main findings for the draft reserve (released november coral sea commonwealth marine reserve:social...

Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve:social and economic assessment of the impacts on commercial and charter fishing

Report on the draft marine reserve, with a supplementary report for the final proposed marine reserve

Research by the Australian Bureau of Agriculturaland Resource Economics and Sciences

June 2012

[email protected]

© Commonwealth of Australia 2012

Ownership of intellectual property rightsUnless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).

Creative Commons licenceAll material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, save for content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth coat of arms.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode.

This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) 2012, Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve: social and economic assessment of the impacts on commercial and charter fishing. Report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, June 2012. CC BY 3.0.

Cataloguing dataAustralian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) 2012, Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve: social and economic assessment of the impacts on commercial and charter fishing, Report prepared for the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, June 2012

ABARES project 43210

Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES)Postal address: GPO Box 1563 Canberra ACT 2601Switchboard: +61 2 6272 2010|Facsimile: +61 2 6272 2001Email: [email protected]: daff.gov.au/abares

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document should be sent to [email protected].

The Australian Government acting through the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry represented by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, has exercised due care and skill in the preparation and compilation of the information and data in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, ABARES, 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 in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

AcknowledgementsABARES thanks the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and the Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for their assistance in providing data and reviewing this report. ABARES also acknowledges the comments and contributions of commercial fishers and industry group representatives, including those from the Commonwealth Fisheries Association, the Queensland Seafood Industry Association and the Queensland Charter Vessels Association.

ABARES contributors (alphabetical): Gavin Begg, Peter Berry, Katherine Cheshire, Robert Curtotti, Alix Duncan, Saan Ecker, Marco Hatt, Edwina Heyhoe, Patty Hobsbawn, Robert Kancans, James Larcombe, Nic Marton, Rob New, Rocio Noriega, Patty Please, Nyree Stenekes, Rupert Summerson, Charlene Trestrail and Alasebu Yainshet.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

ContentsExecutive summary..........................................................................................................................................1

Main findings for the draft reserve (released November 2011)......................................2

Main findings for the final proposed reserve (14 June 2012)...........................................9

Draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve proposal.........................................................13

1 Background and introduction.......................................................................................................14

The Coral Sea........................................................................................................................................ 14

Fisheries in the Coral Sea................................................................................................................15

Demographics of the Coral Sea.....................................................................................................18

Scope of work....................................................................................................................................... 20

The social and economic assessment.........................................................................................20

2 Potential displacement of fishing................................................................................................22

Area closures and entitlement values........................................................................................24

Commercial fishing potential displacement...........................................................................24

Charter fishing potential displacement.....................................................................................31

Prospective fishing.............................................................................................................................32

Fisheries management..................................................................................................................... 34

3 Flow of potential impacts to ports and supply chains........................................................35

Flow of gross value of production to ports..............................................................................35

Inputs to fishing business—upstream impacts.....................................................................36

Output from fishing businesses—downstream impacts...................................................38

Town and local area summary......................................................................................................41

Potential impacts on the economy..............................................................................................43

Potential impacts on employment..............................................................................................47

Summary of flow of impacts.......................................................................................................... 48

4 Impacts on fishing businesses.......................................................................................................49

Survey data caveats and notes......................................................................................................49

Commercial fishery qualitative value mapping.....................................................................50

Fishing business impacts.................................................................................................................52

Fishing business plans and future investments....................................................................57

Other issues and cumulative factors impacting fishing businesses.............................58

Ability to adapt—business............................................................................................................. 60

Fishing business impacts summary............................................................................................61

5 Personal and community impacts...............................................................................................63

iii

Personal impacts.................................................................................................................................63

Ability to adapt—personal............................................................................................................. 66

Community impacts...........................................................................................................................68

Ability to adapt—community........................................................................................................68

Personal and community impacts summary..........................................................................70

6 Case studies........................................................................................................................................... 71

Telling the fisher’s story: a narrative approach....................................................................71

Macroeconomic context...................................................................................................................71

Case study: Pelagic longliners in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery....................74

Case study: A vertically integrated fishing business in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery: the Lamason Group..........................................................................................79

Case study: Onshore processing facilities................................................................................84

Case study: Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery—T1 sector..........................87

Case study: Charter fishing in the Coral Sea...........................................................................92

Case study: Economic modelling of Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and Mooloolaba............................................................................................................................................ 96

Appendixes..................................................................................................................................................... 106

A: Fisheries data processing methods....................................................................................106

B: Social impact assessment methods.....................................................................................113

C: Estimating job reduction using the survey......................................................................119

D: Developing an index of community vulnerability........................................................120

E: Profile of survey respondents...............................................................................................124

F: Summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities..................................................................................................................................128

References.......................................................................................................................................................132

Supplementary report: final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve proposal................................................................................................................................................136

Overview.............................................................................................................................................. 137

Changes to the draft reserve.......................................................................................................138

Potential displacement of fishing..............................................................................................141

Flow of potential impacts to ports............................................................................................143

Fishing business impacts..............................................................................................................146

Personal and community impacts............................................................................................147

Case studies........................................................................................................................................ 148

Updated information for potentially displaced fisheries...............................................149

iv

TablesTable 1 Comparison of estimates of catch and gross value of production (GVP)

potentially displaced by the draft (released November 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserves in the Coral Sea...............................8

Table 2 Reference information of potentially impacted fisheries in the Coral Sea..............16

Table 3 Estimated direct employment in the Australian fishing industry by sector in Queensland and Australia (full-time equivalent positions)..........................................18

Table 4 Estimated potential displacement of catch and gross value of production (GVP) in Commonwealth fisheries by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.................25

Table 5 Estimated potential displacement of catch and gross value of production (GVP) in Queensland fisheries by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.........................25

Table 6 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced in Commonwealth fisheries by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve......................................................................26

Table 7 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production (GVP) displaced in Commonwealth fisheries by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve..........27

Table 8 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced in Queensland fisheries by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.........................................................................................28

Table 9 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production (GVP) displaced in Queensland fisheries by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve..................29

Table 10 Potential annual average displacement of Queensland charter fishing activity........................................................................................................................................................ 32

Table 11 Community, exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity — draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve....................................................................................................................................... 42

Table 12 Estimated paid job reduction anticipated by survey respondents due to the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve...............................................................................................48

Table 13 Number of value markers placed in marine reserve zones for each of the value categories......................................................................................................................................51

Table 14 Responses from those who declared their fishing activity would have to change......................................................................................................................................................... 52

Table 15 Number of respondents with business and investment plans in place.................57

Table 16 Estimated displacement from potential self-imposed buffer zones (additional to estimated displacement in other zones) in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery............................................................................................................................... 77

Table 17 Reference case gross value of production projections by jurisdiction ($billion)................................................................................................................................................. 101

Table 18 Short-term (2012–13) model results of the potential impact of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve on the economy and employment (percentages)...........102

Table 19 Summary of estimated short-term impacts in 2012–13 (absolute terms)........103

Table 20 Longer term (2019–20) model results of the potential impact of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve on the economy and employment (percentages)...........103

v

Table 21 Summary of estimated long-term economic impacts in 2019–20 (absolute terms)....................................................................................................................................................... 104

Table 22 Excluded fishing methods in Commonwealth fisheries, and zoning implications........................................................................................................................................... 109

Table 23 Queensland fishing methods and zoning implications...............................................112

Table 24 Focus group participants.........................................................................................................117

Table 25 Percentages used to calculate reduction in employees based on the overall response to the draft marine reserve and response to a question of whether the business will reduce employees........................................................................119

Table 26 Indicators and data.....................................................................................................................121

Table 27 Licences held by survey respondents in 2010–11.......................................................124

Table 28 Fishing methods...........................................................................................................................124

Table 29 Fishing history..............................................................................................................................125

Table 30 Fishing business structure......................................................................................................125

Table 31 Fishing business activities.......................................................................................................126

Table 32 Fishing business employees...................................................................................................126

Table 33 Value of total landed catch in 2010–11.............................................................................127

Table 34 Summary of flow of impacts, supply chain, demographics and vulnerability — draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve..................................................................129

Table S1 Changes made in the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve.............................138

Table S2 Fishing methods and zoning implications—final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve.................................................................................................................................... 140

Table S3 Comparison of estimates of catch and gross value of production (GVP) potentially displaced by the draft (released November 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) Coral Sea Marine Reserve.......................................142

Table S4 Comparison of estimated potential Queensland charter fishing displacement between the draft and final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserves.................................................................................................................................................. 143

Table S5 Comparison of estimates of flow of potentially displaced gross value of production by the draft and final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserves....................144

Table S6 Community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity—final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve................................................................................................................145

Table S7 Comparison of the short-term net economic impact and job losses between the draft and final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserves...............................146

Table S8 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced by the final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10 reference period............................................................................................150

Table S9 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production (GVP) displaced by the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10...........................................................................151

Table S10 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced by the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve from Queensland fisheries within the

vi

reference period covering 2000–10...........................................................................................152

Table S11 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production displaced by the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve from Queensland fisheries within the reference period covering 2000–10....................................................................153

Table S12 Updated summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities for towns identified under the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve................................................................................................................154

FiguresFigure 1 Trends in Commonwealth fisheries gross value of production.................................31

Figure 2 Trends in Queensland fisheries gross value of production..........................................31

Figure 3 Conceptual model of community vulnerability.................................................................41

Figure 4 Structure of the Cairns economy..............................................................................................44

Figure 5 Structure of the Mooloolaba economy..................................................................................45

Figure 6 Structure of the Hervey Bay–Bundaberg economy.........................................................46

Figure 7 Indirect business impacts for respondents who indicated they would continue operating by making up shortfall or moving into an alternative fishery......................................................................................................................................................... 55

Figure 8 Business impacts for respondents who indicated they would leave the fishing industry.......................................................................................................................................56

Figure 9 Fishing business considerations when making business plans or investments.............................................................................................................................................. 58

Figure 10 Other issues impacting fishing businesses in the Coral Sea......................................60

Figure 11 Ability to adapt—fishing businesses...................................................................................61

Figure 12 Indirect personal impacts for respondents who indicated they would continue operating by making up shortfall or moving into an alternative fishery......................................................................................................................................................... 64

Figure 13 Indirect personal impacts for respondents who indicated they would leave the fishing industry...................................................................................................................65

Figure 14 Ability to adapt—personal.......................................................................................................67

Figure 15 Ability to adapt—community.................................................................................................69

Figure 16 Commonwealth fisheries gross value of production (GVP) and Australian dollar exchange rate, 2000–01 to 2009–10...............................................................................72

Figure 17 Real average off-road diesel price, inclusive of farm rebates and subsidies, but excluding GST, 2000–01 to 2009–10..............................................................73

Figure 18 Estimated catch and gross value of production (GVP) displacement from the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery from the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve........................................................................................................................................................................ 74

Figure 19 Simplified diagram of a business’ revenue, costs and profit.....................................86

Figure 20 Annual potential displacement from the Queensland T1 sector (point estimate).................................................................................................................................................... 89

vii

Figure 21 Structure of the Cairns economy...........................................................................................97

Figure 22 Structure of the Mooloolaba economy................................................................................97

Figure 23 Structure of the Hervey Bay–Bundaberg economy.......................................................98

Figure 24 Treatment of fishing operations in relation to marine reserve boundaries.. .109

Figure 25 The relationship among all fishers, target population, survey frame and survey respondents............................................................................................................................114

Figure 26 Conceptual model of community vulnerability............................................................120

Figure 27 Respondents' highest level of formal education..........................................................127

MapsMap 1 Coral Sea draft (released November 2011) and final proposed (released 14

June 2012) marine reserves and zones with area numbering.............................................7

Map 2 Draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve with area numbering.....................15

Map 3 All commercial fishing gross value of production (GVP) in the Coral Sea, employment in the consolidated fishing industry and draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve....................................................................................................................................................... 19

Map 4 Flow of potentially displaced gross value of production (GVP) to ports....................36

Map 5 Number of input businesses identified as potentially impacted by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve..................................................................................................................37

Map 6 Number of respondents who source inputs from this location for their fishing business...................................................................................................................................... 38

Map 7 Number of output businesses identified as potentially affected by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve..................................................................................................................39

Map 8 Number of respondents who send outputs to this location for their fishing business..................................................................................................................................................... 40

Map 9 Commercial fishery qualitative value mapping for all value classes ('catch reliability', 'catch diversity', 'easy to access', 'a safe area', 'less competition', 'future use value')..................................................................................................................................51

Map 10 Area of the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery.....................................................................75

Map 11 Potential self-imposed buffer zones in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery........................................................................................................................................................ 77

Map 12 Queensland trawl additional potential impacted area in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve....................................................................................................................................... 88

Map 13 Major charter fishing areas in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve...........................93

Map 14 Areas modelled by AusRegion: Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and Mooloolaba............................................................................................................................................... 96

Map 15 Queensland fisheries reporting grid systems overlaid on the outline of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve....................................................................................................110

Map 16 Queensland trawl additional potential impact area in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve (used to estimate potential impact, not an extension of the reserve)................................................................................................................................................... 111

viii

Map S1 Comparison of the draft (released November 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) Coral Sea Marine Reserves..........................................................139

BoxesBox 1 Assessing the economic impact of marine reserves............................................................23

Box 2 Understanding ‘critical mass’ and a business’ economic viability.................................86

ix

Coral Sea social and economic assessment ABARES

Executive summaryThe Australian Government is undertaking marine bioregional planning in Commonwealth waters. This includes identifying areas for inclusion in the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) was commissioned by the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC; the lead government agency) to assess the impacts of the proposed marine reserve in the Coral Sea on commercial and charter fishing.

This social and economic assessment used a range of statistical analyses, social impact assessment and economic modelling to provide a variety of perspectives on the potential impacts. It drew on data from fisheries logbooks, a survey of fishing businesses, interviews and focus groups.

The scope of work does not include potential impacts on non-commercial activities, including recreational fishing, customary fishing and tourism, nor does it attempt to cost or quantify any loss of asset values (e.g. fishing access rights, boats and shore-based infrastructure). The costing and design of any Australian Government assistance (structural adjustment) were also not part of the scope.

The assessment was undertaken in two stages that relate to the release of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve proposal released for public comment from November 2011 to February 2012, and the final Coral Sea Marine Reserve proposal released on 14 June 2012. This report (and this summary) are therefore structured into two sections:

Draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve proposal (released November 2011). The consultative social and economic assessment was undertaken on the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve and forms the bulk of this report. The assessment is of the draft reserve and is structured to provide a variety of information and perspectives on potential impacts. In general, the assessment progresses from large-scale aggregate impacts across the entire reserve in the early chapters, through to a finer scale covering the potential impacts to towns, businesses and people. Different data were used to estimate or infer potential impacts at each scale. In developing this assessment, ABARES has consulted and been guided by a working group comprising representatives from the Queensland and Australian governments, and fishing industry bodies.

Final Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve proposal (released 14 June 2012). An abridged assessment was undertaken on a final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve, and this is contained within a supplementary report. The revisions to the reserve were informed by the submissions received by SEWPaC through the public consultation process and by ABARES' initial analysis on the draft reserve released for public consultation. This abridged assessment provides (where possible) a comparative analysis of the changes to potential impacts between the draft and final proposed reserves. ABARES was not in a position to undertake additional consultation (survey or interviews) with commercial and charter fishing businesses for this abridged assessment.

1


Main findings for the draft reserve (released November 2011)The potential impact of the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve is significant in some localised areas and fisheries operating in the Coral Sea, while the impacts on other fisheries are small relative to the size of the fishery. The draft reserve is expected to have a significant and concentrated impact on one operator in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery, and a significant but more diffuse impact on other operators in the fishery. Operators using demersal longline or demersal trawl methods in the Commonwealth Coral Sea Fishery are also expected to be significantly impacted. Cairns and Mooloolaba are the main potentially impacted regions because a substantial amount of potentially displaced fisheries gross value of production (GVP) flows through these ports, and a number of potentially affected supply chain businesses are located in these regions.

Potential displacement of fishing: The draft marine reserve would potentially displace an estimated annual GVP of $4.5–4.7 million: $4.2 million would be displaced from Commonwealth fisheries (Table 4) and between $263 400 and $468 900 would be displaced from Queensland fisheries (Table 5). This represents a relatively small proportion (3.3 to 3.5 per cent) of the combined value of fisheries production from those potentially impacted fisheries (approximately $134 million).

Summary of impacts of the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve (Table 1):

Six commercial fisheries would potentially be impacted by the draft marine reserve, with the degree of impact ranging from close to zero through to close to 100 per cent of the total GVP for some sectors within fisheries.

In percentage terms, the greatest impact would be to the Commonwealth Coral Sea Fishery, where operators using demersal longline and demersal trawl methods are expected to be almost completely displaced.

In absolute terms, the greatest potential displacement of GVP would be in the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery. A significant amount of displacement would be borne by a relatively small number of operators in this fishery, as well as T1 entitlement holders in the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery.

Of the eight areas within the draft marine reserve, the Special Purpose Zone (area 302; Map 1) had the largest potential impact, followed by the draft Marine National Park Zone (area 308), both of which would primarily impact the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery.

The draft marine reserve is expected to impact on a small number of charter operators. The main direct impacts on charter fishing would be in the Marine National Park Zone (area 308).

Potentially displaced catch and GVP are reasonably well estimated across Queensland fisheries, and very well estimated for Commonwealth fisheries. However, there are still some uncertainties due to the coarse scale at which fishing data are collected.

Total catch and GVP from fisheries in the Coral Sea have typically declined over the past decade, with some exceptions. For example, estimated potential displacement of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery, based on a seven-year reference period (2004–10), was estimated to be between $169 700 and $375 300; however, estimated displacement is significantly higher for recent years due to higher than average catch within the draft reserve in the past few years.

2


There are likely to be cumulative impacts to fisheries that also operate outside the Coral Sea. This includes additional displacement by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network on the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (over 44 tonnes displaced valued at over $261 700).

There were also cases of prospective fisheries under development (or redevelopment) but which did not have significant catch history during the reference period. For example, some operators in the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery recently increased targeted fishing for albacore in the ‘albacore zone’, which is located in the draft Marine National Park Zone.

The impact on prospective fishing (future potential fishing not accounted for in the estimates of displacement) was identified as a significant issue by some fishers. Several fisheries were identified where prospective fishing was likely to be impacted. In these fisheries, there was evidence that businesses have made specific plans or investments to develop prospects and well-defined rights of access. Impacts on the value of fishing entitlements and other fishery-specific assets were also identified as potentially significant issues in some fisheries. However, this impact is difficult to quantify, and is beyond the scope of this report.

Flow of impacts: Potential impacts were traced back to ports and coastal communities using information on landings and the supply chains of potentially impacted businesses:

Towns with the highest potential GVP displacement were Cairns ($2.4 million GVP potentially displaced) and Mooloolaba ($1.5 million). To a lesser extent, Hervey Bay ($241 600), Bundaberg ($153 000), Brisbane ($98 300), Mackay ($64 100) and Gladstone ($59 200) would also be affected.

Cairns and Mooloolaba are subject to additional potential GVP displacement from adjacent draft reserves networks—the draft North Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network (ABARES 2012b) and the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network (ABARES 2012c), respectively.

The main centres identified as providing goods and services to potentially impacted businesses were Mooloolaba, Cairns, Brisbane and Hervey Bay.

The flow of impacts to downstream businesses would be primarily to Mooloolaba, Cairns and Hervey Bay.

The assessment of community vulnerability indicates that Mooloolaba and Cairns are most likely to feel the greatest degree of impact due to displaced GVP from the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. However, both towns are likely to be relatively more resilient to the impacts due to their large population base, diverse economies, general lack of relative disadvantage and relatively low dependence on the commercial fishing industry. In addition, qualitative data indicate that in the past few years Cairns has been adversely affected by the high Australian dollar and extreme weather events, both of which have impacted tourism, which is a key economic driver in Cairns.

Potential impacts on the economy: The ABARES AusRegion model was used to estimate the economic impact on subregional, state and national economies, and the corresponding impact on jobs in the short term (2012–13) and in the longer term (2019–20).

The economic modelling did not find impacts at the state or national level and impact to these economies are assessed as negligible (in the context of the state and national economies).

3


The modelled estimates of total regional impacts to the economy and to jobs are reported as the sum of impact to modelled regions, which are scaled linearly to account for the proportion of potential GVP displacement that occurred outside the regions that were modelled.

Total regional economic impact (gross regional product; GRP) was estimated to be $8.0–8.4 million in the short term, all of which is expected to occur in directly impacted regions.

Total regional job loss in directly impacted regions was estimated to be 18–19 full-time jobs lost in the short term and around 3 jobs lost in the long term.

The potential net economic impact (GRP) on the Cairns subregion was estimated to be a reduction in gross regional product of $4.1 million in the short term, corresponding with an estimated loss of 10 full-time equivalent jobs.

In the Hervey Bay–Bundaberg subregion, the potential net economic impact (GRP) in the short term was estimated to be a loss of $0.6 million, with a negligible impact on employment.

The potential net economic impact in the short term in Mooloolaba was estimated to be a loss of $2.8 million, with an estimated loss of approximately seven jobs.

There are likely to be flow-on effects in other regions; however, changes in economic activity and employment at the state and national levels are negligible in terms of the size of those economies and job markets.

Independent of the AusRegion modelling, potential job losses from the catching and processing sectors was estimated at 41 full-time jobs in the short term, based on survey responses from fishing businesses.

Potential impacts on fishing businesses: Through a survey, 49 fishing businesses indicated that they would be potentially impacted and have to change their activity. Of these, 25 indicated that they would stay and make up the shortfall (or move into another fishery), 4 indicated that they would continue operating in the same fishery or downsize their fishing operation and 8 said that they would leave the fishing industry. Eleven survey respondents were unsure how they would respond and one did not answer this question.

Impacts to fishing businesses and the industry as a whole were perceived by respondents as:

increased uncertainty and decreased confidence in the fishing industry

reduced area accessible to fishers

increased competition for remaining fishing grounds

increased difficulty in accessing finance

devaluation of entitlements and other assets.

For those impacted businesses staying in the industry, the perceived impacts included increased conflict with other fishers over competition for fish, increased pressure on fish stocks in areas outside the draft marine reserve, increased fuel costs, increased time spent looking for new fishing grounds, increased travel time to and from alternative fishing grounds, and increased wear and tear on the boat and fishing equipment.

4


Other factors that influenced how impacts affected businesses and how they would or could respond included competition from imported fish, increased input costs (e.g. fuel, labour), changes in fisheries management, changes to fishing ground access, prices received for fish and exchange rate movements.

Personal and community impacts: Personal impacts from the draft marine reserve on people displaced and having to change their fishing activities were increased stress and working longer hours, and the flow-on impacts of this to their families. Generally, the respondents felt that they would be able to cope at a personal level and that there was some degree of social capital (confidence in the social relations of the community to provide a degree of support). However, lack of financial resources and alternative employment options were identified as limitations to adaptation.

Community impacts would flow through the supply chain and be most acute in Mooloolaba, which is likely to experience significant GVP displacement, and which has a large number of supply chain businesses in the region. Mooloolaba has the largest exposure ($50.67 displaced GVP per capita) to the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. However, it has a range of characteristics that contribute positively to its capacity to adapt to these changes—for example, its relatively high economic diversity and proximity to large population centres. Cairns has a relatively high exposure ($19.15 displaced GVP per capita) and also has a range of characteristics that contribute positively to its capacity to adapt. Other reported impacts include the effects on community culture and the important of local seafood to tourism, community health and food security.

Case studies: Six case studies provide a broader understanding of how potential impacts resulting from the draft marine reserve would emerge at different levels. They explore the potential impacts through a number of different perspectives, including from an individual business’ perspective through to that of a whole industry. Case study themes and topics were chosen through consultation with industry, state governments and SEWPaC. Case studies are:

Pelagic longliners in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery

Industry feedback highlighted the importance of gear drift, resulting in operators self-imposing buffer zones around marine reserves. The analysis is based on consultation with industry, augmented with analysis of hypothetical buffer zones around the draft marine reserve boundaries. It was found that if fishers were to self-impose a 60 nautical mile boundary, an additional $2.3 million of GVP would be displaced.

A vertically integrated fishing business in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery: the Lamason Group

This qualitative case study explores the potential impact of the draft marine reserve on one of the largest fishing companies in Queensland. It highlights the effects on a vertically integrated company, and discusses some of the perceived personal, family and community effects of the draft marine reserve. The draft reserve was reported to likely result in the closure of the business, because the catching sector of the business would effectively be completely displaced.

Onshore processing facilities

Based on consultation with a Mooloolaba-based processing company, this case study explores the potential flow-on effects of displaced activity in the catching sector that could result from the

5


draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. The processor suggested that displaced catch that has historically been processed in Mooloolaba could result in throughput falling below a volume below which the business becomes unviable.

Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery—T1 sector

This case study explores the potential impact on T1 entitlement holders in the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery. It focuses on operators who have historically fished around Swain Reefs, including a region in the draft marine reserve from where trawling would be excluded. High-value prawns caught in the Swain Reefs area were reported to be critical to fishers operating in that area. If trawling was excluded from the area, this could result in significant restructuring of some businesses, and could cause increased crowding in remaining fishing grounds.

Charter fishing in the Coral Sea

The potential impacts on the Queensland charter industry are more difficult to quantify than on commercial fishers. This case study explores some of the issues facing the Queensland charter industry, based on a survey of potentially impacted operators. Direct effects include being excluded from the Marine National Park Zone, and having additional 'catch and consume on trip' conditions attached to fishing in some popular reef fishing grounds in Habitat Protection zones. Indirect effects included a worsening public perception of charter fishing prospects in the Coral Sea, which has reportedly already resulted in a drop in client numbers.

Subregional economic modelling of Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and Mooloolaba

The ABARES AusRegion model was used to estimate the economic effects of establishing the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve. Impacts on three subregions are modelled (Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and Mooloolaba), with results scaled up to account for the whole marine reserve.

The total short term regional economic impact from the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve was estimated to be $8.0–8.4 million. In the short term, the effect on regional employment was estimated to be the loss of 18–19 full-time equivalent positions. There are likely to be flow-on effects in other regions; however changes in economic activity at the state and national level are negligible in terms of the size of these economies.

6


Map 1 Coral Sea draft (released November 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserves and zones with area numbering

Note: Zone colouring is not consistently applied between the draft and final proposed reserves.

7


Table 1 Comparison of estimates of catch and gross value of production (GVP) potentially displaced by the draft (released November 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) marine reserves in the Coral Sea

Method Total catch displaced (tonnes) Total GVP displaced ($’000)Jurisdiction/fishery Draft Final proposed Draft Final proposed Absolute change Percentage

changeCommonwealth Coral Sea Fishery Demersal longline 39.9 39.6 116.4 118.0 1.7 1.5Coral Sea Fishery Demersal trawl 27.9 27.4 152.6 146.1 –6.6 –4.3Coral Sea Fishery Dive 0.8 1.8* 5.1 6.4* 1.2* 23.5*Coral Sea Fishery Dropline 5.5 6.0 60.4 62.1 1.7 2.9Coral Sea Fishery Handline/rod * * * * n.a. No changeCoral Sea Fishery Trap * * * * Decrease –55.5Coral Sea Fishery Troll n.a. * n.a. * * NewEastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery All methods 696.0 627.4 3820.9 3566.1 –254.8 –6.7

Commonwealth total 776.6 714.3 4198.3 3971.7 –226.5 –5.4Queensland Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (L8 sector) All methods 12.6 13.4 87.8 98.4 10.7 12.2Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (Developmental Fish Trapping sector)a

Fish trapping * * * * n.a. No change

East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery (net sector)

Gillnetting * * * * n.a. No change

East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery (T1 sector)

Trawling 13.4 to 29.5 6.4 169.7 to 375.3 78.4 –91.4 to -296.9 –53.8 to –79.1

Harvest fisheries Hookah diving * * * * n.a. No change

Queensland total 27.2 to 43.4 21.0 263.4 to 468.9 182.6 –80.8 to -286.4 –30.7 to -61.1Grand total 803.8 to 820.0 735.2 4461.7 to 4667.2 4154.3 –307.3 to -512.9 –6.9 to -11.0

n.a. = not availableNote: Confidential data are marked with an asterisk (*). In some fisheries, only one area is confidential. In these cases, the total does not include the confidential value as it would be possible to back-calculate the displacement from that area. These are denoted by showing the sum of the non-confidential areas followed by an asterisk (e.g. 2.8*)a The Development Fish Trapping sector of the Queensland Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery has been included here to remain consistent with the methodology employed by ABARES in the displacement estimates. Note, however, that this was an exploratory fishery that only operated in 2007 and 2008.

8


Main findings for the final proposed reserve (14 June 2012)SEWPaC provided a final Coral Sea Marine Reserve proposal (Map 1) following consideration of submissions received during the public consultation period, as well as the ABARES assessment of potential social and economic impacts associated with the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

The potential impact of the final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve is slightly reduced compared with the draft reserve, but remains significant for some fisheries operating in the Coral Sea. The final proposed reserve is expected to have a significant and concentrated impact on one operator in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery, and a significant but more diffuse impact on other operators in the fishery. Operators using demersal longline or demersal trawl methods in the Commonwealth Coral Sea Fishery are also expected to be significantly impacted. Cairns and Mooloolaba are the main potentially impacted regions because there is a substantial amount of potentially displaced fisheries GVP flowing through these ports, and a number of potentially affected supply chain businesses located in these regions.

Potential displacement of fishing: The final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve would potentially displace an estimated annual GVP of $4.2 million: $4.0 million would be displaced from Commonwealth fisheries, and $182 600 would be displaced from Queensland fisheries. This represents a small proportion of the combined fisheries production from those potentially impacted fisheries (3.1 per cent). These values are the totals for the potential impacted fisheries in each jurisdiction and are not adjusted to account only for fishing in the Coral Sea.

Summary of impacts of the final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve (Table 1):

Six commercial fisheries would potentially be impacted by the final proposed marine reserve, with the degree of impact ranging from close to zero per cent of the total GVP for some fisheries, through to close to 100 per cent of total GVP for some sectors within fisheries.

In percentage terms, the greatest impact would be in the Commonwealth Coral Sea Fishery (55.7 per cent of total fishery GVP), where operators using demersal longline and demersal trawl methods are expected to be almost completely displaced.

In absolute terms, the greatest potential displacement of GVP would be in the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery ($3.6 million; 9.1 per cent of fishery GVP). A significant amount of displacement would be borne by a relatively small number of operators in this fishery.

Of the 13 areas within the final proposed marine reserve, the Habitat Protection Zone—Coral Sea (area 302) would have the largest potential impact, followed by the final proposed Marine National Park Zone (area 308), both of which would primarily impact the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (Map 1).

Overall, the potential displacement from the final proposed reserve was 9–10 per cent less catch and 7-11 per cent less GVP when compared with the draft reserve. This reduction is largely due to a reduced impact on the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery ($254 800 less GVP displaced; 6.7 per cent reduction) and the T1 sector of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery ($91 400–296 900 less GVP displaced; 54–79 per cent reduction).

9


This reduction was partially offset by small increases in the impact on the Commonwealth Coral Sea Fishery ($28 000 higher GVP displacement; 7 per cent increase).

The final proposed marine reserve is expected to impact on a small number of charter operators. The main impacts on charter fishing would be in the Marine National Park Zone (areas 303, 308 and 313; Map 1).

Flow of impacts: Potential impacts on commercial fishers were traced back to ports and coastal communities using information on landings of displaced catches under the final proposed reserve:

Cairns and Mooloolaba continue to be the regions identified as having most catch and GVP displaced by the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve. The impact has increased slightly for Cairns (by 19 per cent to $2.37 million). The impact decreased for Mooloolaba (by 18 per cent to $1.3 million) and Hervey Bay (by 81–92 per cent to $19 400).

Displaced catch received by Hervey Bay and Bundaberg decreased significantly, reflecting the reduced impact to the T1 sector of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery.

The communities of Cairns and Mooloolaba are likely to be more resilient to the impact, compared with other communities assessed in the Coral Sea region, due to their large population base, diverse economies and relatively low dependence on the consolidated fishing industry.

Cumulative impacts may occur to towns identified in the Coral Sea from GVP displaced from the final proposed marine reserves networks in other regions. Cairns is also potentially impacted by the final proposed North Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network, and Mooloolaba is also potentially impacted by the final proposed Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network.

Potential impacts on the economy: Relative to the impact of the draft reserve, the impact of the final proposed marine reserve is expected to scale linearly with the change in GVP impact. Under this assumption, the estimated effect in the short term is a reduction in regional economic activity of $7.5 million compared with the reference case (no reserves) and the displacement of approximately 17 full-time equivalent jobs in directly affected regions. There are likely to be flow-on impacts in other regions; however, changes in economic activity at the state and national levels are negligible in terms of the size of those economies.

Potential fishing business and personal impacts: ABARES has not undertaken further consultations (survey or interviews) with potentially displaced or impacted commercial fishing, charter or supply chain businesses, or individuals based on the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve. Although survey and interview data collected previously were specific to the draft marine reserve, it is likely that the nature of potential personal and community impacts, and other issues that may exacerbate these impacts, would be similar under the final proposed marine reserve.

Case studies: The case studies for the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve were re-examined under the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve. There was no further consultation (survey or interviews) with potentially impacted fishers or interviewees. Where possible, quantitative information was used (such as changes to potentially displaced GVP) but assessing changes to the case studies was largely qualitative:

Pelagic longliners in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery:

10


The potential impact on pelagic longliners in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery has been reduced under the final proposed marine reserve, but still accounts for around 86 per cent of total GVP potentially displaced by the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve. Additional potential displacement resulting from self-imposed buffer zones to account for gear drift is likely to remain an issue for pelagic longliners operating in the southern areas of the marine reserve that are still accessible for that method (areas 307, 309, 311 and 312; Map 1).

A vertically integrated fishing business in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery: the Lamason Group:

The potential impact on the Lamason Group, which operates in 'area E' of the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery, is likely to remain the same under both the draft and final proposed reserves. The zoning proposed under both the draft and final proposed reserves would exclude the longline fishing method. Flow-on impacts discussed in the case study would likely remain the same under the final proposed reserve.

Onshore processing facilities:

The Mooloolaba onshore processing facility studied, which is potentially impacted by reduced throughput from fisheries products caught in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery, will likely experience a marginally reduced impact, reflecting a reduction in estimated potential displacement from the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery under the final proposed reserve.

