The project facilitated on-going discussion within industry on eco-certification for the Australian seafood industry.

The project demonstrated that clear benefits can be gained from eco-certification and that there are numerous certification programs available to industry. This is consistent with the outcomes of the October 2011 environmental workshop that future access to eco-certification programmes must be voluntary and non-discriminatory.

The project also highlighted that there are varying views within some sectors of industry, including the National Seafood Industry Alliance (NSIA) on the need for and the benefits of eco-certification.

The project has resulted in on-going support by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) for the development of a whole of government eco-certification policy (including funding) for Australian fisheries. This position has been incorporated into a CFA policy paper as part of the CFA 2013 Federal Election policy platform.

The NSIA is still developing its position on the proposal for a government policy on eco-certification however at least two members (WAFIC and CFA) support the approach. A key recommendation in this report is that any FAO-compliant ‘Australian Standard’ which may be developed in the future should be available to commercial fishers on a voluntary basis under an eco-certification policy.

The project facilitated on-going discussion within industry on eco-certification for the Australian seafood industry.

The project demonstrated that clear benefits can be gained from eco-certification and that there are numerous certification programs available to industry. This is consistent with the outcomes of the October 2011 environmental workshop that future access to eco-certification programmes must be voluntary and non-discriminatory.

The project also highlighted that there are varying views within some sectors of industry, including the National Seafood Industry Alliance (NSIA) on the need for and the benefits of eco-certification.

The project has resulted in on-going support by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) for the development of a whole of government eco-certification policy (including funding) for Australian fisheries. This position has been incorporated into a CFA policy paper as part of the CFA 2013 Federal Election policy platform.

The NSIA is still developing its position on the proposal for a government policy on eco-certification however at least two members (WAFIC and CFA) support the approach. A key recommendation in this report is that any FAO-compliant ‘Australian Standard’ which may be developed in the future should be available to commercial fishers on a voluntary basis under an eco-certification policy.

The project facilitated on-going discussion within industry on eco-certification for the Australian seafood industry.

The project demonstrated that clear benefits can be gained from eco-certification and that there are numerous certification programs available to industry. This is consistent with the outcomes of the October 2011 environmental workshop that future access to eco-certification programmes must be voluntary and non-discriminatory.

The project also highlighted that there are varying views within some sectors of industry, including the National Seafood Industry Alliance (NSIA) on the need for and the benefits of eco-certification.

The project has resulted in on-going support by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) for the development of a whole of government eco-certification policy (including funding) for Australian fisheries. This position has been incorporated into a CFA policy paper as part of the CFA 2013 Federal Election policy platform.

The NSIA is still developing its position on the proposal for a government policy on eco-certification however at least two members (WAFIC and CFA) support the approach. A key recommendation in this report is that any FAO-compliant ‘Australian Standard’ which may be developed in the future should be available to commercial fishers on a voluntary basis under an eco-certification policy.

The project facilitated on-going discussion within industry on eco-certification for the Australian seafood industry.

The project demonstrated that clear benefits can be gained from eco-certification and that there are numerous certification programs available to industry. This is consistent with the outcomes of the October 2011 environmental workshop that future access to eco-certification programmes must be voluntary and non-discriminatory.

The project also highlighted that there are varying views within some sectors of industry, including the National Seafood Industry Alliance (NSIA) on the need for and the benefits of eco-certification.

The project has resulted in on-going support by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) for the development of a whole of government eco-certification policy (including funding) for Australian fisheries. This position has been incorporated into a CFA policy paper as part of the CFA 2013 Federal Election policy platform.

The NSIA is still developing its position on the proposal for a government policy on eco-certification however at least two members (WAFIC and CFA) support the approach. A key recommendation in this report is that any FAO-compliant ‘Australian Standard’ which may be developed in the future should be available to commercial fishers on a voluntary basis under an eco-certification policy.

