contract - home - the australian fisheries management ... web viewsustainability assessment of fish...

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery

Resource Assessment Group (SESSF RAG)

MINUTESCHAIR: MR SANDY MORISON

19-20 FEBRUARY 2013MELROSE ROOM

HOLIDAY INNTULLAMARINE

MELBOURNE

DRAFT

Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Resource Assessment Group (SESSF RAG)Minutes19 and 20 February 2013

Chair: Mr Sandy Morison

DAY 1The meeting commenced at 9:10am.

Agenda Item 1 – Preliminaries1.1 Welcome and Introductions/Apologies

Mr Morison (SESSF RAG Chair) welcomed members and observers to the meeting.

The Chair noted that Associate Professor Tim Ward had recently resigned as the Chair of SPF RAG and was therefore an apology to the meeting. The Chair also noted apologies from:

Mr Simon Boag Mr Chris Burns (AFMA Observer Program)

The Executive Officer advised that he intended to record the meeting to assist with record keeping. There were no objections from members or observers.

1.2 Declarations of Interest

Members and observers reviewed the draft register of declarations of pecuniary interest and the incorporated a number of updates (Table 1).

Table 1. SESSF RAG Register of interests - 19 February 2013

Member Declared interestMr Morison Director of Morison Aquatic Sciences

SESSF RAG and Slope RAG ChairInterest in sources of funding for research purposes

Dr Buckworth GAB RAG ChairEmployed by CSIRO, interested in sources of funding for research purposesDirector, Aquatic Remote Biopsy Pty Ltd – a company which holds patents for devices for sampling tissue in situ, for genetic analysis.

Dr Haddon Employed by CSIRO. Member of a number of RAGs.Interest in research projects in the SESSF.No pecuniary interest in the fishery

Dr Klaer Employed by CSIRO, interest in sources of funding for research purposesDr Knuckey Director Fishwell Consulting Pty Ltd

Principal Investigator – SESSF Fishery Independent Survey (FIS)ShelfRAG Chair, Scientific member SESSF RAGIndustry Liaison Officer – South East MACIndustry liaison for the Southern Shark Industry AllianceCo-investigator – Development of a Code of Conduct for the Longline Shark Fishery (Caring for our Country)Principal Investigator – GAB Shelf FISPrincipal Investigator – Trial of auto-longline method for Gummy SharksResearch Consultant – South East Trawl Fishery Industry Association / Great Australian Bight Trawl Fishery Industry Association (GABIA)Director – Australian Seafood Co-productsAustralian Agent – Olfish electronic logbook

Minutes – SESSF RAG Chairs Meeting 19-20 February 2013 of 36

DRAFT

Member Declared interestDr Simpfendorfer Shark RAG Chair

Director – Fishing and Fisheries Research Centre, James Cook UniversityInterest in sources of funding for research purposesInterest in Tactical Research Funding (TRF)Advised that his wife was a member of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee

Dr Penney Employed by ABARES. Director of Domestic Fisheries and Marine Environment Section. No pecuniary interest in the SESSF.

Dr Triantafillos Squid RAG Chair, employed by PIRSADr Tuck Employed by CSIRO, member SESSF RAG and SlopeRAG. Interest in sources of

funding for research purposesMr Krusic-Golub Director – Fish Ageing Services, member of SlopeRAG and ShelfRAG.

Delivery of ageing services for SESSF stock assessments.Mr Day Employed by AFMA. Acting Senior Manager - Demersal and Mid-water fisheries. No

pecuniary interest in the SESSF.Mr de Fries Executive Officer South East MAC. Fisheries consultant. No pecuniary interest in the

SESSF.Invited observersMr Bromley Employed by AFMA. Acting Manager Trawl and Mid-Water Fisheries. No pecuniary

interest in the SESSF.Mr Moore Executive Officer GABIA, CFA Board member. Member of GABRAG and GAB MAC.

Industry Liaison Officer Commonwealth MPAsInvolved in the Risk Cost Catch Approach with the Review of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy.

Mr Stone Executive Officer Sustainable Shark Fishing Incorporated.No pecuniary interest in the SESSF.

1.3 Adoption of Agenda

The draft agenda was accepted as provided. The final agenda is provided as Attachment 1.

1.4 Acceptance of minutes from SESSF RAG’s Environment Meeting 1st August 2011

The RAG agreed to adopt the draft minutes from the SESSF RAG Environment Meeting held on 1 August 2012 subject to inclusion of intersessional amendments from the Chair in relation to the application of Harvest Strategy Policy in multi-species fisheries (page 13).

The MAC noted the minutes from the teleconference convened on the 31st of August 2012 to consider the triggering of breakout rules for Silver Warehou (which was on a MYTAC) and implications for the schedule for Tier 1 assessments. The Executive Officer advised that the teleconference minutes had been finalised out of session.

1.5 Correspondence

The RAG noted three items of incoming correspondence items and one outgoing letter from the RAG. The RAG Chair noted that the letter from the RAG to AFMA in relation to the ISMP acknowledged improvements in the observer program following concerns raised by the RAG in 2011 but also identified a few strata where problems in coverage persisted.

1.6 Status of actions arising from SESSF RAG Meeting 1 August 2012

The RAG noted that there had been progress against five of the eleven action items agreed at SESSF RAG’s Environment Meeting held on the 1st of August 2012.


DRAFT

Previous Action 1 Investigate and review the status of data sharing agreements with the states regarding reciprocal obligations and requirements for timeliness for the SESSF, SSJF and SPF – AFMA, CSIRO.

Dr Klaer reported that data provision from the states had improved compared to previous years and this included data from Western Australia as well. Dr Klaer suggested that it would still be desirable to develop a formal data sharing arrangement with the states.

The RAG noted that some of the states had different requirements with respect to data sharing and cost recovery. The RAG considered there was a reciprocal benefit for providers in terms of access to the assessment.

The RAG noted that ABARES chaired the Fisheries Statistics Working Group (FSWG) and that it may be appropriate to consult the Working Group.

Dr Klaer noted that CSIRO had confidentiality arrangements in place with the states and observed that these covered commercial in confidence aspects. The RAG noted that these arrangements were more about data handling and safeguards rather than explicit agreements to share data on an ongoing and reciprocal basis.

The AFMA member observed that MOUs in place under the various Offshore Constitutional Settlements encouraged cooperative approaches but weren’t specific about data provision.

The ABARES member indicated that the FSWG, in responding to this issue, may recommend a common approach agreement be developed in consultation with the states. The AFMA member noted this and suggested a two stage approach:

1. AFMA to write to the individual states seeking their support for data sharing on a short term basis; and

2. SESSF RAG to raise the issue of data sharing with the FSWG with a view to establishing a standard arrangement (put forward a draft pro forma).

Dr Klaer noted that additional consideration needed to be given the format in which the data was provided. The RAG noted that aggregated data wasn’t as useful as finer scale information and that CSIRO would appreciate access to lower level data.

The RAG asked the ABARES member to ascertain when the next meeting of the FSWG was likely to be held and/or if it was preferable to contact them out of session.

Action 1 a, b and c1a. AFMA to write to relevant state agencies to secure ongoing data sharing for SESSF species under

current informal arrangements1b. SESSF RAG to write the FSWG to seek the Working Group’s support for the establishment of a

standardised data sharing arrangement for adoption by AFMA (and CSIRO). SESSF RAG to draft a pro-forma for such arrangements.

1c. ABARES member to report back to SESSF RAG on the Fisheries Statistics Working Group’s schedule for 2013.

Previous Action 2 GABIA and FAS to track down and secure the otoliths from the 2011 GAB FIS (Fishwell, FAS).

Mr Krusic-Golub reported that all the otoliths had been secured and the ageing information would be available for inclusion in the 2013 assessment.

Previous Action 3 SESSF RAG to prepare a summary of the Tier 3 and Tier 4 assumptions for distribution to the Shelf, Slope and Shark RAGs to encourage more systematic reporting of RAG confidence in the assessments in the Species Summary documents.


DRAFT

Dr Klaer noted that a brief summary of all the data requirements of all the assessment methods was undertaken as part of the Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status (RUSS) Project. The RAG noted that CSIRO had submitted a full research proposal looking at the data requirements across all fishing gears used in the SESSF and to identify possible alternative assessment approaches for when current methods breakdown. Dr Klaer noted that the demersal section of the RUSS Report as available and offered to circulate the section out of session.

The RAG supported a suggestion by Dr Haddon that the data requirements and assumptions for Tier 3 and Tier 4s be incorporated in the stock assessment reports.

Action 2CSIRO to circulate the demersal fisheries section of the Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status (RUSS) Project to SESSF RAG.

Previous Action 4 RAG Chairs to notify Dr Klaer which Tier 4 species might be suitable for the average length method to facilitate consideration of the method for the Data Meeting – RAG Chairs.

Dr Klaer recalled that previously there were some Tier 3 species where the Tier 3 result was based on length information that had been split up by cohort to convert it to ages. Dr Klaer observed that these would have been ideal scenario for trialling the length based method. The RAG noted that since then ageing work had been done for John Dory and that this had circumvented the need to derive age structure from length data.

The RAG then considered if a length based method might be better than a Tier 4 for some species. Members noted that it was difficult to compare risk across the Tiers however agreed that length based methods should be a suitable alternative in situations when the CPUE data was not considered to be a reliable index of abundance.

Dr Haddon, noting general confidence in the length based assessment method, reminded the RAG that work still needed to be done to link the assessment method and a Harvest Control Rule (HCR).

Previous Action 5 Prepare a summary table of the alternative stock assessment methods and their data requirements – CSIRO.

The RAG, noting the preliminary look at methods and requirements in the RUSS Project, recognised that a more detailed elaboration would depend on support for CSIRO’s research proposal (Action Item 3).

Previous Action 6 Circulate Dr Fay’s paper Discount Factor report after it is cleared – CSIRO.

The RAG noted that the paper had been presented to ShelfRAG and Slope RAG in October 2012. The Executive Officer referred members to a hard copy of the paper in their meeting folders.

Previous Action 7 SESSF RAG to form a Working Group to review the SESSF 5 Year Strategic Research Plan.

The RAG noted that the 5 Year Strategic Research Plan was still current until 2015 and on this basis decide to concentrate on the annual research priorities. Mr Moore noted that AFMA’s recent review about how the Authority obtained the necessary scientific and economic information resulted in a shift of responsibility for managing research priorities, both strategic and routine, to the RAGs. The RAG agreed to drop this item and noted that it would respond to advice from AFMA in relation to the review schedule for the SESSF 5 Year Strategic Research Plan.

Previous Action 8 Circulate the research the ARC and FRDC timetables to SESSF RAG – AFMA.

