THE WINSTON CHURCHILL MEMORIAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA

Report by Anissa Lawrence - 2007 Churchill Fellow

THE CHURCHILL FELLOWSHIP to study how the commercial fishing industry is being integrated into marine spatial planning and how the human elements of

marine ecosystem based management are being applied in other countries

I understand that the Churchill Trust may publish this Report, either in hard copy or on the internet or both, and consent to such publication. I indemnify the Churchill Trust against any loss, costs or damages it may suffer arising out of any claim or proceedings made against the Trust in respect of or arising out of the publication of any Report submitted to the Trust and which the Trust places on a website for access over the internet. I also warrant that my Final Report is original and does not infringe the copyright of any person, or contain anything which is, or the incorporation of which into the Final Report is, actionable for defamation, a breach of any privacy law or obligation, breach of confidence, contempt of court, passing-off or contravention of any other private right or of any law. Signed Anissa Lawrence Dated 4 September 2009

2

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................3

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................4

The Fellowship Program ......................................................................................................5

Discussion, findings and outcomes...................................................................................7Background .................................................................................................................................................................................... 7WhatismarineEcosystemBasedManagement? ..................................................................................................... 7InnovativetoolsandmethodsforimplementingthehumanelementsofEBM ..................................... 8

Conclusion and recommendations .................................................................................. 15

3

Introduction This report summarises the findings from a 6 week fellowship through the US, Canada, Norway and the UK to explore new tools and activities underway to assist the fishing industry move towards a new way of management called Ecosystem Based Management (EBM), particularly in relation to marine spatial planning. Australia is already well down the track when it comes to marine ecosystem based management, but is not there yet, particularly when it comes to the managing the “human aspects”. The aim of this fellowship was to specifically look at how the fishing industry is being involved in the process in other countries also progressing in this area and how it is translating onto the back deck of a fishing vessel. The objective – to bring back some exciting and new ideas for Australia and the fishing industry.

I would like to thank the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust for making this all possible. I would also like to thank all those who provided information and assistance in the lead up to my trip, in particular Tim Karlov from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Jon Day from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and for all those who took the time to meet with me and provide information and advice in relation to my study topic. It has been a once in a lifetime undertaking and an amazing experience!

4

Executive Summary

Ecosystem Based Management(EBM) in the marine environment is no easy task, particularly when the focus is on conservation outcomes but you have a number of established stakeholders accessing public goods (seafood) on behalf of the public with existing entitlements to do so.

The aim of this fellowship was to specifically look at how the fishing industry is being involved in the process of marine spatial planning in the US, Canada, Norway, the UK and other countries also progressing in this area and how it is translating onto the back deck of a fishing vessel. The objective – to bring back some exciting and new ideas for Australia and the fishing industry.

The fellowship explored a number of pilot schemes underway that are focused on providing the industry with greater ownership in decisions made to balance the socioeconomic impacts arising from conservation outcomes being sought through marine spatial planning. In all cases the use of stewardship tools and community or regional co-management were found to be useful ways for working with the fishing industry to work through the challenging trade off discussions and move them towards ecosystem based management. The pilot projects are all showing positive results for industry through a greater application of the social and economic issues impacting on a day to day basis for industry.

What is clear is that there is no one size fits all solution to this problem and to move forward requires a willingness by the industry, government and conservation sectors to work together to develop and try solutions. This paper does not cover all the schemes and ideas currently being explored but rather provides a snapshot of the key projects of note that are achieving results. What is obvious to all of them is the need for regional and local based co-management arrangements between the industry and governments and conservation sectors. Fisheries co-management is receiving much attention at the moment by the Australian fishing industry as a way of improving the long-term sustainability of fisheries and a project is underway to develop a roadmap to move this from a concept to a reality in Australia.

The marine spatial planning process however is occurring outside of the debate relating to co-management. To provide a better solution for all with respect to ecosystem based management of our oceans, the two processes need to blend together and dialogue needs to occur. The use of stewardship arrangements has long been shown to work well in a terrestrial setting in Australia and it is time we started looking at applying this to the marine environment with our prominent marine industry – fishing!

