrated on identifying suitable species and production systems as well as suitable means by which new ventures can be implemented and developed through appropriate funding, training and infrastructure development.

9

Legislative context The Australian Government has several legislative responsibilities relevant to aquaculture. The Trade Practices Act prohibits matters such as restrictive trade practices, including competitive conduct, agreements and understandings. The Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC), which commenced in July, 2000, applies to relevant State approval processes, in respect of any action which has the potential to effect a “matter of National Environmental Significance” (NES). These actions include:

• World Heritage properties • Ramsar wetlands • Nationally threatened species and ecological communities • Migratory species; and • Commonwealth marine areas.

The EPBC introduces an assessment and approval process (through impact assessment), which applies to actions likely to have a significant impact on any of the matters of NES. Any aquaculture project that has the potential to affect a “matter of National Environmental Significance” requires approval from the Commonwealth. The Minister determines the level of assessment. The Act allows the Commonwealth Minister to enter into bilateral agreements with States or Territories where the Commonwealth may accredit and rely upon State assessment processes for actions impacting upon matters of NES.

South Australia In South Australia, responsibility for marine and coastal management and for the development, regulation and management of aquaculture falls primarily to the State government. The State uses ESD principles to guide its management, development and conservation of marine resources and coastal lands and seeks effective management of marine and coastal environments by integrating government functions. South Australia was the first State to pass specific legislation for aquaculture, which was enacted December 2001. Before development, aquaculture was included under the Fisheries Act, which was not originally created to account for aquaculture. The South Australian Aquaculture Act – 2001 aims to streamline the policy, planning and regulatory environment. The Act focuses on three elements:

• Licensing of aquaculturists; • Leasing of State waters; and • Establishment of planning policies for using State waters for aquaculture (Walrut

2002: 79). The Act applies to both land based and marine and coastal environments and its three main objectives are:

• To promote ecologically sustainable development of marine and inland aquaculture; • To maximise benefits to the community from the State’s aquaculture resources; and • Otherwise to ensure the efficient and effective regulation of the aquaculture industry.

Several agencies are responsible for aquaculture development and regulation. Development approvals are obtained from a region’s District Council (e.g. Pt Lincoln) and the Development Assessment Commission (DAC). The DAC is responsible for the zoning of aquaculture and any change of land use. Discharge permits are required from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), which is responsible for management and monitoring of the coastal environment. Licensing application forms are issued by the the Department of Primary

10

Industries and Resources South Australia (PIRSA) as it is only legal for professional fishermen or licensed fish farmers to sell fish in South Australia. Aquaculture SA is also responsible for selecting and designating aquaculture sites, and managing and regulating aquaculture businesses.

11

12

Chapter Two: Related Research

The Community Perceptions of Aquaculture Project is helping to build a sustainable and viable aquaculture industry by providing information about how to improve the social acceptability of aquaculture. The literature review for this project identified important trends in aquaculture and related industries and areas of resource management about community and stakeholder perspectives and the influence of those views on outcomes. This chapter is a summary of that review: Community perceptions of aquaculture: Related social research (Mazur 2004). Sustainability is a key challenge for aquaculture. There are strong community expectations of, and formal government commitments to, growing and managing the aquaculture industry according to the principles of ESD. However, ESD remains a challenge because the different values and beliefs systems operating in society means that ESD is subject to varying interpretations about what kinds of activities are truly ‘sustainable’ and how we can best balance the social, economic and environmental priorities of resource use. These differences of opinion can lead to conflict and make it difficult to apply ESD to on-ground situations. The situation is far from hopeless, and devoting time to identifying community and stakeholder values and beliefs about issues such as ESD provides significant opportunities to improve the quality of decision-making by:

• Supporting the public’s ‘right to know’; • Proactively identifying community concerns, which in turn increases public

acceptance of management decisions; and • Allowing for informed discussion of issues, resulting from mutual learning and

recognition of participant interests (Shindler et al 2002b). This report has reviewed several social research studies of community and stakeholder views about industry and natural resource management that are applicable to aquaculture situations:

• Water use and allocation – Similar to aquaculture, there are diverse and conflicting community expectations about how to most effectively allocate and manage this scarce resource and about which decisions lead to favourable and equitable social and environmental outcomes.

• Forest and ecosystem management – There are considerable challenges to finding management regimes for forests and other natural systems that utilise ecological principles and achieve appropriate balance of economic and environmental values.

• Coastal management – Aquaculture, and many other industries, rely on healthy marine and coastal environments, and these places are highly valued by the Australian public. There are growing expectations that aquaculture will contribute to integrated coastal management, so it is important to understand public views about management of these areas.

• Mining – The mining industry has been subject to controversy and public conflict over how sustainable it is. Its efforts to improve its social acceptability provide valuable insights for how the aquaculture industry might address similar public concerns.

• Fishing industry - Aquaculture is a sector of the fishing industry, so public views about the sustainability of fishing are relevant. These views could influence consumer purchases of fishing and aquaculture products and community acceptance of aquaculture’s development and management practices.

• Aquaculture industry - Some social surveys have been undertaken since the late 1990s that have a particular focus on aquaculture. They contain valuable information

13

about how regional communities and the broader public perceive aquaculture’s sustainability and the effectiveness of planning, regulatory and management regimes.

Valuing environment, economy and sustainability Several of the studies reviewed provide information about how the public values natural environments, what positions they would take for weighing up different priorities, and how those priorities influence their views about certain industries and resource management approaches. Table 1 shows the key findings of several social surveys of public attitudes to resource use and management. The data suggest that when making trade-offs in balancing economic and environmental priorities, the broader public seems to favour environmental priorities. This choice may differ somewhat in rural or regional communities where there is a higher reliance of the local/regional economy on resource-dependent industries to provide for jobs, and therefore greater interest in those types of (potential and actual) economic benefits. Of course, there are limits to how much these data can be generalised to all people and situations. Table 1. Data on public values and perceptions

Research Foci Select Findings Water Nancarrow & Syme (2001)

• High levels of agreement among respondents about the intrinsic values of water and the need for using the precautionary principle

Nancarrow & Syme (1999)

• Community split on whether to prioritise environmental requirements over human needs or ‘vice-versa’ when allocating water uses

Connelly & Knuth (2002)

• Local and regional officials consistently over-estimated the value residents placed on economic development, while underestimating value of environmental protection to residents

Forests Tarrant et al. (2003) • Paradigm shift in management due to broader change in public values where people support

a balance, but place greater emphasis on environmental values of forests versus economic values

Shindler et al. (2002) • The public favour a balance of economic and environmental priorities, but more urban residents favoured environmental priorities (45%) than did rural residents (30%)

Shindler & Toman (2002)

• 42% of respondents wanted a balance between economic and environmental priorities, with 39% preferring economic priorities

Mining Chamber of Minerals and Energy 1992 - 1999

• The public prioritised industry’s social and environmental obligations and contributions (environmental protection, education, health, safety) over its more economically-oriented ones (employment, economic competitiveness)

• Public concerned to see stronger environmental protection measures from industry Coastal management NOO 2002 • The overall Australian community has a strong affinity for the coast; and community groups

were more accepting of conservation uses for coastal environments than for commercial fishing

Aquaculture Wilson (2001) • Regional QLD community’s top priorities for aquaculture industry development were

environmental impact assessment, employment, economic viability, using local resources, educating and informing the public

• Key benefits from industry most often identified were employment, then exports, contributions to local economy; key disadvantages were potential environmental impacts

Clarke (1996) • South Australian stakeholders identify aquaculture’s main benefits as: economic and employment opportunities, increased environmental research/monitoring activity, and reducing pressure on wild stocks

The findings of this review suggest that there are mixed opinions about the sustainability of certain industries. The series of social surveys undertaken by the Chamber of Minerals and Energy (1992, 1997, 1999) showed that the public wanted to see stronger environmental

14

protection measures for the mining industry, which may suggest they have some concerns that the industry imposes some detrimental impact on the environment. However, it is worth noting that the surveys also show an improvement in the mining industry’s overall image. The general public’s views about aquaculture’s sustainability might be better. In the United States, half of the respondents to a national survey agreed that aquaculture is a good alternative to wild-catch fishing, although they had low awareness of some environmental and public health issues challenging the industry (e.g. feed quality, use of antibiotics, fish escapes)(Blackstone 2001). In Australia, a greater percentage of respondents to a national survey rated aquaculture as ‘sustainable’ than they did for Indigenous Australian fishing, recreational fishing, and commercial fishing. Men were more likely to rate aquaculture as ‘sustainable’ than women (Aslin & Byron 2003).

Perceptions of governments’ resource management approaches Table 2 summarises some of the research on public judgements of governments’ approaches to resource management and to their interactions with the public. The data suggest that alongside public support for the overall benefits that primary and other industries provide, there is also:

• Support for government’s regulatory role, as well as a perceived need to improve this role and governments’ planning and management functions; and

• Strong support for the community’s right to contribute to decision-making and the need to improve governments’ public consultation and participation mechanisms

Table 2. Data showing public views about governments’ resource management regimes

Research Select Survey Findings Forests Shindler et al. (2002a) • Increased support for management intervention in forests, but public less sure about how that

should happen Shindler et al. (2002a) • Communities have less faith in public meetings/planning workshops and question how much

influence they have had on decision making through these activities; evenly divided on how much they trusted government to make good decisions about forest management

Shindler & Toman (2002)

• Majority support for public participation – but fewer believed government was open to their views or used input in decision-making; lower trust in government to implement responsible management

Water Nancarrow & Syme (2001)

• Strong community expectations that communities share ownership of water (directly and indirectly) and have the right to have input into managing water for the overall public good

• Public input improves quality of decisions Mining Chamber of Minerals & Energy (1992 – 1999)

• Public concerned to see stronger environmental protection measures from both government and industry

Coastal management NOO (2002) • Regional and national conservation groups concerned to see strong regulatory systems for

industry activity and ecosystem-based management Fishing Blackstone (2001) • 40% of respondents agreed that there was overfishing/depletion of fish/seafood stocks and

supplies, and half of respondent ‘didn’t know’ • A quarter of respondents felt that the fishing industry was not well-regulated and 40% ‘didn’t

know’ Aslin & Byron (2003) • Survey shows that Australians are concerned about how the fishing industry is managed; a

majority support strong controls to protect environment Aquaculture Clarke (1996) • Respondents showed divided opinions about the quality of State Government planning and

management for aquaculture Carvalho (1998) • Respondents with particular coastal management interests were dissatisfied with the State

Government’s planning, management, and use of zones given the resulting conflicts and inadequate use of marine biology principles, and public consultation

15

Risk perceptions Since public concerns are often focused on the risk that aquaculture will have negative (and possibly irreversible) impacts on the environment and human health, it is important to understand the different ways people perceive – and communicate about – different types of risk. Trends in Europe, North America and in Australia show declining levels of trust in industry, governments and science and technology (Shindler & Brunson 1999; Randall 2002; Petts & Leach 2000). For example, the European public has low trust in agriculture’s use of biotechnology and has recently been concerned about the salmon industry and its technical practices. These views might cause consumers to reject aquaculture products (Kaiser &Stead 2002). In Australia, public concerns about science and technology could also affect consumers’ behaviour, causing them to reject aquaculture products, as well as strengthening community opposition to aquaculture developments.

What is special about risk perception? A fundamental point to be made about risk is that it is socially constructed (see Box 1), therefore, different factors will influence how risk is perceived, including:

• Particular characteristics of risk (e.g. is it voluntary, is it familiar, are consequences negative, reversible)(Finucane 2001; Merkhofer 1987)

• Psychological aspects of decision-making (e.g. formed opinions harder to change, if readily recalled judged more probable)(Finucane 2001); and

• Socio-political factors (e.g. gender, race, world views) (Slovic 1999). For example, differences between the way ‘experts’ and the ‘lay public’ perceive risk often results in situations where ‘experts’ use increasing amounts of science-based evidence to ‘convince’ the public that the risk is either negligible and/or under control. There is substantial evidence to show that this approach actually invites public suspicion (Shindler & Brunson 1999; Randall 2002; Petts & Leach 2000). Therefore, one can safely assume that particular and different ways of communicating about risk will be required to address the divergent risks that people perceive in particular situations. Box 1. The ‘social construction’ of risk

What do we mean when we say risk is ‘socially-constructed’? Terms like “risk management” and “acceptable levels of protection” assume a degree of understanding of the concept of risk, acceptance of how it is measured and some level of consensus on how it should be managed. These are bold assumptions, because ‘risk’ is socially constructed. That is, ‘risk’ does not exist ‘out there,’ independent of our minds and cultures, waiting to be measured. Instead, human beings have invented the concept risk to help them understand and cope with the dangers and uncertainties of life. All people, irrespective of their role in society use speculative frameworks to make sense of the world and selective judgement in their responses to risk. These so-called ‘non rational’ factors are not necessarily incorrect. However, there are likely to be significant differences in these understandings and responses, and such divergences are critical to understanding how best to manage and communicate about risk. One of the more significant differences discussed recently is that between ‘the public’ and ‘experts’. For example, the Nairn Review found that the public, industry and governments do not agree on the objectives of quarantine and stakeholder roles in determining acceptable levels of risk. On going research by the BRS is finding important differences in the way communities, decision-makers and industry define the risks associated with aquaculture. Source: Botterill & Mazur 2003 One of the more popular foci for risk perception research is science and technology, given their potential to impact on health and environment. These studies are relevant to aquaculture, because the industry uses complex science and technology (in some cases biotechnology), and there are concerns about how these activities might negatively impact on sensitive natural environments and human health. The use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in

16

Europe has certainly attracted considerable public attention. The AEBC (2003) has found that Europeans:

• Are uneasy about GMOs, their environmental impacts, and the associated social and political controversy;

• Are increasingly convinced that no one knows enough about the long-term effects of GMOs; and

• Have low trust in governments and multi-national companies, who are perceived to motivated by profits rather than public interest.

Similarly, Gilding and Critchely (2003) found that Australians:

• Are uncertain about science and technology; • Are uncomfortable with biotechnology and want to see government regulate it; • Have greater trust in scientific and research organisations (CSIRO, universities) than

in governments, major companies and the media; and those • Who are younger tend to be more trusting in science and technology.

In many cases, the socio-political context of decisions will influence how people feel about risks. Beckwith (1996) found that even where people can actually agree on the facts about a particular risk, they could still disagree about what is an acceptable course of action for dealing with those risks. People who rejected a government decision about how to address the health risks from asbestos, did so more on the basis that it effectively removed a town resident’s right to choose, rather than on the nature of the asbestos risk itself.

Risk communication A critical component for any risk management program should include effective risk communication strategies. Research suggests that the design and implementation of these strategies should be informed by understanding how public perceptions of credibility and trust in information sources and community engagement processes are formed and influenced. The research in Europe demonstrated that the public had a broad desire to know more about GMOs, and wanted to see more research undertaken (AEBC 2003). The public also welcomed the British Government’s support of an open public debate, and despite their suspicion that their input would be ignored; they welcomed the opportunity to express their opinion and hear other people’s views (AEBC 2003). Other research has shown that some sources of information about risk are more trusted than others, and that government has not fared well in recent times. Hunt et al. (1999) found that the most advantageous characteristics an information provider could have were: independence from government and commercial organisations; high levels of technical expertise; and being dedicated to interests of the public. Doctors and scientists rated higher in trust and lower in bias than did government ministers or tabloid newspapers. Similarly, Peters et al. (1997) found that perceptions of knowledge and expertise, openness and honesty, and concern and care of a particular institution influenced people’s judgements of credibility and trust. Those interested in improving the public image need to demonstrate how they defy negative stereotypes (e.g. industry as self-interested, uncommitted governments).

Community engagement and resource management The necessary considerations required for effective risk communication are very similar to situations where communities are informed about, consulted on and/or engaged in resource development and management. Table 3 lists some highlights of social research that examined public interests, knowledge, use and perceptions of different information sources.

17

That data suggests that it is important to acknowledge that there is no one ‘public’, instead there are many ‘publics’ who have varied levels of knowledge and interest in contemporary resource use and management issues. Some communities, groups and individuals will be more informed and/or more critical of certain industries and government practices than others. Where an industry has the potential to negatively impact the environment, both place-based and interest-based communities will be interested in information that clearly spells out what actions are in place to mitigate such risks, as well as the details of the industry’s social and economic benefits. Where an industry has direct impacts on a particular place-based community, those residents may favour more interactive forms of information exchange. An important point to be made is that not all sources of information are viewed as having equal credibility, and perceptions of credibility and trust are critical to effective communications among government officials, industry and members of the public. The data in Table 3 suggests that despite support for community engagement and a preference for more interactive communications, there is tangible dissatisfaction with governments’ consultation mechanisms. There are indications that the public may trust industry information sources more than government and the popular media. Table 3. Data showing public knowledge, interests and information sources

Research Select Survey Findings Knowledge & interest levels Shindler et al. (2002a)

• Communities are often familiar with forest management issues, but their specific scientific knowledge likely to be lower

Chamber of Minerals & Energy (1992-1999)

• Generally low knowledge levels about the mining industry • Some parts of the community are more critical of the mining industry’s environmental

performance than others

NOO (2001) • Low levels of public knowledge about the South-East Marine region and governments’ management roles

• Highest level of awareness of coastal uses was for recreational and commercial fishing • Those who report knowing a lot about coastal management, were more likely to visit the

coast, be more interested in receiving information, be aware of conservation uses, and to place higher importance on community involvement in coastal planning

Information requirements & sources Shindler et al. (2002a)

• Communities wanted more interactive forms of information exchange, but question effectiveness of current mechanisms

Shindler & Toman (2002)

• Communities were paying more attention to forest industry-based information than to government information sources

• Communities felt that the quality of government information had declined and preferred more interactive forms of information

Chamber of Minerals & Energy (1992-1999)

• Respondents wanted to know more about what is being mined, where and what specific environmental management steps are being taken

• Respondents rely heavily on the media for information, despite rating its as less credible; respondents did not actively seek information from more credible sources unless they had a special interest;

• Industry’s credibility as an information source had increased, but government and industry were not ‘important’ sources of information

Wilson (2001) • Regional community respondents relied most heavily on the local newspaper for

information about aquaculture; • They wanted regular information about: environmental impacts (water use & quality,

impacts on fish breeding grounds), number of and type of jobs provided, economic viability, locations of new/existing projects, monitoring and regulatory processes, and organisational details and people involved.

The risk communication research, and the research in forest management, ecosystem management and mining demonstrate that the following work is needed to build trust among governments, industry and communities:

• ‘Layer’ communications strategies in order to most effectively target diverse ‘publics’;

18

• Given declines in public trust, avoid overemphasising information provision and focus on improving agency-public relationships and providing opportunities for communities to have meaningful input into decision-making;

• Recognise that communities, groups and individuals can be well informed, interested in and/or otherwise capable of judging trade-offs of different management options;

• Where needed build community capacity for participation (e.g. provide information to improve understanding of complexities of ecosystem management);

• Tailor participation methods to suit particular settings and situations; • On-ground, interactive activities should be delivered by those with credibility,

knowledge of local settings and issues; and community engagement expertise; • Address community concerns about seriousness, uncertainty and when certain risks

might be manifest; • Utilise credible sources for information provision programs; • For industry, information provision should focus on ensuring that consistent, truthful

messages are delivered by all sectors to improve public image; and • Include evaluation and monitoring components to assess performance of current

information provision and public participation activities and institutional capacity to implement necessary changes (Shindler & Toman 2002; Shindler et al. 2002; Chamber of Minerals & Energy 1997).

19

20

Chapter 3: Methods

Key terms and concepts Given the current emphasis on terms such as ‘community’ and ‘stakeholder’, it is valuable to clarify their meanings and how they have been used in the context of this project. The term ‘community’ is subject to debate and varying use. It is generally referred to as individuals and groups who collectively make up the social groupings of a locality, region or nation and that tends to be outside the formal structures of industry and government (Dore & Woodhill 1999). This project recognises Black & Hughes’s (2001) contention that most people identify with and participate in a mosaic of both geographical communities and ‘communities of interest’. The former - communities of place - are identified by physical boundaries that separate one group of people from another. People may be close to the centre of a community or more peripheral to it. Some people are not clear about what their community is, and may in fact identify with a range of geographical communities. Communities of interest are created when people draw their sense of community from interest or functional groups, such as work-related or sporting groups. In this way, the community one identifies with becomes a subjective judgement about what group(s) one identifies with and which provide one with a particular sense of identity. Different forms of community may occur in both interest-based and place-based communities. In addition, individual and collective well-being is enhanced through a variety of communities. Communities are dynamic – they are in a constant state of flux, where boundaries are rarely defined accurately. Communities continually interact with one another and there can be communities within communities. We hold that there are a range of communities (place and interest-based) which are also stakeholders in aquaculture. We use a modified definition of ‘stakeholder’, which is drawn from Grimble & Wellard (1997), Petts & Leach (2000) and Aslin & Brown (2002). A stakeholder is any individual or group (organised or unorganised) who has an interest in a particular issue or system. That interest can be financial, moral, legal, personal, community-based, direct or indirect. Stakeholders can be government agencies, industry, non-government organisations (NGOs) and individuals. Stakeholders can operate at any level: from global/international down to the household level. Stakeholders can affect (determine) decisions or actions and some are affected by decision or actions (positively or negatively). Stakeholders may be involved in an issue at varying levels of activity. Some may be highly active, while others are totally passive. Stakeholders also have varying degrees of influence in decision-making around a particular issue. Stakeholders can also include those who choose not to declare their ‘stake’, but who still have a ‘right to know’ if their interests may be affected. The project title reflects our focus on understanding both ‘community’ and ‘stakeholder’ responses to aquaculture. We use the terms somewhat interchangeably, because we believe that they overlap considerably. That is, there is a wide range of interests in aquaculture, including interests that are defined by different kinds of communities. Many individuals and groups have an interest in how a pool of shared marine and coastal resources is used for aquaculture. Their interest may be related to the fact that they are part of a geographical community located close to aquaculture activities (e.g. local resident) and/or belong to interest or functional groups relevant to aquaculture (e.g. fisheries professionals, conservation advocates).

21

Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches The overall project was designed to combine the strengths of qualitative and quantitative methods. Qualitative methods produce detailed, in-depth information that can draw out more meaning on complex issues, such as aquaculture development, planning and management and allows stakeholders to raise their own issues and categories rather than these being pre-determined by the researcher. Quantitative methods, like structured social surveys, produce standardised measures that fit diverse opinions and experiences into pre-determined response categories. These techniques allow researchers to measure larger and representative numbers of people’s reactions with a consistent set of questions and response categories. This simplifies comparison and aggregation of data, giving a broad, possibly statistically generalisable set of findings, depending of course on how the sample of respondents is selected. A quantitative study usually has extensive lists of topics or questions. Sound quantitative surveys are typically based on qualitative research – as is the case with this project, where the qualitative inquiry was used to identify key issues and topics that provided the focus for the household mail survey.