The project facilitated on-going discussion within industry on eco-certification for the Australian seafood industry.

The project demonstrated that clear benefits can be gained from eco-certification and that there are numerous certification programs available to industry. This is consistent with the outcomes of the October 2011 environmental workshop that future access to eco-certification programmes must be voluntary and non-discriminatory.

The project also highlighted that there are varying views within some sectors of industry, including the National Seafood Industry Alliance (NSIA) on the need for and the benefits of eco-certification.

The project has resulted in on-going support by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) for the development of a whole of government eco-certification policy (including funding) for Australian fisheries. This position has been incorporated into a CFA policy paper as part of the CFA 2013 Federal Election policy platform.

The NSIA is still developing its position on the proposal for a government policy on eco-certification however at least two members (WAFIC and CFA) support the approach. A key recommendation in this report is that any FAO-compliant ‘Australian Standard’ which may be developed in the future should be available to commercial fishers on a voluntary basis under an eco-certification policy.

The project facilitated on-going discussion within industry on eco-certification for the Australian seafood industry.

The project demonstrated that clear benefits can be gained from eco-certification and that there are numerous certification programs available to industry. This is consistent with the outcomes of the October 2011 environmental workshop that future access to eco-certification programmes must be voluntary and non-discriminatory.

The project also highlighted that there are varying views within some sectors of industry, including the National Seafood Industry Alliance (NSIA) on the need for and the benefits of eco-certification.

The project has resulted in on-going support by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) for the development of a whole of government eco-certification policy (including funding) for Australian fisheries. This position has been incorporated into a CFA policy paper as part of the CFA 2013 Federal Election policy platform.

The NSIA is still developing its position on the proposal for a government policy on eco-certification however at least two members (WAFIC and CFA) support the approach. A key recommendation in this report is that any FAO-compliant ‘Australian Standard’ which may be developed in the future should be available to commercial fishers on a voluntary basis under an eco-certification policy.

The project facilitated on-going discussion within industry on eco-certification for the Australian seafood industry.

The project demonstrated that clear benefits can be gained from eco-certification and that there are numerous certification programs available to industry. This is consistent with the outcomes of the October 2011 environmental workshop that future access to eco-certification programmes must be voluntary and non-discriminatory.

The project also highlighted that there are varying views within some sectors of industry, including the National Seafood Industry Alliance (NSIA) on the need for and the benefits of eco-certification.

The project has resulted in on-going support by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) for the development of a whole of government eco-certification policy (including funding) for Australian fisheries. This position has been incorporated into a CFA policy paper as part of the CFA 2013 Federal Election policy platform.

The NSIA is still developing its position on the proposal for a government policy on eco-certification however at least two members (WAFIC and CFA) support the approach. A key recommendation in this report is that any FAO-compliant ‘Australian Standard’ which may be developed in the future should be available to commercial fishers on a voluntary basis under an eco-certification policy.

The project facilitated on-going discussion within industry on eco-certification for the Australian seafood industry.

The project demonstrated that clear benefits can be gained from eco-certification and that there are numerous certification programs available to industry. This is consistent with the outcomes of the October 2011 environmental workshop that future access to eco-certification programmes must be voluntary and non-discriminatory.

The project also highlighted that there are varying views within some sectors of industry, including the National Seafood Industry Alliance (NSIA) on the need for and the benefits of eco-certification.

The project has resulted in on-going support by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) for the development of a whole of government eco-certification policy (including funding) for Australian fisheries. This position has been incorporated into a CFA policy paper as part of the CFA 2013 Federal Election policy platform.

The NSIA is still developing its position on the proposal for a government policy on eco-certification however at least two members (WAFIC and CFA) support the approach. A key recommendation in this report is that any FAO-compliant ‘Australian Standard’ which may be developed in the future should be available to commercial fishers on a voluntary basis under an eco-certification policy.

The project facilitated on-going discussion within industry on eco-certification for the Australian seafood industry.

