southern and eastern scalefish and shark fishery wildlife ... · pdf filescalefish and shark...
TRANSCRIPT
Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery
Wildlife Trade Operation Annual Report 2015
This report has been prepared by AFMA for consideration by the Department of the Environment in relation to an approved Wildlife Trade Operation under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Picture of ‘FV Suzie J’ courtesy of Ryan Keightley.
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4 2 Description of the Fishery........................................................................................... 4
2.1 Area of the fishery .................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Sectors of the fishery ............................................................................................. 5 2.3 Fishing methods and target species ....................................................................... 5 2.4 Management arrangements ................................................................................... 6 2.4.1 Harvest Strategy Framework and Harvest Strategy Policy ..................................... 6
3 Management ................................................................................................................ 6 3.1 Changes to management arrangements ................................................................ 6 3.1.1 TAC settings for quota species 2012-2014 ............................................................ 6 3.1.2 Australian Sea Lion (ASL) Management Strategy .................................................. 8 3.1.3 Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy .......................................................... 8 3.1.4 School Shark Rebuilding Strategy .......................................................................... 9 3.1.5 Blue Warehou Rebuilding Strategy ........................................................................ 9 3.1.6 Eastern Gemfish Rebuilding Strategy .................................................................. 10 3.1.7 Orange Roughy Conservation Program ............................................................... 11 3.1.8 Bycatch and Discard Workplans .......................................................................... 11 3.1.9 Individual Boat Seabird Management Plan .......................................................... 12 3.1.10 Dolphin interactions and mitigation measures ...................................................... 12 3.1.11 Pink Ling closures and trip limits .......................................................................... 13 3.2 The performance of the fishery against objectives, performance indicators and performance measures .................................................................................................... 13 3.2.1 Compliance risks present and actions taken to reduce these risks ....................... 13 3.2.2 Description of cross jurisdictional management arrangements ............................. 14 3.2.3 Compliance with Threat Abatement Plans, recovery plans, etc. ........................... 14
4 Research and monitoring.......................................................................................... 15 4.1 Research projects ............................................................................................... 15
5 Catch data .................................................................................................................. 17 5.1 Catch of target and byproduct species ................................................................. 17 5.2 Catch by sector .................................................................................................... 18 5.3 Fishing effort by sector ......................................................................................... 18
6 Status of target stock ................................................................................................ 19 6.1 ABARES fishery status reports ............................................................................ 19
7 Interactions with protected species ......................................................................... 19 7.1 Frequency and nature of interactions ................................................................... 19 7.2 Management actions to reduce interactions with TEP species ............................. 21
8 Impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem in which it operates ............................... 21 8.1 Environmental risk ............................................................................................... 21
9 Progress of recommendations and conditions from the WTO accreditation of the SESSF ................................................................................................................................ 23 List of Figures Figure 1: Area of the SESSF and its major fishery sectors. ............................................ 5
2
List of Tables Table 1: GVP over 2008-2013 for the CTS, GAB and GHAT sectors. (Source: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARES) Fisheries Statistics 2013.) .. 4 Table 2: Global TAC levels for SESSF quota species from 2012-13 to 2013-14. ............. 7 Table 3: Catch (tonnes) for target species in the SESSF in calendar years 2012-2014. Catch data includes research catch. Source: AFMA CDR landings. .............................. 17 Table 4: Catch (tonnes) for major non-quota (byproduct) species in the SESSF. Source: AFMA CDR landings. .................................................................................................... 18 Table 5: Catch (tonnes) by each sector, 2011 – 2014. Source: AFMA CDR landings. ... 18 Table 6: Trawl fishing effort (trawl and danish seine) by calendar year in the SESSF for 2011–2014. Source: AFMA logbook records. ................................................................ 18 Table 7: Gillnet and hook fishing effort by calendar year in the SESSF 2011–2014. Source: AFMA logbook records. .................................................................................... 19 Table 8: Number of reported interactions with TEP species in the CTS by calendar year for 2011 – 2013. Source: AFMA logbook data. .............................................................. 19 Table 9: Number of reported interactions with TEP species in the GHAT (gillnet & hook) by calendar year for 2011–2013. Source: AFMA logbook data. ..................................... 20 Table 10: Number of reported interactions with TEP species in the GABTS by calendar year for 2011–2013. Source: AFMA logbook data. ........................................................ 20 Table 11: Reports on AFMA’s progress meeting the conditions and recommendations of the WTO declaration for the SESSF from 25 February 2013 to 25 February 2016. ....... 23 Table 12: Recommendations to AFMA on the ecologically sustainable management of the SESSF. ................................................................................................................... 25 Table 13: Conditions on the Part 13 accreditation for the SESSF. ................................. 27
3
1 Introduction This report describes the operation of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF), which is managed under the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Plan 2003 (the Plan) and governed by the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (the Act).
The report details changes that have occurred in the SESSF during the 2014 calendar year for the purposes of meeting a condition of the Wildlife Trade Operation (WTO) declaration.
WTO accreditation recognises that a fishery is being managed in an ecologically sustainable manner, and allows the export of product derived from the fishery. On 25 February 2013 the SESSF attained WTO accreditation until 25 February 2016. Conditions and recommendations that must be adhered to through the new accreditation can be found at http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/fisheries/commonwealth/scale-fish/index.html.
2 Description of the fishery 2.1 Area of the fishery
The SESSF is a complex multi-sector, multi-species fishery that covers almost half of the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ). The area of the fishery stretches south from Fraser Island in southern Queensland, around Tasmania to Cape Leeuwin in south Western Australia (Figure 1). The fishery operates in both Commonwealth and State waters under different Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) arrangements with State governments. The majority of effort occurs in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS) which is the area extending southward from Barranjoey Point (north of Sydney) around the NSW, Victorian and Tasmanian coastlines to Cape Jervis in South Australia.
The SESSF is one of the most important Commonwealth-managed fisheries. It lands fresh scalefish and shark for the Australian market and for export, and annual commercial catches have an estimated Gross Value of Production (GVP) of $90.3 million. The GVP trends over the past four fishing seasons for the three major sectors of the SESSF are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: GVP over 2008-2013 for the CTS, GAB and GHAT sectors. (Source: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARES) Fisheries Statistics 2013.)
Financial year CTS ($m) GHAT ($m) GAB ($m) 2008 – 09 55.9 30.6 9.0 2009 – 10 55.7 24.6 11.7 2010 – 11 48.6 23.8 11.0 2011 – 12 50.6 20.9 11.6 2012 – 13 56.3 22.0 12.0
4
2.2 Sectors of the fishery
The fishery is comprised of the following sectors (Figure 1):
• Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS) • East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector (ECD) • Scalefish Hook Sector • Shark Hook Sector • Gillnet Sector • Trap Sector • Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector (GAB).
In this report the Gillnet, Scalefish Hook, Shark Hook and Trap sectors are collectively referred to as the Gillnet Hook and Trap Sector (GHAT).
Figure 1: Area of the SESSF and its major fishery sectors.
2.3 Fishing methods and target species
A combination of methods are accredited under the Plan for use in the fishery, including demersal otter trawl, pair and midwater trawl, Danish seine, demersal longline, demersal auto-longline and gillnet. Key species in the CTS are tiger flathead, pink ling, blue grenadier and silver warehou; in the GHAT sector are gummy shark, blue eye trevalla and pink ling; and in the GAB sector are deepwater flathead and bight redfish.
5
2.4 Management arrangements
The SESSF is managed under the Plan. The management of the SESSF occurs through input and output controls, largely in the form of:
• species total allowable catch (TAC) limits
• species quota units - in the form of Quota Statutory Fishing Rights (SFRs) or Individual Transferable Quota Units (ITQs)
• fishing concessions – in the form of boat SFRs or permits.
There are currently 34 species/species groups managed through TAC limits, of which 20 are managed under multi-year TACs (MYTACs) (Table 2). These species comprise around 80 per cent of the total commercial landed catch. There are two non-quota species with trigger TAC limits set (Table 3). If a trigger limit is exceeded during a season further management action will be undertaken by AFMA.
Operators are required to hold a boat concession to enter SESSF fisheries. This is in the form of a boat SFR in the CTS, GAB and GHAT sectors, and a boat permit in the ECD sector and State coastal water areas.