Regional case studies This project has utilised case studies of aquaculture development in several regions in Australia. A case study can provide high levels of detailed, region-specific information. The use of a range of case studies represents a form of maximum variation sampling, which seeks to capture central themes or issues that cut across high levels of variety (Patton 1990). It is also consistent with dimensional sampling in grounded theory approaches (Strauss & Corbin 1990). This approach aims to shed light on important types of variation between groups and identify common issues across cases, but not to obtain statistically generalisable findings. To select our regional case studies, we largely followed a definition of ‘region’ used in the Sustainable Regional Development Final Report. Regions are geographic areas that are typically smaller than a State or Territory, but larger than a Local Government Area (LGA) (Dore & Woodhill 1999). These areas are often separated from other areas by a mixture of tangible characteristics, which both distinguish them from neighbouring areas and identify commonalities or shared identity among the physical features and/ or inhabitants of that division (Powell 1993). Regions have tangible boundaries that are defined on maps and by administrative processes, such as aggregations of local government units or administrative/electoral divisions of an individual State/Territory. They can also be described as communities of common interest. People identify with broadly understood and ‘fuzzy’ boundaries that distinguish their community for them from another. South Australia was selected for piloting the case study methodology in Phase 1 of this project. The aquaculture industry’s visible presence on the Eyre Peninsula served to define the geographical region to be studied. However, the boundaries of that region of interest were necessarily defined more flexibly. Aquaculture remains significant to several communities of interest located across other parts of the State (e.g. industry and conservation networks based in Adelaide), and it is therefore important to understand those perspectives as well as the local perceptions (see map in Chapter 4). Data for the case studies was compiled from numerous sources including the Eyre Regional Development Board, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), and PIRSA.

Key informant interviews A modified standardised open-ended interview approach (Patton 1990) was used for the interview process, and the interview schedule is shown in Appendix 1. Each respondent was asked the same set of questions in the same sequence. This technique minimises variation of

22

questions, thereby reducing interviewer bias and obtains more standardised information from respondents. In addition, as the interview is highly focused, interviewees’ time is used efficiently. Because of confidentiality and anonymity issues, we have not identified either the specific local government areas or names of groups or individuals in the interview data (see Chapter Five). Respondents were promised confidentiality, and some had expressed concern about their identify being inadvertently revealed given the small size of their local areas and aquaculture networks. Exposing information considered ‘damaging’ or embarrassing by research participants contravenes ethical research practice and can harm stakeholder relations (Christians 2000). The topics covered in the interview questions were drawn from a range of related research and are shown in Table 4. Table 4. Principles informing the design of the interview schedule Interview question

topics Rationale Sources

Identifying aquaculture problems & solutions

Different actors define problems in different ways. The way problems are defined influences how those problems are understood, who participates in problem-solving and how, and what values will be favoured by actions/results.

Clark et al. (2000); Harding (1998); Swaffield (1998); Bardwell (1991)

Meanings of ESD & applications for aquaculture

There are variable and contested meanings of the term, which results in challenges in applying the concept to real world management settings.

Harding (1998); Dryzek 1997

Trust issues A number of studies cite declining levels of trust in public institutions and science and technology.

Shindler & Brunson (1999); Randall (2002); Petts & Leach (2000);

Sources of information & their credibility

Associated with the loss of trust, certain sources of information are perceived by the public as less credible than others.

Aslin & Byron (2003); Hunt et al. (1999)

How to engage those with different interests in dialogues

Different values about the environment and human relationships with natural systems are at the heart of debates about how to develop and manage natural resources. The resulting conflicts are among the most intractable problems facing decision makers and constructive solutions are needed.

Taylor & Braithewaite (1996); Shindler & Brunson (1999); Connelly & Knuth (2002)

Identifying important values (of the Eyre Region & aquaculture)

To move beyond entrenched positions and conflicts requires exploration of what people value and what capacities are held for moving toward shared aspirations

Creighton et al. (1997); Taylor & Braithewaite (1996)

Content analysis techniques were used to analyse the responses. Respondents’ comments were grouped into themes corresponding to the interview questions. Another coding frame was used to sub-divide these data into more specific categories according to the discussions around the topic areas. All categories were derived from analytical induction on the basis of patterns that emerged from the manifest and latent content of the data (Berg 1989).

Interview sampling procedures Given that the project’s definitions of ‘stakeholder’ and ‘community’, the target population for the interview sample needed to reflect the diverse range of interests in aquaculture: coastal management, industry development, commercial and recreational fishing, fish processors, tourism, recreational groups, conservation groups, and other community groups. Interviewees were selected on the basis of these interests, as well as for the scale at which their interest was focused (e.g. local, regional, State-wide). A greater emphasis was placed on interviewing people at the regional/local scale, from several LGAs on the Eyre Peninsula where aquaculture was either well established or in more preliminary stages of development. In addition, a number of interviewees were selected on the basis of their State-level involvement and/or interest in aquaculture.

23

Specific groups and individuals from these interest areas were identified through a modified version of snowball or chain sampling (Vogt 1999; Patton 1990). Key informants from government, industry and communities were asked to give the researchers the name of another person(s) with (direct or indirect) interests in aquaculture, who in turn were asked to provide names of others, and so on. This process was continued until the individuals or groups began to be repeated and an extensive list had been compiled. The sample of 36 interviewees was selected from this larger list using stratified purposeful sampling (Patton 1990), where the aim is to obtain a cross section of different interests at different scales (State, regional, local).

Mail survey Social surveys are useful tools because they can:

• Gather information from citizens who may be affected but unable to participate in public policy process;

• Provide a means of testing widely held assumptions underlying public discourses; • Offer information about varying status of agreement and disagreement and the

various perceptions (accurate or mistaken); • Put officials in ‘proactive’ rather than ‘reactive’ position, enabling them to gain

insight on where citizens stand on issues, and helping to explain choices to groups representing particular positions (McComas and Scherer 1999: 108).

Social surveys work best when they complement other forms of citizen consultation and participation. Given the dearth of Australian and international research on public opinions on aquaculture, a survey was undertaken to:

• Complement the interactive method of interviewing used in this project; and • To establish baseline information about regional communities’ perceptions of

aquaculture. The population from which the survey sample was selected was adults living in coastal areas on the Eyre Peninsula, given the significant presence of the industry in the region. Five local government areas were identified where the aquaculture industry was either well developed or in more preliminary stages of development. The sampling frame was 500 residents. 100 residents from each of the five LGAs (Ceduna, Streaky Bay, Lower Eyre Peninsula, Port Lincoln and Cleve) were targeted. Names were randomly selected from the White Pages Telephone Directory 2003 on CD-ROM. The survey design and mail out procedures were those used by Curtis and Byron (2002) who applied and refined Dillman’s (1979) Total Design Method. The survey was pre-tested with a focus group comprised of representatives from a cross section of two of the five local government areas, resulting in important refinements to the survey instrument. The mailout process was undertaken over several weeks. A reminder card was sent out one week after the first mail out of surveys, with second and third reminder cards mailed out each consecutive week. Four weeks after the initial survey mailout, another copy of the survey and a brief letter were sent to landholders that had not responded. The second mailout was followed by a final reminder one week later.

Statistical analysis The Pearson chi-square test was used to determine the presence of differences across ordinal or binomial data for two or more independent groups. For example, the Pearson chi-square test was used to determine if there were significant differences between recreational fishers and non-recreational fishers in their level of agreement with certain statements (usually defined as those who agreed, those who were unsure and those who disagreed). The value of

24

the chi-square statistic or χ2 indicates the strength of the difference between groups on a given variable with a higher value indicating a larger difference. However, the χ2 value does not indicate the direction of the relationship. Gamma correlations were used to identify hypothesised relationships between ordinal variables such as age and level of agreement on a five-point scale. The correlation coefficient or rs is a measure of association between two variables. The value of rs can range from 1 to –1 with higher values (either negative or positive) indicating a stronger relationship. A negative correlation coefficient or rs indicates that a higher score on one variable is linked to a lower score on the other. In all analyses the p statistic represents the significance level, where a value below 0.05 is considered to be statistically significant. A p value below 0.05 means there is more than a 95 per cent chance that an observed relationship or difference has not occurred purely by chance.

25

26

Chapter 4: Eyre Peninsula Regional Profile

The Eyre Peninsula is a large coastal and inland region situated in the south-western corner of SA (see Figure 3). It is sparsely populated, with its 33,000 people living in an area of 55,000km2 (roughly equal to the size of Tasmania). The region is made up of 1,400 km of coastline and is bounded by the Spencer Gulf in the east and the Great Australian Bight in the west. The Peninsula stretches approximately 1,000km to the west to the Western Australian – South Australian border. The region’s northern borders comprise the Gawler Ranges (see Box 2).

G r e

S O U TH AUSTRALIA

Figure 3.

N

%

C e d una

Cleve

Kimba

Y a l a t a

Cummins

Streaky BayWudinna

Elliston

Coffin Bay

Cowell

rno Bay

Tumby BayPort Lincoln

EYRE PENINSULAEYRE PENINSULA

A D E L A I D E

a t A u s t r a l i a n Bight

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

A

#

The Eyre Peninsula

27

Box 2. Key features of the Eyre Peninsula Climate The Eyre Peninsula’s climate ranges from Mediterranean in the southern coastal area to semi-arid in the north and interior. Generally, summers are hot and dry with most rainfall occurring in winter. However, there is a large difference in rainfall across the region. Northern areas are frequently subject to droughts. Southern areas can experience droughts, but also have heavy rainfall periods that benefit agricultural production. Land Use The level of cleared land used for agriculture varies between 14 percent in the Far West to 72 percent in the Lower Eyre Peninsula. This variation reflects the different quality of agricultural, soil and climatic conditions. Approximately 15 percent of the Peninsula is covered with scattered vegetation used mainly for grazing. Uncleared native scrub and conservation areas comprise 10-15 percent on the lower portion of the Peninsula to 64 percent in the Far West. 30 – 60 percent of the cleared land is sown with cereal crops, with the variation due to diverse soil quality and different seasons across the region. There are also areas that sustain crops and grazing. The West Coast primarily supports grazing. In the north there is wheat and wool production that merge into dry pastoral lands that is primarily used for grazing but does support cereal grain production when there is above average rainfalls. Soil salinity is a particular issue for the Lower Eyre Peninsula and in the Cleve hills due to native vegetation clearance (mallee). The Upper Eyre Peninsula also suffers from salinity due to low rainfall levels and saline subsoils. History Europeans first discovered the Eyre Peninsula in 1627 when Francois Thyssen sailed to the islands east of Thevenard. The Peninsula was fully explored and charted in 1802 by Captain Matthew Flinders, who named Port Lincoln harbour. The harbour was then used by sealers and the area became sufficiently renowned to be considered as the capital of South Australia. The Peninsula was named after Edward John Eyre, who led expeditions to explore the region and the Far West Coast in the early 1800s. By the turn of the century the establishment of some railways triggered another phase of development, which was then virtually halted by the depression. The 1980s saw another downturn, with farm numbers and population levels decreasing. The last decade has seen growth of several industry sectors. Health & Telecommunications Services All major towns on the Peninsula are serviced by small hospitals with access to some specialists. Some of the health issues include low number of women GPs, costs of health insurance and access to video conferencing for remote consultations. The region hosts several local newspapers as well as capital city papers. There are commercial and ABC (national and local) radio services. Television access varies, with the ABC available in almost all regions. There are a range of inequities with respect to telecommunications access, including higher costs, poorer quality and fewer services. The Peninsula’s mobile network has recently been improved with CDMA coverage and expanded access to local-call internet services.

Source: Eyre Regional Development Board 2003

28

Demographics The population of the Eyre Peninsula has remained relatively stable at 33,000. Port Lincoln, the largest and only city supports 14,000 people and serves as the regional centre for industry and commerce. The region includes ten local government areas. The key growth areas in employment have been the service and recreation sectors and the fishing, transport and agriculture industries. The Eyre Peninsula is home to several Indigenous communities, including the Wirangu, Bungala, Kokotha, Mirning Pit and other Anangu people. These communities are seeking involvement in various commercial enterprises, but still face significant barriers in obtaining funding and appropriate training Table 5 shows some social data for the coastal communities of the Eyre Peninsula. Many of these towns are quite small, with Port Lincoln and Whyalla having by far much larger populations than other towns in the Eyre region. Population growth in the Lower Eyre Peninsula and Port Lincoln LGAs was nearly double that of the non-metro average for Australia (.85), while growth in Ceduna, Franklin Harbour and Streaky Bay was slightly below the Australian non-metro average. Several towns experienced population declines, with Whyalla having the most significant decrease. Ceduna has the highest proportion of Indigenous people in the region, followed by Port Lincoln. Table 5. Population, growth and indigenous communities in coastal LGAs on the Eyre Peninsula Local Government area Total population Population growth Indigenous persons Ceduna 3,677 .66 22.44 Franklin Harbour 1,258 .65 0.32 Lower Eyre Peninsula 4,073 1.13 1.55 Port Lincoln 13,200 1.65 4.71 Streaky Bay 1,980 .66 0.86 Whyalla 21,554 -1.82 2.92 Cleve 1,830 -0.58 0.38 Elliston 1,201 -0.15 1.08 Tumby Bay 2,457 -0.73 1.06 Source: ABS 2001 Table 6 provides the median age, changes in median age and dependency ratios for each of the LGAs. Most of the figures are largely comparable across the region and are close to the average median age for non-metropolitan Australia (37). Tumby Bay had the highest median age and increase in that level than the other towns. Tumby Bay also had the highest level of persons younger than 15 and older than 64 years compared to those of working age than the other towns, and was considerably higher than the non-metro average for Australia (56.1). Changes in median age in most of the towns listed in Table 6 are comparable or close to the to the non metropolitan average for Australia, which was a three percent increase. The only town with a decrease in median age was Franklin Harbour. Table 6. Age and dependency of population in coastal LGAs on the Eyre Peninsula Local Government area Median age Change in media age Dependency ratio Ceduna 35 3 54.8 Franklin Harbour 40 -1 59.6 Lower Eyre Peninsula 38 3 56.7 Port Lincoln 34 1 55.9 Streaky Bay 38 2 58.8 Whyalla 35 3 53.5 Cleve 38 3 61.4 Elliston 38 3 59.1 Tumby Bay 43 4 65.5 Source: ABS 2001

29

Table 7 shows figures on income and disadvantage for coastal LGAs on the Peninsula. High incomes are defined as greater than $1,200 per week. Low incomes are measured as less than $300 per week. For non-metropolitan Australia, the percentage of people on high incomes is 21.41%. Port Lincoln, Tumby Bay and the Lower Eyre Peninsula respectively, were closest to that figure and have a greater proportion of people with high incomes. For non metropolitan areas across Australia, an average of 16.20 percent are on low incomes. All the coastal LGAs, except Ceduna and Lower Eyre Peninsula, had greater percentages of their populations on low incomes, with Whyalla and Streaky Bay showing the highest percentage of people on low incomes. The SEIFA index of disadvantage was developed by the ABS from its 1996 census data. Areas with the greatest relative disadvantage have high proportions of low-income families, unemployed people, people without educational qualifications, households renting public housing and people in low-skilled occupations. The index has been designed to have an average across all collection districts in Australia of 1,000. Regional averages for non-metropolitan Australia (972) in 1996 compared to metropolitan Australia (1,021) indicate more widespread disadvantage in non-metropolitan areas. Haberkorn et al (1996: 95) showed that the lowest SEIFA indices applied to Australia’s more remote areas, indicating a substantial incidence of disadvantage in remote Australia. Apart from the Lower Eyre Peninsula and Cleve, all the towns listed in Table 7 show indices below the non-metro average. Ceduna, Whyalla and Port Lincoln had the lowest indices. Table 7. Income and disadvantage in coastal LGAs on the Eyre Peninsula Local Government area % high income % low income SEIFA Index of Disadvantage Ceduna 16.62 13.83 933 Franklin Harbour 12.90 19.91 963 Lower Eyre Peninsula 19.73 14.55 1005 Port Lincoln 20.52 18.56 931 Streaky Bay 13.21 20.57 971 Whyalla 18.75 23.20 913 Cleve 14.01 18.37 1026 Elliston 12.81 19.95 991 Tumby Bay 13.80 19.24 990 Source: ABS 2001

Education and Employment Education levels in the region have risen over the last decade. There has also been development of several education and research centres, such as the Lincoln Marine Science Centre, and Minnipa Agricultural Research Centre. There are also several TAFE campuses across the region. Table 8 lists some education figures for coastal LGAs on the Eyre Peninsula, a majority of people do not have post school formal qualifications. The non metropolitan averages were 57.8%, 13.9% and 8.4%, respectively for no post school, trade and university qualifications. Most of the coastal LGAs had a higher proportion of people with no post school qualifications than the non metropolitan average. Port Lincoln and Whyalla had rates of people with trade qualifications that matched and were higher than the non metropolitan average.

30

Table 8. Education attainment in coastal LGAs on the Eyre Peninsula (ABS 2001) Local government

area % with university

qualifications % with trade qualifications

% with no post school qualifications

Ceduna 5.8 11.4 67.0 Franklin Harbour 4.3 10.6 66.1 Lower Eyre Peninsula

6.5 13.0 61.9

Port Lincoln 6.0 14.1 60.8 Streaky Bay 5.6 11.9 64.4 Whyalla 6.3 18.0 59.9 Cleve 6.0 12.0 69.0 Elliston 5.6 10.9 68.0 Tumby Bay 5.1 9.4 68.7 Source: ABS 2001 Table 9 shows labour force participation and unemployment data. Labour force refers to all people 15 years of age and older who, during the census reference week, were employed and those who were not employed, but were actively looking for work and were available to start work. This excludes people not seeking employment, people engaged in home duties, and students. The labour force participation rate expresses the labour force as a percentage of the total population 15 years and over. The average non-metropolitan labour force participation rate in 2001 was 57.6%. Ceduna, Streaky Bay, Cleve and Elliston had higher than average labour force participation rates, while the remaining coastal LGAs had rates that were close to or slightly lower than the non metropolitan average. The unemployment rate is the number of unemployed people expressed as a percentage of the labour force. The non-metropolitan average was 8.4%, which was higher than the national average (7.4%) and the metropolitan average (6.8%). Most of the coastal LGAs had rates lower than the non-metropolitan average, except for Port Lincoln and Whyalla. Whyalla’s unemployment rate was noticeably higher than the national, metropolitan and non- metropolitan averages. Table 9. Education and employment in coastal LGAs on the Eyre Peninsula

Local government area Labour force participation Unemployment Ceduna 65.0 4.7 Franklin Harbour 57.7 4.2 Lower Eyre Peninsula 59.7 6.3 Port Lincoln 59.5 8.8 Streaky Bay 61.6 7.3 Whyalla 55.9 13.1 Cleve 67.0 3.3 Elliston 67.5 5.8 Tumby Bay 54.9 6.4 Source: ABS 2001

Industry, commerce and industry employment The Eyre Peninsula relies heavily on agriculture, primarily wheat, barely, wool and livestock. Port Lincoln’s large deep-sea port facility serves as its regional distribution centre. More than 45% of the South Australian wheat crop and 20% of the barely crop are produced in the region. Tourism is also a significant industry for the region. The Eyre Peninsula has the highest visitation rates (300,000 visitors per year) for country regions in the State. It is estimated that over $100m is injected into the local economy. The industry supports approximately 2000 jobs, which comprise 15% of regional employment. The primary focus of tourism is the natural environment, with a rise in ecotourism and adventure holidays. The processing sector also makes an important contribution to the region’s economy, with recent growth seen in fish processing sector. Most of the region’s processing is undertaken in Port Lincoln and is linked to the seafood sector.

31

Many of the small towns on Eyre Peninsula are heavily reliant on one or a small number of industries, as well as the provision of basic services and infrastructure for those industries, and generally lack the diversity and complexity of larger economic units, which are typical of other regional economies in SA (EconSearch 1999). Newer industries such as aquaculture, therefore take on considerable significance, given their potential to contribute to greater diversity in the region. Table 10 lists some measures of economic diversity and employment, which supports the above finding. The economic diversity index is a measure of the concentration of employment within the top three employing industry sectors in a region. The higher the index the greater the concentration of employment within the three highest employing industries. The Australian average index for non-metropolitan Australia was 44.3 in 2001. There appear to be some differences in economic diversity across the coastal LGAs in the Peninsula. Apart from Ceduna, the towns with lower levels of economic diversity had higher proportions of people employed in the agriculture/fisheries/forestry sector. Port Lincoln and Ceduna had higher levels of economic diversity with employment spread more evenly over a greater range of industry sectors. Retail was a significant employer for both of these LGAs. Table 10. Economic diversity and employment in top industry sectors in coastal LGAs on the Eyre Peninsula Local government area Economic

diversity Top 3 industries No. of employed

Ceduna 43.17 Agriculture/fisheries/forestry Retail Government/Defence

302 257 180

Franklin Harbour 59.74 Agriculture/fisheries/forestry Retail Health

224 54 50

Lower Eyre Peninsula 51.67 Agriculture/fisheries/forestry Retail Health

557 200 140

Port Lincoln 39.76 Retail Agriculture/fisheries/forestry Manufacturing

959 725 515

Streaky Bay 54.66 Agriculture/fisheries/forestry Retail Health

334 84 67

Whyalla 51.66 Manufacturing Retail Health

1998 1281 884

Cleve 64.72 Agriculture/fisheries/forestry Retail Education

405 117 65

Elliston 67.30 Agriculture/fisheries/forestry Education Health

300 46 41

Tumby Bay 59.71 Agriculture/fisheries/forestry Retail Health

429 97 83

Source: ABS 2001

The aquaculture industry The aquaculture industry has a significant profile in SA, particularly in the Eyre Peninsula region. The industry has developed rapidly here. It has been suggested that because of its large labour and material input requirements, the industry can increase the complexity and diversity of local economies, and this may help offset contraction of other local industry and help avoid some of the consequences associated with declining regional economies (EconSearch 1999).

32

There are nine species of fish and molluscs farmed in South Australia: abalone, Atlantic salmon, barramundi, blue mussels, marron and yabbies, native finfish, Pacific oysters, snapper and tuna. The species farmed in the coastal regions of the Eyre Peninsula region include Pacific oysters, abalone, Southern Blue-fin tuna, kingfish, Blue mussels and snapper. Pacific oysters, a species native to Japan and first introduced to Australia in the 1940s, have been farmed in SA since 1969 (PIRSA). There are oyster farms on the Yorke Peninsula and Kangaroo Island, as well as the Eyre Peninsula region. The industry relies on the image of growing oysters in South Australia’s relatively clean coastal waters to promote itself. The oyster industry has also grown rapidly in recent years, with $5.8million worth of production in 1997/98 and $15million in 2000/01. The industry sells to both domestic and international markets. Abalone have been farmed in SA since the early 1980s (PIRSA 2002). There are commercial abalone farms operating on the west coast of the Eyre Peninsula near Port Lincoln and on Kangaroo Island. Approximately 30 tonnes of abalone valued at $1million are produced annually. Much of the market for abalone is in Asia. The abalone are harvested after being grown for about three years. The industry is experiencing significant expansion. The Southern Blue-fin tuna is the most valueable sector of aquaculture in South Australia. It was established in Port Lincoln in 1991 under a tripartite agreement between the Tuna Boat Owners Association of Australia, the Japanese Overseas Fisheries Cooperation Foundation and the SA government (PIRSA 2002). The tuna are raised in sea cages after being caught in the Southern Ocean and then towed to Port Lincoln where they are fattened for 3-5 months before going to market. Approximately 80% of Australia’s tuna quota is allocated to tuna farming. The major market for tuna is Japan. Farmers are able to get premium prices for their harvest by holding and fattening the tuna, as well as tailor their harvesting to meet market demand. The Blue mussel industry in SA is relatively young, but reported to be growing rapidly. The Blue mussel species is found throughout the northern and southern hemisphere. Commercial farms are located in Port Lincoln, Ceduna and other locations in the Spencer Gulf, as well as on Kangaroo Island and the Gulf St. Vincent. Production for 2000/01 was valued at approximately $0.6million (EconSearch 2001: vi). The majority of mussels grown are sold to eastern Australia as fresh chilled products, and the industry is considering ways to value-add their products (PIRSA). The industry also promotes itself on the basis of the quality of South Australia’s coastal waters, its adherence to quality assurance programs, and its access to freight and distribution networks and processing facilities. The Yellowtail kingfish has been identified as a good candidate species for aquaculture in the Eyre Peninsula. The species is farmed in Japan, where juveniles are caught from the wild and grown out in sea cages. Kingfish comprise over 90% of the total marine finfish produced by aquaculture in Japan. The Yellowtail kingfish are typically marketed as whole fish and are also sold on the domestic market in cutlet or fillet form, with better quality fish being sold for sashimi. The colder waters of SA are believed to produce a higher quality fish. NSW currently has the strongest consumer acceptance of kingfish, with export markets concentrated in Japan, Asia generally, Los Angeles and the United Kingdom. Kingfish are currently farmed in Arno Bay. Snapper farming in South Australia is developing and there are several commercial ventures currently in operation. The majority of snapper production takes place in the Spencer Gulf. Juvenile snapper, some of which are wild caught and some raised from eggs, are raised in land-based hatcheries located at Arno Bay and Port Augusta and then transferred to sea cages near Cowell and Port Lincoln. The first commercial harvest of snapper in SA was in 1998 (PIRSA). Production targets for 2002/03 are 400 tonne. There is a substantial domestic market for wild caught snapper, and the farmed snapper industry targets this market as well.

