Working Together: the National Fishing and Aquaculture RD&E Strategy 2015 was published by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation for the Strategy Working Group.
© Commonwealth of Australia 2015.
ISBN: 978-0-9808007-2-2
Enquiries: Fisheries Research and Development Corporation
Locked Bag 222, Deakin West ACT 2600
02 6285 0400; from overseas + 61 2 6285 0400 frdc@frdc.com.au
To obtain this document in electronic form, visit: www.frdc.com.au/research/national-framework

Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 4
Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. 5
Executive summary ................................................................................................................. 6
Context of the National Fishing and Aquaculture RD&E Strategy .................................... 7
Background ............................................................................................................................ 7
National Primary Industries RD&E Framework ..................................................................... 8
Definitions .............................................................................................................................. 9
Fishing and aquaculture in Australia .................................................................................. 11
The sectors .......................................................................................................................... 11
Fishing and aquaculture resources ..................................................................................... 15
Drivers and opportunities ..................................................................................................... 23
Business indicators for fishing and aquaculture .................................................................. 29
Outlook for the industry ....................................................................................................... 38
Analysis of fishing and aquaculture RD&E capability ...................................................... 48
The 2013 RD&E capability audit ......................................................................................... 48
National fishing and aquaculture RD&E needs .................................................................. 55
Planned outcomes of the National Fishing and Aquaculture RD&E Strategy .................... 55
Strategic research themes and research topics .................................................................. 55
Key performance indicators ................................................................................................. 59
Implementing Major - Support ............................................................................................. 60
Implementation structure and system ................................................................................ 62
Key structures ...................................................................................................................... 62
Governance Committee ....................................................................................................... 62
Research Providers Network ............................................................................................... 63
Consultation and approvals ................................................................................................. 64
Key stakeholders ................................................................................................................. 64
Agreement ........................................................................................................................... 64
Implementation steps............................................................................................................ 66

Figure 1: Major components and relationships within Australia’s fishing and aquaculture industry 7
Figure 2: Tonnage and value of commercial fishing and aquaculture; number of recreational fishers .............................................................................. 8
Figure 3: Distribution, tonnage and value of seafood exports and imports ....................... 11
Figure 4: Australian public perceptions of the sustainability of wild-catch fishing,
2002 and 2007 .................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5: Indigenous customary fishing — catch and main locations. ............................... 16
Figure 6: Spectrum of RD&E capabilities supporting the fishing and aquaculture industry17
Figure 7: National RD&E investment (aquaculture, fisheries, legislated activities, associated environment and ecosystems) .......................................................... 18
Figure 8: Fishing and aquaculture researchers by sector .................................................. 20
Figure 9: Research capability by state and territory ........................................................... 20
Figure 10: ......................................................... Research capability by major institution type
Figure 11: Primary outcome, value chain outcomes and supporting outcomes from the National
Fishing and Aquaculture RD&E Strategy ............................................................ 23
Figure 12: ................................ Snapshot of strategic research themes and research topics, and the priorities for each sector of the industry ................................................. 24
21
Figure 13: ............................ Key structures to deliver and monitor the National Fishing and
Aquaculture RD&E Strategy ............................................................................... 35
Table 1: Seafood production, value and price per kg, 2001 –02 to 2007–08 .................... 11
Table 2: Estimates of direct and indirect employment by the commercial sector and related post-harvest activities .......................................................................................... 13
Table 3: RD&E infrastructure and capital items >$100,000, plus all research vessels .... 19

The contributions of the following are gratefully acknowledged.
Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Australian Fisheries Management Authority
Australian Fisheries Managers Forum
National Aquaculture Council
Fisheries Research and Development Corporations
Indigenous Reference Group
National Seafood Industry Alliance
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation
Department of Agriculture
Recfish Australia
Commonwealth Fisheries Association

This National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension (RD&E) Strategy establishes the future direction to improve the focus, efficiency and effectiveness of RD&E in support of Australia’s fishing and aquaculture industry over the next five years.
This is the second iteration of the strategy, with the first one implemented in 2010. The Strategy is developed as a component of the National Primary Industries Research, Development and Extension Framework, which recognises that basic and strategic research can be provided from a distance; adaptive development can be achieved regionally; and extension and adoption of research outcomes most often have a local focus.
The fishing and aquaculture industry comprises three main sectors: commercial (comprising wild-catch, aquaculture and post-harvest); recreational; and indigenous customary 1 . These complexities have a significant bearing on RD&E priorities and investment processes.
Given the inherent complexity and diversity, consultation has been critical. Mechanisms included establishing the strategy working group, a leadership group, and a broader stakeholder reference group. The latter group, consisting of over 50 members, met twice to provide input on RD&E drivers, current capability, priority research areas and changes to the RD&E structure. Input from grassroots fishers was ensured through regional workshops. The strategy evolved through numerous versions that were widely distributed for feedback.
In addition to wide consultation two comprehensive studies, 2014 Fishing and Aquaculture Sector Overview
(Sector Overview), and RD&E capability audit and assessment for the Australian Fishing and Aquaculture
Industry (Capability Audit) supported the development of the strategy.
The Sector Overview has given an understanding of the current operating environment for those in fishing in aquaculture as well as some of the opportunities that exist, largely based around the opportunities for increase in production in aquaculture and the increasing demand in line with population increases on a global scale. The
Capability Audit has given an understanding of the current research, development and extension capability in fishing and aquaculture. The synopsis of this report is that current capability is adequate to deliver on the research and development fishing and aquaculture needs in the near future.
This Strategy seeks to further develop and enhance the collaboration and efficiency built into fishing and aquaculture research from the first Strategy. Key to this is the continuation of the supporting structures of the
Strategy, both from the Governance Committee and the Research Provider Network. Both of these forums have made good progress in connecting and networking those involved in RD&E for fishing and aquaculture across
Australia.
The concept of major and supporting organisation (M-S) roles in RD&E has been incorporated into this strategy as it was in the first, recognising that RD&E activities span a broad spectrum of research — from stock assessment through to innovative broader aquatic research and supply chain development. These M-S arrangements reduce duplication, improve efficiencies and maintain key national capabilities.
1 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people also participate in the commercial and recreational sectors.

2007 … The Primary Industries Ministerial Council (PIMC) agreed to develop a national framework to provide a more comprehensive, structured delivery of RD&E services based on greater cooperation and collaboration among an interconnected web of research providers and investors. The 15 rural R&D corporations are part of this web, as are the federal, state and territory governments, CSIRO, universities and private RD&E providers.
2008 … The framework was developed with the support of all research and development corporations (RDCs) and the Australian Council of the Deans of Agriculture (ACDA). It was launched together with an over ‑ arching intergovernmental agreement in 2008, as the National Primary Industries Research, Development and Extension
Framework . This document provides the structural arrangements and commitment of the organisations – collectively referred to as ‘the Parties’ – to work collectively and collaboratively to implement the National
Primary Industries RD&E Framework and underpinning sector and cross-sector strategies.
2009 … The first Statement of Intent was signed by the Parties in June 2009.
2012 … Independent review of the National Primary Industries RD&E Framework.
2015 … Development of the second version of the Statement of Intent that reaffirms the Parties’ commitment to the RD&E Framework, and takes into account the findings of the review and relevant RD&E policies that have been developed since 2009.
Key points:
1.
The concept of ‘National R with Regional D&E’, endorsed by PIMC in 2005, recognises that basic and strategic research (R) can be provided from a distance, with regional adaptive development (D) and local extension (E) required to improve the uptake of innovation by industry.
2. The principles are intended to guide efforts to enhance the collaboration, coordination, efficiency and effectiveness of RD&E efforts nationally. In addition, continued and coordinated investment in RD&E helps to provide Australia’s primary industries with the necessary capability (people, infrastructure and information) to improve their productivity, sustainability and competitiveness.
3. The Parties (all primary industries government agencies, RDCs and ACDA) have responsibilities for primary industries RD&E investments and have agreed that implementing the National Primary Industries RD&E
Framework will have benefits of fostering a strong culture of collaboration and coordination between the Parties and other stakeholders, and help to strengthen national research capabilities to better address sector and cross sector issues. The principles will promote continuous improvement in the investment of RD&E resources nationally by helping to ensure that they are applied efficiently, effectively and collaboratively and to, inter alia , overcome capability gaps, fragmentation and unnecessary duplication in the national system for primary industries RD&E.
More information: http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/1450631/rde-statement-intent.pdf

The National RD&E Framework outlines a process by which the Parties will work together to advance strategic planning for the direction, delivery and sustainable resourcing of the national
RD&E system in a holistic manner.
Make strategic use of innovation and RD&E to drive productivity and competitiveness gains in the primary industr ies sector while making the best use of Australia’s natural resources under a changing climate. The National RD&E Framework facilitates a strong culture of collaboration and coordination between parties – the different Commonwealth, State governments, CSIRO, RDCs, industry and university sectors – to better harmonise net benefits to Australia and strengthen national research capability to better address sector and cross-sector issues. Working together focuses research, development and extension (RD&E) resources so they are used more effectively, efficiently and collaboratively to reduce capability gaps, fragmentation and unnecessary duplication in primary industries RD&E.
:

Cooperate to encourage the establishment of a more efficient and effective RD&E system nationally.

Endeavour to at least maintain RD&E funding levels for primary industries. Investments, including from savings, should be re-directed to improve the capability of the national system in priority areas.

Share information, plans and priorities for investment in RD&E to facilitate development and implementation of the Framework and underpin sector and cross-sector strategies.

Facilitate access to national research capability (people, infrastructure and information) by industry and
R&D partners across Australia.

Support processes to refresh the rural R&D priorities and to encourage more consistent and rigorous monitoring of performance of R&D targeting and delivery.

Recognise the importance of investing in extension of R&D to facilitate rapid uptake of research and innovation and agree to cooperate to ensure that adequate extension pathways are available.

Agree to work cooperatively to improve the administrative processes and effectiveness of information sharing and management.

Agree to freely share the knowledge generated through the Primary Industries National RD&E
Framework, including minimising barriers to RD&E created by intellectual property protection.

Monitor, evaluate and report on the performance of the National RD&E Framework and the sector and cross-sector strategies developed and implemented under the Framework.

Make every effort to align their own RD&E strategies and programs with the strategies developed under the RD&E Framework.
Parties have a range of roles and responsibilities but have shared interests in enhancing primary industries RD&E investments and have shared responsibility for implementing the
Framework, and for developing and implementing the underpinning sector and cross-sector strategies. Key participants are:

The Australian, State and Northern Territory Ministers responsible for primary industries

The Department Heads/CEOs of Australian, State and Northern Territory agencies responsible for primary industries

 The RD&E Committee

The Council of Rural Research and Development Corporations
 Industry Sector

Rural Research and Development Corporations and Industry Owned Companies
 The University Sector

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)
The parties will build on existing RD&E evaluation frameworks to develop monitoring and evaluation criteria and review the performance of the National RD&E framework, the sector and cross sector strategies. This includes participating in regular monitoring, evaluating and reporting activities undertaken for the rural RD&E sector and determining the information (management information) which needs to be collected to enable performance against key performance indicators to be monitored and reported upon. Reporting includes progress reports to Department Heads/CEOs and the Council of the Rural RDCs as well as an independent review on the effectiveness in achieving stated objectives within three years of implementation.
1. Define a set of national priorities for each sector and cross sector to guide research investment.
2. Identify gaps, and mechanisms to address these gaps, in national research capability on a regular basis.
3. Establish a process to allocate resources across priority areas and the ongoing maintenance of national capability and effort.
4. Establish a process for monitoring and revie w of the system’s effectiveness.
5. Establish a process for the management of intellectual property and innovation to maximise the benefits to
Australia’s primary industries.
6. Establish a process to ensure research findings are readily available and adopted rapidly.
The industry and its main sectors
Fishing and aquaculture in Australia comprises three main sectors: commercial 2 , recreational, and indigenous customary. It includes culturing, catching/taking, preserving, storing, transporting, processing or marketing of fish or fish products.
3
The commercial sector undertakes activities directed to a financial return from the sale of seafood and nonedible aquatic products. Activities are commercial wild-catch, aquaculture and post-harvest (i.e., processing, handling and retailing).
The recreational sector undertakes activities that create personal enjoyment and recreation from fishing or non-
2 Also called the “seafood industry”, although non-food items such as pearls are included among its products.
3 The definition is from the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation Regulations, Amendment 1992.

extractive use of aquatic resources. It includes fish stocking activities and commercial enterprises associated with the sector such as fish tour operators, charter operators and fishing guides, and fish-out activities from public or private impoundments. Supporting the recreational sector are commercial enterprises such as tackle manufacturers and suppliers, magazines, television shows and DVD publishers, etc.
Customary fishing is undertaken by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to satisfy personal, communal, domestic, ceremonial and/or educational needs inherent to their cultural life. Many indigenous communities and individuals also participate in commercial and recreational fishing.
Stakeholders
Stakeholders in fishing and aquaculture include:
• members of the fishing and aquaculture sectors (commercial wild-catch fishers, aquaculture producers and post-harvest enterprises; recreational fishers and associated commercial enterprises; and indigenous customary fishers)
• non-extractive users of aquatic resources
• the federal, state and territory governments (including their fisheries managers and other natural resource managers)
• research providers
• the people of Australia (on whose behalf aquatic resources are managed, and as consumers).
Basic and strategic research
Basic research is work, of a general nature, conducted in order to acquire knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts without any obvious practical application in view.
4 It is sometimes referred to as fundamental research.
Strategic research is mission-oriented and involves the application of established scientific knowledge and methods to broad social or economic objectives, often extending over a considerable period.
5
Major-support
The initial premise of the National Framework and subsequent strategies was the need for greater collaboration in RD&E for primary industries across Australia, to reduce inefficiencies and avoid duplication. A major component of this was what was termed the major-support-link, now commonly known as major-support. Under this the initial concept was conducting National R with Regional D&E, recognising that basic and strategic research could be provided from a distance with regional adaptive development and local extension being required to improve the uptake of innovation by industry.
4 Cited in The Language of Business Intelligence , a glossary by Vernon Prior, at http://www.markintell.com/b-intelligencelanguage/
5 http://www.markintell.com/s-intelligence-language/

