SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF RECREATIONAL FISHING

Desired Outcome: Communities and governments recognise and value the social, health and economic benefits of recreational fishing, and consider these in decisions that affect recreational fishing.

PRIORITY AREAS FOR INVESTMENT

The following are the priorities for investment in the social and health benefits of recreational fishing:

 Understand the health and well-being benefits of recreational fishing;

 Understand the role that recreational fishing plays in tourism;

 Understand why people stop fishing or are constrained from taking up fishing;

 Changing fisher’s behaviour in relation to best practices;

 Making recreational fishing attractive;

 Non-participants’ perceptions of recreational fishing.

The following are the priorities for investment in the economic benefits of recreational fishing:

 Measuring the economic value of recreational fishing;

 Measuring the number of people employed in the recreational fishing industry.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ISSUE

Over recent years recreational fishing bodies and recreational fishers have not been able to argue effectively in many forums, especially those that deal with resource allocation including those forums that reallocate resources to non fishing interests eg though the establishment of Marine Protected Areas. Part of the reason for this is that the importance of recreational fishing in social and economic terms is poorly understood by decision makers and the community. The potential benefits in areas of physical and psychological health and well-being – operating at individual, family and community levels – are under-appreciated.

There is a need for sound data on the social importance of recreational fishing in relation to health, its role as an alternative in dealing with anti-social behaviour and social well-being in the community. This involves knowing the levels of participation, reasons that people go fishing, their attitudes, preferences and practices and comparing the health of people that fish with other groups in the community.

There is a need for sound data on the economic importance of recreational fishing in relation to its contribution to the national economy and job generation in Australia.

CURRENT STATUS

There is little national data on the social importance of recreational fishing with some data being obtained through the National Survey in 2000 and some data obtained through State surveys.

There are very few national data on the economic importance of recreational fishing. The Australian Fishing Tackle Association (AFTA) produced a report titled “An Economic Profile of the Australian Fishing Tackle Industry” in 2002 that estimated a retail value of sales of tackle of $550m in 2000/01 and 2,550 full-time and part-time jobs across Australia.

Research resources in relation to social and economic research related to the fishing industry, and especially are very limited and this reduces the ability to undertake this research.

RECFISHING RESEARCH STRATEGIC RESPONSE

 Traditionally, the focus of recreational fisheries research has primarily been on the biological and environmental aspects of fishing and fish stocks and it is these fields where there is the greatest research capacity. The research capacity in relation to social and economic issues is limited and this has been partly driven by lack of funding directed to these areas and partly by these not being recognised as priorities.

Recfishing Research will work strategically with funders of recreational fishing research such as FRDC, Recreational Fishing Licence Trust funds, fisheries agencies and other funders to increase the investment directed at social and economic issues. Recfishing Research will also identify researchers in these fields and encourage them to consider working on the priority issues.

Recfishing Research is working with social and economic researchers in organisations such as the Bureau of Rural Research, universities and other areas on the development of projects in this priority area.

PROGRESS TO DATE

In recognition of the lack of research resources in these areas the FRDC has funded two projects that will help build both economic and social research capacity.

The FRDC's Social Sciences Research Coordination Program has identified the issues and key research priority areas for social science in relation to fisheries which are available at www.frdc.com.au/social. The Program is currently seeking proposals that address the national priorities for submission to the 2010 FRDC funding round.

To address the issue of economic research capacity the FRDC is investing in developing economic skills through the University of Tasmania for economists that want to work in the area of marine resources and fisheries.

James Cook University is undertaking a number of socio-economic projects addressing issues primarily related to the Great Barrier Reef. Recfishing Research has been active in assisting James Cook University to develop these projects.

A project is being developed by Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheires in conjunction with CQUniversity Australia to assess the economic value of stocked impoundment fisheries to rural and regional communities. It is expected that the project will commence in early 2009/10.

PROJECTS RECFISHING RESEARCH IS MONITORING

 FRDC project 2009/041: “Fisheries Social Science Research Coordination Program” KAL Analysis Pty Ltd: Kate Brooks kate@kalanalysis.com.au Timeframe: July 2009 - February 2012 Steve Sutton is on the steering committee

FRDC project 2008/306: "Building economic capability to improve the management of marine resources in Australia University of Tasmania: Sarah Jennings Timeframe: July 2008 - June 2013

FRDC project 2007/048: "Towards evaluating the socio-economic impacts of changes to Queensland's inshore fishery management" James Cook University: Renae Tobin Renae.Tobin@jcu.edu.au

Timeframe: Planning to be completed November 2009 Currently completing baseline socio-economic data report, which is also evaluating socio-economic indicators from the stakeholder workshop in 2007. Next step is to choose appropriate long-term indicators.