129,954 results
Industry
PROJECT NUMBER • 2001-402
PROJECT STATUS:
COMPLETED

Developing case ready retail and bulk catering pack for seafood using M.A.P technology

This project was to develop case ready retail and bulk - catering packs for seafood using modified atmosphere packaging (MAP). The purpose of using MAP technology was to extend product shelf life and reduce the amount of additives used in seafood. The project focussed on determining initial...
ORGANISATION:
KB Foods Company
TAGS
Disease
Diagnostic
Biosecurity
Animal Health
SPECIES
Spangled Emperor
Saddletail Snapper
Crimson Snapper
Golden Trevally
Silver Cobbler

Northern Territory strategic plan for fisheries research and development 2002 to 2006

Project number: 2001-318
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $14,875.00
Principal Investigator: Richard Sellers
Organisation: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (NT)
Project start/end date: 29 Jun 2002 - 31 Jul 2003
Contact:
FRDC
TAGS
Trade
Supply Chain
Marketing
Health And Safety
Food Safety

Need

Since its publication the Plan has provided both the Fisheries Division and the NT FRAB with a firm basis for assessing R&D proposals and R&D projects submitted for FRAB approval and support with FRDC.

However, there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities since 1999 and the Plan is now becoming out-of-date. These Government policy changes include:

? Greater emphasis on recreational fishing
? Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale
? Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation
? The requirement to report on all aspects of ESD.

As well as these government policy changes, there is also a need for stakeholders, especially from industry, to evaluate the implementation of projects, their outcomes, performance and actual achievements under the Plan.

Also since publication of the Plan FRDC has provided it's R&D Plan in the publication "Investing for Tomorrow's Fish: the FRDC's Research and Development Plan, 2000 to 2005".

The NT fisheries R&D Plan will be revised to take account of these NT policy changes, performance evaluation by stakeholders, to align it with the directions provided in the new FRDC Research and Development Plan, and to bring up-to-date projects that have been carried out since its publication.

Publication costs were kept to a minimum for the original NT Plan by the NT Fisheries Division arranging presentation, art work and printing in-house. However, in view of the higher profile that the revised document will have amongst fisheries stakeholders, a professionally designed presentation is planned for the revised version.

Objectives

1. Review research and development priorities for NT Fisheries
2. provide the NT Government, fisheries stakeholders, the NT FRAB and FRDC with an updated coordinated research and development strategic Plan that has been fully discussed and accepted by NT fisheries stakeholders

Final report

Author: Richard Sellers and Richard Slack-Smith
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Final Report • 2002-12-20 • 2.93 MB
2001-318-DLD.pdf

Summary

Since publication of the original Plan in early 1999 there have been significant changes in NT Government directions and priorities that required the Plan be updated. These included:
Greater emphasis on recreational fishing;  Increased prominence being given to aquaculture development, both large and small scale;  Increased pressure for research on habitat and biodiversity conservation;  The requirement to take account and report on all aspects of ecologically sustainable development (ESD);  and Creation of business partnerships between traditional owners and the private sector.
 
In addition, a number of projects in the 1998 original have been completed, modified or abandoned making the Plan out of date in a number of aspects. As part of the revision of that Plan, these changes were tabulated and any management action or other outcomes listed.
 
The review was carried out by:
1. Preparing up-to-date summaries tables of the current status of projects identified under each of the fishery/activities in the original Plan. These included any management action or actual outcomes that may have resulted from the project. R&D projects that have commenced since the publication of the 1999 Plan were also identified.
2. Consultations and discussions were held with fisheries stakeholders on the past performance of R&D projects carried out under the existing plan, the current R&D situation and future R&D directions.
The stakeholder groups consulted included:  Aquaculture operators;  Seafood Harvesters;  Seafood Processors and Marketers;  Seafood consumers;  Fishing Tour Operators;  Recreational Fishers;  Indigenous Users.
3. Preparation of new Plan using information from the first phase and the outcomes from the consultations with stakeholders consulted. This Plan contained tables summarising the planned outcomes, specific R&D outputs, relevant projects with priorities and timetables for each. Stakeholder participation for each relevant fishery or activity was also tabulated.
 