A comprehensive study of the Australian fishing and aquaculture industry was and reported within the FRDC project 2014 FRDC F&A Sector Overview: A Report Supporting the Development of Working Together the
National Fishing and Aquaculture RD&E Strategy . This section summarises the key issues and indicators for the
Australian fishing and aquaculture industry as reported in this study.
The report is available from the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation from www.frdc.com.au
Aquaculture sector licenses are generally concentrated to fewer, larger enterprises. These large business-savvy enterprises are often vertically integrated with significant value-adding components.
Aquaculture farmers use three overall types of production systems: semi-open systems (such as net or pen culture where there is control of host movement but no control of water flow); semi-closed systems (such as pond culture where there is control of host movement and some control of water flow); and closed systems (such as recirculation aquaculture where there is good control of both host movement and water flow.
Both marine and terrestrial aquaculture volumes have increased over time. Aquaculture reached 80,066 tonnes in 2012-13 accounting for 35% of the total fishing and aquaculture commercial production. Forty eight percent of the aquaculture production was made up by salmonids. Other major contributions came from the tuna, edible oyster, pearl oyster and prawn industries.
Advanced aquaculture production techniques make it possible to produce seafood with the smallest environmental footprint of any other primary production sector. Responsible aquaculture is inherently efficient, sustainable and in a position to expand to sup ply a greater percentage of the world’s food needs.
Aquaculture in Australia faces a future of increasing productivity, innovation and investment. It is in a position to capitalise on advances in breeding, disease management, and on associated technological, advances that increase productivity while reducing environmental impacts. There are more sustainable sources of fish meal, new species coming under cultivation in a process of diversification, and growth in consumer trust based on reliable accreditation and certification processes.
F IGURE 1.
A QUACULTURE GVP T RENDS (N OM .
$'000)

600 000
500 000
400 000
300 000
200 000
100 000
0
1 200 000
1 000 000
0
800 000
600 000
400 000
200 000
500 000
400 000
300 000
200 000
100 000
0
New South Wales
Queensland
South Australia
Northern Territory
Victoria
Western Australia
Tasmania
Total Australian value
The commercial wild catch sector compromises a large number of small, often family-owned companies and a smaller number of larger businesses, a few of which are subsidiary companies of publicly listed parent/holding companies. These larger companies are increasingly being composed of a level of foreign participation.
Commercial wild catch fishers use primarily marine, but also estuarine and inland waters. Marine catch volumes in 2012-13 amounted to 157,252 tonnes in keeping with a long-term trend of declining catch volumes. However, in recent years the rate of wild catch decline in gross value of production (GVP) has slowed with the real GVP decreasing by only 8% since 2004-05.
For wild catch fisheries, biological sustainability of fish stocks is the primary indicator of fishery sustainability. An
FRDC initiative with contributions from all eight Australian fisheries jurisdictions has delivered the inaugural
(2012) and second edition (2013-14) of the Status of Key Australian Fish Stocks Reports . Included are stock status assessments for 68 wild-caught species that contribute 139,722 tonnes of the annual catch.
F IGURE 2.
C OMMERCIAL W ILD C ATCH GVP T RENDS (N OM .
$’000)
600 000 1 800 000
1 500 000
1 200 000
900 000
0
600 000
300 000
New South Wales
Queensland
South Australia
Northern Territory
Total Australian value
Victoria
Western Australia
Tasmania
Commonwealth

Australian Indigenous people are a distinct group by virtue of ancient ties to the land and sea that carry on through traditions that include customary fishing. However, Indigenous people also engage in recreational, commercial and aquaculture practices in a wide range of urban and rural environments; not just Indigenous lands.
Recently, research on Indigenous cultural fishing in NSW found that cultural fishing in the Tweed River region occurs on a regular basis, is predominantly shore-based and focussed around the estuary and adjacent coastal waters. The ten most culturally important species, based on a ranking given by participants, comprised a mix of finfish and invertebrates. In addition around 2% of commercial fishers in NSW are Indigenous and hold around
2.75% of available shares.
The Borthwick Report of Commonwealth Fishery Management noted that many Indigenous Australians believe their traditional fishing rights are largely ignored or are not sufficiently explicitly recognised by all levels of government, in part due to the fact that Indigenous fisheries in Australia have remained under the radar of the broader public. The Review noted that several State/NT governments and authorities do in fact explicitly recognise – including through legislative provision – indigenous fishing rights and opportunities.
The value that Australian Indigenous fishers attach to fishing activity and individual fish species extends beyond the values typically associated with other fishing sectors. Marine and freshwater species are an important food source, as well as a component of many cultural, ceremonial and social events. The act of fishing supports communities and families to retain their independence and connection to country, reinforce their social networks through the sharing of gathered food and maintain their Traditional Fishing Knowledge (TFK) systems. Fish and fishing are important educational tools in many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island communities, with TFK being passed on to successive generations.
Building two-way understanding and engagement between indigenous fishers and policy makers, resource managers, other stakeholders and researchers is needed, as is adoption of completed research. While many agencies are working with Indigenous people to improve outcomes, there is still significant work required to create better futures for Indigenous Australians through the use, acknowledgement and management of aquatic resources.
Australia’s indigenous communities are increasingly seeking opportunities to develop their fishery resources and related capacity to achieve a number of outcomes, including to improve diets and nutrition, retain young people in communities, engage women and men in local employment, develop local trade and business skills, demonstrate their cultural heritage to a growing international tourism industry, collaborate in investments with other remote communities, and improve health and reduce substance abuse. A current focus is the development of appropriate governance and economic models best able to support community economic development and cultural/TFK maintenance.
Although recreational fishers seek personal enjoyment and do not generate direct catch revenue, substantial economic activity arises from trade in the goods and services needed by recreational fishers, including fish tour and charter operators, with these commercial enterprises managed by the same agencies supervising recreational fisheries. All Australian recreational fisheries (including game, sports and spear) are managed by state and territory jurisdictions – there are no federally managed recreational fisheries.
Recreational fishers support about 90,000 jobs (largely in the boating and fishing tackle and bait industry) and fall into three broad groups:
1. game and sports fishers
2. charter vessel operators

3. independent recreational fishers that account for about 80% of all national recreational fishing.
Globally, the trend for wild fishery stock-use is for a societal shift from subsistence fishing to commercial fishing, and finally to exclusive recreational fishing, especially in inland fisheries. As such, recreational fishing activity increases with economic development even though many recreational fishers, even in wealthy countries, have strong subsistence-like incentives to harvest fish.
On average, across countries with reliable statics, the participation rate in recreational fishing by the total population in a given country is 10.6% +/- 6.1%. Extrapolation suggests around 140 million recreational fishers in a combined North America-Europe-Oceania zone, with around 700 million worldwide. Recent work by the
FRDC’s Recreational Fishery Valuation Committee suggests an economic valuation figure of less than $3 billion
(just less than the Australian golf sector) is in order and in some fisheries, recreational catch may exceed or be significant compared to commercial catch for many finfish species.
The 2012 FAO Recreational Fisheries report has identified difficulties that recreational fisheries have in attracting social policy support and in leveraging this support into funding and investment, both public and private.
This ‘economic valuation’ matter is a particular issue constraining the sector’s development in many advanced economies. Economists and politicians recognise the significant social role that recreational fishing plays in community welfare and its economic contribution to their economies. But typically the sector lacks the organisational, data management capacity and financial heft to describe its value proposition and put its investment case professionally and in economic terms.
An FRDC project has found that many advanced economies are looking for methods that will adequately assess the economic value (from both financial transactions and social wellbeing dividends). One such method was used in a report to the FRDC by the Recreational Fishing Economic Evaluation Committee. It found that in 2013 the sector caught an estimated 48,000 tonnes, including catch and release, with a value of $333 million, based on proxy seafood market prices for species. The report also estimated the sect or’s economic contribution was
$2.56 billion and that included:

An estimated $850 million spent on related accommodation, camping, travel and related services,

An estimated $1.55 billion spent on boating, trailers, tackle, and diving equipment and related services,

An estimated $160 million spent on other recreational fish trip expenditure.
The Committee recommended this same credible, national and internationally recognised valuation methodology be adopted as the FRDC’s basis for valuing the sector, across all jurisdictions, and as a basis for attracting
RD&E investment to the sector.

Oceans are the major untapped resource to support forecast peak global population of 9 billion in 2050 but they currently only produce 6.5% of protein for human consumption. This suggests that competition for access to and use of marine waters will increase markedly in the future. The OECD(OECD, 2014) considered the trends and implications for use of the oceans, identifying established and emerging ocean-based industries including:

Shipping and ship building,
 Off-shore wind, tidal and wave energy,

Mining for oil, gas and seabed minerals,

Marine aquaculture,

Marine biotechnology,

Ocean-related tourism and leisure activities,

Ocean monitoring, control and surveillance.
The OECD oceans study found that most of the future expansion in aquaculture production capacity will occur out in the ocean. Constraints to growth in terrestrial aquaculture include scarcity of suitable water, limited sites for new operations, crowded multiple-user coastal areas, limited carrying capacity of the environment for nutrients and pollution, and more stringent environmental regulations.
The increasing move off-shore is to escape the constraints of coastal waters, including degradation of coastal waters and habitats, endangered biodiversity due to escapees, lower resistance to economically costly fish diseases, and invasive species.
Globally, the wild fish catch peaked in the 1990s and has since modestly declined and will need to decline further for at least a temporary period if fisheries are to recover enough to produce present catch levels sustainably. The top 15 wild-capture countries harvested 57% of the global catch in 2012, with 10 of these countries located in Asia and some facing long term environmental risks and food security issues.
With wild resources fully fished, all new seafood supply is expected to come from farms, requiring a doubling in productivity in the next 15 years. Farmed seafood is considered very efficient and sustainable – better than beef and pork, and on par with chicken – with yet more efficiencies expected from untapped marine technologies, including in genetics and nutrition.
Aquaculture supply for human consumption is expected to overtake wild catch volume in 2015-20.
Aquaculture occurs in nearly every country in the world and across more than 500 species. This subsector is currently the fastest growing food production system in the world and is forecast to expand by a third, to 80 million tonnes by 2021. The major challenge for sustainable expansion is to double production per hectare of water while slowing sector demands for land based sites, preserving natural aquatic environments and avoiding damage to capture fisheries and disease outbreaks.
China dominates global seafood production and trade, and will do so to 2030. Currently it produces 62% of aquaculture supply. By 2030, China is expected to account for 37% of fish production and 38% of global seafood consumption and also dominate inbound tourism demand, with implications for Australian recreational fisheries.
If Australia is going to optimise its wild and aquaculture fisheries the nation must address what is going to unfold in China over the next 2-3 decades.
The largest seafood importers are the USA and Japan (US$25 billion each), Spain (US$11 billion), China (US$9 billion) and the UK (US$5 billion).
Competition is increasing among global resource users – food, mining, recreation, conservation. This food-

water-energy nexus is occurring at a time when biosecurity risks are high and climate change impacts are rising.
Fisheries and aquaculture supports the livelihoods of some 660 to 880 million people, or 12% of world population. About 56 million are directly employed in fisheries and aquaculture and this employment rate is increasing faster than employment in traditional agriculture and faster than population growth.
Australians have sovereign right over the world’s third largest fishing zone but both marine and terrestrial waters are nutrient poor by global standards resulting in relatively low productivity. The lack of nutrient-rich current in our 8,148,250 square kilometre marine territory sees it ranked 60th in global terms, equivalent to 0.2% of global landed tonnage. These harvests, however, are relatively high in value, amounting to 2% of global landed value.
The low production capabilities of the marine fisheries offer little opportunity to increase tonnage.
However, Australia’s aquatic resources are also characterised by diversity, stretching from the tropics to
Antarctica and encompassing marine, estuary and terrestrial ecosystems. Included is the world’s 7 th longest stretch of continental coastline and 8000 islands. Together, these waters are home to immense biodiversity – about 4500 finfish species and perhaps tens of thousands of invertebrate species. This diversity delivers a valuable flow of ecosystems goods and services, along with potential for ongoing aquaculture development and recreational and cultural fishing experiences.
Considering the scope and scale of potential uses, fishing should be considered the most expansive and dynamic source of healthy and sustainable food, economic wealth and enjoyment for the next generations of
Australians.
Real long term prices for wild catch and aquaculture products are trending down or flat, as is the case with most global food commodities.
Real aquaculture prices are lower than real wild capture prices. This divergence is due to cost structure differences on the supply side – higher energy prices on fishing vessel operations than on farmed ones, and wild catch supply that is lower than demand for certain species. Aquaculture has benefited to a greater degree from cost reductions through productivity gains and economies of scale. But looming aquafeed scarcity is pushing costs up and encouraging substitute ingredients (such as soy bean based feeds). Aquaculture production also responds to price changes with a time lag related to the restocking and production cycle.
Forecast commodity prices to 2030 by the World Bank, published in 2014, show modest real price gains for fish, but very large gains for fish meal and oil ingredient inputs to the expanding aquaculture sector.
China is, and will continue to, set both the baseline production cost and globally traded price for seafood, for the next 15-20 years. As an open economy with a floating exchange rate and a rising demand for seafood, Australia cannot avoid the collateral impacts of Chinese policy decisions on both our seafood and fishing/aquaculture industry.
Australia’s relative competitiveness has been falling in most seafood export markets over the last few years due to the high Australian dollar. New Zealand in particular (on the back of its 2008 Free Trade Agreement) has been far more successful as an exporter to China than Australia. However, Australia and China are now signatories to a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and tariffs will fall to zero over 4 years.
The driver for much global change – including for fisheries and aquaculture – is expansion in middle classes.
Forecasts predict there will be an increase in the global middle class from the current 1 billion to a possible 3 billion by 2030. This expansion is expected to emerge in India ahead of China. The Asia Pacific Region will dominate growth in both population and share of consumer purchasing power. Growth in seafood demand is also expected in large existing markets.
In 2012-13, Australia imported 228,000 tonnes of edible seafood products, valued at $1.43 billion. More than

two-thirds came from just six large Asian suppliers. Australia became a net seafood importer in 2004-5 and it is expected that imports will service rising seafood demand and continue to outstrip domestic supply (particularly for lower unit priced value added product).
Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) generally extends 200 nautical miles seaward from coastal baselines, with the Commonwealth having jurisdiction for fisheries that lie between 3-200 nautical miles of the coastline. Jurisdictions maintain their respective Fishery / Fishery Management Acts which cover all sectoral users accessing their aquatic (marine, brackish and freshwater) resources. Their purpose is to ensure fishery resources within the remit are beneficially used, and used competitively, profitably and sustainably.
The Australian Fisheries Management Forum (AFMF) comprises heads or CEOs of the Commonwealth, state and territory agencies responsible for fisheries. The role of the body is to:
 Facilitate communication and cooperation on fisheries matters between jurisdictions,

Develop and promote best practice policy principles for fisheries management,

Promote implementation and adoption of best practice fisheries management; and

Strategically address the range and complexity of cross jurisdictional fisheries responsibilities and issues through improved communication and collaboration.
AFMF has established national goals (AFMF, 2013) for the F&A Industry (with the status of progress to the goal noted in brackets):

Australia's fisheries and aquaculture industries are managed, and acknowledged, to be ecologically sustainable, (we are in the top 3 in the world but it is not widely known in Australia or overseas).

