ROADMAP PEER REVIEW

BACKGROUND

The Futures of Seafood study is an 18-month multi-disciplinary research project co-designed with industry, government and research. It has been funded by FRDC, BE CRC, DAFF and DCCEEW.

The study provides a contemporary description of Australia’s seafood system, examines trends and cumulative impacts, and includes scenario modelling to inform the future of Australia’s seafood industry across wild catch, aquaculture, recreational, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sectors.

SCROLL

PURPOSE

The peer review focuses specifically on Work Package 4 output: the Futures of Seafood Roadmap. The review will assess:

The synthesis and interpretation of findings from Work Packages 1, 2, and 3
The relevance, feasibility, and appropriateness of directions and recommendations
The soundness of actions proposed and their underlying rationale
The coherence and flow of the roadmap as a strategic document
The alignment with study objectives and stakeholder needs

PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE COMPOSITION

The peer review committee comprises technical experts with hands on experience in the commercial seafood industry and covers the following skills:

Market analysis and seafood trade
Investment and financial strategy
Innovation and technology
Science and research
Systems thinking and modelling
Governance and regulatory frameworks
Policy development and implementation
Data management and analytics

PEER REVIEW COMMITTEE

Chair, Ben Eade
Paul Jenz
Alistair Hobday

Anthony Mercer
James Findlay
Sean Tracey

PEER REVIEW TERMS OF REFERENCE

PEER REVIEW INDUCTION

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

STRATEGIC COHERENCE (25%)	Does the Roadmap logically flow from the study findings? Are connections between WP1-3 outputs and recommendations clear? Is the strategic narrative compelling and well-structured?
RELEVANCE & APPROPRIATENESS (25%)	Do recommendations address identified challenges and opportunities? Are directions appropriate for the seafood sector context? Have diverse sector needs been considered (wild catch, aquaculture, recreational, Indigenous)?
FEASIBILITY & PRACTICALITY (25%)	Are proposed actions realistic and achievable? Have implementation barriers been considered? Are resourcing and governance implications addressed?
EVIDENCE BASE (15%)	Are recommendations supported by study findings? Is the rationale for each direction clearly articulated? Have cumulative impacts been appropriately considered?