Completed.


DRAFT

Previous Action 9 Provide CFA with a copy of the Ecological Risk Assessment for Effects of Fishing on habitats and communities report - AFMA.

Mr Moore, speaking his capacity as a Commonwealth Fishers Association (CFA) Board member, indicated that issue had been raised at the CFA and members were aware of the habitats and communities ERA.

The RAG, noting the report was now in the public domain, asked AFMA to provide CFA with a copy.

Action 3AFMA to provide a copy of the Ecological Risk Assessment for Effects of Fishing on habitats and communities report to the Commonwealth Fisheries Association.

Previous Action 10 Contact Dr Zhou (CSIRO) in relation to queries raised by SESSF RAG about the SESSF SAFE assessment - Executive Officer.

The work appreciated the feedback from Dr Zhou but noted that the report had been finalised. The ShelfRAG Chair indicated that he was still unable to reconcile the number of species assessed as being at extreme high risk high (17 species) in the SESSF (cumulative across gear sectors) noted in the Summary with the numbers of species identified as extreme high risk in the tables in the report. The ShelfRAG Chair added that this possible disconnect hadn’t been obvious at the Environment Meeting because there was uncertainty about how the ‘Extreme High’ and ‘Precautionary Extreme High Risk’ categories were treated in the tables. The RAG noted that feedback from Dr Zhou had clarified this point.

The RAG agreed that this concern needed to be clarified and asked AFMA to check this with CSIRO.

Action 4AFMA to check with CSIRO in relation to the summary information on numbers of extreme high risk species presented in the Summary section of the Sustainability assessment of fish species potentially impacted in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery: 2007-2010 report.

Mr Moore advised that CFA research project looking at pre-certification for Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) had indicated that the GABTF should proceed to full assessment. Mr Moore noted that the review had suggested the fishery will need to better justify the triggers for species like Blue Grenadier and Blue-eye Trevalla and that the SAFE Level 3 assessment may assist in this regard.

Mr Moore noted that the expected elevation of byproduct species into the range of species that was covered by the Harvest Strategy Policy could also lead to calls for greater definition in the transition from stock assessment through to Ecological Risk Assessments (ERAs). Mr Moore questioned if ERAs could be utilised to provide an indication of stock status and/or what level of Fishing Mortality (F) was appropriate for some species.

Dr Klaer considered that further elaboration of the range of tiers would be helpful and noted that the lower levels would not necessarily be quantitative. The ABARES observer noted that SAFE assessments had estimates of F against a number of reference points and observed that some technical help may be needed to extract this information.

Dr Haddon noted the need for caution and cited the experience in Sub-Antarctic fisheries where the SAFE generated a higher F than Tier 1 equivalent assessment. The RAG recognised that estimates of F obtained from SAFE assessments were less precise and that should fisheries wish to proceed with full MSC certification then they may need to consider upgrading the assessment to a Tier 1 standard.


DRAFT

Previous Action 11 Prepare and circulate a draft set of research priorities for the SESSF - SESSF RAG Chair and Executive Officer.

The RAG noted the issue of research priorities would be covered under Agenda Item 3.1.

Item 2 – Review of last year’s assessment process

2.1 Feedback from South East MAC 11 – SESSF TAC recommendations for 2013/14

The RAG Chair noted that the South East MAC’s TAC process was a little more streamlined than 2012 process and indicated that there had been a strong alignment of the MAC’s advice with the RAG’s RBC recommendations.

Mr Moore raised concerns about the MAC’s capacity to deal with Western Gemfish adequately in the TAC meeting given the stock structure, research and management complexities associated with that species particularly in light of the breadth of species the MAC needed to cover.

Mr Moore acknowledged that Western Gemfish was under a Tier 1 as a result of the RUSS project and was concerned that future updates of the assessment were not assured given the completion of that project.

The GABRAG Chair advised that GABRAG had rejected the first assessment and had acknowledged the stock structure issues all along but had agreed to treat it as one stock for this Tier 1 assessment. The GABRAG Chair noted that there was a pending research proposal in relation to stock structure but explained that GABRAG did consider that the second assessment from ABARES was a consistent assessment. The GABRAG Chair noted that once the RAG accepted a Tier 1 assessment (under the assumption of a single stock) the difficulty in proving advice for management for one sector under a TAC and another under a trigger limit became apparent. The GABRAG Chair indicated the RAG was very careful to steer clear of allocation issues.

Dr Knuckey (speaking in his capacity as a GAB RAG member) and as the presenter of Western Gemfish at SEMAC recognised Mr Moore’s concerns but emphasised that the GAB RAG summary did convey advice in relation to concerns around key assumptions like stock structure and that this document was a key input to the Commission.

The SESSF RAG Chair suggested that the Species Summary be circulated to GABRAG to finalise the summary.

Action 5 - GABRAG EOCirculate the Western Gemfish Species Summary to GAB RAG members for finalisation.

SESSF RAG reviewed a draft schematic (flow chart) designed to reflect the outcomes of the SESSF assessment and TAC recommendation process. The revised draft below reflects suggestions made by members and has the status of a working draft.

Dr Haddon characterised a Harvest Strategy in simple terms as being made up of three components:

A Control Rule which relies on an Assessment which uses Monitoring or Data.

The RAG considered the approach provided a useful insight to the broader process. Dr Klaer considered that there were two elements that needed to be considered when producing such a schematic:

1. Was the assessment successful in producing an outcome that can be used by the Harvest Control rule?

2. Implementation i.e. Bycatch TACs which are not necessarily saying anything is wrong with the assessment but more that a species is hard to manage in a multi-species context.


DRAFT

The RAG considered that a version of this might be a useful addition to the Species Summary reports. Mr Moore expressed the need for caution depending on the audience for information summarised in this manner.

The ABARES observer indicated that the function of such a flow chart was to report what decision had been made but not to try and resolve the particular merits of specific processes.

The RAG acknowledged that Western Gemfish was difficult to categorise with questions over stock structure and longevity of the Tier 1 assessment and particularly in relation to difficulties in translating assessment advice into management settings for two sectors which were managed differently.

Action 6 – SESSF RAGSESSF RAG to consider making further refinements to the schematic in Figure 1 for possible adoption in the RAG Species Summaries.


DRAFT

Figure1: Outcomes of 2012 assessment processes and the translation of RBCs to TAC recommendations.


Dr Klaer noted an error in formula used by SharkRAG and South East MAC to extrapolate total mortality from the landed catch of School Shark. Dr Klaer noted that the formula was intended to take into discards and in this case used the fishery wide discard estimate derived from ISMP observer data.

The formula used was:

Bycatch TAC = Landed Catch1 (12 month period) x (1 + estimate of fishery wide discard rate %)

Dr Klaer explained that the discard rate was calculated with respect to number of fish observed captured which includes those which are then subsequently discarded, which can be expressed as:

Discard rate =Number of fish discardedNumber of fish retained + number of fish discarded

Members noted that in extrapolating up from the landed catch it was therefore necessary to ‘adjust’ the discard rate with respect to the percentage of fish retained.

The RAG noted the correct formula was:

Bycatch TAC = Landed Catch [CDRs ] × ( 1+ discard rate %100-discard rate %

)

The AFMA member noted that in the case of School Shark given the relatively low discard rate (9%) the difference was not that significant (a 2 tonne underestimate).

The RAG Chair also noted there was general acceptance from the MAC (noting the reservation from AFMA) of the principle of moving to RBCs and TACs based on MSY targets for secondary species. Members noted that SEMAC recommended TACs based on B40 targets for Ocean Perch and Ribaldo for 2013/14 which was consistent with advice from ShelfRAG and SlopeRAG respectively.

The Chair then sought members’ views on the 2012/13 process.

The RAG returned to the issue of targets on day 2 and acknowledged industry frustration that AFMA Management was persisting with B48 position for the secondary species where the RAGs and SEMAC had recommended RBCs and TACs based on B40 (for the three species noted above). Mr Moore noted that this was inconsistent with the Governments’ Harvest Strategy Policy. The scientific membership reaffirmed that B40 targets were appropriate biologically and were consistent with the Harvest Strategy Policy. The RAG Chair noted that the Commission was yet to announce the SESSF TAC determinations.

The ShelfRAG Chair considered that a bit more attention to detail in the Data Meeting would have helped later processes. Members agreed that you want pick up everything before the assessment has commenced. A number of members noted that discard estimates had required considerable attention before the RAGs were comfortable with the estimated rates.

The SharkRAG Chair acknowledged the usefulness of the CSIRO Data Summary documents but suggested it would be helpful if a data summary from the FIS could be produced.

The ABARES member suggested that the key checks for the Data Meeting were to:

1. Identify if there were any gaps in the time series dataset

2. Inform data users if there have been any changes in the method used to generate the data

3. Identify any substantial changes in trends in the data set that is likely to affect the assessment (i.e. big change in some discard rate estimates compared to estimates from the recent seasons).

1 As derived from Catch Disposal Records (CDRs)


Mr Stone observed that the recent FRDC and Caring for our Country supported skipper and crew workshops had emphasised the need for better reporting and it appeared that a larger proportion of fishers had now grasped the importance of discarding data in relation to the assessments.

Members agreed with the observation but noted that to date discard estimates had mainly been derived by an analysis of ISMP data and that is why the RAGs were interested if there had been any changes in observer protocols.

The RAG agreed that it would be helpful to look at data more critically in the Data Meeting particularly in relation to split stocks and in relation to the assessment method intended for a particular species.

Dr Haddon observed that at some point a RAG need to make the assumption that the data was reasonably representative therefore what does it tell us about stock status. Dr Haddon added that one could look intensively at fisheries data and find a range of reasons to question it but it was important to remember that these were time series datasets and that we should expect a degree of noise.

The RAG noted that further elaboration of assumptions and requirements for the various Tiers would assist RAGs when faced with making decision about whether to accept a Tier 4 or not. Members noted it would be helpful if some formal guidance was available to support the decision making.

The RAG Chairs noted that approaches for incorporation of additional indices (FIS data, CPUE from other gear sectors) may require changes in some assessments and how they are reported in the summaries. The SharkRAG Chair recalled how SharkRAG had sufficient data to develop two Tier 4s for Saw Shark (gillnet and trawl CPUE) however their ability to combine them was complicated due to different gears and potential spatial differences.

The RAG then discussed at what stage in the data and assessment cycle were/should the assumptions about stock structure be ‘locked in’. The RAG didn’t reach a firm view on this but agreed that ‘structural assumptions’ should to be settled at least before the final assessment is undertaken and that this needs to be documented clearly.