Queensland Trawl Fishery:

Potential impacts on T1 entitlement holders in the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery have been reduced substantially under the final proposed reserve. The primary area of potential displacement for T1 entitlement holders under the draft reserve has been rezoned to General Purpose Zone (final proposed area 309), which would allow trawl activity. Estimated GVP displacement is up to 79 per cent lower under the final proposed reserve, with remaining displacement estimated to account for around 0.1 per cent of total fishery GVP.

Charter fishing in the Coral Sea:

The charter fishing potentially displaced by the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve is estimated to be smaller than under the draft marine reserve (Table S3). However, there may be additional localised impacts because of the increase in area of the Marine National Park Zone around Shark and Osprey reefs, and the addition of a Marine National Park Zone around Bougainville Reef (Map 1). The condition to consume caught fish while on the trip, which applied to Habitat Protection Zones in the draft reserve, is no longer applicable under the final proposed reserve. An additional restriction placed on the number of lines per fisher in Conservation Park zones is assumed not to displace charter fishing from those areas. Without further consultation, the nature of this condition on charter fishing is uncertain. Potential indirect effects of the draft reserve, particularly relating to the reported drop in client enquiries, are likely to remain with the final proposed reserve.

Subregional economic modelling of Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and Mooloolaba:

Economic modelling was used to assess the potential impact of the draft marine reserve on the Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and Mooloolaba subregions. Assuming the impact on the economy and employment scales linearly with the magnitude of the impact, the net regional economic impact of the final proposed reserve was estimated to be $7.5 million, corresponding with a loss of 17 full-time equivalent jobs in the short term in directly affected regions.

11


Draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve proposalThis section of the report provides the social and economic assessment of the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve proposal that was open for public consultation between November 2011 and February 2012.

12


1 Background and introductionThe Australian Government is undertaking a marine bioregional planning program in Commonwealth waters. The program includes identifying areas for inclusion in the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas.

For background to marine bioregional planning and the establishment of Commonwealth marine reserves, see the Proposal for the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve—consultation paper (SEWPaC 2011), which presents a proposal for the marine reserve in the Coral Sea, as well as rationale and design principles.

The Coral SeaThe Coral Sea encompasses Commonwealth waters offshore from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park out to the 200 nautical miles limit of Australia’s exclusive economic zone, from Cape York Peninsula to Sandy Cape in Queensland. The Coral Sea is adjacent to the Queensland state jurisdictional waters, and some of the state-managed fisheries overlap the Commonwealth boundaries in the Coral Sea. Queensland is responsible for managing five fisheries in this region through Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements, while the Commonwealth is responsible for two fisheries.

The Coral Sea encompasses the whole or part of the Cape Province, Northeast Transition, Northeast Province, Kenn Transition, Kenn Province and Central Eastern Transition provincial bioregions. Most of the region encompasses waters over the continental slope that are mostly more than 1000 metres deep, although water depth ranges from zero to over 5000 metres (DEWHA 2009). The region is important for the tourism, shipping and commercial fishing industries, as well as for recreational fishing (DEWHA 2009).

The Australian Government has proposed a marine reserve in the Coral Sea (Map 2). This draft marine reserve has different levels of zoning (based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature categories), which affect whether fishing activities can occur within an area. The zones are:

Marine National Park Zone—all fishing excluded

Habitat Protection Zone—handline, rod/reel and hand collection permitted

Special Purpose Zone—handline, rod/reel, hand collection, pot/trap and dropline permitted

Multiple Use Zone—demersal trawl, demersal gillnet and demersal longline excluded.

A more detailed description of the Coral Sea can be found in The East Marine Bioregional Plan: Bioregional Profile (DEWHA 2009).

13


Map 2 Draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve with area numbering

Data sources: marine reserve boundaries from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; coastline from Geoscience Australia

Fisheries in the Coral SeaCommercial fishing is generally defined as the take of fish and other marine life for commercial purposes. In this report, commercial fishing refers to the wild-catch sector (as opposed to aquaculture). Six commercial fisheries operate in the Coral Sea, and are potentially affected by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. Table 2 provides reference information on these potentially affected fisheries, which are managed under the jurisdiction of Queensland or the Commonwealth. A map of total fisheries gross value of production (GVP), for all jurisdictions in the Coral Sea is provided in Map 3 (note that these data are somewhat dated, but the overall patterns of fishing at this scale have not changed). Generally, the most valuable fishing grounds are located on the continental slope, which has depths generally over 1000 metres. Fishing in offshore, oceanic waters is predominantly pelagic tuna longline.

The draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve overlaps some high-value fishing areas, particularly in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish, Coral Sea and Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl fisheries.

Charter fishing in Commonwealth waters off Queensland is managed by the state government. Charter fishing is generally defined as a commercial fee-for-service operation that provides services relating to the taking, capture or catching of fish as part of recreational fishing activities.

14


Table 2 Reference information of potentially impacted fisheries in the Coral SeaFishery Management

arrangementsTarget species Number of

licencesNumber of vessels

Employment Catch Sources

Commonwealth

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery

Before March 2011 Input controls: gear restrictions (total allowable effort: number of hooks that can be deployed) and spatial management. From March 2011Output controls

Striped marlin, broadbill swordfish, albacore, bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna

109 + 10 Coral Sea zone permits (2009–10)

54 (longline) + 3 (minor line) (2009–10)

n.a. 5707 t (2009–10)

ABARES 2011; Woodhams et al. 2011

Coral Sea Fishery Input controls (limited entry, spatial closures, size limits)Output controls (total allowable catch for Sea Cucumber Sector, size restrictions, catch triggers)

Sea cucumber (various spp.), aquarium sector (various spp.), lobster and trochus, finfish, sharks and crustaceans

16 permits incl. Line and Trap (8), Trawl and Trap (2), Sea Cucumber (2), Aquarium (2), Lobster and Trochus (2)(2009–10)

4(2009–10)

n.a. 4 t(2009–10)

Woodhams et al. 2011

Queensland

East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery

Limited entry, tradeable effort units, gear restrictions (vessel length, net head rope length, mesh restrictions) area closures, seasonal closures, daytime closures, mandatory use of turtle exclusion devices and bycatch reduction device

Prawns (various spp.), Moreton Bay bugs, Balmain bugs, squid, saucer scallops

495 (397 T1, 26 T2, 47 M1, 25 M2) (2009)

340 (T1, T2, M1 and M2 combined(2009)

n.a. 7880 t(2009)

DEEDI 2010b

15


Fishery Management arrangements

Target species Number of licences

Number of vessels

Employment Catch Sources

Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (L8)

Licensing, area restrictions/closures, gear restrictions, quota management (some species)

Blue eye trevalla, hapuku, emperors, cods, lutjanids, pearl perch

7 (2009–10) 4 (2009–10) n.a. 50 t (2009–10) DEEDI 2010a

Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (Development Fish Trapping sector)

Limited entry, gear restrictions

Coral Reef Fin Fish (other than coral trout and red emporer)

2 (2007 and 2008 only)

2 (2007 and 2008 only)

n.a. n.a. DEEDI, pers. comm., 2012

East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery: Net sector (N)

Licensing, bag and size limits, netting arrangements

Sea mullet, shark, whiting, bream, flathead, tailor, small mackerels, threadfins, barramundi, garfish

485 (2009–10) 406 (2009–10) n.a. 4843 t (incl. net and line sectors)

DEEDI 2011c

Harvest (incl. Sea Cucumber (bêche-de-mer) Fishery, Coral Fishery, Trochus Fishery and Commercial Tropical Rock Lobster Fishery)

Limited entry, total commercial catch limits, vessel limits, gear restrictions, seasonal closures, spatial closures

Sea cucumber (various spp.), aquarium fish (various spp.), corals (live, ornamental, rock, rubble and sand), trochus, tropical spiny rock lobster

111 28 + 7 + 1 + 10 n.a. 46 t DEEDI 2010d, 2011a, 2011b, 2011d

n.a. = not available

16


Demographics of the Coral SeaThe coastal areas of the Coral Sea incorporate a diverse range of individuals and communities that are linked to the fishing industry. This includes urban centres, for example large metropolitan cities such as Brisbane, regional centres such as Cairns and smaller towns such as Hervey Bay. As would be expected from such a large area, there is diversity in the inhabitants, industries, economies and standard of living.

These differences play an important role in how the potential impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve will be felt by individuals, businesses and communities. They also play an important role in how businesses, communities and individuals will respond to these impacts.

Some key indicators of social and economic characteristics of these communities have been listed in Appendix F: Summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities.

Employment in the fishing industryThe Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) collects data on direct employment within the commercial fishing sector through the census. Data from the 2006 census provides an indication of employment in the consolidated fishing industry by statistical local area (SLA). These data include direct commercial fishing and aquaculture employment, as well as wholesaling and seafood processing. It should be noted that census employment data are not collected at a level that can distinguish between Commonwealth and state fisheries. In addition, it is believed that these data are not disaggregated in sufficient detail as they tend to under-report the number of employees by allocating them to other industries (FRDC 2004).

The 2006 census showed that Queensland employs approximately 23 per cent of the total Australian fishing industry (Table 3).

Table 3 Estimated direct employment in the Australian fishing industry by sector in Queensland and Australia (full-time equivalent positions)Jurisdiction Wild-catch fishing Processing Wholesaling Total

Queensland 964a 275 1035 2274Australia 6217 2002 4202 12 421

a Includes offshore aquaculture. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics census data, August 2006

Map 3 maps the proportion of individuals employed in the consolidated fishing industry (commercial fishing including aquaculture, fish wholesaling and seafood processing) based on 2006 census data. The SLAs with the highest dependency ratio for consolidated fishing industry employment include Willawong (5.9 per cent), Bamaga (3.8 per cent) and Pinkenba-Eagle Farm (1.7 per cent). Other SLAs include Carpentaria (1.3 per cent), Redland and Jacobs Well-Alberton (1.2 per cent each), Torres and Railway Estate (0.9 per cent each).

17


Map 3 All commercial fishing gross value of production (GVP) in the Coral Sea, employment in the consolidated fishing industry and draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Data source: commercial fishing GVP from Larcombe et al. 2006; marine reserve boundaries from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; fishing industry employment from Australian Bureau of Statistics census data, 2006

18


Scope of workABARES was commissioned by the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) to assess the social and economic implications of the proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve. The assessment focuses on impacts to commercial and charter fisheries, the implications for associated local communities and regional economies.

Goals

To develop and refine estimates of the potential displacement of commercial fishing activity (including charter fishing) from the draft marine reserve.

To provide quantitative and qualitative information about the way commercial fisheries inputs and outputs interact with regional economies and associated local communities. This includes potential short-term and longer term responses of those economies and communities to the levels and types of displacement estimated for the draft marine reserve. This information is required to assess potential short-term and longer term impacts on employment and economic flows at local (e.g. key ports) and regional levels.

To provide quantitative and qualitative information about the degree of economic dependence of individual fishers and local communities on fisheries that will potentially be displaced by each proposed reserve.

To provide sufficient data and information about the methods, structure and patterns of potentially affected fisheries to ensure that changes in the design of draft reserve can be evaluated for their relative social and economic impacts.

To provide suitable information to be incorporated in the regulatory impact statement for the draft marine reserve to ensure that the economic and social costs of the proposal are transparent to government.

The social and economic assessment This assessment relates to the impacts on commercial and charter fishing of the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve that was open for public consultation from November 2011 to February 2012 (Map 2). The Australian Government produced a final Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve proposal, following consideration of public submissions and a draft of this assessment of the draft reserve impacts on commercial and charter fishing. ABARES completed an abridged assessment on the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve, which is contained in the supplementary section at the end of this report.

19


The assessment has three main components:

1) Estimates of direct displacement of commercial and charter fishing by the draft marine reserveThis analysis aimed to provide an indication of the potential fishery catch that would be displaced by the marine reserve and place a value on those displaced catches. This was undertaken using the best available fisheries logbook data from each jurisdiction in the period 2000–10.

2) Social impact assessmentThe social impact assessment included an extensive survey of commercial and charter fishers and fishing businesses that may be affected by the draft marine reserves. This survey allowed ABARES to better understand the impacts on individuals and businesses, as well as indirect impacts on the supply chain. The assessment also included in-depth interviews with some industry and community stakeholders, as well as workshops and focus groups in some regions. Secondary data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics were used to understand the socioeconomic characteristics of the fishing sector and communities.

3) Subregional economic modellingEconomic modelling was undertaken on three coastal subregions within the Coral Sea region to determine short-term and long-term impacts of the draft marine reserve on employment and gross regional product.

The assessment provides a variety of information and perspectives on potential impacts. In general, the report progresses from large-scale aggregate impacts across the entire marine reserve in the early chapters, through to a finer scale where the potential impacts to towns, businesses and people are covered. Different data were used to estimate or infer potential impacts at each scale; for example, the analysis in Chapter 2 (Potential displacement of fishing) relied on fisheries logbook data collected by fisheries management agencies, while Chapter 3 (Flow of potential impacts to ports and supply chains) relied on logbook data and a survey of affected businesses. Chapters 4 (Impacts on fishing businesses) and 5 (Community and personal impacts) are drawn predominantly from the survey of affected businesses, but also from focus groups and interviews. Finally, the six case studies use a range of different data and approaches. Some of the case studies use a narrative approach to 'tell the fishers’ story' about potential impacts. For the most part, we have simply reflected the individuals’ perceptions of impact. There is also a case study that used economic modelling to understand impacts on three subregions.

It was not always possible to cross-check information across chapters or scales. For example, cross-checking the stated business impacts with estimates of potential GVP displacement was not possible on a case-by-case basis because individual logbook data were not available. However, where possible, information from other parts of the report is given to provide context. The assessment necessarily relies on responses from individuals through the survey, focus groups or interview data collection. The survey, focus groups and interviews were specifically directed at potentially affected parties, so results from these data represent this potentially affected group and not the wider commercial fisher population in the Coral Sea.

In developing this draft assessment, ABARES consulted and was guided by a working group comprising representatives from the Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Commonwealth Fisheries Association, the Queensland Seafood Industry Association, the Queensland Charter Vessels Association and SEWPaC. The working group met via teleconference every 1–2 weeks. ABARES also relied upon industry liaison officers to

20


help coordinate activities such as the survey and focus groups, relay industry concerns about the scope of impacts and comment on the assessment approach.

21


2 Potential displacement of fishingThis chapter provides estimates of the quantities of catch that would potentially be displaced by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. These estimates are derived from historical catches during the period 2000–10, although reference periods for individual fisheries varied depending on data availability. The gross value of production (GVP) of the potentially displaced catch has also been estimated. This value is intended to reflect recent (2008–10) landed prices or beach prices for product. All values and prices have been adjusted to account for inflation and are expressed in 2010–11 dollars. A full technical explanation of methodology is in Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods. Where a range is reported, the first figure is a best ‘point estimate’ following the methodology and the second figure is an upper bound based on information from the fishing industry and additional analysis.

ABARES used logbook data collected by the Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF Qld) and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, together with price data from DAFF Qld and ABARES to estimate the potential catch and GVP displaced by the draft marine reserve. The following caveats apply to the estimates:

GVP is a relatively simple aggregate measure of the level of commercial fishing activity. See Box 1 for a discussion of more complete measures of the impact of area closures.

The use of historical GVP information to estimate the impact on future fishing activities (i.e. the opportunity cost) should be interpreted with caution. This is because GVP will vary with market demand, inflation, exchange rates and the reference period of analysis. Potential displacement estimates may not incorporate the impact of any historical or long-term cyclical fluctuations in fish stocks, and ignores potential future harvests.

GVP is the assessed value of commercial fishery products at the point of landing for the quantity produced and excludes the cost of transporting, processing and marketing of fish products for wholesale and retail markets. It does not take into account flow-on effects, such as value-adding and other potential benefits to individuals and communities.

Potential displacement estimates are given as annual means spanning up to 11 years. Catches in the most recent years may have been higher or lower than the mean.

Potential displacement calculations are based on different reference periods depending on the jurisdiction. Catch data for Commonwealth fisheries are over a 10-year reference period (2001–10), while data for most Queensland fisheries are over an 11-year reference period (2000–10), with the exception of the T1 sector of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery, which uses a 7-year reference period (2004–10). GVP was calculated from mean 'recent' prices within the reference period 2007–08 to 2009–10.

The estimates use data at different spatial reporting scales, depending on the jurisdiction, and have correspondingly different accuracy when assessing fishing displacement.

The reduction in total GVP following closures of a particular fishing ground is likely to be less than the historical GVP associated with catches in those grounds. Fishers may be able to move to alternative fishing grounds and maintain a similar level of activity, catch and viability of their operations. This may not be the case in some fisheries, and will depend on a number of (potentially interrelated) factors such as economics, distance to port facilities, management arrangements, availability of target species and the suitability of fishing grounds in adjacent areas.

22


Box 1 Assessing the economic impact of marine reserves A variety of different approaches can be used to assess the economic impact of marine reserves. Using historical commercial fishery gross value of production (GVP) and a range of qualitative information is a first step in assessing these impacts.

A full economic assessment would account for all use and non-use values associated with the relevant marine resources, and would estimate the difference between the flows of goods and services over a defined time horizon both with and without the proposed reserve arrangements.

A standard approach for commercial fishing would be to estimate the change in the net present value (NPV) of future net revenues from the affected fisheries under the proposed area closures. Varying levels of sophistication can be brought to this calculation. Ideally, the assessment would take into account the effects of the closures on recruitment and catchability, changes in fishery management related to the area closures, the costs of accessing alternate fishing grounds and the behavioural response of fishers to the area closures.

Estimating historical fishery revenue is relatively straightforward, but cost information is less readily available. Regular surveys are available for Commonwealth fisheries (see ABARES 2011a).

Using a gross revenue measure such as GVP does not account for the costs involved in generating that revenue or net revenues generated by downstream industries. The spatial variation of these costs affects the value of different fishing grounds.

Temporal factors are important to consider under different valuation approaches. In response to area closures, fishers may shift their effort to other areas and possibly other fisheries within fishery management and profitability constraints. Historical measures give some indication of how much of a shock is applied to different fisheries, but while some fisheries may be able to adjust to a large shock with relatively little reduction in net revenues others may be forced to contract—if, for example, no other fishing grounds are available. In addition, some increase in stocks and resilience of stocks to environmental shocks may result from area closures. However, predicting the magnitude of these effects is difficult.

GVP is a relatively simple aggregate measure of the level of commercial fishing activity. However, caution should be used if historical GVP information is used to estimate the impact of marine reserves on future fishing activities. The reduction in total GVP following closure of particular fishing grounds is likely to be less than the historical GVP associated with catches in those grounds.

Impacts on the wider economyThis assessment uses a model to examine the impact of a contraction in the fisheries sector on the wider economy. The AusRegion dynamic computable general equilibrium model of the Australian economy is used to examine the net economic impact of a marine reserve to part, or all, of the Australian economy. The economic effects of the changes are reported as changes in gross product at the regional, state and national level. The historical GVP measures are likely to overestimate the impact of the marine reserves and thus the broader estimates of economic impact should be interpreted as upper bound estimates.

23


Area closures and entitlement valuesFishing entitlements derive their value from the profits that fishers expect to earn from the fishing access rights that entitlements provide. Restricting access to a fishery through area closures, such as marine reserves, may directly affect the future commercial returns that can be generated and as such would be expected to affect the value of fishing entitlements.

Area closures can potentially affect the value of a fishery and its entitlements in a number of ways. Most obviously, exclusion from historical fishing grounds will reduce access to known productive areas and can be expected to reduce fishery profits in the immediate and longer term. Exclusion from fishing grounds that are currently unprofitable may also affect the value of a fishing entitlement; for example, changes in fish prices or fishing costs may significantly improve the attractiveness of currently unused areas. The option to develop new areas of a fishery has some value and may be affected by changes in fishing access arrangements.

Secondary effects of area closures may also affect the value of fishing entitlements. For example, an area closure may affect stock availability in adjacent areas, changing the productivity of areas which remain open. The net effect of all of these factors will be reflected in the change in value of fishery entitlements.

Commercial fishing potential displacement Some valuable Queensland fisheries operate partially within the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve, including the East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery (sectors T1, T2, M1, M2; $62.8 million GVP in 2011), Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (L1 and L8; $28.9 million GVP in 2011), the net sector of the East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery ($19.1 million GVP in 2011) and other harvest fisheries (DEEDI, pers. comm., 2012). In 2007 and 2008, developmental fish trapping permits were active in the Queensland Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery; however, fish trapping activity in this fishery ceased in 2008.

For Commonwealth fisheries, the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery ($30 million GVP in 2009–10) is partially within the Coral Sea, while the entire Coral Sea Fishery is within the Coral Sea (ABARES 2011).

The overall total catch and GVP during 2009–10 was 25 562 tonnes and $222 million for potentially impacted wild-catch Queensland fisheries, and 46 630 tonnes and $317 million for potentially impacted wild-catch Commonwealth fisheries (ABARES 2011).

It is estimated that the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve would potentially displace an annual average of between 804 tonnes and 820 tonnes of catch with a gross value of between $4.5 million and $4.7 million; $4.2 million would be displaced from Commonwealth fisheries (Table 4) and between $263 400 and $468 900 from Queensland fisheries (Table 5).

24


Table 4 Estimated potential displacement of catch and gross value of production (GVP) in Commonwealth fisheries by the draft Coral Sea Marine ReserveFishery Total catch displaced

(tonnes)Total GVP displaced ($’000)

Percentage of total fishery GVP

Coral Sea Fishery 80.7 377.5 51.7Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery 696.0 3820.9 9.7Total 776.6 4198.3

Data source: Australian Fisheries Management Authority

Table 5 Estimated potential displacement of catch and gross value of production (GVP) in Queensland fisheries by the draft Coral Sea Marine ReserveFishery Symbol Catch

total (tonne)

Catch rank

GVP total ($’000)

GVP rank

Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (L8; Multiple Hooks—East Coast)

L8 12.5* 2 86.5* 2

Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (Developmental Fish Trapping sector)a

n.a. * 4 * 4

East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery T1 13.4–29.5 1 169.7–375.3 1East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery, net sector N * 3 * 3Harvest fisheries n.a. * 5 * 5Total 27.2–43.4 263.4–468.9

n.a. = not availablea The Development Fish Trapping sector of the Queensland Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery has been included to remain consistent with the methodology employed by ABARES in the displacement estimates. Note, however, that this was an exploratory fishery that only operated in 2007 and 2008.Note: Estimates are mean annual for the reference period. Confidential data are marked with an asterisk (*). In some fisheries, only one area is confidential. In these cases, the total does not include the confidential value as it would be possible to back-calculate the displacement from that area. These are denoted by showing the sum of the non-confidential areas followed by an asterisk (e.g. 2.8*)Data source: Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

The most affected fisheries in terms of tonnage and GVP would be the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery, the Commonwealth Coral Sea Fishery and the T1 sector of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery (Table 4 and Table 5). Table 6 to Table 10 provide estimates of potential displacement for each fishery by areas within the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

Estimates of mean potential displacement have high accuracy for the two Commonwealth fisheries (shot-by-shot position data) and medium accuracy for the Queensland fisheries (6-minute scale data where available, otherwise 30-minute grid data), with the exception of the Queensland Trawl Fishery, which has higher accuracy (vessel-monitoring system position data).

25


Commonwealth fisheries—catch and gross value of productionTable 6 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced in Commonwealth fisheries by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Catch (tonnes) Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Total

Percentage of total fishery catch

Rank order

Fishery Method 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308Coral Sea Fishery Demersal longline 14.9 9.0 7.0 9.1 39.9 98.3 2Coral Sea Fishery Demersal trawl * * 26.6 0.7 27.9 99.9 3Coral Sea Fishery Dive 0.8 0.8 10.1 6Coral Sea Fishery Dropline * 2.6 * 2.8 5.5 15.9 5Coral Sea Fishery Handline/rod * * * 7Coral Sea Fishery Trap * * * * 4Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery All methods 377.2 3.7 1.3 1.4 0.0 312.3 696.0 10.6 1 Total 392.1* 3.7* 16.7 1.4* 0.0 33.6 328.9 776.6

Marine National Park Zone Habitat Protection Zone Special Purpose Zone Multiple Use Zone

* = confidential dataNote: Rank orders have been included to define highest to lowest displacement due to the high degree of confidentiality associated with the data. Column and row totals use the best available data given confidentiality constraints and so may be higher than the sum of the values making up the column or row. The total value at the bottom right includes all data and is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the draft marine reserve or did not use incompatible methods for the zoning are not included in the table. Estimates have high accuracy because they are based on shot-by-shot position data (latitude and longitude). Subtotals marked with an asterisk do not include confidential components.

26


Table 7 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production (GVP) displaced in Commonwealth fisheries by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve

GVP ($’000) Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Total


Rank order

Fishery Method 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308Coral Sea Fishery Demersal longline 32.5 19.4 27.9 36.6 116.4 97.2 3Coral Sea Fishery Demersal trawl * * 140.9 7.4 152.6 99.9 2Coral Sea Fishery Dive 5.1 5.1 11.1 6Coral Sea Fishery Dropline * 43.6 * 13.6 60.4 29.8 4Coral Sea Fishery Handline/rod * * * 7Coral Sea Fishery Trap * * * * 5Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery All methods 2526.1 21.1 7.9 7.2 0.3 1258.2 3820.9 9.7 1 Total 2558.6* 21.1* 98.1 7.2* 0.3 168.9 1340.3 4198.3


* = confidential dataNote: Rank orders have been included to define highest to lowest displacement due to the high degree of confidentiality associated with the data. Column and row totals use the best available data given confidentiality constraints and so may be higher than the sum of the values making up the column or row. The total value at the bottom right includes all data and is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the draft marine reserve or did not use incompatible methods for the zoning are not included in the table. Estimates have high accuracy because they are based on shot-by-shot position data (latitude and longitude). Subtotals marked with an asterisk do not include confidential components.

27


Queensland fisheries—catch and gross value of productionTable 8 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced in Queensland fisheries by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Catch (tonnes) Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Total

Percentage of total fishery catch

Rank orderFishery Method 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308

Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (L8 sector) All methods 1.4 * * 1.2 12.6 24.4 2Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (Developmental Fish Trapping sector)a Fish trapping * * * 4East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery (net sector) Gillnetting * * * * * 3East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery (T1 sector) Trawling * * * *

10.6–26.7 13.4 0.2 1

Harvest fisheriesHookah diving * * * 5

Total * 2.2 * *10.9–

28.3 14.6–

43.4


* = confidential data; GVP = gross value of productiona The Development Fish Trapping sector of the Queensland Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery has been included here to remain consistent with the methodology employed by ABARES in the displacement estimates. Note, however, that this was an exploratory fishery that only operated in 2007 and 2008. Note: Rank orders have been included to define highest to lowest displacement due to the high degree of confidentiality associated with the data. Column and row totals use the best available data given confidentiality constraints and so may be higher than the sum of the values making up the column or row. The total value at the bottom right includes all data and is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the draft marine reserve or did not use incompatible methods for the zoning are not included in the table. Estimates are based on 6-minute site data and 30-minute grids (medium accuracy) with a reference period of 2000–10, with the exception of the T1 sector of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery, which uses a 7-year reference period (2004–10) to match data provided for the vessel-monitoring system–based methodology. Prices used to calculate GVP have been revised to reflect recent prices as per the preferred methodology.

28


Table 9 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production (GVP) displaced in Queensland fisheries by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve

GVP ($’000) Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Total


Rank orderFishery Method 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308

Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (L8 sector) All methods 18.2 * * 7.8 87.8 6.7 2Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (Developmental Fish Trapping sector)a Fish trapping * * * 4East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery (net sector) Gillnetting * * * * * 3East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery (T1 sector) Trawling * * * *

135.5–341.0

169.7–375.3 0.2 1


Total * 25.3 * *136.7–

350.1 175.6–

468.9


* = confidential data; GVP = gross value of productiona The Development Fish Trapping sector of the Queensland Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery has been included to remain consistent with the methodology employed by ABARES in the displacement estimates. Note, however, that this was an exploratory fishery that only operated in 2007 and 2008. Note: Rank orders have been included to define highest to lowest displacement due to the high degree of confidentiality associated with the data. Column and row totals use the best available data given confidentiality constraints and so may be higher than the sum of the values making up the column or row. The total value at the bottom right includes all data and is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the draft marine reserve or did not use incompatible methods for the zoning are not included in the table. Estimates are based on 6-minute site data and 30-minute grids (medium accuracy) with a reference period of 2000–010, with the exception of the T1 sector of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery, which uses a 7-year reference period (2004–10) to match data provided for the vessel-monitoring system–-based methodology. Prices used to calculate GVP have been revised to reflect recent prices as per the preferred methodology.

29


Links to other marine regions–fisheriesThere may be cumulative impacts to the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (43.6 tonnes displaced; $261 700 GVP) by the draft Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network (ABARES 2012c), although this is relatively small compared with estimated displacement from the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve.

Reliability and trends over time Some important issues for interpreting the estimates of potential displacement are noted in this section. A full set of notes on the methodology along with caveats is contained in Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods.

Potentially displaced catch and GVP are thought to be reasonably well estimated across the entire marine reserve. However, individual estimates at a finer scale (e.g. a single fishery within a single area) are thought to be less reliable for some fisheries that use coarser scale data.

Time trends in total annual catch for each potentially affected fishery are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. These illustrate gross trends in the fishery and are expressed in relative terms (percentage change relative to the mean). The Queensland Trochus Fishery and the Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (including L1 and L8 symbols because of data restrictions) have the most variability around the mean.

The Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery had a GVP of approximately $30 million in 2009–10, but it was as high as $95 million in 2001–02. Production and GVP in the Commonwealth Coral Sea Fishery has declined significantly since 2006–07, recording a GVP of approximately $170 000 in 2008–09. The fishery also had fewer than five operators in 2009–10 (resulting in data being confidential). The GVP of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery has remained relatively constant over the reference period; however, localised parts of the fishery, including the potentially affected area around Swain Reefs have experienced significant yearly variation (Figure 20).

In summary, fisheries in the Coral Sea have had variable production over the reference period—some have experienced significant declines, while others have been relatively stable. No potentially affected fishery appears to have substantially increased overall production over the reference period; however, this does not preclude the possibility for (re)expansion in future.

30


Figure 1 Trends in Commonwealth fisheries gross value of production

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery

Coral Sea Fishery

Perc

enta

ge d

eviati

on fr

om av

erag

e

Data source: Australian Fisheries Management Authority

Figure 2 Trends in Queensland fisheries gross value of production

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

Harvest (trochus only)

East Coast Otter Trawl

Deep Water Fin Fish

East Coast Inshore Fin Fish

Perc

enta

ge d

eviati

on fr

om av

erag

e

Note: GVP data were not available for harvest fisheries. Percentage deviation for the Harvest Fishery (trochus only) is based on retained weight.Data sources: Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Charter fishing potential displacement Queensland charter activity may be displaced from the Marine National Park Zone (area 308), and there are potential impacts on Habitat Protection zones (303, 304, 305 and 306) because caught fish must be released or eaten on the trip. Overall displacement of charter fishing is around 53 days of fishing and 6 472 kilograms of catch each year (Table 10); however, most of this is from the draft Habitat Protection zones and therefore may not actually be displaced.

Charter operators who were interviewed as part of the social impact assessment process emphasised that the value of the charter industry is not connected to the weight of fish caught.

31


Operators advised that the revenue generated from catching a fish on a charter fishing trip far exceeds the price that fish would receive in a market.

Table 10 Potential annual average displacement of Queensland charter fishing activityCoral Sea Marine Reserve

301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 TotalCatch (kilograms) * * * * * 6472Days * * * * * 53Boats * * * * * 9


* = confidential data Note: Habitat Protections zones (303, 304, 305 and 306) are subject to changed conditions. Charter activity may continue in these reserves, but must abide by ‘catch and release’ or ‘catch and eat on trip’ rules. Values for individual reserves are not published because of confidentiality constraints. Data source: Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

Estimates of potentially displaced charter fishing rely on logbook data recorded by charter operators. Therefore, there is potential for measurement and recording error in these estimates.

Based on information obtained during interviews with 15 Queensland charter operators, it appears that only a small number of boats access the areas within the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

Qualitative data suggests that the effects of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve on the charter industry cannot be fully captured using quantitative methods. Operators advised that the marine reserve will potentially reduce their client numbers because the restrictions on the fishing grounds they can use will affect the quality of the fishing experience they can provide. Operators also attribute the recent slump in client numbers to customers’ erroneous perception that the entire Coral Sea region is closed to charter fishing activities. A detailed examination of the potential impacts on the charter fishing industry in Queensland is provided in the Case study: Charter fishing in the Coral Sea.

Prospective fishingIn this report, prospective fishing is treated as potential fishing that has not been accounted for in the estimates of potential direct displacement of catch and GVP. Prospective fisheries range from short-term prospects that have been clearly identified, through to long-term, speculative prospects. Establishing the full long-term set of fisheries development possibilities (i.e. the present value of all future fisheries opportunities) for the oceans within the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve is outside the scope of this report. Instead, we focus on the short term, where there is evidence that companies or individuals have made specific plans or investments to develop prospects, where potential for expansion has been clearly identified by fisheries management, and where there are strong, well-defined rights of access. This section provides a brief overview of the concepts of prospective fishing, and highlights several fisheries where evidence is available and where these prospects were raised during the ABARES consultation process.

Prospective fishing includes:

development of completely new fisheries (e.g. for new species and using new fishing methods, targeting practices or fishing areas)

32


fisheries where there is capacity for expansion within long-term sustainable limits, based on the size or productivity of the fish stock, or recovery of depleted stocks

expansion of current fisheries into new fishing areas or intermittently productive fishing areas, or movement back into historically productive areas, or by using new methods or targeting practices

redevelopment of fisheries that have ceased operating or are operating at a reduced level (e.g. catches that are well below defined long-term sustainable management levels).

In addition, some developed fisheries such as prawns, scallops and squid, are highly variable through time and space. Areas may not be fished for years but are still part of the mosaic of potentially productive grounds that make up the fishery. If historical reference periods are too short then periods of activity within a given area may not be captured.

Prospective fishing is fundamentally about the future and cannot always be predicted from past activity. It is therefore difficult to quantitatively assess and assign a value to the prospectivity of any given fishery or area of ocean.

There are several factors to consider when assessing the value a fisher places on a prospective fishery. Any value that the fisher determines would need to take account of the perceived value if the fishery is developed to its potential, the likelihood of an individual accessing the fishery, the likelihood of the fishery reaching its expected potential and the fisher’s time-value of money.

