Opening Recreational Fishing Havens for National Seafood Security

A NSW proposal that could become a national model for rebuilding local seafood access

New South Wales has productive rivers, lakes and estuaries capable of supplying fresh seafood to the communities around them.

Yet the NSW Food Authority reports that approximately 87 per cent of the seafood purchased in NSW is imported.

That should concern anyone interested in food security, regional employment and Australia’s ability to maintain its own productive capacity.

It should also prompt a serious review of how access to public fisheries resources is allocated.

NSW has 30 Recreational Fishing Havens. They were established along the coast in 2002 and made largely free of commercial fishing. Revenue collected through the NSW Recreational Fishing Fee helped finance a $20 million buyout of commercial fishing access.

Almost a quarter of a century later, it is reasonable to ask whether every one of those allocations still produces the best overall outcome for the NSW community.

The NSW Government should commence a publicly funded, waterway-by-waterway review to determine where controlled access could be restored for Estuary General prawning, mud crab trapping and handlining.

This is not a proposal to abolish Recreational Fishing Havens.

It is not a demand to reopen every waterway to every commercial method.

It is a proposal to test whether carefully controlled local seafood production can coexist with quality recreational fishing.

If NSW can establish a transparent and successful review process, it could provide a template for similar access reforms across Australia.

The public interest does not end at the boat ramp.

Why opening Recreational Fishing Havens deserves a review

Recreational fishing is a legitimate and valuable use of public fisheries resources. It provides food, enjoyment, tourism, community connection and direct engagement with the natural environment.

Those benefits should be protected.

But recreational fishers are one part of the public. They are not the whole public.

Most people in NSW do not own a suitable fishing boat. Many do not have the equipment, time, physical ability or local knowledge required to catch their own seafood.

Their access to wild fish, prawns and crabs depends on commercial fishers, co-operatives, fishmongers, restaurants and local seafood markets.

A recreational fisher harvests seafood for themselves, their family or their friends.

A commercial fisher converts a public resource into food that can be accessed by the wider community.

Commercial fishers are therefore more than another private group competing for access. They provide the public with access to locally caught seafood.

When commercial access is removed, the effect extends beyond the fishing business that loses the right to operate. Access is also removed from every consumer who depends on that business to harvest seafood on their behalf.

Opening selected Recreational Fishing Havens to carefully controlled commercial methods would recognise that broader public interest.

Public resources must remain reviewable

The Fisheries Management Act 1994 does not instruct government to manage fisheries solely for one user group.

Its objects include conserving fish stocks and habitats, promoting viable commercial fishing, providing quality recreational fishing opportunities, appropriately sharing fisheries resources and delivering social and economic benefits to the wider NSW community.

These objectives are intended to operate together.

Quality recreational fishing matters.

Viable commercial fishing also matters.

So does the ability of the wider public to purchase locally caught seafood.

An allocation made in 2002 should not be treated as permanently beyond review when the governing legislation requires multiple public interests to be balanced.

Commercial fishing access has repeatedly been reviewed, reduced and reallocated as environmental, social and political circumstances have changed.

The same principle must operate in both directions.

Recreational-only allocations should also remain capable of review when food-security needs, industry capacity and community circumstances change.

A review would not predetermine the outcome.

Some waterways may remain unsuitable for additional commercial access because of stock conditions, habitat sensitivity, water quality or unavoidable user conflict.

Others may be capable of supporting limited prawning, mud crab trapping or handlining without materially diminishing recreational fishing opportunities.

That should be determined by current evidence rather than permanent assumption.

Access was purchased, but the waterways were not

The Recreational Fishing Havens were created through a powerful collective funding mechanism.

Most recreational fishers are required to pay the NSW Recreational Fishing Fee, subject to legislated exemptions. Revenue collected from a large recreational population was pooled and used to finance the $20 million buyout associated with the creation of the havens.

That contribution should be acknowledged.

Recreational licence holders funded compensation associated with the removal or restriction of commercial fishing access. It is understandable that many recreational fishers have since developed a strong sense of ownership over the havens.

But compensation for lost commercial access did not confer ownership of public rivers, lakes or estuaries.

The 2010 NSW parliamentary inquiry recorded departmental advice that establishing the havens did not convey jurisdiction, ownership or property rights to the recreational fishing sector.

Access was purchased. The waterways were not.

Those waterways remain public resources.

Government retains a continuing responsibility to determine how they should be managed for conservation, recreation, cultural fishing, food production and wider community benefit.

Compensation paid at one point in history does not prevent future governments from reviewing whether the allocation still serves the public interest.

Nor should one generation permanently determine how a public resource may be used by every generation that follows.

The funding structure protects the status quo

The original reallocation was not produced by an equal financial contest between commercial and recreational fishers.

Government created a collective funding mechanism through the recreational fishing fee. A large population of licence holders could make relatively small individual contributions that accumulated into a fund capable of financing a major acquisition of commercial access.

Commercial fishers have no equivalent funding capacity.

The commercial industry is far smaller and has contracted further since the havens were created. Remaining businesses already carry licensing, vessel, fuel, insurance, equipment, compliance and reporting costs.