The GABRAG Chair raised the issue of at-sea and in port data collected by industry and processors and how it is integrated into databases and stock assessments. The GAB RAG Chair noted that currently it was problematic to include such data in AFMA’s observer databases.

Mr Moore explained that industry needed to improve recording in the fields on the length frequency data sheets but that it was important that the data be entered into a database that CSIRO can easily access. Mr Bromley (AFMA) indicated that AFMAs databases weren’t set up to accept industry data and although it was similar to ISMP port sampling data it would need to be differentiated (flagged) if it was entered into AFMA’s observer database.

SESSF RAG welcomed advice that AFMA’s observer section was developing a business plan to allow for industry/crew collected data to be entered onto AFMA’s database. The RAG supported this initiative because it had the potential to secure a representative length frequency and ageing dataset for the GAB. The RAG agreed that it was a cost effective approach from a collection perspective and if the data was entered onto a central database then it would also increase efficiencies at CSIRO’s end.

The ShelfRAG Chair, while supportive of the initiative, indicated that periodic attention needed to be given to how crew were collecting the information by checking how they selected their sample (was it random), how they measured fish and how well they filled in associated fields. Mr Moore advised that GABIA had developed a manual in consultation with the ISMP but agreed that periodic supervision was a good idea.


The RAG anticipated that more industry data collection initiatives would come on stream and in a number of cases some /all of this data would be potentially compatible with ISMP protocols and/or of value to assessments. Members noted current work on Orange Roughy and Blue Warehou as examples.

2.2 Species summaries - format and proposed publication

The RAG Chair indicated that AFMA intended to publish the Species Summaries as reports. Members noted that while the Summaries were already in the public domain agreed that adopting a more formal status would require: a bit more care (proof reading) further standardisation of formats (template); more rigorous referencing; and tightening up of references, statistics and analyses with respect to period i.e. financial year,

calendar year or fishing season.

Mr Moore indicated it was important that the final drafts were cleared through the RAGs. The RAG noted that the Species Summaries might then go to the MACs as drafts with the intention being to finalise them after the relevant TAC meetings (SEMAC and GABMAC).

The ShelfRAG Chair indicated that this involved dealing with a number of versions of documents through the assessment period and when it comes time to finalise the Species Summaries it was important to have basic data fully agreed i.e. last year’s TAC, catch etc. Members noted that these sometimes varied depending on source (CDRs versus logbooks), timeliness etc. The GABRAG Chair agreed that finalising the summaries sometimes meant wading through a range of documents to find a certain piece of information.

Action 7 – CSIRO, RAGsThat agencies and Resource Assessment Groups implement tighter version control for data and assessment documents.

The RAG Chairs noted that approaches for incorporation of additional indices (FIS data, CPUE from other gear sectors) may require changes in some assessments, the harvest control rules and how they are reported in the summaries.

2.3 Update from GABRAG

The GABRAG Chair noted that there had been issues with the Deepwater Flathead assessment with industry registering concern that the assessment results had changed so much. The GABRAG Chair observed that this had had the effect of reducing confidence in the assessment. Dr Knuckey (in his role as GABRAG member) noted that the concern seemed to have been greater in relation to the reduction compared to the increase which happened a few years before.

The GABRAG Chair acknowledged significant changes to the assessment (50% change rule) but recognised that some RAG members were commercially affected. The SESSF RAG Chair indicated that this observation was timely given SESSF RAG would be considering conflicts of interest under Agenda Item 2.6 - Handling of conflict of interest issues within RAGs.

The ABARES member emphasised that it was a critically important principle that the RAG Chair and independent participants present make sure that the responses to any indices used are symmetric –meaning that you don’t object to it when it is going down and accept it when it is going up. The member added that you need an objective process to either accept or reject an index based on the quality of evidence and data being used to generate it.


The ABARES member suggested that it was critical to avoid bias and a mental check on this was to ask if the same decision would have been obtained with different people in the room.

The ShelfRAG Chair agreed noting that it was the RAG Chair’s responsibility to ensure the outcomes are reported i.e. ‘the result of the assessment is this’. The ShelfRAG Chair added that any divisions and concerns can still be reported in subsequent text. The GABRAG Chair and Dr Haddon both supported this approach noting that after accurately reporting results it was easy to then annotate any concerns or reservations.

2.4 Update from Squid RAG

The Squid RAG Chair reported that there were significant increases in catch and catch rates in the squid jig sector in 2012. The Squid RAG Chair noted that recent catches in Tasmania had also been significant but that the RAG had been hampered by delays in getting state data (up to 2½ years). The RAG noted that this was particular dilemma when you were dealing with a species which has a one year lifespan.

The SESSF RAG Chair recalled the earlier discussion (before Dr Triantafillos arrived) about arrangements for data exchange with the states and noted that the biology of Southern Arrow Squid certainly brought timeliness of data provision into sharp relief.

The Squid RAG Chair observed that even with access to the previous year’s data (AFMA situation) that it was difficult to construct a meaningful Harvest Control Rule (HCR) for an annual species. The RAG noted that South Australia was adopting an instantaneous e-log system to report data immediately so that mechanisms can be established for assessment and management responses within the fishing season.

The AFMA member advised that AFMA supported the uptake of e-logs and was in the process of implementing fee for service arrangements that would make it more cost effective for operators to move to electronic reporting as an alternative to paper logbooks.

2.6 Handling of conflict of interest issues within RAGs

The SESSF RAG Chair referred to recent instructions from AFMA’s CEO about managing conflicts of interest and advised that it was timely for the RAG to review its procedures in light of the advice and increased responsibilities in relation to establishing fishery’s research priorities.

The RAG noted the recent focus on disclosure procedures in SEMAC particularly in relation to issues in the SPF. The AFMA member indicated that AFMA considered it important that all the RAGs followed a more structured approach to conflicts which should include the normal disclosures at the start of the meeting but also to take time to review the agenda with respect to specific conflicts. The AFMA member noted that if a specific conflict was identified that member should then leave the meeting while the rest of the Group decide what level of involvement that member should have with regard to that item.

The RAG noted that AFMA was in the process of reviewing Fisheries Administration Paper No. 12 (Research Assessment Groups). The AFMA member noted that if there was particular conflict of interest that potentially impacted an industry or research member much more than the other industry members then that member should probably not participate in the discussion of that item. The RAG noted that examples might be a research proposal from a RAG member, an application to trial a new fishing method submitted by an industry member or proposed closures which gave rise to specific personal interests. The RAG was comfortable with these sorts of conflicts which most members considered where reasonably clear cut.

The RAG Chair noted that potential conflicts with assessment and RBC processes were less clear with industry operators typically holding a mix of quota SFRs. Dr Tuck noted that this was already


managed to a reasonable extent by going to the first RAG meeting without RBCs and focusing on identifying the base case. Dr Tuck recognised that attentive members would however get some insight from the depletion estimate provided to the first meeting.

The AFMA member noted that the individual circumstances of a conflict need to be considered and a judgment made on whether the same outcome would be reached if that person was included or excluded for that item.

The SESSF RAG Chair considered that RAG Chairs need to be more mindful of conflicts and not feel reluctant about asking members /observers to step outside for the discussion and forming of the recommendation or to just absent themselves while the RAG finalises its recommendation(s). The SESSF RAG Chair added that it would be appropriate to put all members on notice to not be offended if they are asked to leave the meeting during an item.

The ABARES member considered that a key aspect was ensuring the management of conflicts of interest was rigorous and documented. The member referred to the New Zealand approach where science quality standards had been developed to protect the objectivity of assessment processes and to minimise bias. The member explained that the science quality standard defined objectivity as:

Is the information presented accurate, impartial and unbiased. Objective interpretations or conclusions do not depend on the personal assumptions, prejudices, viewpoints or values of the person presenting or reviewing the information.

The member noted that there is an express obligation to firstly identify conflicts of interest coupled with a further obligation to actively manage those conflicts so they doesn’t affect the impartiality of the peer review process is not called into question.

The member then noted the science quality standard then set out who was responsible (in the New Zealand context) for managing conflicts of interest and recommends that procedural rules should be establishing for dealing with conflicts. The member observed that the Working Groups have responded to this by developing their TORs (which were quite similar).

The RAG thought it would be helpful to examine the relevant New Zealand science quality standards and some examples of the Working Group’s TOR and asked if the ABARES could make these available.

Action 8 – ABARES/ Executive OfficerCirculate the New Zealand science quality standards (fish stock assessment) and associated terms of reference to SESSF RAG.

The RAG welcomed advice that AFMA was liaising with ABARES in regard to the review of FMP 12.

The ABARES member considered that there was scope for being more explicit in the RAG’s terms of reference and that would help defend the RAG process as being independent and objective although you are incorporating people who have strong interests (by necessity).

Dr Tuck considered one of the strengths of inclusive processes was the sense of ownership in the outcomes it engendered. Dr Tuck noted that conflicts need to be managed but a balance needed to be struck in order to preserve the broader sense of ownership. The RAG agreed that if stakeholders felt they weren’t being listened to then there may be a tendency to go outside the process.

The ShelfRAG Chair asked what AFMA’s position was with respect to professional liability particularly in regard to RAG Chairs.

Action 9 – AFMAAFMA to clarify the insurance (liability and indemnity) situation for RAG Chairs.


The AFMA member was able to advise the RAG (at the close of the meeting) that liability insurance does not extend to RAG Chairs because they aren’t statutory appointments unlike appointments to MACs.

2.7 Principles about changes to assessments including how to incorporate results of external reviews

The SESSF RAG Chair noted this issue had been discussed before and members had indicated that they would like to see a more structured approach following the experience with the Pink Ling assessment.

The RAG Chair noted that reviews could be internal or external and could be commissioned in response to requests from AFMA or from industry. The RAG noted that the timing of changes (if agreed) was important and noted that stakeholders would also appreciate similar consideration be given to a more structured approach extended to updates to assessments.

Dr Tuck noted that the current process for stock assessments involved a Data Meeting in early August followed by two RAG meetings to consider the assessments with the final one in November.

Dr Tuck suggested that assessment scientists would bring a document which provided a bridging analysis from the previous base case to any proposed new base case, with regard to all data and model structure changes to the first assessment meeting in October. This would show the effect of all changes (sequentially) to input data and model structure on key model outputs (e.g. SSB, R).

Dr Tuck explained that after incorporating new data into the assessment the RAG would then review it and noted that RAGs would be concerned if assessment results varied significantly from year to year. The RAG noted that if there were unexpected results the stock assessment scientists would then try to figure out what had generated them.

