ANSWER 1

Written response:

Building resilient ocean resources to allow for sustainable fishing, with harvest strategies that contain adaptive management mechanisms and risk assessment procedures, would be a priority. That’s necessarily a broad answer, because climate change will impact different species, ecosystems, regions etc, in very different ways. As a result, it’s not possible to provide a ‘fixed list’ of legislative changes which may be required, as the variation across Australian ocean resources is likely to be significant. For example, impacts of climate change may include increased water temperatures, changes in salinity and acidity, increased severity and number of storm events, greater risks from invasive species, and more. Those impacts will be positive for some species, and negative for others. I have attempted to address a broad outline, and provided some recommendations for reference material, if you would like to explore further.

Key legislative changes in Australia to provide more flexibility and security for commercial fishers in the face of climate change impacts could include:
– incorporation of Risk Assessment mechanisms/frameworks to evaluate risks against expected future scenarios
– use of Adaptation Strategies in management planning (for example, spatial and/or temporal management controls allowing for species range shifts, protection of spawning grounds to build resilience in populations)
– increased collaborative management frameworks across fishery boundaries, be that regional, State\Territory, National, or Global as range shifts will need to be incorporated into management consideration
– improved communication and consultation procedures to incorporate views and better understand the impacts on industry will be essential, and should aim to include as broad a gathering of stakeholders as possible (for example industry, government, science, recreational users, indigenous members, conservation, and other stakeholders).

For more specific inputs and guidance, I would recommend:

1. At a global level, to help understand the potential impacts and implications of climate change on ocean ecosystem and fisheries resources

https://oceanpanel.org/publication/the-expected-impacts-of-climate-change-on-the-ocean-economy/

The Ocean Panel identified mechanisms to develop ‘Sustainable Ocean Plans” to address expected impacts, and concluded there were Nine Attributes of a Sustainable Ocean Plan that will lay the groundwork for maximum success and impact.
They stated that “A Sustainable Ocean Plan is:

1. Developed in an inclusive way so that all relevant interests are heard and addressed from the outset
2. Integrative, coordinating between government agencies, ocean sectors and processes
3. Iterative, in that it works for today whilst anticipating the changes of tomorrow
4. Place-based, encompassing all marine and coastal areas within national waters
5. Ecosystem-based, recognising the interactions within ecosystems and with people
6. Knowledge-based, underpinned by the best available science and knowledge, including local and indigenous knowledge
7. Politically endorsed by the national government at the highest levels
8. Sufficiently financed over the long-term
9. Sufficiently capacitated to ensure implementation.”

Australia is a member of the Ocean Panel, and the current process to develop an Australian “Sustainable Ocean Plan” is being developed through the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment, and Water. This will necessarily identify key legislative changes recommended, and updates can be found here: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/marine/sustainable-ocean-plan#toc_0

2. At an Australian level, to use existing resources within Commonwealth, Territory, and State fisheries resources management agencies to narrow the question to cover specific areas of focus, for example:

At the Commonwealth level, through the Australian Fisheries Management Authority climate change impacts fact sheets
https://www.afma.gov.au/climate-change#referenced-section-2

In Queensland, through Queensland Department of Primary Industries
Queensland Sustainable Fisheries Strategy 2017-2027
https://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/business-priorities/fisheries/strategy

And so on, depending on which jurisdiction the question is particularly interested in.

Legislative changes need to incorporate and build on research results from programs funded by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, such as the “Climate Resilient Wild Catch Fisheries” project from Seafood Industry Australia https://www.frdc.com.au/sites/default/files/products/2021-089-DLD.pdf

Management agencies should be encouraged to provide flexible assessment approaches that can allow for incorporation of inputs from citizen science and other programs, such as the Range Extension Database and Mapping Project (REDMAP) program which “invites the Australian community to spot, log and map marine species that are uncommon in Australia, or along particular parts of our coast”. https://www.redmap.org.au/. That is primarily because we are unlikely to be able to predict the future from past results or information, so any formal assessment frameworks need to ensure flexibility, adaptability, so that more ‘real-time’ information can be used to determine appropriate harvest settings and in-season management arrangements.

Thank you for the great question.

ANSWER 2

Written response:

To provide greater flexibility and security for commercial fishers, Australia’s legislative framework is in need of fundamental reform. For flexibility, the primary legislative change needed is the amendment of foundational acts, such as the Fisheries Management Act 1991, to implement a proportional quota system. This legal reform is to define a fisher’s right as a percentage of the total allowable catch rather than a fixed tonnage, allowing the value of their access to adapt to climate-induced fluctuations in stock abundance and distribution. This shift is to provide durable rights that are not undermined when species shift their ranges due to climate change.

To enhance security, new legislative action is necessary to establish a robust social and economic safety net for the fishing community. Existing disaster relief legislation, which is typically designed for acute, declared events, is to be amended to broaden the legal definitions of “disaster” or “emergency” to include chronic, systemic disruptions caused by climate change. Furthermore, a permanent, legislated national structural adjustment fund is to be created to provide support for business exit, reskilling, and other transitional assistance when a fishery is deemed unviable due to long-term climate impacts.

Finally, the governance structure itself is to be modernised through legal mandates. New legislation is needed to formally require a national, cross-jurisdictional data-sharing protocol to ensure that real-time information on stock movements and ocean conditions is available for timely management decisions. This also includes a review of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements to provide a consistent operating environment for cross-jurisdictional fish stocks. Additionally, the principle of adaptive management is to be legally embedded within fisheries legislation, requiring management plans to include clear, pre-defined decision rules and triggers for action in response to environmental changes. This is to create a transparent, systematic, and legally enforceable process for responding to climate-driven volatility.

It is important to note that legislative reform in Australia is not without its challenges, particularly given the complex federal system of shared responsibility between the Commonwealth and individual states and territories. This multi-jurisdictional framework can make it difficult to harmonise governance and regulation, which is a recognised challenge within the National Fisheries Plan itself. Furthermore, the legislative process can be subject to significant political pressures. This highlights a risk where laws may be rapidly passed to protect a single industry’s interests, even if it undermines established environmental principles and restricts a Minister’s ability to prevent environmental destruction or the potential extinction of a species. This can lead to a situation where a government provides financial solutions to mitigate a problem rather than enforcing the necessary regulatory changes to address its root cause.