ORCID Profile
0000-0001-6157-5279
Current Organisations
University of Tasmania
,
University of Western Australia
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Frontiers Media SA
Date: 06-03-2020
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 12-07-2020
Abstract: Sustainability of fisheries extends beyond environmental aspects. Broad information is today sought for decision-making and by many stakeholders. Here, a framework recently developed to comprehensively report on sustainability issues relevant to fisheries, the Australian Fisheries Healthcheck, was used to compare five crustacean trawl fisheries from Australia and Europe. Indicators covered 51 different aspects of sustainability in 24 sub-categories related to ecological, economic, social and ethical, governance, and external (e.g. climate, contaminants) dimensions. We found that data availability did not vary greatly between fisheries, but the indicator outcomes did. Furthermore, while environmental sustainability has received most attention in assessments to date, the associated indicators had the least publicly available data. Another finding was that eco-certification and high performance on several governance indicators did not necessarily equate to sustainability. For future international comparisons, challenges include identifying comparable and cost-effective metrics for indicators derived from different data collection strategies. Commencing holistic reporting on broader sustainability is important since the data provided (i) are sought by stakeholders (ii) enable improved availability of empirical data for research on the effectiveness of different governance modes (iii) can illustrate trade-offs between different dimensions of sustainability, and (iv) build trust in the fishery system as producers of sustainable food.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 07-2019
Publisher: CSIRO Publishing
Date: 2018
DOI: 10.1071/MF17248
Abstract: Climate change, in combination with population growth, is placing increasing pressure on the world’s oceans and their resources. This is threatening sustainability and societal wellbeing. Responding to these complex and synergistic challenges requires holistic management arrangements. To this end, ecosystem-based management (EBM) promises much by recognising the need to manage the ecosystem in its entirety, including the human dimensions. However, operationalisation of EBM in the marine environment has been slow. One reason may be a lack of the inter-disciplinary science required to address complex social–ecological marine systems. In the present paper, we synthesise the collective experience of the authors to explore progress in integrating natural and social sciences in marine EBM research, illustrating actual and potential contributions. We identify informal barriers to and incentives for this type of research. We find that the integration of natural and social science has progressed at most stages of the marine EBM cycle however, practitioners do not yet have the capacity to address all of the problems that have led to the call for inter-disciplinary research. In addition, we assess how we can support the next generation of researchers to undertake the effective inter-disciplinary research required to assist with operationalising marine EBM, particularly in a changing climate.
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 20-04-2023
DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0284711
Abstract: There is global pressure to protect more of the world’s oceans, primarily to protect bio ersity, and to fulfill the “30 by 30” goal set by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) that has recently been ratified under the Kunming-Montreal Global Bio ersity Framework at the fifteenth Conference of Parties (COP-15). Fully protected marine protected areas (MPAs) provide the highest level of protection for bio ersity from destructive or extractive practices and may limit access to the area itself. Fully protected MPAs (also commonly referred to as ‘no-take MPAs’) ban all fishing activities, thereby removing the realisation of direct economic and social benefits from resource extraction within these areas. However, fully protected MPAs can still act as source of productivity to surrounding areas, while also providing an important scientific reference role for off-reserve management thereby providing indirect economic and social outcomes, as well as bio ersity benefits. Sustainable marine resource management strives to achieve ‘triple-bottom line’ benefits, where economic, social, and bio ersity benefits are maximised in managed areas of the ocean. Implementing ‘partially protected’ areas (PPAs) in areas of high bio ersity value (i.e., inshore, productive areas of the ocean) that allow for some extractive activities, may allow us to supplement fully MPAs to meet IUCN conservation goals, while maximising social and economic benefits. However, our current understanding lacks explicit quantitative assessments of whether and how PPAs can benefit (or otherwise) bio ersity, while also providing economic and social benefits. This study provides a method to systematically review the scientific and legislative literature to understand how PPAs may contribute to conserving bio ersity while also providing social and economic benefits to Australia. The implementation of partially protected areas (PPAs) requires careful consideration of many potentially competing factors, and an understanding of the types of partial protection already in place in a region. We have developed a systematic literature review protocol focussing on the primary research question: “What is the current state of partially protected area (PPA) implementation across Australian marine areas?”