3D Marine seismic surveys (MSS) are typically used by the petroleum industry to locate potential oil and gas deposits. In Australia, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) requires an Environmental Plan (EP) be developed to demonstrate that the MSS will be carried out in a manner that is consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, and that the environmental impacts and risks associated with the MSS will be reduced to as low as reasonably practicable. However, during the public consultation phase of the EP, there is often a perceived conflict between the proponents of the survey and the fishing industry, with the later party often concerned that the survey will harm the fishery stocks and their livelihoods. As such, there is a need to break the continual cycle where each EP seemingly triggers the same ill feeling and distrust from the fishing industry. One possible way to do this is to introduce new seismic sources or ways of using current sources, such that some or all of the potential impacts are mitigated. While there are new seismic sources and source designs that should lessen any impact on animals, these have not been tested with animals anywhere in the world and have never been tested or used in Australia in general and only sparsely overseas. As such there is an urgent need to compare a current industry standard seismic array to arrays using alternate sources of seismic signals or different source designs to determine the relative impact of each on marine animals, while also comparing the quality of the geophysical records obtained from each source. This approach would put Australian fisheries management, NOPSEMA, Australian Oil and Gas, the fishing industry, etc. ahead of the game of determining what alternate sources will reduce conflict between two key industries. It would also move us into a position to start mitigating the impacts of seismic surveys, rather than the situation we currently have, where each individual seismic survey causes a large amount of angst between a large number of stake holders.

• Coping with the potential persistence of WSSV in Australian waters
It is important for farms in the WSD risk region, as well as those outside it, to have access to the necessary tools and reliable information that enables them to implement highly effective biosecurity measures when they become necessary.

• Industry white spot disease preparedness
Chemical treatment to remove residual vectors and/or destroy the pathogen is currently the only practical approach with potential to adequately reduce WSD biosecurity risk associated with influent farm water. When assessment indicates a high disease risk, farms will need to be confident that their biosecurity measures will be immediately effective.

• Appropriate guidelines for using trichlorfon
Currently there is no locally generated guideline for achieving effective application of trichlorfon that is based on directly applicable experimental data and prawn farm experience. The industry needs a set of guidelines that expand upon the basic APVMA use conditions and define the environmental factors and application parameters that will provide the greatest protection for Australian farm conditions.

• Gaps in information currently available
The available information does not provide substantiated details of trichlorfon treatment methods and outcomes. The Australian industry needs validated treatment methods and their effectiveness and biosecurity outcomes verified.

• Constraints on trichlorfon use during production
Using trichlorfon to treat top-up and exchange water during the production cycle is problematic for some farms due to the 12 day conditioning period required to ensure toxic residues are below the detectable limit before stock is exposed to the water. The potential to manipulate water quality parameters to accelerate residue degradation could make treatment throughout the cycle a more practical option.

• Continuation of permit to use trichlorfon
Documented evidence of outcomes and impacts of trichlorfon use on farms is needed to support an APVMA application to extend its use beyond the current MUP period ending 31 December 2021.

From call:

To effectively implement the new legislative requirements and Commonwealth fisheries resource sharing framework, the Commonwealth is seeking to develop an appropriate ‘Indigenous engagement strategy’. This engagement strategy will also be relevant for other Australian jurisdictions. The Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) and the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) are key stakeholders in this work and will have significant input. It is also envisaged that the Australian Fisheries Management Forum (AFMF), comprised of the Directors of Fisheries in each jurisdiction and the Commonwealth and its Indigenous subcommittee will be kept abreast and engaged regarding the research outputs.

Australian Standards have status and are recognised as best practice, but are not legal documents. However, a Government can reference a standard in legislation and it becomes mandatory.
AS 5300 is not yet mandated in Australia, but is listed in the FSANZ Standard 2.2.3 - Fish and Fish Products as an advisory note (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2011C00569 ) and AS 5301, is not reference anywhere.

Both SRB's recognise and industry stakeholder groups, recognise the standards must be mandated within FSANZ or other appropriate legislation. It is key that legislation covers the complete supply chain including food service, for the Standards to become fully effective. Further communication and extension of the required to support better adoption. Through this project, we will continue to articulate the need for the standards to become consumer law, whilst also advocating for further industry adoption of the standards.

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

FNC undertook a stakeholder survey (Attachment1), with the key net benefits considered to be: consistency, integrity, transparency, improved management of food fraud and food safety and strengthening public, consumer and stakeholder confidence of the industry. These net benefits align with the FRDC's Fish forever 2030 vision and R & D Plan 2020-25; with strong relevance to Strategy V: Provide foundational information and support services; and Outcome 5: Community, trust, respect and value.
Attachment 2 & 3: Letters of support and net benefits summary show for further support of the Standards.