Is Best Practice Science Actually Best Practice?

For two decades we have been told that Australian fisheries are managed under “best practice science”.

Best practice stock assessments. Best practice harvest strategies. Best practice precautionary frameworks.

But here is the uncomfortable question.

If this is best practice science, why are sustainable local fisheries shrinking while imported seafood from poorly managed regions fills the gap?

At what point do we ask whether “best practice” is delivering the opposite of its stated objective?

What Best Practice Science Has Delivered

Let’s look at outcomes.

Australia’s seafood demand has not disappeared. It has simply been increasingly met through imports.

At the same time:

• Domestic wild catch participation has narrowed

• Access has been permanently removed in multiple fisheries

• Fleets have consolidated and contracted

• Regional communities have lost local supply options

If the purpose of best practice science is sustainability, we need to ask a simple question.

Sustainable for what?

Because the net effect has not been greater food security. It has not been greater transparency. It has not been greater resilience.

It has been contraction at home and substitution from overseas.

The Import Substitution Problem

When a local fishery is permanently reduced or closed under best practice science, demand does not disappear.

Supermarkets still need product. Restaurants still need supply. Consumers still eat seafood.

So, what happens?

Imports increase.

Many of those imports come from systems with:

• Limited public stock assessment transparency

• Weak monitoring and enforcement capacity

• Minimal observer coverage

• Inconsistent labour oversight

In other words, we apply extreme precaution to domestic operators operating under one of the most regulated systems in the world, while outsourcing risk offshore.

That is not global sustainability.

That is displacement.

Case Study: Western Australia’s West Coast Demersal Decision

If you want a clear Australian example of “best practice science” colliding with real-world outcomes, look at WA’s West Coast demersal management.

In December 2025, the WA Government announced statewide reforms that included a permanent closure of the West Coast Zone to commercial demersal fishing from 1 January 2026, supported by a compulsory buyback.

This is a policy endpoint that matters because it is not a short closure. It is structural removal of commercial access in the core West Coast region.

At the same time, DPIRD’s own assessment framework is heavily centred on modelling, estimated removals (including post-release mortality), and sector benchmarks, using catch and effort information up to 2024 and biological sampling windows up to 2021–22 depending on component datasets.

That is not an argument about whether WA stocks need recovery.

It is a question about what “best practice” is allowed to mean in practice.

Because the outcome is predictable:

• Local supply contracts

• Market demand remains

• Substitute supply grows, often imports

• Small operators and local fish chains wear the cost of a management response that is framed as purely scientific

And importantly, the WA Government and Parliament have repeatedly characterised the change as a permanent commercial closure with buyback. This is not a disputed detail. It is the stated policy position.

So the case study becomes the article’s anchor question:

If best practice science is best practice, why does it keep producing domestic contraction outcomes without a transparent accounting of what replaces that seafood?

When Best Practice Science Becomes Narrative Management

Science is not sacred.

Science is a method.

And best practice science should mean:

• Full effort time series published

• Raw and standardised CPUE disclosed with diagnostics

• Model assumptions transparent

• Sensitivity testing visible

• Uncertainty ranges openly discussed

• Alternative drivers explicitly evaluated

But too often what we see instead is:

Effort data not shown. CPUE methods not disclosed. PRM assumptions hidden. Biology reused from outdated studies. Non-fishing pressures sidelined.

When data is selectively presented, that is not best practice science.

It is narrative management.

And if scientists ignore contradictory data because it does not align with the preferred policy direction, that is not precaution.

That is institutional bias.

The Global Consequence

This is not just an Australian problem.

Across advanced jurisdictions, hyper-precautionary domestic policy has coincided with rising imports from regions with weaker transparency and weaker enforcement.

Global seafood demand has not fallen.

So when advanced economies reduce domestic supply without reducing consumption, they shift extraction pressure elsewhere.

That is a leakage problem.

Leakage is not sustainability.

Best Practice Science Must Mean Accountability

If we are going to invoke the term best practice science, then the standard must be higher, not lower.

It must include:

• Full methodological transparency

• Publication of rejected alternative hypotheses and why they were rejected

• Clear articulation of trade-offs, including food security impacts

• Explicit modelling of import substitution effects

• Consequence review when forecasts are wrong

When projections fail, there must be review.

When uncertainty is high, it must be acknowledged openly.

When data contradicts policy direction, it must be addressed, not ignored.

Science without accountability becomes authority. Authority without accountability becomes power. Power without transparency erodes trust.

The Real Question

Is Best Practice Science actually best practice?

Or has it become a shield that protects institutions from scrutiny?

If the result of two decades of best practice science is:

• Reduced domestic production

• Increased reliance on imports

• Narrower fleets and fewer small operators

• Fragile supply chains

Then the model deserves review.

Not to weaken sustainability.

To strengthen it.

Because true sustainability is not achieved by collapsing the most regulated fisheries in the world while outsourcing supply to systems with lower transparency.

True sustainability must be global in effect, not just domestic in appearance.

If we are serious about science, then the highest standard must apply.

And that includes consequences when science is used selectively.

Best practice science should withstand scrutiny.

If it cannot, then it is time to ask whether it was best practice at all.