Dr Tuck noted that this sequential approach over a number of years has improved our understanding of various assessments. Dr Tuck added that the first meeting would also be where any changes to the model structure were considered. Members noted that improvements in software, for example, could allow scientists to make changes to the model which were formerly not technically possible. Dr Tuck noted that adoption of gender specific selectivity for Blue Grenadier was an example of an advance facilitated by improvement to the model’s code which had been proposed and supported by the RAG (more of a refinement).

Dr Tuck contrasted this to the changes to the Pink Ling assessment which involved the development of a new central model and noted that this had generated some consternation amongst stakeholders. The RAG recognised that a more careful (stepwise) approach was needed when structural changes were proposed for assessments particularly significant ones. Members agreed that had a proposal to go from an aggregated model to a disaggregated data model been tabled a more orderly process would have resulted.

The RAG noted that the final outcome had been reasonable with the RAG retaining the old model with new data as its base case but with the benefit of the disaggregated model as a comparison. The RAG then discussed how a smoother process for introducing significant structural changes might be facilitated. The RAG noted based on the Pink Ling experience that if there is an external reviewer involved then they need to be involved from the early stages i.e. the workshop prior to the RAG meetings.

The ABARES member considered that if a new model includes a significant change then you need to retain the old model so there is a fallback (with new data) in the event of a review raising issues and this needs to be documented by the RAG along with a commitment to continue examining the ‘new model’ in full consultation with the external reviewer in the following year.


The AFMA Manager noted that the RAG needed to manage industry’s perception and concerns in relation to the process around the Pink Ling assessment. The AFMA manager, noting the technical complexity associated with the differences between the two models, considered it very important for the RAG Chair and scientific members to explain what was happening to the broader RAG.

The RAG accepted that slowing down the speed with which large structural changes were introduced was an important safeguard to the process. The RAG agreed that the retention of the previous base case was a key backstop to a review process until the RAG had agreed to move to a new one (where significant changes were under consideration).

The RAG noted that reviewers would have observer status at RAG meetings and considered how this might play out in relation to recommended changes to the assessment made by the reviewer. Dr Haddon noted that in the United States there was a requirement to adopt recommendations arising from a formal review.

The RAG considered its approach would be to maintain a scientific debate and a recommendation would be given consideration on merits against other views.

The RAG noted that the reviews for Pink Ling and Orange Roughy had been instigated by industry primarily because they showed depletions that industry were not certain reflected their observations. The RAG was also interested in AFMA’s position in regard to external reviews for more routine purposes (to seek an independent look at assessments for valuable species i.e. Tiger Flathead). Dr Klaer observed that there were basically two sorts of review:

1. Where the reviewer participates in the RAG.2. Where AFMA commissions an independent review (higher hurdle).

The ShelfRAG Chair noted that the source of funding shouldn’t have a bearing on a review provided the terms of reference (TOR) were appropriate. The ShelfRAG Chair considered that a more formal peer review process was an important safeguard against processes and professional relationships falling apart if things go wrong.

The ABARES member considered that the RAGs should have a major role in putting species up for review but noted that the current capacity was only for emergency situations whereas a mechanism and budget enabling regular reviews would be preferable. The RAG noted that the former situation had arisen in the Small Pelagic Fishery.

The RAG agreed the following draft guidelines for handling proposed major changes to assessments: Routine data updates should be accepted unless there is evidence of obvious problems 1. Assessments should show stepwise effects of model updates (bridging analysis)2. Proposed major changes are flagged early (reviewed at the first RAG meeting) and should be

accompanied by evidence in support or a strong rationale for the need for a change 3. Decisions are made by the RAG (before it sees the assessment outcomes)4. Reviews to be undertaken between assessments and the findings should be provided to the first

RAG meeting.5. The previous base case should be retained until the RAG had agreed to adopt a new one.

Item 3 – Research

3.1 Identification of research priorities for annual research plan

The SESSF RAG Chair noted that AFMA’s RAGs had now taken on the responsibility for establishing their fishery’s research needs. The RAG appreciated the compilation of the available fishery specific research priorities prepared by the SESSF RAG Chair.


Dr Knuckey declared a conflict of interest in relation to the FIS, and advised while that while he was closely involved that he was no longer the Principal Investigator. Dr Knuckey indicated that he considered the survey was a high priority but advised that he received income from the survey. Mr Krusic-Golub noted a direct conflict of interest in relation to ageing contract. Dr Tuck noted that CSIRO had a declared conflict of interest in relation to the SESSF stock assessment contract.

The SESSF RAG Chair sought advice from various Chairs in relation to current research priorities.

The SharkRAG Chair noted that SharkRAG hadn’t formatted their priorities yet and agreed to circulate a copy. SharkRAG’s four key priorities were:

1. Better measures for School Shark abundance2. What to do if a Tier 4s doesn’t work (Tier 5)3. Pinger research (mitigation of marine mammal interactions)4. Consider development of an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) for hook-fishing method in new

areas.

The AFMA member noted that SPF RAG’s three key research priorities were:1. Daily Egg Production Model Surveys for more species2. Review of the exploitation rates in the SPF Harvest Strategy (species specific)3. Development of the DEPM survey method and how it is best applied.

The Squid RAG Chair noted the key priority for the SSJF was improving the timeliness of catch and effort data.

Mr Moore indicated that the GABTF had been approaching its research program strategically for some time and their basic objective was on maintaining the level of information needed from a sustainability point of view but with a focus on maintaining profitability and maximising net economic returns.

Mr Moore considered that the RAGs should be looking at a broader range of research than their current focus on fish and ecosystem health. Mr Moore noted that GABRAG spent half of its recent meeting include consideration of alternative marketing, promotion and social licence with the second half devoted to the research, survey and assessment cycles.

The RAG recognised strengths in the GAB’s 5 year outlook. Mr Moore nominated GAB RAG’s interest in better integrating FISs into their research and assessment cycle as strategic research need which was equally relevant to the SESSF and other Commonwealth fisheries.

The ShelfRAG Chair observed that the conduct of FISs was a key part of the Ministerial Direction and now that we are doing them we need to ask what difference are they making and how often are they needed. The ShelfRAG Chair noted that they were expensive to run and could be costed but we had not valued them yet. Mr Moore noted that there is probably a whole lot more we could get out of them and noted that they deliver reasonable CVs on indices of abundance for a range of byproduct and bycatch species.

The AFMA member added that research funding was likely to be restricted to essential projects this year. The SESSF RAG Chair indicated that while funding realities meant RAGs needed to prioritise their lists tightly it was still important to identify a few key research needs given there were other funding sources than the AFMA Research Fund (ARF).

The RAG then considered how a joint set of priorities might be compiled from the suite of priorities. The ABARES member noted that there would be high priorities from a science perspective but recognised there may not be aligned with the management priorities. Mr Stone preferred a more broad brush approach because narrowing down the lists provided could be complicated by direct conflicts of interest.


The RAG noted that it was likely that there would be a shift in research priorities in as a result of the Review of the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy and this could be further progressed by the time of the Data Meeting. The ABARES member’s expectation was that the application of harvest strategy approaches to a broader range of species was anticipated and that it would be challenging to demonstrate consistent risk is being applied across a wide range of species and assessment approaches.

The RAG considered that the assessment landscape would change significantly if byproduct species are elevated into the Harvest Strategy Policy. Members anticipated that: Species which were caught and landed in significant volumes would need to be considered in

relation to MEY and may be candidates for Tier 4 or ‘Tier 5’ assessments Species caught and retained in small quantities could probably be excluded from economic

assessments

Members were generally comfortable that sensible approaches could be developed in relation to MEY by confining the focus to key species. However the main concern raised about expanding the scope of the Harvest Strategy Policy Species would be the requirement to know where a wide range of species were in relation to their reference points – which in most cases would be their limit reference point.

RAG members saw merit in setting aside a day near its Data Meeting to help develop an overall research plan. Dr Tuck expressed concern that spending a day on research may mean the RAG has to postpone its Environment Meeting, and that this may not be prudent given current issues and concerns associated with the SPF. Mr Moore agreed that protected species issues were significant management concerns but observed that AFMA had in consultation with Environmental NGOs and CFA identified these problems and where possible implemented management responses. Mr Moore added that he expected that these discussions would identify potential research needs and that as a result it may not be that productive for SESSF RAG to try to identify research needs in relation to these more political issues. The ABARES member noted that it would be entirely reasonable to defer to the expert panel convened to look at environmental issues in the SPF. Dr Tuck advised that his concern was more general and was informed by recent work by CSIRO which indicated there had not been a significant improvement in our ability to report quantitatively on fishery interactions with protected species over the last 10 years. Members agreed that the cost of independent observation was the main reason for limited certainty around what were statistically rare events.

The SESSF RAG Chair’s suggestion that the scheduling of sessions devoted to both research and environmental items be arranged out of session and that intersessional work on the draft research priorities be conducted out of session.

Actions 10 a and b – SESSF RAG10 a SESSF RAG to consider scheduling research and environment sessions in association with its

2013 Data Meeting.10 b That SESSF RAG refine its draft research priorities prior to the 2013 Data Meeting.

AFMA tabled three research pre-proposals:1. Fishery Independent Survey of shelf and slope resources in the SESSF (2013) Fishwell Consulting2. Fishery Independent Survey of shelf resources in the GABTF (2014) Fishwell Consulting3. Stock assessment for the SESSF 2014 CSIRO

The RAG Chair asked RAG members to provide out of session advice to the Executive Officer on the three pre-proposals.


Action 11 – SESSF RAG membersMembers to provide out of session comments on the research pre-proposals tabled at SESSF RAG’s February 2013 meeting.

The ShelfRAG Chair, noting direct conflicts, recalled the impact of funding shortfalls in 2012 and asked if, like last year, there was an urgent need for priority setting for 2013. The AFMA member noted that AFMA was currently developing draft budgets so was not in a position to comment on the 2013/14 budgets.

Mr Moore relayed advice from SETFIA stating that the trawl sector could no longer afford to continue supporting research spending at the levels seen in recent years because of falling revenues due to closures.

The SESSF RAG Chair indicated that the industry concerns highlighted the need for close attention to research priority setting. The SharkRAG Chair added that the priorities could also be used to encourage proposals to FRDC. The RAG noted that FRDC was a leveraged research fund (25% industry: 75% government) but recognised that it could not be used to support FISs or established stock assessments.

The RAG, noting research contacts for the 2013 FIS and stock assessment projects were still to be finalised, considered that research providers also needed certainty so they could plan ahead. Dr Tuck indicated that from CSIRO’s perspective it made organising staffing allocations very difficult.

Dr Klaer observed that the important work done by the ISMP and under the Data Services contract was administered outside of the competitive research tendering framework for the SESSF. The RAG noted that both the ISMP and Data Services contract were fully cost recovered.

