Chapter 3Opportunities for industry
3.1The environmental and economic challenges of managing Centrostephanus rodgersii (Centro) are substantial, as outlined in the previous chapters of this report. This chapter turns to the potential economic and commercial opportunities Centro offers, including as a premium commercial food product.
3.2This potential market opportunity of Centro harvesting would offer a rare win-win benefit for both industry and the environment simultaneously, as strategic commercial harvest practices will reduce Centro numbers and the spread of urchin barrens. This could allow for marine habitat and species recovery supported by regeneration programs and, in turn, support rebuilding populations for existing abalone and lobster fisheries.
3.3This chapter considers what is needed to build a viable industry around urchin harvesting, from skills and capacity building of a workforce, through to market research and development both in Australia and overseas. It sets out evidence on:
opportunities offered by Centro harvesting as a premium food product, and other uses;
potential reforms to fishery licenses and quotas; and
support for industry, in processing and skills capacity, as well as market research and development.
3.4This chapter concludes with a case study of the management of crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS) on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), as this is illustrative of:
successful Commonwealth co-management of environmental challenges associated with marine pest species;
the use of Commonwealth funding for management programs, which sustain heathy environments, and thereby the businesses and communities that depend on them; and
the substantial opportunities that Centro offers for a viable and sustainable industry, which other species—including COTS—do not.
Market for Centro as a premium foodstuff and other uses
3.5A number of stakeholders provided evidence on Centro as a premium food product (see Figure 3.1), highlighting the significant growth opportunity for the seafood industry, not only in cultivating export activities, but potentially driving local demand. It was noted that more research is needed in several areas.
3.6Urchinomics provided an overview of the global sea urchin market, estimated to be around $495 million per annum (based on 2018 global production and Japanese import data), with Japanese imports accounting for approximately 70 per cent of this total. Further to this, Urchinomics provided projections of a global market that could rise to $4.93 billion per annum, from a production volume of 680000 tonnes from both wild stock and farmed urchins.
3.7Mr John Minehan, the Treasurer of the Victorian Sea Urchin Divers Association Inc., summed up the value and employment opportunities offered by urchin harvest:
Sea urchins are a valuable resource. Domestically, the roe sells for between $200 and $400 per kilo. The harvesting and processing of urchins is very labour intensive, creating lots of employment opportunities in regional communities. Commercial harvesting is likely to be the most cost-effective method for the long-term management of centro in the near-shore areas, helping to prevent the further expansion of urchin barrens. The harvest from Victoria complements that from New South Wales, supporting mainland processes targeting the domestic and export markets.
3.8The Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) outlined the opportunities for domestic markets:
Sea urchins are a delicacy in many cultures and potentially lucrative seafood markets, and Australian seafood tastes are beginning to diversify again after a generation of narrowing towards once-ubiquitous but increasingly unaffordable seafood options.
Sea urchins are not currently a well-recognised seafood option in many Australian communities, so there is very high potential to develop a domestic market ...
3.9Stakeholders have suggested that further research is necessary into increasing Australia's access to international markets and the potential difficulties of transporting Centro roe. For example, the Centro Workshop in February 2023 suggested that there was a need to better understand the economic and industry opportunities to develop export markets further:
There is also a real opportunity to create local, national and international markets for Centro products and build its brand as a luxury seafood. Industry should be exploring the use of middle/lower quality urchin roe in food avenues such as dumplings, or the use of by-product in fertilisers and in Chinese medicine. A piece of work is needed to map the economic opportunities (employment, industry) and inter-industry collaboration space, with industry working to achieve 'triple-bottom line' benefits (economic + social + environmental).
Figure 3.1Centro as a premium food product
Source: Sea Urchin Harvest
3.10The Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS) noted that ensuring the quality of urchin roe was a challenge that could be addressed through research and product development (R&D):
Urchin roe quality is variable in space and time, and varies from near worthless to $100's/kg for A-Grade. R&D to enhance roe quality across all stages of production, including in water biomass enhancement, handling, transport and processing, could lead to significant gains in industry revenue meaning higher price to the diver from the processor and less government expenditure for a subsidy.
3.11Mr Mark Allsop, the Managing Director of True South Seafood, and MrAlvaroMaz, a Special Advisor to Urchinomics, both spoke of the need for investment and development to improve post-harvest processing and transport of urchin products, to be able to service global markets.
Non-food product uses
3.12In addition to the urchin's potential value as a premium food product, a number of other potential uses were canvassed. Most significantly, the committee received evidence that urchin waste products showed promise as an agricultural fertiliser and soil conditioner. IMAS summed up the outlook:
Commercially harvesting sea urchins for their roe has helped to control urchin populations in Tasmania. Yet, the roe only accounts for ~10% of the urchin biomass, and in small production areas like Tasmania, this waste is destined for landfill.