Secure access to fisheries and aquaculture resources, (most commercial fisheries have clear and secure access, but this is still a work in progress for recreational and indigenous fishers).

Profitable and viable fisheries and aquaculture industries, (this is very big unknown as we do not collect the data, nor provide economic guidance to our fishery managers in most jurisdictions to pursue it).

Supporting the health of habitats upon which fisheries and aquaculture rely, (our fishery habitat management systems are generally world’s best, but there is room for improvement).
Some states (such as South Australia and Tasmania) have also established specific aquaculture Acts/legislation to facilitate growth and streamline management in this sector. Queensland’s competition authority is currently assessing the benefits of an aquaculture act. Beyond these instruments, jurisdictions variously maintain supporting and enabling fishery/seafood legislation as necessary (such as for food safety and human health, or environmental protection).
State and Territory fishery legislation is subservient to national legislation, includin g the Commonwealth’s EPBC
Act. The EPBC Act bears directly on Commonwealth, State and the Northern Territory fisheries management in three ways:
• Assessing matters of national environmental significance.
• Avoiding impact on listed threatened species, listed migratory species, cetaceans and members of listed marine species.
• Monitoring and precluding international movement of wildlife specimens; as it relates to fisheries, the commercial export of Australian native species or species listed under the Convention on the
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
The Australian Government is committed to the development of marine reserves through the marine bioregional planning process to support the conservation and sustainable use of Australia's marine environment. The marine reserves policy integrates a variety of different zoning arrangements, including multiple-use zones allowing

continuation of commercial and recreational fishing activities that are compatible with habitat protection.

F IGURE 3.
A USTRALIAN F ISHERY J URISDICTIONS , A CCESS , S PECIES , E MPLOYMENT , AND U SE 2012-13
Use Jurisdiction Access Arrangements (ABARES 2013)
NSW
Total
NSW
VIC
QLD
WA
SA
VIC
QLD
WA
SA
TAS
NT
C’wlth
TAS
NT
10 fisheries - 1,986 licenses
9 fisheries - 723 licenses
12 fisheries - 2,725 licenses
5 fisheries - 321 licenses; 39 boats in Abalone fishery
14 fisheries - 741 licenses
5 fisheries - 890 licenses
5 fisheries - 238 licenses
16 fisheries- 301 vessels,
609 licenses
128 licenses
814 development approvals na
590 licenses
175 licenses
4 fisheries, 54 licenses / endorsements
Key Species
Prawns, sea mullet, oysters, rock lobster, abalone, crabs,
Abalone, rock lobster
Prawns, coral trout, crabs
Rock lobster, prawns, scallops
Rock lobster, prawns, abalone
Abalone, rock lobster, scallops
Snapper, crabs, barramundi
Prawns, tuna, scallops, lobster, mackerel, and mixed species
Oysters, silver perch, yabbies
Trout, abalone, mussels, Murray cod
Prawns, barramundi
Pearls, mussels, barramundi
SB tuna, oysters, abalone, yellow tail kingfish, mulloway
Salmonids, abalone, oysters
Prawns, barramundi, pearls
Employed 2011* Harvest t.
811 (1,106) 11,597
432 (514)
1,006 (1,460)
817 (1,152)
883 (1,003)
530 (643)
195 (222)
4 (7)
4,678 (6,108) 151,889
588 (709) 4,186
214 (280)
508 (551)
1,811
6,418
203 (325)
673 (766)
1,598
20,174
1,155 (935)
30 (62)
48,284
881
4,236
20,295
18,856
44,215
7,771
5,805
39,114

C’wlth
Total
Seafood Processing
Fish and seafood wholesaling
TOTAL for commercial fishing and aquaculture
NSW
VIC
QLD
WA nil
All fishers licensed. Size/bag/gear limits apply + closures. Charters licensed + records.
All fishers to hold an all-state-waters license – some exemptions. Size/catch limits apply + closures.
License not required, but permits required for some dams. Charters licensed + records.
Size/bag/gear limits apply + closures.
Licenses for abalone, rock lobster, marron, net fishing, freshwater angling. Recreational boat license introduced in 2009. Size/bag/gear limits apply + area/ seasonal closures. Aquatic tour/ charters licensed. nil
Flathead, bream, whiting, tailor
Flathead, KG-whiting, A-salmon
Whiting, bream, mullet, tailor
Aust. herring, whiting, tailor, bream n/a
3,371 (3,628)
1,783
3,981
13,813 na na na na
SA
TAS
NT
License not required, but some species (Rock lobster) do require registered pots. Charters licensed + records. Size/bag/gear limits + closures.
Aust. herring, KG whiting, garfish
Saltwater rod and line licenses not required. All fishers license for inland freshwater+ abalone, rock lobster and scallops. Gear limits + closures. Bag/size/possession limits + area restrictions in abalone, rock lobster, shellfish, scalefish.
Flathead, A-salmon, rock lobster, trout
License only required to enter aboriginal lands/waters. Fishing guides licensed+ logbooks.
Possession limits.
Sea perch, snapper, mullet
ACT/Commonwealt h
License not required in ACT, but permit required for powered vessels. The Commonwealth does not manage recreational fishing in its waters although in some avid recreational fishing areas (e.g. Narooma-Bermagui in NSW, an estimated 50% of recreational trips occur in
Commonwealth waters (Recfish Australia, 2010)
Total na na na na
Positions supported 90,000 n/a
84,606 na na na
15,190
11,812
24,514
11,485
8,123
2,446
1,885
24
75,481

Customary Subject to changes undertaken by state and territory jurisdictions
(ABARES 2013)
Unknown na

Figure 1: Major components and relationships within Australia’s fishing and aquaculture industry

The current drivers of RD&E and the opportunities on which RD&E can capitalise can be grouped under the following categories.
Market research indicates that modern seafood consumers appreciate sustainable management practices and want “guilt-free seafood”. This trend has encouraged the rise of independent standard and accreditation bodies, such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and Global Aquaculture Alliance that are among 90 bodies that offer independent sustainability assessment. The impact across the board has been to raise the standard of procedures and monitoring in fishery management, other seafood production and processing.
Retaining their Social License to Operate (SLtO) is a driver affecting all primary industries, including intensive livestock, irrigators and live animal exporters. In the five years since the last Sector Overview, this topic has become centre-of-the-plate for all fishing and aquaculture sectors.
A 2011 FRDC survey found that just over one in three people believe the industry is sustainable, one in four believe the industry to be unsustainable, with the remainder unsure. Another survey that year found that 87% of commercial fishers were concerned about public perceptions of the fishing industry.
Recent fishery management reviews have recommended changes to public consultation in relation to fisheries management plans to include consultation regarding the community’s perceptions on sustainability and related policy settings. Understanding public demand for policy changes could involve understanding how the community is informed about fisheries, looking at how this demand for policy change is influenced by the domestic and international media, and how the evidence base is communicated. RD&E has a role supporting fishers and managers by refining access and use rights, collating better data and building industry bodies with capacity to respond.
The impact on fishers and fishery managers has been large, direct and growing. The National Aquaculture
Council has also placed SLtO, at the top of its strategic priorities and an FRDC sponsored workshop in March
2014 identified policies, governance arrangements, and resources to integrate the social and economic aspects of fishery management:

Recognise that in the current Australian context, community expectations and scrutiny of fisheries management is increasing and that this is occurring against the backdrop of fisheries management and science resources becoming increasingly constrained.
 Develop or refine existing fisheries management strategies to create better integration of ecological sustainability with economic and social objectives.
 Undertake case studies (or ‘proof of concept’) that match method/approach with need and data in a variety of situations, to establish the additional resources and processes required. The results of the
Social audit project (FRDC 2010-040) should be applied/tested more broadly to provide a proof of concept.
 Investigate the need for any necessary changes in governance arrangements that are required to build increased participation and transparency into decision making processes to assure fisheries stakeholders and the wider community of the integrity of relationships and fisheries management systems.
The industry views recorded at the workshop identified twelve matters where current approaches “are not working”, including:
1. Need to demonstrate the value of the Australian fishing industry to the Australian economy.
2. Need to identify the benefits versus the potential additional costs to fishers of implementing social and economic objectives.
3. Need to identify and use language that can easily be understood.

4. Industry’s ambivalence or lack of ‘political will’ to engage with explicit social and economic dimensions of fisheries management.
5. Little to no explicit consideration of social and economic objectives in management plans and decision making, but this is not necessarily seen as a concern by the industry.
6. Commercial fishers acknowledge that seafood is a community owned resource, but one which is often regarded as ‘locally’ owned by those communities, rather than the whole of Australian community. This creates a tension in identifying which ‘community’ fishers should engage with.
7. Data generally used to account for economic and/or social concerns are only GVP based, and need to be broadened.
8. Need for clear and standardised decision rules that industry can rely on.
9. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) is currently seen by commercial fishers as a proxy for (implicit) social objectives in regard to the amount harvested and the time when fishing can be undertaken to maximise price for catch.
10. Clear and simple language and communication strategies are critical to engage fishers, in regard to the purpose and benefits of social and economic objectives and what these mean.
11. Gaining and maintaining a ‘social license to operate’ is top of mind for the majority of commercial fishers, as it has an impact on management and public perception – they want to know the connection between social and economic objectives and indicators, and obtaining a ‘social license to operate’.
12. There is a conflict between sectors (commercial, recreational and customary) regarding their relative contributions toward management costs.
Social and economic data were perceived to be relatively easy to collect; but the challenge lies in the change required in the management culture to utilise and act upon these data.
Figure 30 from Overview, page 54: Community perceptions of fishing

Does the community believe the Industry is sustainable?
Is the community aware that industry and Government working towards sustainability?
• Just over four in ten (42%) believing the industry was sustainable.
• One in five (20%) believing the industry was not sustainable.
• The remaining 38% just not sure if the industry was sustainable or not.
• The proportion of Australians who believe the industry is sustainable has increased since 2011 (up 5% from
37%); this is a statistically significant increase and indicates opinions are changing, slowly.
• There is a stronger level of confidence across the community about the sustainability of aquaculture (76%, down 2% from 2011) and recreational fishing (69% up 2% from 2011).
• While perceptions continue to be weaker regarding community perceptions for commercial fishing (just 30% believing it’s sustainable, up 3% from 2011) the improvement is a positive one.
• These results and indeed looking back to an earlier FRDC study (2003) indicate that progress in changing community perceptions is itself a long term project. It is also likely to be one that will require ongoing effort, communication and engagement.
• Community perceptions around the sustainability of commercial fishing are a key driver of their perceptions of  the  industry  as  a whole.  Focus on improving this specific result may well help drive improvements  in the ‘whole  of industry’ result.
• When asked just 15% of people reported they were aware of the efforts being undertaken by Government; whereas one in five people (20% up 4% from 2011) reported they were aware of the efforts being undertaken by industry.
• Overall awareness results point to the need for a continued focus on driving community awareness. This is interpretted to provide encouragement for continued investment in and engagement with the community in ‘telling the  story’ of the journey to sustainability.
• More than one in two adult Australians (56%) believe the Australian fishing industry is ahead of other countries in regard to sustainability (17% reporting Australia was well ahead and 39% slightly ahead). There has minimal change in this sentiment.
Who is responsible for the sustainability of Australian fisheries
How does the fishing industry compare to other sectors?
• 71% Everyone who fishes - down from 73% in 2011
• 56% State and Federal Government - up from 53% in 2011
• 46% the whole community - down from 48% in 2011
• 12% Just commercial operators - up from 9% in 2011
• 8% Not sure/don't know - up from 6% in 2011
• 7% Just the Recreational fishers - up from 6% in 2011
• Do you think Australia's fishing industry / rural sectors are sustainable? Responses below indicate the percentage odf respondant who blive that sector is sustainable.
• Fish 42%
• Dairy 52%
• Beef 51%
• Eggs 57%
• Horticulture 47%
Where is the balance between environment and supply pressures?
• The majority of Australians (60%, down 4% from 2011) continue to believe the industry and Government should achieve an equal balance between supply of fresh fish for consumption and the delicate environmental needs of the marine environment.