The RAG confirmed that the SESSF stock assessment, the FIS and ageing work were undertaken as research projects. The RAG Chair noted that the group would discuss Tier 1 stock assessment priorities under Agenda Item 4.1.

RecommendationThat SESSF RAG reviews the 2013 research priorities as soon as budget details are known.

3.2 Research Plan for Upper Slope Dogfish – proposed approach

The RAG noted that AFMA had now implemented its Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy and that a ministerial decision on the nomination of both Harrison’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish for listing on the EPBC Act’s list of threatened species was pending.

The AFMA member explained that AFMA, as part of the Management Strategy, was required to establish a research and monitoring program. Members noted this would be challenging in part because population growth parameters for these species were very low. The SharkRAG Chair suggested that an annual sampling program would not be viable due to the margin of error and suggested an interval of 5 years might be more appropriate.

The RAG noted that AFMA would need to have a course of action established by January 2014 and recommended a small working group be established to develop monitoring options. The RAG noted that clear objectives would be important given the sampling and statistical challenges involved with these species.

The RAG welcomed the interest of the SESSF RAG Chair, the SharkRAG Chair and the ABARES member in developing a draft research plan for Upper Slope Dogfish.

Action 12That the Upper Slope Dogfish Research Plan Working Group report back to SESSF RAG’s 2013 Data Meeting on elements of a draft research plan for the Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy.


Item 4 – Priorities and resourcing

4.1 Priority species for Tier 1 assessments in 2013

The RAG recalled clarification from the AFMA member on how research funds were normally dispersed under Agenda Item 3.1- Identification of research priorities for annual research plan.

The AFMA member then advised that the following regular projects were managed under research contracts:

Stock assessment contract SESSF Fishery Independent Survey (FIS) Ageing Contract

The AFMA member explained that the Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program (ISMP) and the Data Services contract were not managed using research funds and were fully cost recovered from industry.

The RAG noted that funding constraints this year had required adjustments to the Stock Assessment contract (a reduction in the number of Tier 1 assessment to be conducted) and some rationalisation in the FIS. The AFMA member explained that a temporary reduction in the ISMP had also been negotiated to keep the fishery within budget whilst enabling the third FIS to proceed. Mr Moore expressed concern that the SESSF FIS was being managed using research funds given it was essentially a monitoring project.

The RAG agreed that it wasn’t its role to provide specific advice on how funds were allocated across projects but recognised a tight prioritisation of stock assessments needs would assist AFMA develop its draft budgets and to better specify its contract with CSIRO for the stock assessments.

SESSF RAG decided to establish a list of 8 species for Tier 1 assessments for 2013 and where possible identify firm candidates for 2014. The RAG agreed that the selections should be based on priority and acknowledged that the agreed schedule for the GAB species would need to be respected. Mr Krusic-Golub suggested it may be worth considering the data situation for prospective species and if there were obvious shortfalls (e.g. data and otoliths for western Jackass Morwong) then these species might be afforded a lower priority. Dr Klaer considered that these matters were more properly considered at SESSF RAG’s Data Meeting adding that a review of priorities might also be needed if any breakout rules for species under MYTACs are triggered.

Dr Haddon noted that early advice on the scale of work and to a lesser extent the likely species for Tier 1 assessments would greatly assist the contractor, CSIRO, in terms of managing its workload and staff time allocations. The MAC noted that CSIRO’s capacity to respond to last minute changes or additional tasks may be reduced if its officers are committed to other projects.

The RAG determined the key candidates for Tier 1 assessments as being:


Species RAG’s priority 2013 2014Blue Grenadier SlopeRAG Equal No. 1 - Principal species coming off a 2 Year MYTACPink Ling SlopeRAG Equal No. 1 - Spatial sub-stock structure uncertainty within east and west stocksTiger Flathead ShelfRAG – No. 1 - Principal species coming off a MYTACSchool Shark SharkRAG – No. 1 - Noted that SharkRAG’s view was that a number of things could be advanced in the assessment.

SharkRAG acknowledges concerns about the data volume and the change in the times series CPUE from one based around targeting to one of avoidance.SESSF RAG noted that a number of aspects can be progressed and it would be prudent to implement these now rather than in a big rush in the future.The SharkRAG Chair advised that SharkRAG envisaged: Exploring how productivity is dealt with. Consider proposal to move to Stock Synthesis 3 Six years of ageing data expected to be available in late 2013.The ABARES member noted it would be helpful to get a better understanding of the uncertainty around the projections.

Redfish ShelfRAG – No. 2 - Noted ShelfRAG’s advice that Redfish would support a Tier 1 and that there are apparent cohort signals in the age/length data. The RAG noted that Redfish was currently an uncertain Tier 3 which has provided a different signal to recent Tier 4 analyses.

School Whiting ShelfRAG – No. 3 Possible Possible If we commit to adopting a spatially structured model this assessment will then need a few years of work (redoing the old Tier 1 would not be not acceptable)

Orange Roughy (east)

SlopeRAG – No. 3 PossibleTBA

If not

done in 2013

SESSF RAG members considered it was worth holding a workshop in 2013 to review how the model is structured. It was noted that AFMA could potentially could run a workshop and do the assessment (was also a view to wait for one more year of AOS data).The RAG also noted that the genetic project on eastern Orange Roughy was now available.The RAG noted the scenario of holding a workshop and running the assessment was quite resource intensive. The GAB RAG Chair suggested formal involvement of external scientists (probably someone familiar with the New Zealand fishery) might help SlopeRAG resolve the current impasse between the traditional age-based assessment and the indices being produced by the Acoustic Optical Survey (AOS).A number of members thought waiting for one more year of acoustic data would be prudent before redoing the assessment. Member noted that work relevant to the assessment could be progressed in anticipation of a 2014 assessment for the eastern Orange Roughy stock.The ShelfRAG Chair noted that the AOS suggested that the stock is above the limit reference point and while acknowledging the disconnect with the age based assessment considered letting it slip for another year was disappointing given the amount of information available particularly from the AOS and genetic project.


Species RAG’s priority 2013 2014

Mr Bromley noted that AFMA is currently reviewing the Orange Roughy Conservation Program (ORCP) and considered it would be helpful if further work to resolve differences between the two approaches was undertaken in 2013.SESSF RAG agreed that a plan needed to be developed for Orange Roughy (east) – see recommendation.

Bight Redfish GAB RAG - Triennial schedule for stock assessment due in 2014Deepwater Flathead GAB RAG - Biennial schedule for stock assessment due in 2014

Eastern Gemfish ShelfRAG Not worth doing a Tier 1 assessment until another winter survey is conductedWestern Gemfish ShelfRAG TBA TBA CSIRO could pick up the Tier 1 (from the RUSS Project and ABARES)

However there appears to be limited value in pursuing a Tier 1 until the stock structure research project is completed (likely to be 3 years before outcomes are known).SESSF RAG endorsed the GABRAG Chair’s view that GABRAG will need some guidance if the RAG need to revert to the old approach (Tier 4 for Zones 40 and 50)

Gummy Shark SharkRAG No. 2 Lower priority than School Shark – still valuable and information on hook sector now under considerationJackass Morwong ShelfRAG - Not as important as the priority ShelfRAG speciesSilver Warehou SlopeRAG - On a MYTAC however remains a possibility if breakout rules are triggered

Recommendations – 2013That Tier 1 assessments be conducted for Blue Grenadier, Pink Ling, School Shark and Tiger Flathead in 2013 (Highest Priority).That a Tier 1 assessment is recommended for Redfish in 2013 (Medium High Priority) That a spatially structured Tier 1 assessment be implemented for School Whiting 2013 noting there would be a strong need to redo the assessment in 2014 to assist bedding it down (Medium Priority)Recommendation - 2014That Tier 1 assessments for Bight Redfish and Deepwater Flathead (GAB species) proceed in line with the GAB schedule (2014).

Recommendation Orange Roughy (eastern zone)That AFMA consult with industry regarding the options for progressing the Orange Roughy assessment, including:

1. Running a workshop in 2013 and attending to some aspects of the assessment (undertake the Tier 1 assessment in 2014).

2. Running a workshop in 2013 and follow up by running the Tier 1 assessment.


The RAG noted that the cost of running Tier 3 and Tier 4 assessments wasn’t as significant and that they needed to be run in any case to inform breakout rules for species under MYTACs.

The RAG had a related discussion about the need for alternatives i.e. ‘Tier 5’ and what could be done to progress these approaches if CSIRO’s (Dr Klaer’s project) is not supported. The RAG noted advice from CSIRO that the work proposed had a work equivalency of two Tier 1 assessments. CSIRO advised that additional work was needed to develop the methodologies and the associated Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) around the assessment approaches. The RAG, noting those four key assessments and one or two medium-high priority species had been identified for Tier 1s, recognised that it would be helpful to have some flexibility to direct resources from Tier 1s to address other problems.

3.3 Priority species for ageing

The RAG noted that ageing work was primarily directed at increasing certainty in the Tier 1 and Tier 3 assessments. Dr Klaer explained that reviewing ageing data periodically was usually satisfactory to confirm the age length key was still accurate noting it was possible for growth rates to change over time.

The RAG noted that Mirror Dory (a Tier 3 species) was a priority species with a target of 550 otolith pairs. Mr Krusic-Golub noted that around 1800 otoliths had been collected from Alfonsino operations and the ageing work would probably be undertaken on a sub-sample.

Mr Moore sought the RAG Chair’s support to raise a cost recovery concern related to ageing work. Mr Moore prefaced his concern by noting that GABIA had encountered difficulties in trying to raise the issue as it fell between the RAG and MAC but required broad consideration because it ultimately involved the attribution of costs across industry sectors.

The ShelfRAG Chair considered it might be prudent to start collecting and archiving otoliths from significant byproduct species like Leatherjackets, Frostfish and Latchets. Members considered that the FIS (rather than ISMP) might be the best option for collecting these otoliths or heads for species where the extraction of otoliths is tricky.

The RAG asked Mr Krusic-Golub to prepare a draft ageing plan based on six Tier 1 species, three Tier 3 species (Mirror Dory, John Dory and Redfish) and options for the suggested byproduct species.

Action 13 - FASThat Fisheries Ageing Services (FAS) prepare a draft aging plan for SESSF Tier 1 and Tier 3 species including consideration of expanding the ageing collection to include key byproduct species.

Item 5 – Harvest Strategy Framework

5.1 Data issues for 2012 in the SESSF

The RAG was comfortable that data issues arising from the 2012 assessment process had been covered under Agenda Item 2.1.

