Governments intervene to manage the exploitation and conservation of aquatic resources for the benefit of current and future generations.  Such management involves balancing an array of complex and sometimes conflicting public policy objectives – canvassing contentious issues such as conservation, development, access rights for fishing and non-fishing activity and resource sharing.

 

All governments have adopted variations of the so-called ‘co-operative partnership approach’ to involve all key stakeholders in the decision making process.  Stakeholders include the industry (commercial, recreational, traditional) as well as conservation, scientific and community interests.  The model is based on the belief that, in the absence of private ownership over fish resources, the fishing industry is prone to resource over-exploitation and economic inefficiency.  By involving all stakeholders in the development of public fisheries policy, it is widely believed that they will take ownership of the policy and assume greater responsibility for the well being of the individual fisheries.

 

Most management advisory committees (MACs) are established under Commonwealth or state/territory legislation, or by Ministers of Fisheries under delegations, to provide a source of advice to government.  Advisory committees are generally formed to provide advice on fishery management or stock assessment issues.  The terms of reference for MACs vary widely between jurisdictions although MACs are generally not decision makers in relation to fisheries management issues.  Governments often access other sources of advice in fulfilling their responsibilities under fisheries legislation.

 

The operation of MACs also varies between jurisdictions.  All have executive officers who may be independent or supplied by the relevant fisheries department.  Similarly, the chairperson role may be filled by a MAC member or by an independent person chosen for their ability to facilitate the progress of MAC business.

 

The work of MACs takes place within a context of high uncertainty and risk.  Most assessments of fish stocks and fishing impacts are imprecise and heavily qualified, making fisheries management consultation more contentious than it otherwise would be.  Such uncertainty creates tension between proponents of conservation and development and between fishery and non-fishery users on the MAC.  Some of this tension is bound to explain the wide spread criticism of the operation of MACs encountered during the consultations.