33

The industry is also targeting the market for larger snapper, which cannot be met by the wild caught sector given restrictions on catch sizes.

Economic impacts of aquaculture Table 11 provides 2001 ABS figures on people from the Eyre Peninsula’s coastal towns who are employed in all industries and the commercial fishing industry. The ABS classifies aquaculture as part of the commercial fishing sector. Table 11 therefore, also shows those directly employed in the aquaculture industry and what proportion those jobs are of both the commercial fishing industry and of all industries. The data show that:

• while the fishing industry accounts for less than 10% of total employment for people residing in coastal towns, in some cases (Franklin Harbour, Ceduna, Tumby Bay) aquaculture employment comprises well over half of those jobs;

• Port Lincoln had the highest number of people employed directly in aquaculture (318);

• Franklin Harbour (8.74%), Port Lincoln (5.74%) and Ceduna (4.36%) had the highest proportion of people employed directly in the aquaculture industry relative to those employed in other industries.

Table 11. Employment in the commercial fishing industry (including aquaculture)

Local Government

area

No. employed

in all industries

No. employed in commercial

fishing

No. employed in aquaculture

% employed in

commercial fishing

% aquaculture employment

in commercial fishing

% employed in

aquaculture

Ceduna 1722 96 75 5.57 78.13 4.36 Franklin Harbour

538 55 47 10.22 85.45 8.74

Lower Eyre Peninsula

1760 126 60 7.16 47.62 3.41

Port Lincoln 5537 641 318 11.58 49.61 5.74 Streaky Bay 880 42 23 4.77 54.76 2.61 Whyalla 8062 31 14 .38 45.16 0.17 Cleve 909 22 12 2.42 54.55 1.32 Elliston 569 15 0 2.64 0 0 Tumby Bay 1030 9 6 .87 66.67 0.58 Source: ABS 2001 In addition to the ABS figures on employment, there have been other analyses of aquaculture’s economic impacts. EconSearch has been undertaking studies of select economic impacts of aquaculture since 1997. They have assessed impacts on the basis of business activity, household income and contribution to the state’s growth and employment levels. Table 12 shows EconSearch’s analysis of the total economic impact of aquaculture in South Australia. Output is equal to the gross revenue of goods and services produced b y commercial organisations, including gross expenditure by government agencies. Value-added is the value of production less the costs of producing the output. Employment figures include the number of working proprietors, managers, directors and other employees , in terms of the number of full-time equivalent jobs. The figures shown in Table 12 combine the direct and flow-on impacts/benefits from aquaculture. Flow-on effects are those generated by the purchase of materials, services, labour and capital by aquaculturists and by the processing, marketing and handling of fish products (EconSearch 2002: 7). It is readily apparent that the tuna sector dominates the industry on the Eyre Peninsula in terms of value of production, the number of jobs created and the amount of total household income generated. The oyster sector is the next most significant single sector in terms of value of production and proportion of jobs and income generated.

34

Table 12. Economic impact of aquaculture in South Australia, by sector, for 2001/02

Sector Output* Value Added* Employment* ($m) % ($m) % ($m) %

Tuna farming 490.8 85 260.1 86 1,806 69 Oyster farming 57.6 10 28.9 10 514 20 Abalone farming 5.6 1 3.0 1 64 2 Atlantic salmon 2.3 0 1.1 0 37 1 Mussells farming 1.6 0 0.9 0 31 1 Barramundi farming 8.7 2 4.4 1 74 3 Yabby/Marron farming 1.1 0 0.6 0 13 0 Other aquaculture 9.8 2 4.9 2 78 3 Total SA 577.5 100.0% 303.9 100.0% 2,617 100.0% Source: EconSearch 2003 Table 13 shows selected economic impacts of aquaculture in 2001/02 for the Eyre Peninsula region, which are comparable to the State impacts given the majority of aquaculture activity located there. Over 90% of the value of production, employment and household income generated from aquaculture is on the Eyre Peninsula region (EconSearch 2002: vii). Of the total aquaculture industry, the tuna sector employs close to 70% of the people working in the entire aquaculture industry. A substantial proportion of the value of and income and employment in this sector is attributed to the flow-on impacts. The oyster industry and other aquaculture sectors generate a lower percentage of their total value and employment through flow-on or indirect activities. Table 13. Economic impacts of aquaculture on the Eyre Peninsula.

Output Value Added Employment Sectors ($m) % ($m) % jobs %

Tuna farming - direct 284.0 65 127.8 55 877 50 Tuna farming – flow on 154.8 35 106.1 45 874 50 Oyster farming – direct 13.7 63 8.5 68 225 75 Oyster farming – flow on 8.0 37 4.1 32 75 25 Other aquaculture* - direct 6.7 61 3.7 63 108 73 Other aquaculture* – flow on 4.4 39 2.2 37 40 27 Source: EconSearch 2003 * includes mussels, abalone, & other forms of aquaculture Table 14 shows the change over time in employment generated by several aquaculture industry sectors. Overall employment in the tuna sector has grown since 1997/98, with a slight decline in the proportion of indirect jobs and a rise in direct employment. The number of jobs in the oyster industry dropped between 1997/98 and 1998/99, but had risen and stabilised for the next two years, with further growth in 2001/02. The flow-on jobs as a proportion of direct jobs in the sector has remained relatively consistent. Table 14. Employment trends of aquaculture on the Eyre Peninsula & South Australia

Sectors 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Tuna - direct 362 34 585 42 659 45 720 47 877 50 Tuna – flow on 712 66 807 58 791 55 814 53 874 50 Oysters - direct 201 71 170 74 180 72 181 73 225 75 Oysters – flow on 84 29 60 26 72 28 69 27 75 25 Other – direct* 172 67 205 65 - - - - 211 71 Other - flow on* 84 33 109 35 - - - - 88 29 Source: EconSearch 1999, 2002, 2003 *Figures for all of South Australia, and includes mussels, abalone, & other forms of aquaculture

35

36

Chapter 5: Interview Findings

Respondent demographics A total of 34 interviews were conducted, and Figure 4 shows the proportion of interviewees according to the stakeholder group which they identified with. The stakeholder group ‘community’ included individual citizens, education and/or research providers, NGOs and other kinds of groups, such as progress associations. Twenty-four interviewees selected were from several LGAs on the Eyre Peninsula where aquaculture was either well established or in more preliminary stages of development. The remaining ten interviewees selected were based outside of the Eyre Peninsula and were involved/interested in aquaculture at a State scale.

5

7

13

5

4

Aqaculture industryRelated industriesState GovernmentLocal GovernmentCommunity

Figure 4. Interviewees by respondent groups (n = 34)

Involvement and influence in aquaculture matters The interviewees all had a long standing interest in aquaculture and were involved in aquaculture in a number of ways. Most interviewees had been interested or involved in aquaculture for well over five years. Unless they specified otherwise, most interviewees used ‘aquaculture’ during the interview process to refer to all sectors of the industry in SA. Given that tuna and oyster farming are predominant on the Eyre Peninsula, most of the discussions were focused on those species. Mussels were discussed less often. The kingfish sector was also mentioned frequently, given the recent media coverage of the kingfish escapes and ensuing public debate. Interviewees were also asked to rate what level of influence they felt they had in aquaculture decision-making. Figure 5 shows that the majority of interviewees rated their influence as low to average. Figure 6 shows that interviewees from different stakeholder groups perceived different degrees of their own impact on decision-making. Interviewees from industry and State Government rated their influence higher than those interviewees from Local Government, community and research/education sectors. Aquaculture industry interviewees rated their influence higher than did interviewees from other industry sectors. State and Local Government interviewees who rated their influence highest tended to be most supportive of and/or working most closely on aquaculture. Most community interviewees rated their influence on aquaculture decision-making as low, and several commented that they were dissatisfied that their views were not being ‘heard’, and that they would like to have greater impact.

37

7

4

12

4

4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1

Low level of inf luence 1

2

3

4

High level of inf luence 5

# of respondents

4

Figure 5. Interviewees’ rating of their level of influence in aquaculture decision-making (n = 31)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Aquaculture Other industry State govt Local govt Community &Educ'n/Research

Aver

age

ratin

g (1

= lo

w, 5

= h

igh)

Figure 6. Interviewees’rating of their influence in aquaculture decision making by stakeholder groups (n = 31)

Aquaculture’s value, challenges and opportunities

Aquaculture values Interviewees were asked what they felt was most valuable or important about aquaculture. Virtually all interviewees recognised the value of aquaculture (see Table 15). There were slight differences in what they felt was most important to them about aquaculture. Interviewees spoke about aquaculture’s importance in providing economic growth and employment for the region. Some were especially keen to see jobs that gave their children a chance to stay in the region. Interviewees also spoke about their own employment benefits – aquaculture provided them with a rewarding professional life.

Others were more circumspect and qualified their praise by noting that aquaculture’s benefits should not be exaggerated and that proper environmental management and social assessments were required to ensure aquaculture’s viability and ecological sustainability. For example, one respondent said:

38

“… [aquaculture has] significant economic and employment benefits for the region, and it can provide some support for declining fish stocks … but it needs to be managed properly … we [need to recognise] the impacts it has on others … and [avoid] seeing it as some panacea for wild fisheries’ decline.”

Table 15. What interviewees most value about aquaculture (n = 33)

Stakeholder group Perceived value of aquaculture Community (n – 13)

• None – do not eat shellfish or tuna • Significant economic and employment benefits for region & support for

declining fish stocks – but needs to be managed properly, not impact on other users, & not be seen as a panacea

• Possible way to sustain local aboriginal communities in long term • Massive financial boost to the region, huge possibilities for advancement

of coastal communities • Lifestyle – a great and challenging job • Jobs that keep young people in the region

Aquaculture industry & related industries (n = 9)

• Jobs to keep young people in the region • “Jewel in the crown” – huge employer, generates wealth especially in

small towns • Challenging, interesting & rewarding work (e.g. get to market a world

class, clean/green product) • Helps to save wild fish stocks • With proper management, can provide significant growth and not damage

the environment Local Government (n = 5)

• Major impetus for economic growth and employment in region with other flow on effect/benefits

• Stops regional decline and keeps young people in region State Government (n = 6)

• Can be a sustainable fishery and provide significant income to the State, especially small towns – if done properly

• Career opportunities/job satisfaction

Aquaculture challenges and opportunities Interviewees were then asked to identify what key problems they felt were associated with aquaculture. Table 16 presents the different ways industry interviewees identified aquaculture’s problems and solutions. Aquaculture industry interviewees appeared to be most concerned by historic and current negative community views and the unfavourable impacts those perspectives have on aquaculture’s success. Interviewees felt that these views were easily exploited and based on fear of change, ignorance of aquaculture’s real benefits and its genuine efforts to safeguard the environment. Interviewees noted the need for ‘independent’, ‘scientific’ research that could demonstrate aquaculture’s environmental credibility to the community; the need for government decision-making based on ‘fact’ and informed by current consultation processes; industry liaising with the community and maintaining good environmental practice to build trust; and the need for government processes allowing sufficient flexibility for business start-up phases. Table 16. Aquaculture industry interviewees’ perceptions of key problems associated with

aquaculture (n = 4) Problems Solutions Responsibilities & Challenges • Community’s

negative perceptions of aquaculture

• Continue good environmental and consultation practices; research and distribute factual information & liaise with community to counteract community fear and ignorance

• Industry-owned processes; independent parties undertake assessments based on good science; need to overcome public distrust in government and industry

• Competition from other users

• provision of accessible sites guaranteeing use

• Top down decisions to ensure economic development

39

Interviewees from related industries identified different challenges and ways to overcome these issues. These are listed in Table 17. Greater industry professionalism could be encouraged by education and training in environmental management, but would need to be designed and implemented at a local level for it to be truly effective. It was felt that public education programs illustrating that most aquaculture practices were environmentally responsible and sustainable should be developed alongside this strategy. Aquaculture’s sustainability was seen as not clear, but could be legitimised if overall business approaches were improved; monitoring programs gave equal emphasis to environmental impacts as were given to stock health; government’s responsibilities for industry development and regulation/management were separated; and stricter codes of environmental practice were attached to license conditions. It was felt that these ‘solutions’ would not be easy to achieve given deep-rooted beliefs by industry that it was doing all the environmental management it needed to and power structures that supported those views. Aquaculture’s environmental and amenity impacts were another problem identified as needing attention. It was felt that State Government should take greater measures to ensure that aquaculture only took place within designated zones and that areas with high marine biodiversity values were set aside for low or no impact uses. These steps could be standardised through a national approach to planning, but would need to overcome a perceived reluctance by governmental to be firm with industry. Another suggested problem was that State Government decision-making on aquaculture required greater knowledge and understanding of how coastal and marine ecosystems function and sounder consultation processes. If communities felt that government was being truly open with them and taking their concerns seriously, they would in turn feel more empowered and be more inclined to trust future Government decisions. Table 17. Related industry interviewees’ perceptions of key problems with aquaculture (n = 5)

Problems Solutions Responsibilities & Challenges

• Greater industry professionalism

• Education for industry and wider public • Training needs to be locally defined & owned

• Environmental & amenity impacts

• More support for land-based aquaculture; restrict activities to zones; allow sufficient buffers for ‘non-use’ areas

• Government enforces nationally standardised measures & remains firm in face of vested interests

• Market sustainability of aquaculture untenable

• More skilled business approaches; separate industry development & management/regulatory roles; stricter licensing & monitoring regimes w/ greater emphasis on environmental impacts

• Overcoming intertia of power regimes & industry denial

• Inadequate consultation processes & insufficient knowledge & understanding of marine environment

• Improve consultation to offset community disempowerment; upgrade State Government knowledge

• State Government commit to greater openness & closer listening;

Table 18 shows the main problems identified by State Government interviewees. Most of these interviewees listed multiple issues requiring attention. One prominent theme in the interviews was concern about aquaculture’s environmental impacts and the inadequacy of current legislative, policy and management regimes to address those impacts. Suggested solutions to these dilemmas were to focus more research on what regional impacts techniques such as sea cage cultures had on the environment, not just on the health of the stock in those cages in individual farms. In addition, it was felt that sound assessments of aquaculture zones and on going management of farms required greater integration of a range of expertise earlier in the process. The marine planning process implemented by government in consultation with a full range of stakeholders was noted as a way that these goals could be met. Interviewees felt that there was an imbalance of interests in key decision-making structures that required

40

attention if these planning processes were to be truly effective and widespread trust to be secured. Another issue identified in these interviews was the community’s sceptical attitudes towards aquaculture. State Government and industry were seen to have key responsibility for ensuring that the aquaculture industry conducted itself with greater professionalism. Other emerging themes were additional problems ‘for’ aquaculture as opposed to problems thought to be created ‘by’ aquaculture. These included scientific, marketing/business and resource access challenges that were seen as limiting aquaculture’s full potential. For example, one respondent noted that investor confidence was low because of concerns about various environmental problems with overseas sea cage aquaculture. Some suggested solutions to these challenges were to ensure that the aquaculture industry continued to improve the quality and uptake rates of environmental management programs and to inform the public about their commitment to doing so. In addition, greater market intelligence and interdisciplinary research was seen as necessary to keep abreast of industry developments and capitalise on opportunities. The current legislative framework (Aquaculture Act) was thought to be effective in securing greater resource access for industry, but greater State agency commitment to firm compliance would be needed before communities became more trusting of aquaculture. Table 18. State Government respondent’s perceptions of problems with aquaculture (n = 7)

Problems Solutions Responsibilities & Challenges

• Environmental impacts of aquaculture (upsetting ecological processes)

• Better farm management; acknowledge limits to aquaculture; more environmental impacts research versus impacts on stock health

• Better identification of research needs and stronger compliance measures reliant on sufficient political will and long term stances

• Insufficient & rushed policy/decision frameworks for environmental protection (eg. transparency, poor uptake & monitoring compliance, weak intra-governmental integration, coastal/marine biodiversity values underrepresented in resource allocation)

• Marine planning frameworks to achieve cooperation & integration; regional environmental monitoring with results readily available to public; include greater marine/coastal biodiversity & social expertise in site assessment

• Key State agencies and independent researchers achieve broad representation of interests and build community trust and capacity

• Community distrust of & ignorance about aquaculture

• Greater industry professionalism, openness, honesty

• Management agency & industry work to overcome distrust

• Science/research challenges (eg. research fund allocation,

• More multidisciplinary, collaborative initiatives; greater funding & publicity

• Commitment from all stakeholders to overcome competition, duplication

• Business/marketing challenges (eg. investor confidence, demand for certain sectors, industry reluctance to address image problems)

• Improve uptake & quality of environmental monitoring; better market analysis; marketing cooperatives

• Commitment from all stakeholders to overcome competition, duplication

• Insufficient resource allocation for aquaculture

• Current legislation; public information/education; improve environmental performance

• Need greater firmness from management agency and work with individual operators to build long term community support

Table 19 shows the variety of aquaculture issues raised in interviews with Local Government officials. Many of them are related to planning and development matters. One problem identified was that some sections of their community were concerned about the town becoming less “quiet and sleepy” and more “industrial” in response to development pressures directly and indirectly related to aquaculture. It was felt that industrial activities could be

41

restricted to certain areas and the public could have better information about planning decisions, but it was not always possible to know what the future held. Another issues was the difficulty of predicting the future development of an essentially “young” industry and ensuring adequate environmental protection measures given aquaculture’s “inevitable” impacts. The key solutions proposed were to use sufficiently flexible State Government processes - particularly in the face of so many uncertainties - that would allow aquaculture to evolve and build on its knowledge and experience. Other positions were that aquaculture needed greater support in terms of increased and guaranteed access to suitable sites and infrastructure provision. Achieving these goals would require a greater on-ground presence of State Government for site assessments. Another problem identified was the presence of community concerns, which were seen as coming from “the minority” and equated with a “fear of [social and environmental] change”. It was felt that concerns could be transformed into support for aquaculture through education programs. Areas to focus education and communication programs were suggested, including aquaculture’s strengths and weaknesses. In addition, it was thought that public support could be improved if it were made clear how environmental monitoring programs were designed and what actions they included to protect against and/or respond to negative environmental impacts.

There was also concern that the ‘science’ and other information being used for aquaculture planning and management has been inadequate, biased, untimely and not adequately reflective of local community values and expertise. Table 19. Local government interviewees’ perceptions of problems with aquaculture (n = 5)

Problems Solutions Responsibilities & Challenges • Tensions over development

changes • Allocation of commercial precincts; better

public information • Local government needs a

‘crystal ball’ • Adequate environmental

protection; planning challenges

• Time to build industry experience; increase flexibility/responsiveness in State government processes

• Industry/State partnerships to increase flexibility & communication

• Selective/strategic use of information; insufficient science to justify site selection

• Better funding for “independent” science; better & more timely public information

• Need to integrate scientific, community & business expertise

• Insufficient sites & infrastructure for aquaculture

• Greater government presence for site assessment & support for infrastructure

• State government provide funds

• (Minority) community fears of change (social & environmental impacts)

• Time for systems to evolve; public education on ‘pros & cons’ to allay fears & support decision-making; appropriate responses for identified problems

• State agencies role in monitoring & public education; local government provide infrastructure; all within financial constraints

Table 20 lists the key problems that community interviewees identified during their interviews. The most prominent issues were perceived environmental impacts from aquaculture:

• beach pollution (from sea cages); • death of sea grasses (under sea cages); • attraction of sharks (to sea cages); • death/entanglement of sharks, dolphins, seals (sea cages); • fish escapes from sea cages (tuna, kingfish); • escapes of Pacific oysters; • ecological footprint of sea cage aquaculture (e.g. drawing on wild population for feed,

stock).

These interviewees wanted to see more and impartial research on aquaculture’s environmental impacts used before and after the establishment of farms, as well as stricter regulations with a greater commitment to enforcement and penalties for non-compliance, particularly to bring ‘the cowboys’ into line. They felt that State agencies, industry and individual farmers were

42

responsible for committing to these solutions, but felt worried that the will to act ‘in the public interest’ would continually be compromised by those with ‘vested interests’ in aquaculture.

Closely linked to those issues are interviewees’ concerns about how aquaculture’s benefits are balanced against some of the social and other impacts. For example, some interviewees felt that aquaculture had undue impacts on a range of recreational activities, including recreational fishing and boating (escaped Kingfish), swimming and surfing (increased risk of sharks attracted to seacages). Suggested solutions included more research that provides better information about the degrees of environmental impacts from aquaculture. It was felt that this information would help government and communities ‘weigh up’ the costs relative to benefits from other uses. The biggest challenge seen to these options was finding sufficiently ‘neutral’ parties to undertake the work. One respondent felt that Indigenous communities were largely left ‘out of the aquaculture loop’ and that targeted support was needed to ensure their inclusion.

Other interviewees were most concerned about the negative impacts that large aquaculture operations have on small communities when they are developed too quickly and without adequate consultation with that community. They called for more forward or strategic planning by State Government and industry to ensure that communities’ both desire and can accommodate the changes resulting from large influxes of workers and increased infrastructure for aquaculture. Industry was seen to have a special responsibility to provide safe and attractive working conditions even though there might be financial costs in doing so.

Further respondent concerns related to aquaculture’s farm and business management competencies. Some interviewees felt that parts of the industry were performing poorly, given a perceived lack of motivation and cultures of industry secrecy and government favouritism of aquaculture interests. Suggested solutions ranged from simply allowing sufficient time for the industry to mature, to a more proactive approach that involved building better business acumen and acquiring sufficient venture capital that would make long term planning and environmental management more feasible. Industry proponents were seen to have the most responsibility for improving their business planning competencies, and it was felt that government should rely on pilot demonstration projects to prove an operation is sustainable and viable before allowing it to proceed.

Finally, a point was made that some State Government practices worked against building better relations with industry. These included high staff turnover, excessive regulations, costs of environmental management programs and a lack of suitable sites for aquaculture.

