On the 14 December 2005 the Australian Government announced detailed proposals for the establishment of an extensive network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the South-east Region of Australia. The 14 candidate MPAs would cover more than 170,000 square kilometres of Commonwealth waters off Tasmania, Victoria, southern New South Wales and eastern South Australia.

Simultaneously, the Australian Government’s fisheries management reform, including substantial reductions in Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and the purchase of fishing licenses to remove effort from over fished fisheries, was extended to fishers – both Commonwealth and State licensed – who were affected by the creation of the MPA network. By running a single adjustment package it was reasoned that affected businesses need only go through one adjustment process (rather than two), and businesses in the South-east Region would not face a series of changes over several years.

The gross value of fisheries production from the South-east Region, at over $500 million per annum, represents an estimated 23% of the total gross value of Australian fisheries production. 

At the time of the announcement of the proposed MPA network, the boundaries of only two candidate MPAs within the 11 Broad Areas of Interest (BAOIs) had been discussed in any detail with the fishing industry. The Australian Government had brought forward the release of the proposed MPA network so that fishermen could make decisions about their future in the full knowledge of their operating environment – knowing the full extent of proposed exclusions from MPAs as well as knowing how their fisheries would be managed.

This report investigates the considerable impacts that these announcements pose for the fishing industry in the South-east Region and the considerable socio-economic implications for individual fishers who fish within the proposed areas, for entire fisheries, and on the overall supply of seafood to the Australian consumer.  On the understanding from the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage
(DEH), that the proposed areas were negotiable, Industry and management agencies believed the most appropriate response was to characterise and validate the impacts and make a scientifically defensible case for alternatives such as boundary changes or alterations to the proposed MPA classifications.  These alternatives were designed to minimise the impacts on the fishing industry while at the same time not eroding the conservation values of the proposed MPA network in the region.