Consequences of
climate change for fishing, aquaculture and other ocean-based activities
4.1
The previous two chapters have provided an overview of the available
evidence indicating the existing and future consequences of climate change for individual
species and ecosystems in the marine environment. This chapter focuses on the
implications of these changes for commercial, recreational and Indigenous
fishing and other water-based activities, including associated effects for
economic activity and employment. As this chapter will demonstrate, changing
distributions and numbers of individual species, particularly commercially,
recreationally and culturally important species, is expected to have
significant consequences for commercial fishing and aquaculture, as well as for
recreational fishing efforts.[1]
Commercial fishing and aquaculture
4.2
The implications of climate change for commercial fishing and
aquaculture were a principal focus of this inquiry and attracted significant
comment. Just as climate change can have both positive and negative
implications for certain species and ecosystems, evidence received during this
inquiry indicated that the consequences of climate change for commercial
fishing and aquaculture activities can vary, depending on location, species
targeted and ability of the industry to adapt.
General observations
4.3
The Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR) submitted that
'climate change is anticipated to result in greater seasonal variability in the
availability, abundance and location of species targeted by commercial
fishers'. The nature and extent of these changes, however, are 'difficult
to predict'.[2]
4.4
The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) considered that
climate change may affect fisheries in various ways, including as a result of:
-
spatial and temporal variances in stock abundance;
-
changes in range and life history of specific stocks;
-
stock abundance, with some specific increasing in abundance while
others decrease;
-
increased variability affecting 'the predictive capacity for
fisheries scientists to advise on fishing effort or allowable catch'; and
-
weather changes, including extreme weather for greater periods of
time, which may 'restrict access to stocks and constrain effort'.[3]
4.5
AFMA also suggested that developments linked to climate change could
lead to 'increased workplace safety issues and risk-taking by crews'.[4]
In addition, the Northern Territory Seafood Council expressed concern about
'increased costs and difficulties in retaining workers due to increased
temperature making working conditions difficult and increased cyclone activity
or intensity leading to unsafe work places at sea or on land'.[5]
4.6
The DAWR considered that available research indicates 'climate change
will result in both challenges and opportunities for the commercial fishing
industry'. The DAWR submitted that climate change could, for example,
'result in the decline in abundance of some fish stocks or limit aquaculture
operations for certain species, but concurrently may lead to increased
production or range extension for other fish stocks'.[6]
4.7
More specifically, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC)
advised that the barramundi aquaculture industry could spread south as the
climate warms, and there could be an opportunity to farm warm temperate species
(such as eastern lobster, southern bluefin tuna and yellowtail kingfish) in
Tasmania. However, southern bluefin tuna farmed in South Australia 'will be
impacted by increasing summer water temperatures through changes in their
metabolic demand'.[7]
4.8
Consequences for the Tasmanian salmon aquaculture industry were
highlighted in particular. The Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS)
noted that the industry is 'confined to Tasmania due to the cooler waters of
Tasmania being those suited to its survival'. IMAS further noted that the
industry is 'worth $0.5 billion and seeking to expand to $1 billion over the
next 20 years'.[8]
Government and scientific stakeholders accept that warming waters will present
productivity and disease challenges for the industry. For example, the
DAWR noted that 'increasing temperatures already evident in Tasmania will
result in Atlantic salmon being cultivated close to their upper thermal limits
of optimal growth and may therefore result in decreased productivity'.[9]
4.9
IMAS, which has commented on the potential impacts of climate change on
salmon aquaculture in its publications, concluded that:
...without strategic research
and specific changes in farming practice climate change would negatively impact
on salmon aquaculture production through temperature related increases in
physiological stress and diseases and decreased feeding, growth and growth
efficiency.[10]
Specific developments
that have been observed and other potential outcomes
4.10
In considering the future consequences of climate change for commercial
fisheries, past examples of fisheries affected by warming waters were noted.
