17 results
Industry
PROJECT NUMBER • 2020-093
PROJECT STATUS:
COMPLETED

Discussion Papers on seafood traceability and labelling

All food sold in Australia must comply with the Food Standards Code. Food label claims are subject to Australian Consumer Law, prohibiting false, misleading or deceptive behaviour. Australian seafood consumers face existing risks and confusion regarding species, nomenclature, and...
ORGANISATION:
Intuitive Food Solutions
Industry
Communities

Comparative evaluation of Integrated Coastal Marine Management in Australia - Workshop

Project number: 2017-214
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $14,640.00
Principal Investigator: Alistair Hobday
Organisation: CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Hobart
Project start/end date: 19 Jun 2018 - 29 Nov 2018
Contact:
FRDC

Need

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.

Objectives

1. Complete the creation of a lens for evaluation of Integrated Management that includes appropriate attention to social, cultural, economic, institutional as well as ecological aspects
2. Convene two workshops involving expert practitioners with sufficient scientific and operational knowledge of existing Australian Integrated Management case studies
3. Evaluate and compare experience on implementing IM in Australia using a single evaluative lens
4. Synthesize and report results of the evaluation and make recommendations for improved IM in Australia

Final report

ISBN: 978-1-4863-1276-4
Authors: Robert Stephenson Alistair Hobday Christopher Cvitanovic Maree Fudge Tim Ward Ian Butler Toni Cannard Mel Cowlishaw Ian Cresswell Jon Day Kirstin Dobbs Leo X.C. Dutra Stewart Frusher Beth Fulton Josh Gibson Bronwyn Gillanders Natalie Gollan Marcus Haward Trevor Hutton Alan Jordan Jan Macdonald Catriona Macleod Gretta Pecl Eva Plaganyi Ingrid van Putten Tony Smith Ian Poiner Joanna Vince
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.

Project products

Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
Industry
PROJECT NUMBER • 2017-212
PROJECT STATUS:
COMPLETED

Development and ongoing Maintenance of an Australian Standard for aquatic plant names

This project has started as a concept and has culminated in the publishing of AS 5301- the Australian Standard for Aquatic Plant Names. This is recognised as being a “world’s first” and has resulted in an industry agreed list of names at the start of this highly important...
ORGANISATION:
Alan Snow Konsulting

FRDC Resource: Development and ongoing maintenance of Australian Fish Names Standard 2019-2020

Project number: 2018-006
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $207,551.00
Principal Investigator: Alan J. Snow
Organisation: Alan Snow Konsulting
Project start/end date: 30 Jun 2019 - 29 Sep 2020
Contact:
FRDC

Need

All Australian Standards developed by FRDC will demonstrate a net benefit and therefore have an overall positive impact on Australia’s seafood industry. This means that all FRDC developed Australian Standards must provide a value or benefit that exceeds the costs to the seafood industry with associated action plans to implement continuous improvement to ensure this is met.

Public, consumer and stakeholder confidence is vital to the well-being of Australia’s seafood industry.

Australian Standards are not legal documents. However, when a government references a standard in legislation, it becomes mandatory. An Australian Standard does have status and is recognised as being a credible document. Usage of the names included in the Australian Fish Names Standard is not mandated in Australia but is listed in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code - Standard 2.2.3 - Fish and Fish Products as an advisory note (see https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2011C00569)

Standard fish names removes confusion, strengthens consumer confidence, creates market efficiencies and consistency, underpins effective fisheries monitoring and improves management of food fraud / food safety.

The use of standard fish names achieves outcomes that are consistent with the aims of industry and governments:
1 Improved monitoring and stock assessment enhances the sustainability of fisheries resources.
2 Increased consistency and efficiency in seafood marketing to improve consumer confidence and industry profitability.
3 Improved accuracy and consistency in trade descriptions enables consumers to make more informed choices when purchasing seafood and reduces the potential for misleading and deceptive conduct.
4 More efficient management of seafood related public health incidents and food safety through improved labelling and species identification reduces public health risk.

Within the next decade, the AFNS must:
• Be all inclusive including increased stakeholder awareness
• Improve the AFNS database to ensure all data is current
• Meet stakeholder expectation
• Be world’s best practice
• Be a national benchmark for sustainability
• Be part of an ongoing continuous improvement processes
• Be a transparent process to create trust

Objectives

1. Ensure FRDC maintains accreditation as a Standards Development Organisation through audits from the Standards Development Advisory Committee
2. Continue to promote and provide advice on the content and uptake of Australian Fish Names Standard and other FRDC developed standards to the broader seafood industry and government through strategic submissions and presentations to government in consultation with FRDC
3. Evaluate and implement the recommendations from the draft “Report on Stakeholder Consultation about the Australian Fish Names Standard and the Associated Processes” conducted in 2018 to ensure the AFNS continues to meet stakeholder needs and expectations
4. Continually improve the content and relevance of the Australian Fish Names Standard AS 5300 and underlying procedures to meet market, regulator and stakeholder needs and expectations.

Report

ISBN: 978-0-6450899-1-2
Author: Alan J Snow
Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.
People

Practicing aquatic animal welfare: Identifying and mitigating obstacles to uptake and adoption by the Australian Fishing Industry

Project number: 2019-023
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $100,100.00
Principal Investigator: Nicki Mazur
Organisation: ENVision Environmental Consulting
Project start/end date: 1 Dec 2019 - 14 Dec 2020
Contact:
FRDC

Need

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.

Objectives

1. Identifying best practice in (aquatic) animal welfare.
2. Identify the extent to which fishers and finfish aquaculture farms are applying best practice in Australia
3. Identify factors impeding the uptake and adoption of a selection of recommended aquatic animal welfare practices in wild-catch commercial fishing and finfish aquaculture
4. Identify appropriate strategies to mitigate obstacles to improved uptake and adoption of those recommended practices
5. Help build the Australian fishing industry's capacity to design and implement extension programs, especially those targeting increased uptake and adoption of recommended aquatic animal welfare practices
6. Contribute to increased likelihood of more widespread and enduring practice-change in the seafood industry's aquatic animal welfare practices in wild-catch commercial fishing and finfish aquaculture

Final report

Author: Dr. Nicole (Nicki) Mazur and Mr Andy Bodsworth
Final Report • 2022-03-31 • 1.78 MB
2019-023-DLD.pdf

Summary

This FRDC funded research  focuses on the obstacles to, and drivers of, positive practice change relating to aquatic animal welfare (AAW) in Australia’s wild-catch commercial fishing and finfish aquaculture sectors. It was conducted between December 2019 and March 2022 in response to growing societal expectations that production animals, including fish and crustaceans, be treated humanely ; and the need to understand how the Australian seafood industry can, and should, respond. 

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.
Blank
View Filter

Species