In light of this, factors that may influence the value of a prospective fishery include:

the expected abundance and quality of stocks

the expected costs of accessing, harvesting and transporting the stocks

the expected market price at the time at which the stocks will be sold

the confidence in the assessment of the fishery

the likelihood that the area will be used preferentially over other prospective areas

the expected time of accessing the prospective fishery.

Given that the value of fisheries endorsements is closely related to the value of a fishery, these factors also have the potential to affect the value of endorsements. In addition, because of the need to adjust for the risk and time involved with prospective fisheries, their value is often significantly less than the value of their expected potential. In an attempt to account for temporal variability in fisheries, where suitable, a relatively long reference period was applied when generating the estimates of potential displacement —however, in some cases the availability of finer scale data necessitated a shorter reference period.

The following examples of prospective fishing were found in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve:

Some operators in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery have recently started to use the summer months—traditionally a less productive time of year—to fish the ‘albacore zone’. This area is located in the draft Marine National Park Zone of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve, and is a long distance from shore. Some operators have made investments in equipment more suited to this environment; however, as this part of the fishery is still in development it is not fully reflected in estimates of displaced catch.

33


A Mooloolaba-based processor suggested that demand for albacore has recently increased because some of the larger supermarkets have judged it to be sustainably caught. The extra value for albacore resulting from this increased demand will potentially be lost as a result of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve, because one of the main albacore fishing grounds will exclude pelagic longlining, which is the main method used for catching the species.

A Hervey Bay–based fishing and processing company reported efforts to increase production of threadfin bream (’pinkies’). New freezers bought to process king prawns may also be used to increase the value of threadfin bream, which was traditionally a less valuable bycatch species. The ability to catch this species would be likely to be impacted by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

One company that previously operated in the Coral Sea held an exploratory licence for deepwater crustaceans, including carabinero and alistado prawns. This did not develop into a commercial fishery, reportedly because their harvest was not economic given prevailing economic conditions. However, factors such as better technology and improved price have the potential to make the harvest of these species economic in the future.

Placing a value on prospective fisheries is a difficult task and was outside the scope of this assessment. In the case of licences, it appears likely that part of the value of fishing rights is associated with the full scope of prospective fisheries that could be developed under that right. This is particularly the case for tradeable statutory fishing rights in fisheries with management measures that actively limit fishing. If the prospective values of a licence are diminished then the value of the licence may also be diminished.

Fisheries managementChanges to the current management of a fishery may be necessary after the announcement of the final marine reserve boundaries. Where a significant amount of fishing effort is displaced by the marine reserve, management may need to consider how this effort will be redistributed or removed. Any changes will need to be assessed in the context of the magnitude of the impact and managers will need to determine if the remaining effort within the fishery triggers a reassessment of the current management arrangements. Management arrangements also need to consider any increased pressure as a result of displaced operators moving within or between fisheries. Any management changes will be fishery specific and dependent on the nature of the fishery, but management agencies may need to consider changes to the input (e.g. limited entry, area or spatial closures) or output controls (e.g. total allowable catch, individual transferable quotas). This report does not attempt to assess the cost of fisheries management changes that are directly attributable to the marine reserve.

34


3 Flow of potential impacts to ports and supply chains

This chapter examines the ‘flow’ of impacts from the proposed exclusion of fishing and associated catches within an area of ocean through to towns and communities and their resident businesses. The chapter is partly informed by results from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) survey Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia, conducted as part of this assessment. The survey contained specific questions about where respondents sourced inputs from, and where they sent their products to. For an explanation of the social assessment methodology, see Appendix B: Social impact assessment methods.

Flow of potential impact was examined using three approaches:

1) Fishing vessel home port or landing port of the displaced catch. This approach relies on the logbook and ancillary data supplied by each jurisdiction and makes a direct link between the estimates of potential displacement (Table 4 and Table 5) and where that catch is landed or the home port of the fishing vessel.

2) The location of inputs to fishing businesses (upstream impacts). This approach relies on supply chain data from the survey, where respondents were asked to nominate where they source inputs to their fishing business (such as fuel, bait, ice, fishing gear and maintenance). Reductions in catch volumes or changes to fishing behaviour would then be expected to flow ‘upstream’ to those businesses and towns that supply inputs to affected fishers.

3) The location of outputs from fishing businesses (downstream impacts). This approach relies on supply chain data from the survey, where respondents were asked where their catch is landed (or distributed directly to). Reductions in catch volumes would be expected to flow ‘downstream’ to those businesses and towns that receive outputs from affected fishers.

Flow of gross value of production to ports The flow of potentially displaced gross value of production (GVP) to towns and coastal communities was estimated using fisheries logbook data and ancillary fisheries data held by fisheries management agencies. In terms of gross total impact, the primary towns would be Cairns and Mooloolaba. To a lesser extent Hervey Bay, Brisbane, Bundaberg, Mackay and Gladstone would also be affected (Map 4).

The potentially most impacted subregions of Cairns, Mooloolaba and Hervey Bay–Bundaberg are the subject of economic modelling (refer to the Case study: Economic modelling of Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and Mooloolaba).

35


Map 4 Flow of potentially displaced gross value of production (GVP) to ports

Note: Commonwealth GVP flow estimates are based on recorded home port of vessel or landing port for quota-managed fisheries. Queensland estimates are based on recorded landing location.

Inputs to fishing business—upstream impactsThe flow of impacts to upstream businesses (i.e. those that supply products to fishing businesses) was determined through the survey. Results reflect responses from survey respondents who indicated that they would be impacted by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

Respondents reported that the largest number of upstream businesses that are potentially affected by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve are located in Mooloolaba (91 businesses), Cairns (39 businesses), Brisbane (38 businesses) and Hervey Bay (32 businesses) (Map 5). Respondents also identified several towns in New South Wales that have potentially impacted input businesses. As not all potentially affected fishers returned a survey, there are likely to be other potentially impacted businesses that have not been identified.

36


Map 5 Number of input businesses identified as potentially impacted by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Note: Input businesses provide goods and services such as fuel and lubricants, bait, ice, fishing gear, repairs/maintenance, boat slipping and accessories/chandlery.Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

Map 6 shows the number of survey respondents who source inputs from each location. The most frequently identified towns for supplying inputs were Brisbane (18 respondents), Mooloolaba (15 respondents) and Bundaberg (10 respondents). A small number of respondents source inputs from Sydney (7 respondents) and several fishing towns along the New South Wales coast supply inputs to 1–5 respondents.

37


Map 6 Number of respondents who source inputs from this location for their fishing business

Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

Through focus groups and interviews, chandlery businesses in Mooloolaba expressed concern that the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve would reduce the fishing activity of their clients and reduce demand for marine accessories. These chandleries advised that such a reduction would result in a loss of economies of scale and force them to increase the prices for their goods.

Output from fishing businesses—downstream impacts The flow of impacts to downstream businesses (i.e. those that receive products from fishing businesses) was determined through the survey (Map 7). Only survey responses from people who indicated that they would be impacted by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve are reported.

38


Businesses that receive outputs from fishing operators and that would be impacted by the draft reserve are located in Mooloolaba (nine businesses), Cairns and Hervey Bay (seven businesses each). In addition to impacts in Queensland, several towns along the New South Wales coast had one or two businesses (predominantly fishermen's cooperatives) receiving fisheries products harvested in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

Map 7 Number of output businesses identified as potentially affected by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Note: Output businesses provide goods and services related to receiving, transport and processing of catch.Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

Map 8 shows the number of survey respondents who send outputs to each location. The most frequently identified towns for outputs were Mooloolaba (15 respondents), Hervey Bay

39


(5 respondents), Cairns and Gladstone (4 respondents each). Several towns in New South Wales, including Coffs Harbour, Eden and Ulladulla, received outputs from 3 to 5 survey respondents.

Map 8 Number of respondents who send outputs to this location for their fishing business


The information obtained from focus groups and interviews highlighted the concern among Mooloolaba businesses receiving outputs that the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve will reduce the volume of fisheries products available for their business through decreased fishing activity, and that this reduction will prevent them from meeting their significant overhead costs (see Case study: Onshore processing facilities).

40

Exposure Sensitivity

Potential impact Adaptive capacity

Vulnerability


Town and local area summaryTo identify which communities would be impacted most by the displacement of GVP resulting from the declaration of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve, data on flow of impacts to towns was combined with demographic and socioeconomic data. Figure 3 summarises the elements that make up community vulnerability. Community vulnerability combines measures of a community's exposure (GVP displaced per capita), sensitivity (percentage employment in commercial wild-catch fishing) and adaptive capacity (community socioeconomic characteristics). It provides a broad view of which communities will potentially face the biggest impacts and which might be least able to adapt to these changes. It is important to read the methods section in Appendix D: Developing an index of community vulnerability regarding construction, caveats and limitations before interpreting the vulnerability index.

Figure 3 Conceptual model of community vulnerability

Source: Allen Consulting Group 2005, based on Schröter and The A Team Consortium 2004

The following approach was used to identify which communities would be impacted most by the displacement of GVP resulting from the declaration of the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve.

A composite index of community vulnerability was constructed and analysed to provide an initial understanding of which communities may be most impacted and least adaptable. A complete set of impact flow and supply chain results, together with a community vulnerability index ranking and demographic data, are presented in Appendix F: Summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities. Methods, caveats and limitations on the index are provided in Appendix D: Developing an index of community vulnerability.

Communities were identified where total flow of potentially displaced GVP is greater than or equal to $50 000 or where displaced GVP per capita is greater than or equal to $20.00 per person.

Communities that meet either of the criteria above are reported on with the addition of data on supply chain businesses, employment in the commercial fishing industry (sensitivity) and community characteristics influencing adaptive capacity.

41


Community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity Table 11 presents community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures. Eight towns have a potential flow of GVP impact greater than $50 000 per year. In descending order, these are Cairns, Mooloolaba, Hervey Bay, Bundaberg, Brisbane, Mackay, Hobart and Gladstone.

Table 11 Community, exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity — draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve

SENSITIVITY

Town Population geographyGVP displaced

($'000 max) PopulationGVP displaced per capita ($)

Fishing industry

employment (% of total

employment)

Economic diversity

index

ARIA remoteness

index

Median household

income ($/week)

SEIFA index of relative

disadvantage

Cairns Cairns (C) - City 2350.1 122 736 19.1 0.39 0.88 2 1050 6

MooloolabaMaroochy (S)-Mooloolaba + Caloundra (C)-Kawana 1548.8 30 563 50.7 0.60 0.88 0 935 7

Hervey Bay Hervey Bay (C) - Pt A 241.6 48 155 5.0 0.60 0.89 1 655 3

Bundaberg Bundaberg (C) 153.0 59 774 2.6 0.42 0.93 1 735 4

Brisbane Brisbane (statistical division) 98.3 1 763 124 0.1 0.13 0.91 0 1192 7

Mackay Mackay (C) - Pt A 64.1 72 847 0.9 0.10 0.71 1 1144 6

Hobart Hobart (C) - Remainder 60.2 200 516 0.3 0.59 0.88 1 884 5

Gladstone Gladstone (C) 59.2 29 083 2.0 0.23 0.83 1 1189 6

EXPOSURE ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

ARIA = Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia; C = City; GVP = gross value of production; S = Shire; SEIFA =Socio-Economic Indexes For AreasNote: The 'traffic light' indicators for each measure follow the logic of green being a positive measure through to red being a negative measure. Indicators are based on a measures distribution within the group of localities. Australian Bureau of Statistics population data are available for a variety of geographies within the Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC). To reflect the most appropriate representation of a community's population, different geographies were used to calculate the GVP displaced per capita. Data source: Commonwealth and QLD logbook data; Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006

Based on the GVP displaced per capita, Mooloolaba is the only community with an exposure of greater than or equal to $20.00 per capita. Cairns falls just below the threshold cut-off for GVP displaced per capita of greater than or equal to $20.00. However, this figure will most likely exceed $20.00 GVP displacement per capita due to the cumulative impacts of the draft Coral Sea marine reserve and the draft North Marine Reserves Network.

Mooloolaba and Cairns were assessed further by adding data on supply chain businesses, employment in the commercial fishing industry (sensitivity) and community characteristics influencing adaptive capacity. These additional data are reported at the statistical local area (SLA) level because this better represents the regional social and economic catchments that the communities sit within, are influenced by and are accessible to community members.

MooloolabaGVP estimates indicate that the maximum potential displacement linked to Mooloolaba from logbook data is $1.5 million. Survey results identified 91 upstream and 9 output businesses that could potentially be impacted, and this GVP displacement may flow through to the Mooloolaba community via the supply chain. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Mooloolaba is $50.67. Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the SLAs of Maroochy (S) - Mooloolaba and Caloundra (C) - Kawana, which represent Mooloolaba, have very low employment in the consolidated fishing industry (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] data indicates 0.60 per cent), have a low level of socioeconomic disadvantage

42


(Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas [SEIFA] decile ranking of 7), have a highly diverse economy (0.88), have a median household income that is slightly lower than the rest of Australia ($935.25 weekly), are located in a major city area (Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia [ARIA] ranking of 0) and have a relatively moderate population (population for both SLAs was 30 563 in 2006).

This assessment indicates that Mooloolaba is most likely to feel the greatest degree of impact due to displaced GVP from the declaration of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve and has a relatively high capacity to adapt. The cumulative impact of GVP displaced in Mooloolaba due to the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve and the draft Temperate East Marine Reserves Network should be noted.

CairnsThe exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Cairns is $19.15. However, because this figure will probably exceed $20.00 due to the cumulative impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve and North Marine Reserves Network, Cairns is assessed in further detail.

Based on the GVP estimates, the maximum potential displacement linked to Cairns from logbook data is $2.4 million. The survey identified 39 input businesses and 7 output businesses that may be impacted by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve, and this displaced GVP may flow through to the Cairns community via the supply chain. Cairns is situated in the SLA of Cairns (C), which has a relatively large population (122 736 people in 2006) and a very low dependence on the consolidated fishing industry for employment (0.39 per cent based on ABS data). Cairns is not considered to be disadvantaged (SEIFA decile ranking 6). This SLA is in an outer regional area (ARIA ranking of 2), its economy is highly diverse (0.88) and households have a slightly lower median income ($1049.69 weekly) than the rest of Australia.

This assessment is based on ABS census data from 2006, which may not reflect more recent changes in this area. Key informants from Cairns who participated in interviews and focus groups reported that Cairns had recently been impacted by a downturn in tourism, partly due to the high Australian dollar, and has felt the impacts of bad weather events, including cyclones. Some of these issues are explored in the section on Other issues and cumulative factors impacting fishing businesses in Chapter 4.

This assessment suggests that the high absolute potential GVP displacement to port from the Coral Sea Marine Reserve combined with the additional impacts of the draft North Marine Reserves Network and other factors negatively impacting the community, may significantly affect some parts of the Cairns community. Overall, however, Cairns does exhibit characteristics that will assist in its adaptation to these impacts.

Links to other marine regions–towns and local areasCumulative impacts may occur to towns in the Coral Sea from displaced GVP from other draft marine reserves. The most substantial include cumulative impacts to Cairns from the draft North Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network ($1.8 million annual average displaced GVP) (ABARES 2012b), and the cumulative impacts to Mooloolaba from the draft Temperate East Marine Reserves Network ($180 000) (ABARES 2012c).

Potential impacts on the economyThree coastal subregions (Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and Mooloolaba) that would potentially experience higher impacts from the draft marine reserve were modelled to estimate

43


the economic effects of the displacement of GVP. A full description is provided in the Case study: Economic modelling of Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and Mooloolaba.

CairnsThe Cairns (local government area) economy accounted for approximately 3 per cent of Queensland’s economy in 2010–11. The fishing sector (including catching and processing, but excluding retail) accounted for approximately 2 per cent of the local economy (Figure 4). Services sectors (including construction, retail and wholesale trade, restaurants and hotels, transport, public services and other services) accounted for 87 per cent of the local economy, a substantial proportion of which is connected with tourism. The manufacturing and mining sectors accounted for 10 per cent and 1 per cent of the local economy, respectively.

Figure 4 Structure of the Cairns economy

Fisheries; 2%

Forestry/ agricul-ture; <1%

Mining; 1%

Manufacturing; 10%

Services; 87%

Data source: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences

According to the 2006 census, Cairns had a population of approximately 123 000. The unemployment rate was 4.3 per cent, compared with the national unemployment rate at the time of 5.2 per cent.

MooloolabaThe Mooloolaba economy accounted for less than 1 per cent of Queensland’s economy in 2010–11. The fishing sector (including catching and processing, but excluding retail) accounted for approximately 3 per cent of the local economy (Figure 5). Services sectors (including construction, retail and wholesale trade, restaurants and hotels, transport, public services and other services) accounted for 86 per cent of the local economy, a substantial proportion of which is connected with tourism. The manufacturing sector was the next largest sector, accounting for approximately 11 per cent of the local economy.

44


Figure 5 Structure of the Mooloolaba economy

Fisheries; 3%

Forestry/ agriculture; <1%

Mining; <1%

Manufacturing; 11%

Services; 86%


According to the 2006 census, Mooloolaba had a population of approximately 30 600. The unemployment rate was 5.3 per cent, marginally higher than the national unemployment rate at the time of 5.2 per cent.

Hervey Bay and BundabergThe Hervey Bay and Bundaberg economies collectively accounted for approximately 2 per cent of Queensland’s economy in 2010–11. The fishing sector (including catching and processing, but excluding retail) accounted for approximately 1 per cent of the local economy (Figure 6). Services sectors (including construction, retail and wholesale trade, restaurants and hotels, transport, public services and other services) accounted for 81 per cent of the local economy, a substantial proportion of which is connected with tourism. The manufacturing and forestry/agriculture sectors accounted for 15 per cent and 2 per cent of the local economy, respectively.

45


Figure 6 Structure of the Hervey Bay–Bundaberg economy

Fisheries; 1%

Forestry/ agriculture; 2%

Mining; 1%

Manufacturing; 15%

Services; 81%


According to the 2006 census, the Hervey Bay–Bundaberg region had a combined population of approximately 108 000. The unemployment rate was 8.1 per cent, which was considerably higher than the national unemployment rate at the time of 5.2 per cent.

Modelling was undertaken using AusRegion, which is a dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of the Australian economy at the national level, the level of the eight states and territories, and selected subregional levels. It was used to examine the net economic impact to the economy and to employment in both the short term (2012–13) and the long term (2019–20).

The modelling demonstrates how the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve is likely to affect gross regional product and employment.

Economic impacts are expected to be felt both directly through reduced fisheries production and indirectly through decreased activity for those businesses that supply inputs to, and process outputs from, the fishing industry. These impacts are expected to occur in towns within, and to some extent adjacent to, the Coral Sea region. The combined effects of the direct and indirect impacts are captured in changes to economic activity and employment at the subregional level. The results indicate a small to negligible percentage decline in gross regional product (GRP), relative to the reference case, in the subregions in both the short term and the long term.

Applying the modelled percentage impacts as a result of the decline in GVP, the projected decline in GRP from the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve in the three modelled subregions was estimated to be $7.6 million in the short term. As the three subregions accounted for 91–95 per cent of the total estimated potential GVP displacement, linear scaling of the effects suggest a total projected decline in GRP of $8.0-8.4 million in real terms each year in the short term, compared with the baseline. There are likely to be flow-on effects in other regions; however, changes in economic activity at the state and national level are negligible in terms of the size of those economies.

46


Potential impacts on employmentThe potential impact of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve on jobs was estimated using two methodologies: economic modelling (see Case study: Economic modelling of Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and Mooloolaba) and the survey of fishing businesses. The two approaches provide different measures. The economic modelling estimates job loss from the economy as a whole, including the supply chain (businesses that supply inputs to, and process outputs from, the fishing industry). The survey provided an estimate of job loss from impacted fishing businesses in the catching sector, and to some extent in the processing sector, for respondents that completed the survey.

Economic modelling (method 1)Three coastal subregions that would potentially experience higher impacts were modelled to estimate the economic and employment effects of displaced GVP. Employment impacts were forecast for the short term, where adaptation (labour and capital mobility) in the economy was limited, and in the longer term where adaptation was free to occur.

Using the modelling of the potential impact in the short term on the three subregions, ABARES estimated job losses at 10 jobs lost from the Cairns subregion and seven jobs lost in the Mooloolaba subregion. This represents a small proportion of total employment in the Cairns (0.02 per cent) and Mooloolaba (0.06 per cent) subregions. The employment impact in the Hervey BayBundaberg subregion was assessed as negligible.

If these results are extended linearly to account for the entire potential GVP impact of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve ($4.5–4.7 million annual average potential displacement), this would equate to a loss of 18–19 full-time jobs in the short term and around three full-time jobs in the long term in directly affected regions.

Survey results (method 2)Survey and consultation with industry stakeholders suggested the reduction in total positions in the fishing sector may be greater than indicated by the models because of the high proportion of part-time and seasonal positions in the industry (Table 31).

Job losses are likely to occur in the most affected fisheries (see Table 4 and Table 5), in the towns where potentially impacted catch is landed (Map 4), and in the towns and subregions involved in the supply chain (Map 5 and Map 7).

Estimates of job loss from the survey apply only to businesses in the catching and processing sectors that completed the survey. They do not include fishing businesses that did not complete the survey, or supply chain businesses. The estimates were also based on each surveyed business's prediction about how they would respond to the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve, how many staff they employed and whether they would need to reduce employees.

From the survey responses, it was estimated that there would be a reduction of 41 full-time equivalent positions, comprising mostly full-time jobs (Table 12). Although most fishing businesses that would be potentially impacted by the draft marine reserve were believed to be surveyed, there are some that are not accounted for in this estimate.

A number of business operators raised the issue of 'tipping points' (i.e. as the level of impact increases, staff numbers are cut at certain critical points). Similarly, for a business as a whole, there may come a point when it is not viable and all paid positions in the business are lost. This

47


issue can present difficulties for businesses when predicting potential job loss from the draft marine reserve in isolation from other factors affecting the business (see Chapter 4: Impacts on fishing businesses).

Table 12 Estimated paid job reduction anticipated by survey respondents due to the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve Employment type Positions Full-time equivalent

Casual (year round) 2.6 0.8

Full-time (year round) 34.5 34.5

Part-time (year round) 5.2 2.6

Seasonal 8.8 3.1

Total 51.1 41.0

Note: Conversion to full-time equivalent used the following conversion multipliers: casual 0.3, full-time 1, part-time 0.5 and seasonal 0.35. For methods, see Appendix C: Estimating job reduction using the survey.Source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia.

Summary of flow of impacts The regions potentially most impacted by the draft marine reserve are Cairns and Mooloolaba. They have the largest amount of potentially displaced GVP flowing to them, and are among the largest in terms of dependent upstream and downstream businesses. Mooloolaba has the largest exposure ($50.67 displaced GVP per capita) to the Coral Sea Marine Reserve, but has low sensitivity (employment in commercial fishing industry is 0.60 per cent of total employment) and exhibits a range of characteristics that contribute to its capacity to adapt to these changes (e.g. its high economic diversity and proximity to large population centres). Cairns has a relatively high exposure ($19.15 displaced GVP per capita), but has low sensitivity (employment in commercial fishing industry is 0.36 per cent of total employment) and a relatively high capacity to adapt to these changes.

Together with Mooloolaba and Cairns, Hervey Bay, Bundaberg and Brisbane were identified as having the highest number of potentially impacted input and output businesses.

Both Mooloolaba and Cairns are likely to experience cumulative impacts from two draft marine reserve regions. Mooloolaba also is likely to be impacted by the draft Temperate East Marine Reserves Network (ABARES 2012c), while Cairns is also likely to be impacted by the draft North Marine Reserves Network (ABARES 2012b).

Using economic modelling, the regional net economic impact arising from the potentially displaced GVP was an annual estimated loss of $8.0–8.4 million in real terms in the short term. There are likely to be flow-on effects in other regions; however, changes in economic activity at the state and national levels are negligible in terms of the size of those economies. Potential regional job reduction was estimated at 18–19 full-time jobs in the short term and around three jobs in the long term using economic modelling, and 41 full-time equivalent positions using survey data.

48


4 Impacts on fishing businessesThis chapter presents a synthesis of results from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) survey Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia, and qualitative data generated through focus groups and interviews with potentially affected fishers, supply chain businesses and community representatives. The synthesis explores the potential impacts of the draft marine reserve on fishing businesses and investigates:

values held by fishers in the Coral Sea

potential business impacts

business plans and investment based on current entitlements to fish

other factors currently impacting the fishing industry (i.e. cumulative impacts)

ability to adapt.

Survey data caveats and notesThe survey instrument and survey frame were developed in consultation with industry and government agencies. The target group for the survey was state and Commonwealth commercial fishers with a likelihood of being displaced and impacted by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. The following notes and caveats apply to the survey:

The target population is a subset of all fishers in the Coral Sea. The goal was to identify the highest number of potentially displaced and impacted licence holders for the survey. The survey results are intended to be representative of the potentially impacted businesses and not all fishing businesses operating in the Coral Sea region.

The final survey frame consisted of 377 businesses, and the consultative process used to develop the frame gave a high degree of confidence that the majority of potentially impacted fishing businesses were given an opportunity to participate.

Measurement error may result from inaccurate responses to questions, an inability of the respondent to recall information, differences in how respondents interpreted a question or socially desirable responding.

Cognitive biases, such as impact bias and bandwagon bias, can affect survey responses and lead to response error. These are difficult to address because the respondent may unintentionally or deliberately provide inaccurate information due to a perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment or illogical interpretation of reality. Cognitive biases of this type may be an issue in this study due to the sensitive nature of the study topic and general objections within the fishing industry to the draft Commonwealth marine reserves.

Throughout the following sections people who participated in the survey are referred to as respondents. This further reinforces that all results refer only to those that participated in the survey. For further detail on the survey process see Appendix B: Social impact assessment methods.

49


Commercial fishery qualitative value mapping To understand if and how commercial fishers would be affected by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve, it is important to analyse the values that fishers place on specific areas of the Coral Sea. Survey respondents were asked to place up to three marks on a map (which included a graticule, the draft marine reserve boundaries and significant regional ports) for each of six different fishing-related values: ‘catch reliability’, ‘catch diversity’, ‘easy to access’, ‘a safe area’, ‘less competition’ and ‘future use value’ (for a maximum of 18 marks per respondent). These data allow a better understanding of which areas within the draft marine reserve have higher qualitative values according to the survey respondents.

Map 9 provides a summary of all the value points provided in the survey, across all six value classes. Data were summarised at both fine and coarse scales to protect confidentiality and to display all data.

High fishing values are located in the Multiple Use Zone (area 307) in the south-west corner and along the western border where the continental shelf is encompassed by the reserve. Other high fishing values are located near the Habitat Protection Zone around Saumarez Reef (area 306), particularly between the borders of areas 306 and 307. Low or dispersed values are found in other Habitat Protection zones (areas 304 and 305) of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. Approximately one-third of all value stickers were placed in areas outside the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

The number of value markers placed in each draft reserve area and for each value category are provided in Table 13. Catch reliability and future use (prospective fishing) value stickers comprised 45 per cent of all value stickers applied.

It is important to note that this qualitative value mapping is not the same as impact mapping. Some areas of high value to fishers do not have high impact because zoning will allow continued use.

This process does not fully explore why fishers value the areas they marked. It may be best to interpret the qualitative value mapping as though it largely reflects areas valued by impacted fishers; however, there may be some bias towards areas of high impact (e.g. no-take areas).

50


Map 9 Commercial fishery qualitative value mapping for all value classes ('catch reliability', 'catch diversity', 'easy to access', 'a safe area', 'less competition', 'future use value')


Table 13 Number of value markers placed in marine reserve zones for each of the value categories Coral Sea Marine Reserve Outside draft

reserve TotalValue 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308Catch diversity 8 2 1 12 13 22 58Catch reliability 7 1 2 1 25 14 40 90Ease of access 6 1 21 6 22 56Future use 1 11 1 2 3 38 22 10 88Less competition 5 1 1 1 11 11 15 45Safe area 4 3 2 11 7 22 49Total 1 41 1 4 10 7 118 73 131 386



51


Fishing business impactsThis section reports fishers’ responses to their perceived displacement and how this response will affect their fishing business.

Survey respondents were asked if they believed they would have to change their current fishing activities if the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve is declared. Respondents who indicated that their current fishing activities would have to change were asked if their most likely response would be to:

1) stay in the same fishery and make up shortfall from other fishing areas

2) move into an alternative fishery

3) continue operating with reduced catch in the same fishery(s) or downsize the operation

4) leave the fishing industry

5) unsure.

Based on the likely response to displacement, each respondent then indicated how strongly they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about potential impacts.

The potential impacts on the fishing businesses have been collated into three groups based on the above response options—Group 1 (responses 1 and 2), Group 2 (response 3) and Group 3 (response 4). Where applicable, potential impacts are further supported by qualitative data collected through interviews and focus groups with potentially affected fishers.

Fishing business response to displacementOf the 80 survey respondents who answered this question, 49 indicated that they would have to change their fishing activities if the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve is declared.

These 49 respondents were then asked what their most likely response would be to the changes caused by the Coral Sea Marine Reserve (Table 14).

Table 14 Responses from those who declared their fishing activity would have to changeResponse Number of

respondentsStay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall from other fishing areas 21

Move into an alternative fishery 4

Continue operating with reduced catch in the same fishery(s) or downsize the operation 4

Leave the fishing industry 8

Unsure 11

Note: One respondent did not answer this question.Data source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

The qualitative findings suggest that, in general, fishers operating in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve will stay in the fishing industry. However, a small number indicated that they would

52


leave the fishing industry because of a number of factors, including the reduced area accessible to fishers and increased competition for the remaining fishing grounds.

Fishing business impacts—Group 1Twenty-five respondents indicated that their most likely response to the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve would be to stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall, or move into an alternative fishery. The number of respondents answering these questions varied between 14 and 25.

The majority either agreed or strongly agreed that their business would be affected by (Figure 7):

increased conflict with other fishers over competition for fish

increased pressure on fish stocks in areas outside of the draft marine reserve

increased fuel costs

increased time spent looking for new fishing grounds

increased travel time to and from alternative fishing grounds

increased wear and tear on the boat and fishing equipment.

In addition the majority of survey respondents indicated they would have to become more innovative in the way they fish; this may include changing gear types and purchasing/leasing quota in alternative fisheries.

The qualitative findings from interviews and focus groups are consistent with these survey results. Fishers were concerned that displaced fishers will be forced to concentrate into areas outside the reserve, thereby increasing competition. Small trawl boat operators were particularly concerned that they would struggle to compete with larger displaced vessels moving into their fishing areas (see Case study: Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery—T1 sector).

Fishers indicated that their response would require them to spend time and resources searching for new viable fishing grounds. They emphasised that locating productive fishing areas is not a straightforward task, and that significant time and financial investment would be required. One Coral Sea Aquarium fisher estimated that it took three years for his business to find new areas in the Coral Sea in response to the rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Fishers advised that the lack of onshore facilities, such as processing factories, restricts a fisher's ability to use new fishing grounds, and that the immobility of skilled labour and capital makes it difficult to relocate fishing businesses.

Some potentially displaced fishers advised that it will be difficult to make up the shortfall because the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve encompasses unique fishing grounds. Operators holding T1 endorsements in the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery advised that the draft Multiple Use Zone (area 307) will prevent them from catching their highest value (large) prawns, and it would be difficult for them make up the financial shortfall (see Case study: Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery—T1 sector).

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery fishers are concerned about their ability to make up the shortfall resulting from the loss of albacore catch in the draft Marine National Park Zone. The

53


albacore catch keeps their businesses and processing facilities operational and productive during the summer months.

Fishers who plan to stay in the industry were apprehensive about the financial implications of inadvertent transgressions of marine reserve boundaries, such as gear drift into prohibited areas. They indicated that the financial repercussions from this would place significant financial strain on their businesses.

Fishers perceived that there is poor public opinion of their practices and that the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve has further contributed to this image by implying that they are environmentally destructive. Fishers who intend to stay in the fishing industry felt that this could it difficult to sell their product.

54


Figure 7 Indirect business impacts for respondents who indicated they would continue operating by making up shortfall or moving into an alternative fishery

The fishing business will need to hire more staff

The fishing business will have to reduce the number of employees

We will have to purchase alternative fishing licences/quota

Increased tranport cost per kg of landed catch

Equipment upgrades will be necessary

Increased wear and tear on boat and equipment

Increased time spent looking for new fishing grounds

Increased pressure on fish stock in areas outside of the proposed marine reserve

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagreeDisagree Strongly disagree

Percentage of respondents


Fishing business impacts—Group 2Four respondents indicated that their most likely response to the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve would be to continue operating in the same fishery with reduced catch or downsize their operations. A minimum of three respondents answered these questions.

The majority either agreed or strongly agreed that their business would be affected by:

having to reduce the number of employees (three respondents)

55


increased conflict with other fishers over competition for fish

increased transport cost per landed kilogram of catch

having to sell their fishing business or their fishing endorsements or entitlements

Two respondents strongly disagreed that they would diversify their business.

Responses from interviewees and focus group participants indicate that many fishing businesses are unable to operate with a reduced catch. Several fishing businesses advised that they were operating close to critical mass and that even small reductions in their productivity could make the business financially unviable (see Case study: Onshore processing facilities).

Fishing business impacts—Group 3Eight respondents said that they would leave the fishing industry if the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve is declared. Between five and eight respondents answered these questions (Figure 8):

Five respondents strongly agreed that their employees would be without a job, and six respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that there were alternative job opportunities in the local area.

Most respondents were not confident in their ability to secure alternative employment.

Interviewees and focus group participants believed that fishing skills will be lost to the community as fishers leave the industry. There was concern that because there are low numbers of participants entering the industry, there are only small numbers of people who possess fishing knowledge and if this was lost, it would not be easily regained in the future.

Figure 8 Business impacts for respondents who indicated they would leave the fishing industry

There are plenty of alternative job opportunities for our employees in the local area

We will be able to sell the business

I am confident in my ability to secure employment elsewhere

Our employees will be without a job

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree Agree Niether agree nor disagreeDisagree Strongly disagree



56


Fishing business impacts—the fishing industry A strong theme that emerged during focus group discussions was the potential impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve on the fishing industry as a whole. Some fishers expressed frustration that Australian fishers would not be able to fish within the Marine National Park Zone, leaving increased amounts of fish for international fishers who operate just outside the boundaries and will be able to fish without restriction.

There was concern that in the absence of commercial fishers there would be minimal capacity to monitor the area covered by the draft reserve, allowing illegal foreign fishing to occur unchecked.