IMAS referred to Tasmania's jack mackerel fishery, which in the 1980s was
Australia's largest single species fishery by volume. IMAS explained that the
krill schools the jack mackerel fed on had disappeared by the mid-1990s, along
with the jack mackerel, leaving a local processing plant and associated jobs
'defunct'. IMAS referred to CSIRO research that observed the effects of warm
waters on plankton, and related consequences for krill; this research provided
'anecdotal evidence that the warming east coast waters play[ed] an important
role in the disappearance of this fishery'.[11]
4.11
Changes in commercial fisheries linked to climate change have been
observed. Austral Fisheries advised that its operations have been 'directly
impacted already by climate change in our fisheries'. For example, rainfall
reductions and warmer ocean temperatures 'has, and will continue, to impact on
levels of prawn stocks, and impacts on ecologically related species to prawns,
such as die-back of mangroves that we have seen in the past year, around the
Eastern Gulf of Carpentaria'.[12]
On banana prawns in the Northern Prawn Fishery, Austral Fisheries explained
that this species is:
...well known to be reliant on adequate rainfall and consequent
river flows at the correct time of the life cycle of the prawn, to ensure the
stocks are productive and generate good recruitment. If climate change leads to
longer periods of lower rainfall in northern Australia, or if river flows are
negatively impacted due to either lower rainfall, or other diversions of the
available water, then we will see direct negative impacts on prawn stock
abundance.[13]
4.12
Austral concluded that such a development would 'result in lost income,
higher carbon emissions generated as operators spend longer at sea burning
diesel fuel to search for prawns, and lower catches of prawns'.[14]
4.13
Regarding the sub-Antarctic fishery at Heard Island and McDonald
Islands, Austral believes the record high sea surface temperatures recorded
from May to July 2016 'may have had detrimental impacts on the availability of
toothfish in our fishery'.[15]
Austral explained:
Toothfish stocks in the sub Antarctic underwent a dramatic
shift in availability in May 2016, for a period of nearly 5 months, after which
the availability of the fish returned (equally as dramatically) to previous
levels.[16]
4.14
As another example, IMAS submitted that the east coast Tasmanian abalone
fishery has 'seen declines in productivity that have resulted in changes in
allocated quota'. IMAS acknowledged that some reduction in fleet size was part
of planned management outcomes; however, IMAS considered that 'the effects of
climate change may have compounded the reduction in fleet size'.[17]
4.15
Potential effects for the oyster industry include:
-
fixed height water infrastructure that 'will need adjustment
under different sea-level scenario';
-
changes in phytoplankton species, distribution and abundance,
leading to 'increased occurrence of harmful algal blooms, which has the
potential to shut down production for extended periods';
-
ocean acidification that will thin the walls of shellfish; and
-
increased storm intensity that 'will see greater damage to
cultivation gear and coastal infrastructure (e.g. oyster sheds, wharfs,
marinas, etc.)'.[18]
4.16
Mr Neil Stump, Executive Officer, Oysters Tasmania, informed the
committee that rising sea levels within areas used for growing oysters will
have implications for existing operations. He explained:
...if we have increasing sea-level rises within growing
areas—particularly in the intertidal areas where the oysters rely on being
submerged for part of the day and out in the open for part of the day—that will
change the way our industry needs to operate. Currently, we do have growers
that operate subtidally; however, they do have to do that interspersed with
intertidal operations as well, because it is a characteristic of the animal that,
when it is subtidal, it is open all the time feeding 24/7 and its adductor
muscle does not develop properly. So it requires placement in intertidal areas
for the shell to open and close and strengthen its adductor muscle so, when you
are selling it as a live product, it has to have the capacity to close its
shell while it is in live transport. It is a very simple thing.[19]
4.17
As noted above, scientists expect the Tasmanian salmon aquaculture
industry to face productivity pressures due to warming waters resulting in Atlantic
salmon being cultivated close to their upper thermal limits of optimal growth.
