11 results

Promote best practice and skill development in the seafood industry by conducting a demonstration project at the national WorldSkills event in 2004

Project number: 2004-406
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $4,994.00
Principal Investigator: Anita Heijkoop
Organisation: Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC)
Project start/end date: 29 Jun 2004 - 30 Jun 2005
Contact:
FRDC

Need

This proposal addresses several priorities articulated in the industry development plans of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry1; the Australian Seafood Industry Council1; and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation1, namely:
AFFA - More sustainable, competitive and profitable Australian fishery industry.
ASIC - Financial viability of commercial fisheries and associated communities, based on industry stability and growth in both domestic and export markets that is consistent with economic, and social policy goals for Australia.
FRDC - The commercial sector of the industry is profitable and internationally competitive; the commercial, recreational and traditional sectors are socially resilient
The seafood industry WorldSkills competition promotes skill development of the industry’s workforce. This is intrinsic to the sustainable economic development of the industry. To remain globally competitive, the industry needs to be responsive to changes and this implies a workforce capable of adapting.The competition also targets younger people who are the future of the industry. This contributes to the social fabric of the communities in which the industry operates. As the competition is being held in Queensland in 2004, there is opportunity for exposure to indigenous people who would benefit from training based on the Seafood Industry Training Package.The competition encourages performance in the industry and promotes efficiencies by highlighting industry best practice and standards in seafood processing and retailing including the uptake of formal training. The demonstration of our young people’s skills will also have an impact on negative community perceptions of the industry. Positive images of young people showcasing their talents and promoting skills, jobs and careers in the industry will be coupled with a celebrity chef who will promote an enjoyable and glamorous aspect of the industry, an image to which the public can relate. The celebrity chef will conduct a seafood cooking demonstration during the lunch break inviting the audience to taste samples and participate through questions about seafood, how to cook and store it properly and its health benefits.Recipe cards and brochures will be freely distributed to the lunchtime audience and spectators at the competition. This initiative also satisfies Seafood Services Australia’s (SSA) aim to help organisations and people overcome impediments and capitalise on opportunities for developing the seafood industry. With the scheduling of the next SSA network meeting to precede this event, a number of benefits and opportunities for SSA will arise:
Development of the network and its ideas through network members attending the WorldSkills event;
Expansion of the network through the introduction of new members - employers from around Australia who are travelling to Queensland for the competition As a sponsor to the seafood industry WorldSkills competition, SSA will be acknowledged in a number of ways which SSA can negotiate with WorldSkills. This will provide greater exposure for SSA with its attendant benefits.

Objectives

1. Demonstrate and promote best practice in processing and seafood retailing, and compliance with nationally endorsed industy standards
2. Develop a set of documented best practice procedures in seafood processing and retailing within the framework of the Seafood Industry Training Package
3. Develop a more positive profile of the industry

Final report

Development of a model induction kit for management advisory committee members

Project number: 2002-319
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $15,510.00
Principal Investigator: Ross Ord
Organisation: Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC)
Project start/end date: 29 Jun 2002 - 30 Jun 2003
Contact:
FRDC

Objectives

1. To develop the induction kit in consultation with end users.
2. To identify the contents of the induction kit.
3. Trial the induction kit with one Commonwealth fisheries MAC.

Final report

Author: Ross Ord
Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Final Report • 2003-04-06 • 1,007.45 KB
2002-319-DLD.pdf

Summary

An FRDC funded project on incorporating MAC (Management Advisory Committee) competencies into the Seafood Industry Training Package was completed in December 2001. The report from that project contained detail of the skills and knowledge required by MAC members to fulfil their role and responsibilities competently. One of the recommendations from this report suggested that the induction of new MAC members needed improvement.

The report stated that there was wide support for improved written communication about the operation of MACs and the basic technical knowledge required to allow meaningful debate of the scientific, economic and environmental issues. The development of an induction kit was one of a range of measures to improve the effectiveness of MAC members.

Keywords: Management Advisory Committees, MAC induction, Human Capital Development.

Incorporating MAC competencies into the seafood industry training package

Project number: 2001-315
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $82,830.00
Principal Investigator: Ross Ord
Organisation: Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC)
Project start/end date: 15 Sep 2001 - 30 Jun 2002
Contact:
FRDC

Objectives

1. Identify the skills, knowledge and attitudes required by industry members to participate as effective members of a MAC.
2. Confirm the need for a MAC or series of MAC training programs.
3. Identify suggested unit titles and outline descriptions for the units.
4. Gather the views of members consulted on the preferred option(s) for delivery of MAC training programs.

Final report

Author: Ross Ord
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.
Final Report • 2002-03-19 • 961.38 KB
2001-315-DLD.pdf

Summary

Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.
 
All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.
 
Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.
 
The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.
 