Fishers were also concerned that a structural adjustment would not be effective in reducing fishing effort and would not help the fishing industry adapt to the draft marine reserve. They were concerned that licence buyouts would remove latent (rather than actual) fishing effort, and that some individuals would receive a structural adjustment and then re-enter the industry. Fishers advised that such a situation would not effectively reduce the displaced effort.

Fishing business plans and future investmentsThe potential impact of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve on future plans and investments were a major concern raised by the fishing industry and individual fishers.

Survey respondents reported that they had made business plans and financial investments on the basis of current access arrangements in the Coral Sea (Table 15). The majority of survey respondents indicated that access to historic and new fishing grounds was an important consideration when they made their business plans and investments (Figure 9).

Table 15 Number of respondents with business and investment plans in placeDraft marine reserve zone Business plans made Investments made

Habitat Protection Zones 7 4Marine National Park Zone 9 7Multiple Use Zones 26 19Special Purpose Zone 10 8

Total 52 38


57


Figure 9 Fishing business considerations when making business plans or investments

Ability to access new fishing grounds

Ability to access historic fishing areas

0 20 40 60 80 100

Very important Important Neither Slightly important Not important



Interviewees and focus groups participants raised the following issues about the potential impacts on their business plans and financial investments.

Fishers feared that the announcement of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve has depreciated the value of their assets (see Case study: A vertically integrated fishing business in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery: the Lamason Group). Some fishers intended to use their licences to fund their superannuation.

Concern that recent investments, such as equipment upgrades, have been jeopardised by the draft marine reserve. Some businesses doubt whether they will see a return on their investments.

Some operators reported that the current uncertainty associated with the draft marine reserve has made banks reluctant to provide loans to fishers, and young people in particular are finding it difficult to access finance.

Fishers felt that the zoning of a declared marine reserve could alter in the future, and indicated that the uncertainty surrounding this makes it difficult to invest in the industry.

A brokerage business advised that boat sales and licence trading has ceased as a result of the announcement of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

Other issues and cumulative factors impacting fishing businessesThe potential impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve on fishing businesses cannot be viewed in isolation. A strong and consistent theme raised by survey respondents, interviewees and focus group participants were the cumulative impacts for the fishing industry.

The majority of survey respondents thought that major or moderate issues affecting their business included (Figure 10):

58


cheaper imported fish

increased input costs (e.g. fuel, labour)

changes in fisheries management (e.g. changes to quota)

changes to fishing ground access, including state Marine Protected Areas

prices received for fish

exchange rates

access to skilled labour

access to general labour.

These themes were also raised during interviews and focus groups. In particular, participants stated that it is increasingly difficult to operate with the rising input costs for fuel and freight, and the current exchange rates. Particular issues raised were:

loss of skilled staff to the mining sector and the liquefied natural gas industry in Gladstone, which offer significantly higher wages

loss of fishing access caused by rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in 2004. Some fishers advised that they responded to these changes by moving into new fishing grounds in the Coral Sea, and they are concerned that these areas will now be lost to them under the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve

that the 2005 Commonwealth Government initiative Securing our Fishing Future encouraged fishers who remained in the industry to increase their investment in it. These individuals feel that because of this, they have more to lose if the Coral Sea Marine Reserve is declared

the loss of skilled workers due to the uncertainty generated by the announcement of the Coral Sea Conservation Zone in 2009 (see Case study: A vertically integrated fishing businessin the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery: the Lamason Group)

increased regulations that charter operators were subject to as a result of the Coral Sea Conservation Zone, because they needed to hold additional permits to fish

loss of the industry’s political influence due to the decline in fisher numbers in recent years.

Interviewees and focus group participants described these cumulative impacts as 'death by a thousand cuts' to their businesses. Participants expressed a negative view of the future of Australia's fishing industry, and felt that the additional pressure of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve will force people out of the industry.

59


Figure 10 Other issues impacting fishing businesses in the Coral Sea

Climate change

Fish stocks

Food safety regulations

Competition from recreational fishers

My age/age of workforce

Access to finance

Illegal (unlicensed) fishing in Australia

Market demand for the fish caught

Licence buyouts

Exchange rates

Changes to fishing ground access (state Marine parks)

Input costs (fuel, labour, etc)

0 20 40 60 80 100Major problem Moderate problem Minor problem No problem Don't know Percentage of respondentsData source: ABARES, Your marine areas matter: a survey of commercial fishers' values and preferences for Commonwealth marine reserves in the Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions of Australia

Ability to adapt—businessSurvey respondents were asked a series of questions about the ability of their fishing business to adapt to change (Figure 11). The number of respondents answering these questions varied between 75 and 80; responses included the following:

60


The majority of respondents believed they have well-developed business skills.

20 respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their business had previously managed change successfully. Conversely, 40 respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that their business had previously managed change successfully.

49 respondents indicated that their business was not in a ‘good financial situation’.

The majority of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that their business was able to afford to make the necessary changes to adapt to the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

Figure 11 Ability to adapt—fishing businesses

The fishing business can afford to make the changes necessary to adapt to the draft Commonwealth Marine Reserves

The fishing business is in a good financial situation

The fishing business has previously managed change successfully

I have well-developed business skills

0 20 40 60 80 100




Fishing business impacts summaryBased on the GVP displacement estimates (see Chapter 2: Potential displacement of fishing), the impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve will be felt greatest by a relatively small number of operators in two Commonwealth fisheries (the Eastern Tuna and Billfish and Coral Sea fisheries) and two Queensland fisheries (the East Coast Otter Trawl [sector T1 only] and Deepwater Fin Fish [sector L8 only]). The impact could be quite severe for some operators in these fisheries.

The potential impacts on fishing businesses were examined using the survey, interviews and focus groups. The survey was completed by 80 fishers or fishing businesses, who identified a range of potential business impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve:

49 respondents indicated that they would have to change their current fishing activities. Of this group, the majority (25 respondents) indicated that they would either continue operating in the same fishery or attempt to make up the shortfall from other fishing areas, or move into an alternative fishery. The majority of survey respondents indicated they would have to become more innovative in the way they fish; this may include changing gear types and purchasing/leasing quota in alternative fisheries.

61


Four respondents said that they would continue operating in the same fishery with reduced catch or downsize their fishing operation.

Eight respondents indicated that they would leave the fishing industry.

The survey and qualitative findings indicated that the most significant potential secondary impacts on businesses continuing to operate in the same fishery, or move into an alternative fishery, would include:

crowding of fishers into areas outside the Coral Sea Marine Reserve and increased conflict over competition for fish

increased time spent looking for new fishing grounds

greater travel time and fuel costs to travel to and from new grounds.

The fishers who indicated that they would leave the fishing industry were concerned that their employees would be without a job, that they would be unable to sell their business, and that there are limited alternative employment opportunities in their local area.

Survey respondents and focus group participants indicated that the potential impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve would be exacerbated by the accumulation of pressures facing the industry. These other factors included external economic drivers such as the prices received for fish, competition with cheaper imported products and high input costs. Reduced access to fishing grounds caused by other recent closures, and the loss of skilled staff to mining and liquefied natural gas industries were also significant pressures on fishing businesses.

The proposal of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve was seen to have created an atmosphere of uncertainty surrounding business and financial investments in the fishing industry. Difficulty accessing finance, uncertainty in regards to future changes of marine reserve zoning, and a decline in the demand for licences and equipment were highlighted as major concerns for future business plans and investments.

The majority of respondents indicated that their businesses are not in a good financial situation and could not afford to make the changes required to respond to the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

62


5 Personal and community impactsParticipants expected a number of personal and community impacts to occur if the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve is declared. Many of the comments about impacts reflect people’s attempts to understand what the changes would mean for themselves, their families and their communities. Because this involves predicting the future based on what they know of the proposed changes, their current personal circumstances and the circumstances of their communities, this discussion should be interpreted in light of the uncertainty that currently exists.

Personal impactsPersonal impacts are discussed in terms of three response options indicated by respondents:

Group 1: Stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall fishing in other areas, or move into an alternative fishery

Group 2: Continue operating with reduced catch in the same fishery or downsize the operation

Group 3: Leave the fishing industry.

The caveats regarding the survey frame discussed at the start of the previous chapter (Impacts on fishing businesses) also apply to this chapter. References are made to case studies where relevant.

Personal impacts—Group 1Twenty-five respondents indicated that they would stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall fishing in other fishing areas, or move into an alternative fishery, in response to the draft Coral Sea marine reserve. Between 21 and 24 respondents answered these questions. Most respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that (Figure 12):

their stress levels would increase

their family's quality of life would suffer as a result of this change

they will have less time to spend with their family

they will have to work longer hours.

Most respondents in this group did not indicate an intention to relocate themselves or their family to a new town as part of their likely response if the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve is declared.

63


Figure 12 Indirect personal impacts for respondents who indicated they would continue operating by making up shortfall or moving into an alternative fishery

I will move to a new town

I will need to move my family to a new town

I will have to work longer hours

I will have less time to spend with my family

My family's quality of life will suffer as a result of this change

My stress levels will increase

0 20 40 60 80 100




Personal impacts—Group 2 Four respondents indicated that if the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve is declared, they would continue to operate in the same fishery with reduced catch or downsize the operation. A minimum of three respondents answered each question in this section.

Most of these respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statements:

My stress levels would increase.

I will have to work longer hours

I will have less time to spend with their family

My family's quality of life will suffer as a result of these changes.

Only one respondent indicated they have the skills to enable them to find a second job.

Respondents in this group did not indicate a strong intention to relocate themselves or their families to a new town if the draft marine reserve is declared.

Personal impacts—Group 3There were eight respondents who indicated that they would leave the fishing industry if the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve is declared. The number of respondents answering these questions varied between six and eight.

Most respondents in this group indicated that (Figure 13):

they were not enthusiastic about leaving the fishing industry

64


they will look for alternative employment, although the majority were concerned about their ability to continue making a living

their stress levels will increase

the changes will place considerable stress on their family and relationships

there are considerable risks in the changes they are planning

their partners will have to find or increase their employment.

Figure 13 Indirect personal impacts for respondents who indicated they would leave the fishing industry

I will still be able to make a living

I will move to a new town

I have the skills to find another job

I will look for alternative employment

There are considerable risks in the changes I am planning

My stress levels will increase

0 20 40 60 80 100




Information derived from the interviews and focus groups supports and expands upon the key survey findings on personal impacts. The main impacts that are already occurring and likely to increase as a result of the draft marine reserve include:

increased emotional stress as a result of the uncertainty of the draft marine reserve process. Uncertainty around the structural adjustment process and what it will mean for individuals

65


was a particular issue voiced by many (see Case study: A vertically integrated fishing business in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery: the Lamason Group)

the possible increased risk of suicide as a result of increased emotional stress for some individuals in the fishing industry, although no one was specifically named

feeling like their contributions as fishermen are no longer valued by Australian society

a loss of identity as a fisher; associated with this is their loss of the valued 'fishing lifestyle'

loss of a well-established career/livelihood. This was particularly true for those in mid to late career who have spent their lives in the fishing industry and do not have skills or time to easily transition to a new career. This links with their ability to adapt, detailed in the following section. Associated with this is the loss of capacity to support their dependents.

Ability to adapt—personalThe ability to adapt includes the potential inherent capacities and resources that enable people to manage change and cope with stress. Questions in the survey were specifically aimed at understanding the extent to which respondents felt connected to their communities, how they respond to challenges, their confidence in their skills levels and their ability to assess their own health. These factors can provide insight into the ability of respondents to adapt. The number of respondents answering these questions varied between 73 and 77.

Inhibitors and facilitators to adaptation were identified and categorised based on whether the majority of respondents indicated they agree/strongly agree or disagree/strongly disagree with the statement presented in the survey.

The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements, which were identified as being inhibitors of adaptation:

I personally can't cope with any more change.

I do not have access to superannuation or pension benefits.

There is a lack of other income opportunities.

I am not confident in my ability to secure employment elsewhere.

These results suggest that survey respondents are not confident in their ability to manage the potential changes that may occur if the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve is declared.

The survey results indicate that while respondents were not confident in their ability to respond to change, they perceive that they have some degree of social capital (the social ties and reciprocal bonds that bind a community together) to draw on. Most respondents felt part of their local community, and this social capital can assist respondents in adapting to change.

The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements (Figure 14), which are considered to be factors or attributes that facilitate adaptation:

I do not wanting to give up fishing.

I am in good health.

66


I am too young to retire.

I feel part of my local community.

I am confident in my ability to find solutions when faced with problems.

Figure 14 Ability to adapt—personal

I have other income opportunities

I am confident in my ability to secure employment elsewhere if I need to

Planning, learning or reorganising doesn't seem exhausting to me

I'm interested in adapting to the changes that occur in life

I have people I can ask to help me when problems arise

I remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities

I am resourceful and I have been able to handle unforeseen situations in the past

I do not have job skills that I can use in other industries

When faced with problems, I have confidence in my ability to find solutions

I feel part of my local community

I'm too young to retire

I do not have access to superannuation or pension benefits

I personally just can't cope with any more change

My health is good

I don't want to give up fishing

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree Agree Neither disagree nor agreeDisagree Strongly disagree



67


Community impacts Information about potential community impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve was largely derived from the focus groups and interviews with fishers and community members. The potential impacts largely focused on the flow-on impacts to the regional economy, impacts on community culture and the importance of local seafood.

Participants were concerned that the draft marine reserve would reduce business activity in businesses with links to the fishing industry, including accommodation providers, grocery stores and restaurants. There was concern that this could have a marked impact on regional economies. Participants specifically mentioned the potential loss of the Lamason Group business, which was a foundation business that had been key to Cairns’ past growth as a regional centre (see Case study: A vertically integrated fishing business in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery: the Lamason Group).

It was reported that there are limited alternative employment opportunities in the three regional centres of Cairns, Hervey Bay and Mooloolaba. This is particularly the case in the context of an economic downturn affecting these areas due to reduced tourism because of the high Australian dollar, the global financial crisis and recent bad weather events, such as floods and cyclones. Key informants were concerned that reduced business activity and potential job loss as a result of the draft marine reserve would cause people to move away to look for alternative secure employment, which would add to the current stress of fly-in fly-out and drive-in drive-out lifestyles that are impacting family life and communities. In Hervey Bay, it is possible that local schools, which are already struggling to obtain sufficient enrolment numbers, may close due to families moving away from the area.

Focus group participants and interviewees emphasised the significance of the fishing industry to their community's culture, and noted that people have an emotional and sentimental attachment to the industry. For example, Hervey Bay holds an annual Seafood Festival. Participants felt that the draft marine reserve could reduce fishing activity and take away this community culture.

In some small-scale regional centres and towns, the commercial fishing industry is a tourist attraction. Particular regions have an international reputation, such as the high-quality tuna in Cairns and king prawns in Mooloolaba. Participants felt that the possible reduced fishing activity caused by the draft marine reserve could affect the tourist industry in these areas. Many fishers did not want to see an increased reliance on imported seafood products, which they consider to be of poorer quality.

Ability to adapt—communityThe ability for communities to adapt includes the degree to which a community depends on the fishing industry, as well as potential inherent capacities and resources that enable a community to manage change and cope with stress. Questions in the survey were specifically aimed at understanding a community’s dependence on the fishing industry, whether previous changes in the fishing industry affected the community in the past and the degree of social capital within the community (Figure 15). These indicators and attributes can provide insight into a community's ability to adapt.

Dependency indicators and social capital have been identified and categorised based on whether the majority of respondents indicated they agree/strongly agree or disagree/strongly disagree with the statements in the survey.

68


Between 73 and 77 respondents answered questions relating to community dependency in the fishing industry. Most respondents agreed or strongly agreed that (Figure 15):

other fishing businesses in the community will be impacted by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve

previous changes that have affected the fishing industry have also affected our community

the community I live in is highly reliant on the fishing industry

the fishing industry supports my local community.

These results suggest that the respondents feel that their communities are highly dependent on the fishing industry, that other businesses also rely on the fishing industry, and that impacts on the fishing industry potentially have flow-on impacts on the wider communities. However, individual respondents’ perceptions of the dependence of their home port on the fishing industry varies because the concept of dependence is construed in different ways by different people. Therefore, the fishers' perception may not be consistent with other measures of dependency, such as employment statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics or economic diversity measures.

Figure 15 Ability to adapt—community

I am an active member of a local community group

I have done unpaid work for a community group in the past 12 months

People around here are willing to help each other out

The fishing industry supports my local community

The community I live in is highly reliant on the fishing industry

Previous changes that have affected the fishing industry have also impacted our community

Other fishing businesses in my community will be impacted

0 20 40 60 80 100

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagreeDisagree Stongly disagree



69


Personal and community impacts summarySeveral key themes emerged about personal and community impacts and the ability for both individuals and communities to adapt to changes that may occur in response to the declaration of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

The survey identified several potential personal impacts of fishers’ most likely responses if the marine reserve is declared:

The 29 survey respondents that intend to remain in the industry believe their decision will increase their stress levels, force them to work longer hours, reduce the time they have to spend with their families and potentially affect their family’s quality of life.

Of the 8 respondents who envisage leaving the industry, many consider that they will look for alternative employment but most are unsure if they have the skills to find another job. Most respondents in this group were uncertain if they will still be able to make a living.

Personal impacts also included increased emotional stress because of the uncertainty of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve, particularly in relation to the structural adjustment process. It was reported that this stress could be quite severe for some individuals, and would be augmented by feeling that their job is undervalued, that they would lose their identity as a fisher and would lose a well-established career/livelihood, particularly for the many in later stages of their careers.

Most survey respondents indicated that they cannot personally cope with any more change, and indicated a lack of financial resources to facilitate adaptation. However, respondents felt part of their local community and perceived that they have some degree of social capital, which may assist them to adapt to potential changes.

The reported community impacts largely focused on the flow-on impacts of reduced fishing activity to other local businesses and the regional economy, impacts on community culture, and the importance of local seafood to tourism, community health and food security.

A community's ability to adapt is perceived by respondents to be related to its high dependence on the fishing industry, and the reliance of other local businesses on the fishing industry. These perceptions may not be consistent with other measures of dependency, such as employment statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics or economic diversity measures.

70


6 Case studiesThe purpose of the case studies was to provide a broader understanding of how the impacts of the draft marine reserve would emerge at different levels. This provided a means of exploring the impact through a number of different perspectives, including from an individual business’s perspective through to that of a community. Case study themes and topics were chosen through consultation with industry, state governments and the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC). Working group members agreed on six case studies, presented in this chapter across a range of key themes:

Pelagic longliners in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery

A vertically integrated fishing business in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery: the Lamason Group

Onshore processing facilities

Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery—T1 sector

Charter fishing in the Coral Sea

Economic modelling of Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and Mooloolaba.

Telling the fisher’s story: a narrative approach A case study narrative approach was adopted for several case studies. The narrative case studies are specifically intended to 'tell the fishers story' about potential impacts. For the most part, the report has simply reflected the perceptions of impact reported by stakeholders. This approach provides a broader contextual understanding of the impacts that representatives of fishing communities think they will experience as a result of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. A mixed-methods social science research methodology was used to develop these narratives, with material sourced from qualitative data derived from interviews and focus groups, with additional quantitative and qualitative data provided by the survey and literature.

Macroeconomic contextThe success of a fisheries operation depends on a wide range of factors, some of which are within the control of the operator, and many of which are outside their control. These include broader economic trends such as the exchange rate, the fuel price, competition for labour and international market effects. The following case studies should be read in this context.

Exchange rateThe value of the Australian dollar is outside the control of fisheries operators, but has been a significant factor in determining profitability, particularly in highly export-dependent fisheries. The value of the Australian dollar relative to the value of the currencies of major trading partners can have a significant impact on the value of exported fisheries products. An appreciation of the Australian dollar (i.e. an increase in the value of the Australian dollar relative to the currency of a trading partner) will decrease the price of Australian exports and make imports relatively cheaper. A depreciation of the Australian dollar will increase the price of Australian exports and make imports relatively expensive. Producers who supply domestic markets may also be affected if they compete with imported products. Since 2000, the Australian

71


dollar has appreciated significantly, which has placed downward pressure on the price of Australian fisheries product exports and made imports cheaper relative to domestically produced seafood (Figure 16).

Figure 16 Commonwealth fisheries gross value of production (GVP) and Australian dollar exchange rate, 2000–01 to 2009–10

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Commonwealth fisheries GVP

Exchange rate

2009

-10

A$m $A/$US

Data sources: ABARES 2011b

Fuel priceFuel is a major input to most fisheries businesses. For example, fuel accounted for approximately 26 per cent (in 2009–10) of average total cash costs in the Northern Prawn Fishery, and approximately 14 per cent (in 2008–09) in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (ABARES 2010, 2012a).

The price paid for fuel by fishers has been volatile in recent years (Figure 17). This has caused substantial uncertainty about costs for many fishers, placing additional pressure on the profitability of many fisheries operators.

72


Figure 17 Real average off-road diesel price, inclusive of farm rebates and subsidies, but excluding GST, 2000–01 to 2009–10

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

0

20

40

60

80

100

12020

09-1

0 ce

nts/

litre

Data source: ABARES 2011a

Competition for labourThe competitive nature of the labour market and the need to compete with other industries has presented some issues for the fishing sector in attracting employees with desired skill sets. The Australian mining industry has grown strongly over the past decade, with the value of resources and energy exports increasing at an average annual rate of approximately 12 per cent from 2000–01 to 2010–11 (BREE 2011). This has increased labour demand from the industry, resulting in increased competition for labour economy-wide. This includes unskilled workers (who could be employed as fishing crew) and people with transferrable skills, such as skippers and engineers, resulting in some people leaving the fishing industry to work in the mining industry for higher and more secure income. This is particularly relevant in Western Australia and Queensland, given the substantial iron ore and coal mining industries in these states. This has placed additional pressure on some fishing operations where labour is a significant input to the production process.

International market effectsExporters of Australian seafood compete with other international seafood suppliers and, for many species, Australian producers are unable to influence the world price. Therefore, changes in supply in other countries can have a significant impact on the price Australian producers receive for their product. For example, the increased supply of aquaculture prawns from the developing world, particularly China, has resulted in downward pressure on prawn prices.

73


Case study: Pelagic longliners in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery

The Eastern Tuna and Billfish FisheryThis case study examines the potential impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve on pelagic longline fishers operating in the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (ETBF; Map 10). In particular, potential impacts that cannot easily be quantified are explored. A mixed-methods social science research methodology was used to develop this case study, with material sourced from qualitative data derived from interviews and a focus group.

The ETBF is one of two Commonwealth fisheries potentially impacted by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. The annual average gross value of production (GVP) estimated to be potentially displaced by the draft reserve is $3.8 million, which represents more than 90 per cent of estimated GVP displacement from Commonwealth fisheries in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. Displacement estimates are based on an annual average catch over the reference period 2001–10. However, catch and GVP in some years have been substantially higher than this, highlighting the variability in displacement around the 10-year average presented (Figure 18).

Figure 18 Estimated catch and gross value of production (GVP) displacement from the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery from the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0

200

400

600

800

1 000

1 200

1 400

0

1 000

2 000

3 000

4 000

5 000

6 000Catch

GVP

Catc

h (to

nnes

) GVP ($'000)

Estimates of catch and GVP displacement from the ETBF account for systematic differences between logbook data and catch disposal records. Logbook data provide information on location of catch, but consistently underestimate the landed catch (Campbell 2012). Average differences were calculated over a five-year period (2006–10) to provide the basis for a percentage scaling factor for all major species in the fishery, which was applied to all displaced catch in the ETBF.

The GVP in the ETBF totalled $30.1 million in 2009–10, with five major species accounting for approximately 96 per cent of this value. Yellowfin tuna accounted for the largest share of GVP ($10.6 million; 35 per cent of fishery GVP), followed by broadbill swordfish ($7.3 million; 24 per cent), bigeye tuna ($6.4 million; 21 per cent), albacore ($2.4 million; 8 per cent) and striped marlin ($2.2 million; 7 per cent) (ABARES 2011).

74


Map 10 Area of the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery

Data sources: marine reserve boundaries from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; coastline from Geoscience Australia; management area from the Australia Fisheries Management Authority.

Most species targeted in the fishery are highly migratory, occurring in the Western and Central Pacific region. The relationship between total stock abundance across this area and the stock availability within the Australian Fishing Zone is poorly understood and subject to ongoing research. It is thought to be influenced by a number of factors, including oceanography, which may influence migration to and within the Australian Fishing Zone.

Pelagic longliningThe main fishing method used in the fishery is pelagic longlining, which involves setting a line (or ‘shot’) with multiple hooks (AFMA 2011). Pelagic longlines are not anchored, but are set to

75


drift near the surface of the ocean with radio beacons attached to them so that the vessel can track them to haul in the catch (AFMA 2012). Minor line permits are also available in the fishery; however, these permit holders account for a relatively small proportion of commercial catch. Under the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve, pelagic longlining would be excluded from the draft Marine National Park Zone, Special Purpose Zone and Habitat Protection. Therefore, the only fishing areas open to pelagic longlining in the draft reserve are the Multiple Use zones (areas 301 and 307). Based on logbook data most of this fishing is in the Multiple Use Zone at the southern end of the draft reserve (area 307).

Displacement—shot level, trip level and business levelDisplacement by a marine reserve can occur at the shot level, the trip level and the business level. As such, it is important to consider the interrelated effects the marine reserve may have when considered at these different levels. The catch and GVP displacement estimates (see Chapter 2: Potential displacement of fishing) outline displacement at the shot level. However, the inability to undertake some shots during a given trip may make the entire trip less profitable, and possibly economically unviable. Similarly, if there are insufficient economically viable trips available to the business, the business itself may become unviable. The effects at each of these levels will differ in severity between businesses and operators, depending on a variety of factors such as capital, equipment and business structure.

Preventing longline gear drifting from permitted areas into reserves in the presence of strong currents was reported to be a problem for some pelagic longline operators. Under normal operating conditions, a shot may be allowed to drift for as long as 20–22 hours before being retrieved by the fisher. In the presence of a strong current (assume 3 knots), gear may drift as far as 60–66 nautical miles, which is consistent with feedback from operators in the industry. Furthermore, if a shot is placed inadvertently across a current or tide shift, fishing gear can break and separate into two, increasing the distance and time for the vessel to recover the gear. In this situation, drift distances as far as 70–80 nautical miles can occur. A possible result of this is fishers self-imposing buffer zones to ensure compliance with the reserve boundaries, which would increase the effective displacement of effort and catch (Map 11). The sensitivity of displacement estimates to buffer zones in area 307 is shown in Table 16.

Displacement without buffer zones was estimated to be around 696 tonnes, with a value of around $3.8 million. Assuming a self-imposed 30 nautical mile buffer zone, an additional 255 tonnes of catch was estimated to be displaced annually at a value of around $1.3 million. This represents approximately 3.2 per cent of total fishery GVP for the same reference period, in addition to displacement within other areas of the draft reserve. Under the assumption of a 60 nautical mile buffer zone, an additional 445 tonnes of catch was estimated to be displaced annually, valued at around $2.3 million. This represents 5.7 per cent of total fishery GVP.

Gear drift was also reported to be an issue in the Temperate East, South-west and North-west marine regions.

76


Map 11 Potential self-imposed buffer zones in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery

Data sources: Data sources: marine reserve boundaries from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; coastline from Geoscience Australia.

Table 16 Estimated displacement from potential self-imposed buffer zones (additional to estimated displacement in other zones) in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish FisheryBuffer distance (nautical miles) 30 60 60+

Potential displacement

tonnes 255 445 501

$’000 1258 2252 2540


% 3.2 5.7 6.5

A related but distinct issue from shots potentially displaced by self-imposed buffer zones is displacement at a trip level; that is, the flow-on effect of lower opportunity for shot placement on the economic viability of an entire fishing trip. Some operators in the fishery have reported that with the effectively limited accessible area as a result of buffer zones, it is unlikely that it will be worthwhile travelling the distance required to access the northern parts of area 307. If this is the case, then operators will stop fishing in areas north of approximately 22.5 degrees south (north of the southern boundary of the buffer zone in Map 11). Under this assumption, displacement from area 307 is estimated to be around 501 tonnes of catch, valued at around $2.5 million. This represents approximately 6.5 per cent of total GVP in the ETBF.

77


Finally, the impact of displaced trips on the entire business structure is a level of displacement that was not captured in estimates of catch and GVP displacement. Many fishing businesses have significant up-front (fixed) costs, including for capital equipment (e.g. boats, gear) and other capital investment (e.g. fisheries entitlements). Therefore, it is not easy to scale the effect of displaced trips on some fishing businesses because a reduction in catch (and therefore revenue) will result in a proportionally larger reduction in profit, due to the fact that the amount of fixed costs in the business will not change. The effect of this on the viability of a business will differ depending on its cost structure and adaptability (including the ability to make up for the catch shortfall from fishing other areas).

GVP displacement estimate issuesEstimates of potentially displaced GVP from the draft marine reserve were calculated using industry-wide landed beach prices for each species. However, the price received for many tuna and billfish species can vary considerably depending on the size and quality of the fish, and the capability of the vessel to maintain the quality of the fish through effective refrigeration and storage for delivery to market. The scarcity of fish on the market, which can depend on the time of the year, can also have a significant impact on price. For example, the industry-wide average price used for yellowfin tuna was $7.25 a kilogram; however, fishery operators reported some yellowfin tuna prices to be 300 per cent higher than this average, resulting in greater returns per kilogram for operators catching higher quality fish. In addition, the average price used in the analysis will overstate the value of other operators’ production, where consistently lower than average quality fish is caught. Spatial differences in the quality of fish may not be fully captured in the estimates of displacement.

Responses to displacementOver time, displaced fishing effort can be redeployed in a number of ways. In the ETBF, for example, fishing effort displaced from the Coral Sea Marine Reserve may move to areas outside the draft reserve. It can also move to a different fishery not affected by the draft reserve, or the labour, capital and other inputs to fishing effort can be redeployed in other sectors of the economy. The extent to which operators can shift fishing effort within the ETBF will, in part, depend on the extent of crowding.

As a result of the displacement from the draft reserve in the Coral Sea, ETBF operators indicated that they would no longer be able to successfully target albacore, because they are not abundant in regions south of the draft reserve. A possible response is to target broadbill swordfish; however, this will cause increased competition for broadbill swordfish, likely resulting in higher sale and lease prices for the species quota and, in some cases, an inability to source quota. It was suggested that these factors will result in a larger impact on businesses than anticipated by displacement estimates.

Another potential impact is crowding, given that the same fleet size would congregate in a smaller area that the area currently available for pelagic longlining. However, the magnitude of this impact is difficult to quantify. Further discussion of the cumulative impacts of draft marine reserves on operators in the ETBF are in the assessment of impacts of the draft reserves in the Temperate East (ABARES 2012b).

78


Case study: A vertically integrated fishing business in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery: the Lamason GroupThis case study explores the potential impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve on the vertically integrated Cairns-based fishing business of Bob Lamason: the Lamason Group, which trades as Great Barrier Reef Tuna. The company’s vessels operate in the ETBF in the Coral Sea. The business components based in Cairns include fishing, processing, wholesaling, retailing, exporting and input supply.

Information used in this case study was collected from a survey, two qualitative interviews with Bob Lamason, his wife (at one interview) and one of his sons, as well as several interviews with people linked to the Lamason Group in the supply chain. This data was collected between December 2011 and February 2012 as part of ABARES' social impact assessment process.

Background to the vertically integrated businessThe Lamason Group owns seven licences in the ETBF, all with endorsements for Area E, which is included in the draft Special Purpose Zone in the Coral Sea. The business holds approximately 9 per cent of the quota in this fishery. All of the area that the group fishes is in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve, primarily in the draft Special Purpose Zone (area 302), and some parts of the northern Multiple Use Zone (area 307) and Marine National Park Zone (area 308).

The business has four vessels, which primarily use pelagic longline, and are all based in Cairns. In 2010–11, the owner estimated the value of total landed catch for his business to be between $2.5 million and $5 million.

The Lamason family were traditionally a fishing family who moved from Western Australia 24 years ago and fostered the tuna industry in Cairns. It originated as a family business and has grown into an incorporated company. The owner’s wife works on the retail side of the business and their five children were encouraged to work in the fishing industry.

The integrated business has three main components: fishing, wholesale and retail businesses. The shop is a storefront to the wholesale business. All three aspects of the business are interlinked and the family suggested that one cannot exist without the other.

Between 50 and 70 per cent of the group’s catch is supplied to the wholesale and retail businesses. Major products are tuna, mahi mahi, broadbill swordfish, wahoo and shark. They catch 8 tonnes per week, and what is not used in their business is distributed to other wholesalers, restaurants and other retailers.

In 2010–11, the company employed 25 paid, full-time staff as crew and factory hands.

All inputs to the fishing business are sourced from businesses in Cairns, except for fishing gear, which is sourced from Mooloolaba, and bait, which is directly imported

All catch from the fishing business is landed at Great Barrier Reef Tuna. Approximately 20-30 per cent of the catch is exported through the wholesale business, depending on exchange rates and prices. The owner estimated they supply almost 100 per cent of the fresh tuna consumed in Cairns, approximately 80 per cent of the fresh tuna consumed in Adelaide, approximately 70 per cent of the fresh tuna consumed in Perth and a substantial amount consumed in Melbourne. The Perth distribution network has existed for around 30 years. Some of the fish is also distributed to Sydney.

79


DisplacementPelagic longlining will be excluded from all zones except the Multiple Use Zone under the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. This will displace all of the catch of the Lamason Group. Both Coral Sea reserve Multiple Use zones (areas 301 and 307) are considered uneconomic to fish because of their remoteness from Cairns.

Potential displacement of the entire ETBF from the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve was estimated at almost $3.8 million, $2.5 million of which is estimated to be displaced from the Special Purpose Zone (area 302).

The owner reported that ‘the draft reserve puts us out of business’. He estimates that 68 per cent of the potential displacement of his business will be from the Special Purpose Zone; 30 per cent from the Marine National Park Zone (the ‘Green Zone’) and 2 per cent from Habitat Protection zones.

Business impactsThis integrated business may be impacted in multiple ways if the draft marine reserve is declared. Some are direct impacts on the individual components of the business while other impacts will result from links with other components of the integrated business, and other parts of the supply chain and community.

The interviewees identified the following potential impacts on the fishing business:

They expect their business to no longer be economically viable.

The shop and wholesale business/factory will need to be sold due to their direct link with the fishing business; 85 per cent of their throughput comes from their own fishing business. It will not be worth keeping these assets as they are immobile and their value will diminish.