The following recommendations are suggested arising out of this fellowship:

• The information gained from this fellowship is circulated as widely as possible to the relevant stakeholders.

The information gained from this fellowship is to be presented to the Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and if possible the Australian Fisheries Management Forum. In addition, presentations will be made to key industry support groups such as Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Seafood Services Australia and OceanWatch Australia. In addition, the paper will be circulated to all peak bodies within industry and WWF – Australia and The Australian Conservation Society.

• Further work be undertaken to explore the use of community co-management schemes such as the ones outlined in this report in an Australian context.

• Discussions take place with the leading conservation organisations in Australia about the potential for a pilot scheme to be trialed in Australia.

• At a broader level, engagement by the Australian Government in marine based stewardship programs through its Caring for our Country natural resources investment program would provide incentives for the fishing industry to move towards ecosystem based management and provide opportunities to improve dialogue between the industry and fisheries agencies in relation to marine spatial planning.

The information gained from this Churchill fellowship will be invaluable to the fishing industry and fisheries managers and marine spatial planners in Australia to move towards Ecosystem Based Management. Australia has some of the most sustainable fisheries in the world and is focused on continual improvement in the area of ecosystem based management. There are plans already underway to look at the suitability of some of these tools in an Australian context.

Anissa Lawrence Director, TierraMar Consulting Ph 0419 903 800

5

The Fellowship Program This 6 week Fellowship involved the following activities:

USA

• Attendance at the 2009 International Marine Conservation Congress in Washington DC to learn about progress being made in the areas of marine ecosystem based management and the many projects underway trialing new tools with the fishing industry to build in social and economic elements as well as improve environmental performance.

• Discussions with a number of leading researchers and managers from the US, UK, China, Thailand and South Africa in relation to how the fishing industry is being engaged in marine spatial planning in their countries.

• Meeting with the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Washington DC to learn about how the US has successfully implemented a National Fish Habitat Strategy, and specifically to learn about how this connects with the marine ecosystem based management work underway, particularly with respect to marine spatial planning.

• Meeting with NOAA staff working on the US marine sanctuaries program to discuss how the fishing industry is being engaged in the process.

• Meeting with the Monteray Bay Aquarium Centre for the Future of the Oceans team to discuss how the Seafood Watch program is operating and how it is working with the fishing industry to drive change where required.

• Meeting with The Nature Conservancy in Monterey Bay to discuss the Conservation Covenants in place with fishers in Morro Bay, California.

• Attendance at the Northern Pacific Fisheries Management Council Meeting in Anchorage, Alaska and meetings with key NOAA staff in attendance.

• Meetings with WWF in Anchorage to discuss how the fishing industry is being engaged in EBM generally in Alaska.

• Meeting with the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership and Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Seattle to discuss new opportunities for engaging the fishing industry in EBM.

Canada

• Meetings with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Vancouver to discuss how Canada is working with the fishing industry in relation to marine spatial planning.

• Meeting with the Living Oceans Society, WWF and the TBuck Suzuki Foundation in Vancouver to discuss how the fishing industry is engaged in EBM and what activities are underway in relation to partnerships with the industry.

• Meetings with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in Ottawa to discuss how marine EBM is developing in Canada and how the fishing industry will be engaged in the process as well as discussions on how fish habitat is addressed at a strategic level in Canada through legislation and how this links to marine spatial planning.

• Discussions with Ecotrust, Canada in relation to the License Banking program in place in British Columbia.

Norway

• Meeting with the Ministry of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs in Oslo to discuss how Norway has implemented marine spatial planning for the purpose of fisheries management and how they work to balance the social and economic elements with the conservation outcomes.

• Meeting with WWF to discuss how the fishing industry is engaged in EBM and what activities are underway in relation to partnerships with the industry

• Meeting with the Directorate of Fisheries in Bergen to discuss how the fishing industry is engaged in EBM at an operational level.

6

UK

• Meeting with Seafish in Grimsby to discuss how the fishing industry is being engaged in EBM throughout the UK and within the EU, in particular how conservation negotiations are working in Scotland to assist the fishing industry engage in marine spatial planning using EBM principles.