If those businesses are now expected to privately fund the research, administration and consultation required to seek the restoration of limited access, the review process begins with a structural imbalance.

One sector was collectively empowered to finance the removal of commercial access.

The sector that lost access subsequently became smaller and less able to finance reconsideration.

The cost of challenging the allocation then helps preserve the allocation.

That is not an equal resource-sharing process.

A review of public resources should not depend on whether a diminished industry can raise enough private money to commence it.

The NSW Government should initiate and fund the review.

Commercial fishers should contribute operational knowledge and evidence. They should not be required to finance the machinery through which government decides whether its own historical allocation remains appropriate.

Parliament has already provided the pathway

The proposal for limited commercial access is not new.

In 2010, the NSW Parliament’s Select Committee on Recreational Fishing examined the operation of Recreational Fishing Havens.

The committee recorded that the primary purpose of the havens was to allocate catch between the recreational and commercial sectors. They were not established as biodiversity protection areas.

The committee recommended ongoing research into the broader ecosystems and recreational fish stocks within each haven, with information updated at least every five years.

More significantly, Recommendation 20 called for government, recreational fishers and professional fishers to investigate the locations and circumstances in which limited commercial access to Recreational Fishing Havens could be considered.

That recommendation closely resembles the present proposal.

It did not recommend abolishing the havens.

It did not recommend unrestricted commercial fishing.

It recognised that recreational fishing and controlled commercial harvesting are not necessarily incompatible.

The inquiry also recorded that several havens, including the Tweed, Richmond, Clarence, Camden Haven and Manning rivers, were not completely closed to commercial fishing.

That demonstrates that a Recreational Fishing Haven does not need to operate as an all-or-nothing allocation.

Commercial access can be limited by method, species, season, operating area, gear and the number of participating businesses.

The unfinished task is to establish a fair statewide process for examining where that coexistence may now be possible.

Why begin with prawning, mud crab trapping and handlining?

The review should initially focus on Estuary General prawning, mud crab trapping and handlining.

These activities provide a practical starting point because each can be assessed independently.

In one waterway, handlining may be appropriate while prawning is not.

In another, a limited number of mud crab traps may be compatible with recreational fishing while other commercial methods remain excluded.

Some waterways may remain unsuitable for any additional activity.

The proposal is not that every method must be approved everywhere.

The proposal is that every haven should be reviewed against the same transparent criteria.

Each method should be assessed according to the characteristics of the individual waterway rather than dismissed under a permanent statewide presumption.

What controlled access could look like

The review should examine stock condition, habitat sensitivity, recreational catch and effort, existing commercial and cultural harvest, water quality, seafood-production potential, navigation, safety and the likelihood of gear conflict.

Where the evidence supports access, government could establish a monitored pilot program.

A pilot could limit the number of participating businesses, operating areas, fishing days, seasons, gear types, trap numbers, target species and allowable catch or effort.

Commercial fishers could be required to provide advance fishing notifications, real-time catch reports and verified landing information.

Clear environmental and resource-sharing thresholds should be established before the trial begins.

If measurable impacts exceeded those thresholds, access could be reduced, modified or withdrawn.

If the evidence demonstrated that controlled commercial harvesting could coexist with quality recreational fishing, access could continue under clearly defined conditions.

This is what adaptive fisheries management should look like.

It replaces permanent assumptions with measurable outcomes.

Opening access would rebuild local capacity

The immediate benefit of opening selected Recreational Fishing Havens would be more locally caught seafood reaching NSW consumers.

Prawns, mud crabs and suitable line-caught fish could move through local co-operatives, fish receivers, fishmongers, restaurants and direct seafood businesses.

But the value of access should not be measured only in tonnes.

Access supports the productive system behind the catch.

A viable fishing ground supports a boat. A boat supports a fishing business. A fishing business supports mechanics, marine suppliers, ice plants, co-operatives, processors, transport operators and seafood retailers.

Access also preserves knowledge.

It allows experienced fishers to remain productive and creates opportunities for younger people to learn the occupation.

Without viable fishing access, there can be no meaningful pathway into the industry, regardless of how healthy the resource may be.

Food security is not simply the presence of seafood on a supermarket shelf.

Food security is domestic productive capacity.

It is the boats, access, processing facilities, skills, businesses and supply relationships that allow seafood to move from Australian waters to Australian tables.

Once those capabilities disappear, they cannot be recreated quickly during a disruption.

National seafood security requires productive capacity

Imports are an important part of Australia’s seafood system. They provide choice, supplement domestic supply and support international trade.

The problem is not the existence of imported seafood.

The problem is allowing imports to replace domestic capability.

With approximately 87 per cent of purchased seafood in NSW reported to be imported, consumers are heavily dependent on overseas production, international freight, functioning ports, fuel availability and stable trading relationships.

During normal conditions, that system may appear efficient.

During disrupted conditions, dependence becomes vulnerability.

National seafood security requires more than overseas suppliers and functioning shipping routes.

It requires Australian boats capable of harvesting.

It requires legal access to productive waters.

It requires people with the skills to operate safely and efficiently.