The project demonstrated that clear benefits can be gained from eco-certification and that there are numerous certification programs available to industry. This is consistent with the outcomes of the October 2011 environmental workshop that future access to eco-certification programmes must be voluntary and non-discriminatory.

The project also highlighted that there are varying views within some sectors of industry, including the National Seafood Industry Alliance (NSIA) on the need for and the benefits of eco-certification.

The project has resulted in on-going support by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) for the development of a whole of government eco-certification policy (including funding) for Australian fisheries. This position has been incorporated into a CFA policy paper as part of the CFA 2013 Federal Election policy platform.

The NSIA is still developing its position on the proposal for a government policy on eco-certification however at least two members (WAFIC and CFA) support the approach. A key recommendation in this report is that any FAO-compliant ‘Australian Standard’ which may be developed in the future should be available to commercial fishers on a voluntary basis under an eco-certification policy.

The project facilitated on-going discussion within industry on eco-certification for the Australian seafood industry.

The project demonstrated that clear benefits can be gained from eco-certification and that there are numerous certification programs available to industry. This is consistent with the outcomes of the October 2011 environmental workshop that future access to eco-certification programmes must be voluntary and non-discriminatory.

The project also highlighted that there are varying views within some sectors of industry, including the National Seafood Industry Alliance (NSIA) on the need for and the benefits of eco-certification.

The project has resulted in on-going support by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) for the development of a whole of government eco-certification policy (including funding) for Australian fisheries. This position has been incorporated into a CFA policy paper as part of the CFA 2013 Federal Election policy platform.

The NSIA is still developing its position on the proposal for a government policy on eco-certification however at least two members (WAFIC and CFA) support the approach. A key recommendation in this report is that any FAO-compliant ‘Australian Standard’ which may be developed in the future should be available to commercial fishers on a voluntary basis under an eco-certification policy.

The project facilitated on-going discussion within industry on eco-certification for the Australian seafood industry.

The project demonstrated that clear benefits can be gained from eco-certification and that there are numerous certification programs available to industry. This is consistent with the outcomes of the October 2011 environmental workshop that future access to eco-certification programmes must be voluntary and non-discriminatory.

The project also highlighted that there are varying views within some sectors of industry, including the National Seafood Industry Alliance (NSIA) on the need for and the benefits of eco-certification.

The project has resulted in on-going support by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) for the development of a whole of government eco-certification policy (including funding) for Australian fisheries. This position has been incorporated into a CFA policy paper as part of the CFA 2013 Federal Election policy platform.

The NSIA is still developing its position on the proposal for a government policy on eco-certification however at least two members (WAFIC and CFA) support the approach. A key recommendation in this report is that any FAO-compliant ‘Australian Standard’ which may be developed in the future should be available to commercial fishers on a voluntary basis under an eco-certification policy.

The project facilitated on-going discussion within industry on eco-certification for the Australian seafood industry.

The project demonstrated that clear benefits can be gained from eco-certification and that there are numerous certification programs available to industry. This is consistent with the outcomes of the October 2011 environmental workshop that future access to eco-certification programmes must be voluntary and non-discriminatory.

The project also highlighted that there are varying views within some sectors of industry, including the National Seafood Industry Alliance (NSIA) on the need for and the benefits of eco-certification.

The project has resulted in on-going support by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) for the development of a whole of government eco-certification policy (including funding) for Australian fisheries. This position has been incorporated into a CFA policy paper as part of the CFA 2013 Federal Election policy platform.

The NSIA is still developing its position on the proposal for a government policy on eco-certification however at least two members (WAFIC and CFA) support the approach. A key recommendation in this report is that any FAO-compliant ‘Australian Standard’ which may be developed in the future should be available to commercial fishers on a voluntary basis under an eco-certification policy.

The project facilitated on-going discussion within industry on eco-certification for the Australian seafood industry.

