147 results
Blank
PROJECT NUMBER • 2018-026
PROJECT STATUS:
COMPLETED

e-fish - An Integrated Data Capture and Sharing Project

The e-fish project provides an in-depth analysis of the challenges currently experienced by fisheries agencies in data integration and sharing. The project, led by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) in consultation with Australia’s State and NT fisheries jurisdictions,...
ORGANISATION:
Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA)
TAGS
Traceability
Rac Cmwth
Market Opportunities
Data
App
SPECIES
John Dory
Industry
PROJECT NUMBER • 2018-024
PROJECT STATUS:
COMPLETED

Investigation and improvement of live Blue Swimmer Crab handling in NSW

This report presents pivotal findings from an in-depth investigation into optimising live handling practices for the commercial Blue Swimmer Crab (Portunus armatus) industry in New South Wales (NSW), with the overarching goal of unlocking high-value live trade opportunities. Initiated in...
ORGANISATION:
Department of Primary Industries (QLD)
TAGS
Rac Nsw
Post Harvest
Mortality
Fisheries Management
Audit
SPECIES
Blue Swimmer Crab

FRDC Resource: Development and ongoing maintenance of Australian Fish Names Standard 2019-2020

Project number: 2018-006
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $207,551.00
Principal Investigator: Alan J. Snow
Organisation: Alan Snow Konsulting
Project start/end date: 30 Jun 2019 - 29 Sep 2020
Contact:
FRDC
TAGS
Values &Amp; Ethics
Sustainability
Stock Assessment
Policy
Marketing

Need

All Australian Standards developed by FRDC will demonstrate a net benefit and therefore have an overall positive impact on Australia’s seafood industry. This means that all FRDC developed Australian Standards must provide a value or benefit that exceeds the costs to the seafood industry with associated action plans to implement continuous improvement to ensure this is met.

Public, consumer and stakeholder confidence is vital to the well-being of Australia’s seafood industry.

Australian Standards are not legal documents. However, when a government references a standard in legislation, it becomes mandatory. An Australian Standard does have status and is recognised as being a credible document. Usage of the names included in the Australian Fish Names Standard is not mandated in Australia but is listed in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code - Standard 2.2.3 - Fish and Fish Products as an advisory note (see https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2011C00569)

Standard fish names removes confusion, strengthens consumer confidence, creates market efficiencies and consistency, underpins effective fisheries monitoring and improves management of food fraud / food safety.

The use of standard fish names achieves outcomes that are consistent with the aims of industry and governments:
1 Improved monitoring and stock assessment enhances the sustainability of fisheries resources.
2 Increased consistency and efficiency in seafood marketing to improve consumer confidence and industry profitability.
3 Improved accuracy and consistency in trade descriptions enables consumers to make more informed choices when purchasing seafood and reduces the potential for misleading and deceptive conduct.
4 More efficient management of seafood related public health incidents and food safety through improved labelling and species identification reduces public health risk.

Within the next decade, the AFNS must:
• Be all inclusive including increased stakeholder awareness
• Improve the AFNS database to ensure all data is current
• Meet stakeholder expectation
• Be world’s best practice
• Be a national benchmark for sustainability
• Be part of an ongoing continuous improvement processes
• Be a transparent process to create trust

Objectives

1. Ensure FRDC maintains accreditation as a Standards Development Organisation through audits from the Standards Development Advisory Committee
2. Continue to promote and provide advice on the content and uptake of Australian Fish Names Standard and other FRDC developed standards to the broader seafood industry and government through strategic submissions and presentations to government in consultation with FRDC
3. Evaluate and implement the recommendations from the draft “Report on Stakeholder Consultation about the Australian Fish Names Standard and the Associated Processes” conducted in 2018 to ensure the AFNS continues to meet stakeholder needs and expectations
4. Continually improve the content and relevance of the Australian Fish Names Standard AS 5300 and underlying procedures to meet market, regulator and stakeholder needs and expectations.

Report

ISBN: 978-0-6450899-1-2
Author: Alan J Snow
Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.

Project products

Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.
Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.
Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.
Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.
Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.
Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.
Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.
Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.
Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.
Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.
Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.
Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.
Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.
Report • 2021-06-21 • 1.83 MB
2018-006-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project focuses on the ongoing development and maintenance of the Australian Fish Names Standard. Initiated by Seafood Services Australia in 1999, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) took carriage of the development of the Fish Names Standard in 2013. Initial accreditation of FRDC by Standards Australia was conducted on 11 September 2013; intellectual property of the Australian Fish Names Standard was formally transferred on 11 October 2013; and the first FRDC Fish Names Committee (FNC) was held on 12th November 2013.

This work builds on the following FRDC funded projects:
• 2012-209, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) and ensurereaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation [Michelle Christoe, SSA Executive Officer–novated to
  (2012-209.40) Alan Snow Konsulting].
• FRDC 2012-209.40, “Develop and promote the Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300) andensure reaccreditation as a Standards Development Organisation” [Alan Snow Konsulting]
• FRDC 2015-210, “FRDC resource: Australian Fish Names Standard (AS-5300)” [Alan Snow Konsulting].

The operating procedures of the Fish Names Committee have continued to improve, and proposed amendments have been evaluated in a highly rigorous and professional manner.

The list of approved names in the Australian Fish Names Standard has continued to expand to meet stakeholder needs through harmonising with the Status of Australian Fish Stocks (SAFS) reports and the addition of commercially important invertebrate species.

It has been twenty years since the Fish Names process commenced through Seafood Services Australia (SSA). As such, it is an opportunity to consider what has been achieved in twenty years and what is still to be achieved.
Communities

SafeFish 2018-2021

Project number: 2018-004
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $812,452.02
Principal Investigator: Natalie R. Dowsett
Organisation: SARDI Food Safety and Innovation
Project start/end date: 30 Jun 2018 - 29 Jun 2021
Contact:
FRDC
TAGS
Trade
Rac Wa
Rac Vic
Rac Tas
Rac Sa

Need

Maintaining and enhancing market access for Australian seafood is critical for future industry growth. SafeFish makes a significant contribution to this by carrying out three types of projects:
1. Food safety incident responses. The SafeFish partners come together during each incident to provide industry and government with immediate technical information required to respond to the incident. Subsequently, technical input is provided to update policies for prevention of similar incidents and respond to them should they recur. Appropriate technical responses reduce the impact of food safety incidents and ensure better outcomes for future management.
2. Technical input to inter-government consultations on food regulations and market access. It is essential for the Australian seafood industry to participate in consultations such as Codex to ensure that proposed new, or modified, regulations are pragmatic and cost-effective for the Australian seafood industry. It is far easier to influence standards under development than after they have been finalised. Similarly, it is essential for the seafood industry to stay in close contact with Food Safety Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) when domestic food safety regulations are reviewed.
3. Proactive research, risk analyses and training. The safety of Australian seafood is not negotiable in domestic and international markets. Over recent years SafeFish has conducted many activities to assist the industry anticipate and minimize food safety risks. The objective of the activities has always been to identify and mitigate risks before they cause a problem, or to grow knowledge to enable us to improve our risk management in a cost effective manner.

Objectives

1. To deliver robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators that underpins Australia's reputation as a producer of safe seafood.
2. To maintain and enhance the capabilities in Australia to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner.

Report

ISBN: 978-1-876007-37-9
Authors: Natalie Dowsett Stephen Pahl Navreet Malhi Andreas Seger and Alison Turnbull
Report • 2021-06-30 • 828.13 KB
2018-004-DLD.pdf

Summary

SafeFish is an initiative that was developed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) in 2010 (Project 2010-752-10: SafeFish - Seafood Trade Expert Panel funded by the Australian Seafood CRC until 2015). Following this, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and several industry bodies provided funding under two separate grants: Project 2015-212 which ran from 2015-2018 and the current grant Project 2018-004 which ran from 2018-2021. Since its inception, SafeFish has successfully enabled seafood industry sectors to respond in a coordinated and professional manner to technical trade and market access impediments that arise, especially in relation to food safety and hygiene. It provides industry and government departments with access to technical and scientific capability to manage known risks and assists to identify and address new risks and market access barriers that emerge. 
 
Over the past three years (2018-2021) SafeFish has delivered robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators to underpin Australia’s reputation as a producer of safe seafood, and by maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of SafeFish to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner. The increased support from the seafood industry to continue to fund SafeFish for a further three years is testament to the success of this project, and the need for such work in Australia. 
 