The factory is currently unsellable as it is highly specialised and there is a general oversupply of factories and shops in Cairns because of the prevailing economic conditions.

The value of the boats will decrease. The boats are too large for most Queensland fisheries (20 metre limit) so they hope they can be sold to overseas or interstate buyers.

They will need to reduce the number of staff they employ. Many of these employees are ‘like family’ to the Lamasons. They are very aware that many of the staff have young families to support, and that there are limited alternative opportunities for employment in the fishing industry.

They will have to leave the ETBF and look for alternative employment—the owner indicated that they will not retire.

Bait fish that has been supplied by the business will no longer be available, resulting in reduced local supply of bait.

There will be less fresh fish in Cairns to supply local restaurants, particularly tuna for some Japanese restaurants.

Recipients of the company’s product will need to find alternative suppliers, particularly those who buy tuna.

Supply chain businesses that service the company and rely on its contribution to their business may find it difficult to find alternative clients or to continue operating.

80


Supply chain impactsThe owner’s own assessment of the impacts on supply chain businesses of his business closing were summarised as follows (note that the businesses will also be impacted by other fishing companies that are impacted):

approximately 30 per cent (a 25–60 per cent range was reported) of refrigeration business would be impacted

5–10 per cent of electronics businesses would be impacted

5–10 per cent of engineering businesses would be impacted

30 per cent of freight businesses would be impacted.

Downstream business owners were interviewed and provided their own assessment of the impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve and the flow-on impact via the Lamason Group:

A Cairns-based seafood wholesaler and retailer (local, domestic and export) said that the main effect will be not being able to source high-value local fresh tuna from Great Barrier Reef Tuna. He suggested any substitute products are likely to be inferior and that in the longer term the business will suffer as a result of loss of quality. He said that eventually return custom and seafood-based tourism will decline once Cairns loses its reputation for high-quality fresh seafood.

A Cairns-based engineering firm that repairs motors and equipment, mainly for commercial fishing and leisure boats, indicated that it would lose at least $250 000 per year from the loss of business due to the draft marine reserve. Of this, the Lamason Group accounts for $150 000 per year.

Supply chain businesses linked to the Lamason Group were vocal about the impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. When interviewing other fishers and fishing-related business owners, many offered unprompted information about how significant Bob Lamason and his business are to the fishing sector in the Coral Sea. The following is a summary of some of the key comments:

A spokesperson for Marine Queensland spoke of how ‘immense’ the regional impact will be if the Lamason Group were to close down. He related it to the social fabric of Cairns.

A charter sector business owner commented on how important the Lamason Group’s fishing vessels were for providing information on where game fish could be targeted, thereby increasing the strike rate of clients.

A fish business broker explicitly mentioned the importance of the Lamason Group because it contributes to the economy directly and by flow-on effects.

Industry impactsSpecialist skill sets in the fishing sectorThe Lamasons reported on the substantial amount of time it takes for a fisher to develop skills in any particular fishery, and were concerned that the next generation of fishers would be lost because of the draft marine reserve. The owner indicated that fishing industry knowledge about areas, migration patterns and markets is not easily regained.

81


One of the biggest challenges for fishers in Queensland is access to good-quality crew and the owner has previously had to train skippers and crew. The oil and gas sector are now attracting the trained crew and skippers previously working in the fishing industry.

Prospective fishingThe owner is concerned that very little is known about the prospectivity of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. He perceives that the government lacks knowledge of the fish resources that exist in this draft reserve and that its full potential is unknown. He observed that as fisheries and other food resources deplete around the world, the Coral Sea resources are likely to increase in value. He considers that to have the region completely and permanently locked up will mean that these resources will no longer be accessible to Australian fishers and to the broader community.

Cumulative impactsThe Lamasons have observed a number of cumulative impacts to the fishing industry in Queensland and the Cairns region. In combination, these factors make their business, the industry and the region more vulnerable to impacts resulting from the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve:

They reported that many people were disillusioned and that there is currently no trust in ‘government’ as a result of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Jervis Bay marine reserve processes. This led to some fishers leaving the industry, resulting in a loss of fishing knowledge and experience in the region.

Cumulative regulatory changes have resulted in increased costs associated with compliance. These costs potentially include fines for gear drift into prohibited areas.

Other economic factors, such as the appreciation of the Australian dollar, increasing input costs and muted economic activity in the local region have made adaptation to new regulations more difficult.

UncertaintyThe Lamasons emphasised that it is difficult for them to plan ahead for their business with the uncertainty associated with the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

The Lamasons are currently retaining their employees and bearing the risk in a climate of uncertainty. They would like to be able to provide a clear outcome for the staff.

They are finding it difficult to develop and follow through with logistical plans for their business. They are unable to determine how much bait and fishing gear to order because the timeline for the potential introduction of the marine reserve is unknown. It is difficult to estimate operating expenses and they are unable to inform supply chain businesses if or when they will no longer require their services.

They are unable to proceed with business plans that they had for fishing in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. They recently purchased a new boat for $400 000 as a replacement for a boat that was lost in a fire. The owner reported that this investment was made less than a month before the announcement of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve and that they now see this investment as wasted. They are also currently deciding on whether it will be worthwhile investing in a number of other items, including a new delivery van.

82


Family and personal impactsThe Lamason Group is fundamentally a family business. Of great importance was how they had developed this business to pass on to their children. The owner’s wife emphasised that they raised their five children to be a part of the fishing industry. They had invested in the children’s future in the fishing sector and are now very concerned that this future will no longer exist. She spoke of the large emotional impact the draft reserve is having on the family and that they have not felt in control of the decisions that have to be made. She indicated that she has lost trust in the government and perceives unfairness in the process.

The psychological stress relating to the impacts of the draft reserve (both direct and cumulative) was raised. Over the past decade there has been a sharp increase in paperwork requirements associated with fisheries management and declared marine parks. She sees that many fishers and their families do not always have the capacity to respond to all of these requests and fish.

One of their sons has spent the past 8 years training in the fishing industry and has accumulated specialist knowledge. He perceived a loss of job security in the fishing sector with the 2009 announcement of the Coral Sea Conservation Zone. He now lives a split life, operating a small boat in a Queensland fishery and working in Western Australia in the oil and gas sector. This lifestyle allows him to spread the risk, service a mortgage and fish when not working in the oil and gas industry.

The Lamasons commented on the trend of young people being drawn towards the oil and gas sector and away from less well paid jobs in fishing and agriculture.

Ability to adaptBob Lamason indicated that he has the personal capacity to adapt in terms of health, interest, learning, confidence and capacity to find a solution. However, he indicated that he does not have job skills for other industries, is not confident in his ability to secure other employment and does not have access to a pension or superannuation. His fishing business provides him and his family all of their income, and was to fund his retirement.

The owner’s response to suggestions about moving to another community as an adaptation response was that this is not easy to do later in life once established. He has invested 24 years in the local Cairns community and has business and community connections in Cairns. Four of his adult children are based in Cairns.

In terms of his business’s capacity to adapt, it is in a moderately good financial situation but it cannot afford to make the necessary changes to adapt to the draft marine reserve. The owner perceives that options for adapting the company to other fishing are limited.

83


Case study: Onshore processing facilitiesThis case study investigates the potential impact of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve on a processing and distribution facility in Mooloolaba. The potential impacts on other processors and fishers in the region will also be explored. The information used in this case study was obtained from survey responses, a focus group and interviews with four processing businesses that took place in Mooloolaba during February 2012 as part of the social impact assessment process.

The business was established in 2000 and employs 30 full-time equivalent staff, making it a large employer in Mooloolaba. The business is vertically integrated across all sectors of the fishing industry. Its main activity is the processing and distribution of fishery products harvested in state and Commonwealth fisheries, with the majority of its products derived from the ETBF. The business receives product from four regular ETBF boats (including the business’ own boat), boats that are temporarily in the region, six prawn trawlers and a Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery line fishing boat. It also supplies fuel, ice and bait to commercial fishing vessels, and berthing and unloading facilities.

The business has developed international markets for its product, and exports most of its fish to Japan, the United States and Europe. A smaller amount of product is sold in the business’ wharf-side restaurant and other local eateries, or transported almost daily to all capital city domestic customers.

The business’ processing factory must operate at a ‘critical mass’; that is, a certain level of output must be maintained if the business is to cover its high up-front (fixed) costs and capitalise on economies of scale (see Box 2 for a detailed explanation). These up-front costs comprise a substantial share of their overall costs, with rental fees, water and electricity bills being particular pressures. Up-front costs have recently increased with the introduction of a state government levy on waste removal, and the company is further concerned about increased electricity costs. These fixed costs are approximately $400 000 per year, with an additional $400 000 per year paid in bank interest.

Impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine ReserveSince the business is highly reliant on the throughput derived from the ETBF, it was suggested that the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve had the potential to significantly reduce the fishery’s products available to the processing facility. The business owner reported that any further downsizing may cause the business to become economically unviable.

The reduced volume of ETBF product may also reduce the business’s ability to respond to new markets. Customer perceptions of sustainability have recently increased the demand for albacore in Australian supermarkets; however, the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve would reduce the business’ ability to supply this product. It was also suggested that the reduced diversity of products available to the factory as a result of the draft marine reserve will restrict the business’ ability to respond to changing market conditions by substituting between species.

The business owner stated he has felt ‘stagnant’ since the announcement of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. The uncertainty generated by the announcement has made it difficult to make business decisions and the owner feels frustrated that he has not been able to move the business forward during this time. The uncertainty has also made it difficult to obtain finance from banks to fund diversification ventures. For example, the business has recently built a floating pontoon

84


to enable them to service passenger boats; however, the pontoon has not been installed because banks have refused loans due to the uncertainty surrounding the draft marine reserve.

The owner fears the business will become unviable if the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve is declared. Increased regulations in the fishing industry and high running costs have made it difficult to operate the business, and the owner has considered moving the company offshore. However, the lack of buyers for the infrastructure in Mooloolaba has prevented this, and the owner is reluctant to leave behind the family ties he has in Australia.

Impacts on other businesses This business is one of several in Mooloolaba that processes fishery products harvested in the area of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. The impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve will vary for each processor, and will depend on several factors, including how diverse the business is and its dependence on products from the Coral Sea. The three other processors interviewed in Mooloolaba indicated that the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve would affect them in the following ways:

All processors indicated that they were operating at critical mass and were concerned that the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve would decrease the amount of product available for their businesses, making it difficult to meet their up-front costs.

There was concern that displaced fishing effort would further reduce the volume of product available to processors. One processor was concerned that large trawl boats displaced from the Multiple Use Zone (area 307) would respond by fishing further south in the waters around Mooloolaba (see Case study: Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery—T1 sector), and then take product out of the region back to their home port for processing.

One processor advised that there are limited options to diversify processing factories because all fisheries in Mooloolaba are shrinking.

One processor expects competition between Mooloolaba processors to increase as a result of the draft marine reserve.

One processer, who is heavily dependent on ETBF products, is concerned that he will not see a return on his recent investment in expanded factory space and processing equipment.

These impacts on processing facilities in Mooloolaba may in turn affect fishers operating in the region. Fishers are concerned that the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve would result in the loss of onshore input and processing facilities in Mooloolaba and along the entire Queensland coast. They were anxious that the marine reserve may reduce competition for these services in Mooloolaba, and that the high prices that could result from this would make it more difficult for them to continue fishing. Potentially displaced fishers advised that their ability to use new fishing grounds will be limited by the loss of onshore facilities in Queensland.

Box 2 Understanding ‘critical mass’ and a business’ economic viabilityThe issue of a ‘critical mass’ (or ‘tipping point’) for the economic viability of a business was raised across many focus groups and interviews, including businesses in the supply, catching and distribution sectors. This refers to the need for businesses to operate at a certain output level to cover up-front (fixed) costs, such as capital and land rental, and to capitalise on economies of scale.

Figure 19 shows a simplified diagram of a business’ revenue, costs and profit. In this case, revenue per unit of output is fixed, resulting in a linear total revenue curve. The total costs

85

OutputB A

Total costs

Total revenue

Revenue/ costs ($)

Fixed costs

Profit

Breakeven point


curve includes some fixed costs and some efficiencies gained through higher output, resulting in the curved line. The resulting profit is the difference between the total revenue and total cost curves, which a rational firm will maximise at point A. The shape of the revenue and cost curves for each business will partly depend on its own business structure, which is able to be modified under certain circumstances to best suit the business conditions it is operating in.

Figure 19 Simplified diagram of a business’ revenue, costs and profit

Businesses potentially affected by the draft marine reserve have suggested that a reduction in output (e.g. gear supplied, fish caught, product distributed) will have a proportionally larger effect on profit than on revenue. Some argue that a halving of their output, and therefore revenue (move from point A to point B), will make the business economically unviable. With the reduction in output, total costs could not be reduced enough to compensate, resulting in the business making a loss. The ‘critical mass’ in the example is the breakeven point. With output lower than at that point, the business will make a loss.

The conditions needed for profit-making are different for each business. Some businesses have large up-front costs relative to variable costs, while others have relatively small up-front costs. Some businesses are able to reduce costs significantly through economies of scale, while others can gain relatively little through increasing output. However, this demonstrates that a reduction in output can often result in a much larger impact on profit.

Case study: Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery—T1 sectorThis case study explores the potential impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve on T1 entitlement holders in the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery, which mainly operates from Mooloolaba, Cairns, Hervey Bay and Bundaberg. The case study is based on information from focus groups and surveys, and from interviews with operators in the T1 sector, processors, supply chain business owners and community representatives.

86


General background to the T1 sectorThe T1 symbol is one of four commercial fishery symbols in Queensland relating to the East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery. The fishery is located off the east coast of Queensland, extending from the tip of Cape York Peninsula to the Queensland – New South Wales border. The main species caught in the fishery are tiger, endeavour, red spot king, banana, eastern king and bay prawns, and scallops (DEEDI 2012b).

The fishery uses demersal trawl, which is excluded from all zones in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

A substantial proportion of operators in the T1 sector are based in the Mooloolaba, Cairns and Hervey Bay regions, from where there is access to inshore trawl areas, and offshore areas closer to the draft reserve boundary. The effect of displaced fishing activity from this region, and the flow-on effects to the state and national economies are further explored in the subregional economic modelling (Case study: Economic modelling of Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and Mooloolaba).

Background to fishing businesses Forty-seven survey respondents said that they held licences in the T1 sector. Most of these fishing businesses reported an annual value between $100 000 and $2.5 million. Twenty-six of these businesses indicated that they would be impacted by the draft marine reserve.

The survey respondents collectively employed 164 full-time, 168 part-time and 142 casual employees all year round, and a further 256 workers during the seasons. Across these employment categories, 112 are not paid a wage.

ImpactsReserve impacts There is a relatively small area of historical T1 activity that falls within the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve and a substantial amount of historical activity close to the reserve boundary. This is primarily in the vicinity of Swain Reefs. Based on vessel monitoring system data and discussions with operators, trawling tends to follow bathymetric contours, and trawling below 100–110 fathoms (about 180–200 metres) may intersect the draft marine reserve boundary in the Swain Reefs area. Operators who have regularly accessed this area are concerned about the potential displacement and the multiple flow-on effects associated with the displacement.

The volume of catch potentially displaced from the T1 sector was estimated to be in the range of 13.4–29.5 tonnes (value of between $170 000 and $375 000), the majority of which was estimated to be displaced from area 307, which includes parts of Swain Reefs. The methodology used for this estimate is discussed in Appendix A: Fisheries data processing methods.

Operators in the fishery who have regularly accessed the affected area expressed concern that the effects of the draft reserve would be much larger than estimated by catch and GVP displacement of affected trawls. This is because operators are required to designate a single map cell for each trawl, where in fact a single trawl may transverse several cells. Therefore, in some cases where a cell outside the reserve was designated, a potentially displaced trawl was not accounted for in the estimate. This has been captured in the upper estimate of displaced catch and GVP, with the effective area of displacement increased to include cells likely to include shots that intersected with the draft reserve (Map 12).

87


Map 12 Queensland trawl additional potential impacted area in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Note: Additional area extends approximately 10 nm along depth contours from the reserve boundary, in water depths greater than 100 fathoms (180m). This is used to estimate potential impact and is not an extension of the reserve.Data sources: Data sources: marine reserve boundaries from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; coastline from Geoscience Australia.

Displacement estimates for the T1 sector of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery are sensitive to the reference period used. Displacement estimates are based on average catch for the period 2004–10, because this is the longest period for which vessel-monitoring system data were provided for the fishery. However, there has been a significant increase in catch in regions that would potentially be displaced by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve in 2009 and 2010 (Figure 20). If 2010 were used as the reference period, potential displacement would increase to between 23.9 and 55.3 tonnes ($305 000 to $704 000).

88


Figure 20 Annual potential displacement from the Queensland T1 sector (point estimate)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 20100

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Catch GVPCa

tch

(ton

nes) GVP ($,000)

Data source: Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

The displaced trawl activity was reported to be critical to the economic viability of a fishing trip. It was suggested that without access to the trawl area proposed to be part of the reserve, it would no longer be worth travelling to the area.

Another suggested source for underestimation of GVP from displaced catch is that an industry-wide average price for each species is being applied to a consistently higher than average quality catch. It was reported that the critical mass of high-quality prawns provided the basis for additional sales of relatively low-quality prawns. Therefore, if the highest quality proportion of an operator’s catch was to be displaced, the flow-on effects would be larger than initially estimated.

Operators were confident that if an area around Swain Reefs was rezoned to allow trawl activity to continue then a large percentage of the estimated displacement would be avoided.

Fishing business impactsOf the 47 businesses in the T1 sector that responded to the survey, 25 outlined their most likely course of action if the draft marine reserve was declared. Of these, 15 said they would stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall from other areas, one said they would continue to operate with a reduced catch, two indicated that they would leave the fishing industry and seven were unsure how they would respond.

Overall, the anticipated impacts of the draft marine reserve on fishing businesses were as follows:

Displaced Hervey Bay-based fishers would move southwards to the Mooloolaba area or into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Moving southwards to Mooloolaba would result in increased concentration of effort in Mooloolaba fishing grounds. The Mooloolaba fishers were concerned that the Hervey Bay-based fishers have larger boats that give them a competitive advantage over Mooloolaba fishers.

Loss of high-value prawns caught in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve (western section of draft area 307) was reported to make their businesses unviable. The higher value products help to sell the lower value products.

89


Trawl operators would be unable to easily relocate to new areas because of a lack of essential infrastructure along the coast. Relocation could result in redundancy of existing shore-based infrastructure (i.e. facilities at Hervey Bay).

Increased fuel costs to avoid the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve boundary or to fish further south.

Fall in value of assets, particularly fisheries entitlements.

Increased business uncertainty impacts on access to finance, investment plans, business plans and management of stock. Fishers reported that they are unable to develop 5-year plans due to the continued uncertainty of outcomes with the Coral Sea Marine Reserve process.

Loss of employment opportunities, particularly for young people because of increased business uncertainty. It was reported that the fishing industry in Hervey Bay is an important employer.

Loss of skilled people and skill sets in the fishing industry (e.g. skippers, boat builders, boat gear suppliers), which affects product quality, business profitability and the future of the industry.

Potential to be involved in fisheries prosecutions for unintentional boundary violations due to natural tidal forces and unintentional drift across draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve boundaries. Fishers estimate a self-imposed 5 nautical mile buffer zone will be needed to avoid these situations. The buffer zone reduces their area for trawl even further and may make some businesses unviable.

Supply chain business impactsKey ports used by the T1 sector are Mooloolaba, Hervey Bay and Cairns. These locations are used to unload product, resupply, refit vessels and to freight product to markets, particularly Brisbane and Sydney.

T1 sector survey respondents used Bundaberg as their main input supplier port, and identified 29 supplier businesses from which services and supplies were purchased, including boat repairs, boat slippage, motor repairs, fuel and lube, and fishing gear. Cairns was identified as the second most important port for input services or supplies (30 input businesses), followed by Mooloolaba (21 businesses), Hervey Bay–Urangan (21 businesses), Brisbane (20 businesses) and Townsville (12 businesses).

The main ports where the 26 impacted T1 sector survey respondents currently land their catch were Mooloolaba (six respondents) and Hervey Bay–Urangan (four respondents). Impacted operators may include those displaced as well as those more indirectly impacted.

Hervey Bay focus group participants reported that the landed catch of the T1 sector gets widely distributed to wholesalers throughout Australia, particularly to Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Approximately 50 per cent of all the prawns they catch are sent to Sydney fish markets, and some are exported. Distribution is dependent on prices in different markets.

Urangan Fisheries was established in 1980 and is a significant cold store and processing business operating in Hervey Bay The business provides important refrigeration and storage facilities for T1 operators (one who is a partner in Urangan Fisheries), as well as other operators. It processes shark, mackerel, whiting, reef fish and prawns. Seventy-five per cent of the business’ product is frozen.

90


Urangan Fisheries have a range of specialist freezers and cold storage rooms to maintain high-value product. Last year they invested $1.5 million on specialist refrigeration for king prawns. They employ 75 people, including 15 employed on a full-time basis.

The owner of Urangan Fisheries has estimated that if the T1 fishers lose the area that is proposed by the Coral Sea Marine Reserve, but are able to keep fishing (resulting in diminished volume), then he would lose $1.2–2.4 million per year in loss of product.

A potential flow-on impact from reduced business at Urangan Fisheries would involve transportation services. Currently, seafood is transported five days a week to Brisbane, and also to Cairns and Sydney.

Community impactsHervey Bay has a population of approximately 48 155. The area has a high number of people of retirement age and high unemployment, resulting in a population with a below average wage. As a result of the recent bad weather and the strong Australian dollar, the tourism sector has been struggling. Business owners around the wharf at Urangan reported that the area is vulnerable to further impacts that may result in reduced employment opportunities and reduced income, which may have flow-on impacts to a range of businesses linked to the fishing industry (see ‘Town and local area summary’ in Chapter 3).

Urangan, which is the harbour area of Hervey Bay, is historically linked to the fishing industry. Although fishing industry activity has reduced substantially in this area over the past couple of decades, the industry is still culturally important to the region. There is an annual Seafood Festival to celebrate the regions’ fishing heritage, and the king prawns have an international reputation.

One of the main challenges to the fishing industry is the loss of skilled labour. Young people are drawn to the mining industry for secure income. It is expected that the long-term effect of this will be to lose a generation of people skilled in the fishing industry, resulting in the permanent loss of fishing industry knowledge.

91


Case study: Charter fishing in the Coral SeaThis case study considers the potential impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve on charter fishing businesses in Queensland. This is a qualitative assessment of the key themes that arose from interviews undertaken by ABARES with 15 Queensland charter operators in February 2012 as part of the social impact assessment process. Quantitative data based on logbook records were available, but were partially restricted by confidentiality constraints.

Background to charter fishing in QueenslandCharter fishing is defined as a commercial fee-for-service operation where a charter or transport operator takes customers for recreational fishing activities (DEEDI 2012a). A number of types of charter fishing occur in Queensland, including game fishing, sport fishing and reef fishing, which may involve the consumption of catch, and tag-and-release fishing.

Charter fishing is a high-value tourism activity that attracts both domestic and international clients. It contributes to the local economy directly through the use of local charter businesses, and indirectly by the tourism attracted to the region for a charter trip as part of a broader holiday. Interviewees emphasised that unlike commercial fisheries, the value of the charter industry is not connected to the tonnage of fish caught, and the revenue generated from catching a fish on a charter fishing trip far exceeds the price a commercial fisher would receive for it. It is difficult to quantify the importance of the Coral Sea to the charter industry because the degree to which a charter fishing business uses the area within the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve varies greatly between operators and from year to year. One operator advised that their use of the Coral Sea depended on weather patterns, which determine the migration of game fish they target.

According to interviewees, the draft Marine National Park Zone is used by only a few businesses offering high-end trips compared with those businesses that operate closer inshore. This often involves travel to a ‘mother ship’, where smaller vessels are based for a range of different fishing. Popular target species include black marlin, several species of tuna, giant trevally and a number of species of reef fish.

Saumarez Reef, which is zoned Habitat Protection in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve, is particularly important to some charter fishing businesses located in Gladstone, south Queensland. Many of these companies conduct charter fishing trips in the area around Swain Reefs (Map 13) and occasionally venture out to reefs further offshore to offer their clients a new experience. Of these outer reefs, Saumarez Reef is often used by charter operators because its accessibility means minimum travel time for clients, enabling them to fish for longer periods. Other Coral Sea reefs are rarely used because they require more time and fuel to reach, resulting in a more expensive fishing trip. Catch-and-release activities, and the consumption of catch during the trip would be allowed to continue in the Habitat Protection zones.

Some charter operators in north Queensland use the draft Marine National Park Zone to conduct catch-and-release fishing for black marlin. This activity occurs between September and December, and is a major attraction for domestic and international gamefishers. Although most of the marlin fishing is concentrated outside the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve between Cairns and Lizard Island (Map 13), some marlin fishing occurs within the Marine National Park Zone. Under the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve, all charter fishing would be excluded from the Marine National Park Zone.

92


One interviewee advised that several charter operators had invested in larger vessels to be able to operate further out into the Coral Sea. This was in response to the displacement caused by the rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in 2004. This operator was concerned that he will now be excluded from 50 per cent of this new area due to the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

Map 13 Major charter fishing areas in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Direct impacts of the draft reservesIndustry has stressed that the extent of the impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve will depend on specific details of the draft reserve’s implementation and management, particularly the regulations surrounding the consumption of catch during a trip. Therefore, charter operators have stated that they cannot accurately assess the impacts to their businesses in the absence of a comprehensive management plan.

Displaced catch from the Marine National Park Zone was estimated at approximately 6.5 tonnes. There is also potential displacement of catch from Habitat Protection zones as a result of changed conditions. However, this measure does not account for the full value of a charter service, as it excludes the value of the service associated with catching the fish. This is thought to affect a relatively small number of businesses that have the capacity for long trips or can work in combination with ‘mother ships’.

There were mixed responses to the expected impact of the Habitat Protection Zone surrounding several reefs, including Saumarez Reef. Some businesses claimed that the inability to take catch home is a substantial detraction from the service they offer, and would decrease their customers’ perceived value for money. One operator felt that the inability to take record fish would make their services less attractive to clients who specifically engaged in charter fishing to catch a record fish. Other interviewees suggested that the Habitat Protection Zone would not

93


alter their businesses at all because their customers practice catch-and-release fishing already. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the aggregate impact on charter activity in areas such as the Saumarez Reef, which is popular because of its accessibility and abundance of fish.

The running of a successful charter business relies on the knowledge and ability to take clients to the best fishing area at that point in time. Exactly where that may be depends on a variety of factors influencing the location of fish, including habitat, local fish stocks, migratory fish stocks and factors influencing the quality of the recreational experience, such as weather. Therefore, a crucial part of running a charter business is the choice of fishing areas. A major concern of the charter industry is that, with the draft marine reserve, the choice of fishing areas would be diminished. Operators stressed the importance of flexibility, rather than focusing on keeping areas open simply because they have been used in the past.

Indirect impacts of the draft marine reserveCharter fishing operators targeting black marlin in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve have advised that they will be impacted by the exclusion of ETBF operators from the Marine National Park, Habitat Protection and Special Purpose zones. Historically, charter businesses have relied on ETBF operators to inform them where the marlin is. Commercial operators are not allowed to retain black marlin for commercial harvest; however, their incidental interactions with black marlin and other target species provide important information for charter fishers. Charter operators are concerned that in the absence of ETBF fishers, they will be unable to locate black marlin, and will either be unable to offer this service to their clients, or spend considerably more effort locating marlin. Most of the major areas in which marlin are historically caught will still be accessible to charter fishers under the draft marine reserve; however, without the information from ETBF operators the quality, and therefore popularity, of the service may decline.

Charter operators advised that the announcement of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve has reduced the popularity of the Coral Sea as a potential charter holiday destination. Charter operators are finding it difficult to counteract clients’ perception that the draft marine reserve significantly decreases the charter fishing opportunities in the region. Interviewees advised that a proportion of clients erroneously believe that charter activities are prohibited in the entire Coral Sea. These factors were reported to already be influencing the number of customer inquiries, and may result in either reduced patronage or higher marketing costs to counteract negative perceptions.

Prospective fishing The recent cyclones in Queensland and the high Australian dollar have reduced the appeal of Queensland as a charter fishing holiday destination, and the industry has experienced a decline in client numbers. In response, some operators are looking to modify their business to be able to operate in the Coral Sea. The industry is confident that the opportunity to fish these ‘untouched’ waters will attract premium clients and enable Australian operators to compete with international charter businesses (particularly those in Hawaii and Central America). The Marine National Park Zone of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve would limit the opportunity to reposition the charter fishing industry in this way.

Industry participants are also concerned that the draft Marine National Park Zone will limit the development of the emerging superyacht industry in north Queensland. The global superyacht industry supports large vessels (more than 24 metres in length), which are highly mobile and have the ability to visit areas all around the world. This industry has grown over the last decade, and is reported to have significant economic benefits for communities in northern Queensland. According to an interviewee, one international superyacht arrives in Cairns each month. These

94


vessels stay in the region for a week or more conducting charter fishing, and often employ residents as guides. The Queensland government has implemented initiatives to support the growth and development of the international superyacht industry, which is outlined in the Queensland Superyacht Strategy 2008–2013 (DEEDI 2008); however, interviewees were concerned that the draft Marine National Park Zone would deter superyacht tourism by restricting the areas in which fishing activities can take place.

95


Case study: Economic modelling of Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and Mooloolaba

Subregions assessed using AusRegionAusRegion is a dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model of the Australian economy at the national level, the level of the eight states and territories, and the subregional level. It can be used to examine the net economic impact of a policy change to part of the economy.

The ABARES AusRegion model has been used to estimate the economic effects of establishing the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve on three subregions: Cairns, Hervey Bay and Mooloolaba (Map 14). These three subregions together account for $4.2 million (or 91–95 per cent) of the $4.5–4.7 million total GVP that would potentially be displaced by the draft marine reserve. As such, the potential displacement of GVP from these subregions would be expected to have relatively stronger economic impacts than for other subregions adjacent to the Coral Sea Marine Region or further afield.

Map 14 Areas modelled by AusRegion: Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and Mooloolaba

Data sources: Draft marine reserve boundaries from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; coastline, state and maritime boundaries from Geoscience Australia; statistical regions from the Australian Bureau of Statistics

CairnsThe Cairns (local government area) economy accounted for approximately 3 per cent of Queensland’s economy in 2010–11. The fishing sector (including catching and processing, but excluding retail) accounted for approximately 2 per cent of the local economy (Figure 21). Services sectors (including construction, retail and wholesale trade, restaurants and hotels,

96


transport, public services and other services) accounted for 87 per cent of the local economy, a substantial proportion of which is connected with tourism. The manufacturing and mining sectors accounted for 10 per cent and 1 per cent of the local economy, respectively.

Figure 21 Structure of the Cairns economy

Fisheries; 2%


Mining; 1%

Manufacturing; 10%

Services; 87%

Data source: ABARES, AusRegion

According to the 2006 census, Cairns had a population of around 123 000. The unemployment rate was 4.3 per cent, compared with the national unemployment rate at the time of 5.2 per cent.

MooloolabaThe Mooloolaba economy accounted for less than 1 per cent of Queensland’s economy in 2010–11. The fishing sector (including catching and processing, but excluding retail) accounted for approximately 3 per cent of the local economy (Figure 22). Services sectors (including construction, retail and wholesale trade, restaurants and hotels, transport, public services and other services) accounted for 86 per cent of the local economy, a substantial proportion of which is connected with tourism. The manufacturing sector was the next largest sector, accounting for approximately 11 per cent of the local economy.

97


Figure 22 Structure of the Mooloolaba economy

Fisheries; 3%


Mining; <1%

Manufacturing; 11%

Services; 86%


According to the 2006 census, Mooloolaba had a population of around 30 600. The unemployment rate was 5.3 per cent, marginally higher than the national unemployment rate at the time of 5.2 per cent.

Hervey Bay and BundabergThe Hervey Bay and Bundaberg economies collectively accounted for approximately 2 per cent of Queensland’s economy in 2010–11. The fishing sector (including catching and processing, but excluding retail) accounted for approximately 1 per cent of the local economy (Figure 23). Services sectors (including construction, retail and wholesale trade, restaurants and hotels, transport, public services and other services) accounted for 81 per cent of the local economy, a substantial proportion of which is connected with tourism. The manufacturing and forestry/agriculture sectors accounted for 15 per cent and 2 per cent of the local economy, respectively.

98


Figure 23 Structure of the Hervey Bay–Bundaberg economy

Fisheries; 1%

Forestry/ agriculture; 2%

Mining; 1%

Manufacturing; 15%

Services; 81%


According to the 2006 census, the Hervey Bay–Bundaberg regions had a combined population of about 108 000. The unemployment rate was 8.1 per cent, considerably higher than the national unemployment rate at the time of 5.2 per cent.

The AusRegion framework of analysisAusRegion allows the impact of changes in economic variables on different sectors and subregions to be analysed. This makes AusRegion highly suited to analysing the economic effects on regional fishing communities from the creation of Commonwealth marine reserves. The CGE framework for analysing these effects allows reporting of impacts on key economic variables at the subregional, state and national levels. For example, the economic effects from these changes can be reported in terms of changes in gross domestic product, employment and industry activity levels at the national, state and subregional levels. A detailed description of the AusRegion modelling framework is provided in ABARE (2010).

A key strength of CGE analysis is the ability to identify how effects arising from changes in the economic environment affect different sectors of the economy. This ability stems from the underlying strong trade links between sectors and subregions, and the mobility of factors of production, such as labour, that are built into CGE models.

AusRegion has four factors of production—land, labour, capital and natural resources—that combine with other business inputs to reflect the productive capacity of national, state and subregional economies. AusRegion also allows the user to select the subregions to be modelled and the sectors to be analysed.

In practical terms, changes to any given sector (or sectors) in a regional economy are applied as an externally imposed shock to the equilibrium (or economic status quo) operating in that subregion. The model results from the change are then compared with the reference case that shows how the economy evolves over time without any externally imposed changes. This allows the net economic impact of the policy change to be determined. Changes from the reference case arising from any change in government policy, or economic shock, are typically reported as a percentage deviation in key economic variables—for example, regional income levels or employment—from the reference case at particular points in time. Absolute level changes

99


(e.g. number of jobs lost, the dollar amount of reduction in regional income) can then be inferred outside the modelling process from the percentage changes.

