Practicing aquatic animal welfare: Identifying and mitigating obstacles to uptake and adoption by the Australian Fishing Industry
Recent research shows general public support for Australia’s fishing industry (Sparks 2017; Voyer et al 2016) that depends on people’s assessments of industry’s commitment to implement best practice and demonstration of being effective environmental stewards (Mazur et al 2014). The FRDC has recognised external pressure for the fishing industry to move beyond compliance with environmental and other regulations and improve its performance in key areas, including animal welfare. As noted above, the FRDC has provided support for a range of research and industry initiatives to achieve positive aquatic animal welfare outcomes. The FRDC also recognises that further improvement to the seafood industry’s aquatic animal welfare practices are required.
Recent FRDC project investments has produced valuable knowledge about how when change is called for it is very important to recognise that multiple factors influence – positively and/or negatively - people’s decisions to take up those new, innovative, and/or different practices (i.e. 2017-133, 2017-046, 2017-221). These factors typically include personal values and belief systems, access to different kinds of resources required to make changes, particular features of the recommended practices, as well as a range of macro-levels factors that while they may be outside of people’s direct control still affect their choices. FRDC Project 2017-133 generated important insights about how and to what extent these kinds of factors have been keeping the seafood industry from making more substantive progress towards building greater stakeholder and community trust (Mazur & Brooks 2018).
Further work of this nature is now needed to shed greater light on aquatic animal welfare in the seafood industry (FRDC 2017-221). In particular the research should be focused on identifying the particular features of ‘best care’ for aquatic animals, the range of factors that may be obstructing industry members’ use of those practices, and examples of recent (extension) initiatives used to encourage better aquatic animal welfare.
Final report
A mixed-method approach was used to collect data and information for this research. These included a desk-top review, stakeholder consultation, and a set of interviews.
This Project identified a range of AAW practices used by some seafood producers that they believed to be ‘humane’. The Project also identified some factors enabling and impeding seafood producers’ approaches. Key factors supporting AAW uptake and adoption included a seafood producers’ openness to change and interest in learning, the relative advantages of using recommended practices, well designed and resourced extension, and positive relationships across industry, government and interest group networks.
This Project provides highly useful insights about AAW practices used by a small sample of Australian seafood industry members, which were primarily representatives of the wild-catch commercial fishing sector with two from the finfish aquaculture sector. This project’s findings support results from other recent Australian seafood industry research and policy initiatives, which have found that more appropriately designed and consistently-funded extension programs can help improve AAW uptake and adoption. However, AAW is a complex issue, and requires more than just extension. A range of carefully conceived and integrated policy instruments (e.g., market instruments, regulations) are needed to achieve substantive and lasting AAW practice change. Five recommendations have been formulated to help amplify enablers of and mitigate obstacles to AAW uptake and adoption. Suggested next steps include a workshop to draw out policy and industry-led options to enhance adoption, including feasibility of a risk assessment; and a case studies to test risk assessment and options to improve adoption.
Raise awareness of the guidelines developed by the AAWWG (Aquatic Animal Welfare Working Group) with industry and review their adoption, uptake rates and utility
Harvest and slaughter methods for farmed Barramundi to minimise fish stress and achieve premium market quality and improved fish welfare outcomes
Aquatic Animal Health and Biosecurity Coordination Program: strategic planning, project management and adoption
Australia’s aquatic animals are free from many diseases that occur overseas, providing us with a competitive advantage in both production and trade. Australian aquaculture has grown from an industry valued at AU$260 million in 1993 to an industry valued at AU$1.6 billion in 2020 (ABARES, 2021). This dramatic growth has been accompanied by the emergence of new diseases/infectious agents, e.g., NNV since 1989, Bonamia since 1992, OOD since 2006, OsHV since 2010, POMV since 2012, new YHV genotypes since 2013, PMMS since 2015 and WSD since 2016, all of which threaten the sustainability of major aquaculture enterprises. Consequently, the need for health research to support this expanding sector is also growing. The wild-harvest, recreational, Indigenous and ornamental sectors are also under threat; e.g., crayfish plague, Edwardsiella ictaluri in catfish, Perkinsus in oysters, WSD in crustacea and gourami iridovirus in a range of finfish species pose significant risks.
Thus, identification and prioritisation of aquatic animal health and biosecurity research and capacity building needs to be coordinated across all aquatic sectors to ensure synergy while avoiding duplication. FRDC, through AAHBRCP, plays a major role in addressing research needs and training in aquatic animal health and biosecurity and is able to direct funding priorities to the most pressing areas. AAHBRCP provides a cohesive national approach to FRDC-supported R&D by providing leadership, direction and focus for health R&D and other related non-R&D activities. According to an external review of AAHBRCP undertaken in 2015 the consensus among major stakeholders was that AAHBRCP provides an essential service for the aquatic animal sector. Given the success of the AAHBRCP there is a need to continue it as a means of providing the service with consideration given to adjustments (reflected in this proposal) to enhance the service it provides for the evolving needs of Australia’s seafood industry, public policy and program needs