Aquaculture_Pinctada Maxima_Australia

Affiliation
IIED
Type of wild species covered by the record
Wild species sourced from the wild but reared/cultivated in a managed site (e.g., cultivated wild specimens, eggs/juveniles from the wild)
Stage of the value chain covered by the record
Unknown/not recorded
Record Source
Scientific publication (e.g., journal articles and book chapters independently peer-reviewed)

An assessment of the environmental impact of wild harvest pearl aquaculture in western australia.

Unknown/not recorded
Is the species endemic HIDE
No
Population Status
Common and wildly distributed
Unknown/not recorded
National Level
Formal national protection in place

Pearling and pearl farms for P. maxima, are managed by the Department of Fisheries Western Australian (DFWA) under the provisions of the Pearling Act 1990.

Population Trend
Unknown/not recorded
Sub-national Level
Unknown/not recorded
Name
Emma Hemmerlé
Scientific Name
Pinctada Maxima
Common Name(s)
Pinctada Maxima
Type of Use
Extractive (i.e., the entire organism or parts of the organism are removed from its environment)
If extractive, for the target species, is this use
Lethal
Does this use involve take/extraction of
Only parts or products of the organism (e.g., feathers, leaves, branches, eggs, nuts)
Details of parts/products taken

pearl extraction

How is the primary use carried out?
Are specific characteristics/traits being targeted?
Unknown/not recorded
Purpose of Use
Largescale commercial exploitation for trade
What is the main end use for any living organisms, parts or products taken/extracted?
Amount
572000.00
Units Of Measurement
annual quota of allowable catch in western Australia
What is the trend in the level of offtake within the period covered by this record?
Geographic Location
Country
Australia
Sub region/state
Western Australia
Unknown/not recorded
Is the use part of a strategy to generate conservation incentives, to finance conservation, or to improve tolerance/stewardship?
Unknown/not recorded
Is there evidence that the use is affecting the conservation status of the species? HIDE
Unknown/not recorded
Is there evidence that the use is affecting natural selection?
Unknown/not recorded
Is there evidence that the use is affecting poaching of illegal wildlife trade?
Unknown/not reported
Is there any evidence that this use of the species is having a knock-on effect on the status of non-target species
Unknown/not recorded
No
Yes, considered sustainable
Additional Details (if available)

Clearly establishing facilities for the pearling industry has some effect on the habitat. However the farms are small when compared with the vast distances on the north coast of Western Australia. They are also predominantly situated over mud bottom for maxi- mum pearl growth. The major impact is the visual presence of the longlines, which are floating in the water, except for an anchor on each end, which is placed in the mud bottom

Details of assessment carried out

Thirteen environmental and ecological issues were identified across the P. maxima fishery. None were considered to be high risks; all were ranked as either moderate (23%) or low (77%); The industry is considered to be environmentally benign. However, recommendations are made on how to further minimize risk.

Has a valuation of financial flows from this use at the site/national/international level been recorded
Yes
Contribution to GDP
Unknown/not recorded
Training/Skills
Land/Resource Rights
Decision Making
Social Cohesion
Conflict- people
Conflict- wildlife
Climate Change
Has any assessment of socio-economic sustainability been recorded
Yes, considered sustainable
Details of assessment

In terms of dollar value, the fishery is second in Western Australia only to the western rock lobster, Panulirus cygnus.

Has the use of the species been recorded as resulting in changes to human health in this record?
Unknown/not recorded
Has the species in use been noted as being of particular disease risk to humans?
Unknown/not recorded
Has the use of the species resulted in changes to animal welfare in this record?
Unknown/not recorded
Are there particular practices which have increased the risk to human or animal health or welfare in the use of this species?
Unknown/not recorded
Does the use of this species increase susceptibility to pathogen spread?
Unknown/not recorded
Unknown/not recorded
Strong community governance/institutions/rights for wildlife management
Absent
Supportive policy and legislative framework
Absent
Adequate capacity to implement and enforce governance arrangements
Absent
Support from NGOs
Absent
Support from Government
Absent
High financial returns from use
Absent
Abundant population of target species
Absent
Biological characteristics of target species
Absent
Capacity building of community
Absent
Establishment and implementation of species and/or area management plan
Absent
Effective private sector approach engagement through certification
Absent
Good benefit-sharing mechanism
Absent
Good Market Strategies
Absent
Source Reference(s)

FRED E. WELLS and PETER JERNAKOFF "AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF WILD HARVEST PEARL AQUACULTURE (PINCTADA MAXIMA) IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA," Journal of Shellfish Research 25(1), 141-150, (1 April 2006). https://doi.org/10.2983/0730-8000(2006)25[141:AAOTEI]2.0.CO;2

Who is involved in the use?
Is there any gender/age specificity in the various roles
Unknown/not recorded
How many of these local jobs accure to the following categories?
How many people outside the local area are employed
Is there any evidence of other economic benefits associated with this use beyond direct income and jobs
Unknown/Not recorded
Scale of Assessment
IUCN National Red List Category
IUCN Global Red List Category
Green Status Global Category
Yearly Financial Flows
Year
2005
Amount
$125000000.00
Country reference