The AusRegion model typically estimates the long-run effects of a given policy change. For the analysis in this report, the temporary effects of the policy change have also been examined. The main difference between the short-term and longer term effects is the assumed flexibility in resource mobility. In the short term, it is assumed that resources are restricted in their ability to move between sectors and subregions of the economy. As a result, a policy change results in some productive resources being not fully used in the short term. For example, unemployment rates can rise as workers from affected industries are temporarily displaced before being absorbed in other industries or subregions over time. Over the longer term, however, it is assumed that both capital and labour resources move to sectors and subregions where their productive value is highest. When this occurs, the sector or subregion has fully adjusted in response to the changed economic environment.

Modelling limitationsEconomic modelling allows complex policy changes to be analysed within a disciplined analytical framework. Economic modelling of the impacts of the draft marine reserve aims to estimate the potential economic effect of a given scenario relative to a defined reference case scenario, while holding other variables constant. As such, these modelling estimates should not be interpreted as forecasts of future fisheries production or economic activity, as these will depend on a wide range of external uncertain variables not incorporated into modelling frameworks. General uncertainties include future changes in the price of fisheries products, future changes in fisheries productivity, changes to fisheries management and future climatic conditions.

Modelling necessarily requires some degree of simplification. An understanding of the limitations of modelling is necessary to correctly interpret estimates. As such, some of the study’s key model and data limitations are provided below. The modelling:

does not account for interannual variability and uncertainty in the economic shock

- The economic shock calculated for the AusRegion model was based on the estimates of GVP displacement; therefore, the caveats and limitations of the methodology to reach this estimate also apply to the economic modelling

provides estimates only for large aggregated regions

- The economic modelling presents estimates of changes in the region, state and national economies. In practice, economic effects are likely to be highly variable within these large regions and concentrated in small fisheries-dependent communities.

does not include transition costs

- AusRegion presents estimates of changes in employment, assuming that labour is able to move between regions and industries in the long run, without cost. The AusRegion model does not take into account the costs of transition that individuals may encounter to find new employment in alternative industries or regions

does not include threshold effects

- the AusRegion CGE modelling framework cannot predict ’tipping point’ effects such as the closure of particular processing facilities.

100


does not include feedback effects

- a two-stage approach is used that involves separately estimating GVP displacement through logbook analyses and using these results as input into AusRegion. This approach does not allow for any feedback effects between the logbook analyses and the AusRegion model.

Model reference case ABARES was asked to model the potential subregional, state/territory and national economic impact of the reduction in commercial fishing activity associated with establishing marine reserves. The model operates under the assumption that the local fishing fleet is predominantly only capable of short-range fishing activities or that fishing boats are geared to fish for particular species, but not others (i.e. the fleet would have limited capacity to fish further afield or target different species if key fishing grounds were made inaccessible). The closure of some areas to commercial fishing would therefore lead to a reduction in fisheries GVP at ports of landing. Parts of the fishing industry and associated factors of production (e.g. capital, labour) would be free to move to other areas that are not affected by the establishment of marine reserves in search of higher returns.

Reference case assumption regarding fishery sector growthABARES used available fisheries data to construct a reference case dataset to represent the long-term average catch and fisheries GVP in each of the modelled subregions over the period to 2019–20. The data were sourced from the Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and from ABARES own fisheries databases. Table 17 indicates that GVP is forecast to remain constant or grow in all states between 2009–10 and 2019–20, reaching a national total of $2.8 billion in 2019–20.

Table 17 Reference case gross value of production projections by jurisdiction ($billion)Jurisdiction 2009–

102010–11

2015–16

2019–20

NSW 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2

NT 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Qld 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5

SA 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

Tas 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7

Vic 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

WA 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6

Total 2.2 2.1 2.5 2.8

Source: ABARES estimates and projections

ScenariosScenarios were defined for each subregion being analysed, reflecting the level of GVP potentially displaced from the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve (see Chapter 2: Potential displacement of fishing). The potential displacement of fisheries output represented a

101


2.4 per cent reduction in the fisheries output of the Cairns subregion, a 6 per cent reduction in the fisheries output of the Mooloolaba subregion and a 1 per cent reduction in fisheries output of the Hervey Bay subregion.

This analysis used a period of one year (2012–13) to represent short-term economic impacts and eight years (2019–20) to represent longer term impacts. The mobility of resources between different sectors of the economy is assumed to be restricted in the short term, while resources are assumed to be fully mobile when assessing longer term impacts.

ResultsShort-term effects (2012–13)The potential employment impacts of the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve are greater in the short term than over the longer term. This is because labour and capital that are displaced from the fisheries sector take time to be redeployed to other sectors and areas.

The economic modelling did not find impacts at the state or national levels; impacts to these economies are assessed as negligible. The modelled estimates of total potential regional impacts to the economy and jobs are reported as the sum of impacts to subregions, scaled linearly to account for the proportion of potential GVP displacement that was not modelled.

The model results are expressed in percentage terms (Table 18). These results demonstrate that the effect on the subregional economy and local employment is small, with the largest impact expected in Mooloolaba with a 0.17 per cent decline in GRP and a 0.06 per cent decline in employment. These results are consistent with the relatively small size of the fishing industries in the regional economies and the relatively small size of the economic shock in the context of the regional economy. Modelled impacts at the state and national level are negligible in the context of those economies and job markets. Given the computational limits of the model, the smaller the percentage impact on a region (subregion, state or nation), the greater the uncertainty around the results. As a result, percentage changes of less than 0.005 were considered to be negligible and actual values derived from them are not reported.

Table 18 Short-term (2012–13) model results of the potential impact of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve on the economy and employment (percentages)Economic impact Cairns Mooloolaba Hervey Bay–

BundabergGross regional product –0.05 –0.17 –0.01Gross state product - - -Gross domestic product - - -EmploymentSubregion –0.02 –0.06 -State/territory - - -National - - -

- = negligible modelled impact (less than 0.005 per cent)

Absolute results for economic and employment effects are calculated externally to the AusRegion model. AusRegion results for regional employment impacts (in percentage terms) can be applied to Australian Bureau of Statistics data to calculate estimates of impacts in absolute terms. Reference case model estimates can be applied to the impacts in percentage terms to provide an indication of impacts in absolute dollar and employment values (Table 19).

102


The total short term regional economic impact from the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve was estimated to be $8.0–8.4 million. In the short term, the effect on regional employment was estimated to be the loss of 18–19 full-time equivalent positions. There are likely to be flow-on effects in other regions; however changes in economic activity at the state and national level are negligible in terms of the size of these economies.

Gross regional product (GRP) in the Cairns subregion is estimated to fall by 0.05 per cent ($4.1 million) relative to the reference case in 2012–13. A smaller dollar effect on GRP is estimated for the Mooloolaba subregion ($2.84 million); however, this corresponds to a larger proportion of GRP than Cairns (0.17 per cent reduction in GRP) due to the smaller regional economy of Mooloolaba than Cairns. The impact on the Hervey Bay–Bundaberg subregion was estimated at $0.63 million (0.01 per cent reduction in GRP).

In the short term, it was projected that employment would be slightly lower as a result of the establishment of the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve. Modelling estimated that around 10 full-time equivalent jobs would be lost in the Cairns subregion and about seven full-time positions in the Mooloolaba subregion. The employment impact in the Hervey Bay–Bundaberg subregion is negligible in terms of the size of the regional labour market.

For the fisheries sector, these job losses are projected to result in 0.02 per cent fewer full-time jobs in the Cairns subregion and 0.05 per cent fewer full-time jobs in the Mooloolaba subregion. The short term employment impact in the Hervey Bay-Bundaberg subregion was assessed as negligible`.

Table 19 Summary of estimated short-term impacts in 2012–13 (absolute terms) Economic impact (2010–11 A$million) Cairns Mooloolaba Hervey Bay–

BundabergEconomic shock (displacement) 2.33 1.54 0.36Gross regional product –4.1 –2.8 –0.6Gross state product - - -Gross domestic product - - -

Employment (full-time equivalent)Subregion –10 –7 -State/territory - - -National - - -

- = negligible modelled impact (less than 0.005 per cent)Notes: Gross regional product refers to the subregion modelled (i.e. the Cairns, Mooloolaba or Hervey Bay subregion). Economic and employment impacts at subregional, state and national levels are cumulative and should not be added. Calculated employment numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Dash (“-“) represent negligible modelled impact.

Longer term effects (period to 2019–20)Long term effects reflect the impact of the reduction in commercial fishing activity on overall economic activity and employment compared with the reference case, where the national, state/territory and regional economies are projected to grow over the period to 2019–20. In the long term, the economy would have adjusted to the reduced fishing activity, with factors of production such as labour and capital being redeployed to where they are used most productively.

In the longer term, it is projected that GRP will remain lower in all three subregions relative to the reference case (Table 20). Long-term changes in the value of production reflect both

103


continued growth assumed to occur in the subregional, state and national economies, and the ability of resources and capital to be redeployed in the economy to its next most productive use.

The long-run model results indicate that the economic impacts on the subregions are greater than 0.01 per cent; however, impacts on the state and national economies, and on employment across most subregions, Queensland and the country are relatively small (less than 0.005 per cent). Absolute values for economic and employment impacts have been estimated externally to the model (Table 21).

Table 20 Longer term (2019–20) model results of the potential impact of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve on the economy and employment (percentages)Economic impact Cairns Mooloolaba Hervey Bay–BundabergGross regional product –0.05 –0.18 –0.01Gross state product - - -Gross domestic product - - -

EmploymentSubregion - –0.01 -State/territory - - -National - - -

- = negligible modelled impact (less than 0.005 per cent)

In the long term, the total regional economic impact is estimated to be $10.7–11.2 million, reflecting the sum of estimated impact in Cairns, Mooloolaba and Hervey Bay–Bundaberg, and scaled linearly to account for the proportion of potential GVP displacement not modelled. In 2019–20, estimated total job loss from the draft marine reserve was around 3 full-time equivalent jobs. There are likely to be flow-on impacts on other regions; however, changes in economic activity and employment are negligible in terms of the size of those economies and job markets.

In 2019–20, under the assumption of full capital and labour mobility, GRP is projected to be 0.05 per cent lower in the Cairns subregion ($5.4 million lower in absolute terms) than in the reference case. In the Mooloolaba subregion, GRP is projected to be 0.18 per cent lower than in the reference case, ($3.8 million lower in absolute terms). In the Hervey Bay–Bundaberg subregion, GRP is projected to be 0.012 per cent lower than in the reference case, ($0.9 million lower in absolute terms). Modelled impacts at the state and national levels are negligible in the context of those economies.

In the longer term, the impact on employment is projected to moderate compared with the short term as the labour market adjusts and workers move to other industries and areas.

Table 21 Summary of estimated long-term economic impacts in 2019–20 (absolute terms)Economic impact (2010–11 A$million) Cairns Mooloolaba Hervey Bay–BundabergEconomic shock (displacement) 2.33 1.54 0.36Gross regional product –5.4 –3.8 –0.9Gross state product - - -Gross domestic product - - -

Employment (full-time equivalent)Subregion - –1 -State/territory - - -National - - -

104


- = negligible modelled impact (less than 0.005 per cent)Notes: Gross regional product refers to the subregion modelled (i.e. the Cairns, Mooloolaba or Hervey Bay subregion). Economic and employment impacts at subregional, state and national levels are cumulative and should not be added.

AusRegion modelling indicated a small benefit to other sectors in the Cairns, Mooloolaba and Hervey Bay–Bundaberg subregions as a result of capital and labour redeployment to these sectors.

Concluding commentsThe models demonstrate how the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve is likely to affect economic activity and employment across the selected subregions. Economic impacts are expected to be felt both directly through reduced fisheries production and indirectly through decreased activity for those businesses that supply inputs to, and process outputs from, the fishing industry in affected subregions and the broader economy. The combined effects of the direct and indirect impacts are captured in changes to economic activity and employment at the subregional level. The modelled impacts at the state and national levels were negligible in the context of those economies.

The results indicated a small percentage decline in GRP in the Cairns and Hervey Bay–Bundaberg subregions, and a slightly larger percentage decline in the Mooloolaba subregion in both the short term and the long term.

The effect of the loss of GVP on employment levels in the subregions was larger in the short term and declined over the longer term, which is consistent with increasing labour and capital mobility over time.

Survey and consultation with industry stakeholders suggested that over both the long term and the short term, the reduction in total positions in the fishing sector may be greater than modelled because of the high proportion of part-time positions in the industry (Appendix C: Estimating job reduction using the survey).

105


AppendixesA: Fisheries data processing methodsThe analysis of commercial fishing gross value of production (GVP) within the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve was based on Commonwealth and Queensland fishers operating in Commonwealth waters. Commonwealth waters extend from 3 nautical miles offshore from the territorial sea baseline to the 200 nautical mile limit of Australia’s exclusive economic zone. Under Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements, state and territory fisheries may operate in Commonwealth waters to target agreed species, under the management jurisdiction of state and territory fisheries agencies.

Draft marine reserve boundaries and zoning provided by the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) form the basis of these analyses. Fisheries logbook data and market data were used to calculate the annual average GVP that may be displaced by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

Notes and caveatsFishing methods were included or excluded from the different zones based on the zoning framework provided by SEWPaC (Table 22 and Table 23).

The estimates of catch and GVP in this report are derived from logbook and market data supplied by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), the Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF Qld) and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES): The estimates use data at different spatial reporting scales and have correspondingly different accuracy when assessing the displacement of fishing. These estimates are identified in the displacement tables (Table 6 to Table 10).

Queensland fisheries report catch aggregated to the cell level (e.g. 6-minute or 30-minute grids). This reporting cell often occupies only a portion of a draft marine reserve. In such cases, the catch and GVP are apportioned based on the percentage of overlap with the reporting cell. It is assumed that catch is taken uniformly across the area of the reporting cell; however, this may not be the case.

Input from fishing industry representatives and Queensland Government agencies was used to refine the analyses where possible. This has been applied to calculating a range of displacement estimates for the Queensland Trawl Sector in area 307, and adjusting displacement estimated for the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery.

A number of assumptions are made with respect to calculating GVP and the reference period used. These are discussed below in the section ‘Rationale for gross value of production calculations’. Potential displacement estimates are given as annual means spanning between 7 and 11 years. Catch and GVP in the most recent years may have been higher or lower than the mean. For example, activity in the T1 sector of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery in the vicinity of one part of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve has grown significantly over the last few years, so potential displacement of catch and GVP in 2010 would be almost twice as large as the seven-year mean.

Estimates of potential displacement do not fully address issues of prospective fishing. Fisheries that were productive before the reference period may again be productive in the future. Furthermore, previously unfished areas may also have the potential to be productive

106


in the future. These potential catches will not be captured in these GVP displacement estimates.

This report uses commercial fishery logbook data. These are generally a good reflection of actual catches but are largely unverified. Because commercial fisheries logbook data are provided by fishers but then processed and stored by fisheries agencies, misreporting and data entry errors may arise. In addition, reporting of an operation’s spatial coordinates is not necessarily a completely accurate representation of where fishing occurred. For example, pelagic longline operations are assumed to occur in a straight line because only start and end coordinates are recorded in logbooks. In reality, operations are unlikely to occur in a perfectly straight line.

This analysis assumes that dropline as reported by the relevant data providers conforms to the specification provided by SEWPaC: 'a dropline is a line that is vertically set or suspended in the water column; with no more than a single anchor point in contact with the seabed or substrate; and not operating with or as a trotline'.

Estimates of potential displacement may be affected by data confidentiality constraints such that no estimate can be reported for some fisheries. Individual fisheries or areas with fewer than five vessels are marked as confidential, and subtotals from which confidential data may be calculated do not include those fisheries. However, the estimates of overall displacement across all fisheries and reserves are not affected by confidentiality constraints.

This analysis assumes that fishing is at optimum levels and that there is no scope for further expansion of catch in the future. However, it is possible, where a fishery is displaced by a marine reserve, that fishers may move to alternative fishing grounds and maintain the same level of activity, catch and viability of their operation. This may not be the case in other fisheries, but will always depend on a number of (potentially interrelated) factors such as economics, distance to port facilities, management arrangements, availability of target species or even the suitability of fishing grounds in adjacent areas.

ConsultationABARES consulted industry and DAFF Qld representatives to refine the fishing area and unit price estimates for GVP calculations. A number of refinements were made to the analyses as a result of this consultation, the workshops and further discussions with fisheries agencies and industry representatives, including:

adjustment of logbook data from operators in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery to account for systematic underestimation of catch when compared with catch disposal records. Adjustment factors (‘scalars’) were provided by CSIRO to maintain consistency with work done for the tropical tuna resource assessment group

calculation of an upper range estimate for the T1 sector of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery, which excluded additional trawls that may be displaced. These trawls may be reported to cells adjacent to the draft reserve, but have a significant part of the trawl crossing into the draft reserve.

Rationale for gross value of production calculationsThe objective of this analysis is to provide an indication of the potential fishery catch that would be displaced by the draft marine reserve in the Coral Sea, and to place a value on the displaced catch. As such, the analysis uses a historical reference period to provide an indication of the magnitude of catches from the areas where fishing would be excluded.

107


To determine annual average catches in the areas of the draft marine reserve, a 10-year reference period (2001–10) was used for Commonwealth fisheries and an 11-year reference period (2000–10) was used for most Queensland fisheries, with the exception of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery (T1 sector), which uses a 7-year reference period (2004–10). Fishery yields may fluctuate over time, and a longer reference period allows for a better understanding of what catches have been achieved in an area and is not limited to current activity. However, this approach cannot fully account for a number of factors, such as maximum sustainable resource limits; whether the fishery is in development, fully fished at long-term sustainable levels or recovering from depletion; or large changes in catch over time due to external drivers.

To place a value on the displaced catch, the ‘preferred approach’ was to use recent prices instead of prices obtained in the year of capture. This is because contemporary prices are thought to better reflect likely near-term future prices when impacts would be experienced. In addition, this removes some interannual variability. In all analyses, prices and GVP were adjusted to 2010–11 dollars using the consumer price index. Under this preferred approach, prices were taken from a three-year reference period (2007–08 to 2009–10). GVP was calculated by multiplying the volume of catch recorded in logbooks by the average ‘beach price’. Beach prices exclude the cost of transporting, processing, value-adding and marketing of fish products for wholesale and retail markets. Where there were no records in the price reference period, the most recent year of data was used.

Commonwealth fisheriesCommonwealth fishers record data in their mandatory AFMA logbooks, which can be used to determine where, when and how each species is caught. AFMA logbook data were used to develop the catch estimates, while the GVP calculations were derived using ABARES-supplied market data. Commonwealth operators record the latitude and longitude position of each fishing operation in logbooks—this can be either a single position or a start and finish position for certain gear (such as pelagic longline). The position information of each operation was converted to a line, generated from start and finish coordinates, if available. For operations with only one reported position, a very short line of approximately 100 metres was generated from the single position.

Estimates of potential displacement for Commonwealth fisheries were derived from operations that intersected with, or were wholly within, a draft marine reserve. Where an operation’s line intersected a marine reserve but did not fall entirely within the reserve, the catch and GVP for that operation were allocated in proportion to the length of line within the marine reserve (Figure 24).

Estimates of displaced catch from the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery were adjusted to account for a consistent discrepancy between logbook data, which are estimates, and catch disposal records, which are measured. Logbook data were scaled up on a species-by-species basis, based on the average discrepancy during the period 2006–10 (Campbell 2012).

GVP was calculated using the preferred approach, where prices were taken from a three-year reference period (2007–08 to 2009–10). GVP was calculated by multiplying the volume of catch recorded in logbooks by the average ‘beach price’. In all analyses, prices and GVP were adjusted to 2010–11 dollars according to the consumer price index.

This report was filtered so that confidential data (representing fewer than five vessels) are not shown.

108


Figure 24 Treatment of fishing operations in relation to marine reserve boundaries

Note: The green area represents a draft marine reserve, and the red lines indicate lines of fishing operations. Fishing operations can be entirely in the marine reserve or entirely outside it; those that cross the reserve boundary had their potentially displaced catch and GVP allocated proportionally.

Table 22 Excluded fishing methods in Commonwealth fisheries, and zoning implicationsMethod

Multiple Use ZoneSpecial Purpose Zone

Habitat Protection Zone

Marine National Park Zone

Auto-longline Bottom longline Divea Dropline b Dropline—hydraulic b Dropline—manual b Fish trap Handline Pelagic longline Minor line Poling b Purse seine Rod and reel b Trotline Troll b Trawl = method would be excludeda Allowed in all Habitat Protection zones except Marion Reef (area 305), where the method is excluded. b Not allowed for commercial catch in Habitat Protection Zones, but allowed for 'catch and release' or 'catch and eat on trip' purposes.Source: Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Queensland fisheriesDAFF Qld provided ABARES with complete commercial and charter fisheries data. These data contained a vessel count flag to identify confidential data (fewer than five vessels) that could not be revealed. ABARES, in consultation with DAFF Qld and the Queensland Seafood Industry Association, undertook further analysis, which excluded some fisheries because they occurred only in Queensland state waters. An alternative methodology was adopted for the Queensland trawl sector, using vessel monitoring system (VMS) position data.

109


Queensland commercial fisheries

1) Queensland fishers record data in their mandatory logbooks, which can be used to determine where, when and how each species is caught. Fishing positions are recorded at the scale of sites (6-minute reporting blocks) or grids (30-minute reporting blocks) (Map 15).

Map 15 Queensland fisheries reporting grid systems overlaid on the outline of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Data source: reporting grids from Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Queensland; draft marine reserve boundaries from the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities; coastline, state and maritime boundaries from Geoscience Australia.

2) The 6-minute and 30-minute reporting blocks were intersected with the draft marine reserve and displacement was estimated according to the proportion of reporting block that intersected with the reserve. This approach assumed fishing was distributed uniformly within the reporting block. Six-minute data were used wherever available; otherwise, 30-minute data were used.

3) For the Queensland trawl sector, VMS position data for the period 2004–10 were used to better estimate the proportion of fishing that occurred inside and outside zones for reporting blocks that straddled a boundary. To estimate a lower bound of an estimate range, counts were made of VMS positions for each intersecting reporting block at trawling speed (0–2.8 knots) that occurred inside and outside the reserve boundary. These counts were used to calculate the proportion of trawl catch within the reserve.To estimate an upper bound, an additional area was defined where trawl operations that commence outside the reserve boundary may proceed into the draft reserve. This area comprised a buffer that extended approximately 10 nautical miles along depth contours from the draft reserve boundary, at depths of more than 100 fathoms (180 metres) (Map 16).

110


Map 16 Queensland trawl additional potential impact area in the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve (used to estimate potential impact, not an extension of the reserve)

Note: Additional area extends approximately 10 nm along depth contours from the reserve boundary, in water depths

greater than 100 fathoms (180m). This is used to estimate potential impact and is not an extension of the reserve.

Data sources: Data sources: marine reserve boundaries from the Australian Government Department of Sustainability,

Environment, Water, Population and Communities; coastline from Geoscience Australia.

4) Estimates of potential displacement for Queensland fisheries were derived from operations using excluded methods (Table 22) that intersected with, or were wholly within, a draft marine reserve. GVP was calculated using 2009–10 price data for the main species caught in each fishery, as supplied by DAFF Qld.

5) Confidential data (representing fewer than five vessels) are not shown.

111


Table 23 Queensland fishing methods and zoning implicationsMethod

Multiple Use ZoneSpecial Purpose Zone

Habitat Protection Zone

Marine National Park Zone

Anchored gillnetting Collecting corala Dilly fishing Divinga Drifting gillnetting Dropline b Fish trapping Free diving/snorkellinga Gillnetting Handline Hookah divinga Line fishing Longline (demersal) Reef walking/wadinga Ring netting Shell dredge/hand Trawling Trolling b Trotline = method would be excludeda Allowed in all Habitat Protection zones except Marion Reef (area 305), where the method is excluded. b Not allowed for commercial catch in Habitat Protection zones, but allowed for 'catch and release' or 'catch and eat on trip' purposes.Source: Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Queensland Charter FisheryThe Queensland Charter Fishery was analysed using 6-minute and 30-minute reporting grid data in a similar way to Queensland commercial fisheries. Estimates of mean annual retained fish and numbers of clients, were calculated by:

intersecting the 6-minute blocks with the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve, and estimating displacement according to the proportion of the reporting block that was occupied by the reserve. This approach assumed fishing was distributed uniformly within the 6-minute block

estimating potential displacement based on mean annual catch for the period 2000–10.

112


B: Social impact assessment methodsSocial impact assessment (SIA) is a process to assess or estimate the social consequences that are likely to follow from specific policy actions, including programs, or the adoption of new policies.

Scope of the social impact assessmentThe scope of the SIA is outlined in the Record of Understanding (ROU) provided to Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) Australian Government by the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC), as well as in the draft objectives and scope of work activities. The type of assessment undertaken and the methods applied therefore reflect the requirements of the ROU, within the constraints of time and resources available.

The SIA focused on the commercial and charter boat operators that will potentially be displaced by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve, and other stakeholders (i.e. operators that fish outside of the draft marine reserve, supply chain and communities) who will be impacted by displaced fishing activity. Recreational and Indigenous fishers and any other resource users were outside the scope of the assessment. An attempt was made to provide an opportunity for all in-scope persons to provide input to the assessment; however, participation of all relevant people could not be guaranteed. This may affect the ability to disaggregate the assessment results to an individual impact level; therefore, impacts were assessed at the fishery, regional and community scales.

Social impact assessment approachSIA has been increasingly used by decision makers, including both government and private sector organisations, to predict potential consequences of proposed changes in access to natural resources. SIA is a useful tool to help understand the potential range of impacts of a proposed change, and the likely responses of those impacted if the change occurs. This understanding can be used to help design impact mitigation strategies that can minimise negative, and maximise positive, impacts of any change.

Core components of SIA are:

1) scoping an impact assessment

2) profiling the current context and identifying who is likely to be impacted

3) assessing direct social impacts

4) assessing indirect social impacts.

The process used in this SIA broadly followed these steps. Efforts were made to incorporate cumulative impacts into the assessment.

To assess the potential impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve three primary data collection methods were used.

Method 1: Survey of commercial fishersA mail-based survey of potentially displaced and impacted commercial fishers in the Coral Sea region was undertaken in January and February 2012.

113


Survey scope and sampling frame

The scope of the survey was developed in consultation with industry, state and Commonwealth fisheries institutions, and SEWPaC. It was agreed that the study target population would be all individual fishers and fishing businesses currently holding licences in state and Commonwealth fisheries with a likelihood of being displaced and impacted by the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve. The intent was not to survey all fishery licence holders in the region, but to create a target population and provide all accessible people and businesses in the target population with a survey. Although the target population was identified in theory, it is difficult to identify all individuals and businesses that would fall within this target population, largely because many of the impacts will take place in the future.

Figure 25 illustrates the different population groups referred to when developing the survey scope and sampling frame. The target population is a subset of all fishers in the Coral Sea Marine Region who are potentially displaced and impacted by the draft marine reserve. The precise number of fishery licence holders in this target population was unknown. Those included in the target population are potentially impacted by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve via:

reduced access to resource due to displacement

loss of business income

increased competition with displaced fishers

changes to fisheries management as a result of displacement

decreased value of licences and capital

loss of essential infrastructure (e.g. supply chain businesses and facilities).

Figure 25 The relationship among all fishers, target population, survey frame and survey respondents

114

ALL COMMERCIAL FISHING LICENCE HOLDERS (state and Commonwealth) operating within the marine region.

TARGET POPULATION—all fishing businesses currently holding licences in state and Commonwealth fisheries with a likelihood of being displaced and impacted

SURVEY FRAME—accessible population (n = 377)

SURVEY RESPONDENTS (n = 80)


The primary goal in designing and developing the survey frame was to identify the highest number of potentially displaced licence holders for the survey. To the extent possible, potentially displaced fishers were identified using logbook records of catch within the draft marine reserve (refer to Chapter 2: Potential displacement of fishing).

The survey frame was developed through the following processes:

ABARES obtained fishery logbook data from state and Commonwealth agency data holders. Logbook data contains information on the spatial position and times of fishing operations and is compulsorily acquired from all licensed fishing businesses.

ABARES analysed fishers’ logbook data in consultation with state and Commonwealth fishery agencies to determine which fisheries would be displaced by the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve; that is, fisheries with operators who had recently fished within the draft marine reserve boundaries.

Commonwealth and state fishery agencies were informed of the potential displaced fisheries and provided ABARES with a list of all licence holders operating in the identified displaced fisheries.

DAFF Qld provided a list of all licence holders operating in the identified displaced fisheries.

The Australian Fisheries Management Authority provided a preliminary list of displaced licence holders operating in Commonwealth fisheries. The Commonwealth Fisheries Association reviewed the list and provided additional licence holders they believed would be displaced, based on recent fishing activity.

The resulting survey frame consisted of 377 licence holders across Commonwealth (87 licence holders) and Queensland fisheries (290 licence holders). The use of Commonwealth and state licensing data and the expert knowledge of industry in constructing the survey frame provide a high level of confidence that the 377 licence holders in the survey frame would cover more than 90 per cent of licence holders in the target population.

Survey error

It is important to understand the types of survey error and bias that are most likely to occur. Error and bias can be introduced at two points in the survey process: in how survey participants are selected and in how survey participants respond to survey questions. Most surveys report the sampling error. However, in many instances this is quite small relative to other sources of error and bias. The main sources of error and bias that need to be considered when interpreting the survey findings are discussed below (following de Leeuw et al. 2008).

Coverage error

Coverage error is the difference between the survey frame and the target population. In this case, the process used to develop the survey frame gives reasonable confidence that undercoverage error was minimised. There was a degree of undercoverage in the survey frame due to the leasing of entitlements to fishing businesses not included in the lists provided by fisheries management agencies. There is likely to have been overcoverage in the sampling frame due to the over sampling of T1 endorsement holders in the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery.

Usually, the target population would be identified through a filtering process such as a mail out card to all fishers in the region with a question such as ‘Are you likely to be displaced by the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth marine reserve?’ (Yes/No), and then administering the full

115


survey to the group that answered ‘Yes’. This would establish the target population. However, the difficulty with this filtering approach is that it would have required the respondent to have a complete knowledge of the marine reserve zoning system, and their spatial-use pattern of the resource. It would have been impractical to include this information in a simple card.

Sampling

Sampling error can occur if a sample is taken instead of measuring the entire population. It is usually not feasible to send a survey to every individual in the target population, and a random or purposive sample is selected from which inferences can be made about the target population. However, we believe that the sampling error is less relevant in this study because a survey was sent to all licence holders in the survey frame (i.e. we did not take a sample from our survey frame). This means that we did not need to make any inferences to the target population because there is a reasonable probability that our survey frame covered the whole target population.

Non-response error

Non-response error can occur if particular groups of people do not complete and return survey forms, thus under-representing those groups and skewing the survey results. For example, bias could arise if people who think they may be impacted by the draft marine reserve are more motivated to respond to the survey than those who do not or if larger fishing operations that are well connected to industry groups or have attended industry briefing sessions are more likely to respond than smaller operators who may be less well informed. In general, the reasons for non-response could include:

failure of the data collector to identify the individual (e.g. incorrect address)

refusal to participate (e.g. deciding not to answer or forgetting to answer the survey)

inability to participate due to health, absence, etc.

inability to communicate (e.g. requiring an interpreter, illiteracy)

accidental loss of the data or questionnaire.

The overall response rate was 21 per cent (80 out of 377 surveys). Individual non-respondents were not followed up so we cannot determine the non-response error or the characteristics of the non-respondents.

Response error

Cognitive biases can affect survey responses and lead to response error. Some cognitive bias such as impact bias and bandwagon bias are more difficult to address as the respondent may wilfully or unintentionally provide inaccurate information. Cognitive biases of this type may be an issue in this study due to the sensitive nature of the study topic and general remonstration within the fishing industry to the draft Commonwealth marine reserves. It could also be argued that impact bias assisted in encouraging valid responses from impacted fishers because those who thought they would be impacted by the draft reserves were more likely to provide a survey response.

116


Measurement error

Measurement error may result from inaccurate responses to questions, an inability of the respondent to recall information, differences in how respondents interpreted a question or socially desirable responding.

Measurement error occurred in our survey as follows:

Misinterpretation of methods of fishing permitted in the different zones of marine reserve areas. This was evident in survey responses where individuals believed they were displaced, but in fact were not, based on the fishery they operate in and the marine reserve zonings. We used a post-survey filtering process to ensure these out-of-scope respondents were not included in further analysis of displacement

Respondents having difficulty in interpreting the questions. For example, the ‘safe area’ question in the value mapping section of the survey could be interpreted as a safe area to fish or a safe area to go in bad weather. Such errors were minimised through testing before administering the survey, and remaining errors where factored out through careful analysis and interpretation of the data.

Method 2: Focus groupsFocus groups were held with fishing industry and community representatives to gain an understanding of the relationships between the fisheries and communities.

Focus groups were held in Hervey Bay and Mooloolaba (Table 24). A focus group was not held in Cairns because participants were unable to attend; interviews with key informants were held in Cairns instead.

The location of the focus groups was determined through consultation with the Coral Sea working group (Commonwealth and state fishing industry representatives and the SEWPaC Industry Liaison Officer) and reflected where impacts were likely to be greatest.

Table 24 Focus group participantsLocation Fishing industry representatives Community representativesHervey Bay 6 0Mooloolaba 9 1Note: a number of other fishing industry and community representatives were also invited to the focus groups but did not attend.

The key questions were:

Which fisheries, related fishing businesses, supply chain businesses and communities will potentially be impacted by the draft Commonwealth marine reserve?

What are the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on businesses, individuals and communities?

How will impacted people respond to the change?

Method 3: InterviewsThirty-six in-depth interviews were conducted with commercial fishers, charter boat operators and supply chain businesses—18 interviews were face-to-face and 18 were by telephone.

117


Many of the interviewees were also involved in the focus groups. We took the opportunity after the focus groups to interview individual fishers to gain a deeper understanding of how the change would impact on their business, personal life and community.

Data management and analysisSurvey data were entered into the computer program — Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Routine data checking and cleaning processes were applied to produce a final data set. Focus groups and interviews were recorded either by hand notes or digital audio recordings. These recordings were transcribed and used as a basis for analysis. Qualitative data was analysed by summarising, sorting and thematically interpreting the information provided by the fishers and community representatives.

Ethical processSeveral processes were undertaken to maintain ethical standards in this SIA.

Survey participants were provided with an introductory letter outlining the purpose of the SIA, who should fill out the survey and details on confidentiality. It was emphasised that their name will never be placed on the survey and only aggregate data will be used in reports. Similar information about confidentiality was provided inside the front cover of the survey.