The project demonstrated that clear benefits can be gained from eco-certification and that there are numerous certification programs available to industry. This is consistent with the outcomes of the October 2011 environmental workshop that future access to eco-certification programmes must be voluntary and non-discriminatory.

The project also highlighted that there are varying views within some sectors of industry, including the National Seafood Industry Alliance (NSIA) on the need for and the benefits of eco-certification.

The project has resulted in on-going support by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) for the development of a whole of government eco-certification policy (including funding) for Australian fisheries. This position has been incorporated into a CFA policy paper as part of the CFA 2013 Federal Election policy platform.

The NSIA is still developing its position on the proposal for a government policy on eco-certification however at least two members (WAFIC and CFA) support the approach. A key recommendation in this report is that any FAO-compliant ‘Australian Standard’ which may be developed in the future should be available to commercial fishers on a voluntary basis under an eco-certification policy.

The project facilitated on-going discussion within industry on eco-certification for the Australian seafood industry.

The project demonstrated that clear benefits can be gained from eco-certification and that there are numerous certification programs available to industry. This is consistent with the outcomes of the October 2011 environmental workshop that future access to eco-certification programmes must be voluntary and non-discriminatory.

The project also highlighted that there are varying views within some sectors of industry, including the National Seafood Industry Alliance (NSIA) on the need for and the benefits of eco-certification.

The project has resulted in on-going support by the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) for the development of a whole of government eco-certification policy (including funding) for Australian fisheries. This position has been incorporated into a CFA policy paper as part of the CFA 2013 Federal Election policy platform.

The NSIA is still developing its position on the proposal for a government policy on eco-certification however at least two members (WAFIC and CFA) support the approach. A key recommendation in this report is that any FAO-compliant ‘Australian Standard’ which may be developed in the future should be available to commercial fishers on a voluntary basis under an eco-certification policy.

The original Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) Report – “Comanagement: Managing Australia’s fisheries through partnership and delegation” Project No. 2006/068 – was reviewed and found to remain rigorous, relevant and appropriate as a guide to co-management and the issues surrounding its implementation.

The list of “drivers” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 1) has been confirmed in this review. In particular, the importance of cost savings as a driver for both the industry and government was again emphasised. However, one further driver has been raised which should be added, namely the opportunity to build on human and social capital development across fisheries stakeholders and the community.

The list of “essential pre-conditions” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 2) has also been confirmed. The point was reinforced that not all “preconditions” needed to be satisfied to enter into co-management negotiations, but those negotiations needed to ultimately cover all those points in some way in reaching an agreed co-management arrangement.

Most industry organisations (and some government agencies) are adopting a “wait and see” attitude dependent on the reviews of current co-management trials to demonstrate that real costs and benefits are achievable in a practical sense. Others continue to seek funding for additional trials designed to confirm successful results in different situations.

The original Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) Report – “Comanagement: Managing Australia’s fisheries through partnership and delegation” Project No. 2006/068 – was reviewed and found to remain rigorous, relevant and appropriate as a guide to co-management and the issues surrounding its implementation.

The list of “drivers” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 1) has been confirmed in this review. In particular, the importance of cost savings as a driver for both the industry and government was again emphasised. However, one further driver has been raised which should be added, namely the opportunity to build on human and social capital development across fisheries stakeholders and the community.

The list of “essential pre-conditions” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 2) has also been confirmed. The point was reinforced that not all “preconditions” needed to be satisfied to enter into co-management negotiations, but those negotiations needed to ultimately cover all those points in some way in reaching an agreed co-management arrangement.

Most industry organisations (and some government agencies) are adopting a “wait and see” attitude dependent on the reviews of current co-management trials to demonstrate that real costs and benefits are achievable in a practical sense. Others continue to seek funding for additional trials designed to confirm successful results in different situations.