5.2 Discarding algorithm in Tier 1 assessments

Dr Klaer recalled that a number of the estimated discard rates determined from ISMP data were higher than expected. The RAG noted this prompted more detailed consideration of the models and how they process discard rates from observer data.

Dr Klaer advised that the stock assessment for Tiger Flathead (and some other Tier 1s) estimated a discard rate for the species concerned by fitting series of discard estimates with a curve which provided the retention selectivity parameters for the model. Dr Klaer noted that this meant that the RBCs therefore incorporated a discard estimate generated by the model. The RAG recognised that it was


therefore inconsistent to then apply (deduct) a weighted average of recent discards to calculate the Commonwealth RBC.

The RAG noted that the solution was to rely on model estimates (not the most recent ISMP derived estimates) to calculate the TAC. Dr Klaer explained that the model estimate took into account recruitment variation. The RAG agreed that it was important to have consistency in assumptions and making this change would bring the Flathead assessment in line with the practice for Blue Grenadier. The RAG agreed it was a reasonable course of action where discarding was primarily size based. The SlopeRAG Chair noted that this method was used for Blue Grenadier mainly because it factored in recruitment variation. Dr Haddon observed that discarding is in part a reflection of recruitment and current observations have the potential to distort RBCs and may send assessments in the wrong direction.

Members noted that it was important to check the discarding selectivity function periodically to make sure it hasn’t changed over time due to fishing in new areas or exceptional circumstances. Mr Bromley (AFMA) noted that AFMA would need to take this into account in its RBC to TAC spreadsheet model. The RAG Chair noted that the RBCs (for Blue Grenadier and Flathead) were in fact landed RBCs and as such no further deduction of discards (calculated from weighted average) was required for these species.

The ABARES member supported this approach but emphasised that it needed to be documented clearly. The RAG considered it would be more transparent if AFMA maintained their RBC to TAC translation methodology and this could be facilitated if CSIRO provided AFMA with the model generated discard estimates for Blue Grenadier and Flathead for insertion into the SESSF RBC to TAC spreadsheet.

Members noted that the approach for the other Tier 1s, the Tier 3s and Tier 4s would continue and maintained its support for the use of a weighted average of recent discard estimates obtained from ISMP observations.

RecommendationsNoting the assessments for Blue Grenadier and Flathead incorporate model generated discard estimates, that:

CSIRO supply AFMA with the model generated RBCs and model generated discard estimates for Blue Grenadier and Flathead.

AFMA incorporate the model generated discard estimates for Blue Grenadier and Flathead in its SESSF RBC to TAC spreadsheet but annotate the spreadsheet and associated TAC paper to distinguish these estimates from the weighted average discard amounts applied to other species.

Discarding in Tier 3 and Tier 4s

The RAG then considered if the incorporation of discards into the catch rates for Tier 4 species was being handled consistently. Dr Haddon recalled recent changes to the Ocean Perch assessment where discards were incorporated into catch rates noting that observer data showed that discarding was variable and that a large proportion of the inshore species was discarded.

Dr Haddon noted that if discard rates are constant then it is not worth adding in them. Dr Haddon added that if you weren’t factoring in discards rates then a big surge could make a significant difference to the catch rate which would result in a lower RBC. The RAG noted this had occurred recently for Elephantfish, Ocean Perch and Western Gemfish.

The RAG noted that this RBC would then be further reduced in the translation to a TAC by a deduction of a discard estimate which was weighted in favour of the most recent estimate (the surge). The RAG noted that problem with variable discarding was that you deducted it without factoring it in (to catch


rates). Dr Klaer noted that the ISMP sampling was set up to optimise our ability to determine discard estimates from a relatively small sample size.

Dr Klaer noted that if you factored discards you would need to recalibrate the CPUE for the reference period.

The RAG then spent some time discussion how the Tier 4 formula operated in relation to recent catch rates (straight average) and how its output (the RBC) was then adjusted (downwards) by a deduction of a weighted average of the last four years discard estimates converted into a weight (tonnes). The RAG considered how the slight inconsistency in calculation of the ‘averages’ might be resolved.

The RAG agreed that the advice on the RBC should be accompanied by a clear explanation of how the assessment dealt with discard information.

The adoption of a proportional approach for species characterised by high levels of discarding was discussed, such that the RBC was reported, an expected proportion of discards was indicated and the remaining amount was recommended as the TAC.

This portion reported as expected discard proportion

This portion would be recommended as the TAC (in tonnes).

The RAG noted general agreement that approaches for dealing with discards should be consistent although concerns were raised that incorporating discard data for species where the discard rate was low added unnecessary noise.

SESSF RAG agreed that:1. Discard data should be included in the CPUE series assessments routinely where we have it and

where we have discard information for the reference period or means to estimate it.2. Estimate the percentage of the RBC which is discarded (based on a four year average).3. Use the percentage to calculate the deduction (tonnes).

The RAG noted concerns over how this would then be compared to the reference period. Members noted that for some species they were discard estimates from the reference period but for others a RAG could decide to adjust it up by the best method the RAG considered appropriate for that period for example: backward projection.

The RAG noted that the rules and procedures for Tier 3 and Tier 4 approaches were detailed in the assessment documents.


5.3 Report on the application of the threshold to Tier 3 outputs

The RAG noted that the Tier 3 multiplier had previously being limited to values between 0.5 and 1.2 but these had since been removed. Dr Klaer noted the downside of this was very large numbers had been generated in some instances which were hard to explain to stakeholders.

The RAG noted that when a Tier 3 could not detect an impact on the stock it was hard to use them to set realistic RBCs. The group noted that these extreme RBCs were not translated to TACs in any case due to the application of the 50% large change meta-rule.

Dr Klaer advised that it had been agreed to apply a limit to the multiplier which would be applied to the average catch in the reference period which defined the historical age structure. The RAG noted that CSIRO had set the multiplier at 10 which they acknowledged was somewhat arbitrary.

The RAG had previously agreed that the assessment report record that the RBCs had hit the limit (and the value at that limit) but not to report these large numbers and reaffirmed this decision.

Dr Klaer was unaware of any other jurisdictions using harvest control rules based on catch curves.

5.4 Updates to Framework – including consideration of the GAB HSF.

The RAG Chair noted the most recent version of the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework document was the 2009 version. The RAG agreed that it was important to update the document with regard to standard operating procedures, MYTAC break out rules and meta-rules etc.

The RAG recommended that the review of the framework be conducted annually and be subject to a formal sign off process. AFMA agreed to circulate the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework to members for comments once it had been cleared internally.

The RAG recommended that AFMA post the final document on its website.

Action 14 - AFMACirculate the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework to SESSF RAG member for out of session comment (Microsoft Word format).

5.5 Potential additional HCRs

The RAG Chair noted that the RAGs were now faced with a number of species where they were operating outside the established framework. The RAG recognised there were a range of alternative assessment approaches (maximum constant yield, length based methods, depletion based stock analysis etc) that might be employed in data poor situations if there was a loss of confidence in Tier 3 and/or Tier 4 assessments.

There was general agreement that a testing process was needed to evaluate their merits. Dr Haddon noted that in order to test them properly that Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) would need to be developed for these methods. Dr Klaer advised that he had submitted a research proposal along these lines (commonly referred to as the ‘Tier 5’ methods). The RAG noted that such approaches basically applied to situations where you just have catch data which might extend to length frequency information. The GAB RAG Chair considered that it had wider application than just the SESSF. The ShelfRAG Chair reminded the group that the Harvest Strategies were brought into provide more certainty and we need to be careful about moving out of the established tiers.

The RAG was cognisant that further chopping and changing was undesirable and that testing was an important pre-requisite in examining if new approaches are going to be ultimately included in the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework. Members noted that there needed to be an understanding of the relative risk in moving to these new approaches and more insight into their suitability for particular species. Member emphasised that testing would reduce the risk of adopting one approach and then finding out soon after that another method was actually more suitable.Minutes – SESSF RAG Chairs Meeting 19-20 February 2013 of 36

The RAG Chair noted that SharkRAG had recently adopted a constant catch approach (using catches taken in the Tier 4 reference period) and appreciated an explanation from the SharkRAG Chair about the specifics of the Elephantfish and Sawshark assessments.

The SharkRAG Chair explained that the RAG did not have concerns about the status of the stocks but was not confident in CPUE as an indicator of abundance and noted: Both species were byproducts and were of relatively low value. CPUE while flat over a longer period was noisy with rises and falls inconsistent with the biology of

these elasmobranchs. That the ensuing oscillations in the RBCs over short periods were hard to manage in the context

of a byproduct species in a stable Gummy Shark fishery. There was a potential for a downward spiral in CPUE driven by reductions in TACs driving

discarding and avoidance behaviour. Conflicting signals in the gillnet and trawl CPUE signals for Sawshark. There was a spatial disconnect in the two CPUE series for Sawshark.

The SharkRAG Chair acknowledged the shortcomings of using an average catch to set a TAC but indicated that the RAG was comfortable with it as an interim approach.

The ABARES member considered that the important principle when looking at alternatives assessments and in deciding to take them forward by developing HCRs was to evaluate the level of precaution needed to deal with the uncertainty. The ABARES member observed that the New Zealand Maximum Constant Yield was designed mainly for low value stocks and addressed uncertainty by setting low values and thereby low concern.

Dr Klaer observed that most of the information needs for ‘Tier 5’ approaches was already covered in the data preparation for the Tier 4s. The RAG noted however that without testing these approaches could not be adopted by the RAGs in 2013 for species where Tier 4s weren’t informative.

The RAG agreed to write to ComFRAB to reiterate support for the Tier 5 research proposal.

Action 15 – Executive officer/RAG Chair (as soon as possible)Write to the AFMA Research Secretariat to convey additional support for the CSIRO ‘Tier 5’ research proposal.

5.6 Criteria for selection of species with non-MEY targets.

The RAG appreciated a presentation by the ABARES member ‘Setting target reference points for secondary species in the SESSF (Viera S, Hormis M, Penney A. and Woodhams J. (ABARES, January 2013) - Attachment 2.

The RAG agreed that the firsts step in the process was to identify which species (in a multi-species fishery) were secondary species and that this should be a separate process to deciding how to set targets for them. Members noted that the ABARES analysis used a similar approach to SESSF RAG’s informal approach to identify secondary species (relative value and the CSIRO targeting analysis).

The RAG noted that ABARES had considered quota latency in relation to potential benefits in shifting the target for particular secondary species.

5.7 Incorporation of FIS data into future assessments

Dr Tuck noted that there was already the capacity to incorporate survey data into Tier 1 assessments. The RAG noted that three data points were needed to start using FIS data as a relative index whereas 5 points were needed for use as an absolute index.