Focus group invitees were sent a fact sheet outlining the purpose and approach of the SIA. Verbal approval for audio recording of the focus group discussion was obtained at the start of the focus group meeting.

Interviewees received information about the SIA via the survey process or the focus group process, and were asked for verbal approval to record at the start of the interview.

Care was taken to remove any personal information from case study reports that would allow individuals to be identified (unless the participants explicitly indicated to ABARES that this information could be included).

Participants were informed that all information would be stored in a secured system and no individual would be identified except where permission was granted.

118


C: Estimating job reduction using the surveyThe survey was used to estimate the potential jobs lost from the surveyed businesses as a result of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve. The comments at the beginning of Chapter4: Impacts on fishing businesses about interpreting the survey data are very relevant here, notably that the survey specifically targeted impacted businesses and is not representative of the wider commercial fisher population in the Coral Sea (see also Appendix B: Social impact assessment methods). The estimates are also based on each surveyed businesss' prediction about how they would respond to the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

For each respondent, potential job loss was calculated as a percentage reduction in their reported numbers of employees. The percentage reduction was dependent on their overall response to the draft marine reserve (stay and make up shortfall, stay with reduced catch, leave fishing industry) and their subsequent response to a question about reducing employees (Table 12). For example, if a respondent stated that they had 10 full-time employees, will continue operating with reduced catch or downsize their operation, and strongly agreed that they would reduce employees, following Table 25, there would be a 30 per cent reduction in employees for that business resulting in three job losses.

The percentage reductions in Table 25 were partly based on counts of survey responses indicating what proportion of their total catch during 2010–11 they estimate would be displaced by the draft marine reserve (Table 12).

Table 25 Percentages used to calculate reduction in employees based on the overall response to the draft marine reserve and response to a question of whether the business will reduce employeesRespondents who indicated the fishing business would need to change its fishing activities if the draft marine reserve was declared

The fishing business will have to reduce employeesAgree Strongly agree

Stay in the same fishery and make up the shortfall fishing in other areas or move into an alternative fishery

10 20

Continue operating with reduced catch or downsize operation 15 30Leave the fishing industry 50 100


119

Exposure Sensitivity

Potential impact Adaptive capacity

Vulnerability


D: Developing an index of community vulnerabilityThis assessment explores which communities are vulnerable to the impacts of the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve. The following section outlines the approach taken to measure community vulnerability.

Communities of place and interestIn this study, the emphasis is on communities of place and interest. Communities of place refer to people living within a defined geographical boundary, which in this study is the Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) spatial unit, statistical local area (SLA). Communities of interest refer to people who share a common interest, which in this case are those employed in the consolidated commercial fishing industry (i.e. Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS] employment categories of fishing and offshore aquaculture [excludes onshore aquaculture], seafood processing, and fish and seafood wholesaling).

Community vulnerabilityThe concept of vulnerability has gained increasing popularity in understanding the socioeconomic dimensions of change within communities (Stenekes et al. 2010). The following vulnerability assessment is based on a conceptual model used by the Allen Consulting Group (2005), which was based on Schröter and The A Team Consortium (2004). This model has been widely adopted and is generally accepted by researchers (Johnston & Williamson 2007; Parkins & MacKendrick 2007). In the model, vulnerability (V) is a function of a system’s exposure (E), sensitivity (S) and adaptive capacity (A) (see Figure 26).

To put the conceptual model in operation, an indicator approach was applied. Indicators of social change are widely accepted as reliable and practical tools to summarise complex socioeconomic phenomena (Herreria et al. 2008). The authors acknowledge that vulnerability is a dynamic construct that changes over time and space. However, in this assessment, vulnerability is measured as a static phenomenon using indicators selected a priori. In reducing complex phenomena to a single metric, local contextual differences are masked. However, the approach does allow for a consistent assessment over large spatial units (Stenekes et al. 2010). The resulting summary metric of vulnerability indicates that adaptation efforts should be directed at those communities with the greatest exposure, greatest sensitivity and least adaptive capacity to changes in access to marine resources (Smit & Wandel 2006).

Figure 26 Conceptual model of community vulnerability

Source: Allen Consulting Group 2005, based on Schröter and The A Team Consortium 2004

120


Developing the vulnerability indexThe approach applied to develop the index of vulnerability in this study synthesises previous applied research on indicators used to understand the relationship between community resource dependence and the concepts of resilience, adaptive capacity, wellbeing and disadvantage (Adger & Vincent 2005; Armitage 2005; Beckley 1998; Brooks & Adger 2004; Burnside 2007; Ellis 2000; Fenton 2005; Herreria et al. 2008; Machlis et al. 1990; Marshall et al. 2007; Nelson et al. 2005; Patriquin et al. 2007; Smit & Wandel 2006; Stenekes et al. 2010; Turton 1999; Yohe & Tol 2002). The approach is therefore theoretical and does not differentiate variables that maybe more relevant at a local level in identifying factors that influence vulnerability. Table 26 provides the indicators used in this assessment to measure the component concepts of the vulnerability model.

Measures of community vulnerabilityThe conceptual framework and literature were used as a guide to select indicators to measure the vulnerability of communities that depend on fishery resources. Table 26 presents the indicators, data items and the geographical scale used to measure the sub-index of sensitivity and the sub-index of adaptive capacity. All data used in this study are derived from the ABS—namely, the Census of Population and Housing 2006; Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas (SEIFA) and Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) 2001. In addition to these datasets, an index of economic diversity was constructed from ABS data.

Table 26 Indicators and dataConcept sub-index Indicator and ABS data used Scale

Exposure Potential GVP displaced per person within a nominated geography Town and SLA

Sensitivity Proportion of total labour force employed in the consolidated commercial fishing industry (excluding onshore aquaculture), based on ABS data from the 2006 Census of Population and Housing

SLA

Adaptive capacity ABS Socio-economic Indexes For Areas. Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage – Australia decile ranking.

SLA

Economic Diversity Index. Diversity of local economy relative to the Australian economy, calculated using employment by sector data from the ABS 2006 Census of Population and Housing

SLA

ABS Accessibility/Remoteness Index for Area. n.a.

Median household income, ABS 2006 SLA

ABS = Australian Bureau of Statistics; GVP = gross value of production; n.a. = not available; SLA = statistical local area

Calculation of community vulnerability indexA key consideration in developing a composite index is the relative weight of each component or indicator that contributes to the index (Herreria 2008). For this study, neutral weightings of 1.0 were used and each of the indicator values were standardised to a value between 0 and 1 based on the distribution of scores for all SLAs of interest in the marine bioregion.

The exposure sub-index is a calculated score based on the gross value of production (GVP) displacement divided by the number of persons residing within the nominated geography, which was then standardised.

The sensitivity sub-index has only one indicator (see Table 26), which was standardised based on the distribution of values for the SLAs of interest within the Coral Sea.

121


The potential impact (PI = E × S) is a sub-index made up of standardised exposure multiplied by standardised sensitivity scores for each SLA of interest in the marine bioregion. This sub-index score was then standardised.

The adaptive capacity sub-index was calculated as the sum of the standardised values for the indicators listed in Table 26.

The vulnerability index (V = PI – A) was calculated by subtracting the standardised value of the adaptive capacity sub-index from the standardised potential impact sub-index.

The resulting index of community vulnerability provides a distribution of ranked scores between 0 and 1, where an index score of 1 indicates the highest rank of vulnerability and an index score of 0 indicates the lowest rank of vulnerability.

Caveats and limitationsA number of general caveats and limitations are relevant to the interpretation of the community vulnerability assessment. These are summarised below:

The vulnerability index is a relative unweighted ranked order measure. It indicates a community's ranked position within the set of communities examined in the given marine region. The indices generated should not be interpreted as absolute values. A score of 1.0 in the community vulnerability index does not mean that area is twice as vulnerable as an area with a score of 0.5, only that it is relatively more vulnerable.

Relative community vulnerability is a summary indicator and to understand the factors contributing to the composite index, it is necessary to look at the potential impact and adaptive capacity sub-indices and their contributing indicators.

A community’s degree of vulnerability and adaptive capacity has many dimensions; this complexity makes it difficult to reduce these concepts to a single numeric value that covers all factors influencing the concept. Inclusion of other indicators, such as the mobility of people between regions, can significantly change these relative rankings. Therefore, this type of assessment should include supplementary quantitative and qualitative data and research (such as the case studies in this report).

The index is constructed using data from a range of sources at different units of measurement and scales, including GVP displacement estimates, employment data, SEIFA relative disadvantage, remoteness at a regional level, and census housing and population data at SLA level. Therefore, there are smoothing effects that will affect the rankings.

Consideration must be given to how accurately a sub-index measures the concept. For example, the sensitivity measure is based on the proportion of people employed in the commercial fishing industry in a given community. This measure includes all people in the fishing industry and does not differentiate between those in fisheries that are impacted and those that are not. Therefore, it may result in an overestimation of the sensitivity of a community to the impact.

Aggregated data at the SLA level is applied across all towns in that SLA. This will influence some dimensions of the index and in some cases decrease the overall index ranking. Therefore, the impact on small towns that sit within SLAs needs to be considered within this context.

122


Other index definitionsSEIFA relative disadvantageThe study applies the ABS SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage—Australia decile rank. The SEIFA index is considered useful in profiling communities and can be applied to indicate a community's resilience and ability to adapt to change. The SEIFA Index of Relative Disadvantage score used in the analysis is a comparative decile ranking that indicates an SLA’s rank in comparison with all other SLAs within Australia. High scores on the index indicate a lack of disadvantage while low scores indicate higher levels of disadvantage. Scores that occur at the tails of the distribution are of most interest because those around the middle (i.e. around 5) are neither particularly disadvantaged nor lacking disadvantage relative to other areas.

ARIA—Accessibility/Remoteness Index of AustraliaThe ABS defines the underlying the concept of remoteness in the ARIA as ’the measure of the physical road distance between where people reside and where those people travel to in order to obtain goods and services, and to enjoy opportunities for social interaction’. The ABS Remoteness Structure defines the level of remoteness with values ranging from 0 to 5.

0 Major cities of Australia

1 Inner regional Australia

2 Outer regional Australia

3 Remote Australia

4 Very remote Australia

5 Migratory.

EDI—Economic Diversity IndexThe Economic Diversity Index (EDI) compares the proportion of the workforce employed at the SLA level in the 19 industry sectors identified by the ABS Australian and New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification (ANZSIC) (2006) with those in the entire Australian workforce. The closer an EDI score for an SLA is to 1.0, the more it represents the distribution of employment across industries for Australia, and thus its economy is considered to be more diverse. Conversely, a lower EDI closer to zero suggests less diversity compared with that of Australia.

123


E: Profile of survey respondentsThis appendix provides background and profile information about the survey respondents.

FisheriesTable 27 lists the licences held by survey respondents. Note that respondents may hold licences in multiple fisheries.

Table 27 Licences held by survey respondents in 2010–11Commonwealth fisheries Percentage of respondents with a licence

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery 27.5

Coral Sea Fishery—sea cucumber, lobster and trochus 1.3

Coral Sea Fishery—aquarium 1.3

Coral Sea Fishery—line and trap 5.0

Coral Sea Fishery—trawl and trap 6.3

Queensland fisheries Commercial Harvest Fishery 25

Deep Water Fish Fish Fishery (L8 sector) 3.8

East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery (net sector) 3.8

East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery (T1 sector) 58.8


Fishing methodsThe most common fishing methods used by survey respondents were demersal trawl, handlining and rod and reel, and dropline (Table 28). Note that respondents may use several methods.

Table 28 Fishing methods Fishing method Percentage of respondents

Demersal trawl 58.8Gillnet (demersal) 5.0

Gillnet (pelagic) 1.3

Gillnet (set mesh nets) 6.3

Drop line 18.8

Demersal longline 83.5

Pelagic longline 15.0

Handline/rod and reel 27.8

Squid jig 3.8

Purse seine 6.3

Danish seine 1.3

Fish trap 20.0

Lobster pot 6.3

Crab traps 6.3

Spanner crab net 3.8

Hand collection 7.5

124



Fishing history Survey respondents have been working in the commercial fishing industry for 30 years

(median).

Fishing businesses have been operating for 23 years (median)

Table 29 Fishing historyYears involved in commercial fishing (individual or company)

Years fishing business has been operating

Median 30.0 23.0

Minimum 8.0 1.0

Maximum 60.0 60.0


Fishing business structureMost businesses operated as family partnerships (40.3 per cent, Table 30) or were incorporated companies (35.1 per cent).

Note that three respondents did not answer this question, and one respondent indicated their business was a trust with an incorporated company.

Table 30 Fishing business structureStructure Percentage of respondents

Sole trader 22.1

Family partnership

40.3

Other partnership

2.6

Incorporated company

35.1


Fishing business activitiesOf the 80 survey respondents, 79 answered this question. All undertook fishing activities at the time of the survey, and 31.3 per cent of the respondents were undertaking processing activities.

Notably, 22.6 per cent of respondents lease licences to other fishers. As noted in the methods section, these fishers are difficult to access and have not participated in this assessment. This could lead to an underestimation of the number of fishers impacted.

125


Table 31 Fishing business activitiesActivity Percentage of

respondents Fishing 100Processing 31.3

Wholesale/distribution

22.8

Retail 17.7Export 15.2

Input supply 6.3Leasing licences 22.5


Fishing business employeesThe most common employment type was full-time paid (mean 3.44), followed by casual paid and seasonal full-time paid.

Table 32 Fishing business employeesEmployee type Mean MaximumFull-time (year round) paid 3.44 25Full-time (year round) unpaid 0.46 5Part-time (year round) paid 0.56 10Part-time (year round) unpaid 0.18 6Casual (year round) paid 1.85 20Casual (year round) unpaid 0.04 2Seasonal full-time (e.g. share contract) paid 1.56 60Seasonal ful-ltime (e.g. share contract) unpaid 0.01 1Seasonal part time paid 0.35 20Seasonal part time unpaid 0.02 1Seasonal casual paid 0.38 10Seasonal casual unpaid 0.02 1


Value of landed catchThe majority (62.5 per cent) of survey respondents' total landed catch for 2010–11 was valued at or below $500 000 (Table 33).

126


Table 33 Value of total landed catch in 2010–11Value of total landed catch Percentage of respondents

Less than $50 000 10.0$50 001–100 000 7.5$100 001–250 000 23.8$250 001–400 000 21.3$500 001–1 million 18.8$1–2.5 million 12.5$2.5 million–5 million 3.8$5–10 million 2.5$10–15 million 0.0Greater than $15 million 0.0


Fishing income and dependency 77.5 per cent of survey respondents do not receive income from sources other than fishing.

79.5 percent of survey respondents indicated that 100 per cent of their personal income is derived from fishing-related activities.

69.2 per cent of respondents receive 100 per cent of their household income from fishing-related activities.

Level of formal education

Most respondents' highest level of education was a technical, TAFE or trade qualification.

Figure 27 Respondents' highest level of formal education

Primary school

Some secondary school

Year 10/Form 4

Year 12/Form 6

Technical/TAFE/trade

University degree

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40



127


F: Summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communitiesTable 34 summarises a range of information that is useful in assessing the potential impacts of the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve to towns and areas. The following information is in the table:

Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia

An index that takes a measure of the physical road distance between where people reside and where those people travel to in order to obtain goods and services, and to enjoy opportunities for social interaction. Values range from 0 to 5, high scores indicate more remote. Source: ABS Census 2006.

Community vulnerability index An index that combines potential impact and social data to provide a guide to compare community vulnerability (see Appendix D). Scores range between 0 and 1, where a score of 1 indicates the highest level of vulnerability. Community vulnerability was analysed only for towns with GVP displacement. Source: This study.

Economic diversity index An index that compares the proportion of the workforce employed in 19 industry sectors with those in the entire Australian workforce. The closer a score is to 1.0, the more it represents the distribution of employment across industries for Australia (more diverse). Source: ABS Census 2006.

Fishing industry employment (percentage of total employment)

Employment in the consolidated fishing industry (catching, processing and wholesale) as a percentage of total employment for the statistical local area. Employment in onshore aquaculture activities was excluded. Used as an indicator of sensitivity. Source: ABS Census 2006.

GVP displaced ($'000 max) Estimate of the potentially displaced catch that flows to this location (if this was a range then the upper bound is reported here). Source: logbook data.

Home port Number of survey respondents that identified this location as home port. Source: survey.

Median household income ($ per week) Source: ABS Census 2006.

Number of potentially impacted input businesses

Count of potentially impacted input businesses at this location. Source: survey.

Number of potentially impacted output businesses

Count of potentially impacted output businesses at this location. Source: survey.

Seafood processors Number of registered seafood processors at this location. Source: State government registers.

SEIFA index of relative disadvantage An index that is useful in profiling community’s resilience and ability to adapt to change. High scores indicate a relative lack of disadvantage. Source: ABS Census 2006.

128


Table 34 Summary of flow of impacts, supply chain, demographics and vulnerability — draft Coral Sea Marine ReserveData source Logbook ABARES

Town Population geography GV

P d

isp

lace

d (

$'00

0 m

ax)

Hom

e p

ort

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

inp

ut

busi

nes

ses

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

ou

tpu

t bu

sin

esse

s

Vu

lner

abil

ity

ind

ex

Fish

ing

ind

ust

ry

emp

loym

ent

(% o

f to

tal e

mp

loym

ent)

SEIF

A in

dex

of

rela

tive

dis

adva

nta

ge

Econ

omic

div

ersi

ty

ind

ex

AR

IA r

emot

enes

s in

dex

Med

ian

hou

seh

old

in

com

e ($

/wee

k)

Pop

ula

tion

Adelaide Adelaide (statistical division) 1 0.08 6 0.93 0 948 1 105 846

Airlie Whitsunday (S) 0.1 0.44 0.00 6 0.67 2 1065 16 955

Ayr Burdekin (S) 0.3 0.72 0.18 4 0.45 2 866 17 017

Ballina Ballina (A) 1 0.22 5 0.95 1 779 38 462

Bermagui Bega Valley (A) 1 15 1 1.50 4 0.87 2 697 31 062

Bowen Bowen (S) 4.2 0.86 0.76 2 0.40 2 826 12 381

Brisbane Brisbane (statistical division) 98.3 38 1 0.00 0.13 7 0.91 0 1192 1 763 124

Bundaberg Bundaberg (statistical subdivision) 153.0 1 29 2 0.50 0.42 4 0.93 1 735 59 774

Caboolture Caboolture (S) - Central 1 4 1 0.13 2 0.97 0 764 18 271

Cairns Cairns City Part A (statistical subdivision) 2350.1 3 39 7 0.56 0.39 6 0.88 2 1050 122 736

Coffs Harbour Coffs Harbour (C) - Pt A 1.0 9 2 0.50 0.29 3 0.92 1 714 47 709

Cooroy Noosa (S) Bal 1 0.18 6 0.94 1 808 15 934

Darwin Dawin (statistical division) 7.1 1 2 0.34 0.47 6 0.72 2 1277 66 289

Deception Bay Deception Bay 1 0.34 2 0.91 0 777 20 364

Devonport Devonport (C) 1 7 1 0.66 2 0.96 1 692 24 015

Eden Bega Valley (A) 0.8 1 14 3 0.60 1.50 4 0.87 2 697 31 062

Gladstone Gladstone (C) 59.2 1 12 2 0.22 0.23 6 0.83 1 1189 29 083

Glass House Mountains Caloundra (C) - Rail Corridor 1 0.24 6 0.88 1 957 18 328

Survey Census

129


Data source Logbook ABARES


P d

isp

lace

d (

$'00

0 m

ax)

Hom

e p

ort

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

inp

ut

busi

nes

ses

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

ou

tpu

t bu

sin

esse

s

Vu

lner

abil

ity

ind

ex

Fish

ing

ind

ust

ry

emp

loym

ent

(% o

f to

tal e

mp

loym

ent)

SEIF

A in

dex

of

rela

tive

dis

adva

nta

ge

Econ

omic

div

ersi

ty

ind

ex

AR

IA r

emot

enes

s in

dex

Med

ian

hou

seh

old

in

com

e ($

/wee

k)

Pop

ula

tion

Gold Coast Gold Coast (statistical division) 22.2 3 0.11 0.11 7 0.87 0 1019 482 326

Grafton Clarence Valley (A) - Grafton 1 0.12 2 0.95 1 669 22 811

Greenwell Point Shoalhaven (C) - Pt B 1 5 1 0.32 4 0.95 1 626 1 277

Gympie Cooloola (S) - Gympie only 7 0.05 2 0.96 1 716 16 449

Harwood Island Clarence Valley (A) - Coast 1 2.58 3 0.88 1 608 19 425

Hervey Bay Hervey Bay (C) - Pt A 241.6 6 32 7 0.62 0.60 3 0.89 1 655 48 155

Hobart Greater Hobart (statistical division) 60.2 1 0.40 0.59 5 0.88 1 884 200 516

Huskisson Shoalhaven (C) - Pt B 1 0.32 4 0.95 1 626 57 450

Iluka Clarence Valley (A) - Coast 1 7 2 2.58 3 0.88 1 608 19 425

Innisfail Johnstone (S) 5.0 0.67 0.45 3 0.72 2 817 18 251

Kawana Rockhampton (C) 1 0.03 3 0.93 1 914 58 749

Kunda Park Maroochy (S) - Buderim 4 0.28 9 0.94 0 1039 39 910

Lakes Entrance E. Gippsland (S) - Bairnsdale 1 0.63 0.62 3 0.95 2 645 25 367

Launceston Launceston (C) - Pt B 1 0.21 3 0.99 1 753 59 192

Lucinda Hinchinbrook (S) 1.4 0.79 0.24 3 0.51 2 750 11 559

Mackay Mackay (C) - Pt A 64.1 0.28 0.10 6 0.71 1 1144 72 847

Maclean Clarence Valley (A) - Coast 5 1 2.58 3 0.88 1 608 19 425

Maroochydore Maroochy (S) - Maroochydore 10 0.25 4 0.89 0 722 16 354

Maryborough Maryborough (C) 0.7 6 0.55 0.21 2 0.95 1 677 25 702

Melbourne Melbourne (C) - Remainder 3 1 0.07 8 0.74 0 1053 46 480

MooloolabaMaroochy (S)-Mooloolaba + Caloundra (C)-Kawana 1548.8 10 91 9 1.00 0.60 7 0.88 0 935 30 563

Mudjimba Maroochy (S) - Coastal North 1 0.15 7 0.86 0 953 23 088

Nambour Maroochy (S) - Nambour 7 0.11 3 0.93 1 728 13 278

Nelson Bay Port Stephens (A) 3.0 1 1 0.34 0.66 5 0.97 1 830 60 486

Survey Census

130


Data source Logbook ABARES


P d

isp

lace

d (

$'00

0 m

ax)

Hom

e p

ort

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

inp

ut

busi

nes

ses

Nu

mbe

r of

pot

enti

ally

im

pac

ted

ou

tpu

t bu

sin

esse

s

Vu

lner

abil

ity

ind

ex

Fish

ing

ind

ust

ry

emp

loym

ent

(% o

f to

tal e

mp

loym

ent)

SEIF

A in

dex

of r

elat

ive

dis

adva

nta

ge

Econ

omic

div

ersi

ty

ind

ex

AR

IA r

emot

enes

s in

dex

Med

ian

hou

seh

old

in

com

e ($

/wee

k)

Pop

ula

tion

Newcastle Newcastle (C) - Inner City 0 1 0.07 4 0.96 0 902 48 065

Noosa Heads Noosa (S) - Noosa-Noosaville 1 0.43 8 0.69 0 918 9 105

Nowra Shoalhaven (C) - Pt A 7 0.08 3 0.91 1 776 30 952

Pacific Paradise Maroochy (S) - Coastal North 1 0.15 7 0.86 0 953 23 088

Port Lincoln Port Lincoln (C) 2 1 12.03 3 0.78 3 821 13 603

Port Macquarie Hastings (A) - Pt A 2 1 0.33 5 0.83 1 707 39 508

Port Stephens Port Stephens (A) 3 1 0.66 5 0.97 1 830 60 486

Portland Glenelg (S) - Portland 1 1.32 3 0.83 2 833 10 370

Rainbow Beach Cooloola (S) (excl. Gympie) 1 1 0.69 3 0.71 1 676 19 618

Redcliffe Redcliffe-Scarborough 1 0.39 4 0.98 0 780 18 819

Rockhampton Rockhampton (C) 3 0.03 3 0.93 1 914 58 749

Sandon Clarence Valley (A) - Coast 1 2.58 3 0.88 1 608 19 425

Scarborough Redcliffe-Scarborough 0.39 4 0.98 0 780 18 819

Sippy Downs Maroochy (S) - Buderim 1 0.28 9 0.94 0 1039 39 910

South Nowra Shoalhaven (C) - Pt A 1 0.08 3 0.91 1 776 30 952

Sydney Sydney (statistical division) 1 10 1 0.04 7 0.88 0 1255 4 119 169

Townsville Northern (statistical division) 18.6 1 11 1 0.69 0.08 4 0.53 2 914 53 344

Tuncurry Great Lakes (A) 4 2 1.56 3 0.88 1 611 32 760

Tweed Heads Tweed (A) - Tweed-Heads 1 1 0.38 3 0.89 0 656 50 453

Ulladulla Shoalhaven (C) - Pt B 3 13 1 0.32 4 0.95 1 626 10 301

Varsity Lakes Varsity lakes 2 0.07 6 0.87 0 1003 11 799

Wollongong Wollongong (C) - Inner 0.1 10 1 0.20 0.05 5 0.96 0 903 93 846

Yamba Clarence Valley (A) - Coast 5 2.58 3 0.88 1 608 19 425

Yeppoon Livingstone (S) - Pt B 2.8 1 1 0.38 0.42 5 0.83 1 870 24 966

Survey Census

A = areas; ARIA = Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia; C = city; GVP = gross value of production; S = shire; SD = statistical division; SEIFA =Socio-Economic Indexes For Area; SSD = statistical subdivisionNote:.The 'traffic light' indicators for each measure follow the logic of green being a positive measure through to red being a negative measure. Indicators are based on a measures distribution within the group of localities. Australian Bureau of Statistics population statistics are available for a variety of geographies within the Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC). To reflect the most appropriate representation of a community's population, different geographies have been used to calculate the GVP displaced per capita as follows: statistical division or statistical subdivision is used for Brisbane, Cairns, Darwin, Perth, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Hobart, Townsville, Cairns and Gold Coast. The vulnerability index is calculated on the draft and final GVP scenarios for all impacted towns in the region. The global scaling approach enables comparison of ranked scores across the two GVP scenarios.

131


ReferencesABARE 2010, Introduction and overview of AusRegion, viewed 28 October 2011, <http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_abares20030101.01/Ausregion.pdf>.

ABARES 2010, Australian fisheries surveys report 2010: results for selected fisheries, 2007–08 and 2008–09—preliminary estimates for 2009–10, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABARES 2011a, Agricultural commodity statistics 2011, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABARES 2011b, Australian fisheries statistics 2010, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABARES 2012a, Australian fisheries surveys report 2011: results for selected fisheries, 2008–09 to 2010–11, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABARES 2012b, North Marine Region Commonwealth Reserves Network: social and economic assessment of the impacts on commercial and charter fishing, ABARES report to the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABARES 2012c, Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves: commercial and charter fishing draft social and economic impact assessment, ABARES report to the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ABS ,2007, Regional population growth, Australia and New Zealand, 2004–05, Cat. No. 3218.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

Adger, WN & Vincent, K 2005, ‘Uncertainty in adaptive capacity’, Comptes Rendus Geoscience, vol. 337, pp. 399–410.

AFMA 2010a, Northern Prawn Fishery—at a glance, Australian Fisheries Management Authority AFMA, Canberra, viewed 17 June 2012, <www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/fisheries-a-to-z-index/northern-prawn-fishery/at-a-glance>.

AFMA 2010b, Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery—at a glance, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra, viewed 17 June 2012, <www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/fisheries-a-to-z-index/southern-bluefin-tuna/at-a-glance/>.

AFMA 2011, Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery: management arrangements booklet, 2011 fishing season, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra, viewed 17 June 2012, <www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Microsoft-Word-ETBF-management-arrangements-booklet-Quota-2011-FINAL-WEB.pdf>.

AFMA 2012, Pelagic longline, Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra, viewed 17 June 2012, <www.afma.gov.au/resource-centre/teachers-and-students/about-fishing-methods-and-devices/longlines/pelagic-longline>.

132


Allen Consulting (2005) Climate Change Risk and Vulnerability. Canberra: Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, Department of the Environment and Heritage. Armitage, D 2005, ‘Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management’, Environmental Management, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 703–715.

Armitage, D 2005, ‘Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management’, Environmental Management, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 703–715.

Beckley, T 1998, ‘The nestedness of forestry dependence: a conceptual framework and empirical exploration’, Society and Natural Resources vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 101–120.

BREE 2011, Resources and energy statistics 2011, Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics Canberra.

Brooks, N & Adger, W 2004, ‘Technical Paper 7: Assessing and enhancing adaptive capacity’, in B Lim & E Spanger-Siegfried (eds), Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change: developing strategies, policies and measures, United Nations Development Programme, Cambridge.

Burnside, D 2007, The relationship between community vitality, viability and health and natural resources and their management: a brief review of the literature, final report prepared for the National Land & Water Resources Audit, Canberra.

Campbell, R 2012, ‘Comparison of logbook and catch-disposal-record catch data for the ETBF’, advice to ABARES (unpublished), March.

DEEDI 2008, Queensland Superyacht Strategy 2008–2013, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland, viewed 17 June 2012, <www.industry.qld.gov.au/key-industries/520.htm>.

DEEDI 2010a, Annual status report 2010: Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland.

DEEDI 2010b, Annual status report 2010: East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland.

DEEDI 2010c, Annual status report 2010: East Coast Trochus Fishery, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland.

DEEDI 2010d, Annual status report 2010: Marine Aquarium Fish Fishery, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland.

DEEDI 2011a, Annual status report 2010: Commercial Crayfish and Rocklobster Fishery, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland.

DEEDI 2011b, Annual status report 2010: Coral Sea Fishery, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland.

DEEDI 2011c, Annual status report 2010: East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland.

DEEDI 2011d, Annual status report 2010: East Coast Bêche-de-mer Fishery, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland.

DEEDI 2012a, Charter fishing licence, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland, viewed 17 June 2012,

133


<www.business.qld.gov.au/fisheries/commercial-fishing/commercial-fishing-licences/charter-fishing-licence.html>

DEEDI 2012b, Commercial trawling in Queensland, Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation, Queensland, viewed 17 June 2012, <www.dpi.qld.gov.au/28_15511.htm>.

de Leeuw, ED, Hox, JJ & Dillman, DA 2008, International handbook of survey methodology, Taylor & Francis Group, New York.

DEWHA 2009, The East Marine Bioregional Plan: Bioregional Profile, A Description of the Ecosystems, Conservation Values and Uses of the East Marine Region. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA), Canberra.

Ellis, F (ed.) 2000, Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Fenton, M 2005, Guidebook on social impact assessment, prepared for the Comprehensive Coastal Assessment (Department of Planning) by Environment and Behaviour Consultants, Townsville.

FRDC 2004, Annual report 2003–04, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra.

Herreria, E, Byron, I, Kancans, R & Stenekes, N 2008, Water 2010: assessing dependence on water for agriculture and social resilience, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Johnston, M & Williamson, T 2007, ‘A framework for assessing climate change vulnerability of the Canadian forest sector’, The Forestry Chronicle, vol. 83, no. 3, pp. 358–361.

Kompas, T, Che, N & Gooday, P 2009, Analysis of productivity and the impacts of swordfish stock depletion in the eastern tuna and billfish fishery, ABARE research report 09.4, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra.

Larcombe, J, Charalambou, C, Herrería, E, Casey, AM & Hobsbawn, P 2006, Marine matters national. Atlas of Australian marine fishing and coastal communities, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Machlis, G, Force, J & Balice, R 1990, ‘Timber, minerals and social change: an exploratory test of two resource-dependent communities’, Rural Sociology, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 411–424.

Marshall, NA, Fenton, DM, Marshall, PA & Sutton, SG 2007. ‘How resource dependency can influence social resilience within a primary resource industry’, Rural Sociology, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 359–390.

Parkins, JR & MacKendrick, NA 2007, ‘Assessing community vulnerability: a study of the mountain pine beetle outbreak in British Columbia, Canada’, Global Environmental Change, vol. 17, pp. 460–471.

Patriquin, M, Parkins, J & Stedman, RC 2007, ‘Socio-economic status of boreal communities in Canada’, Forestry, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 279–291.

Schröter, D & The ATEAM Consortium 2004, Global change vulnerability: assessing the European human–environment system, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, viewed 10 May 2012, <http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/workshops/other_meetings/application/pdf/schroeter.pdf>.

134


SEWPaC 2011, Proposal for the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve: consultation paper, Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

Smit, B & Wandel, J 2006, ‘Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability’, Global Environmental Change, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 282–292.

Stenekes, N, Kancans, R, Randall, L, Lesslie, R, Stayner, R, Reeve, I & Coleman, M 2010, Indicators of community vulnerability and adaptive capacity across the Murray–Darling Basin: a focus on irrigation in agriculture, report prepared for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics – Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra.

Turton, A 1999, Water scarcity and social adaptive capacity: towards an understanding of the social dynamics of water demand management in developing countries, MEWREW Occasional Paper No. 9, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.

Woodhams, J, Stobutzki, I, Vieira, S, Curtotti, R & Begg GA (eds) 2011, Fishery status reports 2010: status of fish stocks and fisheries managed by the Australian Government, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

Yohe, G & Tol, RSJ 2002, ‘Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity’, Global Environmental Change, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 25–40.

135

Supplementary report: Coral Sea social and economic assessment–ABARES

Supplementary report: final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve proposalAs part of the Marine Bioregional Planning process, the Australian Government, through the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC; the lead government agency) revised the proposal for the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve. These revisions arose from consideration of submissions received during the public consultation period and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) social and economic assessment of the draft marine reserve.

This supplementary report provides, where possible, a comparative analysis of the changes to the potential social and economic impacts between the draft Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve proposal released for public comment in November 2011 (SEWPaC 2011) and the final reserve proposal. ABARES was not able to undertake additional consultation (survey or interviews) with commercial and charter fishing businesses for the supplementary report due to timing constraints.

136


Overview The final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve would potentially displace an estimated annual GVP of $4.2 million: $4.0 million would be displaced from Commonwealth fisheries, and $180 000 would be displaced from Queensland fisheries. This represents a small proportion of the combined fisheries production from those potentially impacted fisheries (2.7 per cent). These values are the totals for the potential impacted fisheries in each jurisdiction and are not adjusted to account only for fishing in the Coral Sea.