43

Table 20. Community interviewees’ perceptions of problems associated with aquaculture (n = 13) Problems Solutions Responsibilities &

Challenges • Environmental & amenity

impacts • Independent and timely research and

monitoring on environmental impacts; more responsible farm management; stronger regulation and enforcement; more care in zone/farm location

• How to overcome vested interests, engender greater industry responsibility

• Social unrest from itinerant workforce

• Build career structures, recruit stable workforce & provide for needs

• Industry improve working conditions despite costs; State government provide infrastructure

• Low or no Aboriginal involvement

• Start-up grants • Federal government provide funds and industry assist with management

• Balancing aquaculture’s benefits and impacts

• Better science and cost-benefit analyses • Identifying appropriate State agency

• Inadequate consultation & participation

• Increase opportunities for comment & foster multi-stakeholder dialogues

• How to achieve better balance of interests in decision-making regimes

• Poor farm & business management practices (e.g. culture of secrecy, overstocking, short term priorities)

• Time for industry to build experience; long term business planning with greater venture capital

• State government & industry partnerships integrating knowledge

• ineffective government practices (eg. over-regulation, access to sites, costs, government turnover)

• Stagger fees and use self regulatory system

• Industry and State Government responsible; continuity in government staff on-going obstacle

Ecological sustainability and aquaculture Given the contested nature of the term ‘ecologically sustainable development’ (reference to earlier discussion), interviewees were asked what ESD meant to them personally, what would demonstrate to them that aquaculture was ecologically sustainable, and whether there were any limits to the development of aquaculture in the Eyre Peninsula region.

Table 21 shows how aquaculture industry interviewees conceptualised ESD and what indicators they believed would help demonstrate aquaculture’s sustainability. While some of the aquaculture industry interviewees felt that ESD meant there should be no environmental impacts from development activities, others felt that ‘change’ was inevitable given that all human activities have environmental impacts of one sort or another. Another point made was that linking social, economic and environmental factors would help determine what impacts would be acceptable. All aquaculture industry interviewees felt that existing regulations and measures were sufficient to determine whether the industry was going to be sustainable in the long term.

All aquaculture industry interviewees felt there were limits to how much the industry could grow in their region. Two interviewees felt those ‘limits’ were determined by market factors (e.g. oversupply of product). Another respondent felt that the shared nature of the resource (marine and coastal environments) was an inherent limit, and that industry needed to be innovative in managing its environmental impacts before negotiating further with the community about expanding the industry. And another respondent noted that the mussel industry was already at government specified limits, but that these were not necessarily the same as the ecological carrying capacity of the environment or market conditions.

44

Table 21. Aquaculture industry interviewees’ perceptions of ESD and aquaculture (n = 4) ESD definitions Indicators of sustainability

• Activities that won’t damage the environment now or in the future

• Existing regulations and measures (e.g. water sampling, videos of sea floor, watching for algal blooms)

• Finding acceptable levels of inevitable environmental change, allowing for recovery periods, do least damage to environment (our foundation for business)

• Impacts on benthic flora and flora, stocking rates, existing research which shows no damage yet

• Linking environmental, social and economic to determine acceptable levels of impact

• Key environmental measures being used, community benefits, understanding of acceptability of impacts

• Practices that can continue in perpetuity without environmental impacts; need to prove impact coming from aquaculture

• Existing monitoring programs (e.g. video transacts of sea bed), monitoring stock growth rates & conditions

Table 22 lists related industry interviewees’ varied interpretations of ESD. One idea was that environmental impacts resulting from human activities were inevitable, but that we were beholden to ensure that damage was minimised and not allowed to worsen. It was felt that independent and scientific monitoring programs that measured trends and sustainability frameworks would ensure aquaculture activities could continue indefinitely. Others felt that development with negative impacts was akin to ‘killing the goose that laid the golden egg’ and that indicators such as pollution, harm to marine wildlife, health of sea grasses and restrictions on other users would tell us about how sustainable aquaculture might be in the long term. All of these interviewees agreed there were limits to aquaculture growth, some interviewees were more focused on market limits, while others perceived a combination of environmental, social and market-based limits. While the oyster industry was perceived to be limited by the low nutrient levels in some of the region’s waters, the kingfish and tuna sectors were thought to be limited only by Asian “market vagaries” and government quotas. It was also suggested that the permit approval process and wild catch sector limits and the aquaculture’s permit approval process were good ways to regulate the industry’s development. Finally, that availability of suitable coastal sites given community concerns was seen as a significant limit, but one that might need to be addressed if demand exceeded production levels. Table 22. Related industry interviewees’ perceptions of ESD and aquaculture (n = 5)

ESD definitions Indicators of sustainability • Everything we do has an impact; we should ensure those

impacts are limited and don’t worsen over time • Monitoring programs designed to measure trends

• Developing ecosystems sustainably • Need scientific experts without vested interests to determine these

• Not destroying the goose that laid the golden egg; no or very minimal impacts

• No pollution or impacts on marine wildlife; a highly complex environment and we have too much to lose

• Conducting business today so that it can be done tomorrow; without environment we have no economy and vice-versa

• ESD fisheries framework; sectors with publicly accountable EMSs

• Development w/o negative impacts on biodiversity, habitat areas or visual amenity

• Health of sea grasses; unhealthy stock situations; restricting access of other users; water quality

Table 23 lists the ways that State Government interviewees described what ESD meant to them and what they would look for when applying it to aquaculture. All interviewees were implicitly referring to aquaculture’s (potentially) negative environmental impacts, when stating that ‘impacts’ should not be significant, irreversible or long term. Some felt that aquaculture’s economic viability depended on a healthy ecological base, which was progressively being threatened because industry tended to ‘cut corners’ when faced with environmental management costs. These issues are closely related to another theme raised by State Government interviewees, which was how varied interpretations of ESD across government and industry made applying

45

its principles so challenging. Lessons needed to be learned from the successes and failures in wild fisheries management, in part by ensuring there was firm enforcement of environmental regulations and consistent uptake of environmental monitoring programs across all aquaculture industry sectors that clearly specify:

• how farming practices would be adjusted to ameliorate environmental impacts and allow for environmental recovery; and

• how monitoring data would assess regional impacts over time. Some felt that existing programs already adequately addressed these matters. When asked about whether they felt there were any limits to aquaculture’s growth, similar ‘process’ issues arose. These were questions about how we determine and then implement those limits. Again, some pointed to the adequacy of existing policies and management plans that (have and will continue to) set out maximum areas and carrying capacities of aquaculture zones. Others highlighted that ‘limits’ were not solely determined by environmental factors, but also by resource access issues and market constraints. Finally, others felt that this issue of limits to aquaculture’s growth would not be adequately addressed unless we achieved greater industry transparency, political commitment to preventative approaches to environmental management, separation of government’s industry regulation and promotion roles, and ways to monitoring cumulative environmental impacts. Table 23. State Government interviewees’ perceptions of ESD and aquaculture (n = 7)

ESD definitions Indicators of sustainability • Having an equilibrium; a difficult principle

to apply; do have to lower production levels • Highly managed and strictly enforced regulations before its

too late; learn from fisheries’ mistakes • Leaving the environment in at least as good a

condition as you found it in and can still produce a living

• Existing criteria in policies, management plans & monitoring: assimiliative capacity; health of flora/ fauna; nutrient levels; having adjustable practices to allow for recovery

• All aquaculture has impacts; impacts must be sustainable in the long term – which is a substantial challenge

• Will be economically sustainable if not having environmental impacts: economic challenges mean environmental corners get cut

• As stated in the Act – activities that don’t significantly impact on other activities; agencies using different definitions

• What is currently specified in license conditions; need greater commitment to assess those results over time; not all sectors doing so to same extent

• Means a lot of different things to different people

• Overall, they are limited; existing ones in tuna environmental monitoring program

• No long term impacts on the environment; not forsaking the environment for sake of economic considerations

• No long term irreversible impacts; the Act’s environmental risk policies and monitoring programs with corresponding license conditions

• Development without irreversible harm and sustainable in long term; not fishing down the food chain

• Development of plant protein based feeds; ecosystem based management and consideration of regional impacts

Table 24 shows local government interviewees’ ways of conceptualising ESD. Like other interviewees most discussions focused on negative environmental impacts. Some interviewees were, in effect, equating environmental impacts with change, which they saw as inevitable given how any human activity has some effect on the surrounding environment. The challenge here was how to continue aquaculture indefinitely, and this could be met in part by assessing different indicators against aquaculture’s outcomes. Some of the indicators mentioned were environmental (algal blooms, unsightly structures, waste outputs, fish stocks), others were procedural (timely and independent monitoring systems, long-lived businesses). A related but slightly different interpretation of ESD was having to live within a region’s economic, social and environmental capacities. Some Local Government interviewees were unsure about the limits to aquaculture’s growth in the Eyre Peninsula region. These interviewees either perceived the open ocean as having limitless potential, were equivocal about the value of trying to predetermine limits, or worried that the sea’s size caused people to overlook its ecological sensitivity. Another view was that

46

existing systems were more than adequate to build an industry sustainably. Another view was that intensive culture techniques (use of feeds) had more definitive limits than extensive systems (shellfish). Table 24. Local Government interviewees’ perceptions of ESD and aquaculture (n = 5)

ESD definitions Indicators of sustainability • Doing something that does not ruin the

environment in the long term • No algal blooms, unsightly structures on the water, waste on the

sea floor • Always will be some change; an activity

that, w/ some management, can continue indefinitely

• Oyster industry an example of benign form of aquaculture

• Any activities will change the environment; assessing activities’ impacts against outcomes

• Clean environment: no physical evidence of waste, contamination; timely monitoring systems assessed by external departments; well managed operations & infrastructure developments proceeding

• Living within social, economic and environmental capacities and considering impacts in all three areas on regional scale

• Not sure; continued growth without environmental degradation and areas able to be rehabilitated afterwards if damage did occur

• No major environmental damage to ensure long term effectiveness

• Business is operational for long period; effects on sea grasses, fish stocks, marine life in general; no pollution

Table 25 lists community interviewees’ definitions of ESD and things that they would watch to determine whether aquaculture was sustainable. Again, the data suggest that people were referring primarily to the (current and potential) negative environmental effects of aquaculture when discussing ESD. There was a strong concern to avoid environmental harm, and where it did occur, recovery should be achieveable in order for aquaculture to be deemed ‘sustainable.’ For these interviewees indicators would need to vary between sectors and might include health of the sea floor, how broodstock was sourced, energy consumption, outflows and waste production, and changes to ecological function (migratory species). Interviewees also listed a range of social and policy indicators that could be used to measure aquaculture’s long term viability, including its visual and amenity impacts; potential to build (or erode) social capital; public information and participation systems; comprehensive industry development strategies; use of baseline data for measuring environmental impacts, ESD fisheries frameworks, whole-of-government approaches to ICM, market viability studies and competitive tendering based on environmental competencies. Community interviewees also noted how difficult it can be to define ESD. Some sought clarity by reiterating that by prioritising ecological services of systems, the perceived phenomenon of ‘development for development’s sake’ could be avoided. Related to this concern was the suggestion that there be a greater focus on ‘use’ (versus ‘develop’) of ecological systems within their natural capacities and a more rigorous application of the precautionary principles would help clarify how to apply ESD. That is, when we use something we are taking or consuming it by putting it into service. Development suggests less impacts on a system and focuses more on aiding something’s growth and potential. All community interviewees felt there were limits to aquaculture’s growth in the region and mostly listed a range of geographic, physical, oceanographic, and biological limits shown in Table 26. They were also concerned about ‘process’ limits such as: lack of baseline data before establishing large-scale seacage farms; insufficient attention paid to community concerns and opportunities for public involvement; and competition for resource access.

47

Table 25. Community interviewees’ perceptions of ESD and aquaculture (n =12) ESD definitions Indicators of sustainability

• Development which doesn’t change the environment by harming sea life

• Sea life exists as it has in the past

• Activities have little or no environmental impacts

• If an activity was stopped, area recovers quickly without major damage or changes

• Varies for aquaculture sectors; sea cages - look at sea floor, sourcing of brood stock, pressures placed on wild stocks

• Not sustaining development and greed

• Impacts on immediate environment and other users; inflows & outflows; rubbish removal; energy consumption to produce end product; company making a profit (but need to ask how much)

• Understanding whether ocean can sustain pressures of overuse

• Oysters – health of seaweed, seagrass, razorfish; tuna – seabed, marine life; marine envionment sustains jobs

• Maintaining sites that our activities depend upon to exist

• Oysters growing and in good condition; ; undertaking monitoring/ testing for long enough to rule our seasonal fluctuations

• A misunderstood term; on going activities that do not degrade the base they depend on; not development just to ‘catch up’ with rest of State

• Monitoring changes to site specific features (e.g. behaviour of migratory species), include visual amenity changes

• Financially-viable activities that do not ‘stuff up’ the area (e.g. escaped fish, pollution in creek systems)

• Cooperation between farm operators and communities; greater community involvement of aquaculture staff

• By farming fish, can avoid taking them from the sea

• No litter or pollution; use of ISO environmental standards by tuna industry

• Focus on ‘use’ (versus ‘development’) of species/ecosystem within capacity of systems to sustain natural processes; rigorous useapplication of precautionary principle

• Comprehensive industry development strategies; baseline data to establish impacts; mechanisms for identifying environmental trends & ways to respond; dedicated & independent resources to ensure compliance; whole of government commitment to INRM; better public participation system, civil enforcement rights & public access to information; competitive tendering based on environmental competencies; integration into SOE reporting

• Development in harmony with the environment

• Long-term environmental impact; marketing studies assessing viability; ESD fisheries framework

• Lot of people cannot explain it; having development without adversely affecting an area’s ecology, which is impossible

Table 26. Biophysical limits to aquaculture’s growth listed by community interviewees (n = 7)

Environmental limits • Low nutrient content for shellfish in some waters • Excess nutrients into waters • Prevailing winds driving pollution to shores • Openness of coastline to rough seas • Sourcing broodstock • Adequate land-based water supply

Informing the public When interviewees were asked what three main sources of information the general public uses to learn about aquaculture, most referred to the media (see Figure 7). Friends and neighbours were listed as the next most common information source, and were most often listed by interviewees residing in the Eyre Peninsula region. Interviewees believed that ‘the grapevine’ had a special significance for communication in rural and remote areas. In addition, most regionally-based interviewees felt that the local/regional newspapers were used more often than state or national newspapers.

48

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Televis

ionRad

io

Newsp

apers

Books

/Mag

s

Intern

et

Unis/R

esea

rch C

trsGov

t

Commerc

ial Fish

'g Orgs

Rec Fish

ing

Indige

nous

Env'al

NGOs

CoWork

ers

Friend

s/neig

hbors

# tim

es m

entio

ned

Figure 7. Number of times sources of information on aquaculture listed by interviewees When asked to rate the credibility of these sources of information, interviewees rated universities/research centres and books and magazines the highest (see Figure 8). Universities were given higher ratings because they were often perceived to be more ‘neutral’ in their reasons for producing information, and had peer review processes. Commercial and recreational fishing industry and groups, environmental organisations, television and friends/neighbours received the lowest credibility ratings, although this did vary slightly by stakeholder groups. Apart from the ratings for Indigenous communities, low ratings were often given because of a perceived ‘bias’ influencing the information made available to the public. Impartiality seemed to figure highly in interviewees’ assessment of an information sources’ credibility. For example, one respondent noted ‘[environmental] interest groups only tell one side of the story.’ Another respondent felt that ‘commercial fishing [has] vested interests, [they are] too good at publicising themselves.’

5.26

5.5

6.86.1

7.5

5.54.7 4.6 4.3

5.25.9

4.8

0

12

34

5

67

8

Televis

ionRad

io

Newsp

apers

Books

/Mag

s

Intern

et

Unis/R

esea

rch C

trsGov

t

Commerc

ial Fish

'g Orgs

Rec Fish

ing

Indige

nous

Env'al

NGOs

CoWork

ers

Friend

s/neig

hbors

Cre

dibi

lity

ratin

g (1

-10)

Figure 8. Interviewees’ credibility ratings for sources of information on aquaculture After rating the credibility of information sources, interviewees were asked what they felt could be done to gain a better understanding of the public’s concerns about aquaculture. Interviewees’ recommendations largely fell along two lines and are listed in Table 27. There

49

were views that reflected a belief that a ‘noisy minority’ already had enough information to build cases against aquaculture, but the public needed to hear more ‘facts’ about aquaculture, and any such ‘education’ process would necessarily build their acceptance of aquaculture. A different position that was offered was that more reliable information might be necessary, but it must be accompanied by greater efforts to listen to community concerns and involve the public in more meaningful ways than what is currently being used. Some community consultation and participation techniques were seen to be more effective than others, with some interviewees believing that the public was opting out of voicing their opinions because they did not feel they would be heard. Methods that provided opportunities for personal and social interaction were seen to be more effective. There were also perceptions that industry and government were too closely aligned and that public concerns would not be allayed unless greater impartiality was achieved. Table 27. Interviewee suggestions for improved understanding of public concerns about

aquaculture (n = 25) Stakeholder group Suggested measures to better understand public concerns Community (n = 11)

• Provide more and credible information and independent research/science (e.g. this project, reduce industry influence)

• Encourage greater honesty and openness from industry • Do not rely on submission processes, given cynicism about degree to

which views are ‘heard’ • Provide meaningful avenues for public involvement earlier in decision-

making process (e.g. representative community advisory boards, interactive and personal contact)

• Improve trust in government and industry by separating regulatory/management functions and industry development/promotion roles in government

Industry (n = 4)

• People ‘tune out’ when they do not feel heard – more explanation and better listening before making decisions

• More & better liaison with different user groups • Clarify ‘truth’ of anectdotal information • Run social surveys

Local & State Government (n = 11)

• Already know people’s concerns about environmental & amenity impacts – more about how to address concerns

• Greater regional, on-ground presence of decision-makers to help community understanding and acceptance of change and aquaculture (e.g. extension service, liaison officer)

• Avoid community meetings; use other means to disseminate information and respond to questions (eg. newsletters, interactive websites)

• More facilitated debate/dialogue earlier on in decision-making process & used alongside good controls and greater transparency

Issues of trust Given the trend of declining public trust in government and industry, interviewees were asked a series of questions designed to elicit information about their trust in these respective institutions and how trust across all stakeholder groups might be improved.

Building trust in government Community and industry interviewees were asked to rate their degree of trust that governments were making good decisions about the management and planning of aquaculture. They were asked to rate all three levels of government on a five-point scale where 1 was ‘low trust’ and 5 was ‘high trust’. Figure 9 shows that most interviewees gave the Federal Government an average rating. A number of interviewees who gave lower ratings and those that did not give a numerical rating were unsure about the Federal Government’s role in aquaculture. Some of the comments made about the Federal Government were mixed. There was some support for the Federal Government’s role in developing industry standards and codes of practice and for this

50

research project’s focus on identifying local and regional-scale issues. However, there was concern that not enough work was being done to identify specific environmental sustainability criteria for aquaculture. Interviewees’ ratings for trusting State Government varied widely. Aquaculture industry interviewees generally gave State Government higher ratings. Lower ratings invited comments about the government giving undue weight to industry interests at the price of others and not providing enough accessible information to the public. More interviewees gave Local Government a high rating than they did for other levels of government. Those who gave it a high rating primarily commented on the support that Local Government had given to aquaculture. Interviewees giving Local Government a low rating were concerned that it did not have sufficient expertise about aquaculture and were overly supportive of that industry.

1

1

9

2

2

4

3

7

5

2

5

1

4

8

2

0 2 4 6 8 10

Low trust 1

2

3

4

High trust 5

No.

of r

espo

nden

ts

Trust in LocalTrust in StateTrust in Feds

Figure 9. Community and industry interviewees’ rate their trust in government decision-making about

aquaculture (n = 21) Interviewees working in Local and State Government were asked how governments might engender greater trust from industry and community (see Table 28). Some Local Government interviewees felt that Local Government already worked closely with industry and community and that concerns about aquaculture were limited to a minority. Conversely, other interviewees felt that Local Government, and to a greater extent State Government, needed to be more open about their decision-making processes and provide more information to the public both about aquaculture and the various planning and management practices used by government. Interviewees from State Government felt that building community trust and industry trust required somewhat different strategies. It was pointed out that both needed to feel their concerns were being taken seriously and they had complete information about why government was making certain decisions. Some interviewees felt the community needed more information explaining a range of government processes, including how sites are selected for aquaculture zones, then managed and monitored for environmental impacts. Other suggestions included more interactive and participative strategies, such as feedback on submissions and community-level advisory committees with balanced representation.

51

Table 28. Government interviewees’ suggestions for building community and industry trust in government (n = 11)

Stakeholder group

Suggested measures to build trust

Local government (n = 5)

• Local government works in harmony with industry; little or no significant community concerns

• Local government work closely with community; State Government needs more flexibility for industry

• Both levels of government need greater transparency and provision of public education to build understanding of and support for aquaculture

• State Government provide more regular information to community on site assessment & management processes and process changes

• State Government demonstrate benefits to industry of being more open State government (n = 6)

• Be discrete with industry to build trust; greater effort to address community concerns or mistrust will persist

• Both sides must feel heard & that fair and balanced decisions being made; establish track record of providing clear information to all about reasons for decisions

• Avoid more high-level committees, focus on community consultative committees with balanced representation, impacts-centred dialogues, transparent processes (e.g. MPAs)

• Build extension/liaison service for industry to build best-practice in production and business; Community – more information on planning and environmental monitoring & management practices

• Continued support for industry associations; Community - more information to increase awareness of government processes, allay fear of unknown, facilitate informed debate and provide feedback on input

• State & Local Government build better relations; Community – demonstrate government management program strengths to earn trust over long term

Trusting aquaculture’s environmental performance Given aquaculture industry’s interest in ESD and concerns expressed in the scientific literature and by communities about aquaculture’s negative environmental impacts, we sought interviewees’ views on the adequacy of the aquaculture’s industry’s environmental management practices. Community interviewees were asked to rate their degree of trust that the aquaculture industry was undertaking the best possible environmental management practices. They were asked to use a five point scale where 1 was ‘low trust’ and 5 was ‘high trust’. Figure 10 shows that most community interviewees were not convinced the industry was doing all that it could. They felt that the following factors limited their ability to be more trusting of industry:

• Overstocking in oyster and tuna farms; • Infrastructure left behind after operations ceased and pollution from existing operations; • Short-term financial imperatives taking precedence over long-term environmental ones; • Misrepresentation of some community concerns by industry; and • Industry’s overly secretive attitudes and practices.