Other controls include trip limits, incidental catch limits and prohibited take for some species. Input controls include limited entry, gear restrictions, size limits and spatial and temporal closures. In addition, industry implements voluntary measures in co-operation with AFMA including voluntary gear restrictions and industry codes of conduct.
Further information about SESSF management arrangements can be found in the SESSF Management Arrangements Booklet which is updated annually at http://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries-services/fisheries-management-plans/.
2.4.1 Harvest Strategy Framework and Harvest Strategy Policy
The Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines provides a framework that allows a strategic, science–based approach to setting total allowable catch levels in all Commonwealth fisheries. The SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework (HSF) outlines the decision rules for setting TACs in the fishery. The SESSF HSF was reviewed in 2014 and amended in February 2015.
The HSF is available at http://www.afma.gov.au/sustainability-environment/harvest-strategies/.
3 Management 3.1 Changes to management arrangements
3.1.1 TAC settings for quota species 2013-2015
TACs are set by the AFMA Commission under the HSF after considering advice from Resource Assessment Groups (RAGs), Management Advisory Committees (MACs) and AFMA Management.
Changes to the TACs since the last WTO assessment in 2013 are set out in Table 2.
6
Table 2: Global TAC levels for SESSF quota species from 2013-14 to 2014-15.
Quota species 2013-14 TAC (t)
2014-15 TAC (t)
Change since 2013-
14 (t) Alfonsino* 1125 1017 -108 Bight Redfish* 2358 2358 0 Blue-eye Trevalla* 388 335 -53 Blue Grenadier* 5208 6800 1592 Blue Warehou 118 118 0 Deepwater Flathead* 1150 1150 0 Deepwater Shark basket – east* 85 47 -38 Deepwater Shark basket – west* 215 215 0 Elephant fish 109 109 0 Flathead* 2750 2878 128 Gemfish – east* 100 100 0 Gemfish – west* 199 199 0 Gummy Shark* 1836 1836 0 Jackass Morwong* 568 568 0 John Dory* 221 221 0 Mirror Dory 1616 808 -808 Ocean Perch* 195 195 0 Orange Roughy- Albany & Esperance 50 50 0 Orange Roughy - southern 35 500 465 Orange Roughy - eastern 25 25 0 Orange Roughy - western 60 35 -25 Orange Roughy - Cascade 500 60 -440 Oreo, Smooth - Cascade 150 150 0 Oreo, Smooth – other 23 23 0 Oreo, basket* 132 132 0 Pink Ling* 834 996 162 Redfish 276 138 -138 Ribaldo* 168 252 84 Royal Red Prawn* 303 344 41 Saw Shark 339 459 120 School Shark 215 215 0 School Whiting 809 809 0 Silver Trevally* 781 615 -166 Silver Warehou* 2329 2417 88 * Subject to MYTAC Table 3: ECDWT non-quota species TAC. The TACs for these species act as a trigger which, if reached, would close the sector.
Non-quota species TAC Boarfish 200 tonnes whole weight, trigger limit. No
change. Orange Roughy – incidental catch 50 tonnes, whole weight, trigger limit. No
change.
7
3.1.2 Australian Sea Lion (ASL) Management Strategy
During the 2014 calendar year there was one Australian Sea Lion mortality in the gillnet sector of the GHAT. The interaction occurred in September 2014, in ASL management zone B which has a trigger limit of two ASL mortalities before a closure direction is triggered.
The Australian Sea Lion Management Strategy is currently being consolidated to include all the trigger limits for each zone and new closure areas. As the revision is still being finalised, it has not yet been published on the AFMA website. The 2010 Australian Sea Lion Management Strategy is still available on the AFMA website at http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/sea_lion_management_strategy_2010.pdf
Details of the closure direction which includes spatial closures around all known ASL breeding colonies can be found at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L00520.
3.1.3 Temporary Hook Permits
AFMA granted temporary permits to allow gillnet operators in South Australia affected by spatial closures to fish using longline methods. The permits allow operators to still catch their gummy shark quota using hook methods while minimising any impact on marine mammals.
