a) examine the whole aquaculture consenting process, its interactions and implementation. This included clear identification of the range of legislative obligations that apply to the consenting regime for aquaculture businesses and those agencies who are/consider themselves tasked under the legislation with ensuring these are met;
b) identify and consider duplication, obstacles and unnecessary complexities in the current process and any evidence to indicate whether these appear rooted in the legislation itself or in the manner of its implementation;
c) determine and understand the concerns of the key actors in the consenting process, especially those of the aquaculture industry;
d) examine the scope for improvements to the consenting system; that includes both regulators’ implementation of, and where applicable industry response to, legislative requirements; and
e) provide recommendations.
Poseidon, in association with Ironside Farrar:
a) Produced a base-map of the current consenting process;
b) Identified concerns and issues, especially those that could be considered to result in duplications or an inefficient system, or that relate to the implementation of the regulatory framework;
c) Appraised and presented concerns, from the perspective of developers, of the consenting process;
d) Provided a clear and robust set of objective recommendations for improvements to the whole system (including consideration of changes to the framework if deemed appropriate).