Improving interactions between commercial fisheries and seismic proponents
Where a seismic survey is proposed in, or adjacent to, important fishing grounds, conflict between the party conducting the seismic survey and commercial fishers often arises. Managing this conflict can be difficult as each industry has a ‘licence to operate’ in the marine area but neither has priority usage. In the absence of a formal framework to guide the interactions between them, issues have to be identified and resolved through case-by-case assessment under the OPGGS Environment Regulations which creates tensions and burden for parties required to be consulted.
Recently, the Senate Inquiry into the Impacts of Seismic Testing on Fisheries and the Marine Environment released its final report. NOPSEMA welcomed the inquiry, actively taking part by preparing a submission and attending a hearing via video conference to provide evidence. NOPSEMA’s submission has been described as being both ‘excellent and very comprehensive’.
Part of the inquiry’s focus was on understanding the conflict between seismic survey proponents and commercial fishers. Stakeholders representing commercial fisheries expressed concern about the impact of high intensity sound emissions on commercially important fish and invertebrate species and subsequent disruption of their fishing operations. Seismic proponents expressed concern about how difficult it is to access fisheries information and other relevant evidence to inform their evaluation and management of impacts to commercial fisheries and their target species, and how that prolongs the assessment of their environment plan.
When it comes to this type of conflict, a lot of attention is directed at the regulatory process, but without good relationships or proper consideration of genuine concerns, it is unlikely such conflict can be appropriately addressed by NOPSEMA and the Environment Regulations alone.
NOPSEMA has supported the Department of Industry, Science and Resources (DISR) and the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) in facilitating the two industries to explore and agree on more collaborative solutions. This work initiated the establishment of a collaborative forum, chaired by DISR, aimed at developing a policy framework with new initiatives to conflict and improving cooperation between seismic survey proponents and commercial fishers. The policy framework concept is adopted from a similar framework successfully implemented in Norway and identified by both industries as a leading practice.
Key Australian commercial fishing groups and offshore petroleum peak bodies (and their members) are supportive of the project and have agreed to collaborate in agreeing specific measures within the framework to remove some of the points of conflict and burden in the individual survey approvals.
Currently, this collaboration include developing guidance for strategic and operational engagement between the industries, a standard loss adjustment protocol that enables fishers to make evidence-based claims for compensation for financial losses as a direct result of a seismic survey and other measures the industries identify and agree as helpful.
Ultimately it is up to the industries to agree on solutions that address their respective needs. The case-by- case assessment and approval by NOPSEMA for individual seismic surveys will remain and issues that cannot be resolved by the industries will continue to arise through the individual assessments.
The seismic inquiry also focussed on scientific uncertainty about the short and long-term effects of noise on marine life. To address the challenges presented by scientific uncertainty, NOPSEMA requires seismic proponents to implement a thorough environmental impact assessment process with scientifically sound application of the best available data. Where a gap in data creates uncertainty as to whether impacts will be of an acceptable level, a range of measures are required to address this. This may include taking a precautionary approach by excluding sensitive locations and/or times of year, implementing adaptive management to respond to information gathered during a survey, and/or validating impact predictions through environmental monitoring.
The measures required to address scientific uncertainty can add significant cost to a seismic survey and, at times, be a barrier to the objectives of the survey being achieved. There are a number of examples in Australia and around the world where these challenges are being addressed through collaborative research frameworks. For example, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Influence of Man-made Structures on the Ecosystem in the North Sea and the IOGP-JIP Sound and Marine Life Program. These frameworks have been successful in answering key environmental impact assessment questions, without imposing unreasonable costs on proponents.
NOPSEMA supports the formation of a collaborative research framework in Australia for the offshore petroleum industry. A well-designed framework has the potential to produce research that will support evidence-based environmental impact assessments and improve environmental management outcomes. The mechanism by which such a framework is funded and governed will need detailed analysis and consideration of the lessons learned from similar frameworks.