Providing a commercial market for this nutrient-rich waste stream through processing it into an organic soil amendment promotes a circular economy through repurposing, recycling and value-adding, whilst tackling broader issues such as environmental and economic sustainability.
3.13Regarding the use of waste in fertiliser, it was suggested this could not only be a way of utilising unused material from food-grade urchin processing, but also for the harvesting of urchins of lesser quality that are unsuitable for food consumption.
3.14Other innovative possibilities have been canvassed, including value-added urchin products for use in the cosmetics, pharmaceutical and aquaculture feed sectors.
Support for industry
3.15The committee considered evidence on what targeted industry support was needed. It was noted that modest near-term support for the developing a Centro industry could pay strong dividends in the future, as it could help create a self‑sustaining and self‑funding industry, that at the same time would mitigate damage to existing fisheries and play a key ecological role in managing urchin populations.
Support for industry
3.16The Abalone Association NSW (AANSW) outlined the challenges that divers and processors have faced in trying to develop harvesting and fishing techniques, along with the labour-intensive processing operations for good quality commercial roe:
The challenge for the diver has been gaining the experience necessary to harvest urchins that are suitable for processing, as many urchins in low feed areas (barren habitats) contain poor quality roe and as such the divers have to quickly learn how to recognise the urchin "grazing lines" as well as targeting the right size and in a sustainable manner.
The challenge for the processor on any given day is engaging and keeping staff with the skills appropriate to producing a high quality seafood product for both domestic and export markets.
3.17The Task Force summed up its rationale for targeted industry support for processing:
During consultation with stakeholders, many provided strong feedback that support for processing facilities to be commercially competitive and more innovative is essential. Feedback suggested that support is needed to adhere to eco-friendly principles, minimize waste, adopt innovative processing techniques, staff recruitment, training and retention, establish value-added products, value-added food products, use of waste (the potential of synthetic biology etc), and encourage/enable more innovative use of all of the components of the urchin.
3.18Mr Travis Dowling, Chief Executive Officer of the Victorian Fisheries Authority, suggested that there is an opportunity for an industry to be built around urchins, but it is currently limited by the number of processing facilities, logistics challenges and the need to develop a skilled workforce:
We estimate we've got a 45,000-tonne biomass that we're harvesting less than 100 tonne a year on … With those processors there are challenges such as what happens to the urchin waste, the logistics of moving urchins from the east coast of Victoria to Melbourne where some of the processors might operate, or establishing local processors. There are opportunities in terms of a skilled workforce or labour force to be able to assist in processing. It really is a great opportunity.
3.19AANSW suggested that it was 'essential' to fund the processing sector, to prepare for the future growth of the urchin industry.
3.20A number of stakeholders highlighted that improving skills in the processing and diving industry was another important development area. For example, MrChrisTheodore, the Chief Executive Officer and Director of Sea Urchin Harvest told the committee:
You really need highly skilled divers to select the right urchins, especially in New South Wales. Ninety per cent of them have poor roe quality. It's just a skill. Most of the divers have been born into the game, in abalone, and done it all their lives. If you get unskilled divers, they select the wrong ones. And then there is the processing. You've got to be really good with people. You need a lot of staff …
Figure 3.3Senators Bilyk and Whish-Wilson visiting True South Seafoods
Source: Senator Peter Whish-Wilson
3.21Mr Julian Harrington, Chief Executive of the Tasmanian Seafood Industry Council, also noted there was an urgent need for support to develop a skilled workforce in processing:
Processors talk about this a fair bit. It's quite a specific bit of training and it takes time to be able to clean the roe and get all the membrane off the roe to a standard that's acceptable in the market. It's quite a tedious job, from what I understand, and it takes time to train individuals up. We need to work on strategies to attract and retain people in that space—the processors say it's not an area where you can just keep turning over staff because it takes too long to retrain them.
Figure 3.4Packaged sea urchin roe
Source: Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies
Coordination of fisheries
3.22Responsibility for the management of Australian fisheries is shared across Commonwealth and state jurisdictions. Similarly, harvest strategies are developed by the relevant jurisdictions to ensure that fisheries are ecologically sustainable, productive economically, and achieve positive social outcomes for communities such as workers in fisheries, their families, and consumers.
3.23As discussed in this report, the management of Centro is subject to differing management arrangements across jurisdictions, given its native status in NSW, and range expansion into Victoria and Tasmania. Some evidence suggested that there is an opportunity, in all three states with growing populations of Centro, to reform fishery licenses and/or harvest strategies, in collaboration with the Commonwealth.