Dr Klaer envisaged that the FIS data could be included in the base case in the first instance with RAGs then deciding if it should remain in the assessment. The ABARES member noted that there was a question of weighting and this needed to be considered on a species by species basis because the survey was optimised for a number of species.

The RAG noted that down the track the FIS would have increased application as an adjunct to Tier 4 assessments, as a potential index of abundance for byproduct species and in relation to breakout rules for MYTACs.

5.8 Discount factors for Tier 3 or Tier 4

The ABARES member advised that ABARES had received numerous questions about the application of discount factors as part of the Harvest Strategy Policy review. The RAG noted that the analysis by Dr Gavin Fay had indicated the utility of discount factors was linked more strongly to the species and its biology rather than the harvest control rule and that it was difficult to ascertain whether the 5% and 15% discounts for the Tier 3 and Tier 4s respectively were appropriate.

The ABARES member acknowledged this but indicated this was a separate question to the justification for waiving the discount factors for some species. Mr Moore noted that, to date, we were already adding precaution by using B48 or proxies as our target reference point. The RAG Chair noted that Dr Fay’s analysis indicated that stability in CPUE wasn’t a good reason to waive discount factors.

Dr Haddon suggested the key risk was avoiding going below B LIM and if we can identify mitigating circumstances that act against the notion of a discount factor then this was reasonable but whether the mitigating factors erased all ‘15%’ was another question.

The RAG noted that a change in the target for secondary species from B48 to B40 would require closer consideration of discount factors.

The RAG recognised that applying discount factors to species where catches had been stable for many years i.e. John Dory had the potential to instigate a downward spiral in CPUE due to TACs being reduced. The ABARES member suggested it was necessary to define the point (catch) where a risk profile asymptotes out and consider at what point do you stop applying a discount? The RAG considered this might be at the point of long term average catch for some species.

The RAG noted that further consideration of discount factors was needed for ‘Tier 5’ approaches.

5.9 CPUE meta-rule - is it needed?

The RAG noted that the CPUE multiplier is a meta rule applied to the Commonwealth RBC to ‘adjust’ the RBC using a function which takes into account the CPUE from the most recent fishing year (up to a October cut-off). Members noted that the CPUE multiplier was not applied to Elephantfish, Gummy Shark, Saw Shark or School Shark or in situations when a decision was not made according to a Harvest Control Rule.

The RAG noted that it maintained a neutral position in relation to the rule provided it was applied for both increases and decreases however recognised its application created administrative costs for AFMA and CSIRO in compiling recent CPUE information prior to the December deadline for the circulation of AFMA’s TAC position paper.

The RAG noted that in 2012 the CPUE multiplier was only applied to 9 species (7 species and Ocean Perch basket) and under BMEY targets only 5 of those 8 TACs changed. The CPUE multiplier influenced the size of 4 of those 5 TACs (Table 2).

Mr Moore explained that the CPUE multiplier was brought in at industry’s request to try and capture the most recent signal of the availability of fish. The ABARES member noted that CPUE data used in the assessments was standardised and/or averaged whereas this correction was applied without treatment.


Mr Moore noted that industry was now generally less confidant about CPUE’s utility as a snapshot of availability and in any case the subsequent implementation of the small and large change meta-rules had to some extent overridden finer adjustments to TACs. Dr Klaer noted that this wasn’t a science matter and examination of its effect had shown it did not increase risk but added noise. The RAG recognised that the CPUE multiplier was there at industry’s request and accepted advice from the SETFIA EO (relayed through from Mr Moore) that the association would be happy to see it removed. The RAG noted it added complexity to both AFMA’s and CSIRO’s processes and supported its removal from the suite of meta–rules. The RAG anticipated its removal would result in an efficiency gain in the data services contract workload.

Table 2. Outcomes where the CPUE Multiplier was applied to SESSF RBC to TAC translations in 2013.

Species TACMEY

change(t)

Contribution to % change in the

TACMEY of the CPUE multiplier

TACMSY

change(t)

Contribution to % change in the

TACMSY of the CPUE multiplier

Comment

Jackass Morwong 0% 0.0% Small change rule appliedMirror Dory + 50% 0.0% Large change rule appliedOcean Perch - 28% -1.8% + 29% -1.8%Ribaldo 0% 0.0% + 48% -7.1% Small change rule not

activated under BMSY

Royal Red Prawn 0% 0.0% Small change rule appliedSchool Whiting + 26% 2.7%Silver Trevally + 15% -3.8%Silver Warehou - 9% -8.4% Change was -237 t

Mr Moore clarified that the GABTF used a more restrictive CPUE correction to allow for adjustments in non-survey years (surveys and assessments were conducted on a biennial schedule). The RAG agreed that this was a separate matter and would respond if GAB RAG referred it to SESSF RAG.

The ShelfRAG Chair observed that it had taken eight years to have the CPUE Multiplier implemented and eight minutes to have it removed.

RecommendationThat AFMA remove the CPUE multiplier meta-rule from the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework.

5.10 Advice on criteria for rejection of CPUE as an indicator of abundance

The RAG was generally cautious about rejecting CPUE as an indicator noting that with some work (in some instances considerable) you can get meaningful indices. The RAG agreed that you wouldn’t want to step away from an established HCR unless there is something better.

The RAG appreciated Dr Haddon’s analysis of issues which could give rise to the rejection of CPUE as an index of relative abundance. The RAG discussed the following:

Signal to noise ratio – members noted that for some species changes in catch rates occurred which are beyond the capacity of the stock biologically. Mr Moore accepted this but noted that spikes in catch rates occurred in the GAB which might also be explained from influx of a species from areas outside the GAB i.e. Western Australian waters or lightly fished waters off eastern South Australia. The ABARES member considered that smoothing functions were an important tool in relation to the interpretation CPUE data that was noisy. The ShelfRAG Chair noted that you still see unexpected changes in abundance of some species in FISs which don’t have most of the complications or potentials biases which are associated with catch rates from commercial fishing operations.

Apparent recruitment variation - variation in catch rates is rapid and large changes every few years which could either be due to large variations in recruitment over very short periods, which


would be unlikely in a long lived species, or be an indication that the catch rates are not representative of the stock dynamics.

Targeting versus bycatch - species are sometime targeted, sometimes byproduct and sometimes discarded. In these circumstances the variation in catch rates can be extreme, which may prevent valid interpretation. The RAG agreed that poor reporting of discards could compromise catch rate data. In these cases analyses could be compromised and no longer hold validity as being representative of the stock status.

Active avoidance – there was broad agreement that active avoidance (due to a management or market change) could compromise CPUE as an index of abundance.

Hyperstability – there was broad agreement that CPUE was not a suitable index for species that exhibited hyperstability in the face of fishing effort. The ShelfRAG Chair observed that some submissions on the nomination for listing of Blue Warehou under the EPBC Act supported the listing using by references to declining catch rates but also raised arguments noting that the species tendency to aggregate meant it was prone to hyperstability and therefore cautioned interpreting increasing catch rates as a sign of recovery. Members agreed there was an inconsistency in these positions. The RAG agreed that you needed independent evidence of hyperstability before you reject CPUE as an index for a species.

Non-representative data. The catch rate analyses rely on having many replicate observations across vessels, months, depths, and areas. If there are only very few vessels, fishing in few areas, with no seasonal pattern or irregular gaps in the application of effort through the year, then the data may become not strictly comparable and any analyses may be compromised and become unreliable.

The ABARES member noted that it was essential that RAGs remained objective such that that we don’t end up accepting CPUE when it is going up and then reject it when it is going down. The ABARES member recalled that there were a number New Zealand species for which the CPUE time series were considered of low utility (range of reasons) however closer inspection and treatments of these time series (spatial stratification, gear specific and vessel selection) revealed useful indices in a number of cases. On this basis the ABARES member cautioned against rejecting CPUE based on changes in fishery circumstance without dedicating work to try and get the best out of the CPUE datasets.

Dr Haddon advised that his experience it was difficult to partition data in some circumstances like operations for deepwater Oreos which were sometimes targeted and other times not. Dr Haddon added that for some Tier 4s there may be a range of factors which call into question the suitability of the index.

The SquidRAG Chair noted that if you rejected CPUE for Arrow Squid then there wasn’t much else to go by. The SquidRAG Chair added that SquidRAG was able to refer to both trawl and jig CPUE although lags in accessing the data nullified its usefulness given the life span of squid.

The RAG Chair suggested that it was difficult to set out general guidelines for the rejection of CPUE as an index of abundance but was comfortable that the RAGs were aware of its limitations and that it appeared that the individuals RAGs were best placed to exercise these judgements.

5.11 Potential for downward spirals in RBCs with declining TACs

The RAG was comfortable this issue had been covered in discussion under Item 5.5.

5.12 Increase in discard estimates for a number of species

The SESSF RAG Chair noted that concern about the increase in estimates of discard rates for a number of SESSF species based on observer data had been raised at South East MAC 12 in late January 2013. The ABARES member noted that, subsequent to the MAC, CSIRO had indicated that the revised ISMP raising procedures were robust and reliable and that these had been developed and tested in Minutes – SESSF RAG Chairs Meeting 19-20 February 2013 of 36

conjunction with Dr Bergh. The ABARES member considered that, given the methodology appeared sound, the question of why a range of discard estimates had increased significantly remained and did something need to be done to improve the representativeness of the ISMP data?

Members suggested regular review of fishing effort and the sampling within the strata was needed. The ShelfRAG Chair considered this was the responsibility of the program to monitor effort and adjust coverage. Members considered this was an important message to convey to the observer program.

Dr Klaer indicated that CSIRO had the numbers to evaluate coverage (proportion by strata) and could add an analysis along these lines to the Data Reports. The SESSF RAG Chair thought it would be useful to review this annually to see if the fit of observer coverage to fishing effort was representative. Dr Klaer indicated that this could be presented by comparing the proportion of observer coverage allocated in the plan versus the proportion actually achieved in the fishery.

Mr Stone indicated that the shark sector was concerned about the lack of observer coverage of the hook sector in the east of the Fishery. Mr Bromley (AFMA) advised that the first quarter target for the shark longline was 8 days but noted this had not been achieved. The AFMA member suggested that this target might now be out of date given the changes in the shark sector. AFMA also agreed to check on port sampling protocols for Lakes Entrance with regard to gillnet shark species.

The RAG concluded that there was general comfort about the technical aspects of discard rate observations and methodology but that there was a need to check on the distribution of sampling.

The RAG noted that, if recent methodology was robust, further investigation of earlier approaches might be required to help explain the apparent significant change in discard rates i.e. - were earlier discards underestimated?

