40,539 results

People development program: strategic media training for the Australian seafood industry (industry attendance costs)

Project number: 2011-409.20
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $0.00
Principal Investigator: Patrick Hone
Organisation: Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC)
Project start/end date: 29 Jan 2012 - 30 Apr 2013
Contact:
FRDC

Need

From our industry consultation, FULLER understands that the Fisheries R&D Corporation coordinates a range of leadership courses each year that are designed to enhance the capabilities of mainly younger people.

Some of these courses include a basic media training component, however this is not delivered in a targeted or strategic manner, and there is no additional strategic communications follow-up training.

Any industry requires strong leadership in order to create positive change and to sustain itself in the face of competing environmental, commercial and political pressures.

FULLER believes that outstanding verbal, written and visual communication is critical to the successful leadership and management of any organization, and that the foundation of good communication is an agreed plan.

From our experience media training is more successful if trainees are told “what” to communicate, before they are taught “how” to communicate.

Therefore, while the tender brief calls for a short term solution – media training of industry leaders – it is our recommendation that this People Development Program should start with the development of a strategic communication plan.

This consultative process will help the industry better understand its key communication challenges and opportunities, the messaging it needs to communicate, and the key stakeholders it needs to engage. It will also suggest a wider range of communication tactics than just media – a necessity in this rapidly changing communication landscape (eg web, social media, video, SMS).

On completion of the plan, the subsequent training delivery will be able to introduce these current and future leaders to the big issues facing the industry, the consistent messaging that needs to be employed as well as contemporary public relations tools, including media engagement.

This will create a new breed of professional, proactive seafood leaders who will have a positive and lasting impact on the industry.

Objectives

1. Creation of a key influencer group of current and future leaders representing every aspect of industry (regional, territory, national) who will create the communication agenda.
2. Convening a strategic communications planning workshop with the key influencer group which will consider the industry’s key communication challenges and opportunities.
3. Development of a strategic communications plan to improve public perception of the industry and its engagement with national opinion makers and other economic sectors. The strategy will identify: Target audiences: who are the seafood industry’s key influencers and stakeholders? - Key Messaging: current and future challenges and how they will be addressed
positives of Australian seafood industry
negatives of Australian seafood industry. - Key Spokespeople: a primary and secondary leader in each state and territory. - Communication tactics: how will the seafood industry communicate with its stakeholders?
4. Development of an education program that will train industry representatives about contemporary strategic communication - how to do it and why it needs to happen - utilising the latest communications techniques including media.
5. Identification of seafood industry leaders/spokespeople in each state and territory in Australia who will undertake training.
6. Delivery of strategic communication and media training to key industry stakeholders at locations around Australia (at least five locations eg SA, VIC, NSW, TAS, WA). The training will equip current and future industry spokespeople with communication skills that will help them perform their responsibilities as leaders including: - the key messages required to communicate current and future challenges of the industry and how they might be addressed
- contemporary communication tactics that can help build healthy relationships with key stakeholders and build trust with the general public
- professional presentation and media skills (how to conduct a professional presentation and how to conduct a media interview including how to perform during a crisis)
- internal communication skills to build a positive and proactive culture among the membership of peak industry organisations.
7. Development of an annual “update” program of communication education and activity that leverages and connects existing leadership and communication activities (e.g. the creation of a communications workshop at existing annual conferences.)

Quantifying inter-sectoral values within and among the Indigenous, commercial and recreational sectors

Project number: 2020-088
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $92,972.00
Principal Investigator: Buyani Thomy
Organisation: Natural Capital Economics
Project start/end date: 10 Jan 2021 - 29 Jun 2021
Contact:
FRDC

Need

In developing the 2020-25 Strategic Plan, FRDC identified five outcomes and associated enabling strategies, including Outcome 4: Fair and secure access to aquatic resources. In developing Outcome 4, FRDC realized that it did not have a shared appreciation of the different beliefs and values that underpin perceptions of fairness and security. Furthermore, it was acknowledged that such values differ within and between different sectors of the fishing and aquaculture sector and can be the source of tension and conflict.

The FRDC is therefore seeking to understand contrasting and complementary values among Indigenous, commercial, and recreational fishing sectors. The proposed project will provide valuable information towards building trust across the industry through an improved understanding of the social, economic and ecological values within and among the three sectors. It will also provide FRDC with the basis for monitoring progress towards the achievement of Outcome 4.

