Advances in data capture has resulted in the proliferation in the types of reporting platforms available for the fishing industry to report to the Government and third parties resulting in duplication of processes, collection of multiple data sets, and a requirement for fishing boats to operate multiple systems to meet their reporting requirements. It is estimated for licensing systems alone around four times the necessary spend to create a national system has been expended or will be expended within the next few years. Coupled with an increased drive for fishers to participate in traceability schemes a new data architecture is required to enable access to data that links currently disparate data sets and in particular creating a unique event linking identifier.

To support the changing needs there is a need to develop a design for a fisheries data architecture which:
• allows for the linkage or integration of currently disparate data
• allows for multiple methods of data transfer
• is adaptable to changing needs allowing for future expansion and changes to data sets and collection methodology
• supports sharing of data with third parties in real time.

While single integrated box solutions initially appear an attractive solution for solving this problem, they limit the ability to adapt quickly to changing needs and reduce long term market competition. There is a need to develop a data architecture that allows for future adaptation and provides industry flexibility to choose equipment they employ on their boats. The key aspect is linking a wide range of data, collected from different sources to a single event and sharing this data quickly across different platforms and for different purposes.

Consistent with the recommendation from “accelerating precision agriculture to decision agriculture” report it offers an opportunity to demonstrate benefits of digital initiatives.

The need for cumulative impact assessment (CIA) is increasingly being recognized. The development process for Australia's Harvest and Bycatch Policies, and their associated guidelines have reinforced the need for assessment of cumulative impacts, and the EPBC Act has also explicitly required consideration of cumulative impacts.

Where multiple activities occur or are planned, an understanding of their combined effects on the environment is necessary to address policy requirements and achieve sustainability. The concept of cumulative impact assessment is not new – indeed cumulative assessment has been recognized for many years, and a range of methods have been proposed around the globe. However, no methodology for undertaking cumulative assessments has been accepted nationally or globally. In addition to considering the impacts across all fishing sectors (commercial, recreational, indigenous, as required by recent changes to the Fisheries Administration Act 1991) and all fisheries, there is also an increasing need to consider other users of marine resources and coastal waters (e.g. renewable energy, shipping etc), especially where space crowding may be an issue.

Target species stock assessments typically consider the species of interest as well as other sources of fishing mortality (e.g. discards), but they do not usually consider their effects on other fisheries sectors or the effects of other sectors on the focal fishery. CIA methods therefore need to consider interactive and indirect effects. To date, interactive effects are often viewed as additive (simple linear addition of one impact to another) with little consideration given to synergistic, antagonistic or non-linear effects. While the ERAEF toolbox used for assessment of bycatch and protected species has some potential options for cumulative impacts (e.g. SAFE method), at this stage they are insufficient for moving to the scales and complexities across multiple fishing sectors and fisheries.

Thus, sustainable fisheries management requires new approaches that consider all sectors and all fisheries and how they impact the environment. Such CIAs will be challenging given that empirical data are often lacking - a dedicated research effort is needed.

Maintaining and enhancing market access for Australian seafood is critical for future industry growth. SafeFish makes a significant contribution to this by carrying out three types of projects:
1. Food safety incident responses. The SafeFish partners come together during each incident to provide industry and government with immediate technical information required to respond to the incident. Subsequently, technical input is provided to update policies for prevention of similar incidents and respond to them should they recur. Appropriate technical responses reduce the impact of food safety incidents and ensure better outcomes for future management.
2. Technical input to inter-government consultations on food regulations and market access. It is essential for the Australian seafood industry to participate in consultations such as Codex to ensure that proposed new, or modified, regulations are pragmatic and cost-effective for the Australian seafood industry. It is far easier to influence standards under development than after they have been finalised. Similarly, it is essential for the seafood industry to stay in close contact with Food Safety Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) when domestic food safety regulations are reviewed.
3. Proactive research, risk analyses and training. The safety of Australian seafood is not negotiable in domestic and international markets. Over recent years SafeFish has conducted many activities to assist the industry anticipate and minimize food safety risks. The objective of the activities has always been to identify and mitigate risks before they cause a problem, or to grow knowledge to enable us to improve our risk management in a cost effective manner.