7

Discussion, findings and outcomes Background

In 2002 the Australian Government made an international commitment at the World Summit on Sustainable Development to establish a representative network of marine reserves by 2012. The National Reserve system for Marine Protected Areas will also help Australia meet its obligations to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the major components of the Jakarta Mandate on Marine and Coastal Biological Diversity developed under that Convention. The Convention requires all member nations to establish a system of protected areas and to develop guidelines for the selection, establishment and management of protected areas. The Mandate focused on the relationships between conservation, the use of biological diversity and fishing activities. So Australia has been working since that time to develop a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of marine protected areas, focused on conservation outcomes, but adopting EBM principles in the process.

Marine EBM is a relatively new and evolving approach to managing complex marine ecosystems. As a result there are few comprehensive examples of where EBM principles have been successfully implemented. What is important however is that in the process of establishing a marine protected area, the human aspects to EBM are recognised, in particular the significant benefits that can arise when stakeholders are adequately engaged in the process of identifying and achieving ecosystem goals. Generally the development of marine protected areas in Australia, although providing for “multiple use” have not addressed the social and economic aspects well. The exception is the Great Barrier Reef which is seen as the “gold star” standard of EBM1 and all though not perfected, is working hard to better engage with the fishing industry and address the social and economic impacts associated with managing a marine protected area for conservation outcomes.

With a focus on conserving biodiversity rather than fisheries management, marine protected areas in Australia have tended to cause many problems for the fishing industry with the biggest issue being lost access to fishing grounds. With 80-90% of Australian’s relying on commercial fishers to provide their seafood for them, and the fishing industry being the 6th largest industry in Australia, balancing the social and economic impacts with the environmental outcomes being sought is a challenge. In many cases the result has been a disgruntled fishing industry and a lack of adequate consideration for the social and economic consequences of conservation based decisions, particularly for regional fishing communities.

There is a need for new tools and ways of thinking towards engagement of the fishing industry in marine spatial planning and to create a comprehensive, adequate and representative set of marine protected areas that adopts the human related EBM principles and gives adequate and balanced consideration to the social and economic impacts to conservation based decisions. This is particularly the case for the small inshore fisheries who do not have the financial means or “power” to often deal with what they perceive as continual shifting goal posts created in search of conservation outcomes.

What is marine Ecosystem Based Management?

Ecosystem-based management is an integrated approach to management that considers the entire ecosystem, including humans. The goal of ecosystem-based management is to maintain an ecosystem in a healthy, productive and resilient condition so that it can provide the services humans want and need. Ecosystem-based management differs from current approaches that usually focus on a single species, sector, activity or concern; it considers the cumulative impacts of different sectors. Specifically, ecosystem-based management:

• emphasises the protection of ecosystem structure, functioning, and key processes;

• is place-based in focusing on a specific ecosystem and the range of activities affecting it;

• explicitly accounts for the interconnectedness within systems, recognising the importance of interactions between many target species or key services and other non-target species;

• acknowledges interconnectedness among systems, such as between air, land and sea; and

• integrates ecological, social, economic, and institutional perspectives, recognising their strong interdependences2.

1 Ruckelshaus, M., T. Klinger, N. Knowlton, and D. P. DeMaster. 2008. Marine ecosystem-based management in practice: Scientific and governance challenges. BioScience 58:53–63. 2 McLeod, K. L., J. Lubchenco, S. R. Palumbi, and A. A. Rosenberg. 2005. Scientific Consensus Statement on Marine Ecosystem-Based Management. Signed by 221 academic scientists and policy experts with relevant expertise and published by the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea at http://compassonline.org/?q=EBM.

8

Innovative tools and methods for implementing the human elements of EBM

This fellowship identified a number of projects and approaches being adopted/trialed in the US, Canada, Norway and the Scotland that make an attempt to better consider the social and economic elements in marine spatial planning for conservation outcomes. A summary of each project is provided below. Although each scheme has been designed to fit the circumstances of each fishery, there is a standing consistency between these projects – community based co- management. With the growing interest of co-management in Australia there is much application of these models to an Australian context, particularly for inshore fisheries.