Evidence of warming waters already negatively affecting the industry emerged in
2016 when Tassal announced that it had decided to withdraw tenders for two
domestic retail supply contracts involving the supermarket chain Coles 'in
light of warmer waters impacting growing conditions for near term supply'.[20]
More recently, it was reported that warming surface temperatures had
contributed to elevated salmon mortalities at Tassal's operations at Macquarie
Harbour.[21]
Marine pests and diseases
4.18
There are over 250 introduced marine plants and animals established in
Australian waters, some of which become pests.[22]
These pests have consequences for a wide range of marine activities, however,
consequences for the commercial fishing industry were highlighted in
particular. In addition, fisheries and aquaculture can be susceptible to
outbreaks of bacterial, fungal and parasitic infections.[23]
The FRDC advised that Australia has 'a unique and poorly understood range of
endemic pathogens'. The FRDC added that these pathogens include 'local strain
variations of pathogens of international concern, which is becoming
increasingly important and of significance to our export trade'.[24]
4.19
Several submitters acknowledged that it is difficult to link the
outbreak of marine pests and diseases to climate change;[25]
for example, marine pests are introduced to new areas through ships' biofouling
and in the ballast water carried by ships.[26]
However, there are concerns that the effects of climate change may enable
marine pests to become established in previously uncontaminated areas. It is
also considered that the effects of climate change may lead to changes in
disease occurrence or prevalence.[27]
4.20
AFMA stated that climate change projections 'suggest that there may be a
redistribution of marine pests and diseases'.[28]
The committee received evidence that some marine pests have shifted their
geographic range due to elevated water temperatures. For instance, the long-spined
sea urchin (Centrostephanus), a native species of New South Wales, has
been detected in Tasmanian waters and is considered a pest as it destructively
overgrazes seaweed.[29]
Dr Neville Barrett from IMAS provided the following evidence regarding the implications
of the long-spined sea urchin entering Tasmanian waters:
That [species] is coming down in huge numbers, the currents
are bringing it down, and it is probably becoming reproductively established in
our waters now, so it is self-sustaining. That has a major negative impact,
because that particular species forms what we call urchin barrens on our rocky
reef systems. It denudes the reefs of pretty much all algae and all other forms
of life. It causes a major decline in productivity for rock lobster, for
abalone, because there is no algae there to support the food chains they need;
it also just wipes out everything else that is on the reef systems. That is a
real negative.[30]
4.21
Mr Jon Bryan from the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, however, questioned
whether climate change is the principal cause of the change in distribution of
the long‑spined sea urchin. Mr Bryan argued that 'urchin barrens are
primarily caused by overfishing of rock lobster' and that, in his view, 'there
is no way that we can really tell how much climate change is contributing to
this'. Mr Bryan continued:
One would expect that the warmer water temperatures, which
increase the growth of invertebrate animals normally—until the water gets hot
enough to kill them—is a contributing factor. But primarily, rock lobsters are
the key to this problem and climate change is secondary. So I think it is quite
misleading for people to say, 'Look, this is a climate change problem.' It is a
fisheries management problem.[31]
4.22
Evidence was presented indicating that marine diseases can be stimulated
by environmental stressors, including stressors linked to climate change such
as warming water temperatures (which affect the immune response of cool water
aquatic animals).[32]
Storm events, heavy rainfall and floods are other stressors for marine
ecosystems that can make species more prone to disease and introduce nutrients
that cause algal blooms.[33]
4.23
Pacific Oyster Mortality Syndrome (POMS), which is a disease that
affects only Pacific oysters, was put forward as an example of a disease that
is linked to warming waters. POMS can result in rapid mortalities and outbreaks
of the disease are believed to be temperature dependent. POMS was first
detected in Australia in New South Wales in November 2010.[34]
An outbreak was subsequently detected in Tasmania in January 2016. That
outbreak killed in excess of $12 million worth of Pacific oysters.[35]
Prior to the 2016 outbreak, the Tasmanian industry also supplied most of the
spat juvenile oysters to South Australia, with overall hatchery sales of
$6–$8 million. However, South Australia has since prohibited the importation of
live oyster products from Tasmania as a preventative measure to reduce the risk
of the disease spreading.[36]
4.24
The employment implications of an outbreak are considerable. Overall,
Mr Stump advised that in an industry where approximately 350–400 people
are directly employed, approximately 100 people lost their job. He added:
The flip side of that too is not only those people lose their
job but if they lose it for any period of time they are likely to go somewhere
else. What it meant in the recovery process for growers was when it came time
to ramp up or get back on their farms and start handling product again, they
were behind the eight ball because they did not have the workforce. They had to
make some very strategic decisions about how many people they could afford to