The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.

A code of conduct for a responsible seafood industry

Project number: 1998-358
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $5,000.00
Principal Investigator: Bill Nagle
Organisation: Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC)
Project start/end date: 28 Jun 1998 - 30 Dec 1998
Contact:
FRDC

Objectives

1. Develop a code of conduct that is agreed for adoption by industry, stakeholders and governments and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture.

FINS case study-Spencer Gulf and West Coast Prawn Fishermens Association

Project number: 1996-384
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $9,600.00
Principal Investigator: Nick Ruello
Organisation: Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC)
Project start/end date: 29 Jun 1996 - 27 May 1997
Contact:
FRDC

Objectives

1. To research and document the efforts of the Spencer Gulf and West Coast Prawn Fishermens Association to improve the quality and identification of their products specifically relating those efforts to the FINS planks
2. To identify reasons for their successes and or failures and document their approaches to dealing with these.

FINS Case Study: Mercury In Shark

Project number: 1996-383
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $7,540.00
Principal Investigator: Norm Grant
Organisation: Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC)
Project start/end date: 2 Jun 1996 - 31 Mar 1998
Contact:
FRDC

Objectives

1. To research and document efforts of the seafood industry to raise the maximum set level of mercury in shark.
2. To identify reasons for their successes and or failures and document their approaches to dealing with these.

FINS case study-Wallis Lake Fishermens Cooperative

Project number: 1996-382
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $9,880.00
Principal Investigator: Norm Grant
Organisation: Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC)
Project start/end date: 2 Jun 1996 - 30 Sep 1997
Contact:
FRDC

Objectives

1. To research and document the efforts of Wallis Lakes Cooperative to improve the quality and identification of their products specifically relating those efforts to the FINS planks
2. ACTo identify reasons for their successes and or failures and document their approaches to dealing with these.
People
PROJECT NUMBER • 1996-343
PROJECT STATUS:
COMPLETED

ASIEN: Delivering R&D outcomes through training

A significant factor determining the long term viability of the Australian seafood industry is the productivity of its workforce. The productivity of the men and women employed across the industry is directly correlated to the skills, knowledge and attitudes held by them and their consistent...
ORGANISATION:
Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC)

Development of a national approach to seafood quality (SeaQual Australia)

Project number: 1995-155
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $790,414.87
Principal Investigator: Jayne M. Gallagher
Organisation: Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC)
Project start/end date: 20 Nov 1995 - 30 Aug 2000
Contact:
FRDC

Objectives

1. To establish appropriate mechanisms for encouraging the development of a quality ethos within the Australian seafood industry
2. To identify and implement appropriate strategies to acheive agreed seafood quality goals
3. To influence the development of a policy, program and regulatory environment which actively promotes and supports the uptake of quality management systems

Final report

Author: Jayne Gallagher
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Project products

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 37.72 MB
1995-155 SeaQual Phase 1 Final Report.pdf

Summary

SeaQual was established in December 1995, as a joint initiative of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industries and Energy (now Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - Australia) and the Australian Seafood Industry Council. SeaQual was located in the Canberra offices of the Australian Seafood Industry Council and overall strategic direction of the project was provided by a broad industry based Steering Committee.

This report outlines the results achieved in the pursuit of SeaOual's objectives. Originally a four year program, SeaQual achieved all its milestones, and more, in only three years with significantly less resources than anticipated.

Several recommendations are made in relation to the operation of industry-government partnerships and the need to establish and maintain levels of resources and commitment. The need to establish and promote industry development activities early and to clarify expectations of all stakeholders are also identified as critical success factors for future projects.

SeaQual was established with an information and capacity building role, and released several innovative products and publications over the three years.

National Aquaculture Search Conference

Project number: 1994-159
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $7,140.00
Principal Investigator: Simon Bennison
Organisation: Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC)
Project start/end date: 13 Dec 1994 - 30 Jun 1995
Contact:
FRDC

Objectives

1. To develop an industry action plan to underpin the implementation of the National Strategy on Aquaculture in Australia released earlier this year
2. Highlight to industry a number of the current issues concerning the industry which various Government agencies wish to be addressed in the near future
3. To provide an opportunity for industry to formalise peak representation to provide a point of contact for Government and Industry bodies
4. Identify and prioritise national strategy programmes and, if possible set a time-frame within which these programmes can be completed
5. Discuss and resolve issues, identified by several Government agencies, requiring immediate action
6. Identify a mechanism for providing coordinated industry advice to the relevant Ministers and Government departments
7. Identify a mechanism for efficiently using the resources available to the industry on a national basis
8. Identify National marketing issues which may affect aquaculture in the short to medium term
9. Identify a Government framework to support industry development
10. Identify the opportunities for networking the aquaculture industry(ies) across Australia
View Filter

Organisation