1) Private Marine Conservation Agreements

Marine Conservation Agreements (MCAs) “ include any formal or informal understanding between two or more parties in which the parties obligate themselves, for an exchange of benefits, to take certain actions, refrain from certain actions, or transfer certain rights and responsibilities to achieve agreed upon ocean or coastal conservation goals.”3

The Nature Conservancy has identified the major elements and variables of MCAs as outlined in the table below. Governments, communities, private entities, and private individuals can enter into MCAs. They are based on agreed upon terms and conditions, are often bottom-up approaches and include quid-pro-quo incentives wherein all parties receive benefits.

There are numerous examples of where Private MCA’s are operating globally. Of particular relevance to the Australian context however is the Central Coast Groundfish project undertaken by The Nature Conservancy.

Project Location: Morro Bay California USA, Central Coast Groundfish Project

Project Partners: The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense Fund, the California Department of Fish and Game, the Commercial Fishing Associations of Morro Bay and Port San Luis, the City of Morro Bay, and the Port San Luis Harbor District.

Preconditions: industry had been hit financially with poor economic performance, squeezing out by other fisheries and destruction of fishing grounds leading to closures, modification of gear and reductions in effort. Government buyouts had failed to reduce the capacity. There were concerns about the health of groundfish stocks and habitats. The regulatory mechanisms (input controls) in place for the groundfish fishery prevented fishers from fishing more selectively and avoiding the catch of depleted species. The fishery is transitioning to individual transferable quotas. The area is a high biodiversity and fisheries productivity area.

3 The Nature Conservancy, http://www.mcatoolkit.org/ accessed 7 August 2009 and from discussions with Mary Gleeson, TNC CA Coastal and Marine Program

9

Project description: The project demonstrates how a conservation organisation can work with federal and state governments and local fishing communities to change fishing areas and practices through permit and boat acquisitions and lease-backs.

The Nature Conservancy was focused on “direct habitat protection and trawl effort reduction strategies to abate the threat of trawl fishing to the important marine biodiversity of the Central Coast”. The goals they established for this project were to protect at least 50% of high priority seafloor habitat and to reduce bottom trawl effort by 50%.

A unique partnership was entered between fisheries regulators, Central Coast fishing communities and The Nature Conservancy to reach these goals and thereby protect seafloor habitat essential for the many targeted groundfish species. Morro Bay fishers worked with The Nature Conservancy to identify diverse marine habitats that would be off limits to trawling and the key areas to allow for trawling to ensure the industry could remain viable. The recommendations were then jointly submitted to the Pacific Fisheries Management Council for designation as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). In exchange, The Nature Conservancy agreed to purchase federal groundfish trawl permits and vessels from those who wished to sell to reduce trawling effort and to help ease the economic loss of fishing grounds should the consensus proposal be adopted. This was conditional however upon the fishers agreeing not to enter back into trawling for 5 years.

From this work 3.8 million acres of No Trawl Zones were established, including 67% of the high priority conservation areas and a 100% trawl effort reduction in Morro Bay occurred with The Nature Conservancy acquiring all 7 locally operated federal groundfish trawl permits and 4 commercial trawling vessels. The Nature Conservancy noted that these acquisitions were part of a broader collaborative effort between fishers and the fisheries managers to protect 3.8 million acres of ocean.