This draft Plan was then considered at a workshop where people and organisations already consulted were participants. Any additional material or valid comments resulting from the workshop were incorporated into the final draft Plan.
It was decided that the final Plan would be in two formats, the first would be publication of the full report on the NT D BIRD website and the second would be a summary version to be commercially printed. The later was in summary form to reduce printing costs.
Communities

A new Strategic R&D plan for Queensland Fisheries - A "living document" approach to implementation of priorities

Project number: 2001-316
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $18,000.00
Principal Investigator: Bob G. Pearson
Organisation: Department of Primary Industries (QLD)
Project start/end date: 12 Jan 2002 - 30 Jun 2004
Contact:
FRDC

Need

The simple list of priorities identified by QFIRAC prior to the current round of R&D was prepared as a short term measure, prior to a full examination of all the relevant issues and the development of a 3-5 year plan.
Since the production of QFIRAC's original R&D Strategic Plan several key stakeholders have reported on completed R&D, or reviewed their priorities for R&D. (refs. 1-6)

Research Advisory Bodies (FRAB) advise inter alia the FRDC on the appropriateness and priority of the R&D. The changes in fisheries management in Queensland reported above in the Background section, and the contents of the reports and reviews alluded to here, suggest that QFIRAC must revisit not only its R&D priorities, but also the way in which it interacts with its stakeholders. This will ensure that it recommends R&D which is timely, of high priority and of use to its stakeholders. The aim is to ensure that R&D is performed by research providers who are informed of contemporary needs, have the best technical competence, and ensure that research results are of use to, and understood by, the end users. It is expected that this exercise will produce a methodology to identify the critical needs for R &D in Queensland, and to ensure that these can be addressed promptly by R&D providers.

References
1. Anon. 1997 Research needs and priorities for the management of Queensland's fisheries. QFMA, Brisbane. 16pp.
2. Anon. 1998. The Seafood industry's strategic plan for achieving seafood excellence. SeaQual, Canberra. 12pp.
3. Kirkwood, J. 2000. Marine Fish Habitat Research. Strategic Plan 2000-2002. A whole of ecosystem approach. DPIQ Brisbane Qld. 10pp.
4. Newman, G 1998. Research Priorities for Australian Fisheries and Aquaculture. Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture, Canberra. 22pp.
5. Retif, S. 1998. Fisheries and Aquaculture Research Report 1995-97. DPIQ Brisbane. 100pp.
6. Williams, L E 1997 Queensland's Fisheries Resources. Current Condition and Recent Trends 1988-1995.

Objectives

1. The development and publication of a Strategic Plan for R&D in Queensland that incorporates a process for continuous improvement in the identification of change in R&D priorities and communication between stakeholders.
2. The development and adoption of an operating process for QFIRAC that will enhance its interaction with all research providers and funders in Queensland, and maximise the outcomes of each dollar spent on R&D.

Final report

ISBN: 0-7345-0232-X
Author: Bob Pearson
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 
Final Report • 2003-06-27 • 1.67 MB
2001-316-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Queensland Fishing Industry Research Advisory Committee (QFIRAC) undertook a one-year period of consultation with stakeholders (industry sectors and R&D providers) to develop a new Strategic R&D Plan.  
 
The plan’s purpose is to identify the research priorities of industry and resource managers and facilitate the meeting of those needs by research providers.
 
The Plan was released in June 2002 to coincide with the new round of applications to FRDC for 2003-04. The plan has been endorsed by the Fishing Industry Development Council, Queensland’s peak industry-government consultative body.
 
QFIRAC is now engaged in consultative processes with stakeholders to ensure the plan is kept up to date. 