The original Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) Report – “Comanagement: Managing Australia’s fisheries through partnership and delegation” Project No. 2006/068 – was reviewed and found to remain rigorous, relevant and appropriate as a guide to co-management and the issues surrounding its implementation.

The list of “drivers” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 1) has been confirmed in this review. In particular, the importance of cost savings as a driver for both the industry and government was again emphasised. However, one further driver has been raised which should be added, namely the opportunity to build on human and social capital development across fisheries stakeholders and the community.

The list of “essential pre-conditions” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 2) has also been confirmed. The point was reinforced that not all “preconditions” needed to be satisfied to enter into co-management negotiations, but those negotiations needed to ultimately cover all those points in some way in reaching an agreed co-management arrangement.

Most industry organisations (and some government agencies) are adopting a “wait and see” attitude dependent on the reviews of current co-management trials to demonstrate that real costs and benefits are achievable in a practical sense. Others continue to seek funding for additional trials designed to confirm successful results in different situations.

The original Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) Report – “Comanagement: Managing Australia’s fisheries through partnership and delegation” Project No. 2006/068 – was reviewed and found to remain rigorous, relevant and appropriate as a guide to co-management and the issues surrounding its implementation.

The list of “drivers” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 1) has been confirmed in this review. In particular, the importance of cost savings as a driver for both the industry and government was again emphasised. However, one further driver has been raised which should be added, namely the opportunity to build on human and social capital development across fisheries stakeholders and the community.

The list of “essential pre-conditions” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 2) has also been confirmed. The point was reinforced that not all “preconditions” needed to be satisfied to enter into co-management negotiations, but those negotiations needed to ultimately cover all those points in some way in reaching an agreed co-management arrangement.

Most industry organisations (and some government agencies) are adopting a “wait and see” attitude dependent on the reviews of current co-management trials to demonstrate that real costs and benefits are achievable in a practical sense. Others continue to seek funding for additional trials designed to confirm successful results in different situations.

The original Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) Report – “Comanagement: Managing Australia’s fisheries through partnership and delegation” Project No. 2006/068 – was reviewed and found to remain rigorous, relevant and appropriate as a guide to co-management and the issues surrounding its implementation.

The list of “drivers” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 1) has been confirmed in this review. In particular, the importance of cost savings as a driver for both the industry and government was again emphasised. However, one further driver has been raised which should be added, namely the opportunity to build on human and social capital development across fisheries stakeholders and the community.

The list of “essential pre-conditions” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 2) has also been confirmed. The point was reinforced that not all “preconditions” needed to be satisfied to enter into co-management negotiations, but those negotiations needed to ultimately cover all those points in some way in reaching an agreed co-management arrangement.

Most industry organisations (and some government agencies) are adopting a “wait and see” attitude dependent on the reviews of current co-management trials to demonstrate that real costs and benefits are achievable in a practical sense. Others continue to seek funding for additional trials designed to confirm successful results in different situations.

The original Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) Report – “Comanagement: Managing Australia’s fisheries through partnership and delegation” Project No. 2006/068 – was reviewed and found to remain rigorous, relevant and appropriate as a guide to co-management and the issues surrounding its implementation.

The list of “drivers” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 1) has been confirmed in this review. In particular, the importance of cost savings as a driver for both the industry and government was again emphasised. However, one further driver has been raised which should be added, namely the opportunity to build on human and social capital development across fisheries stakeholders and the community.

The list of “essential pre-conditions” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 2) has also been confirmed. The point was reinforced that not all “preconditions” needed to be satisfied to enter into co-management negotiations, but those negotiations needed to ultimately cover all those points in some way in reaching an agreed co-management arrangement.

Most industry organisations (and some government agencies) are adopting a “wait and see” attitude dependent on the reviews of current co-management trials to demonstrate that real costs and benefits are achievable in a practical sense. Others continue to seek funding for additional trials designed to confirm successful results in different situations.

