The need for improved resource security was articulated at the SIA Tipping Point meeting held in Fremantle in February 2019. This event was attended by seafood industry representatives from across Australia. The absence of secure access to resources, both aquatic and terrestrial, is a major threat and looming impediment to the growth and prosperity of the Australian seafood industry. This is not a new problem, but despite debate, discussion, lobbying and advocacy for more than 2 decades, it remains an existential threat to the Australian seafood industry.

Improving security is critical to providing an environment that encourages innovation and the confidence to invest and work in our industry.

Lack of certainty of access to biological and environmental resources has significant ramifications for the mental health of our people, and negatively impacts access to business opportunities and other critical business resources including finance and staff. Flow on effects from continued resource access restrictions also affect our post-harvest businesses, freight companies and local communities across Australia.

The threats to access and resource security are varied, including:
• sharing resources with, and impacts of, other marine and terrestrial users including recreational fishers, indigenous title claims, petroleum industry,
• changes to / lack of clarity surrounding government policy and legislation,
• use of Ministerial discretionary powers, as demonstrated by the Western Australian Government intervention in the WRL fishery quota and dramatic increases of pearling lease fees,
• water quality requirements associated with aquaculture operations,
• uncertainty results in risk in financing of commercial fishing operations,
• access limitations restrict growth of jobs in the aquaculture, wild and post-harvest sectors,
• changing community perceptions
• eNGO activism such as in the small pelagic fishery, quota purchases, alternate definition of sustainability and targeting particular fishing methods,
• restriction of access through increasing reserves including Marine Parks and threats of more restrictive management plans, and
• changing environmental conditions.

While the assumptions used in the NCCP epidemiological model use best available knowledge to inform assumptions for infection rates among wild carp populations in Australia, this knowledge is based on incomplete evidence. For example, it is not known through direct experimentation the rates at which the four carp strains identified in Australia will be resistant to CyHV-3. While historical records of past carp introductions indicate that the strain known to be resistant (Amur River carp) was not among Australian releases, there is not yet a comprehensive identification of carp strains and corresponding resistance. While direct testing of resistance of Australian strains through infection and genetic back-crossing trials would provide the greatest level of confidence, this approach would be both time-consuming, costly, and would need to compete for primacy with other critical experiments at the only facility in Australia able to handle CyHV-3. viz. the Australian Animal Health Laboratory. However, a different approach, using genetics and genomics can provide a much higher level of information and confidence than is currently available, while significantly avoiding the drawbacks of a direct approach. It is important to build as much confidence into epidemiological model parameters and assumptions as possible in order to:
1. Inform the primary objective of the NCCP to determine the feasibility of using CyHV-3 as a biocontrol in Australia
2. Validate or refine model outputs to best inform implementation and management planning
3. Increase confidence of the public and science community to reinforce support for planning and decision-making

The current method of measuring undersize lobster abundance (PRA) is based on catch data adjusted for multiple biases inherent in commercial monitoring, namely: water depth, water temperature, swell, fisher experience, pot type, escape gaps, pot pulling time, month and location. Biases are exacerbated by recent poor sample sizes, as many fishers choose not to fish in shallow-water areas. Developing a standardized, repeatable survey in shallow areas will provide an improved index of PRA that can be incorporated into the stock modelling: this would improve the overall assessment.
Currently fishery-independent survey data collection requires a minimum of two staff to process the catch and record information. Data entry is conducted by a third staff member. To increase cost effectiveness (for this and other lobster surveys), a more efficient data collection system is needed. Initial scoping has identified a number of possible solutions (e.g. app-based entry). This project will expand on this original scoping work to develop a solution. This will also benefit commercial lobster monitoring work conducted by DPIRD as well as a range of other surveys in similar pot based fisheries.
This survey will also provide a platform for monitoring inshore WRL habitats. This will establish a baseline against which further research into the relationships between WRL and their near shore habitats can be undertaken. This will assist with detecting and quantifying habitat shifts that may impact the fishery. For example, there is anecdotal evidence that the heatwave temporarily modified some of these near shore habitats, leading to the altered relationship between puerulus and lobster recruitment. Long-term monitoring of juvenile habitats will likely provide a useful indicator of one of the factors affecting recruitment to the fishery.