Towards coexistence: integrating commercial fisheries into offshore wind design

2026 Global Voices Fellow

13 minutes ago

14 min read

Georgia Walsh, COP31 2026 Fellow

Executive Summary

The development of Australia’s offshore wind industry threatens to displace commercial fishers who have raised concerns that offshore wind farms (OWFs) will threaten their catch levels and, therefore, their livelihoods. Without intervention, this poses a disproportionate economic risk to regional coastal communities that are the centres of Australia’s commercial fishing industry, creating pushback against the renewable energy transition.

This paper recommends the Australian Government introduce a pathway for OWF developers to work with commercial fisheries to design offshore infrastructure that benefits local, commercially relevant target species. It proposes amendments to the Offshore Energy Infrastructure Regulations 2022 (OEI Regulations) that require developers to submit a fisheries-inclusive design plan and to expand consultation requirements from ‘reasonable efforts’ to active co-design. While developers would bear the cost of producing the plan, amending the regulations would require $0.4-0.6 million, plus annual ongoing costs of $0.15-0.25 million for administration and compliance. The Offshore Infrastructure Regulator (OIR) would assess these new requirements as part of its current management plan approval process, funded through a full cost-recovery model. Success would be measured by changes in catch-per-unit-effort for fisheries around OFW areas and by a reduction in official complaints to the OIR from fisheries representative bodies, indicating increased social licence.

Problem Identification

The Australian Government has declared six priority OWF areas covering approximately 30,000 km² of ocean; however, as development begins, this will create spatial conflict between OWF developers and Commonwealth and state fisheries that intersect with or border them. One initial estimate for the Gippsland priority area, which is the largest and furthest along in the development process, predicts that development will reduce commercial catch yields by 2.2 to 2.7 tonnes per 100 km². While offshore wind developers must consult with affected ocean users, it is often unclear whether responding to consultations tangibly affects fishers' livelihoods (Szostek et al., 2025).

To address this, experts have highlighted that offshore wind developments should implement measures that address the impacts on fisheries productivity alongside impacts on the marine ecosystem to achieve both societal and environmental gains (Edwards-Jones et al., 2024). If these calls are not met, consequential economic impacts will be disproportionately felt by regional coastal communities as the largest contributors to Australia’s commercial fishing economy (Ternes Scientific, 2021). In Victoria, commercial fishers have begun to raise concerns about this (Cr Nathan Hersey, 2025; Seafood Industry Victoria, 2026), mirroring pushback to offshore wind that has been seen in the UK and the USA. This reduces the crucial social licence needed for the renewable energy transition in Australia (Szostek et al., 2025; Trifonova et al., 2025).

Context

The development of Australia’s offshore wind sector is a major advancement toward meeting the nationally legislated target of net-zero by 2050 (Gaudin et al., 2026). However, it creates a fundamental spatial conflict: by designating areas of ocean as renewable energy zones, the Australian government disrupts access to waters that commercial fisheries have long-standing rights to harvest (Szostek et al., 2025). Under current regulations, the Australian Government has stated that commercial fishing businesses may be able to continue operating in offshore wind areas using ‘restrictive methods’ that require specific gear types. However, this may not be practised by fishers due to safety and navigation concerns, may not be feasible for the target species present, or may limit fishers' ability to follow changes in the distribution of mobile target species (Fulton et al., 2024; Haslam et al., 2026; Seafood Industry Victoria, 2026). Therefore, despite the perceived option of coexistence, the financial burden of changing current fishing practices and the time and effort required to navigate around restricted areas falls on commercial fishers, leading to disputes over the practicality of this option (Chaji & Werner, 2023; Szostek et al., 2025a; Trifonova et al., 2025). Consequently, the overlap of fisheries and OFW areas creates complex socio-economic challenges which demand interdisciplinary policy solutions (Silva et al., 2026).

Current policy interventions

To receive new offshore licences and begin development, proponents must submit a management plan to the OIR, whose functions are administered by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) (Gibson, 2024). Under the OEI Regulations, the management plan must outline the consultation requirements developers must meet and align with the environmental requirements set in the recently reformed Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) before a permit is approved. Despite this, fisheries representative bodies have called for stronger consultation measures and a more holistic assessment of risks to commercially important species' catches (Cr Nathan Hersey, 2025; Seafood Industry Victoria, 2026).