3.24For example, Dr Thor Saunders, the Director of Fisheries Research, NSW Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries) (NSWDPI), told the committee that as different states will take different approaches, the Commonwealth could assist with overseeing co-regulation:
Most jurisdictions are going to the best fisheries management practice of having a harvest strategy, which really stipulates a set of decision rules about what happens with resources when they're either going up or down, based on scientific evidence. It would just be acknowledgement of that [by the Commonwealth] … to enable it to be jointly administered across those jurisdictions.
3.25Similarly, Victorian Government representatives support the Commonwealth playing an increased coordination role, including for research, monitoring and setting standards. This could feed into the development of harvest strategies across jurisdictions:
Dr Watermayer: … I think it's really difficult to make decisions or understand what's going on when everything's managed separately. Having a cohesive understanding of what's going on, where the priorities are, defining what our aims are and things like that I think is really important …
Mr Dowling: We're looking at a tristate harvest strategy working across Victoria, Tasmania and New South Wales to really set some of those triggers, gather the data, make sure that we're all complementing each other with the measures we're undertaking. It's one ocean. They just move between us.
3.26Commonwealth agencies also supported a coordinated strategy. Dr Patrick Hone, the Managing Director of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC), told the committee that there is a positive move towards jurisdictions working together for a 'win-win' in fishery management, which will have positive flow-on results for the environment and business:
The pleasing thing with New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania agreeing to work collegiately on this is that for the first time we might manage this as one problem, not three problems … we often talk about harvest strategies, but what would one harvest strategy for urchin look like that gets delivered at a regional level? So, actually managing this as one connected problem across the states, but delivering the regional solution. Under climate change species are going to move across borders. So, actually having science to help those fisheries agencies manage this as one problem is really important. How the Commonwealth then just overlays other management requirements, whether it's their interest in kelp restoration or their interest in blue carbon or other environmental values, I think that will come. At the moment I'm very focused on getting those fisheries agencies to see there's an opportunity here to do this as one. As you said, we often try to get win-wins out of these things.
3.27The willingness of states to work together on fishery policy was supported by non‑government stakeholders. For example, a submission made by a group of Tasmanian stakeholders from marine industry (TSIC et al), commented that:
A coordinated harvest strategy for Centro urchins, with an appropriate level of subsidy and scientific monitoring funding, represents a cost-effective tactic of maintaining our East Coast environment, and create improved economic return for fisheries, tourism, and related coastal industries and their dependent communities. The positive outcomes of this solution will build long-term resilience of marine habitats in the face of climate change and other negative inputs.
3.28The Centro Task Force's Business Plan noted that:
The development of cross jurisdictional policies will be essential to the success of national management and coordination. The Centro Task Force proposes that a key role will be to examine current policies to consider conservation vs preservation approaches, and to generate a more cohesive habitat policy which is embedded into national Fisheries Policy. Such a policy must balance the prescriptiveness needed to ensure consistency among some methods with the flexibility needed to allow each jurisdiction to meet its discrete management and legislative requirements.
3.29The Business Plan noted several Commonwealth-related matters that require consideration, including:
reviews of the Fisheries Management Acts of the Commonwealth (along with those of the three Centro-affected states);
review of harvest strategies considering 'reform of habitat performance indicators';
review of the Sustainable Ocean Plan;
review of the National Fisheries Plan; and
consideration of the development of a new Marine Habitat Management plan.
Targeted subsidies for processing and harvest
3.30Some submitters suggested that careful consideration needs to be given to targeted and time limited subsidies and concessions for new fishery licensees to encourage work in hard-to-reach areas that need ecological clearing of Centro. Witnesses observed that a 'national approach' should be taken to strategically targeted and time-limited subsidies, which takes account of the status of the urchin and fishery health in each state.
3.31While many submitters supported the limited use of subsidies, the committee heard that to avoid unintended consequences they need to be carefully crafted, properly researched, consulted on, and effectively targeted. For example, Dr Hone of the FRDC told the committee:
It is becoming a more competitive market out there. Yes, the economics of it are going to be complex and we'll probably only get to a certain point in solving this problem and then the government's going to have to ask: what is the economic science around subsidies? Clearly that's what Tasmania is doing at the moment. I think all of our science to date is that subsidies have unintended consequences. They're not necessarily a good management tool in fisheries. With subsidies, I think there's lots of evidence in fisheries that having subsidies is not a good thing. At the moment it is a good outcome for Tasmania, what they're doing. The question is: is that the long term? I think we probably need to do more research on that. Not a lot has been done on the economics of this fishery.
3.32Tasmanian subsidies and other economic incentives to manage Centro have been described as an 'essential management tool' in that state. Submitters suggested that other states could also adopt a similar approach to incentivise harvests that take all qualities of Centro, not only those suitable for the foodmarket. MrTomChadwick, President of the Tasmanian Commercial Divers Association, described how this worked in Tasmania, with targeted subsidies from the AbaloneCouncil, to support divers in areas that were difficult to reach or not lucrative:
Through industry consultation we were able to make an assessment of what extra cost it was to work in an area and what the densities were in the area … [T]he goal was to make it viable to work in all areas and achieve the same take‑home after all your costs. There actually hasn't been direction yet that we would benefit from working in an area; it's just flattened out the line … so you can work most areas of the east coast ... for the same return on a day.
