Most Australian fisheries policies require that fisheries management take account of the cumulative effect of all human users of marine resources, including professional, recreational and Indigenous Australian fishers. The triple bottom line (TBL) approach is the general framework used to assess performance against economic, social, and environmental dimensions. TBL requires articulation of these broad values, but these may be qualitatively assessed. Significant progress has been made in incorporating some of these elements into fisheries management decision, particularly prioritising different objectives of fishery management [e.g. 1, 2]. In some cases, development of semi-quantitative approaches have been used to assist in decision-making across these multiple dimensions [e.g. 3], including in some cases indigenous value [e.g. 4]. Recent research has also extended this focus to develop a robust articulation of Indigenous Australian customary fishing values to enable their inclusion when developing fisheries management policies [5].

Optimal decisions require the trade-off between costs and benefits to be considered. TBL approaches do not explicitly consider this trade-off, resulting in challenges in identifying optimal outcomes. Where these costs and benefits are expressed as explicit monetary values, assessing the trade-off requires deducting the expected costs from the expected benefits (commonly referred to as cost-benefit analysis (CBA)).

However, in fisheries, many costs and benefits do not have an explicit monetary value. Hence, decisions about the use and management of marine resources increasingly requires objective information on the non-market value of benefits (and costs). Some attention has been focused on the estimation of non-market values of recreational fishing [e.g. 6, 7], although only limited attempts to-date have been made to use these values in supporting management decision making [e.g. 8]. Many other values have not been quantified, and their use in fisheries management has not been fully explored.

The Tasmanian seafood industry operates in an exceptionally complex environment, with a diverse range of stakeholders who have input and influence over the decision making process. Furthermore, an increasing number of issues and challenges threaten the ongoing viability of the industry, notable examples include large scale harmful algal blooms on Tasmania's East Coast, community and industry acceptance of salmon expansion and political influence overriding a scientific evidence base. Industry associations and the volunteer Directors of such organisations are tasked with steering the Tasmanian seafood industry towards a sustainable and prosperous future. Fundamental to the success of seafood sector associations is sound governance, fiscal responsibility and strategy and risk preparedness. Directors of not-for-profit associations must clearly understand their role and legal obligations of being a Director, and their role in steering industry in a positive forward projection.

Governance, fiscal responsibility and strategy and risk preparedness are fundamental skills and knowledge that all Directors must be aware of and constantly reminded of, and it is important to provide volunteer Directors the opportunity to up-skill or re-skill in this important area. Noting that the Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fishemen's Association and Oysters Tasmania are about to finalise new Directors, it is timely that TSIC run professional development opportunities to support these and other sector association representatives.

The Australian Institute for Company Directors offer short, one day courses tailored to the Tasmanian seafood industry needs.

The Australian seafood industry aspires to continue improving its sustainability in many areas, including reducing its carbon emissions and ultimately achieving carbon neutrality. The 2017 National Seafood Industry Leaders called for the industry to strive to become carbon neutral by 2030. There are many aspects to this, such as improving fuel efficiency and evaluating land transport options, but some emissions are inevitable. To offset these emissions, the seafood industry might choose to investigate carbon markets. Investments in blue carbon could also provide added value to the industry, say, through better fish nurseries, or through the social benefits of being seen to proactively nurture the ecosystems that support them. However, the mechanisms to allow the seafood industry to pursue this are poorly developed. Impediments include the paucity of blue carbon opportunities in existing regulatory markets, and uncertainty about the most appropriate financial mechanisms for blue carbon investment.

The industry would benefit from a clear guide that outlines the current (and likely future) opportunities, the risks, a realistic assessment of the benefits, and a set of options for potential investors to pursue. To facilitate this, we will hold a meeting of key seafood industry stakeholders: at this workshop we will inform stakeholders about the current state of knowledge and opportunities, ask the extent to which the industry aspires to be carbon neutral, and whether blue carbon investments are perceived to be relevant. We will identify the major impediments to the industry achieving its desired goals, and plan concrete actions that can be taken to achieve them. These will be compiled into a plan to inform the FRDC on what actions to invest in, and how much investment would be needed.

A fishery’s long-term profitability is intrinsically linked to its sustainability. We know that pipi populations are patchily distributed, display large natural fluctuations in abundance, and that overharvesting can drive localised depletion. Careful management is needed to ensure Victoria’s pipis remain a sustainable resource.

Sustainable fisheries management requires an understanding of how harvested populations are structured (population connectivity), and the spatio-temporal dynamics in their abundance and demography (assessed by monitoring). Previous work indicates that Australian pipi stocks consist of two large, reproductively isolated, groupings occurring on Australia’s east and south coasts, however, we lack information on more relevant finer-scale stock structure. Our study will provide novel research that will determine the spatial and temporal patterns in harvestable pipi biomass, the recruitment potential of individual stocks, and connectivity / genetic stock structuring among Victorian populations. We will identify pipi populations that can sustain ongoing commercial harvest, and those that are vulnerable to over-exploitation. Our project outputs will help set objective and informed catch quotas.

We need information on local-scale pipi demography because: the abundance, reproductive characteristics and size structure of pipis provides essential information to set sustainable catch rates. Stock biomass and individual size are indicators of recruitment variation, and a direct measure of harvest impact, together determining the sustainability of the fishery.

We need information on pipi stock structure and connectivity because: if certain stocks are isolated and largely dependent on local recruitment, they likely have reduced recruitment potential and are vulnerable to over-fishing. Conversely, if pipi stocks across the state are highly connected, then they are expected be more resilient to harvesting pressure due to their greater potential for recruitment and replenishment from external sources.

We need to develop fishery-dependent and fishery-independent survey methods because: sound fisheries management relies on the cost-effective and accurate estimation of biomass and abundance.

The north west of Western Australia has productive commercial and recreational fisheries and extensive offshore oil and gas (O&G) infrastructure. These man-made structures support a range of demersal and pelagic fishes which are targeted by recreational and commercial fishers. As this O&G infrastructure reaches the end of its productive life, decisions on the best practice option for decommissioning must be made. The current policy for decommissioning requires complete removal. Regulators may support alternative strategies, such as leaving infrastructure in place, if risks and impacts are minimised and there are clear environmental, social and economic benefits to do so. It is thought that removal of infrastructure will decrease catch rates and have negative ecological, economic (direct and downstream) and social consequences.

At the same time as the discussion is occurring about removing O&G infrastructure, there have been large investments in constructing and installing purpose built man-made aquatic structures on the seafloor for the express purpose of enhancing the experience of recreational fishers and SCUBA divers.

There is a need to deliver critical information on: 1) the ecological, economic and social value of these man-made structures to recreational and commercial fishers and other stakeholders; 2) the attitudes of stakeholders to man-made structures; and 3) the opportunities and risks of decommissioning strategies to fishers and other groups (e.g. tourism).

Policy regarding the removal of decommissioned structures will benefit from the increased clarity that this project will provide in regards to data requirements for socio-economic models and stakeholder consultation methods. Comparative assessments of decommissioning options rely on the existence of appropriate socio-economic data, a knowledge gap this project aims to fill. An understanding of the impact of man-made aquatic structures on recreational and commercial fisheries is a global priority, and as such this project has strong international importance and relevance.