Consultation requirements outlined in Clause 64 of the OEI Regulations state that the licence holder must make reasonable efforts to identify and consult with stakeholders that may carry out activities in or near the licence area for a commercial purpose and include a strategy for ongoing adequate consultation in the management plan. However, this language leaves critical decisions to developers by not defining what constitutes ‘reasonable efforts’ or ‘adequate consultation’ and does not guide them on how to identify consultees (Lynn et al., 2025). Furthermore, Subsection (3) of Clause 64 states that the licence holder does not have to consult a stakeholder if they have previously done so with another group that could reasonably be regarded as representing the prior's interests. This means some fisheries groups could reasonably be excluded from consultation requirements, even if they target different species or are not currently fishing in the development area (Lynn et al., 2025). This is highly significant since many commercial fisheries are seasonally mobile and may migrate into the OFW area in future years.

From an environmental perspective, recent reforms to the EPBC Act require OWFs to take ‘net-gain’ actions that benefit biodiversity if development is determined to have significant impacts on the surrounding ecosystem. These actions are assessed under the Environmental Offset Standard, which ensures actions follow principles such as like-for-like and additionality, meaning the offsets must protect or restore the same habitat or species that was damaged and deliver benefits that would not have happened under business-as-usual management. However, a recent review of environmental impact assessments for OWFs across Europe showed that the impacts of individual projects are usually considered negligible. Therefore, actions to offset impacts on specific marine features are often neither required nor enforced, despite net-gain requirements (Hooper et al., 2021). More fundamentally, the current offset framework focuses on habitat-equivalent compensation by restoring or creating habitat that matches what was damaged. However, habitat restoration and ecosystem services recovery are not synonymous (McVittie & Faccioli, 2020). A restored reef may support fish populations, but if commercial fisheries cannot access those fish because of spatial restrictions or gear limitations, the ecosystem service of ‘fisheries productivity’ has not been recovered (Edwards-Jones et al., 2024). Consequently, projects can remain environmentally compliant without delivering tangible gains to affected commercial fishers, meaning they do not address the socio-economic impacts on fisheries.

Evidence of Solutions

Research shows that OWFs can benefit marine ecosystems by providing an ‘artificial reef effect’ in which the OWF infrastructure acts as a hard substrate on which marine life can settle, seek shelter, forage, and reproduce (Degraer et al., 2020). However, this effect is unlikely to produce actual marine net benefits unless specifically incorporated into the infrastructure design. This creates an opportunity for developments to contribute positively to both biodiversity and fisheries outcomes, but only if they intentionally incorporate ecological enhancement through targeted nature-inclusive design (NiD) (Glarou et al., 2020; Kingma et al., 2024). NiD can increase populations of commercially valuable species by modifying wind turbine foundations to meet target species habitat requirements. In the Netherlands, the consideration of NiD is required for OWF developers who must submit a dedicated NiD plan as part of the licence approval process (Kristensen et al., 2026). To support this, the Dutch government has produced a design catalogue for offshore wind infrastructure that matches commercially valuable species with NiD options, aiming to increase spillover populations to adjacent fisheries (Hermans et al., 2020).

Another policy option currently being explored in the United Kingdom is to broaden the definition of net-gain actions from biodiversity net gain to environmental net gain (DEFRA, 2022; MMO, 2021). As a result, net gain actions would expand to consider the wider, integrated environmental system and the societal implications of potential disruptions to ecosystem service provision caused by developments (Hooper et al., 2021). In a marine context, this is termed marine net gain and would mean that net gain actions could not occur independently of fisheries management and extensive stakeholder engagement and collaboration (Hooper et al., 2021). Although not yet integrated into policy, applying a marine net gain approach to the interaction between OWFs and commercial fisheries would require developers to identify fisheries-relevant ecosystem services, establish baselines for these services, and design offset activities that restore them to ensure fish stocks remain productive.

