Tropical fish traps – addressing ghost fishing impacts and refinements to catch reporting/sampling
The negative impacts of lost fish traps ghost fishing are well documented and of concern to all parties involved with the sustainable harvest of seafood from the aquatic environment (Macfadyen et al 2009; Newman et al 2011; Vadziutsina & Rodrigo 2020). Essentially, lost fishing gears that continue to kill/harm fish represent an inefficiency in the fish production process, and in essence are a form of waste associated with the harvesting process, that ultimately reduces the yield and casts a bad light on the fishery itself. This project does not meet any specific FRDC priority in the current round, hence the lodgment under (Other), although because of what it attempts to address and minimise, it is likely to gain strong support from those concerned with appropriate management of fisheries i.e., minimising the wasteful use of renewable food resources at a time when there is a food crisis in the world, with parties including the FRDC, AFMA, ENGO's and the fishing industry.
Evaluation of practical technologies for Perfluoroalkyl (PFA) remediation in marine fish hatcheries
Cumulative Impact Risk Assessment Tool for Aquaculture in Australia
Difficulties with current legislation in Australia at State and Federal level make it challenging for marine farms to protect themselves, but equally for the community to have faith that aquaculture development is not harming the marine environment. An example from Tasmania is the recent contamination of Macquarie Harbour, whereby tailings from Copper Mines Tasmania (CMT) dam in Queenstown entered the harbour and undoubtedly caused environmental harm to salmon and other species. Because CMT and salmon farmers operate under different Acts CMT was not responsible for the incident but rather the government. Consequently, no investigation or clean-up ensued.
Additionally, the scope of statutory tools, such as EIS under the Tasmanian Marine Farm Planning Act 1995, is not regional and does not consider the compound interactions of and on production activities. A good example is the recent Storm Bay salmon farming expansion; while the EPBC listed handfish species in Tasmania were listed in the marine farming development plan, with a brief context, management of these species was not considered in the EIS because that process only includes direct impact of the lease position. Arguably, cumulative impacts from all development in the area will have varying impacts on the species, impacts which are not being considered under current government legislation, but are potentially the source of public ire.
For aquaculture to pursue sustainable efforts environmentally, economically and socially in the increasingly crowded near shore space requires proactive planning and transparency that is not currently possible given existing assessment tools. In particular, assessment of cumulative impacts must be addressed. Cumulative impact assessments (CIA) are gaining momentum across multiple industries due to a recognised need to apply them in the pursuit of sustainable management. CIAs are being undertaken with the protection of marines resources at front of mind, but so far there has been little consideration of aquaculture. An approach to CIA that makes aquaculture the centre point is required if we are to consider its impacts or conversely, its effectiveness.
An audit of plastic use in the fishing and aquaculture sectors
Review of national guidelines to develop fishery harvest strategies
The current National Guidelines were developed through the FRDC (Project 2010/061) with recognition of the need for a coordinated, nationally consistent approach to establishing harvest strategies for Australian fisheries. At this time, the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines (2007, now updated) provided a foundation for harvest strategy development in Commonwealth managed fisheries, however implementation of the key elements of harvest strategies (defined objectives, indicators, assessments, reference points, trigger points and decision rules) varied across jurisdictions, and gaps remained for data limited fisheries.
Similar to the proposed project, the AFMF and FRDC recognised that support for development of harvest strategies could be improved through development of the National Guidelines that focused on less developed areas of harvest strategy policy, including cross-jurisdictional and recreational management arrangements, and incorporating quadruple bottom line (ecological, social, cultural and economic) analysis into fisheries decision making.
As harvest strategy policy and incorporation of quadruple bottom line ecologically sustainable development (ESD) principles have increased as management priorities, harvest strategies have sought to incorporate increasingly challenging issues, in many cases continuing to use disparate approaches between jurisdictions that arguably hold the same objectives and responsibilities, as well as potentially competing interests.
In many cases, harvest strategy policy and development has been held back from achieving quadruple bottom line objectives due to a lack of consistency in the outlook and approach between jurisdictions, and available guidance for dealing with the complexities associated with multi-species, multi-sector or multi-jurisdictional issues. With significant developments occurring around traditional fishing and management, progressing the inclusion of cultural fishing specific objectives is also required.
In addition, the review provides opportunity to address broader issues including the relationship and function of harvest strategies in association with shared access with competing users, cultural interests, ecological issues (e.g. habitat degradation, pollution and climate change), and marine conservation areas, as well as options, incentives and trade-offs for improving data, monitoring and assessment in data poor fisheries or sectors.
The proposed review will ensure the National Guidelines remain a prominent, independent and contemporary guide for fisheries jurisdictions, managers, researchers, fishers and stakeholders in supporting the review of harvest strategy policy frameworks and the development of harvest strategies that in many cases seek to resolve complex issues and balance competing interests.
To achieve this, the proposed project aims to:
1. Review and update the National Guidelines to Develop Fishery Harvest Strategies to ensure the National Guidelines are consistent with current harvest strategy utilisation, address contemporary fisheries challenges and the most up to date information available;
2. Take stock of harvest strategies in Australia (by jurisdiction) and internationally, including how many fisheries now have operational harvest strategies adopted and those under development; and
3. Produce a report with the updated National Guidelines coupled with a detailed communication plan and associated materials to promote and communicate the outcome of the review with all stakeholders.