Project products

Report • 2021-06-30 • 828.13 KB
2018-004-DLD.pdf

Summary

SafeFish is an initiative that was developed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) in 2010 (Project 2010-752-10: SafeFish - Seafood Trade Expert Panel funded by the Australian Seafood CRC until 2015). Following this, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and several industry bodies provided funding under two separate grants: Project 2015-212 which ran from 2015-2018 and the current grant Project 2018-004 which ran from 2018-2021. Since its inception, SafeFish has successfully enabled seafood industry sectors to respond in a coordinated and professional manner to technical trade and market access impediments that arise, especially in relation to food safety and hygiene. It provides industry and government departments with access to technical and scientific capability to manage known risks and assists to identify and address new risks and market access barriers that emerge. 
 
Over the past three years (2018-2021) SafeFish has delivered robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators to underpin Australia’s reputation as a producer of safe seafood, and by maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of SafeFish to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner. The increased support from the seafood industry to continue to fund SafeFish for a further three years is testament to the success of this project, and the need for such work in Australia. 
 
Report • 2021-06-30 • 828.13 KB
2018-004-DLD.pdf

Summary

SafeFish is an initiative that was developed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) in 2010 (Project 2010-752-10: SafeFish - Seafood Trade Expert Panel funded by the Australian Seafood CRC until 2015). Following this, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and several industry bodies provided funding under two separate grants: Project 2015-212 which ran from 2015-2018 and the current grant Project 2018-004 which ran from 2018-2021. Since its inception, SafeFish has successfully enabled seafood industry sectors to respond in a coordinated and professional manner to technical trade and market access impediments that arise, especially in relation to food safety and hygiene. It provides industry and government departments with access to technical and scientific capability to manage known risks and assists to identify and address new risks and market access barriers that emerge. 
 
Over the past three years (2018-2021) SafeFish has delivered robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators to underpin Australia’s reputation as a producer of safe seafood, and by maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of SafeFish to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner. The increased support from the seafood industry to continue to fund SafeFish for a further three years is testament to the success of this project, and the need for such work in Australia. 
 
Report • 2021-06-30 • 828.13 KB
2018-004-DLD.pdf

Summary

SafeFish is an initiative that was developed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) in 2010 (Project 2010-752-10: SafeFish - Seafood Trade Expert Panel funded by the Australian Seafood CRC until 2015). Following this, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and several industry bodies provided funding under two separate grants: Project 2015-212 which ran from 2015-2018 and the current grant Project 2018-004 which ran from 2018-2021. Since its inception, SafeFish has successfully enabled seafood industry sectors to respond in a coordinated and professional manner to technical trade and market access impediments that arise, especially in relation to food safety and hygiene. It provides industry and government departments with access to technical and scientific capability to manage known risks and assists to identify and address new risks and market access barriers that emerge. 
 
Over the past three years (2018-2021) SafeFish has delivered robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators to underpin Australia’s reputation as a producer of safe seafood, and by maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of SafeFish to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner. The increased support from the seafood industry to continue to fund SafeFish for a further three years is testament to the success of this project, and the need for such work in Australia. 
 
Report • 2021-06-30 • 828.13 KB
2018-004-DLD.pdf

Summary

SafeFish is an initiative that was developed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) in 2010 (Project 2010-752-10: SafeFish - Seafood Trade Expert Panel funded by the Australian Seafood CRC until 2015). Following this, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and several industry bodies provided funding under two separate grants: Project 2015-212 which ran from 2015-2018 and the current grant Project 2018-004 which ran from 2018-2021. Since its inception, SafeFish has successfully enabled seafood industry sectors to respond in a coordinated and professional manner to technical trade and market access impediments that arise, especially in relation to food safety and hygiene. It provides industry and government departments with access to technical and scientific capability to manage known risks and assists to identify and address new risks and market access barriers that emerge. 
 
Over the past three years (2018-2021) SafeFish has delivered robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators to underpin Australia’s reputation as a producer of safe seafood, and by maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of SafeFish to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner. The increased support from the seafood industry to continue to fund SafeFish for a further three years is testament to the success of this project, and the need for such work in Australia. 
 
Report • 2021-06-30 • 828.13 KB
2018-004-DLD.pdf

Summary

SafeFish is an initiative that was developed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) in 2010 (Project 2010-752-10: SafeFish - Seafood Trade Expert Panel funded by the Australian Seafood CRC until 2015). Following this, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and several industry bodies provided funding under two separate grants: Project 2015-212 which ran from 2015-2018 and the current grant Project 2018-004 which ran from 2018-2021. Since its inception, SafeFish has successfully enabled seafood industry sectors to respond in a coordinated and professional manner to technical trade and market access impediments that arise, especially in relation to food safety and hygiene. It provides industry and government departments with access to technical and scientific capability to manage known risks and assists to identify and address new risks and market access barriers that emerge. 
 