Holding or retiring the trawling permits would not do enough to conserve marine resources in the long-run, as regulations allowed for the remaining trawlers in the West Coast groundfish fleet the right to harvest the catch previously landed by the trawlers they bought out. As a result in 2006, The Nature Conservancy then entered into Conservation Fishing Agreements with Morro Bay fishers. These agreements aim to help sustain fisheries, protect California’s marine resources and support fishing communities. These private agreements are voluntary, and designed to test methods for making fishing more sustainable and economically viable, focusing on techniques to reduce by-catch and conserve habitat. Through the use of these private conservation agreements, The Nature Conservancy is using some of its permits in key projects to test alternate methods for harvesting groundfish, both environmentally and economically. One project involves working with a fisher to use lighter trawl gear targeting flatfish within a restricted geographic area and to conduct a monitoring program for bycatch rates, discards and to look at the impact of the trawling. Even though the trawl footprint has been dramatically reduced the fisher is viable and willing to work on continuing to modify gear with the aim to make trawling sustainable. Another project involves working with a fisher to use Scottish seine as an alternate method to trawling for the same species, again with a monitoring program in place. This fisher as a result has improved the quality of the product and is now targeting the high-end restaurant market with the product. The Nature Conservancy is also currently working with other fishers to evaluate the benefit of using more selective gear (hook-and-line and traps) with its remaining permits as another alternate to trawling. In all cases the fishers are reporting that they are viable and are catching a higher quality product and therefore obtaining a better price for their produce.

In all cases these conservation agreements place requirements on the fishers including the use of VMS, 100% observer coverage and a monitoring program. In addition, the fishers are working with The Nature Conservancy to modify fishing areas, change methods etc in response to the monitoring outcomes. The Nature Conservancy is also collecting all socioeconomic data for the impacts these projects are having on Morro Bay communities. To date an extra 16 processing jobs have been created. The project is still in its early days however it is clearly demonstrating the benefits of community based co-management and the Nature Conservancy is working on a transition plan when the project is completed to ensure effective community co-management can manage the fishery going forward so that the community will keep the permits and continue fishing.

What is needed to make a marine conservation agreement work?

Conservation agreements have been used in terrestrial environmental management for many years however are a relatively new tool in the marine environment. The success of this tool is dependent on the circumstances of a situation and may not be suitable in all cases. There are a number of factors to consider and pre-requisites to using this tool, including:

• a willingness to pay for conservation – for the fishing industry there needs to be a clear business case to demonstrate why to enter into such an arrangement.

10

• demonstration projects - pilot projects are the best way to demonstrate the benefits of this tool and will be useful to broaden financial support among donors, gain support from governments in terms of embracing it in policies and legislation and build the implementation capacity with the NGO community and build confidence with regional communities that participating in conservation can improve the socio-economic situation for the members of that community.

• Financial commitment - conservation agreements are a long term tool and therefore there need adequate investment by sponsors, NGOs, the government and the communities to see it through to completion.

• Succession plan – there needs to be a clear succession plan to move to community based co-management of the fishery following the completion of the conservation agreement. This requires the support of the fisheries management agency, and the community and effective frameworks and support systems in place to ensure co-management is clearly defined and can effectively function.

Further information can be found from the MCA toolkit at www.mcatoolkit.org

2) License Banking

With all the regulatory reform, government buy backs, industry consolidation, poor prices, rising fuel costs and pressure from imports, stricter environmental requirements and soaring management, monitoring and quota costs, developing a new way for fishers to access licences and quota to ensure benefits flow back to active fishers and into communities reliant on the resource is critical. This is an issue in many regional areas across Australia with inshore and offshore fishing communities.

A licence bank is a cooperative ownership structure that allows fishers or communities to pool licences and quotas to achieve greater benefits than they would at the individual level. A licence bank works by holding licences and/or quota that is then leased back to members, at reduced or fair trade cost, improving the economic viability and securing access for members. This model can achieve multiple socioeconomic goals for improved fisheries management as well as conservation through the promotion of sustainable fishing practices.4 The licence bank concept is useful for:

• Providing options to fishers with little access to traditional forms of capital.

• Helping fishers to improve cooperation and operating efficiencies.

• Maintaining small boat enterprises through combining a variety of licences/quota to meet access needs.

• Spreading risk and benefits in high-risk fisheries investments.

• Connecting fishing enterprises to fishing dependent communities.

• Supporting the development of sustainable fisheries.

• Providing affordable access to future generations of fishermen.4

Licence banking is about “fishers looking for a different way to work together to improve their own bottom line and the long term health of their fishery, and those organisations who want to help them get there, recognising the interconnection between healthy economies, healthy communities and a healthy environment”.

