Given the growing importance of social science research in the seafood industry – or recognition of its relevance – there’s a need to consolidate what we have done in the past, and to look to the future. The workshop will do both. In the past, there has been a tendency for social science to be reactive – to ‘autopsy’ – a crisis in the industry after it has happened (or to be invited to autopsy the crisis by the industry). One of the key gaps in the design of social science research is the capacity to anticipate issues and design responses that can enhance the adaptability of the industry, both socially and economically. In order to do so the discipline needs to be communicating effectively with each other in regards to best-practice methodologies for working effectively with industry. We also need to situate our research within a global context that anticipates and speaks to international imperatives, challenges and frameworks (e.g. FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries in the Context of Food Security and Poverty Eradication. In the Australian context the potential issues to be engaged with at the workshop may include; sharing the fish (resource sharing, property rights, global food security); adaptability (fishing as livelihood, practice, culture, in a climate of rapid change and need for adaptation and innovation); research practice, data and decision support (how can social dimensions be monitored and incorporated more formally into decision making?; what innovations in social science practise are needed?).

There is widespread evidence, in Australia and internationally, of increased need for an improved, practical approach to integrated management (IM) of fisheries and other coastal marine activities that is able to fully embrace the social, economic and institutional aspects (the so-called ‘human dimensions), of management. Assessment and management systems traditionally neglect the human dimensions. Further, they treat sectors separately, often with different authorities managing diverse activities in different ways, resulting in inconsistencies in management across activities. The result is that there is almost no consideration of the cumulative social, economic or ecological impacts of multiple activities, and no way of informing trade-offs among activities in management decision-making.
Experience to date is that IM has been only partially successful. Management of multiple activities has been additive…squeezing one activity in among others (e.g aquaculture in light of others). While there are some examples of movement toward IM, these have resulted in partial or temporary success. There are examples where management has started toward IM, but progress has been stalled or has fallen back. In general, many preconditions exist, but it has been hypothesized that management is missing key aspects of intentional design that would allow IM to proceed.
The proposed workshop will bring together those with both the science knowledge and the operational knowledge of 8-10 Australian IM case studies and a few with international expertise, to evaluate and compare experience towards identifying key elements of success and failure of Integrated Management.