To manage spatial conflict between OWFs and commercial fisheries in Australia, policy should support collaboration between the two parties to develop interdisciplinary solutions that maintain fisheries productivity.

Policy Options

Critical measure of success

A policy recommendation will be successful if OWFs can maintain a positive social licence with commercial fishers throughout the lifecycle of OWF operations. This could be done by implementing measures that meaningfully increase target species populations and reduce complaints from fisheries representative bodies to offshore wind developers.

Option 1: Require targeted fisheries-inclusive design as part of the management plan for offshore wind licence holders.

This policy option would amend the OEI Regulations sections 80 (1) and 81 (2) to require that management plans include: (a) details of how the infrastructure has been designed to benefit commercially relevant target species, and (b) a description of how overlapping and adjacent fisheries were consulted as co-designers of this infrastructure. This recommendation would require licencees to include a fisheries-inclusive design plan within their management plan, stating how they co-designed their infrastructure to achieve a targeted, tangible increase in commercially important fish stocks. These amendments will be implemented by the Federal Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW). Consequently, the OIR will assess whether the fisheries-inclusive design plan meets regulatory requirements before approving the overall management plan, and will monitor compliance throughout the licence period.

Offshore wind licence holders will bear the cost of developing the fisheries-inclusive design plan, ensuring mitigation costs are borne by developers rather than the public. NOPSEMA’s administration costs to establish these requirements are estimated at approximately $0.4-0.6 million, with ongoing annual costs of $0.15-0.25 million for compliance measures. However, the ecological effectiveness of habitat creation in delivering meaningful spillover benefits to adjacent fisheries remains uncertain and will require long-term monitoring to confirm that catch gains materialise as predicted; therefore plans must include long-term adaptive management strategies which align with commercial fisheries data to maintain social licence.

Option 2: Amend the OEI Regulations to require licencees to consult with individual commercial fisheries

This policy option would amend Section 64 of the OEI regulations to strengthen consultation requirements with commercial fisheries. Specifically, it would designate all commercial Commonwealth and state-managed fisheries that overlap or are adjacent to the licence area as a mandatory consultation group. It would also establish minimum standards for consultation quality, replacing the current “reasonable efforts” requirement with prescriptive standards developers must meet. This would ensure that all commercial fisheries are consulted individually rather than as a whole, guaranteeing that those targeting different species or seasonally mobile fisheries are adequately consulted. Standards for consultation may include minimum notification times for development (e.g., 12 months), detailed fisheries impact assessments that quantify the development's effect on fish stocks within each fishing ground, and plans for ongoing monitoring as operations commence.

DCCEEW is responsible for amending the OEI regulations, and therefore the legislative and consultation costs required to do so would be absorbed within their existing budget. As many commercial fishers call for increased consultation, strengthening this through policy will increase offshore wind's social licence in Australia. However, this amendment may face industry pushback from offshore wind developers who argue that prescriptive consultation requirements increase project costs and timelines.

Option 3: Amend the Offset National Environment Standards to mandate net-gain for ecosystem services

This policy option would amend Section 6 (Outcomes) of the draft Offset National Environmental Standards (Offset NES) to require offset activities to deliver measurable improvements to ecosystem services such as fisheries productivity, alongside improvements to protected matters. Under the current standard, offshore wind developments offset impacts to protected species using like-for-like compensation; however, these often do not recuperate the ecosystem services that support commercial fisheries. The amended standard would require decision-makers to verify that offset activities keep fish stocks productive, enabling commercial fisheries to access them through co-use or spillover effects.

DCCEEW, which is responsible for the draft NES, would implement this change, with costs already covered by the $34 million budget allocated for implementation from 2024 to 2026. This would contribute greatly to Australia’s net gain commitments by requiring offshore wind developers to conduct ecosystem services impact assessments and restoration-focused offsets. However, it is likely to face significant industry pushback, as it would require all developments to invest much more in the research and design stages and may block many projects from going ahead.