Two different types of permits have been issued, SFR linked permits, which allow operators to fish in Commonwealth waters adjacent to South Australia, and coastal waters linked permits which only allow the use of manually baited hooks in South Australian coastal waters.
AFMA revised existing SFR linked temporary hook permits in July 2014 to allow the restricted use (up to 5,000 hooks) of auto longline gear to target gummy shark in waters adjacent to South Australia. Operators are only permitted to use auto baiting providing a number of strict conditions have been met. The conditions to aid the protection of seabirdswhen using Auto-longline equipment include:
• mandatory e-Monitoring (onboard cameras and sensors)
• requirement to deploy tori line during setting and brickle curtin during haul; and
• demonstration of a gear sink rate of >0.3m/s.
To date, no vessels have opted to use auto longline gear under the temporary hook permits granted in July 2014.
3.1.4 Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy
AFMA, in consultation with the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Resource Assessment Group (SESSFRAG), has developed a monitoring and assessment workplan to assess the effectiveness of the Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy 2012 (the Strategy) in rebuilding stocks of Harrisson’s and southern dogfish. The Workplan can be found at http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Upper-Slope-Dogfish-Research-and-Monitoring-Workplan-2014-16.pdf.
8
AFMA removed the trigger limit provisions applying to the power handline method for all closures under the Strategy in 2015. This followed CSIRO advice that suggested a high survival rate for upper slope dogfish when caught by power handline in conjunction with good handling and release practices.
A copy of the Strategy can be found at http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Upper-slope-Dogfish-Management-Strategy-14December-2012-FINAL.pdf.
3.1.5 School Shark Rebuilding Strategy
School shark is listed as ‘conservation dependent’ under the EPBC Act, and is classified as ‘uncertain if overfishing is occurring’ and ‘overfished’ in the ABARES Fishery Status Reports 2013-14. The species was first placed under a rebuilding strategy in 2008, which was reviewed in 2015 (see Appendix 3, Table 4). A copy of the 2015 stock rebuilding strategy can be found at http://www.afma.gov.au/sustainability-environment/protected-species-management-strategies/.
The key changes to the revised strategy are:
• a rebuilding timeframe of 66 years specified
• a method for determining an independent index of abundance specified.
Also included in the strategy are management arrangements implemented after the 2008 strategy that are likely to facilitate rebuilding. These include:
• limiting net height to 20 meshes deep
• the 20% school shark to gummy shark catch ratio
• 5000 hook limit for temporary auto longline permits in South Australia.
Management of the school shark stock has been aimed at reducing catch to the level taken incidentally whilst targeting gummy shark. The TAC was again set at the estimated minimum unavoidable bycatch level of 215 tonnes for the 2014-15 season.
The most recent assessment for school shark undertaken in 2012 suggests the stock will rebuild within the time period of three times the mean generation (66 years). Following further discussion with SharkRAG and consultation with SEMAC, the 2015 school shark rebuilding strategy has adopted the rebuilding timeframe of three times the mean generation (being approximately 66 years).
During 2014, AFMA in conjunction with CSIRO commenced a project utilising close kin genetics which aims to provide an absolute estimate of stock biomass. Results from this work are expected in 2017 and will be used to inform future management decisions.
3.1.6 Blue Warehou Rebuilding Strategy
Blue warehou is classified as ‘overfished’ and ‘uncertain if overfishing is occurring’ in the ABARES Fishery Status Reports 2013-14, and was listed as a ‘conservation dependent’ species under the EPBC Act in February 2015. Under the HSP, blue warehou was placed under a stock rebuilding strategy in 2008, which was subsequently revised in 2014 (see Appendix 3, Table 3). A copy of the rebuilding strategy can be found at http://www.afma.gov.au/blue-warehou-stock-rebuilding-strategy-2014/.
9
The key changes to the revised strategy are:
• a revised rebuilding timeframe to be consistent with the HSP; stock to be rebuilt to their biomass limit reference point within the biologically reasonable timeframe of 16 years (one mean generation time plus 10 years)
• the development of a template to streamline the assessment of the strategy against its objectives by ShelfRAG
• a focus on improving current knowledge of stock status to allow for more informed management in the future through improved data collection and monitoring.