. The aim of the review is to provide marine resource managers with a comprehensive overview of PPAs in Australia, including associated goals and stated management strategies to achieve these goals, and a methodological approach that may be utilised globally. The review protocol was designed by the research team for a Fisheries Resource and Development Corporation (FRDC) strategic research grant and will seek input from a project steering committee for the project on aggregation of the initial results. The steering committee is made up of stakeholders from a wide range of backgrounds and interests, covering marine conservation, fisheries management, Indigenous values, and academic research in Australia. Multiple academic databases, alongside Australian Federal, State, and Territory legislation and related policies will be reviewed using Boolean keyword search strings for both academic databases and relevant grey literature. Results from eligible documents will be compiled and insights from the review collated to provide information on the status of PPA implementation in Australia.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2016
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 21-09-2022
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 27-05-2021
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 31-07-2014
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 02-2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2014
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2020
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 31-10-2014
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2021
Publisher: Frontiers Media SA
Date: 24-03-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 11-2019
DOI: 10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2019.07.001
Abstract: Managing fisheries to meet social, economic and ecological objectives is a fundamental problem encountered in fisheries management worldwide. In Australia, fisheries management involves a complex set of national and sub-national policy arrangements, including those designed to deliver against ecologically sustainable development (ESD) objectives. The complex policy framework makes ensuring policy coherence and avoiding unintended consequences difficult, particularly where potential trade-offs are not made explicit. Coherence, or potential policy weakness, of Australian fisheries management in relation to ESD objectives was examined in a subset of Australian wild capture fisheries, at national and jurisdictional scales. Coherent policy frameworks with ESD objectives were found to be more likely at the legislative-level across jurisdictions (horizontal coherence), than other levels of implementation. Many fisheries had problems demonstrating coherence between legislation and management plans due to lack of inclusion of ESD policy themes at management and operational levels. Case studies revealed substantial variation in the likelihood for horizontal and vertical coherence between fisheries policy frameworks managing the same species. The lack of explicit ESD objectives observed in many Australian fisheries suggests a high likelihood of incoherence in fisheries management, or alternatively that managers may be informally persuing higher levels of policy coordination and coherence than can be detected. Lack of detectability of coherence is problematic for demonstrating accountability and transparency in decision-making and public policy. Furthermore, use of discretion by managers when developing management plans, in order to overcome policy weakness, may lead to drifts in in idual management direction within a jurisdiction.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 05-2017
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2020
Publisher: Resilience Alliance, Inc.
Date: 2022
Publisher: Resilience Alliance, Inc.
Date: 2020
Publisher: Authorea, Inc.
Date: 05-10-2020
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 27-08-2015
Abstract: This article challenges the idea that success of boundary organizations is marked primarily by the stability of the science–policy interface. We review key theory in the literature on boundary work and boundary organizations. We then present a case, the Derwent Estuary Program (DEP) in South East Tasmania, Australia, to explore the evolution of successful boundary organization. We detail how a science-oriented program of work achieved success, through early wins that cemented its support and created a relatively stable entity able to navigate the expansion of its remit from managing controversy to implementing an integrated, systems approach to coastal zone management. The creation of “safe spaces” enabled contentious situations to be negotiated through well-established relationships and processes. The interaction among these elements, supported by exemplary leadership, was critical to reframing the problem. We suggest that it is through these abilities to navigate controversy and mediate among ergent interests, while maintaining a committed focus on science, that boundary organizations can succeed. Success in this context is achieved through using credible science to reframe problems. Success is further indicated not just by surviving periodic controversies but by being able to benefit from them, building legitimacy among partners and stakeholders through successfully navigating unforeseen events.
Publisher: Authorea, Inc.