3.33Mr John Smythe, Secretary of the Abalone Association NSW, commented that the NSW industry found these subsidies made it difficult to compete:
But we face a lot of competition from Tasmania. I believe you've been to Tasmania, where it has been regarded as a pest. Both the divers and the processors are subsidised down there. What happened 10 or so years ago with this subsidy aimed at eradicating the pest in Tasmania—they've put their product onto the markets that these processors have developed in New South Wales. It's given them an unfair advantage. Even recently, the product may be not as good a quality but it's selling for cheaper prices and people are buying it, so it's affecting our processors here. They have that unfair competitive advantage.
3.34Mrs Rachael Theodore, the General Manager of Sea Urchin Harvest, suggested that support for processors to develop processing capacity and for divers to harvest unprofitable or hard-to-reach populations, would have to be reconsidered over time:
We support funding, but we think it should be processor focused. Subsidies are great for the diver. We really need to encourage more people to make this their full-time job, and many are starting to do that now. As the volumes are increasing, they're seeing that it actually is a really worthwhile full-time job. The demand for export orders is way more than we could ever supply, so that will keep happening. With subsidies to divers, we do worry that, when the subsidy runs out, we won't be able to afford to pay what they're used to. So that's one problem we see with diver subsidy.
Opportunities to engage First Nations businesses and communities
3.35It was noted that Centro harvesting offered substantial opportunities to engage First Nations businesses and communities, in both commercial and environmental management.
3.36For example, the NSW Aboriginal Land Council (NSWALC) noted the need to engage First Nations communities and Local Aboriginal Land Councils, not only in the environmental and governance aspects of Centro management, but also in economic and employment opportunities.
3.37Mr Wally Stewart, a Traditional Owner on the NSW South Coast and an Advocate for the NSW Aboriginal Fishing Rights Group, highlighted the need for increased First Nations involvement:
For over 50,000 years Aboriginal people in New South Wales have managed the marine resources in our country and noticed changes in our waters. The proper management of the marine resources in our country is an ongoing cultural obligation we have as traditional owners. We welcome and encourage the opportunity to increase Aboriginal participation in and management of sea country, and to maximise employment and enterprise opportunities for traditional owners in NSW.
3.38Blue Carbon Services also identified a broad range of opportunities for First Nations participation:
Due to the development of these two almost entirely 'new' industries (i.e. urchin fishing and kelp restoration), there are significant opportunities for co‑development and leadership by Indigenous and First Nations communities, in support of their self-determined economic impact and engagement, the protection and care for their Sea Country, and for their broader participation in developing sustainable futures and communities.
3.39Several submitters noted the opportunities and barriers faced by Traditional Owners and First Nations communities in managing marine resources. For example, the NSWALC emphasised that:
Strategies to promote engagement of Aboriginal peoples in the management of Sea Country must recognise that there may be varying levels of capacity within communities. As such, training and other support mechanisms should be provided to assist Aboriginal peoples to properly engage.
There are a number of established land and sea ranger programs across Australia aimed at sustainable management of natural resources. Many of these, such as the North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance Ltd (NAILSMA) have demonstrated considerable expertise in training and management, research, data collection, and water policy and planning, and have developed a number of successful partnerships with government and non-government organisations. Such initiatives are providing a range of socio‑cultural and economic benefits to community while contributing to biodiversity conservation efforts—however, most are significantly under‑resourced and often rely on short term funding.
3.40Dr Paulina Selvakumaraswamy, from the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at the University of Sydney, submitted that:
First nations communities have always lived in equilibrium with, and respected, their environments and so should be consulted at every level of decision making with respect to their cultural knowledge of species in such habitats.
3.41Regarding opportunities in business and industry, Mr Jeremy Day, a PhD candidate who is studying the ecology of sea urchin predators at the Universityof Newcastle, noted the opportunities to involve First Nations groups in commercial Centro operations:
To date, harvesting urchins commercially in NSW or culling them in Southern states has not stemmed the tide of [Centro]larval flow into TAS [Tasmania] nor has commercial harvest in TAS reduced urchin populations there. Notably however, it has resulted in the development of a novel fishery which is a net‑positive for nearshore communities and offers great utility for involvement of first-nations peoples in commercial fisheries, and this should be a priority for the government moving forward.
3.42Dr Hone of the FRDC told the committee of the emerging prospects for First Nations groups:
Harvesting urchins is obviously a win. We can actually monetise that and we can also create community values out of that and it can create new opportunities because it's a new fishery. First Nations who are held out of original fisheries can now come into a new emerging fishery.
