Fisheries Management

Impacts of changing marketing practices on fish stock management

The Queensland Coral Reef Finfish Fishery (QCRFF) operates on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. It is a multi-sector, multi-species fishery involving recreational, charter (tourism) and commercial sectors. It takes over 125 species of fish, with an annual gross value of product at around $US45-75 M for the commercial sector. This sector predominantly targets coral trout (Plectropomus spp.) and red-throated emperor (Lethrinus miniatus). The QCRFF operates primarily in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, a World Heritage Area and multi-use marine park. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), a Federal Statutory Authority, manages the biodiversity and multiple-use aspects of the area, while a state government department, the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPI&F), is responsible for the management of fishing activities specifically.

This research was initiated from industry and community concerns in regard to changes in marketing practices occurring in the established commercial line fishery. Prior to 1993, the commercial market was for whole frozen or chilled fish. From mid-1993 however an increasing proportion of fish were being exported to live food markets, primarily in South East Asia, due to the substantially higher prices that this product attracts. The premium product in this market is for ‘plate-size’ fish (up to approximately 1.2-1.5kg). For this reason, a shift to the ‘live-fishery’ was expected to motivate fishers to target these smaller fish, rather than the larger fish (up to 3kg or more) popular in the ‘frozen fishery.’ This led to speculative concern about what implications this may have on fish stocks and on potential conflict that may arise between varying uses. Data available through compulsory logbook records, managed through the Queensland Government, was insufficient in the early development of the live food fish fishery to provide adequate information to address these concerns.

An important point to be made in relation to this project, is that earlier approaches to involving fishers in research in Australian waters usually involved compulsory observer programs and the like, where fishers were seen more as subjects of research rather than active participants. In the Effects of Live Fishing Project, it was entirely at the discretion of vessel owners and skippers as to the presence of observers and the extent of engagement of the observers with fishers (Principle 2: Respect, understanding and trust). To be successful, it was essential within this project to access more detailed data than already available. This required the effective engagement and cooperation of fishers (Principle 1: Inclusiveness; Principle 3: Participation). The participatory research approach undertaken here led to the generation of information that was not available from other sources, including substantial unimpeded observation data, detailed catch and effort records, as well as information from interviews. Fishers also provided substantial operational information about the fishery itself, as well as support for ongoing research projects. It was felt by the academic researchers that, although the amount of time and resources required from this participatory approach were greater than more traditional forms of research, the benefits far outweighed the costs.
The authors reporting on this project contribute its success to the engagement of commercial fishers in all stages of the research, as well as careful and active management of the relationships between academic researchers and fishers. The participation among industry partners allowed those involved to gain an increased understanding of the research, along with how the research results were likely to translate into management decisions and information dissemination among the broader stakeholders (Principle 3: Participation). In this way ownership and empowerment was achieved, allowing the partners a greater sense of contribution toward the management of a resource on which they depended for their livelihood. Through this form of participation, the authors feel that management decisions are likely to be more widely understood and lead to greater compliance with policy and even the creation of self-regulatory management systems (Principle 5: Joint Ownership; Principle 8: Empowerment).
Academic researchers felt that they were able to gain from the collaboration through a more nuanced understanding of the fishery, including its operational characteristics and constraints (Principle 3: Participation). It was also felt that timely identification of research priorities and the feasibility of new research were made more possible. The trust and credibility achieved through working closely together led to ongoing support of later research initiatives, while research resources were also able to be better targeted to industry-relevant issues (Principle 2: Respect, understanding and trust). Other benefits of the collaboration from an academic researcher perspective were access to vessel time and to current and historical data, assistance with interpreting results, as well as in making credible inferences about those results (Principle 5: Joint Ownership). Funding opportunities were also perceived to be increased, with strong industry support for this research being significant in terms of attracting funding.

