Policy Conflicts
QUESTION
Australia’s fisheries management has been built on two core principles: secure access rights that drive efficiency, and maintaining stocks at levels that maximise productivity. These objectives are already strained by spatial squeeze, but still achievable. However, the implementation of the Montreal biodiversity targets—recently clarified by government as 30% fully protected by 2030 and an interim step toward 50–70%—fundamentally changes this.
Unlike traditional closures, these targets are not just about biodiversity protection but are also framed as fixes for climate change and equity goals. At these levels, fishing would be restricted to such small areas that stocks could no longer be managed at productive levels (MEY or MSY). The result is likely to be skyrocketing costs, declining productivity, and fisheries becoming unviable—rather than creating the spillover benefits often claimed. The drop in productivity will likely be a far higher proportion than the area lost.
My question is:
Are steps being taken to ensure that the tools used to address climate change and biodiversity loss are not in direct conflict with the resource management tools that underpin fisheries productivity? Is fisheries policy being considered in parallel, so that these targets don’t end up undermining the very principles that have made Australia’s fisheries a global success? And critically, how early will industry be given clear signals on the likely impacts of these significant additional closures, to avoid significant financial and social upheaval?
ANSWER 1
Written response:
This is an important question that has been the focus of much thought and discussion in recent years. Answering from a scientific perspective there has been a nation wide project run over the past 18-24 months that has attempted to look at this question (and the future of seafood more generally) – The Futures of Seafood Project (https://futuresofseafood.com.au/) . Spatial squeeze by all uses, not just marine protected areas, is putting pressure on fisheries. It is one of a long list of pressures that also includes climate change and markets, social perceptions, costs and many other factors. The model and scenario based work at the heart of this project work shows that if that if spatial zoning in the ocean is not done thoughtfully it could create significant issues for seafood production, but if an integrated approach across industries is taken then that conflict can be avoided. That information is being fed into decision making processes. In parallel there is other work around how to make resource management and marine park design climate robust. So some tools are available, some still under active development, and as result there has been some progress to avoid unintended consequences.
In terms of a policy perspective and communication of that with industry that is beyond the science (at least the science I can speak to). I recommend that a policy expert also answers this question.
Answered by:
