122,526 results

Community perceptions of fishing: implications for industry image, marketing and sustainability - Secretariat file

Project number: 2001-309.90
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $7,058.78
Principal Investigator: Kylie Dunstan
Organisation: Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC)
Project start/end date: 28 Jun 2004 - 30 Jun 2004
Contact:
FRDC
TAGS
Training
Stakeholder
Media
Fisheries Management
Consumer

Objectives

1. To establish an appropriate advisory group (the Fisheries Social Research Advisory Group may be the appropriate group.
2. To conduct focus groups with selected sub-groups of the Australian public to serve as a basis for developing a structured survey instrument.
3. To develop the survey instrument in discussion with the advisory group, conduct a pilot test of the instrument, and administer it to a statistically representative sample of the Australian adult population (18+).
4. To identify implications of survey findings for industry communication, education and marketing activities (from answers to knowledge, perceptions, attitudes and behavioral questions).
5. To identify implications of survey findings for ESD monitoring and reporting frameworks (behavioral questions in particular).
6. To obtain data on indigenous perceptions of commercial fishing practices and conflicts between traditional and commercial fishing (from purpose designed supplementary survey).
7. In discussions with the advisory group, to develop options and strategies for addressing any negative perceptions of the industry, identifying appropriate actions, agencies to implement actions, and methods for evaluating success of implementing options.
8. To communicate overall survey results to stakeholders in a meaningful and useful form.

Community perceptions of fishing: implications for industry image, marketing and sustainability

Project number: 2001-309
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $104,065.00
Principal Investigator: Heather Aslin
Organisation: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) ABARES
Project start/end date: 29 Aug 2001 - 30 Apr 2003
Contact:
FRDC
TAGS
Values &Amp; Ethics
Sustainability
Stakeholder
Marketing
Consumer

Objectives

1. To conduct focus groups with selected sub-groups of the Australian public to serve as a basis for developing a structured survey instrument.
2. To develop the survey instrument in discussion with the advisory group, conduct a pilot test of the instrument, and administer it to a statistically representative sample of the Australian adult population (18+).
3. To identify implications of survey findings for industry communication, education and marketing activities (from answers to knowledge, perceptions, attitudes and behavioral questions).
4. To identify implications of survey findings for ESD monitoring and reporting frameworks (behavioral questions in particular).
5. In discussions with the advisory group, to develop options and strategies for addressing any negative perceptions of the industry, identifying appropriate actions, agencies to implement actions, and methods for evaluating success of implementing options.
6. To communicate overall survey results to stakeholders in a meaningful and useful form.

Final report

ISBN: 0-642-47539
Author: Heather Aslin
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 
Final Report • 2004-09-09 • 660.85 KB
2001-309-DLD.pdf

Summary

A pioneering national study of Australian public perceptions, knowledge and attitudes towards the fishing industry, has been completed. It covers the commercial, recreational and traditional  fishing sectors, and also examines seafood consumption and factors likely to affect future consumption. ‘Perception’ is used to refer to held beliefs or cognitions that may or may not be correct as judged by those with specialised knowledge of the industry. The traditional fishing sector, as used here, refers to subsistence fishing activities by Indigenous people. Indigenous Australians of course also participate in the commercial fishing sector.) The study involved a literature review; seven focus group discussions with a total of 63 members of the Australian public from a range of locations, ages and occupational groups; and a telephone survey of 1,004 Australian adults, 18 years and over, randomly sampled from the electronic white pages. While the final sample was reasonably representative of the general public in age distribution, it was somewhat skewed towards people with higher incomes. It is also acknowledged that voluntary telephone surveys like this one tend to have an over-representation of people who are interested in the subject matter of the survey. In this case, both recreational and commercial fishers and their views may be over-represented. These issues and their possibly influence need to be borne in mind in interpreting survey findings.
 
Survey findings indicate considerable community knowledge about recreational fishing and high participation, with twice as many men as women participating
(survey percentages were 58% of males and 29% of females participating over the year prior to the survey). Very few members of either the focus groups or telephone sample (collectively referred to as ‘respondents’) had direct experience with the commercial wild-catch sector or traditional fishing, but many focus group members knew about or had visited local aquaculture ventures. Respondents generally viewed recreational and traditional fishing and aquaculture positively, but not commercial wild-catch fishing. The telephone sample rated the sustainability of the different sectors in the order wild-catch (25% said it was sustainable); recreational (56%); traditional (64%), and aquaculture (77%). Respondents’ most important source of information about the industry was the mass media, particularly television. Recreational fishers relied more on books, magazines and fishing clubs than non-recreational fishers. Government and industry were very minor sources of information for most respondents and were not viewed as highly credible sources. Poor perceptions of the wild-catch sector suggest that much mass media information about this sector is negative, and there could be advantages in industry taking a more proactive media stance and trying to achieve better coverage of ‘good news’ stories. 
 
Members of most of the focus groups and the majority of survey respondents rated their knowledge of the industry as relatively low but interest levels higher (only 25% of the survey respondents thought they were ‘knowledgeable’ but 53% were
‘interested’), providing encouragement to those working to improve public understanding and knowledge of the industry. However, like similar surveys, the study concludes that unless they have a special interest, members of the public are unlikely to actively seek information about the industry nor to make much use of the sources they regard as most credible. Specific options for addressing poor public perceptions of the wild-catch sector include developing media campaigns in consultation with professional communicators; enlisting the support of media personalities to deliver messages; developing and disseminating popular material giving basic facts and figures about the sector and making it available in locations the public regularly uses; supporting production of television documentaries that provide a balanced perspective on wild-catch fishing and its contributions; and developing more integrated fisheries websites, preferably managed and maintained by community-based organisations that the public regards as credible. The industry could also develop more ‘on the wharf’ links to the public, for example by establishing fishing industry information sources within commercial precincts. 
 
To address low levels of public knowledge about the traditional sector, government and industry need to work with Indigenous organisations to develop communication strategies to raise public awareness of this sector and its economic and cultural contribution to Indigenous community well-being.
 
Study findings about community judgements of the sustainability of the different sectors, and the reasons for these judgements, could potentially be used in ESD reporting frameworks. In order to do this, ESD frameworks need to be made more meaningful to the community and less dominated by expert judgements and specialised knowledge. There may be particular problems with the meaningfulness of current fisheries’ jurisdictional and management boundaries. Better understanding of public perceptions, knowledge and behaviour obtained through social surveys could be a basis for re-working boundaries and reporting frameworks so that they relate better to community and local knowledge. In particular, high levels of participation and interest in recreational fishing justify attention to ways of making fisheries management more meaningful to the public and giving local communities a greater role in near shore fisheries management than they may have had in the past. Many community members appear to be engaged and interested but lack ways of being directly involved in management or monitoring. 
 
In terms of seafood consumption, a high percentage of respondents ate seafood (95% of the telephone sample). For those who did not eat it, their main reason for not doing so was taste, with other factors less important. The amount of seafood respondents purchased was likely to be influenced by price reductions (70% indicated this would influence them); labelling and certification about contamination and health risks (65%); labelling about freshness (59%); and labelling about environmentally friendly production (57%). These findings suggest potential to further influence seafood consumption patterns by expanding labelling and certification schemes.
 
Ongoing monitoring of social aspects of the industry, based partly on surveys like the one reported here, could provide the industry with important feedback about the success of its communication and information activities, complementing existing economic information about trends in production and consumption. 

ASFB workshop: towards sustainability for data limited multi-sector fisheries

Project number: 2001-306
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $20,000.00
Principal Investigator: Peter Stephenson
Organisation: Department of Primary Industries and Regional Development (DPIRD) WA
Project start/end date: 24 Jul 2001 - 15 Aug 2003
Contact:
FRDC
TAGS
Workshop
Values &Amp; Ethics
Training
Sustainability
Stock Assessment

Need

The current ESD case studies project has identified multi-sector fisheries, often with limited data, as posing one of the most difficult areas for assessment of stock status. These fisheries are typically fished by a small number of commercial operators taking small catches of a diverse range of species. Comprehensive commercial databases are generally lacking, and recreational catches are poorly known. Such stocks are often significantly impacted by environmental variation both man made and natural.

There is an urgent need for researchers and managers responsible for future fisheries ESD reporting and assessment to examine techniques for data gathering (both catch/effort and biological) and assessment for these types of fisheries. The historical approach of dealing with the data and assessments of fisheries from a single sector perspective is no longer compatible with ESD requirements.

This ASFB workshop will bring scientists, managers, and other stakeholders together to investigate innovative ways of providing reliable assessments of the stocks and sustainable harvest levels for our coastal, estuarine, and inland fish resources.

Objectives

1. To explore alternative data sources for multi sector fisheries
2. To report on innovative methods for ESD assessment of multi sector fisheries.
3. To bring together researchers, managers and key stakeholders to focus on assessment and resource sharing for these fisheries.
4. Publication of the papers presented at the workshop as well as the subsequent discussion and comments.

Final report

Author: Peter Stephenson
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.

Project products

Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.
Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.
Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.
Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.
Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.
Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.
Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.
Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.
Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.
Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.
Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.
Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.
Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.
Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.
Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 66.68 KB
2001-306-DLD.pdf

Summary

FRDC and State agencies have generously supported an annual national workshop hosted by Australian Society for Fish Biology (ASFB) since the 1980’s. At the workshop, Australian and overseas scientists have presented keynote addresses on the theme of the workshop, followed by panel debates. The papers presented, and subsequent discussion are published in a book of proceedings.  The topic for the 2001 workshop, “Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries” was topical in light of the requirement for ESD reporting on Australian fisheries for EA, many of which are data poor. 
 
Two international scientists with a special interest in this area were invited to be keynote speakers: Dr Ana Palma, from Peitre Madro, in Argrentina and Dr Jim Ianelli from Seattle in USA.

Despite the collapse of Ansett, and travel bans by US government employees, 69 delegates attended. All papers were presented, albeit some not by the author, with the written papers and discussion published in July 2003. First drafts were reviewed by Stephen Newman, Daniel Gaughan, Gary Jackson, Micheal Mackie, Brett Maloney, and Jill St John from Department of Fisheries WA, final editing by Patricia Kailola, and print set up by Sandy Clarke.
Proceedings • 1.53 MB
2001-306 ASFB Proceedings.pdf

Summary

Proceedings for the 2001 Australian Society for Fish Biology workshop entitled "Towards sustainability of data-limited multi-sector fisheries".
Adoption
PROJECT NUMBER • 2001-305
PROJECT STATUS:
COMPLETED

Inaugural National Abalone Convention

In 2000, every State Abalone Industry Association agreed to support the Inaugural National Abalone Convention with an amount of $2,500 sponsorship and the Abalone Industry Association of SA Inc. pledged to donate $10,000 as host. South Australia created an environment conducive to hosting the...
ORGANISATION:
Abalone Industry Association Of SA Inc
TAGS
Workshop
Training
Sustainability
Stock Assessment
Stakeholder
SPECIES
Blacklip Abalone
Roe's Abalone
Greenlip Abalone
Brownlip Abalone
Adoption
PROJECT NUMBER • 2001-304
PROJECT STATUS:
COMPLETED

2nd National Rock Lobster Industry Conference – Melbourne September 2001

The 2nd National Rock Lobster Congress was hosted by Seafood Industry Victoria (SIV) with support from industry in each lobster producing state, at the Royal Geelong Yatch Club, Geelong on Thursday 20 September and Friday 21 September 2001. The Congress received its funding from the major...
ORGANISATION:
South Australian Rock Lobster Advisory Council (SARLAC)
TAGS
Training
Sustainability
Stakeholder
Innovation
Fisheries Management
SPECIES
Western Rock Lobster
Eastern Rock Lobster
Southern Rock Lobster
Tropical Rock Lobsters

Regional Experiences for Global Solutions - the 3rd World Recreational Fishing Conference

Project number: 2001-302
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $90,000.00
Principal Investigator: Chris Makepeace
Organisation: Amateur Fishermen's Association of the Northern Territory (AFANT)
Project start/end date: 29 Jun 2000 - 30 Jun 2003
Contact:
FRDC
TAGS
Values &Amp; Ethics
Training
Sustainability
Stakeholder
Resource Access And Allocation

Need

The demand for recreational fishing is increasing across the globe. More people are seeking to experience recreational fishing or are seeking an improved fishing experience. Greater demands are being placed on fisheries management, research and the development of this industry sector. Within the next few years, the debate on the allocation of resources, access to resources, environmental issues and a range of other concerns of the industry will only increase. With issues such as improved fishing efficiency, (eg sounders and GPS systems), it is unlikely that the simple management techniques currently used will continue to afford the same level of protection to fisheries resources over the longer term.

There is a wealth of information available from the experiences of other Countries, States and Agencies, and all countries can learn from the advances of others. A conference environment provides an opportunity to share these experiences, create networks, link research projects and share new approaches to mangement.

The 3rd World Conference on Recreational Fishing will bring together fishery scientists, managers and stakeholders to discuss current trends and issues confronting the management of recreational fisheries. The conference will advance our understanding of these key issues and provide benchmark information for future directions in recreational fisheries development, research and management.

Objectives

1. Provide a forum where recreational fisheries managers, researchers, industry and other stakeholders can meet, exchange information and discuss current trends within the recreational and sport fishing industry
2. Dissemination of information through the conference proceedings
3. Form an internationally recognised recreational fisheries organisation of stakeholders
4. Initiate the establishment of an accepted worldwide code of practise for recreational fishing
5. Announce the host of the 4th World Conference on Recreational Fishing in 2005
6. Showcase Australia and the Northern Territory as world leaders in fisheries management
7. Further the knowledge and development of ESD principles as applied to recreational fishing
8. Th enhance the image of the Australian Recreational Fishing industry amongst the national and international community

Report

ISBN: 0 7245 4702 9
Author: APM Coleman
Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf

Project products

Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf
Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf
Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf
Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf
Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf
Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf
Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf
Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf
Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf
Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf
Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf
Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf
Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf
Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
Final Report • 2017-09-29 • 435.65 KB
2001-302-DLD.pdf
Report • 2003-01-01 • 6.49 MB
2001-302-PRO.pdf

Summary

Regional experiences for global solutions - the proceedings of the 3rd world recreational fishing conference, 21-24 May 2002 - Northern Territory, Australia
People

Investigations into the toxicology of pectenotoxin 2 seco acid and 7-epi pectenotoxin 2 seco acid to aid in a health risk assessment for the consumption of shellfish contaminated with these diarrhetic shellfish toxins in Australia

Project number: 2001-258
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $20,000.00
Principal Investigator: Glen Shaw
Organisation: University of Queensland (UQ)
Project start/end date: 28 Mar 2002 - 30 Mar 2003
Contact:
FRDC
TAGS
Training
Sustainability
Stakeholder
Innovation
Fisheries Management

Need

The need for the research lies in the fact that no guideline values exist for pectenotoxins in shellfish. To produce these guidelines toxicological data need to be produced and currently there is a lack of knowledge of the PTX metabolism and mechanisms of toxicity. There is currently no oral toxicology data on the PTX2- seco acids and thus their inpact on human health cannot be assessed. There have been no published works of their metabolism in mammals or humans, and their chronic effects on health are unknown. The clinical symptoms are non-specific to DSP poisoning and it is believed that cases of bacterial poisoning and DSP are mis-diagnosed due to lack of toxicological information.

The presence of pectenotoxins can impose significant economic burden on the shellfish industry. Clear toxicological data on pectenotoxins will be used to undertake a risk assessment of pectenotoxins to enable the shellfish industry and regulators to make informed decisions about the withdrawal of product from sale or closure of farms in the presence of pectenotoxins in shellfish.

Objectives

1. A comprehensive study has been undertaken in which the aims are to (i) develop a robust method for extraction, purification and quantification of pectenotoxins in shellfish, (ii) investigate the pathology caused by the pectenotoxins when ingested orally, (iii) investigate P450 metabolism of the purified PTXs with the use of microarray technology and (iv) conduct a health risk assessment for the consumption of seafood contaminated with pectenotoxins. This study will provide a greater understanding of the metabolism and mechanisms of toxicity for the PTXs and provide information useful in the clinical assessment of poisoned patients and also provide information to be used in the setting of guideline values for pectenotoxins in seafood.

Final report

ISBN: 0-9750259-1-0
Author: Glen Shaw
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf
Final Report • 2003-06-25 • 520.62 KB
2001-258-DLD.pdf

Australian aquaculture - practical solutions to the triple bottom line - a national workshop

Project number: 2001-257
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $63,910.00
Principal Investigator: Richard McLoughlin
Organisation: Agriculture Victoria
Project start/end date: 30 Dec 2001 - 1 Dec 2003
Contact:
FRDC
TAGS
Toxin
Health And Safety
Food Safety

Need

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry. In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs. There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining the ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable is often not substantiated by scientific fact, but can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. A negative public perception can also enhance the influence of uninformed pressure groups on Government policy development. This is a constraint to future development of the whole industry.

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives. What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture. Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA) adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework. To date the focus of SCFA framework case studies has been on wild fisheries. This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.

In addition, internationally benchmarked environmental management systems (such as ISO 14000) are options that should be explored to implement ESD frameworks and have already been developed for aquaculture sectors in other parts of the world (Gavine et al 1996, Boyd, 1999).

Advantages for the aquaculture industry in adopting the principles of ESD and documenting environmental performance include:

(1) Improved public perception of the industry;
(2) Reduction in waste and improved efficiency at site level;
(3) A competitive advantage in the market place if accreditation is used as a branding tool; and
(4) Ability to effectively engage new Government policies (such as Tradeable Emissions Policies).

This workshop will be the first step in bringing together the stakeholders to identify issues and develop practical solutions that will allow the Australian aquaculture industry to continue to develop in a sustainable manner.

Boyd, C. 1999. The aquaculture industry must learn to deal effectively with environmental issues, beginning with recognising the role of the different players involved. World Aquaculture 30 (2):10.
Gavine, F. M., Rennis, D. S. and Windmill, D. 1996. Implementing environmental management systems in the UK finfish aquaculture industry. J.C.I.W.E.M 10, October: 341-347.

Objectives

1. To identify practical solutions to ESD issues which will enable aquaculture organisations to develop in a sustainable and cost effective manner.
2. To develop an action plan that achieves a) standard auditing and reporting protocols for environmental performance of aquaculture operations within and ESD framework and b) adapts the existing SCFA ESD framework to incorporate the requirements of aquaculture operations.

Final report

ISBN: 1-74106-536-4
Author: Richard McLoughlin
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 
Final Report • 2003-05-26 • 540.13 KB
2001-257-DLD.pdf

Summary

Federal and state legislation is increasingly demanding more stringent environmental controls on aquaculture activities and place the onus of proof for demonstrating environmental performance on the industry.  In addition, regulation for and approval of aquaculture activities is increasingly directed through state EPAs.  There is thus a regulatory imperative to defining ESD sustainability indicators for the aquaculture industry.

Public perception of the industry as environmentally unsustainable, although not always substantiated by scientific fact, can have a detrimental affect on aquaculture development through objections to individual aquaculture planning applications. 

To address these two issues, there is a clear need to identify the issues related to various aquaculture sectors and develop protocols and frameworks through which organisations can demonstrate their compliance with environmental objectives.  What is required is a national framework and standards for assessing the environmental performance of aquaculture.  Additionally, industry needs to be equipped with practical tools and solutions for dealing with these issues.

The then Standing Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture (SCFA), now the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum, adopted an ESD framework for fisheries in 1998 and a FRDC/SCFA-funded project has undertaken a number of case studies using this framework.  To date the focus of these case studies has predominantly been on wild fisheries.  This approach needs to be expanded to a broader range of stakeholders involved in aquaculture and fine-tuned to ensure it is appropriate for all aquaculture systems and sectors.  The workshop program involved leading representatives from the aquaculture industry, indigenous communities, non-government organisations, science and government. The workshop was attended by 106 delegates. 

The presentations covered a range of perspectives from many leading industry, government and non-government organisations. It brought to the front a number of key issues and challenges facing the implementation of ESD across the aquaculture industry and highlighted a range of pathways to achieve ESD at a business, regional or National level.

The break-out group sessions identified key issues facing each of seven aquaculture industry sectors and provided feedback on strategies to address those issues along with suggested performance indicators. Many of these issues were consistent across sectors and provided a firm basis for identifying and prioritisation key issues at the national level. 
The group discussion focussed on the drivers / needs to establish a framework for implementing ESD at the National level. Through this discussion there was widespread support to review the existing ESD Framework for the wild capture sector, in order to develop an equivalent framework for aquaculture. A process for reviewing the ESD framework was subsequently developed within the FRDC ESD subprogram. 

Development and establishment of a national system for minor uses of products for the protection of livestock in aquaculture

Project number: 2001-256
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $74,880.00
Principal Investigator: Peter A. Taylor
Organisation: Crop Protections Approvals Ltd
Project start/end date: 30 Jan 2002 - 30 Jun 2004
Contact:
FRDC
TAGS
Sustainability
Stakeholder
Consumer
Community
Aquaculture

Need

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the National Registration Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia. In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 of the ANZFA Food Code.

The cost of generating data and assembling submissions for registration of substances is high. Aquaculturists frequently suffer from a lack of legal access to livestock protection products. The problem is hath whilst their produce is valuable, the industries are too small individually for agrochemical or veterinary companies to bear the high cost of registering products for use on them.

Growers affected by the problem are increasingly trapped in a situation where they face severe losses from pests and diseases if they do nothing to protect their fish, or have their produce rejected by the marketplace if they use a product that is not registered. Poor publicity arising from such occurrences would severely damage the "clean and green" image that the industry wishes to a project. The lack of access to registered products that employ new technologies is also likely to hamper the competitiveness and sustainability of the industry in the future.

There is a need to establish a system in which the needs of the aquaculture industry sectors are met on a continuing basis through industry consultation, cost sharing and efficient project direction and execution.

Objectives

1. Establish a producer driven system for determination and prioritisation of the requirements of the various sectors of aquaculture for registered products.
2. In consultation with industry bodies, establish frameworks for the ownership of data and permits and for the ongoing servicing and renewal of permits.
3. Establish a network of consultants and research establishments to implement residue and efficacy studies.
4. Modify in house software to provide aquaculture specific applications for project management and protocol generation.
5. Develop standard operating procedures and a blueprint for the ongoing operation of the new system.

Final report

Author: Peter Taylor
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
Final Report • 2004-06-30 • 351.57 KB
2001-256-DLD.pdf

Summary

All substances that fit the definition of agricultural and veterinary chemicals under the Chemical and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 must be registered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority before they can be supplied, sold or used in Australia.   In addition, any produce derived from livestock that has been treated with such substances must comply with Maximum Residue Limits as specified in Part 14 a of the ANZFA Food Code.

This project was preceded by Project 96/314  “Registration of Aquaculture Chemicals”, which was conducted to identify the most appropriate and industry-accepted drugs and chemicals for each sector of the aquaculture industry, to maximize the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the registration processes, and to establish registration of key drugs.    This project was designed to establish a system that will serve the ongoing needs of the aquaculture industries.

The minor use system developed by CPA Research for horticulture was used as a model for an aquaculture-specific system in which industry sectors identify and prioritise their needs for veterinary chemical products and pass them to an appointed consultant co-ordinator.  The individual items are analysed by the consultant in terms of the availability of alternatives, environmental considerations etc. and, where possible, combined with similar requests from other industries.  The data requirements for a registration/permit are determined in consultation with the APVMA, and the items are costed and passed back through NAC in the form of proposals for funding. 

Ongoing maintenance of the system would be contracted by the NAC to a suitable consultant.   

Pilot projects included the consolidation of existing and expired permits for formalin into a single permit for aquaculture industries, permits for hydrogen peroxide and for benzalkonium chloride.
The system is not yet fully operational, because issues in regard to ongoing funding through NAC are still being resolved.   Questions regarding intellectual property and the legal liability for misuse are being considered by the NAC.  The NAC also has yet to resolve issues concerning administration of the chemical registration process in regard to cost recovery.
View Filter

Research

Category

Product Type

Species

Organisation