Competition is increasing over access to aquatic resources within a rights-based framework as the Australian community’s values change and public expectations over the use of aquatic resources evolve, as in the case of marine protected areas.
Managing access and competing claims on aquatic resources will require establishing the economic, environmental and social value of various activities so as to inform processes that establish users’ access rights. This requires understanding natural resources beyond the economic and ecological to include cultural, societal, spiritual, ceremonial and personal values.
The complexities in the management of shared stocks/sites are compounded when they are a shared responsibility between different jurisdictions. Such sharing occurs domestically across state jurisdictions or between the Commonwealth and a state and, in the case of highly migratory species, they can be shared across national boundaries. Challenges are multiplied when different management regimes (such as effort versus quota management) are applied across the boundary. Domestic stock sharing issues also occurs in relation to species that are caught and landed by both commercial fishers and recreational fishers.
A further complication arises due to the dynamic nature of fishery stocks due to climate change.
Species movement will require realignment of resource access and sharing arrangements to optimise community and commercial returns.
Data access is an ongoing issue in the Recreational Fishing sector – in turn this is a barrier to informed and efficient resource sharing between sector users. While many stocks are accessed by both commercial and non-commercial fishers, the amount of competition between different sectors varies from stock to stock and location to location.
RD&E can assist to ease pressure from competing values of end-user by developing new methods to improve the productivity of the natural system, replenishing resources or creating new resources. It can also provide methods to assess the social, health and economic benefits of recreational and indigenous fishing while ensuring broader benefits reach and are understood by communities.
Each of the four sectors – wild commercial, recreational, customary and aquaculture - involves activities by stakeholders who are economically and financially motivated to access and use fisheries resources.
Wild catch commercial fishers seek “financial return” on their risk capital (both fixed assets and operating margins) from consumers, as do aquaculturists. Recreational and sports fishers spend around $2.5 Bn annually on gear, equipment, charters and advice to achieve their “welfare return”. By its nature the customary fishery has limited motivation for direct commercial returns, but there is increasing evid ence of and public policy support for indigenous fisher communities’ investments in commercial fishing and aquaculture activities as a way to fund the maintenance of their traditions and employ their young people.
But there are significantly different financial risk profiles for investors in each of the wild catch and aquaculture activities, regardless of their sector affiliation. In wild catch fisheries, vessels, boats, marine and aquatic equipment is a depreciating asset exposed to some of the harshest asset management conditions known. Vessel productivity and value is directly related to its capacity to provide a stable and secure harvest platform to accommodate all the latest technology, software, professional fishers, and harvest innovation at sea. These assets must be committed for some

years in advance (often based on debt rather than equity finance), with uncertain knowledge of the future access to the resource, or the harvest yield from the resource subject to TACC or effort regime, or the landed price of the future fish harvested.
On the other hand aquaculturists (like other terrestrial farmers) have a stable and known production and harvest location and can leverage and mitigate climatic and resource opportunities and risks. They also have the benefit of being able to control genetics and nutrition, while facing significant productivity issues in herd/stock management, disease and predation. A key advantage is that they can tune production to meet a known market time and need with greater certainty, and can standardise the size and format of the fish/seafood product to be landed and processed. It is no surprise then that the aquaculture average costs for a fish is typically less that the wild catch average cost for the same fish species. Overall, aquaculturists can better manage risk for their production unit and for their customer. This enables better finance access, and turnover of capital as profit.
Good governance is recognised by stakeholders as essential to sustainable fishing and aquaculture, there is a growing emphasis on the protocols, data, expertise and channels that allow natural resource management to be innovative, streamlined, cost-effective and that enable producers to maximise economic yield. Government policy should favour simpler, more costeffective regulation of industry. Added to this is the current constraint on public expenditure and services favours targeted investments within collaborative public-private projects.
The federal government has announced a range of changes it plans to deliver during its term with implications to research and development, such as bioregional marine planning, developing a recreational fishing survey, responding to the Borthwick review of fisheries management and developing a new aquaculture strategy.
In the Commonwealth, cost recovery arrangements have been identified as a restraint on the levels of investment on research and assessment of stocks. While the Borthwick Fisheries
Management Review found the current cost recovery to be sound, it recommended the role of alternative approaches be explored – noting that for some smaller fisheries, costs were high as a proportion of gross value of production making it difficult to fund research. These issues are also seen in many state based fisheries. With trends towards larger fishing companies, there is likely to be more pressure for a stronger partnership approach and more delegated forms of comanagement.
The risk to industry of additional transitional or implementation costs of new policies should be matched by the potential for increasing prices for the product. Other factors may limit price increases – such as substitution by cheaper imports (where regulatory costs of production are relatively less). The gap in regulatory cost between domestic and imported supply is also repeated to a lesser extent between Australian jurisdictions. For example, the regulatory burden and hence cost on Whiting supply is quite different between the jurisdictions but it is a single national market with little or no opportunity for differentiation given a lack of effective traceability
(ABARES, 2013 Aug)
Aquatic Animal health and biosecurity remains a key priority for fishing and aquaculture in
Australia, with key animal health risks present in the aquaculture industry namely in relation to; disease detection and diagnosis, understanding the biology of disease agents, enhanced training and access to appropriate veterinary chemicals.
Pest organisms, including translocated species and pathogens, are an increasing threat to

Australian fisheries and their ecosystems. They may adversely affect native species or farmed non-endemic species for food and habitat, by predation, or by introduction of disease. Borne by international trade in live aquatic animals, bait fish, aquaculture feeds and foodstuffs, and global logistic and human travel, the risk will continue to rise in concert with globalisation and climate change. Chemical contamination from land-based industries and agricultural and urban development is also a factor in aquatic animal health.
Nationally, Australia is well prepared for biosecurity incursions in terrestrial industries. But it is less clear that we are able to identify the risks and are ready to defend the health and security of aquatic animal and plant species and their dependent communities and users.
Key to research and development in aquatic animal health and biosecurity in Australia is the
Commonwealth government’s strategic plan AQUAPLAN 2014-19. This is the third such strategic plan produced by the Commonwealth government to support sustainable, productive, and profitability of Australia’s aquatic animal industries.
Human food, health and geopolitical outcomes to 2030 are viewed internationally as subject to the compounded impact of climate, biodiversity, food security, water and energy – referred to as
“the Nexus”. Many impacts, some unforseen, will change where and how we fish and farm in the future. Modelling by the CSIRO suggests that by 2030 the changes will be manifest as impacts of changing climate and ocean conditions, including:
 Regional shifts in wild fish stocks, which will also require Fisheries Managers to distinguish between climate change impacts and fishing impacts on the marine environment.

Changes in spawning times.
 Contraction of suitable habitat for aquaculture reliant on cool water conditions.

Habitat change due to species invasions.
 Higher intensity extreme weather events affecting onshore and coastal aquaculture.

Southward movement of benthic and demersal fish species prominently in the east and south-east.

Some populations may decline.

Continued decreases in the zonal west winds are likely to lead to continued depletions and potential collapses of demersal fish stocks.

Changes in temperature, current patterns, and primary and secondary production may affect larval fish health and transport thereby influencing recruitment potential.

Climate change impacts will potentially combine with fishery impacts to exacerbate further depletion of groundfish stocks.
Adapting to Nexus impacts will require ongoing investment in understanding the vulnerability of fish stocks and ecosystems, the development of tools and cross-jurisdictional resources to assist industry to adapt, the means to reduce the industry’s own greenhouse gas emissions, and the acquisition of resilience to economic shocks related to the Nexus such as spikes in input costs like non-renewable fuels or aquafeed reliant on wild-caught marine life.

At first glance Australia’s fisheries have considerable upside capacity available to meet existing market demand and potential growth in demand. However, all yield from a fishery is not viable yield – prices and costs that determine fishery or farm viability are dynamic and fluctuate frequently. As an open trading economy Australia’s local and global A$ revenues are set by overseas competitors (in line with overseas marginal production costs). In many cases, the only response available to influence profit margins is to manage fishery access, harvest and production or processing costs. So the fact that yield upside exists does not necessarily mean that it is worth chasing.
If markets here or overseas, raise their demand for Australian produced seafood and fishery products, fishers and farmers will be motivated to invest and increase supply, for a given price.
This is going to happen as the middle class grows in China and India. But will our fishers/farmers be better off to supply more products at the same price and margin per sale, or supply at a different level and margin per sale? The answers will vary considerably depending on whether the species comes from a limited entry wild harvest fishery or a seafood “aquaculture factory”.
According to CSIRO, Australia is a world leader in using fisheries economics to improve the longterm profitability and viability of the industry. While many experts across global fisheries are talking about pushing maximum economic yield (MEY) to the forefront of fisheries management,
Australian fisheries are the only group already doing it. Leading fisheries such as the Northern
Prawn have become champions of the economic data, with economic modelling changing the focus for the fishery to healthier, more viable outcomes. The next step in the development of these indicators is to integrate environmental and social indicators into the economic framework.
Australian producers must guard against being trapped in the commodity end of the seafood supply business and competing at the same landed price as imported product. In an open traded and wealthy consumer market economy, such as Australia, there is nowhere to hide – there will always be readily available, good quality, substitute products at very competitive commoditydriven prices.
Barramundi and prawns demonstrate the problem – industry must differentiate before driving yield growth. Both sectors are (correctly) now investing to rebrand/reposition and differentiate their products to find and offer discerning local consumers a more environmentally sustainable and attractive value proposition that promises a better meal experience. This strategy may also work to service overseas customers if the A$ remains competitive.
With an increasing share of imported Barramundi coming from fingerlings that were bred in
Australian hatcheries, perhaps yield gains can be driven not by end user fish products, but by bigger picture thinking and investment, including genetic capacity . Reference to Australia’s more mature pork chicken and beef industries suggests this is exactly where the industry should be considering. Opportunity for these collaborative service trade options may be revealed in the three new Free Trade Agreements being launched. If Australia cannot compete selling commodity food, it may be possible to sell ideas about enhancing the food system.
Nonetheless, where yield growth is the preferred pathway to increased returns, there are options to increase Australian fishery and aquaculture yield, if there is a viable customer ready to fund the sale.
Table 1: Seafood production, value and price per kg, 2001 –02 to 2007–08 OUTDATED?

TONNES
Total wild-catch
Total aquaculture
Total commercial
GVP $’000
Total wild-catch
Total aquaculture
2001 –02 2002 –03 2003 –04 2004 –05
192,398 207,031 223,138 231,085
44,746 45,943 43,475 48,014
2005 –06 2006 –07 2007 –08
191,640 183,423 173,178
54,539 60,142 62,503
237,144 252,974 266,613 279,099 246,179 243,565 235,681
1,698,514 1,570,607 1,447,778 1,451,770 1,424,092 1,405,070 1,318,494
731,163 734,470 731,811 634,082 742,346 805,690 868,355
Total commercial 2,429,677 2,305,077 2,179,589 2,085,852 2,166,438 2,210,760 2,186,849
NOMINAL PRICES A$/kg
Total wild-catch 8.83 7.59 6.49 6.28 7.43 7.66 7.61
Total aquaculture
Total commercial
16.34
10.25
15.99
9.11
16.83
8.18
13.21
7.47
13.61
8.80
13.40
9.08
13.89
9.28
Figure 3: Distribution, tonnage and value of seafood exports and imports OUTDATED?
Robust supply chains are central to the success of agricultural industries in an increasingly competitive global market. Lowering costs and increasing supply chain differentiation will be critical for Australia. The key is to create, or re-create, contestable supply chain organisations aligned with the producer in three possible ways:

For chains dominated by large corporate players it is critical to raise alignment and trust

along the supply chain, particularly with respect to encouraging investment.
 Chains that are concentrated, characteristically cooperative structures with large players, need to keep working to reduce capital constraints.
 Smaller industries (such as seafood) with relatively fragmented structures often lack an industry leader that drives innovation. Besides further consolidation, this calls for greater cooperation among players. Deep and sustained involvement by industry bodies could help drive this.
The Port Jackson Partners’ report also highlighted a critical need for additional investment in infrastructure. Areas relevant to seafood include:

Road infrastructure investment that enables more regions to have access to higher productivity vehicles such as B-triples. Raising access to these vehicles will not only increase productivity but also improve cost competitiveness and contestability with rail, although this should be seen as complementary to investing in rail, rather than a substitute.
 Rail infrastructure investment, especially in Australia’s east coast would help to address transport bottlenecks.

Port infrastructure investment, as ageing terminals are unable to handle larger deep-sea ships.
The broader seafood supply chain includes numerous regional fishery co-operatives, processors and vertically integrated companies as well as major (Sydney and Melbourne) urban and regional fish markets supplying wholesalers, exporters, restaurants and the general public. There has been significant consolidation in the seafood wholesale sector over the years.
Very little value-added processing of fish products occurs in Australia for either export or domestic consumption compared with other food commodities. The majority of establishments undertake only basic processing, such as cleaning, filleting, chilling, freezing and packaging.
The Australian seafood industry is fragmented and has a limited ability to form a whole of industry marketing capability. Recent changes to the Primary Industries and Energy Research and
Development Act 1989 allow more rural research and development corporations, such as FRDC, to undertake marketing functions will help to address this issue.
Australia operates small but high quality /high sustainability wild fisheries and aquaculture farms.
This provides a sound basis for capabilities and expertise in aquaculture (including aquaponics) consulting, equipment and technology, marketing, research and development.
Australian companies have experience in designing and producing systems for marine environments (such as sea ranching, surface lines, subsurface lines, racks, sea cage culture, land-based marine ponds and tanks and hatcheries); freshwater environments such as pond and tank systems; in recirculating aquaculture systems and their use in production of sustainable fin fish farming, such as Barramundi, Murray Cod and Sea bass ; and in research facilities.
Australian trade development and seafood research centres are currently contributing to a range of research programs for overseas clients, including in genetics and aquaculture system development for species including Rock lobster, Sea bass/Barramundi and Trepang.

It is clear that Australia is managing two commercial fisheries resource. There is a leading cohort of high value traded fisheries increasingly dominated by visible and emerging aquaculture. Then there is a larger group of smaller (mostly wild catch) domestic fisheries.
The leading 8-10 commercial species that contribute 80% of $GVP:
 Service discerning global and domestic consumers.

Are at or approaching competitive global niche market scale.
 Are native /long adapted species produced from wild catch or aquaculture harvests in a sustainable environment that is available to leverage their trade branding.
 Are increasingly operated by larger corporatised entities along the value chain, that predominantly harvest from few locations, have dedicated supply chains, and appear to be better able to access capital, invest in marketing, and attract and retain human capital.

Maintain a large export component, which is both a threat (such as currency and import risk), but also offers leverage advantages (such as Free Trade Agreements with China,
Japan, and potentially India).
 Have/are establishing dedicated local R&D capacity (such as Industry Partnership
Agreements with FRDC/SCRC investments) and funding.
The next 20-25 commercial species contribute about 20% of $GVP. These species:
• Service domestic consumers who have increased access to imported seafood whose quality and provenance is improving every year.
• Are sourced from smaller wild catch fisheries, with minimal aquaculture opportunity.
• Lack operating scale (by species and by license holding), both at harvest and from multiple landing locations, and therefore must share a joint commodity supply chain to offset their higher average unit costs.
• Are exposed to import seafood commodity competition (mostly from Asian based aquaculture), and from loss of access due to marine park expansion and alternate resource users (such as recreational fishing).
• Are SME dominated with limited license holder collaboration on consumer marketing or branding power in most fisheries.
Based on these data, it is possible, maybe even compelling, to suggest that within a couple of decades the Australian wild catch sector will be a niche supplier of sustainable branded, high quality, traceable seafood (amount to about 30% of domestic demand) and marine recreation.
Aquaculture industry will be the commodity supplier of 70% of our seafood, both locally grown and imported.
Figure 47 summarises the headline figures and trends over five years to 2013. Key points are:

Annual Nominal GVP growth for F&A is +1.74%, compared to +1.75% for the Top 10, and
-1.43% for the Next 20 species (the Top 10 is driving all the industry growth),

In GVP terms, the 10 leading species contribute a relatively stable share of F&A GVP
(~8o%).