52

2

4

3

2

1

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

Low level of trust 1

2

3

4

High level of trust 5

# of respondents

Figure 10. Community interviewees’ trust that the aquaculture industry using sound

environmental management practices (n = 12) Community interviewees were then asked what might be done to encourage more environmentally responsible practices from industry, what lengths should be taken to achieve these standards and what advantages or disadvantages did those strategies present. Table 29 lists the key points raised. Some interviewees felt that only tougher measures would bring about more responsible practices, and that society ought to do whatever was deemed necessary to achieve them. Most of these interviewees saw no disadvantages in taking such an approach. They felt that such measures did not unduly favour aquaculture over other businesses and ensured best practice. Therefore, it was in industry’s best interests to do whatever was needed and doing so could even give it an economic advantage. One respondent noted that the financial costs of implementing best practice might be seen as a disadvantage by industry and government. Other interviewees felt that while it was important to go to great lengths to achieve the best possible environmental management practices, getting there required an approach that was more persuasive and encouraging than punitive. The advantages of going this way would be achieving a sustainable industry that had a good image. Some of the disadvantages identified were the financial costs of environmental management practices and the risk that communities would remain resistant to aquaculture’s growth and development. Table 29. Community interviewees’ suggestions for encourage best practice in aquaculture’s environmental management (n = 10)

Regulatory • Independent parties to conduct ecological research • Set clear limits on maximum number of farms • Establish qualification requirement of those entering industry • Cultural change in agencies and committees • Shift away from self-regulation to mandatory requirements with penalties for breaches and illegal activities • Mandatory ratings scheme implemented by independent and widely representative body • Use of ecosystem based management, legislated marine planning processes

Persuasive/Incentive-based

• Community and industry working together to identify mutual interests • Demonstrate benefits to industry planning • Provide more and planned approaches to information provision, capacity building (e.g. extension models) • Avoid monetary incentives, focus on consultative approaches, other incentives and rewards (e.g. awards,

appreciation certificates)Clarify expectations and raise awareness/understanding of requirements

53

Government interviewees were also asked to comment on aquaculture’s commitment to good environmental management practices and what needs they might have in this regard (see Table 30. Their responses varied. Some Local Government interviewees were confident that aquaculture was doing all it could to minimise its environmental impacts, and pointed to what they saw as ‘state of the art’ practices and use of international environmental management standards, as well as the absence of any ‘proven’ problems. Other officials felt that some sectors, such as the oyster industry, were having better success adhering to government requirements and acknowledging limits to the size of their industry in the region. There was some reservation about sea cage aquaculture and its perceived ‘culture of secrecy’, which was thought to feed resistance to problem-solving and public distrust. State Government responses showed similar variation. Some interviewees felt reasonably confident that the current planning and management systems were sufficient to encourage good industry practice. Others felt that the whole system had yet to reach its full development and that some sectors were more advanced in their environmental management competencies than others. The imperfect nature of current environmental management programs were mentioned in association with government needing to be firmer with industry reporting back as per their licence requirements. Also mentioned was the need for better quality data that would allow for consistent comparisons across results. Table 30. Government interviewees’ perceptions of aquaculture industry needs for undertaking

environmental management (n = 9) Stakeholder

group Suggested industry needs & contexts

Local government (n = 4)

• Still building skills and need time for cultural change and (controlled)mistakes • start-up support for younger sectors

State government (n = 5)

• Fully-developed monitoring programs for some sectors • greater commitment to resourcing ecological research and monitoring of environmental

impacts • Codes of practice linked to information and training packages • Younger, emerging sectors prioritise immediate financial imperatives over maintaining

environmental management • External providers vary in price and quality, need independent verfication of monitoring

results • Legislation to enforce progress and continuous improvement schemes with criteria for

minimising/reducing impacts at farm and regional scales • ‘Clean & green’ seafood awards programs

How the aquaculture industry can gain the trust of governments and communities Both aquaculture industry and related industry interviewees were asked what they felt that they (or the industry as a whole) should be doing to reassure both governments and communities that they were using ecologically sustainable practices and were responsible environmental managers. Aquaculture industry interviewees referred to a range of actions, from more actively persuading communities about the soundness of aquaculture’s practices to simply continuing to meet existing standards (see Table 31). Related industry interviewees called for aquaculture to disprove negative community perceptions by being more open and actively engaged with the wider community and by seeking ‘independent’ environmental assessments and monitoring.

54

Table 31. Aquaculture industry interviewees’ suggestions for building community and government trust in aquaculture (n = 9) Stakeholder group Ways to build community and government trust Aquaculture industry (n = 4)

• Be proactive in helping community understand aquaculture industry • Ensure public access to industry environmental monitoring programs/data • Continue following license conditions and discourage occasional bad

practice • Nothing – following good practice is part of current operating

requirements Related industries (n = 5)

• Better compliance from marine aquaculture and more public outreach to demonstrate that compliance

• Use tourism to sell good news story of aquaculture • Greater honesty and openness to disprove anecdotal information • Independent environmental assessments and monitoring

All industry interviewees were also asked whether they felt that aquaculture industry sectors have what they need to be responsible environmental managers. Generally speaking, interviewees felt that there was some variation among the sectors. The tuna industry was seen to have greater financial resources and therefore in a better position to undertake good environmental management. However, some interviewees felt that the shellfish sectors had the advantage of being smaller, mostly owner-operator businesses, so they did not have to struggle as much to ensure that information and good practices were being taken up all the way down the chain of command. Some aquaculture industry interviewees felt that they had no ‘needs’ per se, because everything for good environmental management practices had to be in place before they started their operations. So, in effect, they were already doing ‘best practice.’

Working with individuals and groups with different interests All interviewees were asked about ways to work better with the range of individuals and groups who have an interest in aquaculture (see Table 32). Their responses varied from continuing with the current range of activities to improving and changing existing practices. Community interviewees wanted to see frank and honest dialogues among all stakeholders to identify mutual interests and build trust and respect; more transparent (State and Local Government) processes that placed a higher value on a range of local perspectives; representative decision-making structures; and a greater on-ground presence of State Government in the region. Industry interviewees also suggested bringing a range of stakeholders with conflicting views together in both formal and informal settings to build greater trust and find ways to have their respective interests met. Other interviewees felt that communication and funding programs needed to be more inclusive and equitable. There was a repeated call for an industry liaison role, given its potential to raise awareness of aquaculture and give voice to community concerns. One respondent felt that decisions should primarily ‘come from the top down’, because there was so much fear and so many different voices wanting a say that getting the entire community ‘on-side’ would be too difficult. Some Local Government interviewees felt that current efforts to work with different parties interested in fisheries and aquaculture issues were sufficient, because Local Government had such close links with the community and consultation processes used for the Fisheries Act review had not generated much interest. Others felt that ways to consult and inform communities about aquaculture planning and management decisions could be improved. State Government interviewees also suggested ways to enhance these activities, which included holding stakeholder forums where issues could be openly debated, building government’s own capacity for integrating expertise across portfolios, providing some form of extension for aquaculture, and listening to groups and individuals who are interested and/or involved in aquaculture.

55

Table 32. Interviewees’ ideas for working with groups and individuals interested in aquaculture (n = 28)

Stakeholder group Suggested measures for working with different interests Community (n = 9)

• Getting together with [aquaculture] industry to identify mutual interests • State government better value local knowledge • More effective consultation and participation methods • Open-minded, empathetic attitudes • Broader representation in (formal and informal) decision making

structures • Liaison officer(s) to support long term relationship building

Industry (aquaculture & related) (n = 9)

• Open dialogues through multistakeholder forums and initiatives to build trust and meet different needs via common interests

• More inclusive communication strategies and activities • Equitable funding across fishing sectors • Clearer parameters on extent/limits to aquaculture activities widely

disseminated • Consistent and broad compliance with current lease/license requirements • Liaison role undertaken by ‘independent’ party • Minimal effort given widespread community fear of change

Local Government (n = 3)

• Continue with existing practices • Avoid distinguishing between ‘industry’ and ‘community’ • Greater transparency, more information/updates about government

processes State Government (n = 7)

• Regular meetings for key stakeholders to openly discuss/debate issues • Better intra-governmental cooperation and integration via forum at lower

levels • Procedures to facilitate fairness and honesty and sense of ‘being heard’

(e.g. feedback on submissions, seek out and value range of local knowledge)

• Provide extension service (with resources available and support from industry)

56

Chapter 6: Household Mail Survey – Eyre Peninsula

Response rates An overall response rate of 68% was achieved. Surveys that were returned to sender or sent back due to the person no longer residing at a particular address, were taken off the original sample, as well as those where the person was too old, ill or deceased. From the original 500 surveys mailed out, approximately 10% did not reach the intended address, leaving the final sample size for the survey at 401. A total of 273 respondents returned completed surveys, making a response rate of 68%.

Respondent profile Figure 11 shows that these respondents were spread relatively evenly across the five LGAs sampled, with the highest proportion of respondents living in Cleve.

24

21

1820

17

0

5

10

15

20

25

% o

f res

pond

ents Cleve

Port LincolnLower Eyre PeninsulaStreaky BayCeduna

Figure 11. Respondents by Local Government area (n = 272) Figure 12 shows that males were over-represented in the sample. Seventy-two percent of the respondents were male. Names of respondents were randomly selected from the Telstra White Pages, and the covering letter accompanying the questionnaire instructed recipients to whom the letter was addressed to complete the survey. It is possible that many households list their telephone numbers under the male’s name, particularly in country areas. Therefore, this method of sampling may over-select for males, which suggests the need to adjust mail survey techniques to capture more women and younger respondents. Given the over representation of men in the survey respondents, some analysis was undertaken to determine how this may have affected the data. Most respondents (72%) had lived in their local area for over twenty years, which also reflects the over representation of people 50 years and over in the sample. Given that coastal LGAs were selected to sample from, it is not surprising that 58% of respondents indicated that they lived within sight of or walking distance from the coast. Figure 13 shows that a majority of respondents (63%, 166) had completed their basic schooling. Nearly a third of respondents (24%, 64) had trade or technical qualifications, and the remaining minority had completed their tertiary qualifications (13%, 34). Figure 14 shows respondents’ occupations by sex. Just over a third of respondents (35%, 54) worked in agriculture. The most common areas of employment reported by men were agricultural (24%, 46); clerical, administrative and retail

57

positions (15%, 39); and retirees (11%, 30). For women (16%, 41), the most common area of employment was the category ‘other’, which included clerical, administration, retail, student and home duties.

0 0

42

84

21

9

19

5

13

37

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

% o

f res

pond

ents

15-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70 &over

Age range (yrs)

Male(%)Female (%)

Figure 12. Male and female respondents by age (n = 259)

45

18 20

47 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

% o

f res

pond

ents

Some/all primary orsecondary school

Trade or technicalqualification

Completed tertiaryqualification

(Degree, diploma)

MalesFemales

Figure 13. Highest level of qualifications by sex (n = 264)

58

8

0

24

118

3

10

1

11

52

0

1516

0

5

10

15

20

25

% o

f res

pond

ents

fishing/aq

uacultu

re

farmers

/agric

ultural

worke

rs

professio

nal

trades

person

retire

d

labourer

other*

MaleFemale

Figure 14. Respondent occupations by sex (n = 262) Respondents were asked to indicate whether they belonged to any organisations with strong interests in coastal management, such as a fishing, surf livesaving or Coastcare/conservation type group. A small percentage (13%) indicated that they did belong to a formal group. Respondents were also asked to indicate which coastal recreational activities they participated in on a regular basis. ‘Regular’ was defined as an average of at least 3-4 times a year. A majority of respondents (81%, indicated that they did participate in these activities. Figure 15 shows that recreational fishing was listed most often, followed by spending time on the beach, and boating or sailing.

198

108

165

30 34

76

151

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

No.

of t

imes

list

ed

Recreational fishingBoating/sailingBeach walking/combingSurfing/windsurfingConservation activitiesDiving/snorkelingPicnics/barbecues

Figure 15. Respondents’ participation in coastal recreational activities (n = 269) Many respondents have had direct contact with the industry, through visits to aquaculture farms and/or strong social links with the industry. A majority of respondents (78%) reported they had visited an aquaculture site or fish farm. Figure 16 shows that Pacific oyster and Southern blue-fin tuna farms were mentioned most frequently. Figure 17 shows that 85% of the respondents knew someone working in the aquaculture industry. Most of those respondents had a friend and/or relative in the industry and 15% of respondents worked in

59

aquaculture themselves. When respondents were asked which part of the aquaculture industry they or their acquaintances worked in, oysters (listed 173 times), tuna (listed 120 times) and abalone (listed 87 times) were mentioned most frequently.

145

89

13

6648

32

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

No.

of t

imes

list

ed

OystersTunaMusselsAbaloneKingfishOther

Figure 16. Aquaculture facilities visited by respondents (n = 266)

9%

15%

43%

7%10%

15%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

% o

f res

pond

ents

Self

Relative

Friend

Self & friend and/orrelativeRelative & friend

Don't know anyone

Figure 17. Respondent’s contact with the aquaculture industry (n = 267) Virtually all respondents (95%) reported eating seafood. They were also asked if they knew where their fish came from, and if they had a preference for wild or farm-raised fish. Figure 18 shows that 44% of respondents indicated they preferred to eat wild caught fish, while 45% said they did not have a preference one way or the other. Nearly all of the remaining respondents (10%) selected ‘I don’t know/not sure’. Respondents were asked to indicate what the reasons were for their preferences. Figure 19 shows that the most frequently-listed reason was that respondents felt that wild caught fish had a more pleasing taste than farmed fish. Some respondents prefered to eat what they caught, while others perceived wild-caught fish as somehow more ‘natural’. A few respondents believed that wild-caught fish were fresher. The most commonly listed reasons for not having a preference was that they enjoyed all kinds of seafood. The next most common reason was that respondents did not detect any difference in the taste between wild-caught and farmed fish. Other reasons were that freshness was the most important issue, how

60

consumers would be able to tell where the fish came from, and the need for sustainable fish and farming practices.

38

19 18

9

2 20

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

No.

of t

imes

list

ed

prefer the tastelike to eat what I catchits more naturala fresher producthas less diseasenot available here

Figure 18. Respondents’ reasons for preferring the taste of wild-caught fish (n = 88)

15

29

7 8 9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

No.

tim

es li

sted no taste difference

enjoy all seafoodhow would you tell?as long as its sustainablefreshness is most important

Figure 19. Respondents’ reasons for not having a preference for either wild-caught or farmed

fish (n = 68)

Issues of Importance to the Community Respondents were provided with a list of social, economic and environmental issues that might affect their local area and were asked to rate the importance of these issues. Generally speaking, there was a low level of variety in respondents’ rating, with most respondents rating all the issues as either ‘important’ or ‘very important’. These results suggest what a challenge it can be for the public to keep sufficiently abreast of all the issues challenging their (rural) community and to prioritise those matters concerning them. There were some issues that more respondents rated as ‘very important’ compared to other issues. Figure 20 shows that more respondents rated access to health and education services as ‘very important’ in comparison to the other issues listed. Indigenous reconciliation had the lowest proportion of respondents rate it as ‘very important’.

61

84

71

5757 57 54

43 42

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90%

of r

espo

nden

ts

Access to health services

Access to education

Crime

Decline of rural towns

Unemployment

Availability of transportservicesAccess totelecommunicationsReduced access to financialservicesAboriginal reconciliation

Figure 20. Social and economic issues respondents rated as ‘very important’ (n = 267) Figure 21 shows that fewer respondents rated environmental issues, such as protecting threatened flora and fauna as ‘very important’ than other categories of issues. The issues which attracted the highest percentage of ‘very important’ ratings were those matters likely to be of greatest concern to landholders, such as water quality and conservation, land degradation and salinity. A majority of respondents also rated beach/ocean pollution as ‘very important’

7869 67 66

5955

46

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% o

f res

pond

ents

Waterconservation/managementRiver & stream quality

Land degradation/soilerosion/salinityBeach/ocean pollution

Environmental Impacts ofaquacultureEnergyconservation/managementProtecting endangeredspeciesNative vegetationconservation

Figure 21. Environmental issues respondents rated as ‘very important’ (n = 268) Respondents were also asked to rate the importance of a number of aquaculture issues, which were identified during the interview phase of the project. Figure 22 shows that environmental impacts had the most respondents rate it as ‘very important’ compared to other aquaculture-specific issues. Economic contributions and impacts on other users were the other two issues, that attracted a higher incidence of ‘very important’ ratings. Indigenous involvement in aquaculture had the fewest respondents rate it as ‘very important’.

62

64

54

4843

4138

3531 29

11

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70%

of r

espo

nden

ts

Environmental impacts

Economic contribution

Other issues

Impacts on other users

Career opportunities

Government regulation

Community involvement

Visual impacts

Available sites for aquaculture

Involvement of Aboriginalpeople

Figure 22. Aquaculture issues respondents rated as ‘very important’ (n = 267)

Public Awareness/ Attitudes to Aquaculture and Coastal Management Figure 23 shows that a majority of respondents (63%) reported that they had spent considerable time thinking about aquaculture issues before completing the questionnaire. Respondents were asked to identify their policy orientation in relation to debates about the benefits and disadvantages of aquaculture in the Eyre Peninsula region on a seven-point scale. ‘1’ indicates the lowest support for aquaculture, and ‘7’ indicates the highest support. Figure 24 shows that a quarter of respondents chose a neutral position. Nearly another quarter of respondents (22%) positioned themselves just to the right of neutral. The remaining 39% of respondents indicated strong support for aquaculture. Respondents were also asked to identify their position regarding environmental and economic tradeoffs often associated with coastal management. Figure 25 shows half of those responding to this question placed themselves in a neutral position regarding the issue of prioritising trade-offs. Another 28% did not respond to this question at all. These results suggest that many respondents were unsure how to answer the question. It might also suggest that respondents have some understanding of the links between environmental and economic aspects of coastal management, and how difficult it is to find an appropriate balance between the two. The remaining respondents (39%) were leaning towards protection of environmental conditions despite any economic costs.

63

4 4 3

2624

20 19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

% o

f res

pond

ents

Rating

1 = Not at all234 = Some567= A great deal

Figure 23. How much respondents had thought about aquaculture before the survey (n = 263)

3 4

8

2522

25

14

0

5

10

15

20

25

% o

f res

pond

ents

1 - Disadvantages outweighbenefits2

3

Neutral

5

6

7 - Benefits outweighdisadvantages

Figure 24. Respondents’ positions on the benefits and disadvantages of aquaculture (n = 263)

612

21

50

73 1

05

101520253035404550

& o

f res

pond

ents

(n=197)

1 = Highest priority toenvironment2

3

4 = Neutral

5

6

7 = Highest priority toeconomic

Figure 25. Respondents’ position on environmental and economic tradeoffs in coastal management (n = 197)

64

Respondents were then asked to rate their agreement with a series of statements about coastal management, aquaculture and its environmental impacts and the behaviour of the aquaculture industry. They were given a five point scale, with ‘1’ indicating strong disagreement and ‘5’ signalling strong agreement.

Attitudes to coastal management Figure 26 shows respondents’ views about coastal management issues. While a majority of respondents (53%) agreed that overfishing from the commercial sector is a major problem in SA waters, only a third (30%) saw recreational fishing as a serious threat to fish stocks. Interestingly, while a majority of respondents (65%) agreed that caring for our coastlines should be the highest priority, a similar proportion (65%) agreed that the coast’s resources needed to be used to stimulate regional economic growth. And yet, a majority of respondents disagreed that commercial users should be considered first in coastal management decision-making. It may be that respondents interpreted this item to mean ‘commercial fishing’ interests, as opposed to commercial interests in general (e.g. residential, tourism or industry development). Respondents were relatively divided on how well they believed the coastal region was currently being managed, and 19% selected the ‘don’t know’ option for this question. Respondents were also divided on the matter of whether the region should have more marine protected areas. While a strong majority of respondents felt that communities should be consulted on coastal management matters, they were more equivocal in their support for acknowledging the rights of Indigenous Australians in coastal areas.

32

4

29

60

12

29

11

40

21

35

9

35

22

19

31

22

25

18

31

85

34

15

65

20

65

30

53

2

3

3

4

4

19

2

5

8

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Respecting rights ofindigenous Australians in

coastal areas

Coastal managementrequires community

consultation

Need more marine protectedareas

Commercial users come firstin coastal management

Should use coastalresources for economic

growth

Coastal management inregion is poor

Care of the coast comes first

Overfishing from recreationalfishing is a huge problem

Overfishing by commercialfishing is a huge problem

Strongly disagree - disagree Neither Agree - strongly agree Don’t know

Figure 26. Responses to statements about coastal management issues

65

Attitudes towards aquaculture’s effects and characteristics Figure 27 shows how respondents rated their agreement or disagreement with a series of statement about the characteristics and effects of aquaculture. Respondents were somewhat split on the matter of taste differences between farmed and wild caught fish, with 31% disagreeing there were taste differences and 35% indicating they didn’t know. This result is similar to the data on respondents’ preferences for eating wild-caught or farmed fish, which had respondents almost evenly split between having a preference for wild-caught fish versus not having a preference. While a majority (72%) felt that aquaculture was a good alternative to relying soley on wild-caught fish, the data suggests differences of opinion about aquaculture’s impacts and measures to mitigate against those impacts. Some 44% of respondents disagreed that there were no limits to how much aquaculture could grow in the Eyre Peninsula region. A similar amount of respondents (42%) agreed that the State’s environmental laws were not sufficient with regard to aquaculture. Some 41% of respondents disagreed that aquaculture pollutes our oceans. Respondents were spilt on whether the health of the shellfish or fish being farmed was a good indicator of the environment’s health, with 29% disagreeing and another 36% saying they didn’t know. Similarly, 30% of respondents agreed that sea cages were more environmentally damaging, but 31% selected ‘don’t know’. Opinions about the environmental benefits of shellfish farming were also mixed. Some 36% of respondents didn’t know and another 29% disagreed that shellfish could improve water quality by removing nutrients.

31

29

41

15

31

8

44

15

19

25

24

25

26

16

19

23

16

10

21

30

27

72

26

42

35

36

15

31

16

4

11

20

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

No taste difference between farmed and wild-caught fish

Shellfish farming helps by removing nutrients

Aquaculture pollutes oceans

Sea cages have bigger impact than farmingshellfish

Farmed fish/shellfish health indicates noenvironmental impacts

Aquaculture a good alternative to wild-catchfishing

No limits to aquaculture growth in the region

Inadequate laws to protect against aquaculture'senvironmental impacts

Strongly disagree - disagree Neither Agree - strongly agree Don't know

Figure 27. Responses to statements about aquaculture

66

Attitudes towards industry behaviour Respondents were also asked to consider a range of statements about the behaviour of the aquaculture industry. Figure 28 shows that most respondents (76%) agreed that aquaculture has flow-on benefits in terms of supporting other industries, and they (81%) gave their overall approval of the industry. Forty-eight percent of respondents disagreed that the industry is uncaring about environmental management, while another quarter of them (23%) said they neither agreed nor disagreed. Respondents’ opinions were more mixed about other issues. Approximately a third of respondents (32%) chose a neutral stance on whether the industry treated environmental controversies responsibly and on how aquaculture employees were treated. For the latter, another third of respondents (33%) selected ‘don’t know’. Slightly over a third of respondents (35%) agreed that the industry could be trusted. Most of the remaining respondents were split between taking a neutral position (28%) and disagreeing (24%) that aquaculture could be trusted. A majority of respondents (81%) agreed that the industry needed to listen more to the community.

5

3

12

12

48

7

32

24

13

12

32

32

23

22

28

28

81

76

23

46

20

68

25

35

1

8

33

10

9

3

15

13

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

I approve of aquaculture industry

Other industries depend on aquaculture

Aquaculture employees treated well

Environmental controversy treated responsibly

Aquaculture companies don’t care aboutenvironmental management

Aquaculture industry should listen more tocommunity

Aquaculture industry does not listen togovernment

Overall, aquaculture industry can be trusted

Strongly disagree - disagree Neither Agree - Strongly agree Don't know

Figure 28. Responses to statements about the aquaculture industry’s general behaviour

67

Public Trust in Government and Industry Respondents were asked to rate how much they trusted that government and different sectors of the aquaculture industry were making good decisions about how aquaculture is planned and managed. They were asked to rate their trust on a five point scale where 1 was ‘very low trust’, 3 was ‘unsure’ and 5 was ‘very high trust’. Figure 29 shows the resulting data which have been collapsed into three categories to aid interpretation. More respondents (54%) indicated they had good trust in Local Government, than for State (41%) and Federal (34%) Governments. Approximately a third of respondents (36%, 33%) said they had low trust in State and Federal Governments’ aquaculture decisions. Federal Government decisions on aquaculture had the highest percentage of respondents (36%) saying they were ‘unsure’.

