Discussion Papers on seafood traceability and labelling
Comparative evaluation of Integrated Coastal Marine Management in Australia - Workshop
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.
Final report
Project products
Development and ongoing Maintenance of an Australian Standard for aquatic plant names
FRDC Resource: Development and ongoing maintenance of Australian Fish Names Standard 2019-2020
Post graduate support for novel governance for a changing ocean
Project funding will provide the PI with additional resources that enable him to focus on achieving the requirements and objectives of his research and PhD completion to a high standard and on-time.
The project funding application covers four key areas:
1. Additional stipend: to provide an adequate living allowance.
2. Travel: attendance of international conferences is a key vehicle to build skills an experience in the international policy and diplomacy fields as well as providing the opportunity to collect valuable research data. These skills and networks will ultimately benefit the Australian fishing and aquaculture community through the sharing of knowledge and networks.
3. Training: Facilitation training has been identified as an opportunity for development
4. Communication and content creation: developing content to assist with promoting and communicating the results of the research.
Having members and advocates of the Australian fishing and aquaculture community informed and skilled in the way international governance agreements are developed and then translated into domestic policy is extremely important, and a current gap in our capability and capacity.
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.
Embedding impact pathway thinking into the identification and prioritisation of RD&E needs and investments for FRDC
In order to support a greater degree of systems thinking in its advisory committees, it is proposed to expose all committee members to the potential approaches to priority setting through a systems lens and benefits of these approaches, and then work with a subset of Research Advisory Committees [and possibly others] to test how bringing tools such as theory of change into their deliberations could assist them to deliver better designed priorities. Working specifically towards theories of change in the committee processes, at appropriate levels of complexity, is expected to provide (i) a context to making approaches of different committee members more explicit, (ii) a basis for better design logic, and (iii) a way of more readily communicating the committee's priorities. The focus of this approach on identifying and working back from ultimate objectives helps frame what may legitimately be narrow priorities in a wider analysis of system drivers such as incoherent policy environments or climate change and thus enable larger agendas to be built around such issues across FRDC. An explicit emphasis on barriers, enablers and assumptions, as well as what is necessary and sufficient to achieve the objectives, also provides a strong basis for evaluating progress and learning. Together these attributes are anticipated to achieve the intent of supporting better FRDC priority setting and increased impact for its stakeholders.