توسعه پایدار: پیامدهای اجتماعی تعدیل ساختاری در شیلات استرالیا جنوبی

The assessment of sustainable development is a relatively recent advent in policy and the evaluation of industry structural adjustments. Although the elements of economic and environmental assessment have been relatively well developed and accepted, the effective inclusion of ‘social’ aspects in assessments of sustainable development are still being grappled with. This paper, which discusses a project that investigated the sustainable development of the Marine Scalefish Fishery in South Australia, was focused on providing a combined assessment of the interrelationships between the environmental, economic and social aspects of the industry and the effect of its restructure in 2005. The findings highlight the complexities of developing effective policies to address all three aspects of sustainable development, rather than trading off one outcome against another. In the case of the fishery at hand, while the environmental and economic objectives of the adjustment appear to have achieved, the social objectives may well have not. In this circumstance, the findings raise the possibility that the social impacts of the restructure may in fact, alone, compromise the long term future of the industry, despite the economic success of the restructure. This paper addresses the results of the research and presents some salient social issues that policy makers and industry should be aware of, when considering industry structure and futures in a changing economic and climatic environment.

There is a long history of industry economic assessment. However, it is only recently that the focus of assessment has broadened to incorporate other perspectives. Initially these were environmental, and in the last 10 years these are now more often attempting to incorporate the social implications as well. In 2007, South Australia's fisheries management took the step of undertaking a comprehensive assessment (ecological, economic, and social) of the effects of an industry restructure which occurred in 2005. The review was in line with the current Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) thinking of the Australian Government [1]. Specifically, the Australian Government identifies ESD as ‘using, conserving and enhancing the community's resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased’ [1]. This paper discusses the background and the theoretical methodology of the social aspects of the review of the restructure; the findings from it, and the lessons learnt for both undertaking ESD assessments and for natural resource industry participants and managers.

The information gleaned from comprehensive ESD assessments can be used to improve and create predictive and proactive approaches to policy development. In this case, as policy is about managing the resource an industry uses, an understanding is required of the interaction between it, and the economic and social environments in which it exists, to manage and effect changes in the ecological one. By wholly comprehending the symbiotic relationships of the resource, economic and social environment of an industry, policy development can occur in a proactive and balanced manner, rather than having to develop mitigation measures to address unforeseen outcomes resulting from limited assessments. Policy developed on the basis of comprehensive ESD assessments can, if broadly communicated, lead to the increased possibility of the broader community providing industry with a ‘licence to operate’.7 This decreases the potential for pressure on governments to change policy mid stream and costs that are associated with that for both government and industry. Additionally, by understanding the social as well as the economic and ecological context of an industry's circumstance, policy can be developed in a proactive environment of managing the development and diversity of both the resource and its associated industries, to maximise the social, economic and ecological outcomes.