33

36

26

36

23

21

34

41

54

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Federal Government

State Government

Local Government

Very low - low trust Unsure Some - very high trust

Figure 29. Respondents’ trust in governments’ aquaculture decision-making (n = Figure 30 shows that respondents have some trust in the aquaculture industry, but some sectors attracted higher trust ratings than did other sectors. A majority of respondents indicated they trusted the Pacific oyster industry (71%), the aquaculture industry overall (56%), and the abalone sector (51%). Sectors attracting the highest percentage of ‘unsure’ ratings were mussels (50%) and abalone (35%), and to a lesser extent kingfish (30%) and tuna (29%). Kingfish and tuna had the most respondents indicate their low trust (45% and 28%, respectively). This is not entirely surprising given the historic controversy associated with the tuna industry due to pilchard die-offs and other environmental impacts, and the more recent controversy over what impacts escaped kingfish would have on local fish stocks.

68

20

28

45

9

13

10

25

29

30

19

35

50

56

43

24

71

51

40

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Aquaculture, in general

Southern blue-fin tuna

Kingfish

Pacific oysters

Abalone

Mussels

Very low - low trust Unsure Some - very high trust

Figure 30. Respondents’ trust in the aquaculture industry’s decision-making

Perceptions of environmental risks of aquaculture Respondents were also asked to rate what risk they felt that different sectors of the aquaculture industry posed to the environment. They were asked to make those ratings on a five point scale where 1 was ‘very low risk’, 3 was ‘unsure’ and 5 was ‘very high risk’. Figure 31 shows those ratings collapsed into three categories. A majority of respondents (61%) rated kingfish as a species at risk of causing environmental damage and 41% of respondents gave the same rating to tuna. A majority of respondents (61%) rated oysters and abalone (58%) as species with a lower risk of damaging the environment. Mussels had the most respondents (40%) who were ‘unsure’ about its environmental risks, compared to the other species listed.

61

36

46

58

16

19

24

40

25

23

19

41

15

17

61

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Pacific oysters

Southern blue-fin tuna

Mussels

Abalone

Kingfish

Very low - low risk Unsure Some - high risk

Figure 31. Respondents’ perception of the risk of environmental damage from aquaculture

69

Respondents’ Knowledge about Aquaculture and Related Topics Respondents were asked to rate their knowledge of aquaculture, aquaculture’s environmental impacts, governments’ aquaculture-related processes, marine biology and coastal management. They were asked to make these ratings using a five point scale where 1 was ‘no knowledge’ and 5 was ‘very good knowledge’. Generally speaking, most respondents rated their knowledge as low. These low levels of self-reported knowledge may reflect their level of interest in the topic and/or the challenges of staying informed about aquaculture issues specifically and other issues in general.

Knowledge of aquaculture sectors and techniques Figure 32 shows how respondents rated their general knowledge about the techniques used in aquaculture and about the different sectors (their locations, values, sales). The data suggest that more respondents felt they had ‘little’ or ‘no knowledge’ about the mussel, abalone and kingfish sectors. Just under half of the respondents indicated they had ‘some knowledge’ about tuna (40%) and the way they are grown in sea cages (48%), while just over a third of respondents felt they had ‘good’ to ‘very good knowledge’ about oysters (37%) and the way that shellfish are grown (34%).

32

30

73

56

31

34

47

48

36

19

35

32

40

35

21

34

8

9

37

26

18

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Sea-cage techniques

Shellfish techniques

Mussels

Abalone

Pacific oysters

Southern blue-fin tuna

Kingfish

No - little knowledge Some knowledge Good - very good knowledge

Figure 32. Respondents’ rating of their knowledge about culture techniques & aquaculture sectors

Knowledge of aquaculture’s environmental and socio-economic impacts Respondents were also asked to rate their knowledge about the general environmental and social benefits of aquaculture, as well as the overall negative social, economic, environmental impacts (see Figure 33). The mean for all the categories was below ‘3’. The data also show that a majority of respondents (68%) felt they had some to good knowledge about the environmental benefits of aquaculture, with a smaller proportion of respondents (53%) also rating their knowledge of aquaculture’s economic/social benefits as ‘some’ to ‘good’. A majority of respondents (57%) rated their knowledge of aquaculture’s negative environmental impacts as low, and also rated their knowledge of any negative economic/social impacts from aquaculture as low (53%).

70

47

57

32

53

41

34

39

33

12

9

29

14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Environmentalbenefits

Environmentalimpacts

Economic/socialbenefits

Economic/socialimpacts

No - little knowledge Some knowledge Good - very good knowledge

Figure 33. Respondents’ rating of their knowledge about overall benefits and impacts of aquaculture

In addition to rating their knowledge about aquaculture’s generalised impacts, respondents were also asked to rate their knowledge about some of aquaculture’s specific impacts on the marine environment (Figure 34). Again the mean ratings for virtually all topics were below ‘3’, which suggests respondents felt they had relatively low levels of knowledge about these topics. Aquaculture’s impacts on coastal recreation was the topic that had the highest proportion of respondents (39%) rate their knowledge as ‘good or ‘very good’. Approximately half of the respondents felt they knew little or nothing about the effects of sea cages on the sea floor (53%), on marine wildlife (48%), or on other fish populations (42%).

48

42

25

53

36

34

38

35

35

44

18

19

39

12

20

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Seacages & marine wildlife

Impacts of escaped fish

Impacts on coastal recreation

Effects of feed/fish waste

Stormwater impacts

No - little knowledge Some knowledge Good - very good knowledge

Figure 34. Respondents ratings of their knowledge about specific impacts of and on aquaculture

Knowledge of coastal management and marine ecology Respondents’ mean ratings for their knowledge of coastal resource allocation and management and how marine organisms interact with their environment were low. Figure 35 shows that a majority of respondents felt they had little or no knowledge about these three topics.

71

69

63

63

21

29

29

10

8

9

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Marine ecology

Coastalmanagement

Coastal resourceallocation

No - little knowledge Some knowledge Good - very good knowledge

Figure 35. Respondents’ ratings of their knowledge of marine ecology & coastal management

Knowledge of government roles in aquaculture Figure 36 shows that overall a majority of respondents felt they had little to no knowledge about the roles of Local and State Governments in developing and managing aquaculture. These topics had the lowest mean ratings overall. The selection of aquaculture zones had the most respondents (77%) reporting they knew little about this topic, followed by the State Government’s approval processes of aquaculture (64%). Just under a third of respondents (32% and 29%, respectively) felt they had some knowledge about State Government management of aquaculture and Local Government approval processes for aquaculture.

59

77

64

53

32

17

15

29

10

7

8

10

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

How SA govt manages aquaculture

How SA govt selects aquaculture zones

How SA govt approves aquaculture development

How local govt approves aquaculturedevelopment

No - little knowledge Some knowledge Good - very good knowledge

Figure 36. Respondents’ ratings of their knowledge about government procedures

Information Sources Knowledge and information play an important role in forming support for management practices. In people’s everyday lives, there are many different places where they might obtain information about aquaculture. Respondents were asked to rate how important 20 sources were for receiving information about aquaculture, using a five point scale where 1 was ‘not at all important’ and 5 was ‘very important’. Table 33 lists those information sources. Respondents were also asked to rate the credibility of those information sources, using a five point scale where 1 was ‘not at all credible’ and 5 was ‘very credible’. ‘Credibility’ was defined as information that was believable, trustworthy and reliable.

72

Table 33. Sources of information for respondents to rate importance and credibility

Sources National or State newspaper Local newspaper Radio – ABC Radio – commercial Local television State or national television Aquaculture industry Federal Government State Government Local Government Environmental groups Recreational fishing groups Commercial fishing industry Relatives/friends working in aquaculture Library Internet Universities/research centres Personal experience Scientific journals Government publications

Figure 37 show that a large majority of respondents felt that the media and direct contact with the aquaculture industry and government decision-makers played an important role in providing them with information about aquaculture. The local media (newspaper, radio and television) seemed to be more important to more respondents than the national and State media. Over half of respondents (54%) also saw universities and research centres as important providers of information.

18

16

14

14

12

9

12

9

8

4

17

26

23

22

17

22

20

18

21

12

54

57

58

63

64

64

65

67

68

82

11

2

5

2

7

5

3

6

3

2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Unis/Research Ctrs

Nat'l/State television

Commercial fishing industry

Nat'l/State newspaper

Personal experience

Local govt

Local television

Aquaculture contacts*

Radio ABC

Local newspaper

No - little importance Some importance Important - very important Don't know

Figure 37. Respondents’ importance ratings for sources of information about aquaculture * combines aquaculture industry and relatives/friends in aquaculture Figure 38 shows the top ten sources of information that most respondents rated as highly credible. These sources are virtually the same as the ten to which respondents gave high importance ratings. Correlation coefficients between importance and credibility of all sources of information were found to be statistically significant, indicating that respondents who considered a source of information important were more likely to regard it as credible. There is a very strong possibility that respondents were equating the importance of an information source with its credibility. This result may also be a function of the survey design, which had the two ratings columns located next to each other. Similar research (Aslin & Byron 2003) has found that while respondents may commonly use a particular source of information, they do not necessarily give that source a high rating in terms of its reliability and/or credibility.

73

16

16

8

11

7

8

7

7

4

7

22

24

14

22

14

21

14

9

13

10

52

55

58

58

64

64

71

74

76

79

10

5

21

8

16

8

8

9

7

4

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Aquaculture industry

State/national television

Scientific journals

Local govt

Unis/Research Ctrs

Local television

Relative/friends in aquaculture

Personal experience

ABC Radio

Local newspaper

No - little credibility Neither Credible - very credible Don’t know

Figure 38. Respondents’ credibility ratings for sources of information about aquaculture

Community participation Respondents were asked to indicate their views about public participation in aquaculture decision-making on a seven point scale where 1 was ‘community participation is of no value and adds needlessly to industry and government costs’, 4 was ‘neutral’, and 7 was ‘community participation is of great value even if it adds to industry and government costs’. Figure 39 shows that a small minority of respondents (9%) chose positions indicating their lack of support for community participation. Some 20% chose a neutral position, and the majority of respondents (71%) favoured community participation in relation to aquaculture.

1 26

20

30 25

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

% o

f res

pond

ents

Ratings

1 = Community participation: novalue, costs too high2

3

4 = Neutral

5

6

7 = Community participation:high value despite costs

Figure 39. Respondents’ positions on the value of community participation in aquaculture planning and management (n = 264)

In addition to seeking their views on the value of community participation, respondents were also asked how interested they were in getting involved in aquaculture decision making (see Figure 40). Respondents were asked to rate their interest in both the planning for future aquaculture operations and the management of aquaculture, on a four point scale where 1 was

74

‘not at all interested’ and 4 was ‘very interested’. A quarter of respondents (25%) had no interest in getting involved in aquaculture planning, and a slightly higher proportion (36%) were uninterested in contributing to how aquaculture should be managed. A majority of respondents (60%) had a moderate levels of interest in being involved in aquaculture planning, with slightly fewer respondents (53%) indicating a moderate interest in aquaculture management.

25

36

30 32 30

2116

11

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

% o

f res

pond

ents

Not at all interested Slightly interested Interested Very interested

Planning for future aquaculture farms Management of aquaculture in the region

Figure 40. Respondents’ interest in being involved in aquaculture planning and management (n = 264)

In order to determine whether respondents had a particular preference for how they might participate in aquaculture decision-making, respondents were asked to select from a list which activities in which they were interested in participating. Later on in the survey, they were asked to select those activities in which they had actually participated. The data in Figure 41 show that ‘visits to aquaculture farms’, ‘open days’, ‘talking to aquaculture operators’, ‘attending public meetings’ and ‘responding to public surveys’ were selected most frequently by respondents. The highest proportion of respondents had also previously undertaken these activities. A majority of respondents had been to aquaculture farms (66%) and spoken to aquaculture farmers (57%). Fewer respondents had been to open days, attended public meetings or responded to public surveys. Respondents rated their interest in undertaking the remaining activities much lower. These activities also had correspondingly low levels of actual participation. Respondents listed ‘making written submissions’ as the least frequent activity they were interested in doing.

75

121

66

100

25

88

57

86

29

76

24

40

15

40

13

35

3

33

0

23

415

10

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

No.

& %

Visits to aquaculture farms

Open days/displays

Talking to aquaculture operators

Attending public meetings

Responding to public surveys

Talking to State/local government staff

Workshops/discussion groups

Serving on an advisory group

Public referendum

Joining an environmental group

Making written submissions

Interested? (No. times listed) Undertaken? (% - 'yes')

Figure 41. Respondents’ interest in public consultation and participation activities

Respondent differences Analyses were conducted to investigate the extent to which perceptions about the aquaculture industry differed across a range of respondent variables including gender, age, time living in local area, formal education, involvement with groups, visits to aquaculture sites, participation in coastal recreational activities, recreational fishers, and public participation. The relationship between these variables is discussed below.

Age Older respondents were significantly more likely to report that:

• Career opportunities was an important aquaculture issue (rs=0.132, p=0.029); • Involvement of Indigenous Australians in the industry was an aquaculture issue

(rs=0.122, p=0.026); • If the fish in sea cages or there shellfish grown on racks were healthy, then

aquaculture is not affecting the environment (rs=0.124, p=0.020); and • Coastal management decisions should give higher priority to economic as opposed to

environmental issues (rs=0.205, p<0.001).

76

Gender Table 34 lists the variables that showed significant differences. The overall analyses highlighted that female respondents were considerably more concerned about the impacts of aquaculture and similarly less trusting of both the Federal Government and some industry sectors with respect to aquaculture planning and managing decisions for the Eyre Peninsula Region. Table 34. Differences in views of female respondents

Female respondents were: 1. Significantly more concerned about the impact of aquaculture on the appearance of coastal landscapes and views

• 83% of females concerned compared to 64% for males (χ2=8.249, df=2, p=0.016). 2. Significantly more likely to indicate that aquaculture has contributed to the ocean’s pollution/ decline in health

• 38% of females agreed compared to 20% for males (χ2=13.317, df=2, p=0.001). 3. Significantly more likely to indicate that there should be a lot more marine protected areas

• 52% of females agreed compared to 29% for males (χ2=17.563, df=2, p<0.001). 4. Significantly less likely to generally approve of the aquaculture industry

• 70% of females agreed compared to 86% for males (χ2=11.584, df=2, p=0.003). 5. Significantly lower levels of trust in the Federal Government’s aquaculture planning/management decisions

• 18% of females trusted federal government compared to 36% for males (χ2=8.906, df=2, p=0.017). 6. Reporting significantly lower levels of trust in the oyster industry’s planning/management decisions

• 60% of females trusted the oyster industry compared to 76% for males (χ2=7.074, df=2, p=0.029). 7. Reporting significantly lower levels of trust in the abalone industry’s planning/management decisions

• 36% of females trusted the abalone industry compared to 58% for males (χ2=11.620, df=2, p=0.003).

Formal education Higher levels of formal education were linked to stronger awareness of a range of issues affecting aquaculture and coastal management, such as:

• Perceived difference in taste between farmed and wild-caught fish; • Potential impacts on the environment; • Limits to the growth of aquaculture; and • The need to respect the rights of indigenous Australians in coastal regions.

77

Table 35 shows that higher levels of formal education were also linked to lower levels of trust in aquaculture-related decisions made by local government, the aquaculture industry in general, and some specific industry sectors. Table 35. Differences in views of respondents with higher education levels

Respondents who had completed their tertiary education qualifications: 1. Were significantly less likely to report that there was no difference between the taste of farm-raised and wild-

caught fish • 9% of those with tertiary education agreed compared to 30% with trade or technical qualifications and

25% with primary/secondary school education (χ2=9.627, df=4, p=0.047). 2. Were significantly less likely to agree with the statement that if the fish in sea cages or shellfish grown on racks

are healthy, then aquaculture is not affecting the environment • 12% of those with tertiary education agreed compared to 23% with trade or technical qualifications and

40% with primary/secondary school education (χ2=14.029, df=4, p=0.007). 3. Were significantly more likely to agree that it is important to respect the rights of Indigenous Australians in the

coastal area • 53% of those with tertiary education agreed compared to 18% with trade or technical qualifications and

33% with primary/secondary school education (χ2=14.467, df=4, p=0.006). 4. Were signficantly less likely to agree that there are no limits to the growth of aquaculture in the Eyre Peninsula

Region • 13% of those with tertiary education agreed compared to 37% with trade or technical qualifications and

30% with primary/secondary school education (χ2=13.426, df=4, p=0.009). 5. Reported significantly lower trust in Local Government

• 29% of those with tertiary education trusted Local Government compared to 58% with trade or technical qualifications and 56% with primary/secondary school education (χ2=12.122, df=4, p=0.016).

6. Reported significantly lower trust in the aquaculture industry in general

• 47% of those with tertiary education trusted the aquaculture industry in general compared to 50% with trade or technical qualifications and 60% with primary/secondary school education (χ2=9.838, df=4, p=0.043).

7. Reported significantly lower trust in the tuna industry

• 29% of those with tertiary education trusted the tuna industry compared to 37% with trade or technical qualifications and 49% with primary/secondary school education (χ2=10.231, df=4, p=0.037).

8. Had significantly lower trust in the kingfish industry

• 12% of those with tertiary education trusted the kingfish industry compared to 21% with trade or technical qualifications and 28% with primary/secondary school education (χ2=13.606, df=4, p=0.009).

Time lived in local area Respondents who had lived in their local area longer were significantly more likely to report that:

• if fish in sea cages or shellfish grown on racks were healthy then aquaculture is not affecting the environment (rs=0.114, p=0.021);

• decisions about managing coastal environmental should give higher priority to economic as opposed to environmental issues (rs=0.192, p=0.002);

• they trusted the tuna industry (rs=0.116, p=0.045); and • they trusted the kingfish industry (rs=0.120, p=0.031).

Respondents who had lived in their local area for longer were significantly less likely to report that:

• there should be a lot more marine protected areas (rs= -0.171, p=0.002).

78

Involvement in an organised group with a coastal management focus Analysis of the survey data (see Table 36) showed that participants who indicated they were involved in an organised group that had a strong interest in coastal management were significantly more concerned about the environmental impacts and regulation of aquaculture in the Eyre Peninsula Region. These respondents were also less trusting of the planning and management-related decisions made by the aquaculture industry and local government in the region. It is interesting to note that while there was strong environmental concern amongst those who participated in organised (coastal management related) groups, these respondents were less likely to advocate for increased marine protected areas. These respondents were also more concerned about the impacts of recreational fishing, but less concerned about the problems of overfishing by the commercial fishing sector. Table 36. Differences in views of respondents belonging to organised groups

Respondents who were a member of an organised group with a strong interest in coastal management were:

1. Significantly more likely to agree that the disadvantages of aquaculture outweighed the benefits

• 30% of those involved in an organised group with an interest in coastal management said the disadvantages outweighed benefits compared to 12% for those not involved (χ2=18.090, df=6, p=0.006).

2. Significantly more likely to agree that environmental protection laws in SA were not adequate when it comes to

aquaculture • 71% of those involved in an organised group with an interest in coastal management said environmental

laws were inadequate compared to 50% for those not involved (χ2=6.425, df=2, p=0.040). 3. Significantly less likely to agree that farming shellfish helps coastal environments by removing nutrients from

water • 4% of those involved in an organised group with an interest in coastal management said farming

shellfish helps coastal environments by removing nutrients compared to 19% for those not involved (χ2=11.253, df=2, p=0.004).

4. Significantly more likely to agree that overfishing by recreational fishers was a huge problem in SA

• 47% of those involved in an organised group with an interest in coastal management said over fishing by recreation fishers was a huge problem compared to 29% for those not involved (χ2=6.568, df=2, p=0.037).

5. Significantly less likely to agree that overfishing by commercial fishers was a huge problem in SA

• 42% of those involved in an organised group with an interest in coastal management said over fishing by commercial fishers was a huge problem compared to 60% for those not involved (χ2=8.012, df=2, p=0.018).

• 50% of those involved in an organised group with an interest in coastal management said the aquaculture industry does what it likes compared to 26% for those not involved (χ2=10.338, df=2, p=0.006).

7. Significantly less likely to indicate that there should be a lot more marine protected areas

• 24% of those involved in an organised group with an interest in coastal management said there should be a lot more marine protected areas compared to 37% for those not involved (χ2=7.023, df=2, p=0.030).

8. Significantly less likely to generally approve of the aquaculture industry

• 71% of those involved in an organised group with an interest in coastal management said they approved of the aquaculture industry compared to 83% for those not involved (χ2=7.675, df=2, p=0.022).

9. Significantly less likely to trust Local Government with respect to planning and managing aquaculture in the

Eyre Peninsula Region • 45% of those involved in an organised group with an interest in coastal management said they trusted

Local Government compared to 54% for those not involved (χ2=7.675, df=2, p=0.022).

6. Significantly more likely to indicate that no matter what the government says the aquaculture industry basically does what it likes

79

Visited an aquaculture site Visitation to an aquaculture site was significantly linked to respondents having greater trust in the aquaculture industry and in specific sectors of the industry (see Table 37). There respondents were also more likely to agree that there were limits to how much aquaculture could grow in the Eyre Peninsula region. Table 37. Differences in views of respondents who had visited an aquaculture site

Respondents who had visited an aquaculture site:

1. Reported significantly higher overall trust in the aquaculture industry

• 42% of those who had visited a single site and 42% of those who had visited multiple sites said they trusted the aquaculture industry compared to 30% for those who had not visited a site (χ2=12.480, df=4, p=0.014).

2. Were significantly less likely to agree that there were no limits to the growth of aquaculture in the Eyre

Peninsula region • 31% of those who had visited a single site and 21% of those who had visited multiple sites disagreed

with the statement there are no limits to the growth of aquaculture compared to 43% for those who had not visited a site (χ2=19.195, df=4, p=0.001).

3. Reported significantly higher trust in the oyster industry

• 70% of those who had visited a single site and 84% of those who had visited multiple sites said they trusted the oyster industry compared to 54% for those who had not visited a site (χ2=19.375, df=4, p=0.001).

4. Reported significantly higher trust in the abalone industry

• 48% of those who had visited a single site and 61% of those who had visited multiple sites said they trusted the abalone industry compared to 39% for those who had not visited a site (χ2=10.343, df=4, p=0.035).

80

Self, relative or close friend work in aquaculture industry for over six months A majority of respondents (84%) had either worked in the industry themselves for more than six months or someone in their family or a close friend had. These respondents (see Table 38):

• Were significantly more likely to place greater emphasis on mitigating aquaculture’s environmental impacts;

• Were significantly more likely to support the benefits of community participation in the industry;

• Were significantly more likely to agree that the benefits of aquaculture outweighed disadvantages; and

• Had higher trust in the aquaculture industry in general; but • Were less trusting of the tuna and kingfish sectors.

Table 38. Differences in views of respondents with social links to the aquaculture industry Respondents who had worked in the aquaculture industry for at least six months or had a family members

or close friend who had, were significantly: 1. Less likely to agree that there was no difference in the taste of farmed and wild-caught fish

• 23% of respondents who had worked in the aquaculture industry or had a family member or close friend that had said there was no difference in taste between farmed and wild-caught fish compared to 35% for those with no close connections to the industry (χ2=6.841, df=2, p=0.033).

2. More likely to agree that highest priority should be given to maintaining environmental conditions when

managing coastal environments • 39% of respondents who had worked in the aquaculture industry or had a family member or close friend

that had said highest priority should be maintaining environmental conditions compared to 25% for those with no close connections to the industry (χ2=16.805, df=6, p=0.010).