It requires local receiving, processing, transport and markets.

A nation does not preserve food security merely by having seafood available today. It preserves food security by maintaining the capacity to produce seafood tomorrow.

Sovereignty without productive capacity is sovereignty in name only.

Opening selected Recreational Fishing Havens would not eliminate NSW’s reliance on imported seafood.

It would begin rebuilding some of the domestic capacity that has been progressively removed.

Renewal does not require one dramatic reform.

It requires practical reforms that make local production possible again.

A national template for greater fishing access

The importance of this proposal extends beyond the 30 Recreational Fishing Havens in NSW.

Across Australia, commercial fishing access has been progressively reduced through recreational-only areas, marine park zones, buyouts, licence restructuring and increasingly restrictive management arrangements.

The details differ between jurisdictions, but the result can be similar.

Fewer working fishers.

Reduced domestic production.

Weaker regional supply chains.

Higher barriers for the next generation.

Greater dependence on imported seafood.

A successful NSW review could provide a template for a national push for greater access and stronger food security.

That does not mean applying identical fishing rules to every state, fishery or waterway.

Australia’s fisheries are diverse. Each jurisdiction must respond to its own species, habitats, communities and management history.

The transferable principle is simpler.

Public fishing access should be periodically reviewed against current environmental evidence, domestic food needs and the productive capacity required to supply Australian consumers.

Where commercial fishing can operate sustainably alongside recreational, cultural and conservation interests, governments should actively examine opportunities to restore access.

Where access is restored, it should be controlled, monitored and accountable.

Where a closure remains necessary, the evidence supporting it should be publicly explained.

The same approach could be applied to recreational-only fishing areas, marine park zones, historic closures and other access restrictions across Australia.

NSW has an opportunity to demonstrate that rebuilding domestic fishing capacity does not require abandoning sustainability.

It requires moving beyond permanent assumptions and examining what carefully managed production can contribute.

Opening selected Recreational Fishing Havens could therefore become more than a state reform.

It could establish a national model for rebuilding local seafood supply, regional capability and Australia’s capacity to feed itself.

Recreational fishing can remain protected

The strongest argument against the proposal is that recreational licence holders funded the original buyout and may lose some of the benefits it created.

That concern should be taken seriously.

The recreational contribution was real, and quality recreational fishing should remain an important management objective.

The answer is not to dismiss those interests.

It is to design the review around coexistence.

Any pilot should protect reasonable recreational access, minimise gear conflict and exclude sensitive locations or important fishing periods where necessary.

Recreational representatives should participate in the review, and the evidence used to support decisions should be publicly available.

Consultation, however, cannot give any one sector permanent ownership or an automatic veto over decisions concerning public resources.

The final test must remain the Fisheries Management Act and the wider interests of the NSW community.

Resource sharing does not mean protecting every historical allocation from change.

It means determining the most sustainable, equitable and beneficial use of the resource under present conditions.

A formal proposal for national seafood security

The NSW Government should direct the Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development to commence a publicly funded, waterway-by-waterway review of all 30 Recreational Fishing Havens.

The review should assess the suitability of controlled Estuary General prawning, mud crab trapping and handlining in each haven.

The environmental, stock, economic and resource-sharing criteria should be published before decisions are made.

Suitable waterways should proceed to monitored pilot programs using method-specific, seasonal and spatial controls.

Unsuitable waterways should remain closed, with the reasons clearly explained.

The review should not begin with the assumption that every haven must reopen.

Nor should it begin with the assumption that every closure must remain permanent.

It should begin with evidence.

The review should also be designed and documented so its assessment criteria, monitoring systems and pilot structure can inform similar access reviews across Australia.

If successful, it should become a template for a national effort to rebuild sustainable commercial fishing access, domestic seafood production and national seafood security.

Renewal begins by making production possible

For decades, fisheries reform has largely been measured by contraction.

Fewer fishers.

Less access.

Higher barriers to entry.

Reduced local seafood supply.

Greater dependence on imports.

The Architecture of Renewal requires a different measure.

It asks where sustainable production can be rebuilt.

It asks how public fisheries resources can serve more of the public.

It asks whether decisions made under past conditions still meet the needs of the present.

After almost 25 years, are all 30 Recreational Fishing Havens still producing the best overall outcome for NSW?

Has the five-year monitoring recommended by Parliament been undertaken consistently and transparently?

Why should a diminished commercial industry be required to privately finance the reconsideration of a government-created allocation?

Can NSW accept approximately 87 per cent import dependence without examining opportunities to rebuild controlled local production?

Could a transparent NSW review become the starting point for a wider national reconsideration of sustainable fishing access?

Opening Recreational Fishing Havens should not begin with a predetermined answer.

It should begin with an honest review.

If NSW can demonstrate that controlled commercial harvesting, quality recreational fishing and environmental protection can coexist, the approach should not end at the state border.

It should become a template for rebuilding access, domestic productive capacity and national seafood security.

Recreational fishers are an important part of the public.

Commercial fishers provide seafood access to everyone else.

Public waterways should be managed with both in mind.

The future is locally caught seafood.