rehire and for how long and what order they had to do the work. I was
talking to a farmer the other day who had to make the decision between handling
more stock to get it into the market and doing repairs required so he could
stock up again for the next winter. There are very real business impacts trying
to handle those sorts of things.[37]
4.25
In response to the POMS outbreak, the Tasmanian Government announced fee
relief, concessional loans and clean-up assistance.[38]
4.26
Harmful algal blooms (HABs) have also affected commercial fisheries. HABs
occur when, under the right conditions, colonies of algae grow out of control
and produce effects that are toxic or harmful for people, fish, shellfish,
marine mammals and birds. The human illnesses caused by HABs, though rare, can
be debilitating and even fatal.[39]
4.27
Research indicates that HAB species are expanding their range, with some
expansions likely related to the changing climate.[40]
For example, IMAS explained that in 2012, 2015 and 2016, toxic
dinoflagellate bloom outbreaks occurred on Tasmania's east coast in a region
that was previously considered a low biotoxin risk area. The outbreaks led
to lengthy closures of mussel, oyster, scallop and rock lobster fisheries. The
2015 outbreak on Tasmania's east coast resulted in four people being
hospitalised with paralytic shellfish poisoning. Preliminary evidence indicates
that the strain of dinoflagellate is a previously rare genotype in the area
that has been newly stimulated by the southward extension of the East
Australian Current.[41]
4.28
Professor Gustaaf Hallegraeff, who has worked on HAB research for
40 years, explained that he 'did not see these [outbreaks] coming' as HABs
are 'actually a cold-water phenomenon'. He added:
...something happened in the cold-water winter period. The
water column stratification has changed, and this has had an enormous impact,
for example, on the shellfish in Australia and on the east coast of
Tasmania, to the extent where we expect that the mussel industry has a very
limited future. In general, these systems are becoming less predictable and
that is what is causing the problems for human society.[42]
4.29
Austral explained that algal blooms off the east coast of Tasmania 'have
necessitated temporary closures of fisheries such as oysters, scallops, abalone
and rock lobster to ensure public health and safety is maintained'.[43]
Mr Stump explained that, unlike other diseases the HABs do not harm the oysters
themselves, but they present 'a food safety issue...because the toxins produced
by these algae are harmful to humans', potentially causing sickness or
resulting in death.[44]
4.30
A further issue discussed during this inquiry is amoebic gill disease.
IMAS explained that salmon in aquaculture stressed by warmer water temperatures
have an increased likelihood of amoebic gill disease.[45]
Professor Stewart Frusher from IMAS provided the following evidence on this
topic:
When most aquaculture or animals get to the ends of their thermal
tolerances we see a lot more diseases occur. Animals that are confined in
regions, whether they be salmon or cattle in herd lots and things of this
nature, are prone obviously to higher disease incidences.[46]
4.31
IMAS noted that the increased prevalence of amoebic gill disease in
salmon aquaculture has resulted in increased mortality and management costs for
treatment.[47]
4.32
Although it is predicted that the consequences of climate change might
cause certain outbreaks such as HABs to occur more often, direct links between
the consequences of climate change and the incidence and prevalence of other
marine pests and diseases are less clear. For example, POMS is a disease that
is linked to temperature; however, evidence received by the committee indicated
that explicitly linking outbreaks to climate change is difficult. Professor
David Raftos emphasised that:
The relationship between pests and pathogens in terms of the
marine environment is complex because it is a three-way street. You have got
the environment, you have got the infected host species and you have got the
infectious agent, which adds a level of complexity.[48]
4.33
On the arrival of POMS in New South Wales and the subsequent outbreak in
Tasmania, Professor Rathos commented:
It is difficult to see immediately a climate change link. It
is probably just transportation—it has gotten into the container terminal at
Botany. Identifying direct climate change links in those situations can be
difficult, and it is certain that that particular virus has a temperature
threshold, and disease only occurs above certain temperatures.[49]
4.34
Nevertheless, in light of the concerns regarding links between climate
change and marine pests and diseases, the committee received evidence
questioning aspects of current biosecurity arrangements. IMAS explained that
Australia 'has strong diagnostic capabilities for seven aquatic diseases
determined as priority; however, it argued that greater consideration is given
to the 'early detection of emerging pathogens and strategic research'.[50]
The FRDC explained that its research investment in biosecurity is confined to
'endemic diseases and to risks associated with exotics that currently or
potentially have an impact on or by fishing and aquaculture activities'.[51]
Future of commercial
fishing and aquaculture
4.35
Overall, CSIRO advised that ecosystem models suggest that, for
south-east Australia, sustainable fisheries and aquaculture 'will be possible
under climate change'; however, 'a change in species mix, including more
invertebrates and pelagic fish' will likely be required. Furthermore, although
fisheries will be profitable, 'the employment projections are more mixed'.
