The recreational fishing sector is facing a national shortage of people to take on roles in leadership, administration, management, advocacy and representation. There is an urgent need to build capability to address real and practical issues that are impacting on the sectors development. This shortage of new people is hindering the advancement of the needs, goals and aspirations of the recreational fishing community.

The recreational fishing sector has passionate and committed individuals who continue to strive for a better deal for the sector. However, these same people work largely in a voluntary capacity and struggle to cope with the constant deluge of administration and advocacy required. The sector needs targeted programs with additional resources to develop new leadership. It is hoped that through this project, 10 budding future leaders from Victoria, Tasmania, NSW and South Australia are identified and provided the opportunity to better understand leadership concepts and fisheries management. In doing so, it will help them take the first step on a development journey that will see them chart and steer the sector forward to reach its full potential.

This proposal will benefit recreational fishing by building the next generation of recreational fishing leaders that can effectively advocate for sustainable and responsible fishing practices, but also against future threats to the sector. The proposal is critical if we are to have a proper succession plan in place to nurture future advocates for recreational fishing in the South East. Failure to invest in this area will lead to a future gap in new and informed fishing advocates and continue a concerning trend that new leaders are hard to find for the many and varied consultation processes run by Government departments.

The importance of investing in people development programs has been endorsed by the Fisheries Research Development Corporation, State fishery managers and RecFish Research. This application aligns closely with the proposal by Jill Briggs to conduct a skills audit and develop a broader framework for leadership development in the recreational fishing sector nationally.

The NSW coastal aquaculture industry needs sound information about its economic and social contributions to coastal communities for its continued access to coastal resources to address prevalent negative perceptions. Competing coastal uses such as marine protected areas for conservation purposes and havens for recreational fishing may compromise the viability of aquaculture. For example, in recent submissions to government about commercial shellfish aquaculture leases in Jervis Bay, one submission claimed: “The contribution to the local and regional economy is estimated to be no more than $2 million. Is it worth risking a $700 million tourism industry for this small return?” Responses to this submission relied on evidence from locations outside NSW because currently there is no information available about contributions aquaculture makes to NSW regional communities beyond the value of farm gate sales. It is possible that aquaculture may enhance tourism, as it does in other regions in Australia and overseas, rather than detract from it, but without evidence it is difficult to make the case.

The NSW coastal aquaculture industry and the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) staff working on aquaculture have identified a need for a social and economic evaluation of the contributions the industry makes to regional communities. The new Marine Estate resource allocation process is based on assessments of social, economic and ecological values, threats and risks, highlighting absolute necessity of social and economic evaluations. Current trends for social responsibility reporting or certification for marketing also require social assessments. Finally, part of the need here is to improve the industry’s social license to operate. This project will provide baseline information that industry can then use to inform their community engagement strategies. DPI Aquaculture Manager Ian Lyall discovered that this kind of evaluation was planned for FRDC 2014/301 (on wild catch fisheries) and contacted the PI Kate Barclay to see if the same could be done for aquaculture, resulting in this proposal. DPI would benefit from this information for strategic planning for future development of coastal aquaculture.

Phases I&II of the SSRCP successfully raised awareness of the need for, and increased the use of, social science fisheries research to improve fisheries and aquaculture sector outcomes. SSRCP I&ll also highlighted the need for a social sciences reference group for FRABs, researchers, industry and managing agencies, and for coordination of social science fisheries research.

Across this same period the societal needs and drivers impacting marine resource management have increased in importance (Barclay 2012; Mazur, Curtis et al. 2014). Further research activity is needed to address challenges regarding the social impacts, acceptability and sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture and to better integrate research across the social sciences (including economics) and between social and biological sciences. The 2014 FRDC Social Sciences Survey indicated broad support for continuation of SSRCP activity and highlighted the Program’s role in linking social science research outputs with decision-making and representations of the industry, brokering collaborations and in facilitating the uptake of FRDC’s key national interest projects.

While there is clear need for continuing the activities that have been the SSRCP’s remit, there is the scope to extend the suite of activities by working closely with the 'FishEcon' project and, post- 30/06/15, with its legacy activities (in particular the FishEcon Network). Such a partnership will result in efficiencies in the delivery of project activities, including newsletters and other networking activities, and in project administration; provide the opportunity to develop tighter integration between economics and the social sciences in research, extension and capability building.

The Board of the WRLC has identified the pressing need for both the Board itself and the general membership to have a better understanding the the non-ecological risks associated with managing their fishery. In this context risk is defined as the effect of uncertainty on the ability of the organisation to meet its objectives. The management of this risk is is via arrange of activities that the organisation intentionally undertakes to understand and reduce the effect of uncertainty. This has not been attempted before and in order to meet the objective it is necessary to create a risk management framework in accordance with AS/NZS ISO 3100/2009 Risk Management Principles and Guidelines. This is necessary because the Standard provides the starting point, a standard vocabulary and a baseline for comparisons and assessments of risk management processes. It is however also critical that judicious use of terminology and vocabulary is employed when engaging with industry and the WRLC Board recognises that if the wider industry is to be confident that its Board is acting to best practice then the industry fully understands what that means.