32 results
People

Review of fishery resource access and allocation arrangements across Australian jurisdictions

Project number: 2017-122
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $106,640.00
Principal Investigator: Ian Knuckey
Organisation: Fishwell Consulting Pty Ltd
Project start/end date: 24 Sep 2017 - 15 Apr 2018
Contact:
FRDC

Need

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum (AFMF) listed fisheries access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed. Subsequently, FRDC formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. They produced a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation, highlighting impediments to optimising fisheries resource access and allocation in Australia and the RD&E issues requiring investment.
Seven years on, there has been a lot of developments in this area in the various jurisdictions. To assist guide FRDC's future RD&E investment on these issues, the Board requested a review of the current state of fishery resouce access and allocation across the various jurisdictions.

Objectives

1. Define the elements (i.e. units to which resource access is allocated) of access and allocation
2. Review available information and provide examples of allocation and access in Australian fisheries jurisdictions and other industries
3. Describe the tools available for access and allocation and how they are implemented in each jurisdiction
4. Identify jurisdictional gaps and differences and recommend potential tools / options to fill those gaps

Final report

ISBN: 978-0-6480172-2-6
Authors: Knuckey I Sen S and McShane P.
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Final Report • 2019-05-30 • 1.11 MB
2017-122-DLD.pdf

Summary

In 2010, the Australian Fisheries Managers Forum listed access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed in Australian fisheries. Subsequently, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) formed a working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues to assist fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters. From this, a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and allocation was produced (Neville 2012 - FRDC project 2011-215).
Communities
PROJECT NUMBER • 2017-069
PROJECT STATUS:
COMPLETED

Indigenous Capacity Building Program

This project aimed to address the need to increase the number of Indigenous Australians with capacity to engage in management and governance of fisheries and aquatic resources, by developing a capacity building program with supporting materials and conducting capacity building activities with...
ORGANISATION:
Fishwell Consulting Pty Ltd

Understanding factors influencing undercaught TACs, declining catch rates and failure to recover for many quota species in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery

Project number: 2016-146
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $179,000.00
Principal Investigator: Ian Knuckey
Organisation: Fishwell Consulting Pty Ltd
Project start/end date: 31 May 2017 - 30 Jun 2018
Contact:
FRDC

Need

Despite the indicators of improvements in fish stock status for SESSF species, the fishery as a whole is failing to catch the TACs of many quota species. Moreover, catch rates for many quota species are continuing to decline despite the historically low levels of fishing effort. The fishery is not in an economic position where it can afford to operate below potential - this under catch equates to a considerable lost opportunity in both the financial value and the volume of fish available for the consumer. Net economic returns for the CTS have recently fallen to $1.4 million in 2013–14, the lowest level since the buyback. NER in the GHaT has been negative since 2008–09. Recent economc analyses (Pascoe pers comm) have revealed that if all vessels could catch the full recommended quota, revenues of the CTS would more than double, while the GHaT revenues would increase by around 24%. For the CTS, average vessel profits are likely to increase by between $200k and $500k, with an average increase of around $380k.

So, what is the cause of the current situation in the SESSF?

There are a variety of different reasons given for the SESSF's TAC undercatch, depending on who you talk to. Anecdotally, it has variously been attributed to reduction in fleet fishing capacity, effort reduction, legislative barriers, spatial closures, changed behaviour of operators, market factors, quota ownership and trading, cost of production, changes in catch per unit of effort, climate change and its impact on oceanographic conditions and potential range shifts of species. It is also quite likely that it is a combination of a number of the above factors.

What can be done?

With such a wide range of potential reasons, it is difficult to determine what further work is required to potentially address these issues in the SESSF. This project centres on development of background papers on each of the issues that will be presented at a workshop designed as the first step in clarifying stakeholder views on the underlying reasons and how they might be resolved in the future.

Objectives

1. Provide a range of papers with information on potential causes of undercaught TACs, declining catch rates and non-recovering species
2. Hold a workshop to discuss plausible reasons for undercaught TACs, declining catch rates and non-recovering species
3. Develop strategies to address the undercaught TACs, declingin catch rates and non-recovering species based outputs from Objective 1 and 2.
4. Develop a process for assessing non-rebuilding species.