The primary objective of the project is to collect, analyse and report on the values held by the Indigenous, commercial and recreational sectors. Findings from the project will be used to inform resource management and support for fair and secure access to aquatic resources. The findings will also be valuable to regulators’ through an enhanced understanding of values across the different sectors leading to more efficient and effective consultation processes.

Objectives

1. To collect, analyse and report on the values held by the Indigenous, commercial and recreational sectors using a robust and systematic methodology that is repeatable (i.e., using Q-methodology).
2. To identify complementary and contrasting values among Indigenous, commercial and recreational sectors through an extensive survey.
3. To report findings and provide recommendations for efficient and practical data collection mechanisms to FRDC. Findings from the project will be used to inform resource management and to support fair and secure access to aquatic resources. The findings will also be valuable to regulators’ through an enhanced understanding of values across the different sectors leading to more efficient and effective consultation processes.

Final report

ISBN: 978-0-6489972-1-4
Authors: Schultz T. Thomy B. Hardaker T. Perry M. Faranda A. Gustavsson M. Chudleigh P. and Binney J.
Final Report • 2022-03-31 • 1.91 MB
2020-088-DLD.pdf

Summary

This study explored the extent to which values are shared (or not shared) by fishers across three key sectors (i.e., Indigenous, commercial and recreational). The study was run online using Q-Method Software (https://qmethodsoftware.com), a semi-quantitative technique used to explore human perspectives in a systematic and repeatable manner.
Fishers across the three sectors were required to sort and rank the pre-listed value statements. Participants were recruited through emailed invitations, social media posts and newsletters from key fishing sector representative bodies as well as snow-ball sampling. In response to a very low response rate from the Indigenous sector, additional participants (n = 6) were recruited by a member of the project team at a conference held in Far North Queensland. A total of 116 fishers completed the Q study. The collected data was analysed using inverted factor analysis to allow for the identification of distinct sub-groups of people whose responses are highly correlated. Through examining the Q-methodology outputs, five distinct sub-groups emerged: Sub-group A – “social-value fishers” (n = 39); Sub-group B – “economic-value fishers” (n = 19); Sub-group C – “environmental-value fishers” (n = 24); Sub-group D – “traditional-value” fishers (n = 10); and Sub-group E – “fish-focused” fishers (n = 15). Each subgroup comprises fishers who ranked the value statements similarly in terms of those statements they felt were very important to them and those that were less important to them. As such, the analysis provided information about complementary and contrasting values among different groups of fishers. 

This study indicated that values (i) do not “neatly” align to the different industry sectors; and (ii) do not differ based on the different industry sectors. However, the Q-methodology analysis indicated that there were five distinct groups based on how values were ranked. 
Across the five distinct groups the top four complementary values were: (1) fishing is environmentally sustainable, (2) accountability for industry participants who break the rules, (3) having access to fish and fishing, and (4) access to the ocean/sea. Environmental sustainability was the highest ranked value even among the sub-group that was dominated by economic type values (sub-group B), suggesting that even for productivity-based research and development (R&D), the focus should be on R&D that drives productivity and/or profitability improvements without reducing/ compromising environmental sustainability. Environmental sustainability is also key driver of production and there seem to be general appreciation of its importance across the fishing sectors.
 
The three lowest ranked values across the five distinct groups were cultural values: (1) fishing’s support of cultural practices and requirements, (2) fishing provides a connection to ancestors/previous generations, and (3) opportunity to barter and trade goods. Some of the social values not considered to be important by any of the sub-groups included catching lots of fish or large fish, and spending time fishing alone. 
 
In terms of contrasting values across the five sub-groups, economic type values were generally not highly ranked except by one group which was dominated by commercial fishers (sub-group B). Statements like fishing’s economic returns and employment/income from fishing, industry innovation and advancement, fishing’s contribution to the local economy were not considered to be important by the remaining groups.
 
The use of Q-methodology to identify values for the different sectors revealed that online survey may not also be practical and effective. For example, there was very limited responses to the online survey by Indigenous sector participants and further effort was required to capture their values in a face-to-face approach. It is recommended that future research should seek to include face-to-face data collection methods to improve efficiency in capturing views of diverse groups.
 
Values play a key role in decision-making and in creating public policy. One of the primary implications of the current study is that it would likely be ineffective and inefficient to make decisions or set policies based on sectoral classifications in the fishing industry such as Indigenous, commercial and/or recreational. The project findings strongly demonstrate that the values held by fishers cannot be neatly delineated into standard industry sector classifications. However, the project findings also show that there are a number of values shared by all fishers across sectors that may provide ‘common ground’ and ‘common language’ that in turn would provide a basis for better engagement and communication both between the sectors and between researchers, fisheries managers, Government and Australian fishers. 
 
Dissemination of the findings that all sectors have several complementary values will help improve engagement and communication between the sectors and enhance effective and efficient implementation of future fisheries policies. Notably, the dissemination of the findings of this study is a step towards building a shared understanding of complementary values among different sectors and contrasting values within individual sectors. The shared knowledge will help improve trust among the sectors and between regulators and resource users. The improvements in trust among the various stakeholders will further enhance effective decision-making processes, particularly co-management and resource access.
 

SCRC: SCRC IB: “National Shellfisheries Association Conference, Whiskey Creek Hatchery, Taylor Shellfish, Hatfield marine Science Centre & aqua Technics” Tom Spykers

Project number: 2008-784
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $0.00
Principal Investigator: Kerry Wells
Organisation: Shellfish Culture Ltd
Project start/end date: 17 Mar 2009 - 29 Apr 2009
Contact:
FRDC

Final report

ISBN: 978-0-9756044-2-7
Author: Tom Spykers
Final Report • 2009-04-01 • 1.09 MB
2008-784-DLD.pdf

Summary

This study tour was undertaken to attend the WERA and 101st Shellfisheries Association Conferences held in Savannah, Georgia, USA, from 21st – 26th March 2009 and to visit shellfish hatcheries throughout Washington State and Oregon.  Unfortunately I was unable to attend the WERA conference because of flight delays however Peter Kube a quantitative geneticist from the CSIRO in Hobart attended and gave a presentation on the breeding programs conducted by Shellfish Culture Ltd. The NSA meeting was comprised of three and half days of industry and research presentations with a wide range of subject areas including shellfish, crustaceans, genetics, diseases, environmental impacts and restoration. The main purpose of my attendance and the visits to the NW hatcheries was to investigate the impact of Vibrio pathogens on hatchery production and recent advances in technology and management procedures to combat its affects.

National Guidelines to develop fishery harvest strategies

Project number: 2010-061
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $135,000.00
Principal Investigator: Sean R. Sloan
Organisation: Department of Primary Industries and Regions South Australia (PIRSA)
Project start/end date: 3 Jan 2011 - 13 Jan 2012
Contact:
FRDC

Need

There is need for a coordinated, nationally consistent approach to developing harvest strategies for Australian fisheries. The Commonwealth Harvest Strategies Policy and Guidelines (2007) provide a foundation for harvest strategy development in Commonwealth managed fisheries. AFMF has identified the need to build upon these strategies to encompass fisheries managed by both Commonwealth and State Governments. The proposed project will deliver an agreed set of overarching principles for Harvest Strategies across Australia.

Presently, the key elements of harvest strategies (defined objectives, indicators, assessments, reference points, trigger points and decision rules) vary in their implementation across jurisdictions. There are also gaps for some mixed sector fisheries where recreational or indigenous sectors dominate and/or commercial fisheries have low data.

The AFMF, in consultation with FRDC, recognise:
- There is a common objective of ESD across jurisdictions
- Harvest Strategies need to balance flexibility (to allow for changing circumstances) with providing certainty for how a fishery will be managed
- Harvest Strategies for shared/straddling stocks need further consideration and collaboration across jurisdictions to enhance stock management and data sharing
- A multi-jurisdictional harvest strategy for a shared stock will assist fisheries managers, industry and others with facilitating trade between states and managing the impacts of climate change.
- There are common challenges across jurisdictions to develop and apply harvest strategies in data poor fisheries; and incorporating non-commercial sectors into harvest strategies.
- Further work is required to include economic goals and indicators in harvest strategies, and subsequently on economic data collection
- Further work is required to identify recreational and social objectives and indicators.

The proposed project will focus on components of fisheries management considered less developed than other areas. These areas are:
- Cross-jurisdictional fisheries management arrangements
- Recreational fisheries management arrangements
- Incorporating triple bottom line analysis into fisheries management decision-making

Objectives

1. Undertake a review and analysis of present situation of harvest strategies in Commonwealth and State managed fisheries
2. Develop a common definition for nationally consistent harvest strategies
3. Develop an agreed set of over-arching principles for Harvest Strategies across Australia.

Final report

ISBN: 978-0-9807387-9-7
Author: Sean Sloan
Final Report • 2014-03-05 • 3.20 MB
2010-061-DLD.pdf

Summary

Harvest strategies offer an effective fisheries management tool to integrate the ecological, social and economic dimensions of fisheries management into a single framework for fisheries management decision making. As evidenced by their wide use internationally and throughout Australian fisheries management jurisdictions, harvest strategies represent a best-practice approach to fisheries management decision making (FAO 2011; Smith et al. 2013; McIlgorm 2013).

The National Guidelines aim to provide practical technical assistance to all government fisheries management agencies in Australia (State, Territory and Commonwealth) to develop fishery-specific harvest strategies and to facilitate a consistent and more harmonized approach across fisheries throughout Australia. The National Guidelines aim to help inform policy makers involved in the development of over-arching harvest strategy policies and assist in ensuring a national best-practice approach to the development of such policies. A national approach to harvest strategy development will enable common challenges to be addressed in a consistent and coordinated manner, thereby avoiding unnecessary duplication of effort and resources, and ensuring more targeted investment in ways to address common challenges.

Project products

Brochure • 1.14 MB
2010-061-PDT-1.pdf

Summary

The National Guidelines to Develop Fishery Harvest Strategies Project aimed to provide practical technical assistance to all government fisheries management agencies in Australia (State, Territory and Commonwealth) to develop fishery-specific harvest strategies and to facilitate a consistent and more harmonised approach across fisheries throughout Australia. This is a summary of the final report. 
Environment

Resource access and resource allocation - guidelines

Project number: 2011-215
Project Status:
Completed
Budget expenditure: $48,700.32
Principal Investigator: Peter Neville
Organisation: PJ Neville and Associates
Project start/end date: 16 Dec 2010 - 31 May 2012
Contact:
FRDC

Need

FRDC board is seeking guidance to the FRDC on the impddiments to optimising resource access and resource allocation in Australia; adn the RD&E issues inthe area requiring investment

Objectives

1. To detail the principles underpinning resource access and resource allocation in the context of fisheries resource management
2. Prepare an overview of examples where resource allocation has occurred, detail the lessons learnt and challenges for implementation
3. To examine the legal and policy context, with particular reference to the different sectors (commercial, recreational, indigenous, charter)
4. To provide guidelines for best practice resource access and resource allocation management

Final report

Author: PJ Neville & Associates
Final Report • 2012-06-01 • 434.10 KB
2011-215-DLD.pdf

Summary

Issues surrounding access to fisheries resources and their allocation among competing parties go back to early feudal times in England where the Magna Carta was thought to be responsible for establishing the common law principle of the public right to fish in tidal waters, with fish being deemed to be wild animals and not able to be owned until capture. This remains acknowledged today, being reinforced through statute and case law as the basis of the right for persons in the community to undertake recreational fishing.

In those days, and throughout relatively recent history, it was considered that the fisheries resources were inexhaustible and incapable of over-exploitation through excessive fishing pressure by commercial, recreational and indigenous members of the community. Therefore there was no need to define and implement rigorous access and allocation “rights” throughout the community. However, history has shown this is not the case with over-exploitation of the fisheries resources a very real possibility without proper management.

A critical aspect of that management is the description and determination of the rights of those in the community who wish to access the fisheries - either for take or no-take purposes - and the basis of, and processes for, allocating use of the fisheries resource among all those who seek to do so for a range of different reasons and needs.

As nobody can “own” the free swimming fish in the rivers and oceans (until they are captured), it falls to government to manage access and allocation through fisheries management arrangements. Also as the resource is actually finite, but the demands on it can exceed its capacity, the access and allocation issues become akin to “re-distributing wealth” and this is properly a function of government. This also explains why this issue raises such conflict and passion and always generates emotional debates among many members of the community.

This report focuses on the fisheries access and allocation issues as they relate to sharing of the resource primarily among the principal “taking” sectors i.e. commercial, recreational (and charter), indigenous, and to a degree, the aquaculture sectors, but with reference also to the “no take” groups e.g. sports fishing tag and release, groups interested in the existence value of fisheries and their protection. In this sense, it relates primarily to the administration of fisheries legislation and the determination of access and allocation issues under the ambit of the objectives of such legislation.

Of course, there are wider considerations throughout the community which have impacts on fisheries access and allocation issues e.g. the declaration of marine parks, development of port and marine infrastructure, oil and gas exploration and development, coastal land use, regional developments etc.; but these are the subject of a much broader community, economic, social and political discussion. While many of the principles and processes of resource allocation can be applicable across such situations, these broader considerations are not the focus of this report.

The Australian Fisheries Managers Forum (AFMF) has listed fisheries access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed and recently formed its own working group to further the development of more comprehensive and consistent approaches to this issue. With this in mind, the FRDC agreed at its Board meeting on 23 November 2010 to assist this work by forming a “research oriented” working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues which would be of assistance to fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters.

Terms of Reference

The terms of reference of the FRDC working group were as  follows:

(i) work with AFMF to draft a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and resource allocation;

(ii) provide guidance to the FRDC on the impediments to optimising fisheries resource access and allocation in Australia and the RD&E issues requiring investment.

To commence this activity, the Chair (Peter Neville) formed a Sub-Committee comprising the Chair, Dr Daryl McPhee, and Matt Barwick to prepare a preliminary research oriented paper for consideration by the AFMF. This work included a review of Australian and overseas case studies as  well as discussions with fisheries managers. This paper was subsequently adopted as a reference paper by the AFMF at its meeting of 10 May 2012 to be used by the AFMF working group. It also forms the basis of this report by the Sub-Committee to the FRDC Board.

Key Recommendations

1. The need to discuss fisheries "rights", "access" and "allocation" has only arisen as a consequence of the recognition that fisheries resources are not inexhaustible resources but are finite and able to be seriously depleted. These concepts have arisen because of the need to sustainably manage fisheries as a "common property" resource and to share its benefits among the community.

2. Fishing rights are the form of access provided by government in individual cases, while allocation describes the level of access in individual cases. Fishing rights do not provide "ownership" of any fish, but allow access to the fishery to engage in different acts of fishing. Progressively, it has become necessary to improve on fisheries management through, in part, describing and limiting access and allocation (and fishing rights) based on an understanding of the very different characteristics and needs of each individual fishery.

3. Governments, as managers of the fisheries on behalf of the community, have progressively determined the nature of access and allocations among the various competing sectors engaged in taking fish - commercial, recreational and indigenous fishers - as well as providing marine parks, reserves etc. as no-take sectors, as they have proclaimed various fisheries management arrangements.

4. Further, governments have required that such access and allocation arrangements must satisfy the objectives of respective fisheries legislation; typically, such legislation requires primarily the maintenance of the fisheries resource, as well as the fair and equitable sharing of access, and the maximisation of benefits to the community from the use of the resource. Thus, the multiple objectives to be met have ecological, economic, social and cultural dimensions.

5. Because of the ever-changing pressures on the fisheries, and their widely different and changing characteristics themselves, there is continual pressure to re-assess the arrangements for their management and hence their access and allocation settings. The legislation however, does not prescribe specific allocation goals or outcomes across fisheries for the different sectors, nor the methodology to achieve re-allocations; rather these are to be determined by the differing fisheries management needs in each case, mindful of meeting the overall objectives of the legislation and the critical needs of management.

6. Thus, this is not primarily about stock conservation, which is largely a biological/ecological management issue, but about allocating a community resource among a range of potential users (and non-users) which is primarily a political/socio-economic issue - but always contained within a fisheries management framework. This will always involve government, in some form, as the key decision-maker in allocation issues.

7. For these reasons there is no single prescription for particular access and allocation outcomes across sectors, nor is there one methodology which would satisfy each case. Importantly, the costs and benefits of each alternative approach, along with a risk assessment, will significantly influence the outcome.

8. Before an allocation question can be addressed, the objectives behind the allocation must be clearly stated; and, as all fisheries legislation has multiple objectives, both quantifiable and non-quantifiable ones, the allocation framework must be cognisant of this complexity and deal with it in a transparent manner.