CSIRO provided the following reasoning:
If there are strong restrictions on the use of large vessels,
which can shift with species then the landings, value and economic health can
be negatively impacted. However, if such large vessels can be used (with
suitable management in place for them to remain sustainable) the economic
health of fisheries is good (potentially improving substantially versus the
current state). However, employment will contract as smaller boats—which are
socially tied and do not have the capacity to shift with stocks or ride out the
potential increases in variability—leave fisheries...If this outcome is to be avoided
the smaller fishers would need additional livelihood support to help their
capacity to shift as required.[52]
4.36
In discussing the consequences for commercial fishing, it was noted that
the Australian industry has changed and adapted throughout its history. For
example, IMAS noted that 'Flinders Island once supported a thriving lobster
fishing community yet now only one part-time lobster fisher is based on the
island'. In addition, St Helen's in Tasmania was considered one of the state's
major fishing ports, but 'over the last 30 years [it] has seen over 60% of
the fishing fleet disappear'.[53]
4.37
The DAWR observed that '[f]lexibility and resilience have long been
characteristic of the commercial fishing industry, owing to changes in the
business environment over recent decades and the natural variability of marine
ecosystems'. The DAWR added:
Fishers adapt how, when and where they fish so as to optimise
their operations for their professional requirements. These features
demonstrate a capacity to respond to uncertainty and change, whatever form it
may take.[54]
4.38
AFMA also noted that, although the scope of potential climate
change-related impacts is 'wide', climate change 'is still only one of many
factors affecting commercial fishing'.[55]
A similar point was made in the submission from the Government of South
Australia, which stated:
There are many and varied factors which challenge the
management of fisheries resources, including climate change, environmental
variability, population growth, coastal development, competition for resources
by a variety of stakeholder groups, advancements in fishing technology and catching
capacity, among others.[56]
4.39
The DAWR submitted that CSIRO research has reached the following
conclusion:
...while climate change is an important issue for Commonwealth
fisheries, other issues such as markets, input costs and overexploitation are
likely to have a greater effect and be a higher priority for fisheries policy
and management in the short term.[57]
4.40
It was also noted that Australia's commercial fishing industry is
relatively small, with catch tonnage ranked 60th globally.[58] Nevertheless, it is recognised that
commercial fishing companies need to 'understand [the] potential impacts of
climate change on their businesses and build resilience and adaptive
capabilities in their operations and planning'.[59]
In this regard, Austral advised that it considers the impact of climate change
on its operations is 'a critical priority, if not the highest priority,
for our business'.[60]
Austral stated that it has implemented monitoring programs with scientists 'in
an ad hoc manner'; however, it considers there needs to be 'a coordinated,
calibrated, program of research that is developed by scientists'. Austral
advised that it is willing to contribute to such a program.[61]
4.41
More broadly, however, the committee received evidence indicating that
the industry is not prepared for climate change. Mrs Patricia Beatty, who
represented the New South Wales Professional Fishermen's Association, stated:
We as an industry do not have a very strong grasp on climate
change and what it means for us, but we do understand one thing and that is
that it will create change in our industry; in how we fish, fish availability,
the catch availability; basically the productivity of our systems. We also
understand there is a potential for increase in biosecurity issues, such as
diseases et cetera in our system.[62]
4.42
Mrs Beatty continued:
This change is not what we believe we are prepared for. The
research and monitoring is not occurring in the real time and, even if it was,
we do not have a real understanding of the causes; rather, we have a tokenistic
understanding of what is a symptom. So we will understand through our log books
that, for example, catches might be down. But is that because there is an
abundance issue or is it because the fish have gone deep or gone somewhere
else? We do not have an understanding of the actual causes. It could be
that market forces are involved or changes in fisheries habitats. Our fear is
that as soon as catches go down commercial fishers are considered the first
risk and threat. Even if we did have all this research and monitoring and
strong understanding in real time, we still do not believe we have a
responsive, flexible and adaptive management system of our industry.[63]
4.43
It was also noted that commercial fishing and aquaculture businesses
have to deal with other challenges and prioritise their responses to various
challenges. Professor David Raftos provided insight into this by referring to
his experience with the oyster industry. Professor Raftos commented:
I work quite a lot with oyster farmers, and most oyster
farmers are very aware of the situation and know that it is a threat. But they
are routinely hammered by all sorts of different problems. It is a standard
farming sort of industry. So they are prioritising. If you are a Pacific oyster
farmer at the moment, your major threat is Pacific oyster mortality syndrome,
because it is going to wipe out your farm.
So they prioritise. And generally, because it is not tangibly
immediate, the climate change issues go a couple of steps down that priority
list, I think.[64]
4.44
Another issue put forward was the implications of climate change for the
governance of fishing companies. Mr Exel from Austral referred the committee to
a legal opinion from Noel Hutley SC and Sebastian Hartford Davis to the effect
that 'climate change risks are something that you have to take account of in a
governance sense as a business'.[65]Austral
outlined its approach as follows:
That is our planet, and that is why we as Austral decided to
offset all of our carbon emissions. We already had the sustainability side of
things knocked out with fisheries, but it is clear that climate change is major
and in our way of doing things it goes without saying that we had to move to
economic sustainability. From our perspective, as things change it is costing
us a lot of money. Some of the changes mentioned in our report there—I was
doing a quick estimation—cost us as a company somewhere between $10 million and
$15 million last year.