While benefits to industry partners and academic researchers were seen to be substantial, managing the relationship required additional overheads and resources from academic researchers that other more conventional research approaches do not incur. For example, building rapport through ongoing liaison and extension has a cost in terms of both time and money (Principle 2: Respect, understanding and trust). With the Effects of Live Fishing Project, parallel research activities allowed the costs to be subsidised to some degree. However, the authors feel that it may not have been possible to absorb the liaison and extension costs if it were a one-off, free standing project.
Strict adherence to the documented confidentiality agreement was essential at all times to maintain credibility and to maintain trust. Any deviation had the potential to reduce or cease fisher participation and the overall success of the project. For example, in this project, a perceived minor breach of confidentiality was quickly communicated between skippers across several ports and across large distances, requiring significant resources to remediate the situation (Principle 2: Respect, understanding and trust).
To encourage trust, the academic researchers found that it was best to maintain consistency in contact, with a selected group contacting fishers whenever possible. Deviation from this often required reassurance to fishers about any perceived ‘outsider.’ All new academic researchers were introduced to fishers where possible to avoid this problem. Maintaining a log of communications also allowed academic researchers to initiate contact by referring to who had previously spoken with each fisher, as well as providing an opportunity in creating a continuity of conversation about specific issues raised. All communications with fishers were noted and discussed in confidence among the academic research team. This was important to ensure that the team demonstrated strong organisation by avoiding repeated contacts or through presenting conflicting messages to fishers (Principle 2: Respect, understanding and trust).
Fishers initially had concerns about the perceived amount of time it would take to contribute toward particular tasks. For example, the creation of voluntary logbooks could potentially become burdensome for fishers who were already required to complete compulsory logbooks mandated through management agencies (Principle 3: Participation). To keep recording time to a minimum, the logbooks were therefore designed with input from the fishers themselves (Principle 5: Joint Ownership). This identified information which complemented data already provided, as well as utilising records collected for other purposes such as the skippers own records employed in paying their crew. Where duplication of data was unavoidable, voluntary logbooks were designed in such a way as to quickly tally and summarise detailed data into an aggregate form required of compulsory logbooks.
At all stages during this project, it was critical to ensure that disruption to the normal operation of each vessel was minimised. For this reason, flexibility was required to design or modify all research methods and tools jointly with the fishers themselves (Principle 6: Flexibility).
Access to skippers personal records were highly valuable, however, because they were unstructured and widely variable in format interpretation was time consuming and difficult, often being dependent on the skippers providing assistance. The positive aspect of this was that the regular contact required in the interpretation served to reinforce the collaborative relationship.
Structured interviews conducted with vessel skippers were developed with the assistance of the skippers themselves to reduce the chances of causing alienation, and to ensure they were feasible in terms of the time that skippers were willing to allocate (Principle 5: Joint Ownership). Apart from there use as a data gathering instrument, the interview process was also found to focus discussions from which a rapport was developed between the academic researchers and fishers.
Progressive dissemination of relevant project information and results was an important element in keeping fishers interested and involved in the project. Extension activities that helped to achieve this included (i) individualised reports in which data was analysed and compared with aggregate data from other (anonymous) participants; (ii) articles in industry magazines and newsletters; and (iii) presentations to industry groups. Identities of industry participants or their information was never divulged through these processes. The personalised reports were seen as particularly beneficial in developing rapport among the academic researchers and fishers. The reports provided the fishers with a sense of ownership of the information, increased understanding of project outcomes, and created a real curiosity-driven enthusiasm for results (Principle 4: Communication; Principle 5: Joint Ownership; Principle 7: Accessible information and tools).
A particular issue that required sensitive handling was in the case of any potential illegal fishing activity observed by academic researchers during observer trips. This held with it the possibility for a significant undermining of trust, and was also an aspect of personal risk to observers in jurisdictions where there may be legal requirements in place to report such activities. A formal policy was in place prior to any trips being undertaken where academic researchers were required to take a position of impartiality regardless of their own personal stance on an issue. However, within this policy, skippers were also briefed on the role of observers. In this briefing it was made clear that should legal actions be raised by enforcement authorities in relation to particular trips on which an observer was present, that observer would provide truthful statements about what was witnessed (Principle 2: Respect, understanding and trust; Principle 9: Equity and consensus).