Aquaculture now comprises 50% of GVP for the Top 10 species, but is around 43% for all
F&A GVP.

Total F&A harvest tonnage is falling slowly over time, but the Top 10 species are increasing their aggregate share – up from 46% to 52% in 5 years.

Aquaculture is increasing its tonnage share of the Top 10 F&A species, where it has grown from 50% to 60% in five years, mostly from Salmon farming.

Aggregate tonnage for the next 20 species is quite volatile but the trend is a decline at
~1.8% p. a.

F&A export tonnages are quite volatile, but trending down from 44,000 tonnes to 35,300 tonnes in the last 5 years. The Top 10 species are increasing their share of these exports by ~2% p.a. reaching a 75% share in 2013.
 Imported volumes of seafood products are harder to asses due to the multiple and mixed formats (e.g. unspecified prepared and preserved seafood). But gross import tonnages appear to be rising at about 3% p.a., with the Top 10 species comprising a steady 41-
42% of the volume.
Key Species
Species / type
TOTAL AUSTRALIAN CATCH 2013 WILDCATCH AQUACULTURE TRADE
Rank
2013
Rank
2008
Beach
GVP $’000
Cum.% of
Total GVP
Tonnes Beach
GVP $’000
Cum.% of
Sector GVP
Tonnes Beach
GVP $’000
Cum.% of
Sector GVP
Tonnes Identifiable Exports
Est. Tonnes % of Prod’
Identifiable Imports
Est. Tonnes

Mullet
Squid
Mussels
Ling
Bream
Billfish
Pipi
Emperor
Aust. salmon
Silver perch
Flathead
Coral trout
Sardine
Whiting
Mackerel
Blue grenadier
Scallops
Salmonids
Rocklobster
Prawn
Abalone
Tuna
Edible oysters
Pearl oysters
Crab
Barramundi
Snapper
Shark
33
27
24
20
32
31
23
25
18
28
22
19
13
15
14
16
11
10
12
8
9
7
6
3
5
4
2
1
25
26
23
24
27
28
21
22
19
20
16
17
18
14
15
12
13
10
11
8
9
6
7
3
4
5
1
2
5,930
5,651
4,895
4,851
13,721
12,656
10,195
6,342
4,002
3,277
25,627
24,738
23,820
16,778
16,272
15,507
14,685
94,539
79,170
52,630
45,788
32,583
26,608
496,863
450,973
277,078
189,659
177,215
89%
89%
89%
89%
87%
88%
88%
88%
89%
90%
85%
86%
87%
82%
83%
84%
85%
80%
81%
71%
74%
76%
78%
21%
40%
51%
59%
67%
5,930
5,651
4,895
4,851
13,721
12,656
-
6,342
4,002
-
25,627
24,738
23,820
16,778
16,272
15,507
14,685
-
-
52,630
13,017
32,583
26,608
-
450,973
217,016
165,974
23,715
1,106
1,593
561
824
4,722
2,929
3,584
1,002
2,820
256
3,892
774
38,437
2,851
2,494
4,007
2,187
12,530 na
4,634
5,142
4,177
5,720
42,978
10,549
21,145
5,253
11,376
87%
87%
88%
87%
86%
86%
86%
85%
85%
85%
85%
78%
80%
81%
85%
73%
78%
78%
68%
68%
71%
64%
64%
64%
-
33%
50%
64%
-
-
-
3,277
-
-
-
-
-
-
10,195
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
32,771
-
496,863
-
60,062
23,685
153,500
94,539
79,170
1,002
1,106
1,593
561
824
2,820
-
2,187
4,722
2,929
-
38,437
2,851
2,494
4,007
4,634
1,582
4,177
5,720
3,892
774
-
10,549
17,403
4,529
3,890
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
417
-
-
-
-
394
-
-
-
-
446
-
2,584
7,819
3,917
2,818
8,901
-
-
-
256
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,584
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,560
-
42,978
-
3,742
724
7,486
12,530 na
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
19%
-
-
-
-
14%
-
-
-
-
10%
-
78%
-
-
6%
74%
19%
54%
92%
92%
92%
92%
92%
92%
92%
91%
91%
91%
92%
91%
91%
91%
91%
91%
91%
91%
88%
91%
91%
71%
80%
88%
48%
48%
54%
56%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,121
-
19,860
3,685
4,018
-
1,343
-
534
-
-
1,527
-
-
11,945
807
34,752
4
46,931
517
-

Blue eye trevalla
Threadfin
Other fish
Other NEI
Other crustaceans
Other molluscs
Total
30 na na
29 na na
29 na na
30 na na
2,849
2,767
169,856
61,263
10,971
1,723
2,381,482
90%
90%
100%
309
654
24,797
3,841
538
874
228,556
2,849
2,767
149,672
6,223
7,631
1,723
1,348,856
99%
100%
100%
88%
88%
99%
309
654
23,377
196
397
874
148,490
The fishing and aquaculture industry is administered by 8 jurisdictions – the Commonwealth, 6 states (NSW, VIC, QLD, WA, SA, TAS), and the Northern Territory. This arrangement has existed since Federation in 1901. Industry challenges are compounded and complicated by governance complexities in fishery management across jurisdictions. Under the Offshore Constitutional
Settlement, there are over 59 arrangements that determine how cross-jurisdictional stocks are to be managed. There are also three joint authorities. Such sharing occurs domestically across state jurisdictions or between the Commonwealth and a state and, in the case of highly migratory species, they can be shared across national boundaries. Data collection on recreational and customary catch remains a challenge and real constraint on improving fishery management in shared fisheries as resource sharing emerges as an important issue for industry.
-
-
20,184
55,040
3,340
0
1,032,626
Australian’s each spend about $130 and consume around 24 kg of seafood annually. About 72% by volume of what we consume is imported, dominated by canned tuna and prawns.
Consumption and expenditure have increased (consumption was 13.5 kg of seafood per year in
1993) and is predicted to continue to increase.
Australia’s consumer demand for seafood exceeds the capacity of domestic production. Growth in domestic aquaculture may be able to go some way to filling this gap in the long term, although the industry would need to build considerable capability to produce high-tonnage species that meet Australian consumers’ requirements for inexpensive, boneless, skinless white-flesh fillets.
Seafood imports will continue to be necessary to meet domestic demand into the foreseeable future. Australia shares this trade imbalance with most other advanced western nations.
In 2012 the FRDC commissioned ABARES to undertake a scoping analysis of the employment, education and training needs of the Australian seafood industry but the key conclusion revealed difficulties accessing the limited datasets and a gap in the current information available on employment, education and training for the seafood industry in terms of coverage and reliability.
Commissioned reports often are used in jurisdictions to try to fill the information gap. These are typically (and appropriately) targeted to local issues. While these reports often add valuable insights, they do not enable a sufficient aggregate picture of the skills base and productivity issues across the whole industry and supply chain.
100%
100%
100%
92%
92%
94%
100%
-
-
1,420
3,645
141
0
80,066
8,008
-
-
-
-
-
35,304 na
-
-
-
-
-
15%
99,347
-
-
-
-
-
228,391

Figure 7 below outlines the current labour market issues identified by ABARES through industry surveys.
ABARES Australian fisheries and aquaculture statistics 2013 identify that there are a total of
8,608 people employed in fishing and aquaculture in Australia in 2012-13 (5,050 in fishing and
3,558 in aquaculture). It has previously been recognized that the basis of these figures
(Australian Bureau of Statistics census data) does likely not capture the full extent of employment in fishing and aquaculture, especially the indirect figures. While there is no data it is thought that the actual figures are much higher than those reported.
F IGURE 4.
C URRENT F&A L ABOUR M ARKET I SSUES
•
Respondents highlighted the following main recurrent issues:

General shortage of workers to crew vessels across all the major skill sets, especially engineers.
Remoteness and increasing safety and insurance risks make for stringent certification and maritime regulatory standards. Wage competition from mining is acute in WA and Qld.

The mineral resources sector being the main area of competition and loss of skilled employees.

Australia-wide shortage of workers across fisheries – only larger businesses can afford to train-on-the-job.

Lack of industry-specific training for commercial fishing.

Immigration restrictions in sourcing skills from overseas.
• The lack of skilled employees is so acute that many fishing businesses will recruit from overseas through work visa arrangements.
• A longer term trend is the retirement of older high-skill employees who cannot be easily replaced with young people (if they are available).
• Lack of interest in fishing jobs stems from the nature of the work - extended periods away from home in difficult operating environments. Younger people cite the poor access to modern communications.
• Younger people’s lack of interest in the industry include uncertain career paths, the view that industry is relatively informal, little career advertising being undertaken, few registered training organisations offering training opportunities, and the general seasonality of the work.
• The shrinking commercial fleet is likely to exacerbate skilled labour shortages - a smaller fleet size will increase competition for the less skilled to enter the industry.
• WA Rock Lobster has fewer issues now that the fleet has downsized, but there are growing shortages in northern
Australia as the large gas industry developments unfold.
• Increasing role for peak industry bodies to provide increased assistance to regulators to develop policy and
•
Skills are steadily increasing and job applicants are better qualified.
• Shortages arise for unskilled and skilled (farm managers, technicians). Graduate skills are lesser problem as they can be sourced overseas.
•
Frequent mismatch of applicant expectations and dayto-day tasks.
• Unskilled labour demand on remote farms is seasonal, with higher labour demand at harvest - therefore large turnover of unskilled staff.
•
Backpackers /grey nomads often fill the gap - employers have no motivation to train them or boost long-term productivity.
• Relatively low wages paid in the sector when compared with other sectors of the economy, exacerbates the high turnover.
• Lack of career pathways, or knowledge about pathways.
• Lack of employment tenure (part-time, casual), industry profile, wages and competition from other sectors
(mining, agriculture) combined with poor job security and poor conditions.
• Lack of a corporate culture and workplace pride in being part of a successful organisation.
• Specific training courses are not appropriate to species farmed.
• Oysters - skilled labour is short in a range of areas for enterprises, from hatchery technicians to farm managers.
• Barramundi and Prawn - farms see little need for additional labour at present. Extreme difficulty in approving/expanding farm given current state/territory government regulations, means low demand for additional workers. Focus is on upskilling existing staff.
• Salmon - farms face difficulties filling supervisory positions as older workers retire - also lose skill base.
Limited number of young people applying for jobs - due potentially to poor understanding of the career paths available in the sector
•
Seafood processing can involve a range of skills. These include cleaning, filleting and cutting fish, preparing smoked or marinated seafood, preparing sashimigrade fish, freezing fish, preparing shaped and crumbed products, opening oysters and other shell fish (shucking), grading and boiling prawns/crustaceans and packaging seafood.
• At the sale and distribution end of the supply chain of seafood to consumers, workers need a clear understanding of the products being sold - the correct marketing names and seasonality of seafood, safe handling of fish to avoid food safety hazards, handling and packaging of seafood products, and the ideal cooking methods. At this level of the supply chain, workers may be employed by small specialist seafood suppliers, by restaurants or in seafood sections of large supermarkets.
Vocational qualifications in seafood sales and distribution are available.
• The ageing population and the unpredictable future of the wild-catch sector are reported as having flow-on effects on the post-harvest sector.
Respondents reported that attracting and retaining skilled oyster shucking, fish filleting, prawn grading and processing and trained retail workers is a challenge for the post -harvest sector.
• Some respondents felt that a strategic plan promoting the industry and encouraging younger people into various jobs would be beneficial.

direction toward meeting the industry’s future labour and training needs.
•
Tuna - although located near a large regional centre, the Tuna sector still has constant labour supply shortages for skippers, deck-hands and divers.
A number of recent reports and papers have assessed the skills and productivity issues from an
Australian perspective and identified the need for urgent action along pathways to improve industry productivity and skills, including relevant to fisheries and seafood productivity. Included is the Department of Agriculture Competitiveness Green Paper 2014 summarised below.
Figure 5. DoA Competitiveness Green Paper 2014
Infrastructure
Competition &
Regulation
• Transport bottlenecks & inefficiencies including for air, se, road, rail, intermodal networks
• Communication networks, including NBN rollout, and satellite and mobile blackspots
• Market power of intermediaries and need for price mechaism transparency
• Opportuinities to reduce regvulatory burden, and better align regulation across jurisdictions
(e.g. CoOL, agvet chemicals, GMOs, to boost supply chain contestibility)
Finance &
Business
Foreign
Investment
• High debt levels and low return on assets across producer enterprises
• Business models and structures, including economies of scale
• Access to better information to manage enterprises
• Taxation
• Ways to attract appropriate foreign investment, inclunding FIRB and Austrade input
• Greater transaparenct due to establishment of a register of foreign investment
Education, Skills,
Training &
Labour Supply
• Determining current and future skills needs
• Suitability of the education system
• Career paths that attract future agrifood students
• Industrial awards and oversees labour supply
RD&E
Accessing
International
Markets
• Improving the role & efficiency of RDC Model
• Aligning the model with community needs advanced technologies, biosecurity, natural resource management, adoption of research
• Decentralisation of government centres/services
• Other models and capacities e.g. CRC's, CSIRO
• Boosting commercial returns from research by boosting incentives for collaboration, including via taxation
• Trade reform and FTAs etc
• Food security for our trade partners

Over time, usage of aquatic resources changes in response to economic, social and environmental dynamics.
Where is wild catch yield growth possible? About 50-70% of the Commonwealth fishery TACC was uncaught in 2011-12. Rough numbers suggest this equates to a GVP yield foregone of around $200 million annually across Commonwealth fisheries that deliver an annual GVP of $310 million, a significant loss of fishery economic potential. The figure also makes it is clear that the
TACC’s are fully fished for species with strong markets – Southern bluefin tuna (aquaculture ranching), Western rock lobster (wild catch), Pearl oysters (aquaculture ranching), and Abalone
(wild catch).
Figure 6. Potential Wild Fisheries offering yield growth
Fishery
Commonwealth
Fisheries
2011-12
TACC tonnes
83,715
2011-12
Harvest tonnes
28,555
Unharvest ed Yield %
66%
Bass Strait Scallop
Eastern Tuna &
Billfish
South East Scale &
Shark
Southern Bluefin Tuna
Western Tuna &
Billfish
WA Fisheries
Western Rock Lobster
Pearl Oysters (units)
Shark Bay prawn
Abalone
Australian salmon
TAS Fisheries
Abalone
Giant crab
Rock lobster
Banded morwong
(units)
2,360
7,522
19,870
4,509
10,125
484
3,939
13,287
4,543
415
79%
48%
33%
-1%
96%
32,585
6,938
754,800
2,330
209
16,280
6,647
685,888
1,592
202
23%
4%
9%
32%
3%
2,800 117 96%
Insufficient data to assess all fisheries
2,366
52
2,363
44
0%
15%
1,104
29,825
1,104
25,386
0%
15%
F IGURE 7.
A USTRALIAN C OMMERCIAL S ECTOR H ARVEST T RENDS
(OECD, 2013, p. 64)
Number of fishers
Number of fish farmers
Total number of vessels
2006
6,292
3,480
477
2011
7,325
4,373
322
% change
16.4%
25.7
-32%

Total tonnage of the fleet 63,565 28,652 -55%
The key trends include:
 Declining wild catch GVP since 2000, although tonnage has stayed reasonably stable
(Total harvest in 1998 was 229,000 tonnes: in 2012 the same figure was 243,000 tonnes).
 Declines in wild catch tonnage and value (especially in WA and C’wealth fisheries) have been offset by aquaculture growth in SA Tuna farming, and more recently TAS Salmon farming.
 Over the last 15 years, wild catch has a recorded average nominal landed GVP growth of
(0.4%) p.a., a real value decline. This nominal rate is around 3% below the average longrun inflation rate of ~2.5% p.a. Over the period aquaculture has achieved annual average nominal landed GVP growth of 5.7% p.a., a rate that has quickened to 8% over the last 5 years.