Over the past three years (2018-2021) SafeFish has delivered robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators to underpin Australia’s reputation as a producer of safe seafood, and by maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of SafeFish to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner. The increased support from the seafood industry to continue to fund SafeFish for a further three years is testament to the success of this project, and the need for such work in Australia. 
 
Report • 2021-06-30 • 828.13 KB
2018-004-DLD.pdf

Summary

SafeFish is an initiative that was developed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) in 2010 (Project 2010-752-10: SafeFish - Seafood Trade Expert Panel funded by the Australian Seafood CRC until 2015). Following this, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and several industry bodies provided funding under two separate grants: Project 2015-212 which ran from 2015-2018 and the current grant Project 2018-004 which ran from 2018-2021. Since its inception, SafeFish has successfully enabled seafood industry sectors to respond in a coordinated and professional manner to technical trade and market access impediments that arise, especially in relation to food safety and hygiene. It provides industry and government departments with access to technical and scientific capability to manage known risks and assists to identify and address new risks and market access barriers that emerge. 
 
Over the past three years (2018-2021) SafeFish has delivered robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators to underpin Australia’s reputation as a producer of safe seafood, and by maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of SafeFish to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner. The increased support from the seafood industry to continue to fund SafeFish for a further three years is testament to the success of this project, and the need for such work in Australia. 
 
Report • 2021-06-30 • 828.13 KB
2018-004-DLD.pdf

Summary

SafeFish is an initiative that was developed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) in 2010 (Project 2010-752-10: SafeFish - Seafood Trade Expert Panel funded by the Australian Seafood CRC until 2015). Following this, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and several industry bodies provided funding under two separate grants: Project 2015-212 which ran from 2015-2018 and the current grant Project 2018-004 which ran from 2018-2021. Since its inception, SafeFish has successfully enabled seafood industry sectors to respond in a coordinated and professional manner to technical trade and market access impediments that arise, especially in relation to food safety and hygiene. It provides industry and government departments with access to technical and scientific capability to manage known risks and assists to identify and address new risks and market access barriers that emerge. 
 
Over the past three years (2018-2021) SafeFish has delivered robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators to underpin Australia’s reputation as a producer of safe seafood, and by maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of SafeFish to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner. The increased support from the seafood industry to continue to fund SafeFish for a further three years is testament to the success of this project, and the need for such work in Australia. 
 
Report • 2021-06-30 • 828.13 KB
2018-004-DLD.pdf

Summary

SafeFish is an initiative that was developed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) in 2010 (Project 2010-752-10: SafeFish - Seafood Trade Expert Panel funded by the Australian Seafood CRC until 2015). Following this, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and several industry bodies provided funding under two separate grants: Project 2015-212 which ran from 2015-2018 and the current grant Project 2018-004 which ran from 2018-2021. Since its inception, SafeFish has successfully enabled seafood industry sectors to respond in a coordinated and professional manner to technical trade and market access impediments that arise, especially in relation to food safety and hygiene. It provides industry and government departments with access to technical and scientific capability to manage known risks and assists to identify and address new risks and market access barriers that emerge. 
 
Over the past three years (2018-2021) SafeFish has delivered robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators to underpin Australia’s reputation as a producer of safe seafood, and by maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of SafeFish to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner. The increased support from the seafood industry to continue to fund SafeFish for a further three years is testament to the success of this project, and the need for such work in Australia. 
 
Report • 2021-06-30 • 828.13 KB
2018-004-DLD.pdf

Summary

SafeFish is an initiative that was developed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) in 2010 (Project 2010-752-10: SafeFish - Seafood Trade Expert Panel funded by the Australian Seafood CRC until 2015). Following this, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and several industry bodies provided funding under two separate grants: Project 2015-212 which ran from 2015-2018 and the current grant Project 2018-004 which ran from 2018-2021. Since its inception, SafeFish has successfully enabled seafood industry sectors to respond in a coordinated and professional manner to technical trade and market access impediments that arise, especially in relation to food safety and hygiene. It provides industry and government departments with access to technical and scientific capability to manage known risks and assists to identify and address new risks and market access barriers that emerge. 
 
Over the past three years (2018-2021) SafeFish has delivered robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators to underpin Australia’s reputation as a producer of safe seafood, and by maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of SafeFish to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner. The increased support from the seafood industry to continue to fund SafeFish for a further three years is testament to the success of this project, and the need for such work in Australia. 
 
Report • 2021-06-30 • 828.13 KB
2018-004-DLD.pdf

Summary

SafeFish is an initiative that was developed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) in 2010 (Project 2010-752-10: SafeFish - Seafood Trade Expert Panel funded by the Australian Seafood CRC until 2015). Following this, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and several industry bodies provided funding under two separate grants: Project 2015-212 which ran from 2015-2018 and the current grant Project 2018-004 which ran from 2018-2021. Since its inception, SafeFish has successfully enabled seafood industry sectors to respond in a coordinated and professional manner to technical trade and market access impediments that arise, especially in relation to food safety and hygiene. It provides industry and government departments with access to technical and scientific capability to manage known risks and assists to identify and address new risks and market access barriers that emerge. 
 
Over the past three years (2018-2021) SafeFish has delivered robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators to underpin Australia’s reputation as a producer of safe seafood, and by maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of SafeFish to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner. The increased support from the seafood industry to continue to fund SafeFish for a further three years is testament to the success of this project, and the need for such work in Australia. 
 
Report • 2021-06-30 • 828.13 KB
2018-004-DLD.pdf

Summary

SafeFish is an initiative that was developed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) in 2010 (Project 2010-752-10: SafeFish - Seafood Trade Expert Panel funded by the Australian Seafood CRC until 2015). Following this, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and several industry bodies provided funding under two separate grants: Project 2015-212 which ran from 2015-2018 and the current grant Project 2018-004 which ran from 2018-2021. Since its inception, SafeFish has successfully enabled seafood industry sectors to respond in a coordinated and professional manner to technical trade and market access impediments that arise, especially in relation to food safety and hygiene. It provides industry and government departments with access to technical and scientific capability to manage known risks and assists to identify and address new risks and market access barriers that emerge. 
 
Over the past three years (2018-2021) SafeFish has delivered robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators to underpin Australia’s reputation as a producer of safe seafood, and by maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of SafeFish to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner. The increased support from the seafood industry to continue to fund SafeFish for a further three years is testament to the success of this project, and the need for such work in Australia. 
 
Report • 2021-06-30 • 828.13 KB
2018-004-DLD.pdf

Summary

SafeFish is an initiative that was developed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) in 2010 (Project 2010-752-10: SafeFish - Seafood Trade Expert Panel funded by the Australian Seafood CRC until 2015). Following this, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and several industry bodies provided funding under two separate grants: Project 2015-212 which ran from 2015-2018 and the current grant Project 2018-004 which ran from 2018-2021. Since its inception, SafeFish has successfully enabled seafood industry sectors to respond in a coordinated and professional manner to technical trade and market access impediments that arise, especially in relation to food safety and hygiene. It provides industry and government departments with access to technical and scientific capability to manage known risks and assists to identify and address new risks and market access barriers that emerge. 
 
Over the past three years (2018-2021) SafeFish has delivered robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators to underpin Australia’s reputation as a producer of safe seafood, and by maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of SafeFish to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner. The increased support from the seafood industry to continue to fund SafeFish for a further three years is testament to the success of this project, and the need for such work in Australia. 
 
Report • 2021-06-30 • 828.13 KB
2018-004-DLD.pdf

Summary

SafeFish is an initiative that was developed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) in 2010 (Project 2010-752-10: SafeFish - Seafood Trade Expert Panel funded by the Australian Seafood CRC until 2015). Following this, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and several industry bodies provided funding under two separate grants: Project 2015-212 which ran from 2015-2018 and the current grant Project 2018-004 which ran from 2018-2021. Since its inception, SafeFish has successfully enabled seafood industry sectors to respond in a coordinated and professional manner to technical trade and market access impediments that arise, especially in relation to food safety and hygiene. It provides industry and government departments with access to technical and scientific capability to manage known risks and assists to identify and address new risks and market access barriers that emerge. 
 
Over the past three years (2018-2021) SafeFish has delivered robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators to underpin Australia’s reputation as a producer of safe seafood, and by maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of SafeFish to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner. The increased support from the seafood industry to continue to fund SafeFish for a further three years is testament to the success of this project, and the need for such work in Australia. 
 
Report • 2021-06-30 • 828.13 KB
2018-004-DLD.pdf

Summary

SafeFish is an initiative that was developed by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) in 2010 (Project 2010-752-10: SafeFish - Seafood Trade Expert Panel funded by the Australian Seafood CRC until 2015). Following this, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) and several industry bodies provided funding under two separate grants: Project 2015-212 which ran from 2015-2018 and the current grant Project 2018-004 which ran from 2018-2021. Since its inception, SafeFish has successfully enabled seafood industry sectors to respond in a coordinated and professional manner to technical trade and market access impediments that arise, especially in relation to food safety and hygiene. It provides industry and government departments with access to technical and scientific capability to manage known risks and assists to identify and address new risks and market access barriers that emerge. 
 
Over the past three years (2018-2021) SafeFish has delivered robust food safety research and advice to industry and regulators to underpin Australia’s reputation as a producer of safe seafood, and by maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of SafeFish to provide that research and advice in a cost effective, efficient and timely manner. The increased support from the seafood industry to continue to fund SafeFish for a further three years is testament to the success of this project, and the need for such work in Australia. 
 
Industry
People

Seafood Country of Origin Labelling (CoOL) – NSW Food Service Industry Trial

Project number: 2017-227
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $3,900.00
Principal Investigator: Jayne M. Gallagher
Organisation: Honey and Fox Pty Ltd
Project start/end date: 30 Nov 2017 - 29 Mar 2018
Contact:
FRDC
TAGS
Traceability
Policy
Marketing
Labelling
Education

Need

There are a number of proposals to extend compulsory seafood Country of Origin Labelling (CoOL), as currently exists in retail, to food service businesses. A number of stakeholder meetings have been held nationally and by individual states, to consider the proposal. There is a compulsory system in the Northern Territory and the NSW Government has agreed to consider the proposal for a CoOL scheme for seafood as part of its Fisheries Reform Package.
The Restaurant & Catering Industry Association considers that a concerted informational and educative campaign to increase the take-up of CoOL amongst food service businesses in the hospitality sector will deliver sustained results.
Other stakeholders are not convinced that a voluntary system will work so have agreed to trial a campaign in NSW food service businesses during 2018 to evaluate the impact of such an initiative (intended and unintended). This project workshops the ToR of such a trial

Objectives

1. To develop Request for Tender documentation to ensure an increase in the purchase and sales of seafood and increase consumer awareness of the origin of seafood in food service through an informative education campaign targeting food service businesses in NSW.
Adoption
PROJECT NUMBER • 2017-221
PROJECT STATUS:
COMPLETED

Raise awareness of the guidelines developed by the AAWWG (Aquatic Animal Welfare Working Group) with industry and review their adoption, uptake rates and utility

During the 2017 FRDC Lead, Collaborate, Partner Stakeholder Workshop delegates identified a need to assess the success of the work undertaken by the Aquatic Animal Welfare Working Group (AAWWG) from 2005 – 2013 and to determine what research, development and extension activities were needed to...
ORGANISATION:
Safe Sustainable Seafood Pty Ltd
TAGS
Wild Catch
Traceability
Sustainability
Supply Chain
Recreational Fishing

Comparative evaluation of Integrated Coastal Marine Management in Australia - Workshop

Project number: 2017-214
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $14,640.00
Principal Investigator: Alistair Hobday
Organisation: CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Hobart
Project start/end date: 19 Jun 2018 - 29 Nov 2018
Contact:
FRDC
TAGS
Resource Access And Allocation
Policy
Human Dimensions Research
Fisheries Management
Ecosystem

Need

There is widespread evidence, in Australia and internationally, of increased need for an improved, practical approach to integrated management (IM) of fisheries and other coastal marine activities that is able to fully embrace the social, economic and institutional aspects (the so-called ‘human dimensions), of management. Assessment and management systems traditionally neglect the human dimensions. Further, they treat sectors separately, often with different authorities managing diverse activities in different ways, resulting in inconsistencies in management across activities. The result is that there is almost no consideration of the cumulative social, economic or ecological impacts of multiple activities, and no way of informing trade-offs among activities in management decision-making.
Experience to date is that IM has been only partially successful. Management of multiple activities has been additive…squeezing one activity in among others (e.g aquaculture in light of others). While there are some examples of movement toward IM, these have resulted in partial or temporary success. There are examples where management has started toward IM, but progress has been stalled or has fallen back. In general, many preconditions exist, but it has been hypothesized that management is missing key aspects of intentional design that would allow IM to proceed.
The proposed workshop will bring together those with both the science knowledge and the operational knowledge of 8-10 Australian IM case studies and a few with international expertise, to evaluate and compare experience towards identifying key elements of success and failure of Integrated Management.

Objectives

1. Complete the creation of a lens for evaluation of Integrated Management that includes appropriate attention to social, cultural, economic, institutional as well as ecological aspects
2. Convene two workshops involving expert practitioners with sufficient scientific and operational knowledge of existing Australian Integrated Management case studies
3. Evaluate and compare experience on implementing IM in Australia using a single evaluative lens
4. Synthesize and report results of the evaluation and make recommendations for improved IM in Australia

Final report

ISBN: 978-1-4863-1276-4
Authors: Robert Stephenson Alistair Hobday Christopher Cvitanovic Maree Fudge Tim Ward Ian Butler Toni Cannard Mel Cowlishaw Ian Cresswell Jon Day Kirstin Dobbs Leo X.C. Dutra Stewart Frusher Beth Fulton Josh Gibson Bronwyn Gillanders Natalie Gollan Marcus Haward Trevor Hutton Alan Jordan Jan Macdonald Catriona Macleod Gretta Pecl Eva Plaganyi Ingrid van Putten Tony Smith Ian Poiner Joanna Vince
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.

Project products

Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.
Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.
Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.
Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.
Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.
Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.
Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.
Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.
Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.
Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.
Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.
Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.
Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.
Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
Final Report • 2019-08-02 • 1.16 MB
2017-214-DLD.pdf

Summary

The need for Integrated Management (IM) of diverse marine activities is increasing, but there has been no agreed IM framework. In 2017 and 2018, a team of researchers collaborated to develop a framework for implementation and a ‘lens’ for evaluation of IM.
Fact Sheet • 408.36 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 1- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Nine key features and five phases of implementation provide a lens for implementation and evaluation of Integrated Management. 
Fact Sheet • 285.61 KB
2017-214 - Fact Sheet 2- Integrated Management.pdf

Summary

Integrated Management is an approach that links (integrates) planning, decision-making and management arrangements across sectors in a unified framework, to enable a more comprehensive view of sustainability and the consideration of cumulative effects and tradeoffs.
 
Evaluation of nine key features and five phases important to Integrated Management has been investigated in seven Australian case studies.
Article • 2.85 MB
2017-214 - Stephenson et al 2023.pdf

Summary

Integrated management (IM) has been widely proposed, but difficult to achieve in practice, and there remains the need for evaluation of examples that illustrate the practical issues that contribute to IM success or failure. This paper synthesises experiences of academics and practitioners involved in seven Australian case studies in which there have been attempts to integrate or take a broader, holistic perspective of management. The evaluative framework of Stephenson et al. (2019a) was used as a lens to explore, through workshops and a questionnaire survey, the nine key features and five anticipated stages of IM in the Gladstone Harbour Project, the Great Barrier Reef, the Northern Prawn fishery and regional development, the South-East Queensland Healthy Waterways Partnership, the Australian Oceans Policy, the New South Wales Marine Estate reforms, and progress toward Integrated Management in the Spencer Gulf. Workshops involving experts with direct experience of the case studies revealed that most of the key features (recognition of the need; a shared vision for IM; appropriate legal and policy frameworks; effective process for appropriate stakeholder participation; comprehensive suite of objectives (ecological, social, cultural, economic and institutional); consideration of trade-offs and cumulative effects of multiple activities; flexibility to adapt to changing conditions; process for ongoing review, evaluation and refinement; and effective resourcing) were seen as important in all case studies. However, there are only a few examples where key features of IM were implemented ‘fully’. A subsequent questionnaire of participants using ‘best-worst’ scaling indicated that an appropriate legal and institutional framework is considered to have most influence on IM outcomes, and therefore is the most important of the key features. This is followed in salience by effective stakeholder participation, effective resourcing, capacity and tools, and recognition of the need for IM. Key features may change in relative importance at different stages in the trajectory of IM. 
View Filter

Research

Category

Species

Organisation