Fishers are integral partners to the success of a licence bank. Licence banks can have the fishers being the majority shareholders or alternatively partnering with outside investors. Critical to the success of this tool is for fishers to be the key decision makers, that they share in the success of the licence bank, and that they commit to a code of practice established by all partners within the licence bank.

The “bank” involves setting up a legal entity to securely hold the licences and quota. The “bank” is owned by the fishers in partnership with outside investors or community groups. Member fishers lease back the licences and quota from the bank as they need them. By pooling their capital and risk the fishers can access the licences and quota that they otherwise would not have been able to obtain due to financial constraints. Ecotrust Canada designed this licence bank model with 2 goals: to help secure access to fisheries resources for local fishers and improve their financial performance; and help create more local, sustainable fisheries. The following diagram describes how licence banks work (Source Ecotrust Canada).

4 Ecotrust Canada, September 2008 Toolkit 1.0 Fisheries Licence Banks: A Start-Up Guide to Planning, Governance, Finance & Operations

11

Project location: British Columbia Groundfish fishery

Project partners: Ecotrust Canada, 7 BC Groundfish fishers (hook and line) and Blue Mosaic, a Vancouver Island consultancy business run by one of the fishers.

Preconditions: Small regional fishers where management changes had resulted in dramatic increases in licence access costs, shifts in ownership away from communities adjacent to marine resources, declines in the inshore small-boat fishing fleet, and the loss of rural infrastructure to support those fishing communities. The ground fish fishery had been consolidated such that common rules were introduced to keep all fishers within strict catch limits for each species through individual transferable quotas (ITQs). ITQs were in place for target and discarded non-target species and there was a requirement for 100% observer coverage and VMS to be in place.

12

Project description:

The project partners formed the Pacific Coast Fishermen’s Conservation Company and invested in a rockfish and halibut licence and quota. Together they accounted for about 60% of dogfish caught on longline in BC per annum. The objectives of the partnership were to improve conservation and to increase the viability of the small boat fleet, especially the rural fishers. Several models were explored including cooperatives, limited liability companies, nonprofits companies etc but the structure chosen (a corporation with shareholders) provided the flexibility needed and the possibility to issue dividends from the bank to investors and fishers.

Each fisher provided small amounts of capital which were then used to leverage debt financing from Ecotrust Canada’s capital corporation. A start up grant was also provided through a foundation. The consulting business provided administration support to manage the bank’s quota transfer system.

Each member fisher shareholder agreement outlined the obligations to the bank, each other and the fisheries resource. Common rules were agreed to for operating and a conservation covenant was established that required responsible fishing practices that minimised habitat damage, minimised the discarding of small fish, encouraged use the most selective gear and non damaging methods available, did not target endangered species, and required detailed records and monitoring all catch etc. The conservation covenant is enforced through financial sanctions, namely Ecotrust can recall a loan if member fishers violate the covenant. Financial penalties can also be applied to members who “hoard quota”.

A quote from one of the fishers participating in the bank summed up the benefits of this model “This partnership has resulted in a real example of how this model can increase profits to fishermen, retain fishing capacity in a coastal community for future generations, and build incentives for, and adoption of, more sustainable fishing practices.”

For more information see www.ecotrust.ca

There are also numerous other examples of where a “banking” scheme is being used to provide certainty of access for fishers and promote sustainability through strong conservation outcomes, including the Cape Cod Fisheries Trust, the Area Management Coalition in Maine New England and its permit banking scheme.

3) Scottish Conservation Credits Scheme

The Scottish fishing industry lands around 70% of total UK landings. It makes up around 50% of the UK’s fishing industry and plays a significant role in the social, economic and cultural importance of regional fishing communities, being the main source of employment for many of them.

While demersal fisheries in the North Sea and to the west of Scotland are managed under the European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) using a combination of quotas and technical measures, such as regulations on minimum landing fish size and fishing gear configuration, the Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for several North Sea stocks (including cod, haddock and whiting) are set jointly with Norway5. The Conservation Credits Scheme was developed in response to the European Union giving member states the flexibility to run their own days at sea scheme as a pilot project ahead of a future EU – wide implementation. The Scottish Conservation Credits Scheme was launched on 1 February 2008.