Current stock status is difficult to determine because the blue warehou stock assessment model suffers from a lack of reliable data. This is because of the patchy distribution of the stock and a low amount of commercial catch data because the TAC is set low as an incidental catch TAC.
A 2012 companion species analysis indicated there has been successful avoidance of the species since the introduction of the incidental catch TAC. The level of targeted catch in the east was estimated at around 4-8 tonnes and in the west at around 12 tonnes. However, ShelfRAG noted that caches had reduced significantly so the analysis may be overly sensitive to catches by a small number of boats.
The incidental catch TAC for blue warehou was 118 tonnes in 2013-14 and 2014-15, however, catch levels were below this with 65 tonnes caught in 2013-14 and only 16 tonnes caught in 2014-15.
3.1.7 Eastern Gemfish Rebuilding Strategy
Eastern gemfish has been assessed as overfished since 1992. Eastern gemfish is listed as a ‘conservation dependent’ species under the EPBC Act and was placed under a stock rebuilding strategy in 2008 (see Appendix 3, Table 2). The Strategy was reviewed in 2014. A copy of the 2015 Strategy can be found at http://www.afma.gov.au/sustainability-environment/protected-species-management-strategies/.
The key changes to the Strategy are:
• a revised rebuilding timeframe to be consistent with the HSP; stock to be rebuilt to their biomass limit reference point within the biologically reasonable timeframe of 19 years (one mean generation time plus 10 years)
• the development of a template to streamline the assessment of the strategy against its objectives by ShelfRAG
• a focus on improving current knowledge of stock status to allow for more informed management in the future through improved data collection and monitoring.
Based on the most recent biomass projections in 2011, a 100 tonne catch is estimated to allow rebuilding of the biomass to above its limit reference point within about 13 years (by 2025). However, this conclusion depends strongly on average recruitment for the stock occurring in the future (which has not occurred in recent years) and whether
10
catches remain within the 100 tonne bycatch TAC. Recreational and NSW state catch also have the potential to impact on recovery times.
An incidental catch TAC of 100 t was set for the 2013-14 and 2014-15 fishing seasons. Landed catches were 52 tonnes in 2013-14 and only 36 tonnes were caught in 2014-15.
Management measures are concentrated on preventing targeting and minimising incidental take by individual operators. AFMA observer and compliance operations, particularly on the east coast during the spawning run, are focused on minimising catches while ensuring that data is obtained if there are catches. The minimum unavoidable catch level will be continually reviewed on an annual basis.
3.1.8 Orange Roughy Conservation Program
Orange roughy is listed as a ‘conservation dependent’ species under the EPBC Act and was placed under a conservation program in 2006 (See Appendix 3, Table 1). A copy of the conservation program, can be found at http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/n20061207.pdf.
In 2014 AFMA maintained management measures required under the Orange Roughy Conservation Program (ORCP), including the setting of incidental bycatch TACs and trigger limits for all stocks except the Cascade Plateau. Targeting was only permitted in the Cascade Plateau where the TAC has been set at a level that will maintain the stock above 60 per cent of the unfished spawning biomass. Existing spatial closures were continued, including:
• the South East Trawl Deepwater closure (formerly 700 m depth closure)
• the GAB Deepwater closure
• a series of orange roughy closures within specific orange roughy zones
• the St Helen’s Hill closure – north eastern Tasmania.
The Orange Roughy Rebuilding Strategy 2015 (the Strategy) has replaced the ORCP.
Recognising progress made under the ORCP, the primary objective of the Strategy is to return all orange roughy stocks to levels where they can be harvested in an ecologically sustainable manner consistent with the HSP, and ultimately maximise the economic returns to the Australian community.
Acoustic optical surveys are used to monitor and collect data for the eastern stock. A workshop was conducted in 2014 to describe and define the inputs into a revised quantitative stock assessment of the eastern stock. Consequently CSIRO developed a new eastern stock assessment that was supported by SlopeRAG in October 2014. The assessment indicates this stock has rebuilt from previous low levels and was assessed as being at 26 per cent of unfished biomass. New arrangements will apply for the 2015-16 fishing season.