Across the commercial sector, the drivers for increase in nominal GVP are not evident across all jurisdictions, with: o significant decline in WA, and the Commonwealth, o slow declines in VIC and NT, and o only modest gains in QLD and NSW.
 In the last three years wild catch Abalone in TAS and Rocklobster in WA have also reduced harvest tonnages in response to fishery management issues.
 The appearance of new, more sophisticated business models appearing in the industry but the pace of change could be more broad-based and quicker.
 Australian seafood supply chains and their business organisations are maturing.

Seafood exports have declined for 12 years largely due to $A strength. More product is being exported in live/chilled/unfrozen form.

The 3 new FTAs (Japan, China, South Korea) will increase export opportunities. Many
Australian seafood export products currently face China entry tariffs of 6-14%. The bulk of these tariffs will be eliminated in 4 years.
 Seafood imports continue to increase, especially when prepared and preserved.

All fishing and aquaculture sectors face problems securing RD&E funds.
Aquaculture is a different business model – it is a food factory, similar in many ways to other mainstream farming (grain /dairy /beef) food production factories. How much can Australian aquaculture expand in the next 10-20 years? The right of license access to the sustainable aquatic resource ( ‘the site’) is currently the main limiting factor, closely followed by access to capital, and shortage of skills.
With an extensive coastline in Australia there are many large opportunities for aquaculture yield

growth subject to environmental sustainability, and multiuse bargaining with other fishery sectors and resource industries. It is the lack of appropriate supporting legislation to drive these aquaculture zones across jurisdictions that is the major constraint to aquaculture development and yield gains.
In terrestrially produced foods from species developed and bred for hundreds of years, there are now a relatively few species that provide the great bulk of products for human consumption – goat, pork, chicken, beef. Australian seafood is going in the same direction – a limited number of top species.
Figure 11 lists the largest commercial species in global aquaculture in 2012. Australia has existing or pending production (shaded lines) in eleven of these species. Research has been undertaken variously across a further seven to ten species.
Thailand, Japan, China, Viet Nam and New Zealand are Australia’s major trading partners and we now have a Free Trade Agreement with each of these markets, which will progressively reduce entry tariffs on the bulk of Australian seafood exports to zero in the medium term.
In the next few decades we will see significant aquaculture investment from Asia enter Australia seeking real estate - fresh marine and aquatic farm sites for fish or industrial uses such as algae for biofuels. This will drive the development of aquaculture into waters outside the 3 nautical mile
(nm) limit that is currently managed by the Commonwealth.
One expansion example is the current commercial proposal by listed firm Commodities Group Ltd regarding new greenfield prawn development – Project Sea Dragon. The company in 2014 completed transactions to purchase about a 15% share of existing active prawn farms, and established market and consumer brands. The project summary includes:

Large-scale, integrated, land-based aquaculture projects in northern Australia producing world class volumes of Black Tiger Prawns –a high quality/high value seafood commodity
–for export markets,
 10,000 hectare growout farm supported by feed mill, hatchery & broodstock facility, power station, processing plant, storage/export facilities,
 Total production (at Stage 3) of 120,000 tonnes (120M kgs) per annum,

~$1.2 –1.8 Bn revenue per annum,
 Stage 1 alone (should it eventuate) will double the size of the current farmed prawn sector, and increase this 20 fold by 2025.
F IGURE 8.
A USTRALIAN A QUACULTURE S PECIES W HERE IS COMPETITIVE A DVANTAGE ?
2012 World FAO
(descending order by volume)
1. Carp
Productio n MMT
19.3
Australia
MMT
Nil
Status in Australia
Wild catch/feral
2. Edible Oyster
3. Tilapia
4. Shrimp/ prawn
4.74
4.51
4.35
0.016
Nil
0.004
Seafood sector
Aquarium trade/feral
Seafood sector
Est.
US$/kg
2013
$1.32
$0.82
$1.70
$4.49
Major Producers (descending order in MMT)
China 17.2, Bangladesh 0.42, India 0.41, Indonesia 0.40, Vietnam
0.10
China 3.95, South Korea 0.285, Japan 0.161, USA 0.132, France
0.083
China 1.6, Egypt 0.8, Indonesia 0.7, Brazil 0.3, Philippines 0.3,
Thailand 0.2
China 1.7, Thailand 0.6, Vietnam 0.5, Indonesia 0.4, India 0.3,
Ecuador 0.3
Current Free Trade Agreement for Australia
China, Indonesia, Vietnam
Pending
Likely FTA
India
China, USA, South Korea, Japan
China, Indonesia, Philippines;
Thailand
China, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia India

5. Catfish (incl
. Pangasius)
6. Salmon
7. Mussel
8. Scallop
9. Crab
10. Milkfish
11. Eels
12. Sea
Bass/Barramundi
13. Amberjack
14. Mullet
15. Gourami
16. Grouper
17. Pompano
18. Abalone
19. Cobia
20. Tuna
21. Snapper
22. Aquatic Plants
(Kelp/Undaria)
23. Marine Algae
3.90
2.25
1.83
1.64
1.00
0.94
0.56
0.36
Nil
0.044
0.0004
Nil
Negligible
Nil
Negligible
0.005
In farm dams
Seafood sector
Seafood sector
Trials in Qld
Seafood sector
Minor sector
Seafood sector
0.17
0.15
0.13
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.042
0.017
0.007
23.8
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
0.0006
Nil
0.007
Nil
Nil unknown Unknown
ACIAR 2014 in Qld
Seafood sector
ASCRC Review
2014 in Qld
Seafood sector
TAS kelp /SA trial
2013
Trials ay in WA
$1.57 Vietnam 1.3, Indonesia 0.9, Bangladesh 0.3, Nigeria 0.3, India 0.09 Vietnam, Indonesia,
$4.89
$1.12
$1.74
$5.88
$1.81
$3.93
$4.25
$9.18
$3.23
$2.55
$5.31
$4.01
$7.83
$1.60
Norway 1.2, Chile 0.56, UK 0.16, Canada 0.11, Faroe Is. 0.08
China 0.764, Chile 0.246, Spain 0.204, Thailand 0.107, France 0.075
China 1.42 Japan 0.184, Peru 0.025
China 0.96, Philippines 0.016, Indonesia 0.014, Vietnam 0.013
Indonesia 0.52, Philippines 0.43, Taiwan 0.07, Singapore 0.002
China 0.53, Japan 0.17, Taiwan 0.02
China 0.125, Turkey 0.066, Greece 0.042, Taiwan 0.026, Malaysia
0.020, Thailand 0.017
Japan 0.16, China 0.013
Egypt 0.13, Indonesia 0.007, South Korea 0.006
Indonesia 0.085, Thailand 0.038, Cambodia 0.008
China 0.073, Taiwan 0.022, Indonesia 0.012, Malaysia 0.006
China 0.12, Singapore 0.005, Dominican Republic 0.001
China 0.091, South Korea 0.007, South Africa 0.001
China 0.038, Vietnam 0.002, Taiwan 0.001
Chile
China, Chile, Thailand
China, Japan
China, Philippines, Indonesia,
Vietnam
Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore
China, Japan
China, Malaysia, Thailand
Japan, China
Indonesia, South Korea
Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia
China, Indonesia, Malaysia
China, Singapore
China, South Korea
China, Vietnam
India
Peru
Taiwan
Taiwan
Taiwan
Taiwan
Taiwan
$7.79
$6.48
$0.27 n/a
Japan 0.01, Australia 0.007, Mexico 0.002, Spain 0.001
Malaysia 0.007, Taiwan 0.003
China 12.8, Indonesia 6.5, Philippines 1.8,South Korea 1.0
Japan
Malaysia
China, Indonesia, Philippines, South
Korea
OECD 2014 – “global market for marine biotech products & services will double by 2020 to USD 5Bn”
Mexico
Taiwan
This large fishery sector makes significant contribution (as large as the golf industry) to the
Australian economy. While many stocks are accessed by both commercial and non-commercial fishers, the amount of competition between different sectors varies from stock to stock and location to location. In some traditional commercial waters, however, recreational fishing is now more economically attractive than traditional commercial use. However, recreational fishing faces big challenges, such as a lack of credible and comprehensive data that in turn creates a barrier to informed and efficient resource sharing between sector users. In response, the sector has identified 7 primary issues and challenges to be addressed in the coming decade.
F IGURE 9.
R ECREATIONAL F ISHERY I SSUES AND C HALLENGES

1. Funding Platform
National and Long
Term
• R,D&E – especially re Fisheries enhancement and education,
• Promotion of benefits of Recreational
Fishing – need new thinking and approaches to funding,
2. Good Data to Inform Strategy
3. Decision-Making
4. Aspirations
5. Participation down 15-20% since
2002
6. Community
Endorsement for
Recreational Fishing
7. Fishery Access
• More Long term - economic measures of Value, Social impact, Catch &
Effort,
• More Cost effective – novel approaches that are better than traditional phone surveys,
• Ongoing sector commitment and capacity for surveys – jurisdictional harmonisation,
• Must integrate all Recreational Fishing data - fishers, stakeholders, regulators,
• Requires Human capacity building,
• Requires new/better systems (e.g. harvest strategies),
• Need to drill down into more detail re fisher expectations,
• Ensure that harvest strategy development and implementation is sufficiently flexible /adaptive to deliver this,
• Ensure fishers are getting the fishing experiences they seek,
• Need healthier, more productive fisheries, and cost/benefits of fishery enhancement options,
• Quantify and communicate health and wellbeing benefits of Recreational
Fishing,
• Target the more significant social/health issues affecting communities,
• Systems and capacity to audit and monitor accessibility,
• Robust science on impacts of fishing to inform decision making on access,
Key trends:

Recent elections demonstrate that recreational fishing has become an influencer of politics and policy development. How this translates into policy change for commonwealth and state/NT agencies is uncertain. There is increased need for definition and realignment of sectoral rights, including aquaculture in Commonwealth waters and the
Offshore Constitutional Settlement.

Private recreational fishers are increasingly inclined to access Commonwealth waters as

technology improves (in boats, outboard engine technologies, navigation equipment and
GPS, and fishing gear) and becomes more affordable to mass market consumers. Target species of high interest in Commonwealth waters include Coral trout, Emperors, Rock cod/Groupers, Sea perch, Wrasse, Mackerels, WA Dhufish, Tuna, Snapper, Morwong,
Mulloway, Trevally and Whiting.
 Digital technology that provides new opportunities to enhance the fishing experience have been coopted by CSIRO, with smartphone apps able to photograph, measure and weigh individual fish as they are caught and send the information to a database to allow real time monitoring of catches.
 There have been tremendous advances in survival of released fish, using improved technology and this has been enhanced by increasing community stewardship of the resource which results from these community engagement processes.

There has been a significant and progressive movement of fish species from food fish to sports fish from the 1980’s across Australia. Species such as Australian bass, Flathead,
Murray cod, Barramundi, Snapper and Bream have all transitioned to recreational use.
This has resulted in much greater release rates, with the largest fish being viewed as the most important to release carefully.
 The next 10 years are defined by increasing conflict between traditional, stock based reactive research, and more proactive and ‘quality of experience’ driven research. State government run research will be increasingly outsourced as is already happening in
Victoria and Queensland.
 There will be much greater involvement of recreational fishers in research, with tagging programs, monitoring of habitat and stock enhancement projects, and released fish survival projects becoming mainstream.

Few issues will more challenging in the next 20 years that resource sharing. Traditional management and allocation models, except for fresh water, have favoured commercial fishing interests. The increased interaction with recreational fishers has led to a number of political decisions in favour of recreational fishers throughout Australia.

During the coming 20 years, the intra-sectoral resource sharing debates among recreational fishers will rise in importance and become at least as controversial and more difficult to resolve than competition for resources with other sectors.
 The extent to which Native Title confers ownership and management rights for the resource will be debated and ultimately resolved by the courts; with recreational fishers needing to be able to negotiate for access and catch share irrespective of the final outcome.
 In the general community, most recreational fishers and politicians do not understand what property rights are, what they confer, how they are to be administered. The media typically add more heat than light to the issue. Leadership and goodwill is required from all parties, including from recreational fishers.
 With increasing recognition, so too will come increasing responsibility, including for meeting the costs of management. This will provide some substantial challenges during the coming 20 year period.