3.43Professor Maria Byrne, from University of Sydney's Marine Biology, Ecology & Evolution Lab, highlighted similar opportunities:
In NSW there is also a considerable recreational harvest, mostly focussed around urban areas. This fishery provides a mechanism to reduce urchin populations and an important opportunity for industry to develop through sustainable harvest and management of sea urchin stocks co-led by First Nations communities.
3.44The Australian Academy of Science spoke of the potential productivity benefits of management programs, and First Nations opportunities:
Improving the yield of product in barrens provides a mechanism to reduce urchin density through sustainable harvesting and may represent an opportunity to be led by First Nations communities.
Opportunities to engage recreational fishers
3.45Evidence also showed that there are also opportunities for recreational fishers to participate in research, monitoring, and regeneration and management programs.
3.46For example, Mr Craig Starritt, a Member of VRFish's Dive Fishery Reference Group Subcommittee, outlined why these groups were interested in Centro:
Recreational divers and fishers alike are seeing the impact of invasive species on our marine ecosystems. That includes going for a scallop dive in the bay and seeing lines of starfish eating scallops. Economic loss from climate-related marine invasive species will extend into the recreational fishing and diving industry.
3.47Ms Jane Gallichan, the Chief Executive Officer of the Tasmanian Association for Recreational Fishing Inc. (TARFish), outlined what these stakeholders could offer:
Our message is that recreational fishers want to be active participants in managing centro, and should be enabled to do that in a way that complements the commercial dive harvest, and believe it is possible. In addition, TARFish undertook a survey of Tasmania's recreational fishers in 2020. We found that 80 per cent of fishers actively support and are likely to participate in kelp reforestation.
Engaging recreational fishers in both has the potential to employ fisher participation to address changes in the marine environment, with outcomes for biodiversity in high-value recreational areas in Tasmanian marine waters.
3.48Mr Ben Celeveland from OZfish Unlimited supported this:
There are some great examples of positive, community-driven restoration and intervention occurring nationally, from seagrass to shellfish restoration, involving both rec fishers and divers together. The community efforts towards the issues that we speak to today are complementary to the proposed commercial efforts.
Engaging the community, particularly rec fishers, divers and boaters in management actions directly supports the first principle of international standards of ecosystem restoration, which is to engage stakeholders, particularly local stakeholders, in restoration efforts. The community's involvement in management and restoration approaches will be a key part of the success of stemming the tide of habitat loss and invasive species impacts along our coastlines. Mobilising the community of rec fishers we have at hand, alongside research, industry and government sectors, will put us in good stead to achieve successful outcomes into the future.
Partnership opportunities for kelp forest restoration
3.49Some stakeholders identified partnerships with environmental and community groups as potential areas of opportunity for ecology restoration and species recovery.
3.50Professor Scott Ling, an ARC Future Fellow for the Institute of Marine, noted that IMAS was working with the Nature Conservancy Australia (Nature Conservancy) on programs to restore giant kelp forests and reef ecologies. He suggested that this was 'about creating a restoration economy', in which a kelp restoration program could drive employment, as well as increase tourism.
3.51Dr Fiona Valesini, the Director of the Oceans Program (Australia) for the NatureConservancy outlined the feasibility of a giant kelp restoration program:
It's the Nature Conservancy's view that restoration of the giant kelp habitat … is entirely doable with concerted effort … We formed that view given our experience in trying to replace a similarly decimated habitat, lost shellfish reefs around Australia. We currently have a national partnership with the Australian government which is focused on bringing back 30 per cent of those lost shellfish reef habitats. Like giant kelp, we've lost more than 90 per cent of our shellfish reefs, so we're currently unpacking a national initiative to bring that back. Our experience in that space leads us to believe that restoration of a similarly imperilled habitat in giant kelp is entirely possible with concerted effort.
3.52The Nature Conservancy noted the importance of drawing on community support, including from First Nations communities, emphasising that positive environmental outcomes could be achieved alongside economic and community benefits. Its submission outlined its 'Reef Builder' work on restoring shellfish reefs, suggesting this could be a model for kelp ecology restoration:
In just over seven years, [the Nature Conservancy] has catalysed over $40million in public and private investment and built close to 20 large-scale reef restoration projects across southern Australia from Perth to Noosa (with some up to 20 ha in size) harnessing public support and galvanising research-industry-government-community collaborations. Our work is science-led, draws on our expertise in managing large-scale marine construction projects, and centres on the dual benefits for people (jobs, improved lifestyles, connection to country) and nature (more resilient ecosystems). This model has evolved over 20 years of experience in recovering seagrass, mangroves, shellfish and coral reefs in 200+ projects globally.