Social sustainability is the other thing. Keeping up with
community expectations is a nightmare—I am so glad that you guys are the ones
that deal with that. As fishermen, we cop some of the flak. We deserve some of
that and, in many cases, a lot of it, but at the same time without a framework
for us to deal with it as an industry it makes it really hard to keep up with
the community.[66]
Recreational fishing
4.45
It was noted that recreational fisher behaviour will need to adapt to
ecological changes to the distribution, abundance, and seasonality of target
species caused by climate change.[67]
The Sydney Institute of Marine Science (SIMS) argued that highly mobile target
species 'such as pelagic fish (tuna, billfish, sharks), will alter the timing
of their annual migrations and recreational fishers will need to adapt to these
temporal and spatial changes in species distributions'.[68]
4.46
Positive outcomes for recreational fishers in certain locations were
noted. Professor Stewart Frusher from IMAS explained that some recreational
species, including snapper and King George whiting, may enter Tasmanian waters
as the waters warm. He advised that some recreational fishers are 'quite
positive' about this change as the species are 'iconic fish to catch'.[69]
4.47
Based on the evidence presented to the committee, how significant the
expected consequences for recreational fishing will be is unclear. SIMS
referred to research indicating that recreational fishers are 'particularly
vulnerable to climate change as they have less capacity to adapt to altered
target species and distributions'.[70]
However, IMAS suggested that, compared to commercial fishers, individual
fishers generally 'have greater capacity to adapt based on the flexibility in
their decisions about fishing activities and these will be influenced by how
much they value particular species'. Nevertheless, IMAS acknowledged that 'the
regional impacts of altered recreational fisher behaviour should not be
underestimated' given that '[m]any regional areas in Australia are highly
reliant on the economic benefits of recreational fishing'.[71]
Indigenous fishing and management of sea
country
4.48
The impacts of climate change on Indigenous fishing were noted in the
submissions from AFMA, the Northern Land Council and the Torres
Strait Regional Authority (TSRA). Submissions commented on Indigenous
fishing generally and Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs).[72]
4.49
The implications of climate change for the Torres Strait region were
highlighted. AFMA provided the following observations:
Fish remain a major source of protein and income for many
Indigenous communities so any changes in distribution or abundance of marine
species can have significant economic and social impacts. Also, the Torres
Strait is more susceptible to the impacts of sea level change as many islands
are low lying.[73]
4.50
The TSRA submitted that, for the Torres Strait region, current climate
projections indicate that climate change 'will almost certainly become a
significant threatening process to the marine ecosystems of the region'. The
TSRA explained that the shallow sea basin in the region 'contains over 300
islands and approximately
1,200 coral reefs', as well as 'extensive seagrass meadows and coastal mangrove
systems'. The TSRA emphasised that the coral reefs in the Torres Strait 'are
undeniably of great cultural and economic importance for the Torres Strait
Islanders and Aboriginal people of the region'. Furthermore, the marine
fisheries in the region are 'the backbone of the regional Indigenous economy'.[74]
4.51
The Northern Land Council submitted that apparent impacts of climate
change in the Northern Territory include the 'severe dieback of mangroves in
the Gulf of Carpentaria' and 'coral bleaching in coastal areas of east
Arnhem'.[75]
There is also concern that tropical rock lobster adults 'may become rare and
harder to harvest in the shallower waters where most of the traditional and
community fishing takes place'.[76]
4.52
AFMA explained that it is working with the TSRA and the Queensland
Government to 'assist Traditional Inhabitants to adapt to changes in their
fisheries'. AFMA added that it 'addresses climate change directly in the Torres
Strait through the use of fishery independent stock assessments'.[77]
The DAWR also noted that the Australian Government has committed to recognise
the interests of Indigenous fishers (and recreational fishers) in Commonwealth
fisheries legislation.[78]
4.53
However, the Northern Land Council expressed concern that 'customary
practices and traditional economies will be unsubstantiated in government policy
and programs for climate change adaptation'. It submitted:
Formulating and resourcing an appropriate engagement
framework is imperative for Traditional Owners to inform policy and programs
respective of their rights, interests and knowledge of marine fisheries and
biodiversity. Resources should provide necessary expertise to inform management
practices and support existing or the establishment of Traditional Owners
governance frameworks to engage in this issue.[79]
4.54
Continuing on from the above evidence about the need to provide
expertise to support management practices, Mr Matthew Salmon, Manager, Caring
for Country, Northern Land Council, advised that research 'generally remains
inaccessible to our members'.[80]
Mr Salmon explained:
...people have a suspicion that some of the local changes