The original Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) Report – “Comanagement: Managing Australia’s fisheries through partnership and delegation” Project No. 2006/068 – was reviewed and found to remain rigorous, relevant and appropriate as a guide to co-management and the issues surrounding its implementation.

The list of “drivers” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 1) has been confirmed in this review. In particular, the importance of cost savings as a driver for both the industry and government was again emphasised. However, one further driver has been raised which should be added, namely the opportunity to build on human and social capital development across fisheries stakeholders and the community.

The list of “essential pre-conditions” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 2) has also been confirmed. The point was reinforced that not all “preconditions” needed to be satisfied to enter into co-management negotiations, but those negotiations needed to ultimately cover all those points in some way in reaching an agreed co-management arrangement.

Most industry organisations (and some government agencies) are adopting a “wait and see” attitude dependent on the reviews of current co-management trials to demonstrate that real costs and benefits are achievable in a practical sense. Others continue to seek funding for additional trials designed to confirm successful results in different situations.

The original Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) Report – “Comanagement: Managing Australia’s fisheries through partnership and delegation” Project No. 2006/068 – was reviewed and found to remain rigorous, relevant and appropriate as a guide to co-management and the issues surrounding its implementation.

The list of “drivers” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 1) has been confirmed in this review. In particular, the importance of cost savings as a driver for both the industry and government was again emphasised. However, one further driver has been raised which should be added, namely the opportunity to build on human and social capital development across fisheries stakeholders and the community.

The list of “essential pre-conditions” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 2) has also been confirmed. The point was reinforced that not all “preconditions” needed to be satisfied to enter into co-management negotiations, but those negotiations needed to ultimately cover all those points in some way in reaching an agreed co-management arrangement.

Most industry organisations (and some government agencies) are adopting a “wait and see” attitude dependent on the reviews of current co-management trials to demonstrate that real costs and benefits are achievable in a practical sense. Others continue to seek funding for additional trials designed to confirm successful results in different situations.

The original Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) Report – “Comanagement: Managing Australia’s fisheries through partnership and delegation” Project No. 2006/068 – was reviewed and found to remain rigorous, relevant and appropriate as a guide to co-management and the issues surrounding its implementation.

The list of “drivers” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 1) has been confirmed in this review. In particular, the importance of cost savings as a driver for both the industry and government was again emphasised. However, one further driver has been raised which should be added, namely the opportunity to build on human and social capital development across fisheries stakeholders and the community.

The list of “essential pre-conditions” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 2) has also been confirmed. The point was reinforced that not all “preconditions” needed to be satisfied to enter into co-management negotiations, but those negotiations needed to ultimately cover all those points in some way in reaching an agreed co-management arrangement.

Most industry organisations (and some government agencies) are adopting a “wait and see” attitude dependent on the reviews of current co-management trials to demonstrate that real costs and benefits are achievable in a practical sense. Others continue to seek funding for additional trials designed to confirm successful results in different situations.

The original Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) Report – “Comanagement: Managing Australia’s fisheries through partnership and delegation” Project No. 2006/068 – was reviewed and found to remain rigorous, relevant and appropriate as a guide to co-management and the issues surrounding its implementation.

The list of “drivers” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 1) has been confirmed in this review. In particular, the importance of cost savings as a driver for both the industry and government was again emphasised. However, one further driver has been raised which should be added, namely the opportunity to build on human and social capital development across fisheries stakeholders and the community.

The list of “essential pre-conditions” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 2) has also been confirmed. The point was reinforced that not all “preconditions” needed to be satisfied to enter into co-management negotiations, but those negotiations needed to ultimately cover all those points in some way in reaching an agreed co-management arrangement.

Most industry organisations (and some government agencies) are adopting a “wait and see” attitude dependent on the reviews of current co-management trials to demonstrate that real costs and benefits are achievable in a practical sense. Others continue to seek funding for additional trials designed to confirm successful results in different situations.

