Recent studies into the effects of seismic energy on molluscs have demonstrated a number of cumulative and sub-lethal impacts that indicated impairment of immune systems, cellular damage and adverse changes in behaviour. In scallops, cumulative exposure to seismic energy resulted in increased rates of mortality after 120 days (R Day et al. (2017)). These findings are of critical importance to the pearling industry, which relies on the harvest and husbandry of pearl oysters in coastal shelf water . Pearl oyster crops are typically 2 years duration, so long term effects will have a chronic sub-lethal effect on pearl production. In addition, as the oysters were still not fully recovered at the day 180 sampling, there is concern that the long recovery time may result in a reduction of the reproductive output for up to one year. Energetically compromised oysters will have a reduced reproductive output, and a higher proportion of male oysters, as egg production is more energy intensive.

This would have major ramifications for recruitment into the wildstock pearl oyster fishery and the pearling industry it underpins.

To these ends it became apparent that a 4th sampling round was critical in order to provide a condition data from the oyster sample set after 360 days; so that the responses of the oysters to seismic treatment may be better understood after the completion of one year – bearing in mind that at different times of the year oysters do different things.

The overarching objective of this experiment is to measure the impact of seismic surveys on wild harvested pearl oysters in a way that provides information that is useful to stakeholders in the pearl production and oil and gas industries and to the managers of these resources. The uncertainty surrounding the long-term impacts of seismic surveys on the health of pearl oysters and their pearl production capacity is the key driver of this study.

The Industry Consultation Unit has been tasked with undertaking the independent facilitation of the Abalone Area 3 Recovery Strategy, which was developed within FRDC Project No. 2018/212, 'Establishing an Industry Recovery Strategy for the Area 3 Zone of the WA Abalone Managed Fishery'.

As a critical component of the development of key decision-making practices, it has been proposed that the Industry Consultation Unit attend the Western Abalone Divers Association Quota Setting Workshop, held on the 15th and 16th of January 2020.

Facets of the Recovery Strategy will be modeled off the Western Abalone Divers Association recovery plan, it would be highly beneficial for the Industry Consultation Unit to attend the Workshop and observe the industry lead decision making process.

The current application is to produce the SAFS reports in 2020 and address strategic issues outlined above. In order to ensure the continuation of SAFS beyond 2020, it is essential for jurisdictions to develop ownership of the reports and to embed SAFS processes in core business, and for efficiencies in production and report management to continue to progress. A parallel project to develop jurisdictional reporting services is also underway to assist jurisdiction develop their jurisdictional chapters. As documented in the independent audit of SAFS 2016 (FRDC project 2016-143), the process of compiling SAFS on a co-operative basis between FRDC, Australian government agencies and all fisheries jurisdictions has led to greater joint collaboration, as well as transfers of methodologies and processes, to deliver higher quality and more credible stock status reporting which can be accessed nationally and internationally, as well as assisting in policy decisions regarding changes to particular fisheries management arrangements and in research priorities. Primary drivers for National reporting of the SAFS include: (i) the State of the Environment Report 2011, i.e., ‘lack of a nationally integrated approach inhibits effective marine management’; (ii) a recommendation of the House of Representatives Inquiry into the Role of Science for Fisheries and Aquaculture (Netting the Benefits Report 2012), i.e., ‘producing national status report regularly’; (iii) the Australian Fisheries Management Forum national statement of intent, i.e. a key outcome of ‘Goal 1’ is the National Status of Australian Fish Stocks Report; (iv) the National Fishing and Aquaculture Strategy 2015–20, i.e., ‘Goal 1’ of this strategy will be partially measured by an increased number of fisheries assessed as environmentally sustainable in the Status of Australian Fish Stocks Reports (this includes reducing the number of stocks assessed as uncertain); (v) the FRDC RD&E Plan 2015–20, i.e., key targets for deliverables against National Priority One include (i) “Increase the number of species to 200 in the national Status of Australian Fish Stocks Reports” and (ii) “Reduce the number of species classified as ‘undefined’ from the current figure of approximately

There is an urgent need to reflect on the current state of fisheries resource sharing in Australia and how it can meet future demands. Over the past 20 years individual Australian jurisdictions have developed and implemented resource sharing arrangements. These generally apply to commercial and recreational fisheries, and in some cases indigenous cultural fishers. The resource sharing arrangements stem from the objectives of fisheries legislation in Australia which is based on the principles of ESD that include consideration of all fishery resource users in the management of fisheries. Understandably when management resources are limited the focus is on those having the greatest impact on fish stock which for most species is the commercial sector, and sometimes the recreational sector. The use of OCS provisions in fisheries legislation was both an effort to simplify commercial fisheries management and reduce the need to have resource sharing arrangements. While this was largely successful it has run its course due to the value of commercial rights ($billions) that have now accrued under current OCS agreements making it almost impossible to make further significant changes. Alongside these developments a component of the recreational fishing sector has been increasing its range and capacity to catch fish using larger boats and technology similar to that employed by some commercial fishers. This has led to traditionally commercial species being accessed by recreational fishers with growing concerns from the former sector about their fishing future. Various policies and statutes have been implemented by the states/NT in an effort to allocate the shares of a fish stock. This has become easier as a growing number of fish stocks are subject to TACs with the commercial fishers subject to ITQs and recreational fishers to increasingly stock-specific possession limits. Despite this those states/NT who have implemented resource sharing have experienced its contentious, costly and drawn out nature, and are only starting to confront stocks which cross both jurisdictions and fishing sectors. It is time to reflect on experience to date and find the best way to manage fisheries resource sharing in the future.