3.53In a hearing, Dr Valesini outlined more details about the Nature Conservancy's kelp regeneration pilot trial in Tasmania, which had only just received funding from government since making its submission to the inquiry:
Pairing closely alongside actually doing the active kelp restoration on ground will be taking or harvesting of urchins out of those areas, so remove that predation pressure first, maintain it over time and, in conjunction, pairing that with the kelp restoration … [This will be done by leveraging volunteers for which] we intend to engage the commercial dive industry. Really that's the jobs piece … to be taking or harvesting the urchins alongside that. We've been so pleased with the job generation from Reef Builder. I think over the whole program we had a target of 170 jobs. We're two years into it and we're already 250 per cent above that. We've already generated 420 direct jobs just out of the reef building alone.
3.54In providing evidence about the pilot kelp restoration trial, Dr Valensini emphasised that partnerships should be 'multi-sectoral', drawing on science, industry, community, government and management, including First Nations communities. Moreover, it was suggested that the program would build in an innovative approach—for instance, leveraging citizen scientists for monitoring the health of kelp through a 'kelp tracker' app.
Figure 3.5Sea Urchin with Osetra Caviar, Coconut Cream, Coriander Oil, Radish and Cashew
Source: Sea Urchin Harvest
Marketing
3.55The Final Report of the Centro Workshop in early 2023 noted that there is a need for better 'brand development' for Centro roe as a product. It was suggested that there needed to be careful delineation between the view that it was a pest species in some regions, whereas it was endemic to others, 'so as to not damage Centro roe as a luxury food item'.
3.56This was also drawn out in several submissions, as well as evidence at hearings. For example, the Tasmanian Government submitted that:
Education, media, and outreach organisations to help Australians understand the threats posed by urchins and promote understanding of the benefits of control and responsible harvesting of urchins (e.g., a seafood marketing campaign to target the environmental benefits of urchin consumption).
Case study: crown-of-thorns starfish on the Great Barrier Reef
3.57COTS is a species of marine invertebrate that is one of the most significant threats to the long-term health of the GBR. This section outlines strategies that have been used to manage COTS, as well as the funding allotted to monitoring and reduction activities by the Commonwealth.
3.58Although key differences between the species were noted in evidence, some stakeholders suggested the COTS example could potentially inform the effective management of Centro. Additionally, it was widely acknowledged that effective Centro management also offers a substantial economic opportunity, due to its value as a premium foodstuff—whereas COTS does not.
3.59For example, when questioned on the suitability of the COTS federal-state joint model for management of invasive species, Dr Hone of the FRDC, acknowledged that there are aspects of the management plan that can be used to combat Centro:
The lessons that they've learned from the crown-of-thorns are important because it does very similar things. It changes the ecosystem, and therefore understanding the economics, particularly about how they've done it and clearly also understanding how they've engendered community based buy‑in … So yes, I think the crown of thorns is a good example.
3.60The Centro Workshop Final Report also made it clear that there was broad agreement that:
We need to learn from other control programs: The Crown of Thorns Starfish … management response strategy on the Great Barrier Reef received significant funding and included an effective and proven Integrated Pest Management Approach (IPM) that could be applied to the Tasmanian Centro issue. The LionFish project also provides valuable learnings with regards to community engagement in culls, cooking options and ongoing management to restore reef ecosystems.
3.61In this, some noted the potential model for Centro management provided in work on COTS undertaken by the CSIRO's integrated pest management program, which is funded through the Commonwealth's National Environmental Science Programme (NESP). Dr Ian Dutton, the General Manager of Marine Resources, Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania, told the committee:
That [CSIRO] report was a seminal piece of work from our point of view. This was an integrated pest management program within CSIRO, a unit that was focused early on dealing with the crown-of-thorns strategy … But the report itself is a really great roadmap. It doesn't actually propose … a single strategy. It's not about trying to eradicate. It actually has a mosaic of approaches depending on the situation, and that has underpinned [an] integrated program that would involve having teams of divers, potentially Aboriginal sea country rangers, potentially commercial divers, potentially even involving community divers in the water, supported to undertake those different control strategies. And in that report you'll see each of those approaches has different parameters around operating. But that's where we think that there's a real synergy in working in that way. And each state will work slightly differently, depending on the composition of the issues and goals, but there would be a sort of national backbone, if I can use that term, of support from groups like CSIRO, FRDC and other organisations helping us to coordinate and make sure that the data were being collected in a comparable way.
Effects and management of COTS
3.62The GBR is one of the world's best-known coral reef ecosystems, and is protected under Australia's environmental legislative framework. It has been WorldHeritage listed since 1981 for its unique natural attributes and significant scientific and environmental value.
3.63The GBR is managed jointly by the Commonwealth through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), in partnership with the QueenslandGovernment, together with local governments, Traditional Owners, industry, research bodies and community organisations under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975.