Final report

ISBN: 978-0-9954122-9-3
Author: Peter O'Brien and Ian Knuckey
Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Final Report • 2017-06-06 • 8.29 MB
2016-146-DLD.pdf

Summary

Concerns about the ecological and economic sustainability of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) prompted major structural readjustment of the fishery in 2006 that significantly reduced the number of operators in demersal trawl, Danish seine and gill net sectors of the fishery.  A decade later, many of the ecological sustainability issues have been addressed and despite declining Gross Value of Production (GVP), there has been variable but overall improvement in net economic returns (NER) of the fishery.  There remains, however, a number of indicators in the fishery that may point to significant sub-optimal performance in terms of stock sustainability and fishery profitability as outlined below. 

At the end of the 2015/16 year, 23 of the 34 species groups under TACs were less than 50% caught. Of the major quota species, only four had catches above 80% of the TACs (Flathead, Gummy Shark, Pink Ling and School Whiting).

There has been a continual decline in catch rates for many quota species with a range of life histories.  Similar trends in decline over the last two decades have been observed for Jackass Morwong, Redfish, Blue Eye Trevalla, Silver Warehou, Blue Warehou, John Dory and Ribaldo, despite the lowest historical effort and catch levels in the fishery. Unstandardised CPUE across the fishery has declined for several years hitting an all-time low in 2015 and has remained at this level in 2016. Moreover, optimised CPUE standardizations for 23 species (including grouped species) and 43 different stocks, methods, or fisheries revealed 29 of the 43 SESSF stocks were found to have declining standardised catch rates.  

Historically overfished species (Eastern Gemfish, School Shark, Blue Warehou and most recently Redfish) have shown little sign of recovery despite over a decade of the lowest catches on record resulting from significant management changes under relevant rebuilding strategies
(including bans on targeting, implementation of industry driven avoidance measures, and implementation of spatial closures).  The overfishing and subsequent recent recovery of the eastern Orange Roughy stock over the last two decades is well documented – but it is an exception.  

There are many and varied reasons to explain these issues in the SESSF, but there has been no attempt at a coordinated approach to identify which factor/s may be the cause, much less how these may be addressed.  This project was designed to start this process.

Development of a 5-year sector and NT Strategic Research, Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan for Northern Territory fisheries and aquaculture based on priority needs of major stakeholder sectors

Project number: 2016-116
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $141,659.98
Principal Investigator: Ian Knuckey
Organisation: Fishwell Consulting Pty Ltd
Project start/end date: 30 Jun 2017 - 29 Jun 2018
Contact:
FRDC

Need

A 5-year Research, Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan is a major strategic need of NT. However, for a number of reasons including the diversity and geographical separation of sectors (commercial wild catch, recreational, indigenous and aquaculture) and their wide stakeholder bases, there is limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan.

The importance of fishery and aquaculture sectors to have strategic plans that include the R&D priorities has been well recognised (eg FRDC project 2016-504). While RD&E plans are in place or under development for a number of groups (eg Indigenous groups, Fisheries Research, Aquaculture and Indigenous Liaison units within NT Department of Primary Industry and Resources), there is no comprehensive plan that encompasses all sectors throughout the Territory. One of the main challenges is in reaching the membership base, and incorporating the diversity of views and opinions into provided. Fortunately, most of the major groups within the three sectors have representative organisations that can be used to collate and present views of their membership, although developing RD&E priority areas often falls outside their current remit or level of expertise.

RD&E plans are important for guiding investment into areas that stakeholders consider as high priority, and assist with providing balanced investment amongst and between stakeholders. A recently finalised project aimed to elicit initial research priorities for the NT RAC RD&E plan (FRDC project 2016-504) noted that, for the successful development of such a plan, it is crucial “for the commercial, seafood and recreational fishing sectors to have strategic industry plans that include the R&D priorities of their members”. We will work with key representative organisations (NTSC, AFANT and the 3 Land Councils – NLC, ALC and Tiwi) to develop initial individual RD&E plans for the commercial, recreational and indigenous sectors and aquaculture respectively. Based critically on these, we will develop an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for the Northern Territory fisheries and aquaculture.