9. There are, however, some common principles and guidelines which should be followed in dealing with each circumstance; these are documented under the following headings of:

  • Natural Justice;
  • Governance;
  • Fisheries Legislation;
  • Fisheries Management.

10. Further, prior to proceeding with an access or allocation question, there are a number of pre-conditions which should be met which assist and guide the process to ensure that scarce funding and resources are not used unnecessarily in cases where it is not warranted, or where much simpler processes would suffice to address the question. These are:

(i) establish government objectives;

(ii) establish objectives of other participants;

(iii) establish the underlying nature of the issue;

(iv) apply a risk assessment analysis to the issue;

(v) establish the availability of data;

(vi) determine the nature of existing "rights;"

(vii) determine the need for a formal process.

11. The range of alternative allocation methods or models for use in resource re-allocation is outlined, together with the strengths and weaknesses of each model. The approaches come down to two broad alternatives - administrative models or market based models. Variations of an administrative model, with the government ultimately making the final decision in each case, have been the preferred approach around Australia and internationally to date. The range of models are:

  • Government Driven model;
  • Negotiation based model;
  • Administrative based model;
  • Statutory based model;
  • Market/Economic Evaluation based model.

12. A number of case studies are discussed involving both Australian and overseas examples of access and allocation decision-making frameworks. The administrative model, in one form or another is the predominant method used supported by various processes and analyses. Nowhere is there a freely operating market based system for inter-sectoral re-allocations across all sectors. The principal reasons for this are the lack of common "rights" across sectors and the lack of representative organisations, especially in the recreational/charter sectors, to be responsible for holding and dealing with collective rights for the sector.

13. It would possible, and even desirable in some circumstances, to construct a "rights" based market trading model for resource re-allocation. However, this would require a unique set of characteristics for the fishery (or part of the fishery), would have to be designed for each specific fishery, would have to be accompanied with stringent caveats on the extent of operation of the market, and be carefully assessed in terms of the costs and practicality of implementation and management compared with its benefits.

14. Similarly, the use of economic valuation models in their various forms to determine allocations have to overcome a number of complex measurement and interpretation issues and suffer from the perception of their inability to satisfy all of the legislative objectives set for fisheries management - namely those around equity and fairness and other social and cultural objectives.

15. There are a number of impediments to addressing access and allocation issues identified in the report; the major ones being:

  • Lack of clear policy statements from governments defining their preferred principles and processes;
  • Lack of the necessary data (and the high cost of collecting it) across sectors, particularly with the recreational and indigenous sectors; but in the case of economic and social data, this affects all sectors;
  • Lack of sophistication in, and application of, analytical methodologies to support consideration of alternative outcomes;
  • Lack of effective representative organisations which can act on behalf of the sectors in allocation discussions and their practical implementation;
  • Lack of research into specific rights based market trading possibilities in allocation questions.

Project products

Report • 2012-07-01 • 3.07 MB
2013-028 - Resource access and allocation July 2012.pdf

Summary

The Australian Fisheries Managers Forum (AFMF) has listed fisheries access and allocation as one of the top priority policy issues to be addressed and recently formed its own working group to further the development of more comprehensive and consistent approaches to this issue.
With this in mind, the FRDC agreed at its Board meeting on 23 November 2010 to assist this work by forming a “research oriented” working group to examine possible approaches to access and allocation issues which would be of assistance to fisheries managers as they undertook their associated policy development around allocation matters.
 
The terms of reference of the FRDC working group were as follows:
(i) work with AFMF to draft a report on the principles and guidelines for fisheries resource access and resource allocation;
(ii) provide guidance to the FRDC on the impediments to optimising fisheries resource access and allocation in Australia and the RD&E issues requiring investment.
 
To commence this activity, the Chair (Peter Neville) formed a Sub-Committee comprising the Chair, Dr Daryl McPhee, and Matt Barwick to prepare a preliminary research oriented paper for consideration by the AFMF. This work included a review of Australian and overseas case studies as well as discussions with fisheries managers.
This paper was subsequently adopted as a reference paper by the AFMF at its meeting of 10 May 2012 to be used by the AFMF working group. It also forms the basis of this report by the Sub-Committee to the FRDC Board.
View Filter

Species

Organisation