3. More likely to agree that the benefits of aquaculture outweighed the disadvantages

• 63% of respondents who had worked in the aquaculture industry or had a family member or close friend that had said the benefits of aquaculture outweighed disadvantages compared to 49% for those with no close connections to the industry (χ2=17.590, df=6, p=0.007).

4. More likely to agree that community participation in aquaculture was of great value

• 73% of respondents who had worked in the aquaculture industry or had a family member or close friend that had said community participation in aquaculture was of great value compared to 56% for those with no close connections to the industry (χ2=18.498, df=6, p=0.005).

5. More likely to trust the aquaculture industry in general

• 43% of respondents who had worked in the aquaculture industry or had a family member or close friend that had trusted the aquaculture industry compared to 25% for those with no close connections to the industry (χ2=12.264, df=2, p=0.002).

6. Less likely to trust the tuna industry

• 42% of respondents who had worked in the aquaculture industry or had a family member or close friend that had trusted the tuna industry compared to 50% for those with no close connections to the industry (χ2=7.386, df=2, p=0.025).

7. Less likely to trust the kingfish industry

• 23% of respondents who had worked in the aquaculture industry or had a family member or close friend that had trusted the kingfish industry compared to 32% for those with no close connections to the industry (χ2=11.236, df=2, p=0.005).

81

Participation in coastal recreational activities Analysis of responses to the survey highlighted that participation in coastal recreational activities was significantly linked to poorer perceptions of the taste of farmed fish, the capacity of farmed shellfish to remove nutrients and the capacity for limitless growth of aquaculture in the Eyre Peninsula region (see Table 39). Table 39. Differences in views of respondents who participated in coastal activities

Respondents who participated in coastal recreational activities were: 1. Significantly less likely to agree that there is no difference between the taste of farmed fish and wild-caught fish

• 23% of those involved in coastal recreation said there was no difference in taste compared to 32% for those not involved (χ2=6.613, df=2, p=0.037).

2. Significantly less likely to agree that farming shellfish helps coastal environments by removing nutrients from

water • 14% of those involved in coastal recreation said farming shellfish helps the coastal environment

compared to 33% for those not involved (χ2=6.572, df=2, p=0.037). 3. Significantly less likely to agree that there were no limits to aquaculture’s growth in the Eyre Peninsula Region

• 27% of those involved in coastal recreation said there were not limits to the growth aquaculture compared to 41% for those not involved (χ2=15.584, df=2, p<0.001).

Recreational fishers Recreational fishers were significantly more concerned about the aesthetic impacts of aquaculture and less trusting of some industry sectors (see Table 40). Table 40. Differences in views of respondents who participated in coastal activities

Recreational fishers:

1. Were significantly more concerned about the impacts of aquaculture on the appearance of coastal landscapes and views

• 74% of recreational fishers said that aesthetic impacts of aquaculture were important compared to 55% for non-recreational fishers (χ2=8.011, df=2, p=0.018).

2. Had significantly lower trust in the tuna industry

• 39% of recreational fishers trusted the tuna industry compared to 57% for non-recreational fishers (χ2=6.644, df=2, p=0.036).

3. Had significantly lower trust in the kingfish industry

• 22% of recreational fishers trusted the kingfish industry compared to 31% for non-recreational fishers (χ2=10.824, df=2, p=0.004).

82

Attendance at public meetings about aquaculture Survey findings highlighted considerable difference in respondents’ perceptions of aquaculture for those who had attended public meetings about aquaculture versus those who had not (see Table 41). Respondents who had attended public meetings were more concerned about the environmental impacts of aquaculture and the ability of government to regulate these impacts. People who attended public meetings were also less trusting of the aquaculture industry in general and the tuna sector, in particular, but had greater trust in both the oyster and mussel sectors. Table 41. Differences in views of respondents who attended public meetings

Respondents who said they had attended public meetings about aquaculture: 1. Were significantly more likely to indicate the environmental laws in SA were inadequate with respect to

aquaculture • 62% who had attended public meetings said environmental laws were inadequate compared to 48% for

those who had not attended public meetings (χ2=7.357, df=2, p=0.025). 2. Were significantly more likely to agree that no matter what the government says, the aquaculture industry

basically does what it likes • 46% who had attended public meetings said the aquaculture industry basically does what it likes

compared to 21% for those who had not attended public meetings (χ2=15.870, df=2, p=0.003). 3. Were significantly more likely to report that the aquaculture industry does not really care about environmental

management • 52% who had attended public meetings said the aquaculture industry does not care about environmental

management compared to 17% for those who had not attended public meetings (χ2=6.981, df=2, p=0.030).

4. Were significantly more likely to indicate the environmental laws in SA were inadequate with respect to

aquaculture • 62% who had attended public meetings said environmental laws were inadequate compared to 48% for

those who had not attended public meetings (χ2=7.357, df=2, p=0.025). 5. Had significantly lower trust in the aquaculture industry in general

• 47% who had attended public meetings trusted the aquaculture industry compared to 59% for those who had not attended public meetings (χ2=8.738, df=2, p=0.013).

6. Respondents who said they had been involved in public meetings about the aquaculture industry had

significantly lower trust in the tuna industry • 36% who had attended public meetings trusted the tuna industry compared to 46% for those who had not

attended public meetings (χ2=10.868, df=2, p=0.004). 7. Respondents who said they had been involved in public meetings about the aquaculture industry had

significantly higher trust in the oyster industry • 78% who had attended public meetings trusted the oyster industry compared to 69% for those who had

not attended public meetings (χ2=14.104, df=2, p=0.001). 8. Respondents who said they had been involved in public meetings about the aquaculture industry had

significantly higher trust in the mussel industry • 46% who had attended public meetings trusted the mussel industry compared to 38% for those who had

not attended public meetings (χ2=6.881, df=2, p=0.032).

83

Attended open days and displays about aquaculture Attendance at open days and displays about aquaculture was significantly linked to higher levels of trust in the aquaculture industry and more specifically to the oyster industry (Table 44). Those attending these activities were also more likely to indicate that commercial users need to be the main priority in coastal management. Table 42. Differences in views of respondents who had attended open days/displays

Respondents who attended open days and displays about aquaculture: 1. Had significantly higher trust in the aquaculture industry in general

• 55% of respondents that attended an open day of display trusted the aquaculture industry compared to 35% for respondents who had not attended these activities (χ2=7.544, df=2, p=0.006).

2. Had significantly higher trust in the oyster industry

• 85% of respondents that attended an open day of display trusted the oyster industry compared to 68% for respondents who had not attended these activities (χ2=6.231, df=2, p=0.046).

3. Were significantly more likely to say that coastal management needs to consider commercial users first

• 26% of respondents that attended an open day of display agreed commercial users need to be considered first compared to 11% for those who disagreed (χ2=8.270, df=2, p=0.016).

84

Chapter 7: Summary and Conclusions

Related research findings The background research conducted for this project identifies some important trends that will have an effect on the aquaculture industry. ‘Sustainability’ is a contested concept, viewed differently by people according to their values and worldviews. Nonetheless, the public may have some appreciation for the challenges of balancing environmental and economic imperatives. These works also suggest that when the public considers trade-offs between the two, they may not understand them well and/or there may greater support for environmental priorities. Studies also show strong support for the social benefits that different industries can offer, but citizens are also keen to see stronger management interventions and clearer and more regular information about how the environment will be protected. The community typically has more generalised understandings and lower knowledge levels of government roles in natural resource management, industry specifics, and ecological systems. The public often relies on information from sources they also rate as less credible (e.g. the media, friends and relatives) and tend not to seek out information from government and industry, or from more credible sources (e.g. universities) unless they have a special interest in the issue. Some works suggests that those who rate their knowledge of an issue higher, show greater interest in receiving further information and place greater importance on community involvement in planning. Australians’ strong affinity for the coast is especially important for the aquaculture industry, which requires access to highly valued and shared marine and coastal environments. Recent surveys show that the public is most concerned about negative environmental impacts that can result from coastal development. Other studies about attitudes to aquaculture indicate public support for the industry. But these works also show generally low levels of knowledge about some of the issues associated with aquaculture. The more informed groups and individuals are keen to see improved environmental management and planning systems for aquaculture. Support for aquaculture may be strongest in regional communities where the employment and other economic benefits can be seen most clearly. In these places, there is also a considerable interest in clear and regular information about the industry and how the environment is being protected from negative impacts. The research in Europe on risk perception and risk communications shows trends of low public trust in government and some industries and of growing concerns about the uncertainty and risks associated with long-term environmental and health impacts from particular scientific, agricultural and industrial practices. These findings have important implications for Australian aquaculture. Australian consumers could develop similar concerns, causing them to reject aquaculture products and communities might increase their resistance to aquaculture developments. Strong communications, consultation and participation programs may be effective in mitigating these possibilities.

Regional profile The focus of this case study was the Eyre Peninsula in SA. The Peninsula is a large coastal region situated in the south-west corner of SA, which has 1400 km of coast line and quite sparsely populated. Many of the coastal towns have quite small populations, but there is some variation in their growth rates. Two of the LGAs sampled have population growth figures

85

double that of the non-metropolitan average, while the remaining coastal towns have below-average growth rates. The average median ages for the Peninsula’s coastal towns is close to figures for the non-metropolitan average for Australia. Franklin Harbour was the only coastal town showing a decrease in the average media age, which may be due to the location of aquaculture farms and an associated influx of aquaculture workers. Tumby Bay was the only town showing an increase in media age. Port Lincoln is a key regional centre for the State and for the aquaculture industry. This town, as well as Tumby Bay and the Lower Eyre Peninsula, had the highest percentage of people with high incomes and were closest to the highest proportion of people in non-metropolitan Australia on high incomes (20%). Conversely, high incidences of disadvantage remain in the Region, particularly in Ceduna and Whyalla, as well as in Port Lincoln. Most coastal towns had unemployment rates lower than the Australian non-metropolitan average, but Port Lincoln and Whyalla’s rates were higher. A majority of people in the Region’s coastal towns did not have post school formal qualifications, and those figures were higher than the Australian non-metropolitan average. The Region generally has low levels of economic diversity, many small towns rely heavily on a single industry such as the agriculture sector. Some towns, such as Port Lincoln and Ceduna, have higher levels of economic diversity with employment spread across a greater range of industry sectors. Retail and tourism are important to the region, with the Peninsula’s significant natural values attracting high visitation rates. New industries, such as aquaculture, have the potential to increase the Region’s economic diversity. The fishing industry accounts for 10% of total employment for residents of coastal towns, and in some cases direct employment in aquaculture accounts for well over half of those jobs. Port Lincoln had the highest number of people employed directly in aquaculture (318)(ABS 2001), and this town and Franklin Harbour and Ceduna had the highest proportion of people working directly in aquaculture relative to employment in other industries. The tuna sector clearly leads the aquaculture industry in terms of value of production and number of jobs (70% of aquaculture industry employment), with a large proportion of its production value and employment attributed to flow-on benefits. Employment in this sector has increased since 1997/98. The oyster industry is the next most significant sector, but has a lower percentage of its total production value and employment linked to flow-on benefits. There were declines in employment in this sector in the late 1990s, but further growth in 2001/02.

Interview findings The stakeholder and community interviews conducted for this project revealed that people recognise the benefits aquaculture can bring in terms of economic growth and employment, particularly for youth living in remote/regional areas. Those who were more equivocal about aquaculture’s worth were concerned to not see its benefits exaggerated and that sufficient measures were in place to protect sensitive marine and coastal environments.

Challenges and solutions Figure 42 shows that interviewees perceived varied and multi-dimensional challenges associated with aquaculture, and those views varied within and across the different stakeholder groups. Sometimes those problems were seen to result from aquaculture, others were perceived to be challenges for aquaculture.

86

CCoommmmuunniittyy

LLooccaall ggoovvtt

AAqquuaaccuullttuurree

SSttaattee ggoovvtt

RReellaatteedd iinndduussttrriieess Better industry practice

Social impacts Environmental impacts Insufficient knowledge/ frameworks

Business/marketing challenges

Scientific challenges Resource security Community perceptions

Figure 42. Similarities and differences in perceived aquaculture challenges For community interviewees, the most prominent concerns were about current and future negative environmental impacts on marine ecology and coastal environments (e.g. beach pollution from sea cages, death of sea grasses under sea cages, death/injury of wildlife from attraction to/entanglement in sea cages, escapes of shellfish or fish, large ‘ecological footprint’ of sea cages). These interviewees also spoke about negative social effects, such as restrictions on recreational users of coasts, social unrest and change in small communities, and few opportunities for Indigenous communities. Community interviewees also were dissatisfied with consultation/participation processes. Related industry interviewees also spoke to aquaculture’s negative environmental and social impacts, and perceived sub-standard industry practices, secrecy, and favouritism by government. Some State Government interviewees were also concerned about aquaculture’s potential negative environmental impacts. They had some doubts about how well South Australia’s legislative, policy and management regimes were addressing those impacts. Other State Government interviewees focused more on problems those regimes caused for the aquaculture industry and on a range of scientific, marketing and resource security issues which were seen to be limiting aquaculture’s full potential. The views of Local Government interviewees about key challenges were varied as well. Some highlighted social impacts resulting from small ‘retirement’ towns growing and needing to provide for industrial uses. Others felt that the scientific and other knowledge used for aquaculture decisions was inadequate, biased, untimely, and did not sufficiently reflect local values or expertise. Finally, some mentioned negative community perceptions and lack of resource security and infrastructure, which obstructed the aquaculture industry. Aquaculture industry interviewees were most concerned about historic, current and future negative community views and the unfavourable impacts those views might have on the industry. Most interviewees felt these community perceptions were unfounded, because they were based on a fear of change and overlooked aquaculture’s benefits.

Solutions All interviewees were given the opportunity to suggest ways to move beyond these challenges. Community and related industry interviewees spoke to the need to improve aquaculture industry practices. The suggestions included:

87

• Foster greater industry professionalism through education and training that has an environmental management emphasis and is locally designed and implemented;

• Public education and information programs that clearly demonstrate how/why aquaculture practices are environmentally sustainable;

• Allow time for the industry to build its skills; and • Encourage longer-term industry planning with greater amounts of venture capital and

better integration of industry and government knowledge. Community, related industry and Local Government interviewees concerned about aquaculture’s (negative) social impacts offered the following solutions:

• Address impacts on other coastal users through better information and research on degrees of environmental impacts – to assist weighing up of costs and benefits;

• Identify ‘neutral’ or ‘independent’ professionals to facilitate those assessments; • Better and targeted financial support for Indigenous communities (eg. start up grants); • Better forward planning with affected communities and/or groups; and • Encourage industry to take greater responsibility for providing safe and attractive

working conditions for its staff. Community, related industry and State Government interviewees offered the following ways to address aquaculture’s (potential) environmental impacts:

• More and ‘impartial’ regional and local-scale research on long-term health of marine ecosystems to balance research on health of aquaculture stocks;

• Firmer, more balanced enforcement of environmental regulations; • Set aside ‘no use’ areas; and • Use greater range of expertise earlier and through-out decision-making processes.

The community, related industry, State and Local Government interviewees who were concerned about insufficient knowledge and the frameworks that were being used to plan and manage aquaculture felt that improvements could be made largely by using some of the suggestions mentioned above. Several related industry and State Government interviewees who identified ‘business and marketing challenges’ as needing attention, felt that businesses and investor confidence could be improved if mechanisms were in place to achieve and publicly demonstrate better environmental monitoring and a firmer government approach to regulation overall. It was felt that having one agency responsible for both the regulation and promotion/development of aquaculture hampered this goal. These interviewees also called for overall upgrading of skills in the industry, improved market research and greater interdisciplinary and cooperative research approaches to keep abreast of industry developments and capitalise on opportunities. State and Local Government and aquaculture industry interviewees suggested the following ways to provide greater resource security for aquaculture:

• Greater on-ground presence by State Government during its formal and informal site assessment processes (Local Government);

• Firmer, top-down decisions by State Government (Aquaculture industry); and • Improving the aquaculture industry’s environmental track record and public

awareness and understanding of the aquaculture industry (State Government). State and Local Government and aquaculture industry interviewees suggested the following ways to address negative community perceptions of aquaculture:

88

• Industry uses quality environmental and community consultation processes, provide more ‘facts’ for the community (Aquaculture industry);

• Greater professionalism and openness/honesty from the aquaculture industry (State Government); and

• Allow greater time for the aquaculture industry to mature, provide education to allay the public’s fears about aquaculture (Local Government).

ESD and aquaculture The interview process illustrated the range of perspectives on ESD. Some interviewees believe that ‘all human activities create some change and therefore will have environmental impacts’. Others take a more moderate position of ‘needing to minimise or reverse any damage that human activities have on the environment’. While still others believe that ‘there should be no adverse impacts on the environment’. Interviewees identified a range of indicators that they would look at to determine the long-term viability of aquaculture. Collectively, those indicators spanned across the three dimensions of ESD (social, economic and environmental), but few interviewees mentioned all three. All interviewees felt that there were limits to the growth of the aquaculture industry, but they had different positions on what were limiting factors (e.g. social, economic and/or environmental). Some interviewees felt there was a need for better processes and information to determine what those limits were.

Public preferences for information Most interviewees felt the public used the media most often to find out about aquaculture, and in regional areas they rely more on local newspapers and the ABC radio than on State or national media. Friends and neighbours were also seen as important sources of information about aquaculture in regional areas. Interviewees gave recreational and commercial fishing groups, television and friends/neighbours the lowest credibility ratings, followed by other media somewhere in the middle, and universities receiving the highest ratings. Many of them equated ‘credibility’ with ‘impartiality’. Interviewees provided a range of responses to the question about how we might better understand public concerns about aquaculture.

Trust issues Community and industry interviewees’ trust in government Interviewees gave the Federal Government varied ratings, with an average of 3 out of possible 5. Many interviewees stated that they were unaware of what role the Federal Government had regarding aquaculture decision-making. Interviewees also gave State and Local Government varied ratings. Those indicating they had high trust in State and Local Government were either closer to the formal decision-making process and/or felt ‘listened to’ by decision-makers in a way that those who had less trust did not. State and Local Government interviewees made several suggestions for how they might build the aquaculture industry and community’s trust. Some felt that current practices were sufficient, and that undue attention was being given to the ‘noisy minority’. Others felt that greater government transparency and improved communication with communities was called for. Some State Government interviewees believed there were different ways to build community trust versus industry trust, but that both needed to feel their concerns were being taken seriously and should receive complete and similar information, especially in regards to site selection and approval processes and environmental impacts. There were also calls for more balanced representations of interests in decision-making.

Community’s trust in the aquaculture industry’s environmental performance Community interviewees generally rated their trust in the aquaculture industry’s environmental management practices as low. Interviewees listed the following factors as reasons why they were not more trusting of the industry: overstocking, pollution, infrastructure, priority being given to short term financial imperatives, misrepresentation of community concerns, and industry secrecy.

89

When asked how they might encourage better practice, interviewees offered a spectrum of solutions. Many of those calling for tougher measures felt that whatever was necessary should be done. These interviewees felt that there were no disadvantages in this course of action, because everyone stood to benefit - especially the aquaculture industry given its dependence on healthy marine and coastal environments and how it could gain a competitive edge from ‘eco-friendly’ practices. Other interviewees felt that while it was necessary to go to great lengths to achieve best environmental practice, getting there required a softer approach. Despite the economic costs, industry would eventually benefit from an improved image. The disadvantage of a ‘softly, softly’ approach was that the community would grow impatient with slow progress and remain resistant to development.

Governments’ trust in the aquaculture industry’s environmental performance Local Government interviewees had varied positions on how well the industry followed ‘best practice’. Some were more confident than others and believed that industry was doing all it could by the environment. Some had more confidence in the oyster sector’, which was seen to be assiduously following environmental requirements, such as adhering to stocking limits. There was some distrust of the sea cage sector. Interviewees felt that – overall – the industry needed time to build its environmental management capacities - both in terms of motivation and skills - and that some start-up support might be needed for newer industry sectors. There was similar variation in the views of State Government interviewees. Some held the position that the whole regulatory and management system and the industry were still maturing. Some industry sectors were seen as being ‘further down the environmental management track’ than others. Most of the comments about capacity building were directed to the State Government itself. Some interviewees believed that the State Government needed to improve its regulatory capacity by designing and implementing firmer codes of practice that were linked to license conditions; undertake quality control of external providers; and give greater support for ecological research and monitoring.

How the aquaculture industry can build governments’ and community’s trust Interviewees from the aquaculture industry had different beliefs about how to encourage governments and communities to be more confident in industry’s environmental and other practices. Some felt that the industry should be more transparent and proactive in its public outreach activities. Others felt that all that was needed was to increase its commitment to current communication and consultation practices and its ways of discouraging substandard industry practices. Others felt that the industry was currently doing all that it could and no further improvements were necessary.

Working more effectively with different interests Community interviewees comments were mostly focused on ways for government and industry to make a greater effort to include communities in dialogues about aquaculture planning and management that were more open, frank and honest. This approach would help build bridges between those with conflicting values. Local Government interviewees had diverse views on reconciling different positions on aquaculture. Some were satisfied with existing practices, and pointed out that low attendances at public meetings were indicative that the public was not interested in being consulted. Others had views that mirrored those of community interviewees mentioned above. Some State Government interviewees were enthusiastic supporters of improved industry-government-community dialogues and were also keen to see better (State Government) inter-agency communication and integration. These interviewees believed that Government needed to be more responsive to a wider range of stakeholder groups, and to such an extent that these stakeholders felt ‘listened to’.

90

Aquaculture and related industry interviewees were also interested to see more and better facilitated dialogues that lead to different interests being met. Related industry interviewees wanted to see a ‘better balance in funding outcomes’ and made repeated calls for mechanisms such as an aquaculture liaison officer who could help bridge industry-government-community communication gaps and build industry business skills.

Mail survey highlights The Eyre Peninsula mail survey had a very high response rate (68%) and respondents:

• Were predominantly male; • Were long-standing residents of the Eyre Peninsula, • Had visited an aquaculture farm (78%) and/or knew someone in the industry (85%),

and • Were seafood eaters (94%) who were divided in their preferences for the taste wild-

caught versus farmed fish.

Coastal management When asked a series of questions about coastal management:

• A majority (65%) agreed caring for coasts was the highest priority, as well as needing to use the coasts resources;

• 50% of respondents were unsure how to prioritise environmental and economic matters, while 39% were leaning towards favouring the environment; and

• Respondents were evenly divided about how well the coastal region was being managed; but a large majority (85%) felt that communities should be consulted on coastal management issues.

Aquaculture Respondents had a range of views about aquaculture and how the industry behaves. A majority of respondents felt that the industry’s benefits generally outweighed any possible disadvantages. A large majority (76%) agreed aquaculture has flow-on benefits, such as supporting other industries and gave their (81%) overall approval of the industry. A majority also agreed that aquaculture was a good alternative to wild-catch fishing. Respondents rated ‘environmental impacts’ and ‘economic contribution’ as the two most important aquaculture issues from a list of ten. Yet, respondents’ opinions were divided on aquaculture’s environmental impacts and on the effectiveness of government and industry environmental protection measures. About a third of respondents felt they did not have good knowledge about environmental impacts of aquaculture. Opinions were more mixed about whether the industry treated environmental controversies responsibly (32% neutral, 46% agreed) or could be trusted overall (24% disagreed, 35% agreed). Nearly half (48%) felt that overall, the industry was concerned about environmental management. Some 44% of respondents agreed there were limits to how much aquaculture could grow in the region.

Risk perceptions When asked about the risk that aquaculture poses to the environment, respondents appeared to be more concerned about some sectors than others. Some 61% rated kingfish as a species at risk of causing environmental damage, 41% gave the same rating to tuna, while 61% rated oysters and abalone (58%) as having lower risk of negatively impacting the environment.