The aim of the Conservation Credits Scheme (CCS) is to improve fisheries management in Scotland by adopting best practices in stock conservation while supporting (and ensuring) fishing communities’ future economic prospects, ie “catch less – land more”. The strong conservation focus provided a platform from which to implement the objectives of the new EU cod recovery plan introduced in December 2008. Meeting the requirements of this management plan is now the focus of the group5.

The Scottish Government Marine Directorate (SGMD) runs the CCS, and receives advise from a steering group consisting of industry, government, science and environmental NGOs (WWF). It is a large steering committee with 25 members that meet monthly to monitor the progress of the CCS and to discuss proposed measures, designed to create ownership and ensure buy-in from the fishing industry.

The SSC rewards fishers for adopting conservation measures with real economic value by providing them with extra days at sea and more flexible conditions attached to them. The steering committee works hard to ensure that the solutions developed will balance short-term economic gain with long term sustainable solutions. That is, to ensure economic returns are secured but the long-term future of fish stocks is a priority. As a result the fishing industry has traded many short-term gains in for longer term benefits that they see the CCS providing.

5 WWF Scotland Internal Briefing: The Scottish Conservation Credits Scheme – moving fisheries management towards conservation March 2009

13

As a part of the SSC, industry has identified areas where fishing should not be occurring, such as spawning grounds and nursery areas. A series of Real Time Closures (RTCs) have been set up across the North Sea. The mechanism for triggering a RTC is a predetermined number of cod per hours fishing as determined by the steering group. A maximum of 9 closures can be in place at anyone time.

Samples are taken either by Scottish or Norwegian inspection vessels, and fishers are encouraged to advise the government about areas of high cod density. The RTC is set automatically for a period of 21 days, which has been shown to be long enough for cod aggregations to disperse. Each RTC has an area of a maximum of 50 square miles, and there cannot be more than three RTCs in a given Commercial Impact Zone (of 25 miles radius). Vessels are notified of the closures by letters to associations, email, radio, etc6

In 2008 these RFTs were implemented voluntarily by fishers and through VMS monitoring achieved almost 100% compliance. The contribution of RTCs to the reduction of cod mortality in 2008 is estimated to be around a 10% reduction in cod mortality. There is a goal of 25% reduction in cod mortality in the cod recovery plan.

Other closures known as “amber areas” were also introduced which also showed a high abundance of cod (not as high as the RFTs) and while vessels were allowed to operate in them, the result was a reduction to the number of days at sea they had. A number of permanent and seasonal closures were also introduced with compliance in these areas being voluntary however the steering group has implemented sanctions for anyone that fishes in these areas.

Participants in the CCS also agreed to comply with a number of voluntary gear restrictions including how many nets they can use, mandatory bycatch reduction devices that must be installed etc to reduce the capture of undersized cod and an agreement to comply with high grading bans.

The CCS is the first of its kind in European waters and has not been without its challenges as many of the issues being dealt with by the steering group are complex and have economic and social impacts which need to be traded off against environmental outcomes being sort. Not everyone in industry will win from it but the program has created an opportunity for all stakeholders to work together to solve the problems facing cod fishing in the North Sea and for the fishing industry it has provided an opportunity to see their conservation efforts in action – making it real. In 2008 the scheme was voluntary. In 2009 all vessels in the Scottish fleet must comply with these measures. The CCS is seen as a success by the industry, government and WWF. All agree that the unprecedented engagement with the industry to develop a scheme which addresses reducing cod mortality through innovative spatial and selective measures rather than a blunt cut in effort has been key. Other countries are alsp seeing this model as an effective way to work towards delivering sustainable fisheries whilst supporting rural communities and economies that rely on them.

Scottish fishers are now actively delivering significant levels of reductions in cod mortality in Scotland through the observation of Real Time Closures. Fishers are also calling the steering group to report areas of high cod abundance that need to be closed – amazing but an indication that the scheme has found the balance between managing the socio economic impacts of conservation efforts! Again this project is a good example of regional co-management and demonstrates how having an operational structure that is more tailored to the sector and areas where fishing occurs is the way to go.