3.64However, the GBR also faces significant threats to its health, including tropical storms, coral bleaching events, and outbreaks of COTS. Although COTS is species native to the GBR, several population outbreaks since 1962 have caused major coral loss on the reef. The starfish goes through 'boom and bust' cycles of population explosion and decline, with outbreaks lasting around 10–12 years.
3.65This has impacted the health of some areas of the GBR significantly, and in turn, threatened not only the sustainability of the environment, but also local tourism-dependent businesses reliant on the Reef.
3.66COTS is managed under GBRMPA's Crown-of-thorns starfish Strategic Management Framework (COTS Framework), which emerged from the development of the Reef2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan.
3.67The COTS Framework sets out a holistic management strategy addressing the entire cycle of outbreaks, combining 'long-term management actions aimed at preventing outbreaks, with tactical response actions aimed at minimising coral mortality and promoting recovery when outbreaks are underway'. This includes:
Preventative actions, which are ongoing across the outbreak cycle, include improving water quality and the protection of COTS predators. Once an outbreak begins to develop, management then ramps up tactical response actions aimed at suppressing and containing the outbreak to the initiation region, or protecting coral at high value locations if the outbreak cannot be suppressed and contained. These tactical responses are currently delivered through the Marine Park Authority's COTS Control Program. This Control Program operates on modern principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and will continue to evolve and apply new pest management tools and technologies as they become available.
3.68The COTS Control Program is supported by a monitoring program that underpins COTS management, including environmental factors that could provide early indicators of outbreaks, drawing on a wide range of inputs such as public sightings, marine park rangers, and surveys by scientists.
3.69Ms Katrina Maguire, Division Head of the International Environment, Reef and Oceans Division for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) outlined the significant investment made by the Commonwealth in COTS management, as well as the economic and employment outcomes of COTS management programs:
Since 2012-13, over the 10-year period, there's been an investment by the Australian government of about $120 million. Since that time, that has helped fund the surveillance and cull effort of 356 high-value reefs. It's involved 95,000 diver hours and has resulted in the detection and culling of more than 1.1million crown-of-thorns and protected coral from starfish predation across more than 97,000 hectares of reef habitat. That's been the investment over the last 10 or so years …
During 2022-23 so far there have been 29 full-time positions and 118 part‑time positions. That includes seven full-time equivalent positions at the reef authority, and the remainder are employed by vessel contractors. Eleven of those positions have been filled by First Nations people. Another 22 trainee and internship positions are via the Indigenous COTS Control and Leadership Program, coordinated by the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre and the INLOC group. That's been the investment.
3.70Ms Maguire confirmed that a further $149.4 million has been committed to COTS management by the Commonwealth to the end of this decade.
3.71A number of stakeholders noted the success of these efforts to manage COTS, and the tangible benefits to the GBR and dependent communities. In doing so, it was noted that the COTS management programs provided an example of effective marine pest management that could guide efforts to mitigate the effects of Centro.
3.72For example, Professor Scott Ling, ARC Future Fellow at IMAS told the committee that:
The only other analogous species here [to Centro] in the way they cull them is the crown-of-thorns starfish. They actually inject a chemical—basically an acid—into the starfish. We don't need to do that [with Centro]. We just need to compromise the test, or the shell, of the urchin and then it makes it very vulnerable to predators. They can be culled very effectively.
3.73Dr John Keane, an IMAS Research Fellow, noted that there were similarities in the way COTS and Centro had compromised not only environmental health, but also industry:
… I think where the crown-of-thorns hits in the Great Barrier Reef is the impact on tourism. There are a lot of tourists diving under the water. We have less tourism in the Great Southern Reef, in south-eastern Australia, but we have higher-value fisheries. The economic impacts are probably of a similar magnitude, but instead of being tourism, it's fisheries and the ecosystem.
3.74Professor Ling of IMAS further noted that, whereas COTS was episodic and so allowed for environmental recovery, urchin barrens were a longer-term challenge once established:
… the crown-of-thorns will go through these boom-and-bust outbreak cycles. With Centrostephanus … it'll boom, it'll collapse the reef, and then we're locked into that for the long term … So we're basically losing reef habitat. That's a real problem for fisheries management as well, because it means they're fishing harder and harder in a diminishing habitat. If they don't drop their total allowable catch, they're just concentrating their fishing and they're really fuelling this fire of the collapse of one stock after another. I would argue that the long-term ecological impacts of the long-spined sea urchin is a bigger impact on our southern reefs than the crown-of-thorns is on the Great Barrier Reef.