they're seeing could be linked to climate change, but they tend not to have
access to the science or the research which might, as far as it can,
definitively back that view up. The critical question for these guys is they
suspect some of these things might be going on, but they don't have access to
the research. And so a central part of our submission is: how do we connect
people better to the science that's happened? And the other thing is: how do we
provide a gateway for people to be able to say to researchers, 'We've noticed
these things in our environment. We've got some suspicions about what might
cause them. How do we work together to get that answer?'[81]
4.55
Mr Salmon added:
...where we have Indigenous protected
areas, for example, most of our groups will have at least some kind of cursory
discussion with their science partners about potential impacts. But that
doesn't represent any kind of joined-up specific or deliberate effort to have a
think about how these things might affect people right across the 84 per cent
of the coast that we own. I would say that the trouble is that the engagement
isn't deliberate; it isn't designed from scratch with the idea that that would
happen. It tends to happen coincidentally as a result of our other engagement
with our science partners.[82]
4.56
Mr Salmon noted that, although engagement about climate change issues
'tends to be fragmented and coincidental', when it comes to other issues there are
'good research relationships', such as those with the CSIRO. Mr Salmon
concluded:
It would be nice to see some deliberately designed
regional-scale effort which would work with people to build on their local
observations of change, help them describe whether they think it's climate
related and then help people think about what kind of deliberate, practical,
local actions they could take away from this.[83]
Fishing on the high seas, fishing activity in
other countries and illegal fishing
4.57
A range of other issues related to climate change arise due to the migratory
nature of fish stocks and the mobile nature of fishing efforts. For example,
AFMA noted that as 'Australia accesses a number of important highly migratory
and high seas fish stocks, along with many other nations', the effect of
climate change on these fisheries will likely require negotiations with
international fisheries organisations.[84]
4.58
AFMA also suggested that stock shifts associated with climate change may
lead to an increase in illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing by Australian
or foreign fishers. AFMA observed:
Australia's Exclusive Economic
Zone abuts several other nations which are facing significant challenges in
managing their fisheries most often for domestic human consumption. Like
Australia they will face pressures on their fisheries from climate change and
it will be important that we continue to work with them to solve the regional
issues that may arise.[85]
4.59
Likewise, CSIRO noted that populations in many nearby nations rely on
fish as a major daily source of protein. For example, CSIRO noted that 3.3
million people in Indonesia 'rely directly on fishing activities for part or
all of their income...the numbers rise to 6 million Indonesians if aquaculture
farmers are included'. Accordingly, it can be expected that:
...climate impacts on our neighbours will have flow on effects
to Australia both in terms of supply of fish and possible declines in our
neighbours’ fisheries and hence their income and food security.[86]
4.60
Dr Hobday from CSIRO added that, in relation to illegal fishing:
We have been seeing more vessels—for example, in northern
Australia—in recent years. That is perhaps related to regional conflict in
South-East Asia as much as it is to declining fish stocks in that region. But
the kind of disruption that we expect through climate change will have the same
result. There will be vessels that attempt to go to other places in order to
provide food for their countries.[87]
4.61
When asked about the potential for increased illegal, unregulated or
unreported fishing activity as a result of climate change, Mr Exel from Austral
Fisheries agreed that this is a concern. In addition, Mr Exel provided the
following evidence regarding changes to fisheries and tensions between
competing interests that might become more evident due to climate change:
Globally, it already has, as fish stock shift range, or
range-shift. The redfish in the North Atlantic is a classic; it moved into
Icelandic waters and out of the high seas, and the Icelandic fishers said,
'Thank you very much; we'll have that.' Southern bluefin tuna are rapidly
returning; they are coming back. They are one of the beneficial species. Even
there, you have got a really interesting play in Australia where the
recreational share of the overall catch versus commercial share is now a big
issue. And there will be a lot of those sorts of issues. People are going to
have to start dealing with things on an international basis rather than, 'This
is mine.'[88]
Tourism and recreational water-use
4.62
The terms of reference for this inquiry focus on the impacts of climate
change on certain specific industries and activities, including commercial
fishing and aquaculture, and recreational fishing. However, the committee also
received evidence suggesting that the impacts of climate change on marine
fisheries could also have implications for tourism linked to marine ecosystems.