For more information see www.seafoodscotland.org

Similar examples of schemes such as the CCS are operating also in British Columbia, Canada with the BC Trawlers Association and in Holland with Dutch Beam Trawlers.

4) Designing marine protected areas with both conservation and fisheries management objectives

This is a relatively new concept that although has been discussed on and off over the years has never progressed very far. Carl Walters, University of British Columbia first developed the idea but never progressed it. A paper is currently being written in the US by Elliot Norse, Marine Conservation Biology Institute to look at how to design a marine protected area such that it maximises fisheries productivity and yet achieves biodiversity outcomes. The idea focuses on having closures that provide multiple spillover effects to benefit fishers (bearing in mind that not all species have the same spatial ranges) as well as places that are net exporters of fish and protecting these and leaving open those areas where fish export to (ie fish sinks). The objective is to minmise the area fished, minimise habitat damage, maximise productivity and minimise fuel costs for the industry. Zoning still occurs for biodiversity outcomes through as well.

In Norway, marine protected area are seen predominantly as a fisheries management tool focused on protecting spawning grounds, nursery areas, rebuilding depleted stocks and managing the competition 6 6 WWF Scotland Internal Briefing: The Scottish Conservation Credits Scheme – moving fisheries management towards conservation March 2009

14

between different gear and fleets. They were first established in the 1980s to protect cod stocks. The industry has grown with these marine protected areas and seen the economic benefits of closing areas to promote long-term sustainability. Norway is now known as having one of the most sustainable fishing industries in the world. The acceptance by fishers of conservation actions in Norway tend to be more readily accepted due to the success the industry has seen through spatial management.

15

Conclusion and recommendations In conclusion, this fellowship has provided an opportunity to see the breath of ideas currently being trialed or developed in other countries to tackle how to balance the socio-economic aspects of EBM with the conservation outcomes. What is clear is that there is no one size fits all solution to this problem and to move forward requires a willingness by the industry, government and conservation sector to work together to develop and try solutions. This paper does not cover all the schemes and ideas currently being explored but rather provides a snapshot of the key projects of note that are achieving results. What is obvious to all of them is the need for regional and local based co-management arrangements between the industry and governments and conservation sectors. Many of the issues being dealt with, although global in scope are perhaps more manageable at the local or regional level.

Fisheries co-management is receiving much attention at the moment by the Australian fishing industry as a way of improving the long-term sustainability of fisheries and a project is underway to develop a roadmap to move this from a concept to a reality in Australia. At this stage, community co-management is only being tried in a few places, mostly relating to indigenous sea country management across Northern Australia. The marine spatial planning process is occurring outside of the debate relating to co-management. To provide a better solution for all with respect to ecosystem based management of our oceans, the two processes need to blend together and dialogue needs to occur. The use of stewardship arrangements has long been shown to work well in a terrestrial setting in Australia and it is time we started looking at applying this to the marine environment with our prominent marine industry – fishing! The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is one such organisation that is looking at the use of stewardship to balance its conservation objectives with the need to include human uses in the marine park and world heritage area. It will be worth watching as their scheme unfolds to learn from it.

The following recommendations are suggested arising out of this fellowship:

• The information gained from this fellowship is circulated as widely as possible to the relevant stakeholders.

The information gained from this fellowship is to be presented to the Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and if possible the Australian Fisheries Management Forum. In addition, presentations will be made to key industry support groups such as Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Seafood Services Australia and OceanWatch Australia. In addition, the paper will be circulated to all peak bodies within industry and WWF – Australia and The Australian Conservation Society.

• Further work be undertaken to explore the use of community co-management schemes such as the ones outlined in this report in an Australian context.

• Discussions take place with the leading conservation organisations in Australia about the potential for a pilot scheme to be trialed in Australia.

• At a broader level, engagement by the Australian Government in marine based stewardship programs through its Caring for our Country natural resources investment program would provide incentives for the fishing industry to move towards ecosystem based management and provide opportunities to improve dialogue between the industry and fisheries agencies in relation to marine spatial planning.