| Summary | The fisheries operating in the Great Australian Bight Marine Park (Commonwealth Waters) are: Gillnet Hook and Trap Fishery, Small Pelagic Fishery, Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery, Southern and Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery, Skipjack Tuna Fishery, and the Southern Squid Jig Fishery. The Gillnet Hook and Trap Fishery and the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery are the two main fisheries that operate in the GABMP(CW). The Great Australian Bight (GAB) region produces 25% of Australia's seafood production by value, and supports the country's largest commercial fishery by volume (http://oilandgasreview.com.au/word/qa-research-director-of-the-great-australian-bight-research-program-dr-steve-lapidge/). |
|---|
| Project | SESMAD |
|---|
| Subtype | Group of Local Resource User Groups |
|---|
| Sector | Marine protected areas |
|---|
| Interest Heterogeneity | Low (1) |
|---|
| Explanation | Members of this group would have similar interests in promoting economically viable fisheries, increasing profit and having sustainable fish stocks. |
|---|
| Costs Of Exit | Yes |
|---|
| Explanation | The costs of leaving this group can be high due to the level of infrastructural investment involved - statutory fishing rights, fishing permits, licensing fees, boats, fishing equipment.
|
|---|
| Proportionality (Of Costs And Benefits) | Yes |
|---|
| Explanation | Yes - if group members (commercial fishers) incur greater costs (e.g. more licenses, better boats and technology) they have access to catch more fish and incur greater benefits.
Even though the production volume for the wild-catch sector decreased by 4% the gross value of Australian commercial fisheries production increased by 3% and the gross value of aquaculture production increased from $100 million to $1.1 billion (which includes southern bluefin tuna wild-catch input to the South Australian tuna farming sector) (Australian fisheries statistics 2012). |
|---|
| Actor Group Coordination | Both formal and informal |
|---|
| Explanation | Members of this actor group engage in formal coordination through meetings (AGM, General meetings) organized by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA), the Great Australian Bight Industry Association (GABIA), the AFMA Commission and Wildcatch Fisheries South Australia (WFSA). Each fishery is covered by a AFMA management advisory committee and a resource assessment group. These groups allow for the exchange of information on fish stocks along with providing an avenue for consultation between various stakeholders in formal meetings.
The Commonwealth Fisheries Association, whose membership represents over 95% of the Gross Value of Production (GVP) of Commonwealth managed fisheries, engages in informal coordination through newsletters and Facebook postings. Informal coordination would also take place at landing sites and at markets.
|
|---|
| Leadership | ["Formal leader", "Informal leader"] |
|---|
| Explanation | There is no formal leader of the commercial fishing sector as a whole. However, some commercial fishers are members of CFA and WFSA which has formal, elected representatives that promote fisher interests, although, not all commercial fishers join these groups. |
|---|
| Leadership Accountability | Medium (2) |
|---|
| Explanation | CFA staff and board have to report the outcomes of the modus operandi to the membership that includes: quarterly reports, an annual review, annual financial accounts and an annual report. Although, only some fishers are members of the Association.
|
|---|
| Leadership Authority | Medium (2) |
|---|
| Explanation | The CFA is recognized by AFMA (Australian Government agency responsible for the efficient management and sustainable use of Commonwealth fish resources) as the peak body representing the the collective rights, responsibilities and interests of a diverse commercial fishing industry in Commonwealth-regulated fisheries (Commonwealth Wild Capture Fisheries and Commonwealth fishing industry). CFA participates in decision-making processes but no formal co-management arrangement between state and industry exists which limits the commercial fishers' authority, although, there is increased interest in developing a Co-Management Program for Australian Commonwealth fisheries (Mazur 2010).
|
|---|
| Actor Group Trust | High (3) |
|---|
| Explanation | No evidence was found on level of trust between commercial fishers but group interests are similar and trust is assumed to be high. Trust within members of the CFA appear to be high as cooperation between members is visible from newletters and social media reports. |
|---|
| Past Collaboration | High (3) |
|---|
| Explanation | Collaboration across sectors are evident through membership in the CFA, which comprises voting membership covering 90% of Commonwealth fishery-specific industry Associations and whose membership represents over 95% of the Gross Value of Production (GVP) of Commonwealth managed fisheries. CFA was formed in April 2002, so this collaboration was not evident for the entire snapshot coded for this case. |
|---|
| Personal Communication | More than once a year (5) |
|---|
| Explanation | Stated in the CFA modus operandi, the association meets regularly with internal (voting members, associate members, ordinary members, staff and board) and external constituents (government agencies, environmental groups, industry (e.g. oil and gas)). |
|---|
| Remote Communication | More than once a year (5) |
|---|
| Explanation | A membership engagement policy statement (2014) specified the need to convey information from committees to CFA membership and that the use of emails and electronic newsletters would be used as methods of communication as frequently as possible.
It also stated that CFA utilizes emails and newsletters as a speedy and cost effective way of communicating to members.
|
|---|