The next 10 to 20 years will determine if recreational fishing is to remain as an essential activity in the Australian lifestyle, or whether it will be viewed as unsustainable, cruel and unnecessary. Fish handling must be continually assessed to keep animal welfare activists

from closing down all fishing, stopping important research into tagging or barotrauma, and deeming recreational fishing to cultural irrelevance.
The FRDC’s Indigenous Reference Group (IRG) was established in 2010 and faces some challenging tasks. The IRG has taken a critical first step to define and describe its aspirations, objectives and priority tasks in a clear strategic road map that identifies five national aspirations for indigenous fishing communities. Critically these aspirations integrate fishery and aquaculture activities by indigenous people in all sectors – customary, recreational, and commercial wild catch and aquaculture.
F IGURE 10.
2011 IRG A SPIRATIONS AND RD&E P RIORITIES
1. Process to determine an indigenous catch and allocation model. (examples of allocation models, value of allocation to various sectors, current status, case studies)
ACTION - send to access and allocation working group.
 Description of fishery models currently is use
 Benefits derived from existing models by sector

Criteria for valuing benefits against primacy rights
 Relative value of current models assessed

Understand the value of current indigenous Fishery
Models to indigenous and other communities
2. What legislation, policy, management strategies impact on indigenous fishing practices?
3. What fishing and non-fishing practices impact on indigenous cultural fishing practices, including identifying key iconic species?
4. Identify models to incorporate Traditional Fishing Knowledge (TFK) into aquatic resource management processes.
5. Addressing barriers to full and effective indigenous involvement in decision making forums
6. Improving the involvement of indigenous people in all levels of Aquatic
Resource Management
7. Identify cost benefit of effective indigenous consultation & extension
8.
Look at new models to ascertain the “value“ of indigenous fishing
9. Develop management measures that improve indigenous access to the resource and fisheries for commercial purposes
10. Develop and start new commercial initiatives that maintain ongoing indigenous interests and concerns in fishing and seafood
11. Explore innovative benefit sharing models from fisheries resource use and access (including employment)
12. Opportunities for indigenous branding of seafood and fisheries product
 Policies and practices that enhance TFK listed and prioritised
 Criteria and tools defined for monitoring TFK adoption into resource management models
 Cultural practices assessed

Identified barriers to full and effective indigenous involvement
 Criteria defined for indigenous involvement
 Involvement by indigenous people in Aquatic
Resource Mangement assessed
 Fishery valuation model options identified
 Fishery commercial access, use, management measures and sharing models identified
 Indigenous branding options identified

Criteria defined for indigenous economic development
 Fishery economic development status assessed
13. Building capacity of mainstream sectors to effectively engage with indigenous fishing sector and communities
14. Improving capacity of (and opportunities for) indigenous people to engage in research, fisheries management, & commercial activity
15. Building general understanding of fishing industry structures and processes
16. Research outputs and information are available in appropriate formats and language (extension and adoption)

Criteria defined for engagement, capacity, RDE formats, understanding, etc
 Engagement capacity of main stream sectors identified and assessed

Engagement capacity of indigenous people re
R&D/mgt/commerce identified and assessed
 Understanding of structures and processes assessed

Availability and format of outputs assessed

Identify policies and practices whose adoption will enhance
TFK’s contribution to
Aquatic Resource
Management
 Identify pathways to enhance indigenous involvement in
Aquatic Resource
Management
 Identify pathways to enhance indigenous involvement in the economic development of fishery and seafood resources
 Identify pathways to build the capacity and understanding of all fishery stakeholders about the indigenous fishing sector and communities
Perhaps the most advanced economy in management of customary fisheries is New Zealand, where a detailed “how-to” Information Manual (NZ Ministry of Fisheries, 2009) has been

published that:
 Defines the elements of customary fishing - sale, barter, trade, Marae use, personal use, family use and Koha, under non-commercial and commercial headings.
 Summarises the history of rights development, and the key legislative structures and tools in the current fisheries management framework.
 Describes the intent, aspirations, obligations and outcomes of the use of fishery resources in a customary manner.
 Provides a fisher-friendly Q&A Section for the basic day-to-day matters confronting customary usage of the fishery resource.
 Identifies where new policy guidance is required to achieve better management and user outcomes.

Figure 5: Indigenous customary fishing — catch and main locations
Declining production and rising imports continue to threaten the domestic industry. However in
2014-15, industry revenue is expected to grow by 3.3% as exports perform well driven by rising demand for premium seafood products in Asia, and the falling value of the A$.
The Australian seafood processing sector is led by a small number of large listed and private firms (with associated brands). An example is Tassal Group Ltd, a vertically integrated Salmon farmer, processor, marketer and exporter. Around 60% of Tassal revenue comes from seafood processing. Tassal’s market share of the Australian seafood processing sector is estimated to be
13.5%.
In the five years to 2014-15, seafood processors have faced turbulent conditions. Revenue has been adversely affected by declining seafood production, stagnant prices and increasing imports.
The industry has also become increasingly dependent on export markets as domestic prices fall from mass imports, while high-value export markets open up new opportunities for exporters.
Industry revenue is expected to decline at an annualised 4.9% to total $1.2 billion.
Aquaculture production is forecast to grow strongly over the next five years, but is not expected to solve the supply problem since it represents a small share of total fish and seafood product output. In the five years through 2019-20, industry revenue is forecast to increase by an annualised 1.6% to total $1.3 billion.
Profit margins remain relatively healthy for the industry, especially businesses that have operating scale and can service rising specialty exports. Larger operators have begun investing in more sophisticated automation and other machinery for seafood processing boosting their bottom lines, while building greater production efficiencies. Smaller industry operators that struggle to compete with increasing imports are expected to fare significantly worse, taking the brunt of the blow from heavy inbound competition. IBIS World expects that the industry will consolidate, with the number of industry enterprise falling at an annualised 1.4% over the past five years.
Initiatives developed by the Australian Seafood Cooperative Research Centre (SCRC) over the last five years are improving the capacity and capability of the sector. Current initiative to restructure the business models for two initiatives developed by FRDC/SCRC, include SafeFish, and the Seafood Trade Advisory Group.
Value adding activities by enterprises add a relatively stable dollar contribution to sales values.
Around $1 in every $5 of sales is due to value adding in seafood processing, a number that is relatively low compared to global competitors, as Australia has a traditional emphasis on high quality and sustainable fresh species such as Rock lobster and Abalone. But the good news is this value adding activity has increased markedly as a percentage of sales values of the products in the last five years, from around 12% to 20% of sales/revenue values. This suggests that value adding is maintaining upward pressure on sales and therefore profits. It is unclear if this is due to increased spend on “soft” value adding activities (such as branding and marketing) or “hard” capital intensive activities such as installing new seafood processing technology and hardware.
F IGURE 11.
T RENDS IN A USTRALIAN S EAFOOD P ROCESSING

$9,0
$8,0
$7,0
$6,0
$5,0
$4,0
$3,0
$2,0
$1,0
$-
Avg. Revenue/Enterprise $m
Avg % Value Added
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Avg. Value Added /Enterprise $m

Audits of the RD&E capability supporting Australia’s fishing and aquaculture industries have been undertaken in 2009 and again in 2013 to track significant changes in national capability. Data were collected by RDS Partners through voluntary return and one-on-one follow up of 56 organisations or individuals, 32 of which responded to both the 2009 and 2013 capability audits.
The RD&E capabilities supporting the Australian fishing and aquaculture industry probably cover the broadest range of any of Australia’s primary industries (summarized in Figure 2) and all areas were included in this survey, which was designed to elicit information regarding:

Full time equivalent (FTE) capability across 45 areas of expertise at the research scientist, specialist technician and extension professional level.

Value and location of infrastructure and major capital items.
 Investment against the areas of Legislative1 Requirements; Fisheries; Aquaculture; and
Associated Environment and Ecosystems for the past 4 financial years.
Overall, there was a relatively large increase in FTEs for both the Fisheries & Aquaculture and the Post-harvest Capability Areas and a large decrease in the number of FTEs in the
Communication/Extension Professionals and Environment and Ecosystems Capability Area. This suggests a shift away from extension and the environmental fields of research in some organisations.
At the sectoral level there has been a reported shift in FTE capability towards the Fisheries –
Commercial Wild-catch sector and away from the Fisheries – Recreational sector since 2009, suggesting a stronger focus on RD&E support of the commercial fishing sector.
Changes in FTE capability were reported for most State and Territories, indicating a regional shift in capability and between individual institutions from 2009 to 2013. While Australian Government agencies reported almost identical overall FTE capability in 2009 and 2013, there appears to have been a shift in capability to the universities after some reductions in state departments between the 2009 and 2013 surveys.
Twenty-three institutions provided information on infrastructure and capital items in both the 2009 and 2013 surveys. While the reported value of infrastructure by these institutions was higher, this increase may reflect a greater level of reporting as well as any real increase.
Reported investment was relatively static during the past four financial years across all investment areas and did not match the corresponding CPI increase during this time.
While these conclusions primarily relate to the 32 organisations that reported in both the 2009 and 2013 audit, 19 other organisations responded to the 2013 audit primarily from the university, museum and private sectors and they reported significant additional capability and infrastructure.
The full report: RD&E capability audit and assessment for the Australian fishing and aquacuture industry can be found at www.frdc.com.au/research/national-framework
Figure 2. The spread of RD&E capabilities supporting Australian aquaculture and fisheries


Average annual investment based on the 2009 audit: $129m

Average annual investment across the financial years 2009-13: $136 million

Variation in annual total (2009-13): $132m to $140m
Conclusion: annual investment has been relatively stable (and below CPI) during the past four years across all investment areas despite Fisheries and Aquaculture being an increasingly complex and research-intensive industry.
Changes in annual investment between 2009 and 2013 by sector:
 Aquaculture R&D increased: $28-30 million versus $34-36 million per annum

Legislative Requirements decreased: $27-35 million versus $27-29 million per annum
 Associated Environment and Ecosystems declined slightly: $41-44 million versus $38-43 million per annum

Fisheries has remained relatively static over the nine year reporting period: $27-35 million per annum
 Total value of infrastructure in 2009: $317 million

Total value of infrastructure in 2009: $482 million
Regional distribution:

Northern: $229 million (2013) versus $135 million (2009)

Southwestern: $100 million (2013) versus $52 million (2009)
 Southeastern: $153 million (2013) versus $130 million (2009)
It should be noted that the apparent increase in capital value may reflect a more detailed level of reporting of infrastructure than occurred in the previous audit. For example, there was a significant increase in the reporting of the value of accommodation facilities, research facilities and aquarium facilities in 2013 compared to the 2009 audit.
When the Environment and Ecosystems fields of research are included, the data shows an overall decrease of 31 FTE researchers since 2009, from 822 to 792 in 2013. This overall decrease may explain, in part, the prior expectation that capability had decreased.
Total FTEs in the Environment and Ecosystems fields of research decreased by 38 FTEs between the two audits – from 263 (2009) to 225 (2013).
There was a large decrease in the number of FTEs in both the Communication/Extension
Professionals Capability Area (-27 FTEs) and the Environment and Ecosystems Capability Area
(-38 FTEs).
Excluding associated Environment and Ecosystems fields of research, the 32 organisations that provided data to both the 2009 and the 2013 capability audits reported a total of 567 (FTE)

researchers, representing a small increase of 7 FTE since 2009. There was a relatively large increase in FTEs for both the Fisheries & Aquaculture (+21 FTEs) and the Post-harvest (+12
FTEs) Capability Areas.
States/Territories reporting increases were:

Queensland: 28%
 Victoria: 14%

Western Australia: 17%
States/territories reporting decreases were:
 Tasmania: 17%

South Australia: 11%
 ACT: 4%
NSW (7%) and NT (4%) FTEs remained stable.
The proportion of overall FTE capability at the sector level was reported as:

33% Aquaculture – Commercial [same as 2009 audit];
 60% Fisheries - Commercial Wild-catch [6% increase on the 2009 audit];

6% Fisheries – Recreational [4% decrease on the 2009 audit];
 1% Fisheries - Indigenous Customary same as 2009 audit].
Australian Government agencies and ‘Other’ institutions (such as education facilities and private consultants) reported almost identical overall FTE capability in 2009 and 2013. There was an overall decrease of 17 FTEs within State agencies compared with an overall increase of 24 FTEs within the University sector.
Figure 10. Researcher FTEs as reported by all institutions in the 2013 audit
Note: Organisations with less than 0.5FTE have been rounded down to 0 FTE. Some minor rounding errors in sub-totals may occur.

Figure 9 shows how the 607 FTE research and extension professionals (excluding those working in associated environment and ecosystem fields) are spread across the states and territories. As
CSIRO staff are located nationally, a split of 70% Tasmania, 25% Queensland and 5% Western
Australia is assumed.
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ACT CSIRO NSW
Aquaculture
Fisheries
NT QLD SA TAS VIC
Commercial / Wild-catch Customary / Indigenous
Recreational / Charter
WA
Figure 9: i have updated this diagram Researchers by sector and state (excluding environment and ecosystem fields of research)
Commonwealth research agencies, state governments and universities are all significant providers of research capability for the fishing and aquaculture industry. Excluding researchers in the environment and ecosystem fields of research, there were 531 FTE research and extension professionals employed by major institutions (those with equal to or more than five FTEs), as shown in Figure 10.
Twenty-seven small (less than or equal to five FTEs) RD&E providers responded to a call for submissions to the audit. Many of these were small, private consultancies headed by specialist personnel. This sector is becoming increasingly important in provision of smaller RD&E projects with a specialist focus and a low reliance on infrastructure.

Researchers by institute type
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ACT CSIRO
Aust Govt Research
NSW
Education Facility
NT
Private
QLD SA
State Research
TAS VIC
Aust Govt Funder
WA
University
Figure 10: i have updated this Research capability by major institution type (excluding environment and ecosystem fields of research)
A major component the Strategy is designed to deliver on is to ensure that there is adequate capability to deliver on the RD&E needs of fishing and aquaculture.
The capability audit process and results have been assessed by the Strategy Governance
Committee a number of times through the life of the audit. The Research Provider Network also undertook work with those conducting the audit to assess the results.
The Governance Committee has assessed that the capability of researchers is adequate to deliver on the RD&E needs. There has been reduction in capability in some institutions and increases in others but the overall picture is that there is still adequate capability.