4.63
One area where this is a particular concern is for diving activities. Mr
Michael Baron, who owns a diving business located on the east coast of
Tasmania, explained that international visitors are interested in diving in the
region to see 'kelp forest, seals and the little weedy sea dragons...more or less
in that order'. Mr Baron explained that the destruction of the kelp forest in
Munro Bight has caused a reduction in business from international visitors. Mr
Baron stated:
From a business perspective, international visitors now are
our prime source of income. We have estimated that this year, which is the
first year we have no forest at all, we have probably lost roughly 25 per cent
of our clientele. They ring up. 'I'd like to dive the forest.' 'Sorry.' 'Okay.
Thank you.' It is 25 per cent at this stage. We potentially forecast that
it may drop more because the international visitors tend to organise their
holidays one or two years in advance. They will come if they are already booked
to come.[89]
4.64
The risk of negative publicity from toxic marine diseases is also
considered to present a risk to international tourism in particular regions. Professor
Gustaaf Hallegraeff commented:
...when we did some research we found that some of the most
pristine areas near Coles Bay were also toxic. I was there and saw Chinese
tourists picking periwinkles from the rocks. I got in touch with the department
of health and community services and right now, for the first time, they are
signposting that whole area, because they realised it just needs one Chinese
tourist to die from this phenomenal shellfish poisoning—and it could also
damage the tourism industry. So there is still a lot of debate, and a lot of
research to do, about the extent to which this links to climate change, but
something has changed and we have to respond to it. We have to respond to the
unpredictability of ecosystems.[90]
4.65
The implications of coral bleaching for tourism activity at the Great
Barrier Reef were also explored. Mr John Edmondson, Owner/Director, Wavelength
Reef Cruises, provided the following observations about how recent changes in
the Great Barrier Reef is affecting tourism operators:
The reality is that there's
been a very dramatic change and a shifting baseline in a lot of areas. You can
still go out and have a fantastic day, and the reef is still probably the best
managed reef in the world, but it's an expensive day—it's $250 for most boats
to go out to the outer reef—and people have got very high expectations. To give
them value for their money and to give them a good product is getting harder
and harder, because it's harder to get the coral and show people what they
expect to see, and that is just really in the last two years.[91]
4.66
The committee was also advised that tourism activity in the Reef has
been affected by the widespread distribution of incorrect information about
bleaching events. Mr Steven Moon from the Association of Marine Park Tourism
Operators told the committee:
Unfortunately, the back-to-back bleaching event has been
catastrophic, but what's been worse is the way it has been reported. There's no
doubt about that...We were in Asia representing our industry at various trade
shows and we actually had people coming up to us and saying, 'I wish I had seen
it before it died.' What we struggled with was the fact that nobody—no regulator,
no authority—came out and discounted those initial claims.[92]
4.67
Professor David Booth stated that it is generally expected that the Great Barrier
Reef will 'persist is some form' despite coral bleaching and other climate
change-related issues. Professor Booth added, however, that the Reef 'just may
not be the sort of structure that attracts the multibillion dollar tourist
industry that now exists there'.[93]
4.68
Despite the real and potential negative outcomes, some potential
positive changes for particular types of tourism in certain areas were
envisaged. As an example, Professor Hallegraeff noted that the effects of
climate change might mean that a marlin fishery and a related tourism industry
could be created on the east coast of Tasmania.[94]
4.69
Finally, whether climate change could result in changes to the distribution
of marine animals that are potentially dangerous for people swimming or
undertaking other ocean-based activities was considered. Whether the Irukandji
or box jellyfish would spread poleward into New South Wales coastal waters was
discussed at public hearings, with anecdotal evidence of incidents in northern
New South Wales waters noted.[95]
4.70
Professor Iain Suthers from SIMS described the potential for Irukandji
jellyfish to move southward as 'a real concern...perhaps for our kids or
grandkids to deal with'. Professor Suthers noted:
...the Irukandji are a little jellyfish that are dependent upon
mangroves for the other side of their life cycle, and we have plenty of habitat
for them.[96]
4.71
Dr Alan Jordan, Principal Research Scientist, New South Wales Department
of Primary Industries advised that there is no evidence of the Irukandji
jellyfish in New South Wales waters to date and the possibility has not been
identified a short- or medium‑term concern. However, he acknowledged that,
based on a long-term projection of water temperatures and currents, 'it is not
out of the question at some point'.[97]
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page