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
TAGS
Stakeholder
Innovation
Fisheries Management

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.
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 review of current research needs of the south east trawl fishery

Project number: 2001-314
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $22,000.00
Principal Investigator: Paul McShane
Organisation: AMC Search Ltd
Project start/end date: 28 Sep 2001 - 30 Jun 2002
Contact:
FRDC
TAGS
Values &Amp; Ethics
Training
Sustainability
Stakeholder
Resource Sharing

Objectives

1. Review the current research planning and selection porocesses for the SETF
assess the effectiveness of the industry input to these processes and, if necessary, recommend changes to achieve more effective industry involvement.
2. Review the current SEF Research Plan (from an industry perspective) and suggest future industry research requirements based on discussions with industry, fishery managers, researcher, Environment Australia, relevant NGO's and funding agencies. In particular, this assessment should identify emerging environmental issues, requiring strategic research and research that may be required to assist the fishery in gaining environmental accreditation.
3. In light of increasing demands for research, recommend appropriate funding sources and strategies with a view to assisting the industry to gain maximum leverage from its research expenditure.

Final report

Author: Paul McShane
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Final Report • 2002-05-16 • 894.18 KB
2001-314-DLD.pdf

Summary

The South East Fishery (SEF) is a complex multi species fishery targeting 18 species managed under a catch quota regime.  The fishery involves both commonwealth and state agencies and is important in supplying fresh fish to tables on the eastern seaboard of Australia.  The research priority setting process for the SEF was reviewed in the context of the Fishing Industry’s expectation of enhanced opportunities for beneficial outcomes and improved administration of research and development .
The review concentrated on:
•  the consultative process linking research to management;
•  the link between the current strategic research plan and industry needs;
•  gaps in the current research strategic plan, particularly relating to the requirement of industry to undertake a strategic ecological assessment of the SEF;
•  opportunities to engage industry more effectively in SEF research.
 
Consultation with various stakeholders revealed a large number of formal consultative committees and subcommittees that introduced much bureaucratic inertia into the industry consultation process.  Emerging issues dealing with a move to ecosystem, as opposed to species, management of fisheries present new challenges to industry.  There is a need to present greater clarity in dealing with ecological management and its influence in the research priority setting process.  It is suggested that the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) assume the role of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) subcommittee to more demonstrably separate TAC setting from the wider research needs (particularly ecological issues).  This, and the consolidation of other consultative committees would greatly reduce time spent in meetings and allow a greater focus on critical issues such as improving the TAC-setting process, addressing concerns of environmental agencies (e.g. bycatch from trawlers, impacts on the seafloor by trawlers).
 
Given the prominence of ecological/environmental issues, it is further suggested that committees dealing with common research issues be combined to provide greater cost effectiveness (in participation and in research program execution) in tackling ecological issues (e.g. identification and evaluation of ecosystem performance indicators).  As research resources are limited, there should be sharing of common needs in environmental/ecological assessment and management across participating fisheries in the region including fisheries for shark, scallops, squid, tuna, and billfish.
 
With a more effective use of time of industry participants, there should be enhanced opportunities for partnerships between research and development agencies, and the fishing industry.  In particular, there is an opportunity to harness industry capacity more effectively be extending current monitoring programs (involving industry vessels) to undertake cost-effective research.
Adoption
PROJECT NUMBER • 2001-313.80
PROJECT STATUS:
COMPLETED

Economic Evaluation of FRDC Funding Submissions of 2001-series projects - Evaluation of Selected FRDC Research Impacting the Environment

eSYS Development and BDA Group were contracted by the FRDC to carry out an economic evaluation of the 2001/200-240 series projects submitted for funding consideration. Benefit cost analysis was used to estimate the expected economic pay off on all submitted projects - as measured by a project's net...
ORGANISATION:
eSYS Development Australia
TAGS
Values & Ethics
Sustainability
Policy
Innovation
Fishing Gear
Communities
Communities
PROJECT NUMBER • 2001-310
PROJECT STATUS:
COMPLETED

Developing a community communication plan and communication resources for the seafood industry

The project provides strategies for all levels of the industry to effectively communicate with all levels of the community, including community leaders. The communication resources provide practical, user-friendly information for individuals and groups to be active in consumer and community...
ORGANISATION:
Judith Ham Consulting
TAGS
Training
Sustainability
Stakeholder
Media
Innovation
View Filter

Research

Category

Product Type

Species

Organisation