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.

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

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.