Date: 10-12-2020
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 06-2023
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 16-05-2021
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2021
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 02-03-2023
DOI: 10.1007/S11160-023-09760-Z
Abstract: Australia’s fisheries have experience in responding in idually to specific shocks to stock levels (for ex le, marine heatwaves, floods) and markets (for ex le, global financial crisis, food safety access barriers). The COVID-19 pandemic was, however, novel in triggering a series of systemic shocks and disruptions to the activities and operating conditions for all Australia’s commercial fisheries sectors including those of the research agencies that provide the information needed for their sustainable management. While these disruptions have a single root cause—the public health impacts and containment responses to the COVID-19 pandemic—their transmission and effects have been varied. We examine both the impacts on Australian fisheries triggered by measures introduced by governments both internationally and domestically in response to the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, and the countermeasures introduced to support continuity in fisheries and aquaculture production and supply chains. Impacts on fisheries production are identified by comparing annual and monthly catch data for Australia’s commercial fisheries in 2020 with averages for the last 4–5 years. We combine this with a survey of the short-term disruption to and impacts on research organisations engaged in fisheries monitoring and assessment and the adaptive measures they deployed. The dominant impact identified was triggered by containment measures both within Australia and in export receiving countries which led to loss of export markets and domestic dine-in markets for live or fresh seafood. The most heavily impact fisheries included lobster and abalone (exported live) and specific finfishes (exported fresh or sold live domestically), which experienced short-term reductions in both production and price. At the same time, improved prices and demand for seafood sold into domestic retail channels were observed. The impacts observed were both a function of the disruptions due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the countermeasures and support programs introduced by various national and state-level governments across Australia to at least partly mitigate negative impacts on harvesting activities and supply chains. These included protecting fisheries activities from specific restrictive COVID-19 containment measures, pro-actively re-establishing freight links, supporting quota roll-overs, and introducing wage and businesses support packages. Fisheries research organisations were impacted to various degrees, largely determined by the extent to which their field monitoring activities were protected from specific restrictive COVID-19 containment measures by their state-level governments. Responses of these organisations included reducing fisheries dependent and independent data collection as required while developing strategies to continue to provide assessment services, including opportunistic innovations to harvest data from new data sources. Observed short run impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak has emphasised both the vulnerability of fisheries dependent on export markets, live or fresh markets, and long supply chains and the resilience of fisheries research programs. We suggest that further and more comprehensive analysis over a longer time period of the long-run impacts of subsequent waves of variants, extended pandemic containment measures, autonomous and planned adaptive responses would be beneficial for the development of more effective counter measures for when the next major external shock affects Australian fisheries.
Publisher: Frontiers Media SA
Date: 19-12-2022
DOI: 10.3389/FMARS.2022.954959
Abstract: For future sustainable management of fisheries, we anticipate deeper and more erse information will be needed. Future needs include not only biological data, but also information that can only come from fishers, such as real-time ‘early warning’ indicators of changes at sea, socio-economic data and fishing strategies. The fishing industry, in our experience, shows clear willingness to voluntarily contribute data and experiential knowledge, but there is little evidence that current institutional frameworks for science and management are receptive and equipped to accommodate such contributions. Current approaches to producing knowledge in support of fisheries management need critical re-evaluation, including the contributions that industry can make. Using ex les from well-developed advisory systems in Europe, United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, we investigate evidence for three interrelated issues inhibiting systematic integration of voluntary industry contributions to science: (1) concerns about data quality (2) beliefs about limitations in useability of unique fishers’ knowledge and (3) perceptions about the impact of industry contributions on the integrity of science. We show that whilst these issues are real, they can be addressed. Entrenching effective science-industry research collaboration (SIRC) calls for action in three specific areas (i) a move towards alternative modes of knowledge production (ii) establishing appropriate quality assurance frameworks and (iii) transitioning to facilitating governance structures. Attention must also be paid to the science-policy-stakeholder interface. Better definition of industry’s role in contributing to science will improve credibility and legitimacy of the scientific process, and of resulting management.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2021
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 16-05-2019
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 10-2018
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2018
Start Date: 2019
End Date: 2021
Funder: Fisheries Research & Development Corporation
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 2010
End Date: 2011
Funder: Australian Seafood Cooperative Research Centre
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 2020
End Date: 2020
Funder: Department of Agriculture and Water Resources
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 2018
End Date: 2019
Funder: Fisheries Research & Development Corporation
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 2019
End Date: 2019
Funder: Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 2019
End Date: 2021
Funder: Fisheries Research & Development Corporation
View Funded Activity