3.1.9 Bycatch and Discard Workplans
Bycatch and discard workplans are reviewed and updated every two years and provided to the Department of the Environment. Progress reports against the actions for each bycatch and discard workplan are completed at 6, 12 and 18 month intervals. Since the last report, the CTS, GABT and GHAT workplans have been reviewed and updated.
11
Current bycatch and discard workplans are available at http://www.afma.gov.au/sustainability-environment/bycatch-discarding/bycatch-discard-workplans/.
3.1.10 Seabird Management Plans
On 31 October 2011 AFMA amended operators’ concession conditions to require every trawl boat to have an AFMA approved Seabird Management Plan (SMP).
All of the SMPs include physical mitigation measures such as deterrence buoys (pinkies) that are required to be used every time their trawl gear is deployed. Recent trials have showed that pinkies reduce seabird interactions with trawl warp wires by up to 75 per cent. AFMA updated all SMPs in 2014 with the following changes:
• minimum pinkie size of 600 mm
• removed mandatory setting of pinkies at night
• removed warp scarers as an approved mitigation device.
Every boat is required to review their offal management practices and where possible avoid the discharge of biological material when fishing gear is in the water. Industry members are trialing the use of alternative mitigation approaches such as water sprayers and bafflers.
AFMAs approach is that behavioural change driven by regulation, incentives and education is the most effective method in reducing seabird interactions with trawling to as close to zero as possible. To continue this AFMA will support the SMP implementation with fisher education sessions re-enforcing the goal of zero seabird interactions as well as sharing information of the best methods to achieve this.
In 2014 AFMA developed individual boat seabird management plans for all active auto longline vessels operating in the GHAT. It is a requirement for all operators to carry a signed copy of their individual boat seabird management plan on the vessel at all times. The seabird management plans provide details of best practice seabird mitigation measures and are designed to assist industry in meeting their requirements outlined in SFR and fishing permit conditions.
3.1.11 Dolphin interactions and mitigation measures
During September 2014, AFMA implemented the Dolphin Strategy for gillnet fishers in the SESSF. Arrangements under the Dolphin Strategy have allowed operators to fish in the previously closed Coorong Dolphin Zone, providing the vessel meets a number of entry requirements and is able to remain below a set bycatch rate. Full details of entry requirements are detailed in the Dolphin Strategy which is available at http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/AFMA-Dolphin-Strategy-September-2014.pdf.
The Dolphin Strategy also includes a number of compulsory requirements for all SESSF gillnet operators following any dolphin bycatch. These include:
• moving a minimum of 5 nm from any point of the shot before re-deploying fishing gear
• completing and submitting a dolphin bycatch evaluation report
12
• reporting the interaction to AFMA via the appropriate logbook wildlife interaction report.
Following implementation of the Dolphin Strategy in the Coorong Dolphin Zone in 2014, AFMA will be implementing the Dolphin Strategy for all gillnet operators in the SESSF during 2015.
3.1.12 Pink Ling closures and trip limits
Pink Ling is managed under a single total allowable catch (TAC), however it is assessed as two separate stocks, either side of longitude 147° east.
An updated stock assessment was accepted by SlopeRAG in November 2013 which indicated the current status of the eastern stock is at 25 per cent of unfished biomass, while the western stock is at 58 per cent of unfished biomass.
The ABARES Fishery status reports 2013-14 lists pink ling as ‘not overfished’ and ‘uncertain if overfishing is occurring’, and states that although the eastern stock is projected to be trending upwards, the eastern stock probably needs rebuilding.
To avoid overfishing of the eastern stock, AFMA set a combined east and west TAC of 996 tonnes for 2014-15, with alternative controls to restrict catches in the east to below 349 tonnes to allow the eastern stock to rebuild to target levels.
In 2014, AFMA applied a 250 kg daily allowance for the eastern zone of the fishery with a catch target of 349 tonnes. The daily catch allowance was seen by AFMA as the best compromise between minimising targeting (and total fishing mortality) of pink ling, while also minimising discarding of pink ling caught incidentally while targeting other species.
Some operators decided to participate in an alternative arrangement that allows them to land greater than the eastern zone pink ling daily allowance of 250 kg if the percentage of pink ling caught in the eastern zone was no more than 25 per cent of their total quota holdings (caught or uncaught).