Policy Recommendation

The recommended approach is option 1: to amend the OEI Regulations to require fisheries-inclusive design. This integrated approach is preferable over options 2 and 3 as it addresses two major issues simultaneously. The first amendment to section 80 (1) ensures developers cannot avoid net gain measures by claiming development will not significantly impact surrounding fisheries. Instead, licencees would be required to incorporate design principles that benefit fish stocks (e.g. artificial reefs or nursery boxes) from the design conception. Consequently, the amendment to section 81(2) would complement this by ensuring that commercial fishers are not only adequately consulted but treated as co-designers, so they can contribute to designs that benefit their livelihoods. This builds on the current stakeholder engagement strategy under section 82 of the OEI regulations by expanding licence holders' responsibilities from responding to claims raised by commercial fisheries to collaborating. Therefore, this approach addresses concerns about inadequate consultation that fisheries representative bodies continue to raise and will increase the social licence for offshore renewables.

Implementation

Under the current licensing scheme, the Federal Minister for Climate Change and Energy would approve the OWF licence only after the proponent demonstrates these new requirements. Individual licencees would identify and collaborate with adjacent and overlapping commercial fisheries, as required under section 82(1) of the OEI regulations, and implement subsequent fisheries-inclusive design plans. The OIR would enforce adherence to these requirements through its current compliance framework.

Costs Initial first-year establishment costs are estimated to be $0.4-0.6 million. This figure is based on the OIR’s current cost allocation method, which allocates costs based on estimated regulatory effort (measured in hourly staff wages). It assumes an increase in effort of 1.5-2 FTE for regulatory design and compliance frameworks, the creation of guidance protocols for consultations, and staff training. Ongoing annual costs of $0.15-0.25 million are anticipated from year 2 onwards for administration and compliance. However, the OIR’s existing compliance levy applied to licence holders would recover these costs. The cost of designing fisheries-inclusive infrastructure in conjunction with commercial fisheries would be borne by the licence holder as part of drafting their overall management plans.

Success Metrics

Success of these amendments should be measured both by their direct ecological impact on target species populations and their socio-economic impact on commercial fisheries (Silva et al., 2026). This can be done by examining changes in catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE; the number of fish caught per hour) for target species before and after implementing fisheries-inclusive design components, as has been done for Atlantic Cod in wind farms in the North Sea (Reubens et al., 2013). The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) already collects CPUE data; therefore, this metric would require no extra monitoring. To assess whether this tangibly affects the social licence of OWFs, the OIR should demonstrate a reduction in official complaints and submissions from representative fisheries bodies over the first 5 years of implementation.

Barriers and Risks

The offshore wind industry is still in its infancy in Australia; therefore, no fisheries-inclusive design infrastructure has been tested in local environments. While these designs have evidence of success in the Netherlands (Kingma et al., 2024), and smaller artificial reef structures have been deployed in Australia for recreational fishing (Marshall et al., 2025), no previous attempt at a scale large enough to impact commercial fisheries has been made in Australia. While OWF’s present an unprecedented opportunity to do this, developers may argue against contributing resources to novel measures. This also presents an economic risk. The extended co-design process is likely to increase project costs and timelines, which could potentially deter OWF investment and slow Australia’s renewable energy transition.

Fisheries-inclusive design also carries environmental risks. If not designed properly, NiD measures may have unintended ecological consequences such as acting as stepping stones for invasive species or disrupting soft-sediment communities. Additionally, the literature is conflicted about whether artificial reefs always increase fish productivity or instead act as aggregation devices for existing populations (Werner et al., 2024). If wind farms merely concentrate fish populations rather than enhance stocks, target species may become more vulnerable to overfishing, putting commercial fisheries at further risk.

These risks can be mitigated by partnering with research institutions such as universities, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, all of which are currently conducting research into the sustainable development of OWFs in Australia (Haslam et al., 2026; NESP, 2025). This will ensure that any fisheries-inclusive design implemented by developers has a scientific and ecological basis and has been tested in the local environment, reducing the risk of failure and unforeseen environmental impacts. Further, these partnerships could create a fisheries-inclusive design catalogue for Australia, mirroring those produced in the Netherlands and reducing research and development costs by removing the need to create new design options for each new licence area (Hermans et al., 2020; Waardenburg, 2020).