Trust issues Respondents did have some trust in the aquaculture industry, but some sectors attracted higher trust ratings than others. 71% of respondents had good trust in the oyster sector, 51% had good trust in the abalone sector. The lowest levels of trust were recorded for the kingfish (45%) and tuna sectors (28%).

91

More respondents (54%) indicated they had good trust in aquaculture-related decision made by Local Government, compared to State Government (41%) and Federal Government (34%). A quarter to a third of respondents were unsure about how much they trusted governments’ aquaculture decisions.

Respondents’ knowledge Most respondents generally gave themselves low ratings for their knowledge about aquaculture, coastal management, government and marine ecology. The lowest knowledge ratings were for some aquaculture industry sectors, aquaculture’s environmental impacts, marine ecology, and governments’ aquaculture decision-making and coastal management processes. More respondents felt they had ‘little’ or ‘no knowledge’ about the mussel, abalone and kingfish sectors, while over a third felt they had ‘good’ to ‘very good’ knowledge about oysters (37%) and shellfish growing techniques (34%). Close to half of respondents felt they knew little or nothing about the effects of feed/fish waste on the sea floor (53%), how marine wildlife interact with sea cages (48%) or the impacts of escaped fish on wild fish populations (42%). A majority of respondents felt they had little or no knowledge about coastal resource allocation (63%), coastal management (63%) and marine ecology (69%). And a majority of respondents felt they had little or no knowledge about roles of Local and State Government in developing and managing aquaculture

Information sources A large majority of respondents felt that the media (e.g. local newspaper and radio) and direct contact with the aquaculture industry and decision-makers play an important role in providing them with information about aquaculture.

Community participation Respondents were highly supportive of the principle of community participation. Some 71% favoured community participation in relation to aquaculture, despite its costs and the time that was required for it. Not all respondents would be interested in contributing directly. A quarter of respondents said they had ‘no interest’ in getting involved in aquaculture planning, and over a third were not interested in management. However, 60% had a moderate interest in being involved in planning and slightly less (53%) were interested in being involved in aquaculture management. From a list of suggested activities, respondents were most interested in visits to aquaculture farms, open days, talking to aquaculture operators, attending public meetings. Many respondents had been to aquaculture farms and spoken to aquaculture operators, but fewer had been to open days, public meetings or responded to surveys.

Mail survey respondent differences Statistical tests showed that perceptions of aquaculture differed across a range of respondent variables including age, gender, education, time lived in the region, involvement with formal groups, visits to aquaculture sites, social links to the aquaculture industry, participation in coastal recreation (e.g. recreational fishing), attendance at public meetings and open days/displays. These variables had the widest range of influence on respondents’ trust in decision-making by the aquaculture industry and specific industry sectors and by Government.

Gender Female respondents were considerably more concerned about the impacts of aquaculture and were less trusting of aquaculture-related decisions made by the Federal Government and some aquaculture industry sectors.

Education Respondents who had completed higher levels of education had greater awareness of a range of issues affecting aquaculture and coastal management. They were:

92

• more likely to perceive taste differences between wild-caught and farmed fish; • less likely to think that farmed fish/shellfish health was a good indicator of marine

ecosystem health; • less likely to think that there were no limits to aquaculture’s growth in the region; and • more likely to agree that it is important to respect Indigenous Australians residing in

coastal areas.

Time lived in the local area Long term residents were more likely to:

• give priority to economic matters over environmental ones; • be more trusting of the kingfish and tuna industries; • agree that farmed fish/shellfish health was a good indicator of marine ecosystem

health; and • disagree that there should be more marine protected areas in the region.

Involvement in an organised group with a coastal management focus Respondents who indicated they were involved in a group that had a strong interest in coastal management were significantly more concerned about the environmental impacts of aquaculture and the regulation of the industry in the region. They were also less trusting of the planning and management-related decisions made by the aquaculture industry and local governments.

Visits to aquaculture sites/farms Respondents who reported they had been to an aquaculture site or farm were more trusting of the aquaculture industry in general and of particular aquaculture sectors, such as oysters and abalone. They were also more likely to agree that there were limits to how much the industry could grow in the Eyre Peninsula region.

Social links to the industry Respondents with some kind of direct link to the industry (84%) – knowing someone in the industry and/or having worked in it themselves - were more likely to believe aquaculture’s benefits outweighed any disadvantages. These respondents were also more likely to prioritise limiting any environmental impacts of aquaculture. They were also more likely to support increased community involvement in aquaculture planning and management. These respondents had higher trust in the industry overall, but were less trusting of the tuna and kingfish sectors.

Participation in coastal recreation and fishing Respondents who participated in some kind of coastal recreation were: more likely to perceive differences in the taste of farmed fish versus wild-caught fish; less likely to support the idea that shellfish farming helped coastal environments by removing nutrients from water; and were less likely to agree that the aquaculture industry could grow indefinitely. Recreational fishers were significantly more concerned about the aesthetic impacts of aquaculture and were less trusting of the tuna and kingfish sectors.

Attendance at public events Respondents who had attended public meetings on aquaculture were more concerned about environmental impacts associated with the industry and governments’ ability to regulate these impacts than those respondents who had not been to any public meetings. These respondents were also less trusting of the aquaculture industry in general and the tuna sector in particular. They did have greater trust in both the oyster and mussel sectors. Respondents who had been to any aquaculture open days or displays also had higher levels of trust in the industry overall, and in the oyster sector particularly. These respondents were also

93

more likely to agree that coastal management should consider the needs of commercial users first.

Project implications and benefits The following section outlines some key implications and benefits flowing from this project. It is anticipated that these issues will be explored and developed further in consultation with the Fisheries Division of DAFF. Many of the benefits of this research and possible future developments for its findings mirror those of the groundbreaking work on community perceptions of the commercial fishing industry (Aslin & Byron 2003). The Community Perceptions of Aquaculture Project is providing research to support the National Aquaculture Policy Statement and initiatives from the Aquaculture Industry Action Agenda, in particular:

• growing the industry according to ecologically sustainable development principles (Policy Commitment 2; AIAA Initiative 4);

• ensuring the participation of the Australian industry and broader community in aquaculture planning and management (Policy Commitment 4); and

• promoting industry products domestically and overseas (AIAA Initiative 7). The recent completion of the SA case study and the soon-to-be completed Victorian case study are timely, because these data can inform the development of a National Aquaculture Communications Strategy and other means to engage communities and stakeholders in meaningful dialogues about aquaculture. The SA case study findings and the broader project outputs have and will provide:

• a basis to compare and integrate information about aquaculture perceptions with information from a range of other social surveys that focus on public perceptions of risk, industry and natural resource management;

• provides information about current community and other stakeholder concerns about aquaculture that could affect its viability;

• direct lessons for government and industry about communicating with the public – what messages may be needed, what sources to use, how credible those information sources are deemed to be by the public;

• information showing support for more and/or improved community involvement in aquaculture planning/management;

• a means for ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry that could provide important feedback about the success of future communications, consultation and participation policies and programs; and

• evidence that parts of the community have low levels of knowledge about aquaculture and that this information deficit and lack of familiarity could be contributing to higher levels of mistrust of the industry.

It is worth noting that this work on how communities and stakeholders perceive aquaculture has been conducted at a time when there are unprecedented levels of public mistrust in institutions responsible for managing technological, health and environmental risks. ‘Risk’ is an important concept for primary industry development, management and policy. Within the DAFF portfolio, risk is central to the policy response to drought and to decisions about quarantine restrictions on imports, to name just two. It is also important for emerging industries, such as aquaculture, where the public is increasingly interested in how the industry will minimise the risk of negative environmental, social and economic impacts. The hard-learned lessons about risk communication in other industries – in both Australian and overseas contexts – should not be overlooked. In these situations, a substantive body of

94

international work asserts that we need to rethink the way we communicate with the public and key stakeholders about various technological, health and environmental risks. This work covers a spectrum of topics that range from addressing the content and style of information to redefining the entire process of who we ‘communicate’ with, how and for what reasons. The work has arisen largely because of declining public trust, and it suggests that this lack of trust has been exacerbated by a continued reliance on older models of risk communication. These models typically define the public as an essentially naïve audience and recommend a one way process where increasing amounts of technical and scientific information are disseminated to the public in an effort to raise literacy levels, to counteract ‘irrational’ opinions and to build support for various policies and programs in the face of concern and/or opposition. The newer models of risk communication:

• Focus on ‘risk’ as socially-constructed; • Value different forms of knowledge; • Seek to provide balanced information; and • Seek to improve public participation mechanisms in risk assessment and

management. Integrating the social dimensions of risk into a National Communications Strategy for Aquaculture would:

• Contribute to improved policy outcomes in areas involving industry development and risk management; and

• Support the improvement of the communication of policy decisions. In order to achieve this, professionals contracted to develop this Strategy would need to demonstrate an understanding of the importance of risk issues to aquaculture development and how they would address these matters as part of developing a National Aquaculture Communication Strategy.

Potential areas for further development The following suggests areas for further consideration. Aslin and Byron (2003) originally developed many of these actions to help the commercial fishing industry, and some of them been adapted to suit the aquaculture context.

Targeted communications strategies and community engagement processes Information from the SA interviews and mail survey show differences in views within and across different stakeholder groups and the general public, and preliminary results from the Victorian case study suggests there may also be regional differences to consider. Therefore, communications strategies and programs will be more effective if they are tailored to the needs and interests of different interest groups. In addition, a range of information from this case study shows that trust in industry can be increased through personal knowledge and experience and that there is strong support for more effective public input into aquaculture decision-making. It may be valuable for governments and the aquaculture industry to consider supplementing their communications strategies with community engagement strategies, which would identify ways to:

• Inform communities – keep broad range of stakeholders and interests up-to-date on current and emerging knowledge, issues and directions;

• Seek community input – providing information with objective of obtaining feedback and comments; and

• Involve communities – collaborative process for stakeholder communities, including peak sector bodies, to participate in defining problems, identifying priorities and developing implementation plans and strategies.

95

Monitoring trends in community perceptions, knowledge and behaviour The mail survey undertaken in this project provides a ‘snap-shot’ of the ways communities currently view aquaculture. This survey (or other survey instruments) could be repeated at regular intervals to identify trends in public views about aquaculture, which are currently lacking in Australia. This kind of activity could also help to monitor the success of the National Aquaculture Communications Strategy currently being proposed and/or other communication, information and marketing programs or strategies carried out by the different sectors of the aquaculture industry.

Coordinating community surveys There is the potential to increase the coordination and integration of aquaculture-related surveys undertaken by the Australian, States and Territory Governments. The relationship of this project and its findings to the activities and programs of other Australian Government agencies with interest in human uses of the marine environment, such as the NOO, could be investigated. Aslin and Byron (2003) suggested that this level of cooperation could make these surveys more comparable and useful in increasing our understanding of human uses of the ocean and coastlines.

Monitoring public use and perceptions of information sources This project provides evidence that communities rely heavily on the mass (often local) media to gain information about aquaculture. Other research shows that while the public does not necessarily rate the media as highly credible, they do not always seek information from more ‘reliable sources’. Further research on public trust in aquaculture sources of information could also support the success of communications and marketing strategies. It would also be useful to monitor media coverage of aquaculture-related stories, and undertake content analysis on items identified. This would give a better basis for conclusions about the apparently negative or alarmist nature of many items about the industry, particularly those dealing with the sea-cage sector. It could also provide a good basis for any future media campaigns and for monitoring their effectiveness.

ESD reporting for aquaculture There may be potential for the aquaculture surveys undertaken in this project to inform ESD reporting frameworks for aquaculture. Similar to what Aslin and Byron (2003) found for their survey, further work is needed to identify appropriate units of measurement and scales (national, state, whole-of-industry, industry sectors).

Communicating findings Finally, Table 43 suggests several ways to communicate the project outcomes, as well as the findings of this South Australian case study. It is intended that these suggestions will be discussed further with the Fisheries Division of DAFF as the Victorian case study is finalised and other phases of the project near completion.

96

Table 43. Suggested means to disseminate findings from the Community Perceptions of Aquaculture Project

Possible outputs • This report, when finalised, to be distributed as required by the Fisheries Division of DAFF • A brief summary of main findings to be prepared in a popular format and mailed to those

people and organisations that have expressed interest in the project, and copies of the summary to be supplied to Social Sciences-BRS and/or Fisheries Division of DAFF to enable response to further enquiries

• A brief summary of findings could be supplied to FRDC for incorporation in its R&D News • A brief fact sheet to be prepared for distribution to policy makers in fisheries agencies • A media release to be prepared and, subject to approval from Fisheries Division of DAFF to

be distributed to appropriate media outlets • The researchers to present project findings verbally at appropriate forums, including the BRS

seminar series and appropriate scientific conferences • The researchers to report findings in appropriate scientific journals • A summary of findings to be incorporated on the Fisheries Division of DAFF and BRS

websites

97

98

References

AFFA & NADC 2001. Aquaculture industry action agenda discussion paper, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra.

Aitken, L. 2001. Social and community dimensions of natural resource management: a

review of issues and related research. Department of Natural Resources & Mines: Queensland.

Aquaculture Action Agenda Taskforce 2002. Aquaculture industry action agenda: National

aquaculture development committee’s report to government and industry. Fisheries and Aquaculture, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry – Australia: Canberra.

Aslin, H.J., Brown, V.A. 2002 Research report for good practice community engagement for

the Murray-Darling Basin. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. 90 pp. Aslin, H.J, Byron, I.G. 2003. Community perceptions of fishing: implications for industry

image, marketing and sustainability. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation and the Bureau of Rural Sciences: Canberra.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 1999. Environmental issues: People’s views and practices.

Report No. 4602.0. ABS: Canberra. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001. Census of population and housing. ABS: Canberra. Bardwell, L.V. 1991. Problem framing: A perspective on environmental problem solving.

Environmental Management 15 (5): 603-612. Beckwith, J.A., Colgan, P.A., & Syme, G.J. 1999. Seeing risk through other eyes. Pp. 49-56

in C.D. Johnston (Ed), Contaminated Site Remediation: Challenges Posed by Urban and Industrial Contaminants, Proceedings of the 1999 Contaminated Site Remediation Conference, Centre for Groundwater Studies, CSIRO Land & Water: Wembley, Western Australia.

Black, A., Hughes, P. 2001. The identification and analysis of indicators of community

strength and outcomes. Department of Family and Community Services: Canberra. Blackstone, L. 2001. Environmental consumer research: National Fisheries Institute. Len

Blackstone Ad Group. Botterill, L., Mazur, N. 2004. Risk and risk perception: A literature review. Rural Industries

Research and Development Corporation: Canberra. Carvalho, P. 1998. Results of a South Australian coastal aquaculture survey. Waves and

Regional Ripples, November. Marine and Coastal Community Network: Adelaide. Chamber of Minerals and Energy, Western Australia. 1997. Western Australian community

perceptions of the mining industry. Highlights of a 1997 survey conducted by CSIRO Australia on behalf of the Chamber of Minerals and Energy. Perth: Chamber of Minerals and Energy, Western Australia.

Christians, C.G. 2000. Ethics and politics in qualitative research. Pp. 133-155 in N.K. Denzin

& Y.S. Lincoln (eds), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

99

Ciffolilli, A. 2003. Draft report on the review of legislative arrangements in the aquaculture industry in Western Australia. Government of Western Australia: Perth.

Clark, T.W., Willard, A.R., & Cromley, C.M. 2000. Foundations of natural resources policy

and management. Yale University Press: New Haven, CT. Clarke, B. 1996. Aquaculture management and planning in South Australia: Blue farming

revolution or goldrush? Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Adelaide: Adelaide. Connelly, N.A., Knuth, B.A. 2002. Using the co-orientation model to compare community

leaders’ and local residents’ views about Hudson River ecosystem restoration. Society and Natural Resources 15: 933-948.

Creighton, J.A., Pinney, T. & Scott, S. 1997. Let’s get to it: Getting beneath difficult

environmental resource debates. Harwood Group & Great Plains Partnership, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Curtis, A. & Byron, I. 2002. Understanding the social drivers of catchment management in

the Wimmera region. Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University: Albury, NSW. Curtis, A., Graham, M., Byron, I., Lockwood, M., & McDonald, S. 2002. Providing the

knowledge base for landscape change in the Ovens Catchment. Johnstone Centre, Charles Sturt University: Albury, NSW.

Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys : the total design method. Wiley

Interscience: New York. Dore, J., Woodhill, J. 1999. Sustainable regional development: Final report. Greening

Australia: Canberra. Dryzek, J.S. 1997. The politics of the earth. Oxford University Press: Oxford. FAO 2000. State of the world’s fisheries and aquaculture 2000. FAO Fisheries Department:

Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/W9900E/w99))e)3.htm EconSearch 1999. The economic impact of aquaculture in the Eyre Peninsula Region and

South Australia, 1998/99. EconSearch and Aquaculture Group, Primary Industries and Resources: Adelaide.

EconSearch 2002. The economic impact of aquaculture on the South Australian State and

Regional Economies, 2000/01. EconSearch and Aquaculture Group, Primary Industries and Resources: Adelaide.

EconSearch 2003. The economic impact of aquaculture on the South Australian State and

Regional Economies, 2001/02. EconSearch and Aquaculture Group, Primary Industries and Resources: Adelaide.

Eyre Regional Development Board. 2003. http://www.erdb.org.au/. Accessed 15/08/03. Finucane, M. 2001. Improving quarantine risk communication: Understanding public risk

perceptions. Report # 00-7, Decision Research: Eugene, Oregon.

Gilding, M., Critchely, C. 2003. Technology and trust: Public perceptions of technological change in Australia. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society 1: 1-17. http://www.swin.edu.au/sbs/ajets/journal/current.htm

100

GM-PDSB 2003. GM Nation: The findings of the public debate. http://www.gmnation.org.uk/docs/gmnation_finalreport.pdf

Grimble, R., Wellard, K. 1997. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a

review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems 55 (2): 171-193.

Haberkorn, G., Hugo, G., Fisher, M., Aylward, R. 1999. Country matters: Social atlas of

rural and regional Australia. Bureau of Rural Sciences: Canberra. Harding, R. 1998. Environmental decision-making: The role of scientists, engineers and the

public. The Federation Press: Leichhardt, NSW. Haward, M. 2003. The ocean and marine realm. Pp. 35-52 in S.Dovers & S. Wild River (eds).

Managing Australia’s Environment. Federation Press: Annadale, NSW. Healthy Rivers Commission. 2003. Oysters: Independent review of the relationship between health oysters and healthy rivers. Healthy Rivers Commission of NSW: Sydney. Hunt, S., Frewer, L.J., Sheperd, R. 1999. Public trust in sources of information about radiation

risks in the UK. Journal of Risk Research 2 (2): 167-180. Kaiser, M., Stead, S.M. 2002. Uncertainties and values in European aquaculture:

communication, management and policy issues in times of “changing public perceptions”. Aquaculture International 10: 469-490.

Lee, C.L., Nel, S. 2001. A national aquaculture development strategy for Indigenous

communities in Australia. AFFA: Canberra. Lendich, Z. 2003. A draft strategy for the development of the Western Australian

Aquaculture. Western Australian Government: Perth. Mazur, N. 2004. Community perceptions of aquaculture: Related social research. Bureau of

Rural Sciences: Canberra. Mazur, N., Aslin, H., Curtis, A., Byron, I. & Magpantay, C. 2004. Community perceptions of

aquaculture: Report on the Eyre Peninsula. Bureau of Rural Sciences: Canberra. McComas, K.A., Scherer, C.W. 1999. Providing balanced risk information in surveys used as

citizen participation mechanisms. Society and Natural Resources 12: 107-119. Merkhofer, M.W. 1987. Decision science and social risk management. D Reidel Publishing

Company: Dordecht. Nancarrow, B.E. & Syme, G.J. 1999. Toward groundwater sustainability in the Lower

Macquarie Valley: Perceptions of fair management and re-allocation options. CSIRO Land & Water Consultancy Report No. 99-73. Australian Research Centre for Water in Society, CSIRO: Wembley, Western Australia.

Nancarrow, B.E. & Syme, G.J. 2001. Stakeholder profiling study: A report to the River

Murray Environmental Flow and Water Quality Objectives Project Board. CSIRO Land and Water and the Murray Darling Basin Commission: Canberra.

National Aquaculture Policy Statement 2003. Fisheries and Aquaculture Branch, Australian

Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry: Canberra.

101

NOO 2002. Communities connecting with the ocean. The South East Regional Marine Plan. Hobart: NOO.

NSW EPA 2000. Who cares about the environment: environmental knowledge, attitudes and

behaviours of the people of New South Wales (2000). NSW Environment Protection Authority: Sydney.

Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Second ed. Newbury Park:

Sage. Peters R.G., Covello, V.T., & McCallum, D.B. 1997. The determinants of trust and credibility

in environmental risk communications: An empirical study. Risk Analysis 17 (1): 43-54. Petts, J., Leach, B. 2000. Evaluating methods for public participation. R&D Technical Report

E135. Environment Agency: Bristol. PPK Environment & Infrastructure 1999. Mid-term review of the Natural Heritage Trust:

Urban environment theme review. PPK Environment & Infrastructure Pty Ltd: Adelaide, South Australia.

Prime Mininster’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council 2002. Sustainable

Aquaculture, Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra. Randall, E. Changing perceptions of risk in the European Union. In: The Plan for a European

Food Authority & The Politics of Risk in the European Union. http://www.policylibrary.com/essays/RandallEFARisk/EFARisk1.htm accessed 13/8/2002.

Shindler, B., Brunson, M. 1999. Changing natural resource paradigms in the United States:

Finding political reality in academic theory. Pp. 459-473 in D. Soden & B. Steel (eds), Handbook of Global Environmental Policy and Administration. Marcel Dekker Publishing.

Shindler, B. Tollman, E. 2002. A longitudinal analysis of fuel reduction in the Blue

Mountains: Public perspectives on the use of prescribed fire and mechanized thinning. Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University: Corvallis, Oregon.

Shindler, B., Wilton, J., Wright, A. 2002a. A social assessment of ecosystem health: Public

perspectives on Pacific Northwest Forests. Department of Forest Resources, Oregon State University: Corvallis, Oregon.

Shindler, B.A, Brunson, M., Stankey, G.H. 2002b. Social acceptability of forest conditions

and management practices: a problem analysis. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: Corvallis, Oregon.

Slovic, P. 1999. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment

battlefield. Risk Analysis 19 (4): 689-701. Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. 1990. Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures

and techniques. Newbury Park, California: Sage. Swaffield, S. 1998. Frames of reference: A metaphor for analysing and interpreting attitudes

of environmental policy makers and policy influencers. Environmental Management 22 (4): 495-504.

102

103

Tarrant, M.A., Cordell, H. K., Green, G.T. 2003. PVF: A scale to measure public values of forests. Journal of Forestry, September: 24-30.

Taylor, J.A., Braithwaite, R.W. 1996. Interactions between land uses in Australia’s savannas:

Its largely in the mind. Pp. 107-118 in A. Ash (ed), The Future of Tropical Savannas. CSIRO: Collingwood.

Vogt, W.P. 1999. Dictionary of statistics and methodology: A non-technical guide for the

social sciences. Sage: London. Deborah Wilson Consulting Service 2001. Community consultation survey of aquaculutre

developments in the Bowen Region. Queensland Department of State Development: Brisbane.

Zann, L.P. 1995. Our sea, our future. Major findings of the State of the Marine Environment

Report for Australia. DEST: Canberra.