Overall, the potential displacement from the final proposed reserve was 9–10 per cent less catch and 7–11 per cent less GVP than the draft reserve. This reduction in impact is largely due to a reduced impact on the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery ($255 000 less GVP displaced; 6.7 per cent reduction in displaced GVP) and the T1 sector of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery ($91 400–297 000 less GVP displaced; 54–79 per cent reduction in displaced GVP). This reduction was partially offset by small increases in the impact the Commonwealth Coral Sea Fishery ($28 000 higher GVP displacement; 7 per cent increase in displaced GVP).

Cairns and Mooloolaba remain the regions having the most catch and GVP displaced by the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve. The impact has increased slightly for Cairns (to $2.37 million). The impact decreased for Mooloolaba (by 18 per cent to $1.2 million) and Hervey Bay (by 81–92 per cent to $19 000).

Assuming modelled economic effects scale linearly with the magnitude of the impact, the final proposed marine reserve is expected to result in a decline in regional economic activity of $7.5 million in the short term and displace around 17 full-time equivalent jobs in directly affected regions. There are likely to be flow-on impacts on other regions; however, changes in economic activity and employment at the state and national levels are negligible in terms of the size of those economies and job markets.

ABARES has not undertaken further consultation (survey or interviews) with potentially displaced or impacted commercial fishing, charter or supply chain businesses based on the final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve. Although survey and interview data previously collected were specific to the draft marine reserve, it is likely that the nature of potential personal and community impacts, and the broader issues exacerbating these impacts, would be similar under the final proposed marine reserve.

The potential changes to the case studies under the final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve have been examined using changes in displacement estimates, flow to ports and examination of the final proposed marine reserve features. However, further consultation (survey or interviews) with interviewees was not possible.

137


Changes to the draft reserve SEWPaC revised its proposal for the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve after considering submissions received during the public consultation period and ABARES’ analysis of social and economic impacts associated with the draft marine reserve, These changes are summarised in Table S0 and Map S0. Fishing methods were included or excluded from the difference zones based on the zoning framework (Table S1).

Table S0 Changes made in the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve Marine Reserve Zone (previous ABARES area number)

Final proposed reserve

Coral Sea (301 to 308) Area Number: 301 to 308 Boundaries: No change to boundary. Changes to zones within boundaryArea: No change from total area (989 842 km2). The area and extent of zones has changed with the boundary. These changes are:

- Inclusion of Shark, Osprey, Vema and Bougainville Reefs in a Marine National Park Zone (IUCN II). Total area (501 873km2)

- Introduction of a Conservation Park Zone (IUCN IV) that replaces the Habitat Protection Zone (IUCN IV) over Holmes and Flinders Reefs. Total area (20 570 km2)

- Removal of the catch and release and take for consuming while on board the vessel restriction for areas that were proposed as Habitat Protection Zones and replaces this with a Conservation Park Zone

- Introduction of a Habitat Protection Zone (Seamounts) (IUCN IV) over the northern extent of the Tasmantid Seamount Chain. Total area (85 507 km2)

- Change in name and IUCN category of the Special Purpose Zone (IUCN VI) to Habitat Protection Zone (Coral Sea) (IUCN IV). Total area (183 510 km2)

- Inclusion of a General Use Zone. Total area 4 300 km2

- Total area of Multiple Use Zone is194 083 km2

Zoning: Introduction of new zones and changes to the name of some zones. This includes: the introduction of a Conservation Park Zone (IUCN IV), the introduction of a Habitat Protection Zone (Seamounts) (IUCN IV), the introduction of a General Use Zone (IUCN VI), and the change in name and IUCN category of Special Purpose Zone (IUCN VI) to Habitat Protection Zone (Coral Sea) (IUCN IV).

Note: ABARES area numbers refer to draft reserve

138


Map S0 Comparison of the draft (released November 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) Coral Sea Marine Reserves

Note: Zone colouring is not consistently applied between the draft and final proposed reserves.

139


Table S1 Fishing methods and zoning implications—final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Method

General Use Zone

Multiple Use Zone

Habitat Protection

Zone (Seamounts)

Habitat Protection

Zone (Coral Sea)

Conservation Park Zone

Marine National

Park Zone

CommonwealthAuto-longline

Bottom longline

Dive

Dropline

Dropline—hydraulic

Dropline—manual

Fish trap

Handline

Pelagic longline

Minor line

Poling

Purse seine

Rod and reel

Trotline

Troll

Trawl

Queensland

Anchored gillnetting

Collecting Coral

Dilly fishing

Diving

Drifting gillnetting

Dropline

Fish trapping

Free diving / snorkelling

Gillnetting

Handline

Hookah diving

Line fishing

Longline (demersal)

Reef walking/wading

Ring nettingShell dredge/hand

Trawling

Trolling

Trotline

= method would be excludedSource: Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

140


Potential displacement of fishing

Commercial fishing The final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve is estimated to displace an annual average of 735 tonnes of catch and $4.2 million GVP (Table S2). This is predominantly from the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery and the Commonwealth Coral Sea Fishery.

Overall, the final proposed reserve potentially displaces less catch and GVP than the draft reserve due to reduced impacts to the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery and the T1 sector of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery. The potential impact on the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery from the final proposed reserve was estimated at $3.6 million, which was $255 000 (7 per cent) lower than displacement from the draft reserve. The impact of the final proposed reserve on the T1 sector of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery was estimated to be $78 000, which represents a $91 000–297 000 (54–79 per cent) reduction from the draft reserve.

The potential impact on the Commonwealth Coral Sea Fishery from the final proposed reserve was estimated to be $406 300, which was $30 000 (8 per cent) higher than displacement from the draft reserve. The only other fishery for which the potential impact was estimated to be higher in the final proposed reserve compared with the draft reserve is the L8 sector of the Queensland Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery ($72 000 increase; 12 per cent).

Links to other marine regions—fisheriesThere may be cumulative impacts to the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery from the final proposed Temperate East Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network ($248 000 potentially displaced GVP).

141


Table S2 Comparison of estimates of catch and gross value of production (GVP) potentially displaced by the draft (released November 2011) and final proposed (released 14 June 2012) Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Method Total catch displaced (tonnes) Total GVP displaced ($’000)Jurisdiction/fishery Draft Final proposed Draft Final proposed Absolute change Percentage

changeCommonwealth Coral Sea Fishery Demersal longline 39.9 39.6 116.4 118.0 1.7 1.5Coral Sea Fishery Demersal trawl 27.9 27.4 152.6 146.1 –6.6 –4.3Coral Sea Fishery Dive 0.8 1.8* 5.1 6.4* 1.2* 23.5*Coral Sea Fishery Dropline 5.5 6.0 60.4 62.1 1.7 2.9Coral Sea Fishery Handline/rod * * * * n.a. No changeCoral Sea Fishery Trap * * * * Decrease –55.5Coral Sea Fishery Troll n.a. * n.a. * * NewEastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery All methods 696.0 627.4 3820.9 3566.1 –254.8 –6.7

Commonwealth total 776.6 714.3 4198.3 3971.7 –226.5 –5.4Queensland Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (L8 sector) All methods 12.6 13.4 87.8 98.4 10.7 12.2Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (Developmental Fish Trapping sector)a

Fish trapping * * * * n.a. No change

East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery (net sector)

Gillnetting * * * * n.a. No change

East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery (T1 sector)

Trawling 13.4 to 29.5 6.4 169.7 to 375.3 78.4 –91.4 to -296.9 –53.8 to –79.1

Harvest fisheries Hookah diving * * * * n.a. No change

Queensland total 27.2 to 43.4 21.0 263.4 to 468.9 182.6 –80.8 to -286.4 –30.7 to -61.1Grand total 803.8 to 820.0 735.2 4461.7 to 4667.2 4154.3 –307.3 to -512.9 –6.9 to -11.0

* = confidential data; n.a. = not availablea The Development Fish Trapping sector of the Queensland Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery has been included to remain consistent with the methodology employed by ABARES in the displacement estimates. Note, however, that this was an exploratory fishery that only operated in 2007 and 2008. In some fisheries, the displacement is confidential for one scenario. In these cases, the percentage change is not presented because it would be possible to back-calculate the displacement from that area but, where appropriate, a description of the change has been included: no change, increase or decrease.

142


Charter fishing The charter fishing potentially displaced by the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve is estimated to be smaller than under the draft marine reserve (Table S3). However, there may be additional localised impacts because of the increase in area of the Marine National Park Zone around Shark and Osprey reefs, and the addition of a Marine National Park Zone around Bouganville Reef (Map S0).

Habitat Protection zones under the draft reserve were subject to ‘catch-and-release’ and ‘catch-and-consume on trip’ conditions. The final proposed zoning introduced Conservation Park zones (in some of the same areas as the draft Habitat Protection zones) that do not have these restrictions but instead place limits of hooks and lines per person. This represents a significant change when assessing the impact to charter fishing in the Coral Sea. Activity in Habitat Protection zones in the draft reserve was assumed to be fully displaced as a result of the condition; however, it is assumed that activity in Conservation Park zones in the final proposed reserve will not be displaced as a result of the changed condition.

Table S3 Comparison of estimated potential Queensland charter fishing displacement between the draft and final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserves Displacement Draft reserve Final proposed

reservePercentage

changeCatch (kilogram) 6472.4 507.3 –92

Days 52.8 14.3 –73Boats 9 5 –44

Note: Estimates are based on 6-minute and 30-minute reporting grids and therefore have medium accuracy

Qualitative data suggests that the effects of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve on the charter industry cannot be fully captured using quantitative methods. Operators advised that the marine reserve will potentially reduce their client numbers because the restrictions on the fishing grounds that they can use will affect the quality of the fishing experience they provide. Further, operators attribute the recent slump in client numbers to customers’ erroneous perception that the entire Coral Sea is closed to charter fishing.

Prospective fisheriesThe assessment of the draft marine reserve highlighted impacts on prospective fishing through expansion of fishery catch and area, development of new fisheries and redevelopment of fisheries. Some specific examples were given in the main report (see Prospective fisheries in Chapter 2). Although these examples may change with the final proposed reserve, it is expected that any marine reserve that prohibits fishing is likely to limit future potential fishing. A more detailed discussion of the potential changes to prospective fishing is included below.

Flow of potential impacts to portsThe final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve proposal will potentially impact 23 ports/towns through flow of displaced GVP; the highest potentially displaced GVP is associated with Cairns, Mooloolaba, Brisbane, Bundaberg and Gladstone (in descending order; Table S4).

Key changes in the flow of GVP to ports under the final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve include an 18 per cent reduction in potential GVP displacement to Mooloolaba to $1.3 million, and a reduced potential GVP displacement to Hervey Bay, which has fallen from

143


$105 000–242 000 to $19 000. The largest estimated GVP impact is in Cairns, with an estimated $2.4 million of potentially displaced GVP. This represents a 1 per cent increase compared with the draft reserve.

Table S4 Comparison of estimates of flow of potentially displaced gross value of production by the draft and final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserves Total displaced GVP ($’000)Port Draft reserve Final proposed

reserveAbsolute change

Airlie 0.1 0.2 0.1Ayr 0.3 0.5 0.2Bowen 4.2 6.1 1.9Brisbane 98.2–98.3 107.4 9.1–9.2Bundaberg 84.5–153.0 102.5 18.0 to –50.5Cairns 2350.1 2369.2 19.1Coffs Harbour 1.0 1.0 0.0Darwin 7.1 23.4 16.3Eden 0.8 0.7 –0.1Gladstone 59.2 79.4 20.2Gold Coast 22.2 23.1 0.9Hervey Bay 104.6–241.6 19.4 –85.2 to –222.2Hobart 60.2 59.2 –1.0Innisfail 5.0 7.2 2.2Lakes Entrance 0.0 0.2 0.2Lucinda 1.4 2.0 0.6Mackay 64.1 53.4 –10.7Maryborough 0.7 1.0 0.3Mooloolaba 1548.8 1272.5 –276.3Nelson Bay 3.0 1.2 –1.8Townsville 18.5–18.6 20.4 1.8–1.9Wollongong 0.1 0.4 0.3Yeppoon 2.8 4.1 1.3

Total 4461.7–4667.2 4154.3 –307.3 to –512.9

Town and local area summaryTo identify which communities would be most impacted by the displacement of GVP resulting from the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve the following approach was used:

A composite index of community vulnerability was constructed and analysed to provide an initial understanding of which communities may be most impacted and least able to adapt. A complete set of impact flow and supply chain results, together with a community vulnerability index ranking and demographic data are presented in Table S5. Methods, caveats and limitations of the index are provided in Appendix D: Developing an index of community vulnerability.

Communities were identified that had total flow of potentially displaced GVP greater than or equal to $50 000 or where GVP per capita was greater than or equal to $20.

144


Communities that meet either of these criteria are reported on with the addition of data on supply chain businesses, employment in the commercial fishing industry (sensitivity) and community characteristics influencing adaptive capacity.

Table S5 presents GVP displaced to point of landing (community), community population and GVP displaced per capita. There were seven towns with a potential flow of GVP impact greater than $50 000 per year. In descending order of potential GVP impact, these were Cairns, Mooloolaba, Brisbane, Bundaberg, Gladstone, Hobart and Mackay.

Table S5 Community exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity—final proposed Coral Sea Marine ReserveData source SENSITIVITY

Town Population geographyGVP displaced

($'000 max) PopulationGVP displaced per

capita ($)

Fishing industry employment (% of total employment)

Economic diversity

index

ARIA remoteness

index

Median household

income ($/week)

SEIFA index of relative

disadvantage

Cairns Cairns (C) - City 2369.2 122 736 19.3 0.39 0.88 2 1050 6

MooloolabaMaroochy (S)-Mooloolaba + Caloundra (C)-Kawana 1272.5 30 563 41.6 0.60 0.88 0 935 7

Brisbane Brisbane (statistical division) 107.4 1 763 124 0.1 0.13 0.91 0 1192 7

Bundaberg Bundaberg (C) 102.5 59 774 1.7 0.42 0.93 1 735 4

Gladstone Gladstone (C) 79.4 29 083 2.7 0.23 0.83 1 1189 6

Hobart Hobart (C) - Remainder 59.2 200 516 0.3 0.59 0.88 1 884 5

Mackay Mackay (C) - Pt A 53.4 72 847 0.7 0.10 0.71 1 1144 6

EXPOSURE ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

ARIA = Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia; C = city; GVP = gross value of production; S = shire; SEIFA =Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas Note: The 'traffic light' indicators for each variable follow the logic of green being a positive measure through to red being a negative measure for a given variable. Indicators are based on the measure of a variable within the distribution of scores for all localities that have a GVP displacement. Australian Bureau of Statistics population statistics are available for a variety of geographies within the Australian Standard Geographical Classification. To reflect the most appropriate representation of a community's population, different geographies have been used to calculate the GVP displaced per capita.

MooloolabaThe potentially displaced GVP linked to Mooloolaba decreased to $1.3 million under the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve. Survey results identified 91 upstream and 9 output businesses that could potentially be impacted, and this GVP displacement may flow through to the Mooloolaba community via the supply chain. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Mooloolaba is $41.64 per capita.

Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures show that the statistical local areas (SLAs) of Maroochy (S)–Mooloolaba and Caloundra (C)–Kawana, which represent Mooloolaba, have moderate employment levels in the consolidated fishing industry (0.6 per cent) and are not particularly disadvantaged (Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas [SEIFA] decile ranking of 7). The economies are highly diverse (0.88), the median household income is slightly lower compared to the rest of Australia ($936 per week), the SLAs are near a major city area (Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia [ARIA] ranking of 0) and have a moderately large population size (total population for both SLAs was 30 563 in 2006).

Overall, Mooloolaba has a relatively high capacity to ameliorate the potential impacts of the final proposed Coral Sea marine reserve. Note that the cumulative impact of displaced GVP linked to Mooloolaba due to the final proposed Temperate East Marine Reserves Network is $222 880.

145


CairnsThe potentially displaced GVP linked to Cairns was $2.4 million under the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve. The survey identified 39 input businesses and 7 output businesses that may be impacted, and this potential GVP displacement may flow through to the Cairns community via the supply chain. The exposure indicator of potential GVP displacement per capita for Cairns is $19.30.

Community sensitivity and adaptive capacity measures shows that the SLA of Cairns has a relatively large population (122 736 people in 2006) and a low dependence on the consolidated fishing industry for employment (0.39 per cent). Cairns is not considered disadvantaged (SEIFA decile ranking of 6). Cairns is in an outer regional area (ARIA ranking of 2), its economy is highly diverse (0.88) and it has a median household income close to the Australian median ($1050 per week).

This assessment suggests that Cairns has a moderate adaptive capacity to ameliorate the potential impacts of the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve. Key informants from Cairns who participated in interviews and focus groups reported that Cairns has recently been impacted by a downturn in tourism, partly due to the high Australian dollar and the impacts of weather events, including cyclones.

The cumulative impact of GVP linked to Cairns due to the final proposed North Marine Reserves Network is $0.58–0.60 million.

Economic impact and employmentA new economic model was not constructed for the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve. However, it is reasonable to expect economic and employment impacts to scale linearly with the magnitude of the impact. It was estimated that the final proposed network would have a net regional economic impact of $7.5 million in the short term and result in the loss of around 17 full-time equivalent jobs in directly affected regions (Table S6). There are likely to be flow-on impacts on other regions; however, changes in economic activity and employment at the state and national levels are negligible in terms of the size of those economies and job markets.

Table S6 Comparison of the short-term net economic impact and job losses between the draft and final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserves Draft reserve Final proposed

reserveNet regional economic impact ($ million) –8.0 to –8.4 –7.5Regional job loss (full-time equivalent) –18 to –19 –17

Fishing business impactsABARES has not undertaken further consultations (survey or interviews) with potentially displaced or impacted businesses based on the final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve. Survey and interview data collected previously were specific to the draft marine reserve, and cannot be used to quantify the business impacts resulting from the final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve.

The nature of the potential business impacts and broader issues exacerbating impacts identified in the assessment of the draft reserve are likely to be analogous to those for the final proposed

146


network. Impacts that could be applicable for fishing businesses under the final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve include:

direct displacement impacts—loss of access to fishing grounds, reduction in scale of operation, loss of income, devaluation of licences and capital

secondary impacts resulting from having to change current fishing activities—potential increased pressure on fish stocks and non-target species outside of the final proposed marine reserve, increased travel time to and from fishing grounds, increased fuel costs, increased conflict with other fishers over competition for fish and increased time spent looking for new fishing grounds

industry-wide impacts on future development of fishing in the Coral Sea (noting that some fisheries are underdeveloped)—increased business risk, reduced access to finance, devaluation of entitlements and possibly losses from investment in future development plans

broader issues that exacerbate potential impacts—competition from imported fish, prices received for product, exchange rates, input costs, difficulty in accessing labour, changes to fisheries management and potential creation of state marine parks.

Personal and community impactsABARES has not consulted (survey or interviews) with potentially displaced or impacted individuals based on the final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve. Survey and interview data collected previously were specific to the draft marine reserve. Therefore, ABARES was unable to use survey and interview data collected for the draft marine reserve to quantify the personal impacts resulting from the final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve.

The potential personal impacts identified in the assessment of the draft marine reserve are likely to be analogous to those for the final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve. Personal impacts that could be applicable to individuals under the final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve include:

loss of current income source

loss of future income source, including superannuation

increased personal and family stress

increased work hours

decreased personal time and quality of life

less time to spend with family.

The potential community impacts of the draft and final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve are also likely to be similar. It is reasonable to assume that under the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve, potential community impacts would include:

flow through of reduced fishing activity to other local businesses, such as grocery providers and restaurants. In some regions, the potential closure of businesses may have an impact on

147


the regional economy (see the case study below: A vertically integrated fishing business in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery: the Lamason Group)

limited alternative local employment opportunities in the regional centres of Cairns, Hervey Bay and Mooloolaba, and the potential relocation of families in search of alternative secure employment. This in turn may affect the provision of services within the remaining community, such as schools

reduced seafood tourism in small regional towns and greater reliance on imported seafood products. The degree of this impact may be somewhat ameliorated because of the smaller potential displacement of the Queensland Trawl Fishery by the final proposed marine reserve.

Case studiesThe likely changes to circumstances identified in the case studies are discussed here, noting that no further consultation (survey or interviews) occurred following the final proposed reserve. Where possible, quantitative information was used (such as changes to potentially displaced GVP) but assessing changes to the case studies was largely qualitative.

Pelagic longliners in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish FisheryThe potential impact on pelagic longliners in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery has been reduced by the final proposed marine reserve (around 7 per cent less in terms of potentially displaced GVP). However, the potential GVP displacement is still the highest of any single fishery in the region, accounting for approximately 86 per cent of total GVP potentially displaced by the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve. Additional potential displacement resulting from self-imposed buffer zones to account for gear drift is likely to remain an issue for pelagic longliners operating in the southern areas of the marine reserve that are still accessible for that method (areas 307, 309, 311 and 312).

A vertically integrated fishing business in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery: the Lamason GroupThe potential impact on the Lamason Group, which operates in 'area E' of the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery, is likely to remain the same under the final proposed reserve as under the draft reserve. The area in which the majority of fish has historically been caught by the business has been rezoned from Special Purpose Zone to primarily Habitat Protection Zone–Coral Sea; however, under both zoning proposals, pelagic longlines would be excluded. Flow-on impacts discussed in the case study are likely to remain the same under the final proposed reserve.

Onshore processing facilitiesThe Mooloolaba onshore processing facility studied, which is potentially impacted by reduced throughput from fisheries products caught in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery, will likely experience a marginally reduced impact. This is because the potential displacement of the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery is slightly less under the final proposed reserve. In addition the potentially displaced GVP linked to Mooloolaba decreased to $1.3 million (from $1.5 million) under the final proposed reserve. However, the potential impact of self-imposed buffer zones (see Case study: Pelagic longliners in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery) suggests that the potential impacts may not have substantially reduced from that discussed for the draft reserve.

148


Queensland Trawl FisheryPotential impacts on T1 entitlement holders in the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery have been reduced substantially under the final proposed reserve. The primary area of potential displacement for T1 entitlement holders under the draft Coral Sea Marine Reserve has been rezoned to General Purpose Zone (final proposed area 309), which would allow trawl activity. This is reflected by estimates of potential GVP displacement from the final proposed reserve of $78 000, equating to a reduction in potential impact of between $91 000 and $297 000 (54–79 per cent). Potential displacement from the final proposed reserve is estimated to account for approximately 0.1 per cent of total fishery GVP.

Charter fishing in the Coral SeaThe charter fishing potentially displaced by the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve is estimated to be smaller than under the draft marine reserve (Table S3). However, there may be additional localised impacts because of the increase in area of the Marine National Park Zone around Shark and Osprey reefs, and the addition of a Marine National Park Zone around Bougainville Reef.

The condition to consume caught fish while on the trip, which applied to Habitat Protection zones in the draft reserve, is no longer applicable under the final proposed reserve, resulting in lower estimated displacement from those areas. However, an additional condition has been placed on Conservation Park zones that limits charter fishing to one line/rod per person on board the vessel with one hook per line on board the vessel for line fishing, and three lines per person when trolling. Without further consultation, the nature of this condition on charter fishing is uncertain. For the purpose of displacement estimates, it has been assumed that this new condition would not displace charter fishing from these areas.

Potential indirect effects of the draft reserve, particularly relating to the reported drop in client enquiries, are likely to remain with the final proposed reserve. Over time, it is possible that potential clients learn of the potential remaining in the Coral Sea for some types of charter fishing.

Subregional economic modelling of Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and MooloolabaEconomic modelling was used to assess the potential impact of the draft marine reserve on the Cairns, Hervey Bay–Bundaberg and Mooloolaba subregions. Assuming the impact on the economy and employment scales linearly with the magnitude of the impact, the regional net economic impact of the final proposed reserve was estimated to be $7.5 million, corresponding with a loss of 17 full-time equivalent jobs in the short term. This is a 7 per cent reduction in estimated economic impact and job loss compared with the draft reserve, and is in line with the change in magnitude of GVP impact.

Updated information for potentially displaced fisheriesTable S7to Table S10 provide estimates of catch and GVP potential displacement for each reserve area, fishery and jurisdiction of the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve. No additional fisheries were found to be potentially impacted by the final proposed marine reserve. Table S11 provides updated summary information on the flow of impact to communities and community demographic information.

149


Table S7 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced by the final proposed Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10 reference periodCatch (tonnes) Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Total

Percentage of total fishery

Rank orderFishery Method

301 302

303

304

305 306

307 308

309 310 311

312 313

Coral Sea FisheryDemersal longline 11.4 * 3.2 9.0 * * 7.0 * 8.7 39.6 97.5 2

Coral Sea Fishery Demersal trawl * * * 26.6 * 0.2 27.4 99.9 3Coral Sea Fishery Dive * 1.8 1.8* 23.7 6Coral Sea Fishery Dropline * * 0.3 2.7 * 2.8 6.0 17.2 5Coral Sea Fishery Handline/rod * * * * * * 7Coral Sea Fishery Trap * * * * * * 4Coral Sea Fishery Troll * * * 8Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery All methods 372.2 * 0.2 1.2 2.5 0.3

<0.1 250.9 627.4 9.6 1

Total 383.6* * 0.2 4.918.

0 *0.3

* *<0.

1 33.6* * 267.7 714.3 10.7

* = confidential dataNote: Column and row totals use the best available data given confidentiality constraints and so may be higher than the sum of the values making up the column or row. The total value at the bottom right includes all data and is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the final proposed marine reserve or did not use incompatible methods for zoning are not included in the table. Estimates have high accuracy as they are based on shot-by-shot position data (latitude and longitude). Subtotals marked with an asterisk do not include confidential components.

General Use Zone Multiple Use Zone Habitat Protection Zone (Seamounts)

Habitat Protection Zone (Coral Sea) Conservation Park Zone Marine National Park Zone

150


Table S8 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production (GVP) displaced by the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve from Commonwealth fisheries over the 2001–10 GVP ($'000) Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Total


Rank orderFishery Method 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313

Coral Sea Fishery Demersal longline 26.8 * 7.2 19.4 * * 28.1 * 35.0 118.0 98.6 3Coral Sea Fishery Demersal trawl * * * 140.8 * 1.0 146.1 99.9 2Coral Sea Fishery Dive * 6.3 6.3* 13.9 6Coral Sea Fishery DropLine * * 1.0 44.4 * 16.4 62.1 30.6 5Coral Sea Fishery Handline/rod * * * * * * 7Coral Sea Fishery Trap * * * * * * 4Coral Sea Fishery Troll * * * 8Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery All methods 2,494.2 * 1.1 7.7 15.1 1.3 0.3 1,045.8 3,566.1 9.1 1

Total 2521.0

* * 1.4 17.2 106.6 * 1.3* * 0.3 168.9* * 1,123.8 3,971.8 9.9

* = confidential dataNote: Column and row totals use the best available data given confidentiality constraints and so may be higher than the sum of the values making up the column or row. The total value at the bottom right includes all data and is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the final proposed marine reserve or did not use incompatible methods for the zoning are not included in the table. Estimates have high accuracy as they are based on shot-by-shot position data (latitude and longitude). Subtotals marked with an asterisk do not include confidential components.



151


Table S9 Estimates of mean annual potential catch displaced by the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve from Queensland fisheries within the reference period covering 2000–10Catch (tonnes) Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Total



Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (L8 sector) All methods 1.4 * * * * * * 13.4 25.8 1Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (Developmental Fish Trapping sector)a Fish trapping * * * 4East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery (net sector) Gillnetting * * * * * * 3East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery (T1 sector) Trawling * * * * 3.0 * * 6.4 0.1 2


Total * 4.9 * * 4.2 * * * 21.0

* = confidential dataa The Developmental Fish Trapping sector of the Queensland Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery has been included to remain consistent with the methodology employed by ABARES in the displacement estimates. Note, however, that this was an exploratory fishery that only operated in 2007 and 2008. Note: Rank orders have been included to define highest to lowest displacement due to the high degree of confidentiality associated with the data. Column and row totals use the best available data given confidentiality constraints and so may be higher than the sum of the values making up the column or row. The total value at the bottom right includes all data and is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the final proposed marine reserve or did not use incompatible methods for the zoning are not included in the table. Estimates are based on 6-minute site data and 30-minute grids (medium accuracy) with a reference period of 2000–2010, with the exception of the T1 sector of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery, which uses a 7-year reference period (2004–2010) to match data provided for the VMS-based methodology. Prices used to calculate GVP have been revised to reflect recent prices as per the preferred methodology.



152


Table S10 Estimates of mean annual potential gross value of production displaced by the final proposed Coral Sea Marine Reserve from Queensland fisheries within the reference period covering 2000–10GVP ($'000) Coral Sea Marine Reserve

Total



Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (L8 sector) All methods 18.1 * * * * * * 98.4 7.5 1East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery (net sector) Gillnetting * * * * * * 3East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery (T1 sector) Trawling * * * *

38.3 * * 78.4 0.1 2


Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery (Developmental fish trap sector)a Fish trapping * * * 4

TOTAL * 56.1 * * 45.

7 * * * 182.6

* = confidential dataa The Development Fish Trapping sector of the Queensland Deep Water Fin Fish Fishery has been included to remain consistent with the methodology employed by ABARES in the displacement estimates. Note, however, that this was an exploratory fishery that only operated in 2007 and 2008. Note: Rank orders have been included to define highest to lowest displacement due to the high degree of confidentiality associated with the data. Column and row totals use the best available data given confidentiality constraints and so may be higher than the sum of the values making up the column or row. The total value at the bottom right includes all data and is not affected by confidentiality. Fisheries that did not report activity in the final proposed marine reserve or did not use incompatible methods for zoning are not included in the table. Estimates are based on 6-minute site data and 30-minute grids (medium accuracy) with a reference period of 2000–10, with the exception of the T1 sector of the Queensland East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery, which uses a 7-year reference period (2004–10) to match data provided for the VMS-based methodology. Prices used to calculate GVP have been revised to reflect recent prices as per the preferred methodology.



153


Summary information on flow of impacts and demographics of communitiesTable S11 Updated summary information on flow of impacts, supply chains and demographics of communities for towns identified under the final proposed Coral Sea Marine ReserveData source Logbook ABARES


P d

isp

lace

d

($'0

00 p

oin

t)

Hom

e p

ort

Nu

mbe

r of

p

oten

tial

ly

imp

acte

d in

pu

t bu

sin

esse

s

Nu

mbe

r of

p

oten

tial

ly

imp

acte

d o

utp

ut

busi

nes

ses

Vu

lner

abil

ity

ind

ex

Fish

ing

ind

ust

ry

emp

loym

ent

(% o

f to

tal e

mp

loym

ent)

SEIF

A in

dex

of

rela

tive

d

isad

van

tage

Econ

omic

div

ersi

ty

ind

ex

AR

IA r

emot

enes

s in

dex

Med

ian

hou

seh

old

in

com

e ($

/wee

k)

Pop

ula

tion

Airlie Whitsunday (S) 0.2 0.44 0.00 6 0.67 2 1065 16 955

Ayr Burdekin (S) 0.5 0.72 0.18 4 0.45 2 866 17 017

Bowen Bowen (S) 6.1 0.86 0.76 2 0.40 2 826 12 381

Brisbane Brisbane (statistical division) 107.4 38 1 0.00 0.13 7 0.91 0 1192 1 763 124

Bundaberg Bundaberg (statistical subdivision) 102.5 1 29 2 0.49 0.42 4 0.93 1 735 59 774

Cairns Cairns City Part A (statistical subdivision) 2369.2 3 39 7 0.56 0.39 6 0.88 2 1050 122 736

Coffs Harbour Coffs Harbour (C) - Pt A 1.0 9 2 0.50 0.29 3 0.92 1 714 47 709

Darwin Dawin (Statistical Division) 23.4 1 2 0.34 0.47 6 0.72 2 1277 66 289

Eden Bega Valley (A) 0.7 1 14 3 0.60 1.50 4 0.87 2 697 31 062

Gladstone Gladstone (C) 79.4 1 12 2 0.22 0.23 6 0.83 1 1189 29 083

Gold Coast Gold Coast (statistical division) 23.1 3 0.11 0.11 7 0.87 0 1019 482 326

Hervey Bay Hervey Bay (C) - Pt A 19.4 6 32 7 0.55 0.60 3 0.89 1 655 48 155

Hobart Greater Hobart (Statistical Division) 59.2 1 0.40 0.59 5 0.88 1 884 200 516

Innisfail Johnstone (S) 7.2 0.67 0.45 3 0.72 2 817 18 251

Lakes Entrance E. Gippsland (S) - Bairnsdale 0.2 1 0.63 0.62 3 0.95 2 645 25 367

Lucinda Hinchinbrook (S) 2.0 0.79 0.24 3 0.51 2 750 11 559

Mackay Mackay (C) - Pt A 53.4 0.28 0.10 6 0.71 1 1144 72 847

Maryborough Maryborough (C) 1.0 6 0.55 0.21 2 0.95 1 677 25 702

Mooloolaba Maroochy (S)-Mooloolaba + Caloundra (C)-Kawana 1272.5 10 91 9 0.85 0.60 7 0.88 0 935 30 563

Nelson Bay Port Stephens (A) 1.2 1 1 0.34 0.66 5 0.97 1 830 60 486

Townsville Northern (statistical division) 20.4 1 11 1 0.69 0.08 4 0.53 2 914 53 344

Wollongong Wollongong (C) - Inner 0.4 10 1 0.20 0.05 5 0.96 0 903 93 846

Yeppoon Livingstone (S) - Pt B 4.1 1 1 0.38 0.42 5 0.83 1 870 24 966

Survey Census

A = areas; ARIA = Accessibility/Remoteness Index of Australia; C = city; GVP = gross value of production; S = shire; SD = statistical division; SEIFA =Socio-Economic Indexes For Area; SLA -= statistical local area; SSD = statistical subdivision Note: The 'traffic light' indicators for each variable follow the logic of green being a positive measure through to red being a negative measure for a given variable. Indicators are based on a

154


variables measure within the distribution of scores for all localities that have a GVP displacement. Population statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics are available for a variety of geographies within the Australian Standard Geographical Classification. To reflect the most appropriate representation of a community's population, different geographies have been used to calculate the GVP displaced per capita. The vulnerability index is calculated on the draft and final GVP scenarios for all impacted towns in the region. The global scaling approach enables comparison of ranked scores across the two GVP scenarios.

155

main findings for the draft reserve (released november coral sea commonwealth marine reserve:social...

Documents