3.75A key difference between the management of Centro and other invasive species, such as COTS, is the opportunity build an industry around the harvesting of urchins. For instance, Professor Maria Byrne clearly differentiated between the nature, management and opportunities of COTS and Centro:
I work on the crown-of-thorns starfish a lot, and it's not the same [as Centro], and I'd be very hesitant to put the two in the same boat. The big important thing with crown-of-thorns is that it comes and goes every 10 years—boom and bust, boom and bust, boom and bust. That is No. 1. Centrostephanus is … here all the time. No. 2, you can eat Centrostephanus; you can't eat the crown‑of‑thorns. So I think the approach to the two with respect to expenditure has to be totally different …
With the Centrostephanus, we want to build up an industry.
3.76For example, Dr Keane pointed out that, unlike COTS management, Centro offered positive economic returns:
… with crown-of-thorns, the only option is to cull them. For the long-spined sea urchin, we've got all these other options, including the commercial industry—the fishing—so there's an economic return … this is quite unique among a lot of pest-management scenarios in that there's an actual economic opportunity. I think that needs to be capitalised on.
3.77Dr Keane further observed that, where protection of the GBR would require continued investment in COTS management programs, Centro could be self‑sustaining following an initial investment from government:
Crown-of-thorns is going to need that continual funding because there is no economic return. With the sea urchins, hopefully, if we can set up an economic opportunity, it'll largely become self-funding … Crown-of-thorns is just going to be a continuing money sink—hopefully, with the sea urchin, we can set up industry to control at least large parts of the problem.
3.78Ms Jane Gallichan, Chief Executive Officer of the Tasmanian Association for Recreational Fishing, noted that there had been no federal funding earmarked directly for the management of urchins and the restoration of kelp forests:
To date, there has been no federal investment that I'm aware of in these two issues. When comparing this to the extensive and growing investment in crown-of-thorns that has delivered tangible environmental, social and economic benefits, it seems logical, indeed necessary, to meet that level of commitment for the management of centro and undertaking giant kelp reforestation.
Committee view
3.79The spread of Centro down the south-eastern coast of Australia clearly poses a substantial ecological and management challenge for affected states, as well the Commonwealth, as set out in the first two chapters of this report.
3.80However, the committee received compelling evidence that this management challenge could be addressed in a way that also offers valuable new opportunities on several fronts. This evidence was remarkably consistent, with similar themes drawn out by government officials, representatives of professional fishing industry and recreational fishing groups, community and Traditional Owner groups, academic researchers, and environmental organisations.
3.81There is clearly a potential win-win situation to establish a new fishery, support existing fisheries, and to better protect Australia’s marine environment.
3.82 A new Centro fishery, supported by an effective processing and export sector, has significant potential to play a leading role in growing a new marine industry for urchin products, alongside targeting global and domestic markets, and reducing damaging urchin outbreaks in certain areas.
3.83At the same time, a healthy urchin fishery could alleviate the pressures on established lobster and abalone fisheries, which are intensifying with Centro expansion and population growth. Effective management of urchin populations through strategic harvesting practices, would also prevent new barrens, and preserve and restore habitat supporting rock lobster and abalone recovery.
3.84In turn, these benefits for marine industries could also contribute to the restoration of the broader sustainability and health of Australia’s marine environment. Well‑targeted and coordinated Centro removal and giant kelp reforestation programs would ensure healthy and sustainable habitat for fishery species, as well as protect the giant kelp marine ecologies that are threatened by Centro expansion.
3.85Healthy fisheries would create new jobs for regional communities that depend upon the blue economy, in fishing, processing, environmental management, and tourism. Similarly, this would offer new opportunities for Traditional Owners, not only for employment, but also in the ongoing ecological management of the marine environment, and their ability to use sea resources for food and cultural purposes.
3.86The substantial challenges of Centro expansion also offer considerable opportunities, both for the affected states and for the Commonwealth. The following chapter of the report looks at evidence calling for a coordinated approach to Centro management, and opportunities for the Commonwealth to play a leadership role in delivering this. It also discusses the Centro Task Force's Five Year Business Plan, and sets out the committee's views and recommendations.
3.87In addition, the committee sees significant opportunities for the Commonwealth to proactively work with jurisdictions on maximising the win-win opportunities for industry and employment, as well as for local communities and the environment.
3.88The committee recommends that the government consider working closely with relevant state governments to capture and harness the benefits offered by an emerging fishery for long-spined sea urchins, including:
developing a new fishery for Centro, while supporting existing fisheries for rock lobster and abalone;
maximising employment opportunities in harvesting and processing for urchin products;
coordinating research and policy across jurisdictions to encourage an economically and ecologically self-sustaining Centro fishery;
fostering programs to protect and restore kelp and reef ecologies and the species that depend upon them, including innovative cross-sectoral work with industry, environmental organisations and communities;
involving local, regional and First Nations communities in these opportunities; and
assisting to grow overseas and domestic markets for urchin products.