This is the second iteration of the National Fishing and Aquaculture RD&E Strategy and builds on the planned outcomes of the first Strategy that sought to improve the collaborative arrangements in RD&E for fishing and aquaculture while meeting the RD&E needs of all the sectors. This objective carries over as the means to ensure that the Australian community derives optimal economic, environmental and social benefits from its fishing and aquaculture resources. To achieve this outcome a number of issues have been identified for RD&E with corresponding strategies to deal with the issue.
Although there is contextual variation across sectors, there is an enormous amount of commonality in stakeholder goals and RD&E needs. For example, aquatic animal health is crucial to the viability and prosperity of the industry.
Although eight cross-sectoral strategies will be developed in the National Primary Industries
RD&E Framework for Australian primary industries, this National Fishing and Aquaculture RD&E
Strategy identifies the cross-sectoral issues that are critical to the fishing and aquaculture industry — namely biosecurity, animal welfare, and climate change and variability. This strategy provides detail on the key research topics identified as high-priority, noting that a significant task for implementation of this strategy will be to ensure alignment of those priorities with crosssectoral plans .

Strategies:

Understand what are the information needs to inform a sustainable story – develop brand attributes

Develop an accepted standard(s) for fisheries management and develop a public report card against the standard

Demonstrating sustainable aquaculture practises and communication

Promotion of fishing and aquaculture performance and best practise, including values and story
 Improve the collection of data for the recreational sector

Cost effective and innovative data collect methods that inform management needs and community reporting/requirements

Land to sea management (indigenous knowledge)

Cumulative impacts, eco-system mgt ?

Harvest strategies, bycatch?

Mitigation of environmental interactions
Strategies:

Developing rights based framework – that integrates with multiple use management

Access to aquaculture sites and security of long term tenure
 Spatial management performance metrics – to inform multiuse management

Establish customary indigenous primacy methods for allocation – to inform access
(could be included in number one above)

There is increasing competition for access to, and allocation of, aquatic resources.
As society’s values and activities change, there may be a need to adjust access and allocation of aquatic resources.
Strategies:

Enhancing fisheries with artificial reefs and stock methods

Maximising value from underutilised species
 Enhancement and growth of fisheries production

Incorporation of economic and social information to fisheries
 Product development

Market development including informing promotion and market access


Increasing recreational participation, diversity.
 Methods of value the non-economic contribution
Strategies:

Understanding the real costs of regulatory systems

Cost efficient and better ways to measure compliance performance for fisheries and aquaculture management based on a risk framework

Cost-effective management based on risk assessment.
 Alternative approaches to regulation – including use of standards, participatory management
 “one stop shop” – across regulator approach to licensing (Streamlining governance and regulation – nationally consistent (harvest strategy), EPBC Act, accreditation, equivalence (egMSC))
Strategies:
 Assessment of ecological communities

Developing a framework for sustained ecological observing
 Improve understanding of physical drivers for system dynamics

Identification of cost effective approaches to habitat rehabilitation, enhancement and performance measurement

Application of economic instruments (offsets)
 Catchment, coast, ocean linkages

Ecological assessment and predictive models
 Invasion prevention and control of invasive pests and disease

Range shifts and non-stationarity and productivity (Climate change)

Strategies:

Develop sector specific biosecurity plans

Develop national program to develop enterprise specific biosecurity plans
 Rationalise access to aquavet products

Diagnostics for new and emerging diseases

Novel monitoring and surveillance techniques (biosensors)

Emergency disease and pest response preparedness

Better national approaches to preparedness and response to pest incursion

Examination of alternative approaches to detection and control of pests

The success of the strategy will be measured by how well it is being adopted, as evidenced by:
• number of research themes being addressed
• number of collaborative arrangements for the provision of fishing and aquaculture RD&E that enhance the planned outcomes
• trends in sharing of RD&E capabilities, and trends toward specialisation in fishing and aquaculture RD&E
• progress against implementation milestones
• satisfaction in delivery of services and outcomes
• trends in engagement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in customary, commercial and recreational fishing and aquaculture RD&E activities
• how well RD&E that is directly attributable to the strategy, delivers on trends in:
– the unit value for seafood products
– community perceptions of the acceptability of fishing in Australian waters
– participation in recreational fishing
– engagement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in cultural, commercial and recreational fishing and aquaculture RD&E activities
– numbers of fisheries assessed as environmentally sustainable
– aquaculture production.

To progress the implementation of M-S stakeholders have indicated they will continue to commit to working on mechanisms which aid this implementation. This includes; continuing to commit to the Research Provider Network where researchers are able to discuss cross-jurisdictional matters, and continuing to support those collaborative projects that have already been undertaken and strengthen these. For example the collaborative arrangement which seas Victoria conducting recreational fishing work for South Australia and South Australia conducting Southern
Rocklobster for Victoria.
The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation has agreed that it will continue to help facilitate such collaborations as those mentioned above and will commit to seeking to implement funding in line with M-S in its RD&E investment policy. This will mean that there will be a financial incentive for organisations to develop research around either regional or national collaborations.
FRDC’s policy will also support agreed areas of specialisation. FRDC supports jurisdictional
Fisheries Research Advisory Bodies (FRABs) under Partnership Agreements which sees them set their own priorities. The FRDC sets and maintains strategic national priorities which FRABs are encouraged and incentivised to also invest in. The FRDC also facilitates meeting of the
FRABS for discussion of cross-jurisdictional issues and to discuss if any research proposals they are assessing are similar and can be combined. Further, FRABs will be encouraged to support specialised research organisations.
Figure 13: Key structures to deliver and monitor the National Fishing and Aquaculture RD&E
Strategy
A major driver for the National Primary Industries Research, Development and Extension
Framework is that RD&E resources are finite and there is a need to rationalise delivery to make
RD&E more efficient. The framework proposes that careful alignment of RD&E delivery will ensure that gaps in capability do not affect strategic areas of need.
For jurisdictions with significant capability in a particular R&D field and major industry, it may be determined that they will take a major role and specialise in that field of R&D. For another

jurisdiction with lesser capability but with strategic interest, it may be determined that it will take a supporting role in the provision of RD&E in that particular field. Jurisdictions without R&D capability in a particular R&D field but still requiring R&D in that field will link up, deriving their
R&D needs from jurisdictions with major capability.
The implementation structure and system to deliver and monitor the National Fishing and
Aquaculture RD&E Strategy enhances government and industry relationships. The networking structures under the firs Strategy will be retained (Governance Committee and Research Provider
Network). Within the first Strategy there was an extension network, however due to limited resources this forum never actually met. Under this Strategy the extension role is not omitted but will now be part of the role of both the Governance Committee and the Research Provider
Network.
This strategy recognises that many major collaborative arrangements already operate within and across regions. There are a number of instances in fisheries and aquaculture research where there are collaborative projects which go across organisations or jurisdictions.
In progressing implementation, where existing arrangements are in place, and operating effectively, these will be supported.

The governance structure will remain with the Governance Committee and the Research Provider
Network. In the first iteration of the Strategy there was a committee tasked with overseeing extension. This committee never actually met due to resourcing constraints, this did not meant that extension was ignored, it was taken up by the other two committees. For this iteration of the
Strategy this will now be formalised in the terms for each of these committees
An effective structure, agreed to by stakeholders, with appropriate supporting systems, is imperative to the successful implementation and monitoring of the National Fishing and
Aquaculture RD&E Strategy. This section describes the structures and process by which the fishing and aquaculture industry will:
• monitor and review long-term strategic RD&E needs and priorities
• promote and facilitate collaboration
• maximise sharing of capabilities and specialisation in RD&E
• monitor national RD&E capability
• improve extension capability
• monitor, evaluate and review the implementation of the strategy, and report to government and industry.
(It should be noted that the national fishing and aquaculture RD&E strategy creates the environment to allow further change to happen, but does not postulate the entirety of those changes.)
FOCUS National RD&E strategy and issues
Foster an operating climate that encourages national and regional RD&E coordination and collaboration
ROLES
REPORTING
A high level stakeholder partnership to:
• Set and review national RD&E priorities to ensure the strategy remains relevant to stakeholders
• Seek alignment / intersection of priorities among stakeholders
•
Negotiate and consult on agreed Major-Support positions
• Negotiate on capacity and RD&E investment decisions to deliver on national RD&E plan
• Foster existing and encourage new alliances and partnerships (national and regional)
• Support national and regional collaborative processes for planning, consultation, funding and delivery of RD&E
• Drive research concepts to address National RD&E plan themes
• In relation to the Strategy assess and drive extension
Agriculture Senior Officials Committee / Research and Innovation Committee

MEMBERSHIP
CHAIR /
SECRETARIAT
FUNDING /
SUPPORT
MEETS
• Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander delegate (FRDC Indigenous Reference Group)
• Senior Officers of Commonwealth, State and Territory fisheries agencies (or their senior delegate)*
• Commonwealth Fisheries Association
• Fisheries Research and Development Corporation
• National Aquaculture Council
• National Seafood Industry Alliance nominee
• Recfish Australia
• Researcher Providers’ Network
Notes
* Through the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum (AFMF) jurisdictions have chosen to participate by having a member from each of the south east, south west and northern regions rather than from each jursidiction. (NB. Each jurisdiction retains sovereign authority to endorse, or otherwise, the forum’s recommendations.)
Chair is on a rotational 18 month basis, the organisation providing the Chair will be responsible for the costs of the Chair and secretariat.
FRDC to provide administrative and financial support to facilitate implementation and ongoing services to the strategy, and industry attendance at meetings. Members to provide funding to help in the development and implementation of the Strategy.
Twice annually in conjunction with AFMF meetings where possible
FOCUS Encourage and foster existing and new regional RD&E coordination and collaboration, and optimise RD&E resource sharing
ROLES
REPORTING
MEMBERSHIP
Negotiate on capacity and infrastructure investment decisions to deliver on national RD&E plan
Establish international linkages
Determine the research needed and develop research concepts to address themes of the national RD&E plan
Seek opportunities to improve extension and adoption of research outcomes
Reports to Governance Committee
Research heads of state agencies, CSIRO, ABARES, AIMS, universities, FRDC, Chair AFMF
SSR, private providers, other research organisations, DA, NCCARF, CERF; nominee of NSIA
(Membership may be adjusted to achieve the network’s roles)
RESPONSIBILITY Governance Committee, members
CSIRO will Chair the network
FUNDING / FRDC support for some meeting expenses

SUPPORT
MEETS Annually
Scope to meet regionally or on the basis of common interest in a particular research theme
This Strategy was approved by the Agriculture Senior Officials Research and Innovation
Committee on XX XXXX 2015. In the lead up to approval, the draft strategy was recommended by the Primary Industries Standing Committee (PISC) and endorsed by all state governments and the Northern Territory, DAFF, CSIRO and AFMA. Industry bodies — the Commonwealth
Fisheries Association, National Aquaculture Council, Recfishing Australia, and the National
Seafood Industry Alliance, provided endorsement with comments that highlight important issues that will be worked through as part of the Strategy’s implementation.
Key stakeholders in the National Fishing and Aquaculture RD&E Strategy are:

Australian Government Department of Agriculture
 Fisheries Research and Development Corporation

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
 Australian Fisheries Management Authority

Australian Fisheries Managers Forum; o Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Queensland o Department of Fisheries, Western Australia o Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria o Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania o Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries NT o Department of Primary Industries, NSW o Primary Industries and Resources South Australia

National Aquaculture Council
 National Seafood Industry Alliance

Recfish Australia
 Commonwealth Fisheries Association
The key stakeholders agree to work collaboratively and cooperatively to develop and implement the National Fishing and Aquaculture RD&E Strategy by:
• freely sharing the knowledge generated by publicly funded RD&E effort and minimising

barriers to RD&E effort created by intellectual property protection
• providing timely and ready access to knowledge and information to facilitate extension and adoption of research to all potential end-users
• working collaboratively to improve access to national research capability (people and infrastructure) by industry and R&D partners across Australia
• working cooperatively to improve the administrative processes and effectiveness of information sharing and management
• encouraging, and wherever possible supporting, engagement by all stakeholder groups in the implementation of the strategy
• working collaboratively with stakeholders and other RD&E providers and jurisdictions to address stakeholder RD&E priorities, and retain and build national capability to address future needs
• building on existing RD&E evaluation frameworks to develop monitoring and evaluation criteria to review the performance of the strategy
• encouraging and fostering regional RD&E coordination and collaboration

The next steps in the implementation of the strategy are as follows.
Planned delivery date
1 April 2010
Action
Strategy approved by PIMC
Responsible parties/ working groups
Strategy working group to table
3 May 2010
30 June 2010
First meeting of National Fishing and Aquaculture RD&E Priorities
Forum
Key initial tasks (to be delivered subsequently):
• Alignment of strategy and jurisdictional research priorities, and actions to address, with relevant cross-sectoral plans
• Develop reporting framework
• Develop refinements to funding model to reinforce regional collaboration, consolidation and specialisation
• Organise National Fishing and Aquaculture Extension Network
Forum
• Organise National Fishing and Aquaculture Research Provider
Network Forum
• Oversight of sectoral communications about strategy implementation
• Confirm reporting requirements and timelines
National Priorities Forum
• Develop criteria and transitional arrangements for RD&E consolidation and specialisation by providers
• Develop regional case studies (Southern Rocklobster for southeastern, Bight Redfish for southwestern / Common-wealth, pearls for northern region)
National Priorities Forum
1 August 2010 Centre of Excellence for Indigenous Fishing scoped and funded
1 September
2010
1 November
2010
First meeting of Research Provider Forum
First meeting of Fishing and Aquaculture Extension Forum
FRDC / Department of
Resources NT
Nominated network chair
/ FRDC
FRDC / SeaNet / nominated industry council
Planned delivery date
1 July 2011
1 July 2011
Action Responsible parties
/working groups
Progress Report to PISC and others National Priorities Forum
Agreement on which organisations will specialise in which research National Priorities Forum,

1 July 2011 areas in each region
• Set criteria for specialisation
• Develop process/contractual agreements for services to be provided
• Possible areas for specialisation are nutrition, genetics, aquatic animal health and gear research. These are areas of research that have clear lead agencies and that are achievable early and involving research providers and stakeholders in each region
FRDC funding model adjusted to encourage and support collaboration aligned with the strategy
FRDC