Members did not think the stratification had changed to a great extent. Dr Klaer referred to the calculations and recalled that the agreed approach now treated discards in a different manner to earlier years:

Discard rate (agreed approach) = ___Weight of discards___Weight of catch + discards

Whereas in the past the Discard Rate was defined as: Weight of discards Weight of catch

The ShelfRAG Chair considered that there needed to be a more formal link between SESSF RAG and the Observer Program to ensure concerns were raised and recommendations explained.

Mr Stone observed that the assessments deducted estimated discards from RBCs on the assumption of complete mortality. Mr Stone advised that a proportion of some species survived capture and noted the example of shark caught by Danish seine method. The RAG suggested this could be potentially significant for species discarded in significant quantities and represented a potential research need (post release survivorship). Dr Klaer suggested that the scope of possible consideration could be narrowed down by eliminating those species which were only discarded in minor quantities as well as those species which generally came up all dead or moribund.

Action 16 - CSIROCSIRO to add a metric on planned observer coverage by strata versus observer coverage to the Logbook, Landings and Observer Data Summary.

Action 17 - AFMAAFMA to check on port sampling protocols for Lakes Entrance with regard to hook caught shark.


6 – Multiple Year TACs (MYTACs) – criteria and break-out rules

The RAG held a more general discussion on MYTACs rather than strictly adhering to the three sub-heading as envisaged in the agenda.

The RAG recalled the need for an out of session response to Silver Warehou breaking out of its MYTAC and recognised that in the current funding environment that such a situation would always trigger a revaluation of stock assessment priorities. The SESSF RAG Chair noted that in this instance a decision was made to run a full assessment on Silver Warehou in 2012 which meant postponing the Flathead assessment. The RAG noted that triggering of a species’ MYTAC breakout rule did not mandate that a full assessment be run in that year but a review was needed to determine what course of action was followed.

The SESSF RAG Chair noted that the breakout criteria was originally developed around Tier 1 assessments however recognised that the criteria might need to be expanded to accommodate the push from AFMA and industry for putting more species (including Tier 3 and Tier 4 species) under MYTACs.

The RAG was cognisant that even if a number of Tier 3 and 4 species were placed under MYTACs there would still be a similar workload monitoring indicators to that involved in running the Tier 3 and 4 assessments (these are largely automated). Members considered that set and forget TACs for some species could be appropriate i.e. Royal Red Prawns and Deepwater Oreos.

Mr Moore noted that the move to MYTACs was designed to reduce cost for industry and government and it was important that savings were accurately reflected in the relevant levies. Mr Moore also noted there was potential for bias in relation to MYTACs for key economic species where the regulator might come under pressure to break out of a MYTAC if indicators are good (run a fresh assessment) and conversely remain in a MYTAC if on indicators aren’t as good.

The RAG then discussed how the yearly RBCs might be set within MYRBCs. Members recognised that for Tier 1 species model projections could be used to set the 2nd and 3rd year RBCs that feed into a MYRBC and noted that approach so far had been species specific in the SESSF. The RAG noted that projections were used in the GABTF.

The RAG noted that MYTACs should really be considered as MYRBCs as there may need to be responses (reductions in the TAC) if sources of total mortality change (i.e. higher discards, increase in state catch).

The ShelfRAG Chair considered that industry may be under the impression that MYTACs were locked in and suggested that the potential for MYTACs to be altered due to higher levels of fleet wide discarding or changes in state catch needed to communicated to operators.

The RAG pondered the application of the small change limiting rule to MYRBCs. The RAG agreed that if the change in the RBC from year 1 to year 2 and year 2 to 3 were under 10% that the MYRBC should be an average of the three RBCs.

Recommendation – MYRBCs (Tier 1 species)If within an MYRBC the 2nd and 3rd year (etc) RBCs are within 10% of the preceding RBC then the MYRBC should be set at the average of the 3 RBCs across the three year period.

Members were less certain if generic criteria could be developed for setting Tier 3 and Tier 4 MYTACs and agreed to maintain a flexible approach in relation to justifying MYTACs to Tier 3 and Tier 4 species.


7 - General issues

7.1 Progress on the Harvest Strategy Policy review and Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch and the Borthwick Review

The RAG noted that the reviews were still under consideration by the Government.

7.2 Rebuilding Strategies

The AFMA member noted that the five year review of the School Shark Rebuilding Strategy was due this year and noted that SharkRAG was looking at an appropriate rebuild time frame.

The RAG noted that the Orange Roughy Rebuilding Strategy (replacing the existing Orange Roughy Conservation Program) was at draft status and following internal clearance would be provided to SlopeRAG and ABARES for comment. Mr Bromley indicated that AFMA was still determining what the appropriate mean generation time should be for Orange Roughy.

Mr Bromley advised that the Blue Warehou Rebuilding Strategy was due in 2014 and would need to be completed before the Environment Minister made a decision on the nomination of Blue Warehou for listing under the EPBC Act (later in 2014).

The RAG noted that AFMA had tentatively scheduled a workshop for Eastern Gemfish (and Blue Warehou) for 22 and 23 April 2013.

7.3 Review of ISMP performance and data needs

The RAG noted the January 2013 report from the ISMP and recalling earlier discussions on observer coverage (mainly in relation to discard estimates) agreed that further attention to ISMP sampling would take place at the Data Meeting.

7.4 Progress on retrospective application of FIS catches

The RAG noted SESSF RAG’s (and SEMAC’s) recommendation that catches of quota species taken during the FIS to be deducted from the following year’s TAC was now with the AFMA Commission. The AFMA member noted that the approach for research catch allowance for other research projects would not change.

8 Other business

8.1 AFMA website publication

The RAG agreed that all papers should be placed on the website and noted that no confidential data had been tabled.

The ABARES member noted that a SharePoint webpage developed for similar assessment groups in New Zealand had proved a particularly useful tool for keeping policy and other documents up to date and accessible. Members noted that SEWPaC and DAFF managed similar webpages.

There was strong interest in developing such an approach for AFMA’s RAGs and the Chair asked AFMA to investigate prospects of implementing such a facility.

Action 18 - AFMAAFMA Management to investigate options for implementing a SharePoint webpage for its RAGs.

8.2 and 8.3 Project updates and ISMP update

The RAG noted the January 2013 report from the ISMP.


9 Next meeting

9.1 Scheduling of the 2013 RAG meetings

The RAG confirmed a tentative schedule for the Environment/Research Meeting and the Data meeting for the week 29 July to 2 August 2013 with the exact dates to be advised out of session.

The SESSF RAG Chair thanked members and observers for input over the course of the meeting and closed the meeting at 3:50 pm.

Sandy Morison

SESSF RAG Chair - 2012/13

29 July 2013

Attachments:

Attachment 1: Agreed agendaAttachment 2: Setting target reference points for secondary species in the SESSF - ABARES (2013)


PARTICIPANTS AT SESSF RAG Chairs Meeting – 19-20 February 2013

ChairmanMr Sandy Morison

SESSF RAG MembersDr Rik BuckworthMr George DayDr Malcolm HaddonDr Neil KlaerDr Ian KnuckeyMr Kyne Krusic-GolubDr Andrew Penney Dr Colin SimpfendorferDr Lianos TriantafillosDr Geoff Tuck

SESSF RAG Observers and Invited GuestsMr Ross Bromley (AFMA)Mr Jeff Moore (GABIA) (departed 3:15 pm Day 2)Mr David Stone (SSFI)

SESSF RAG Executive OfficerAnthony de Fries

ApologiesMr Simon Boag (SETFIA)Mr Chris Burns (AFMA Observer Program)Associate Professor Tim Ward


Actions Arising from SESSF RAG – 19-20 February 2013

No. Action Item Action Person Timeframe

1 1a. AFMA to write to relevant state agencies to secure ongoing data sharing for SESSF species under current informal arrangements

1b. SESSF RAG to write the FSWG to seek the Working Group’s support for the establishment of a standardised data sharing arrangement for adoption by AFMA (and CSIRO). SESSF RAG to draft a pro-forma for such arrangements.

1c. ABARES member to report back to SESSF RAG on the Fisheries Statistics Working Group’s schedule for 2013

AFMASESSF RAG

ABARES

2 CSIRO to circulate the demersal fisheries section of the Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status (RUSS) Project to SESSF RAG.

CSIRO -

3 CSIRO to circulate the demersal fisheries section of the Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status (RUSS) Project to SESSF RAG.

AFMA

4 AFMA to check with CSIRO in relation to the summary information on numbers of extreme high risk species presented in the Summary section of the Sustainability assessment of fish species potentially impacted in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery: 2007-2010 report.

AFMA Data Meeting 2013

5 Circulate the Western Gemfish Species Summary to GAB RAG members for finalisation.

GAB RAG EO

6 SESSF RAG to consider making further refinements to the schematic in Figure 1 for possible adoption in the RAG Species Summaries.

Executive Officer Data Meeting 2013

7 That agencies and Resource Assessment Groups implement tighter version control for data and assessment documents.

Ongoing Ongoing

8 Circulate the New Zealand science quality standards (fish stock assessment) and associated terms of reference to SESSF RAG.

ABARESExecutive officer

Out of session

9 AFMA to clarify the insurance (liability and indemnity) situation for RAG Chairs. AFMA Management

10 10 a SESSF RAG to consider scheduling research and environment sessions in association with its 2013 Data Meeting.

10b That SESSF RAG refines its draft research priorities prior to the 2013 Data Meeting.

Executive Officer

11 Members to provide out of session comments on the research pre-proposals tabled at SESSF RAG’s February 2013 meeting.

Members

12 That the Upper Slope Dogfish Research Plan Working Group report back to SESSF RAG’s 2013 Data Meeting on elements of a draft research plan for the Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy

Mr DayMr Morison

ABARES member

January 2014

13 That FAS prepare a draft aging plan for SESSF Tier 1 and Tier 3 species including consideration of a expanding ageing collection to include key byproduct species.

FAS Data Meeting 2013

14 Circulate the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework to SESSF RAG member for out of session comment (Microsoft Word format).

AFMAExecutive Officer

Data Meeting 2013

15 Write to the AFMA Research Secretariat to convey additional support for the CSIRO ‘Tier5’ research proposal.

Executive OfficerRAG Chair

As soon as possible

16 CSIRO to add a metric on planned observer coverage by strata versus observer coverage to the Logbook, Landings and Observer Data Summary.

CSIRO Data Meeting 2013

17 AFMA to check on sampling of hook caught shark off Lakes Entrance AFMA Management

Data Meeting 2013

18 AFMA Management to investigate options for implementing a SharePoint webpage for its RAGs

AFMA Management

Data Meeting 2013


contract - home - the australian fisheries management ... web viewsustainability assessment of fish...

Documents