Objectives

1. Hold workshops and conduct surveys to determine sector priority RD&E areas
2. Deliver a 5-year RD&E Plan to NTRAC that includes input from stakeholders.
3. Develop Strategic R&D Plans for each of: commercial, recreational, indigenous and aquaculture sectors.
4. Leave each stakeholder group with the tools and a process to conduct repeatable surveys of their membership's RD&E needs so that priorities and strategic plans can be updated and fed into the 5-year NT Strategic Plan.

Final report

ISBN: 978-0-6480172-7-1
Authors: Knuckey I. Koopman M. and Calogeras C.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Final Report • 2020-09-09 • 5.62 MB
2016-116-DLD.pdf

Summary

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation’s (FRDC) Northern Territory Research Advisory Committee (NT RAC) recognised that a 5-year Research Development and Extension (RD&E) Plan was a major strategic need of the NT but acknowledged that there was limited capacity among sectors to undertake the necessary consultation and compile the required information, to successfully develop such a plan — particularly because of the diversity and geographical separation of various sectors (Indigenous, recreational, commercial wild-catch and aquaculture) and their wide respective stakeholder bases. NT RAC therefore contracted Fishwell Consulting to liaise with each of the sectors to develop separate sector-specific strategic RD&E Plans; and based on these, produce an overarching 5-year RD&E Plan for NT fishery and aquaculture.
 
The context under which this Strategic RD&E Plan was developed is very much driven by the FRDC — which is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing and aquaculture sectors — whose role is to plan and invest in fisheries RD&E activities in Australia. The FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E plan is framed around the National RD&E Strategy, while the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan guides development, and is itself guided by the FRDC sector-based Industry Partnership Agreement (IPA) RD&E plans and FRDC Research Advisory Committee (RAC) jurisdictional-based RD&E plans. The sector-based and jurisdictional-based plans are also informed by end users. Given this arrangement, development of the NT RD&E Strategy should be guided directly by a combination of the FRDC 2015-2020 RD&E Plan and input from stakeholders, with consideration of the structures of other jurisdictional plans.
 
Existing plans and strategies were summarised to develop the RD&E framework on which to base this Strategic RD&E Plan. At a high level, there are existing strategic plans that are relevant and influential to setting the Northern Territory’s commercial wild-catch and aquaculture research agenda. These include the northern Strategic plans put in place by relevant peak bodies and the Land Councils, NT Fisheries Strategic Plan and associated portfolio plans, the Department of Primary Industry and Resources Industry Development Plan, Success through Innovation – the National Fishing and Aquaculture Research, Development and Extension Strategy 2016, the Northern Territory Fishery Resource Sharing Framework, the ‘Our North, Our Future’ white paper on developing northern Australia and science strategies put in place by research agencies.
 
Key stakeholders were identified in the commercial fisheries and aquaculture, Indigenous, recreational and guided fishing tour sectors. These sectors cover a wide geographical distribution, and use a range of equipment to catch and culture a diverse range of species. Representative bodies were engaged via face to face and phone interviews and online surveys. Online surveys were chosen as the main data gathering tool because of the wide spatial extend of NT fisheries. These were distributed and promoted by representative bodies.
 
Common themes across sectors were identified and formed the basis for a draft overarching RD&E Plan for the NT which was developed in line with a format agreed upon by NT Fisheries and stakeholders. Draft RD&E Plans for each sector were returned to each stakeholder group (in confidence) for comment. Following this, revisions were made and the final draft document returned for comment prior to broader release.
 