The original Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) Report – “Comanagement: Managing Australia’s fisheries through partnership and delegation” Project No. 2006/068 – was reviewed and found to remain rigorous, relevant and appropriate as a guide to co-management and the issues surrounding its implementation.

The list of “drivers” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 1) has been confirmed in this review. In particular, the importance of cost savings as a driver for both the industry and government was again emphasised. However, one further driver has been raised which should be added, namely the opportunity to build on human and social capital development across fisheries stakeholders and the community.

The list of “essential pre-conditions” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 2) has also been confirmed. The point was reinforced that not all “preconditions” needed to be satisfied to enter into co-management negotiations, but those negotiations needed to ultimately cover all those points in some way in reaching an agreed co-management arrangement.

Most industry organisations (and some government agencies) are adopting a “wait and see” attitude dependent on the reviews of current co-management trials to demonstrate that real costs and benefits are achievable in a practical sense. Others continue to seek funding for additional trials designed to confirm successful results in different situations.

The original Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) Report – “Comanagement: Managing Australia’s fisheries through partnership and delegation” Project No. 2006/068 – was reviewed and found to remain rigorous, relevant and appropriate as a guide to co-management and the issues surrounding its implementation.

The list of “drivers” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 1) has been confirmed in this review. In particular, the importance of cost savings as a driver for both the industry and government was again emphasised. However, one further driver has been raised which should be added, namely the opportunity to build on human and social capital development across fisheries stakeholders and the community.

The list of “essential pre-conditions” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 2) has also been confirmed. The point was reinforced that not all “preconditions” needed to be satisfied to enter into co-management negotiations, but those negotiations needed to ultimately cover all those points in some way in reaching an agreed co-management arrangement.

Most industry organisations (and some government agencies) are adopting a “wait and see” attitude dependent on the reviews of current co-management trials to demonstrate that real costs and benefits are achievable in a practical sense. Others continue to seek funding for additional trials designed to confirm successful results in different situations.

The original Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) Report – “Comanagement: Managing Australia’s fisheries through partnership and delegation” Project No. 2006/068 – was reviewed and found to remain rigorous, relevant and appropriate as a guide to co-management and the issues surrounding its implementation.

The list of “drivers” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 1) has been confirmed in this review. In particular, the importance of cost savings as a driver for both the industry and government was again emphasised. However, one further driver has been raised which should be added, namely the opportunity to build on human and social capital development across fisheries stakeholders and the community.

The list of “essential pre-conditions” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 2) has also been confirmed. The point was reinforced that not all “preconditions” needed to be satisfied to enter into co-management negotiations, but those negotiations needed to ultimately cover all those points in some way in reaching an agreed co-management arrangement.

Most industry organisations (and some government agencies) are adopting a “wait and see” attitude dependent on the reviews of current co-management trials to demonstrate that real costs and benefits are achievable in a practical sense. Others continue to seek funding for additional trials designed to confirm successful results in different situations.

The original Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) Report – “Comanagement: Managing Australia’s fisheries through partnership and delegation” Project No. 2006/068 – was reviewed and found to remain rigorous, relevant and appropriate as a guide to co-management and the issues surrounding its implementation.

The list of “drivers” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 1) has been confirmed in this review. In particular, the importance of cost savings as a driver for both the industry and government was again emphasised. However, one further driver has been raised which should be added, namely the opportunity to build on human and social capital development across fisheries stakeholders and the community.

The list of “essential pre-conditions” for co-management in the original report (Appendix 2) has also been confirmed. The point was reinforced that not all “preconditions” needed to be satisfied to enter into co-management negotiations, but those negotiations needed to ultimately cover all those points in some way in reaching an agreed co-management arrangement.

Most industry organisations (and some government agencies) are adopting a “wait and see” attitude dependent on the reviews of current co-management trials to demonstrate that real costs and benefits are achievable in a practical sense. Others continue to seek funding for additional trials designed to confirm successful results in different situations.