Areas that are Perceptions / image (e.g. clean and green) (A) Working in partnerships Dedicate Exec Officers for RBGs working well Regulations (A, F, H) Community engagement in Industry Funding Schemes aquatic biosecurity Industry/community awareness (A, H); industry On ground achievements acceptance of responsibility (A) Mapping of pests National Landcare funding Taking advantage of WAs geographic biosecurity The focus on prevention, early Community engagement process advantage (A, F) detection and eradication Matched government funding Capability level re fish health (F) Technology / providing tools for stakeholders Having a common goal (F, H) Integration of compliance, Advancements made via collaborative research research and management (F) functions Having biosecurity plans / agreed protocols (F) Training and awareness-raising Industry-government communication (H) Pre/border biosecurity (H) Industry biosecurity mechanisms(H) Major Mechanisms for communication/ education/ Environmental biosecurity Lack of support from LGAs, constraints engagement/ collaboration (A, F, H) funding mechanisms community Financial costs of compliance (A) Community awareness of Environment receiving less attention threats than agriculture Declining resources (A, F) unsure of future RDC – funding models (H) Decreasing resources / Narrow scope (in terms of capacity pests/weeds targeted) / there are too No clear, agreed process for identifying ‘public many potential areas to address (A, H) or determining the risk (H) No agreement on good’ responsibilities Lack of funding Apathy / complacency (A) Systems for knowledge Unaware of sources of assistance Limited government interaction / follow-up poor – management collaboration on priorities, decision-making (F) Changing goalposts Surveillance mechanisms for Changing goalposts (F) No enforcement of regulations early detection Limited information to underpin decisions (F, H) Lack of skills to manage incursion National/international Geography (F) forecasting Cultural diversity of the sector (H) Level of preparedness Inconsistent approaches to
Areas that are working well Perceptions / image (e.g. clean and green) (A) Regulations (A, F, H) Industry/community awareness (A, H); industry acceptance of responsibility (A) Taking advantage of WAs geographic biosecurity advantage (A, F) Capability level re fish health (F) Having a common goal (F, H) Advancements made via collaborative research (F) Having biosecurity plans / agreed protocols (F) Industry-government communication (H) Pre/border biosecurity (H) Industry biosecurity mechanisms(H) Working in partnerships Community engagement in aquatic biosecurity Mapping of pests The focus on prevention, early detection and eradication Technology / providing tools for stakeholders Integration of compliance, research and management functions Training and awareness-raising Dedicate Exec Officers for RBGs Industry Funding Schemes On ground achievements National Landcare funding Community engagement process Matched government funding Major constraints Mechanisms for communication/ education/ engagement/ collaboration (A, F, H) Financial costs of compliance (A) Declining resources (A, F) – unsure of future RDC funding models (H) No clear, agreed process for identifying ‘public good’ (A, H) or determining the risk (H) Apathy / complacency (A) Limited government interaction / follow-up – poor collaboration on priorities, decision-making (F) Changing goalposts (F) Limited information to underpin decisions (F, H) Geography (F) Cultural diversity of the sector (H) Environmental biosecurity funding mechanisms Community awareness of threats Decreasing resources / capacity No agreement on responsibilities Systems for knowledge management Surveillance mechanisms for early detection National/international forecasting Level of preparedness Inconsistent approaches to Lack of support from LGAs, community Environment receiving less attention than agriculture Narrow scope (in terms of pests/weeds targeted) / there are too many potential areas to address Lack of funding Unaware of sources of assistance Changing goalposts No enforcement of regulations Lack of skills to manage incursion
WABC%20S-holder%20Engagement%20-%202015%20Workshop%20Report.docx