Across all sectors, the main issues were related to access regarding native title, particularly associated with the Blue Mud Bay decision. In all three plans issues relating to access featured heavily, including developing an understanding of the value each sector places on coastal resources, building awareness of access requirements to and appropriate behaviours on Aboriginal land, the capacity to enforce changed access arrangements and fostering strategic alliances and partnerships between sectors. Many goals, priority areas and outcomes are common across plans for each sector. These outcomes were grouped under the relevant FRDC program (https://www.frdc.com.au/research/rde-planning-and-priorities/frdc-program-areas). Common priority areas for the Environment program are demonstrated resource sustainability and fine-scale spatial information on sectoral catches, effort and “values”. Only priority areas relating to successful, secure and profitable businesses (either commercial wild-catch, aquaculture, FTOs or Indigenous) were common across sectors for the Industry program, however equitable cross-sectoral access and allocation arrangements were common to the commercial wild-catch and aquaculture and recreational sectors, and this priority area has goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Maintaining a social licence to operate is a priority common to the Communities program, and this also includes goals relating to developing strategic partnerships with all sectors and a mutual understanding of the value that each sector places on coastal resources. Under this program, both Indigenous and commercial sectors have priority areas that include increasing capacity of Marine Rangers programs. The People program includes priority areas for capacity building and industry leadership. Priority areas for Adoption are common across sectors.
Industry
PROJECT NUMBER • 2015-204
PROJECT STATUS:
COMPLETED

Realising economic returns of reducing waste through utilisation of bycatch in the GAB Trawl Sector of the SESSF

Fisheries bycatch reduction and utilisation is an important topic in the western world in both policy and research developments. At an international level, the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries directs management agencies and fisheries to reduce discards through development and...
ORGANISATION:
Fishwell Consulting Pty Ltd

The social drivers and implications of conducting an ecological risk assessment of both recreational and commercial fishing - a case study from Port Phillip Bay

Project number: 2014-207
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $184,765.00
Principal Investigator: Ian Knuckey
Organisation: Fishwell Consulting Pty Ltd
Project start/end date: 17 Jul 2014 - 29 Jun 2016
Contact:
FRDC

Need

Port Phillip Bay is an important and complex fishery that is utilised by both commercial and recreational sectors. Snapper and King George Whiting are key species taken by both the commercial and recreational sectors within the Bay, but there are many other shared stocks as well. As a result, there has been conflict between these fishers in Port Phillip Bay for a number of decades, but this has recently culminated in campaigns to ban all commercial net fishing in the region. Although loosely based on claims about the environmental impact of commercial fishing, there are also complex social drivers that underpin these campaigns.

Simply understanding the catch of these species by the two sectors does not portray the potential issues that need to be addressed for shared access to the fishery. Fisheries management has transitioned from a species-based to an ecosystem-based framework that requires the implementation of ecological risk assessments (ERAs) to fully understand the impact of the fishing activities on the target species as well as the broader environment. To date there has been no ERA of commercial and recreational fishing in the Bay, but the results of an ERA alone do not address the important social issues underpinning the conflict. Overall, there is a need to provide scientifically defensible information on all these issues, if fisheries management of Port Philip Bay is going to encompass shared access to its resources by the commercial and recreational sectors and other stakeholders.

Objectives

1. Understand the full range of issues underpinning resource sharing by commercial, recreational and other stakeholders in Port Phillip Bay fisheries
2. Develop a framework for assessing the social and ecological issues in Port Phillip Bay fisheries
3. To undertake a qualitative ecological risk assessment of the Port Phillip Bay fishery, including both the commercial and recreational sectors
4. To identify the most significant ecological risks to the ecologically sustainable development of fisheries in Port Phillip Bay
5. Make recommendations for improved cross-sectoral management of Port Phillip Bay fishery resources

Final report

ISBN: 978-0-9954122-0-0
Authors: Knuckey I. Brooks K. Koopman M. and Jenkins G.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.
Final Report • 2017-11-17 • 5.38 MB
2014-207-DLD.pdf

Summary

This project assessed the social and ecological issues associated with fishing (commercial and recreational) in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria. Port Phillip Bay (including Corio Bay) is a large (1,950 km2), semi-enclosed, tidal marine embayment with a narrow entrance (Anon, 1973). Much of the Bay’s 264 km catchment is inhabited, incorporating Victoria’s two largest cities: Melbourne (population ~4.2 million) and Geelong (population ~225,000). Victoria’s major commercial shipping ports — Melbourne and Geelong — also operate in Port Phillip Bay, requiring dredged shipping channels. The Bay is one of Victoria's most popular tourist destinations for people simply wanting to enjoy the beach or undertake activities such as fishing, boating, yachting, swimming, snorkelling and SCUBA diving.

Tactical Research Fund: Developing a management framework and harvest strategies for small scale multi-species, multi-method community based fisheries, using the South Australian Lakes and Coorong Fishery as a case study

Project number: 2013-225
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $60,000.00
Principal Investigator: Ian Knuckey
Organisation: Fishwell Consulting Pty Ltd
Project start/end date: 10 Oct 2013 - 10 Feb 2014
Contact:
FRDC

Need

There are inherent challenges in managing small scale multi-species, multi method fisheries, particularly in a community based fishery context, which require careful consideration in the development of appropriate harvest strategies. While there is a significant degree of targeting involved in multi-species fisheries, the majority of target species will not always be caught during individual gear sets, and the species composition of the catch may be spatially or temporally specific. It can be difficult to ensure that all species caught are fished sustainably (and not only the target species) because species have various life-history characteristics and productivities, and different degrees of susceptibility to the gear. Many species are caught by a variety of gears and it is often difficult to account for all sources of mortality in assessments and the different life stages targeted by particular gear types. The development of harvest strategies for data-poor fisheries presents additional challenges in attempting to reconcile available information and capacity with formal, defensible strategies that achieve the desired objectives for the fishery and fisheries legislation. There is a need for harvest strategies, particularly for community-based fisheries, to be easily understood and accepted by key stakeholders, pragmatic and cost effective.

The LCF is a small scale multi-species, multi-method community based fishery located at the end of the Murray-Darling system and is subject to varying environmental conditions (drought and flooding). The primary target species include Pipi, Yellow-eye Mullet, Golden Perch, Mulloway, Greenback Flounder and Black Bream. A number of other marine, estuarine and freshwater species (native and exotic) are also taken. The fishery contributes to the socio-economic well-being of regional coastal communities in the Lakes and Coorong region through commercial and recreational activity and harbors significant cultural and spiritual significance for the Ngarrindjeri people.

Objectives

1. Identify the attributes required in an environmentally limited fishery that can be used to determine optimal management frameworks.
2. Develop a set of performance indicators that can be used to support management of an environmentally diverse suite of species in a highly variable ecosystem.
3. Develop a framework that supports more flexible and adaptive management processes to provide for business adaptability and structural adjustment in the Fishery while limiting effort to the appropriate sustainable level.
4. Create a management framework that can be adapted for use across a range of small scale multi-species, multi-method community based fisheries.

Final report

ISBN: 978-0-9873286-9-4
Author: Ian Knuckey
Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Final Report • 2015-02-25 • 3.42 MB
2013-225-DLD.pdf

Summary

The commercial Lakes and Coorong Fishery (LCF) operates at the end of the Murray-Darling Basin where the river system meets the Southern Ocean, encompassing a diverse range of freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and communities.  This multi-gear fishery targets a range of species including Pipi (Goolwa cockle - Donax deltoides), Mulloway (Argyrosomus japonicus), Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Black Bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), Greenback Flounder (Rhombosolea tapirina), Golden Perch (Macquaria ambigua), and Bony Bream (Nematalosa erebi) as well as the introduced fish species European Carp (Cyprinus carpio) and Redfin (Perca fluviatilis).  

The outputs of this project will be used to improve the performance of the LCF and will be directly incorporated into the development of harvest strategies developed for finfish species under the new fishery management plan due in 2015. The longer term outcome from this project is that the approach used to develop this management framework can be adapted to other similar fisheries around Australia. Using the capacity of the Australian Fisheries Management Forum, the development of fishery management frameworks and performance indicators will be provided to other jurisdictions to support fishery management improvement in other small-scale, multi-species, multi-method, community-based fisheries.

Keywords: Harvest Strategy, small-scale fisheries, Lakes and Coorong Fishery, data-poor fishery

Review of structural and funding options for a peak body for the Queensland seafood industry

Project number: 2012-512
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $66,132.10
Principal Investigator: Ian Knuckey
Organisation: Fishwell Consulting Pty Ltd
Project start/end date: 17 Sep 2013 - 17 Jun 2014
Contact:
FRDC

Need

The Queensland Fishing Industry is at a critical point where, due to a number of circumstances, it no longer has an effective peak organisation to represent the interests of industry at large. The situation has become untenable from the viewpoint of industry trying to deal with ever increasing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas.

Furthermore, industry needs a body to respond to increasing demands from various NGOs continually raising sustainability issues.
It is considered that the creation of a peak body to represent all sectors of the fishing industry within the State would be an effective method for industry to achieve positive outcomes through a consultative approach with fishery policy makers and other NGOs.
It should be noted that the current State Government is supportive of the concept as they are experiencing great difficulty in discussing issues with industry stakeholders whilst it remains in its current disjointed form.

To commence the process of forming a peak industry body, there is a need to get input from a wide range of industry to discuss potential peak body structures and funding options and consider possible strategies/processes in creating a peak body. It is proposed that an independent consultant (with background industry knowledge) be used to liaise with stakeholders throughout the State regarding the concept of a peak body.

Objectives

1. Prepare a short review of structure and funding models used for other industry associations
2. Conduct an initial workshop to develop a preferred option for a Queensland peak body structure and funding
3. Liaise with key fishing and seafood industry members throughout regional Queensland to discuss the preferred option
4. Conduct a final workshop to agree on peak body structure and funding process and develop an implementation plan and working group

Final report

ISBN: 78-0-9941559-1-7
Authors: Ian Knuckey Chris Calogeras and Ewan Colquhoun Michael Gardner Marshal Betzel Scott Wiseman James Fogarty and Eric Perez
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
Final Report • 2015-01-01 • 15.10 MB
2012-512-DLD.pdf

Summary

Queensland’s commercial fisheries produce about $250 million of seafood annually, and contribute more than 10% of Australia’s seafood production in both quantity and value.  The fishing industry is diverse in species targeted, methods used and areas fished. There are around 1,500 licenced fishing boats operating in Queensland’s waters, comprised of 60 different fishery / gear.
The Queensland fishing industry currently lacks a peak organisation that adequately represents the majority of these licences.  While the Queensland Seafood Industry Association (QSIA) has undertaken this role in the past, a range of circumstances resulted in reduced representation and effectiveness.  Ongoing changes in the regulatory and marketing arenas, as well as increasing demands from NGOs continually raising sustainability issues have prompted QSIA and the Queensland Seafood Marketers Association (QSMA) to initiate this project to scope potential options, processes, funding models and structures for a peak body that can best meet the needs of today's seafood industry and represent the majority of licences.
 
The structure and funding models of other primary industry were reviewed to assist developing options for a future Queensland peak body (herein titled “Seafood Queensland” for simplicity).  These options were presented at an initial workshop with industry members, where they were refined and presented to the wider fishing and seafood industry throughout regional Queensland during port visits.  Some 2900 flyers for the port visits and hard copies for the survey were sent out resulting in 100 attending the port visits and 152 completing the survey. Feedback from the port visits, and results of an industry survey were used to draft a structure and funding model for Seafood Queensland, and propose a way of moving forwards. 
 
Amongst those industry members who completed the survey, there appears to be strong support amongst industry for a new seafood peak body, with about 80% of survey respondents stating that they would consider contributing financially to Seafood Queensland if it was tackling the issues they were concerned about and performing to their expectations.  The survey highlighted that the primary roles of Seafood Queensland should be representation and advocacy, lobbying government, stakeholder communication and consultation.  Membership should comprise wild catch, processor / wholesale and marketing sectors, but there was much less support for inclusion of aquaculture, charter boat, importer or retail sectors.  Seafood Queensland should have a regional-based structure comprising at least four regions, with a Chair elected from each region to be members of the Board.  Whilst the simplest mechanism for membership fees for Seafood Queensland would be a flat fee for each member, fees that are weighted according to the gross value of production (GVP) of each sector should be considered.  
With suggestions from this project on the roles and responsibilities, structure, membership and funding options, it is now up to industry to progress the process of establishing “Seafood Queensland”, but it is recommended that further steps be delayed until results of the recent Fisheries Management Review are available.
View Filter

Organisation