Commercial in confidence. To know more about this project please contact FRDC.

The need for this project is to activate and engage industry in viable options towards climate resilience by 2030. This includes the need to demonstrate that immediate options exist and are viable and meaningful, while also gaining support for a clear plan to transform the industry and supply chain with support both internally and beyond the sector. The key needs are:

01 | Industry awareness of the problems and solutions around climate change and resilience is below where it needs to be to activate broad transformation. There is little action towards climate resilience (1 player) in comparison to other agricultural sectors.

02 | There will be increasing competition within the protein market to validate and promote sustainable practices and positive contributions to the environment/climate.

03 | Leaders and innovators in the industry are attempting to act in isolation with few resources to support industry and supply chain coordination and acceleration.

04 | Change around the edges that can be achieved by some stakeholders operating alone will not deliver the transformation at a scale or pace that is required to meet growing and broadly felt consumer expectations that indicate demonstrable action on climate change.

05 | There is a surplus of tools, resources and research around climate change and resilience, but to this point, little of that work has been translated into forms fishers find usable and valuable.

06 | There is a need to identify early adopters and innovators in the space to lead new ways operating into the future.

07 | There is an FRDC funded project to undertake a Lifecycle Assessment being concluded early November. This work has been preliminarily identified fuel, transport, and refrigeration as key challenges requiring new solutions/opportunities for industry.

08 | Propulsion and fuel have been identified as key challenges in wild catch fisheries achieving climate resilience and reducing carbon emissions, and will be the focus of this project.

Australia’s fisheries research agencies all conduct stock assessments of varying complexities to assess the status of key fish stocks. However, the modelling approaches taken, data analyses that underpins the stock assessments and the level of peer review that is undertaken are variable (Dichmont et al. 2018, Haddon et al. 2018). The Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS; Flood et al. 2016) program has aimed to make the reporting of these assessments consistent among jurisdictions. Additionally, in recognition of the data limited nature of many of the species being assessed in SAFS there has also been work undertaken to train jurisdictional stock assessment staff in data limited stock assessment techniques (Haddon et al. 2019). However, while there are a substantial amount of modelling tools available, most jurisdictions have stock assessment scientists that are model users rather than developers. Consequently, there is a need to provide guidance on how to use these appropriately so as to strengthen the quality of the outputs of the models. Developing guidance (defined as help and advice about how to do something or about how to deal with problems) is important and a set of stock assessment guidelines that describes each method currently used in Australia, outlines the method, required biological and fishery data, levels of uncertainty, and pros and cons is an important facet to demonstrating best practice in management of Australia’s fisheries. The guidance will provide transparency in the modelling process and has the potential to remove or moderate controversy regarding modelling outputs and the resulting management implications. This guidance (hereafter guidelines) are not intended to be prescriptive but provide guidance on a suite of methods from full-blown bioeconomic models and integrated assessments (e.g., SS3) through to data-poor approaches such as catchMSY.

Globally, Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) and artificial reefs are increasingly used tools to enhance fisheries – particularly recreational fisheries. Over the last decade there has been greater use of these tools in Australia. In recent years, FADs have been increasingly deployed including in Commonwealth waters for the purpose of enhancing recreational fisheries managed by state governments. There are concerns that the recent rapid deployment of FADs, particularly in Commonwealth waters have negatively impacted the operations of some Commonwealth fisheries such as the East Coast Tuna and Billfish Fishery. There are also marine safety concerns which extends beyond just commercial fishing vessels. There is a need to better understand the regulatory environment for FADs and artificial reefs to ensure that benefits can be realised while impacts avoided or mitigated. The regulatory environment for the deployment of FADs (and artificial reefs) in Commonwealth waters is potentially different from that when they are deployed in state waters. It also extends beyond fisheries legislation and includes the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act 1999), the Sea and Submerged Lands Act 1973, and the Navigation Act 2012. The administration of these Acts and associated subordinate legislation crosses several government agencies. In relation to the EPBC Act 1999, the Commonwealth marine area is a Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES). There is however little specific guidance as to whether FADs potentially impact MNES and how any impacts can be mitigated. In addition to better understand the complex regulatory environment, there is a need to develop more effective and fit for purpose engagement strategies with all stakeholders. There is a need for national project as it is an issue which is now cross jurisdictional.

Please note we have attached responses from three State Ministers indicating their support for a collaborative approach to this issue.