There is a need for a consolidated national report on the status of key wild catch Australian fish stocks, focusing on commercial and recreational target species. One pitfall of guides like the Australia’s Sustainable Seafood Guide is their focus on entire species, without considering differences among stocks within each species. Consequently, a poor status determination for one stock can result in a poor status determination for all stocks of that species regardless of whether or not the other stocks are healthy. Government can avoid this pitfall by clearly articulating the status of individual fish stocks. Australia’s different jurisdictions have demonstrated their capacity to work constructively together to achieve common goals (e.g. joint stock assessments for shared stocks). However, the current differences in scope, depth, terminology and benchmarking in jurisdictionally based Fishery Status Reports make it difficult to readily compare the status of stocks across jurisdictions and build a coherent national status of key species.

The National Fishery Status Reports would not be promoted as an eco-labelling guide but rather as a government produced instrument designed to simplify comparison of the status of key wild capture fish stocks around Australia both within and among jurisdictions. This information would be available for the general public, policy makers and industry to make informed decisions in relation to the actual health of various stocks. The reports would also provide an important and accurate information source for international organisations (e.g. FAO). The process of producing these reports will improve communication between the jurisdictions, leading to a better understanding of the status determinations made by each jurisdiction and how these compare. One of the main outcomes already achieved from the recent jurisdictional planning workshops is the convergence on a common system of benchmarking and terminology for use across jurisdictions.

Through its policy on fisheries bycatch, the Commonwealth acknowledges that ecological sustainable development must be based on a strategic approach to addressing bycatch interactions. There is a need to mitigate fishery interactions with non-target species, particularly threatened, endangered and protected (TEP) species, consistent with AFMA’s aim of promoting the sustainable use of fisheries resources by conserving marine ecosystems and biodiversity. Industry, AFMA and researchers have previously collaborated to address bycatch issues in Commonwealth fisheries, with outputs including the implementation of mitigation devices in specific fisheries, the development of bycatch action plans, bycatch workplans and the ecological risk management (ERM) process. In many cases, however, industry cannot readily demonstrate the benefits of these activities, which is critical for differentiating Australian seafood products from those of less environmentally-friendly competitors.

There is a need for an overarching approach to bycatch mitigation to ensure consistent standards across fisheries and transparent indicators of performance. Bycatch issues are often fisheries specific, but the development of mitigation strategies in individual fisheries needs to address the same core elements, e.g. stakeholder consultation, performance testing, monitoring and compliance. Standards are required to ensure that each of these core elements are adequately addressed in response to the emergence of a bycatch issue.

Standards will also assist the fishing industry in fostering positive public perception and meeting legislative requirements, e.g. strategic assessments under the EPBC Act . Standards are particularly important to fisheries seeking to move to co-management where there is a need for greater transparency and accountability.

The development of statistics on Australian fisheries production and gross value of production (GVP) and trade is required to meet a wide range of demands.

First: The data are extensively used by the fishing industry and providers of services to the fishing industry in making investment decisions and in longer term planning of marketing strategies.

Second: The existence of these data in a readily accessible form provides the basis for a range of other activities, including the setting of research priorities by fisheries managers, industry and research organisations and the selection of a research portfolio by funding agencies. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry through ABARE, contributes to a number of international databases including databases managed by the FAO and OECD. Information at the international level can be important in relation to international negotiations on issues such as transboundary fisheries, in analysing trade opportunities and threats and is essential for participating in fora such as APEC and WTO.

Third: The gross value of production for specific fisheries are used for determining research and development levies for the FRDC and for determining industry contributions to research. Because the estimates form the basis for research levies for each fishery, it is important for the system to be independent from those involved in the management and marketing processes to ensure neutrality and integrity of the estimates.