Despite efforts to restrict catches in the eastern zone, the 349 tonne TAC was exceeded in early 2015. This resulted in AFMA closing three areas of high pink ling catch in the eastern zone and reduced the daily catch allowance to 50 kg.
3.2 The performance of the fishery against objectives, performance indicators and performance measures
The performance of the SESSF against the objectives, performance indicators and performance measures contained in the Plan and the Act can be found within the AFMA annual report. The latest report can be found at http://www.afma.gov.au/about-us/afma-annual-reports.
3.2.1 Compliance risks present and actions taken to reduce these risks
In order to achieve the objectives of the AFMA National Compliance Operations and Enforcement Policy AFMA continued a risk based compliance and enforcement program in 2014-15. In late 2011 the Operational Management Committee (OMC) recommended that the risk assessment process should be conducted on a biennial basis. The risk assessment process for 2013-15 resulted in the priority (endemic) risks identified below.
13
• Failure to have a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) operating at all times (risk rating: moderate/high)
• Quota evasion and avoidance (risk rating: moderate/high) including:
o unreported take of quota species and/or misreporting in Catch Disposal Records (CDRs) to avoid quota decrementation
o minor line concession holders not completing CDRs.
In order to ensure the general deterrence/presence role is maintained, the 2014-15 program consists of a series of inspections and patrols designed to target identified high risk ports, boats and fish receivers.
A copy of the Domestic Compliance and Enforcement Program 2014-15 and the Domestic Compliance and Enforcement Policy can be found at http://www.afma.gov.au/monitoring-enforcement/combating-illegal-fishing-2/.
3.2.2 Description of cross jurisdictional management arrangements
The Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) agreements relevant to the SESSF exist between the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia. Discussions between AFMA and the States to further develop complementary management arrangements are ongoing. AFMA is currently liaising with Victoria and South Australia regarding Snapper, NSW about existing OCS arrangements and South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria regarding the GHAT Future Directions Project.
3.2.3 Compliance with Threat Abatement Plans, recovery plans, etc.
The GHAT is managed in accordance with the 2014 Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) for the incidental catch (or bycatch) of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations.
During the summer 2013-14 seabird TAP season the auto-longline sector finished with a rate of approximately 0.078 seabirds per 1000 hooks set. This included observed interactions with 26 short tailed shearwaters, three white chinned petrels, three fleshy footed shearwaters and two shy albatross from 433 457 observed hooks. Total observer coverage for the summer season exceeded the TAP requirement of 10 per cent total hooks set.
In the demersal longline sector there were approximately 34 000 hooks observed, and one seabird interaction during the summer 2013-14 seabird TAP season. This equates to an interaction rate of 0.03 seabirds per 1000 hooks. The seabird was a shy albatross and was hooked through the beak. A tori line was being used at the time of interaction which is not a requirement for manually baited demersal longline operators but was used by the operator to reduce the risk of interaction. Neither hook sectors, demersal or auto-longline exceeded the winter 2014 TAP.
At the conclusion of the 2013-14 summer TAP season, in accordance with requirements outlined in TAP 2, AFMA wrote to the Minister for the Environment seeking consideration of the new seabird mitigation measures applied in the scalefish auto-longline and shark hook sectors. The Minister for the Environment responded to AFMA noting that the mitigation measures proposed were sufficient for the GHAT to continue operating.
14
The mitigation measures implemented in the scalefish auto-longline sector following the breach of the summer 2013-14 TAP include:
• 100 per cent monitoring requirement for all scalefish auto longline vessels
• for all scalefish auto longline operators to demonstrate a longline sink rate of 0.3 m/sec to a depth of 15 m
• for all auto longline vessels to have individual seabird management plans that have been approved by AFMA.
AFMA also held a seabird bycatch mitigation workshop in Hobart during April 2014 to discuss bycatch mitigation with industry members.
During 2015, AFMA is implementing e-monitoring systems on all vessels in the shark hook sector which are classified as being full time. This will significantly increase the level of monitoring and confidence in logbook reporting. AFMA will also deploy observers on shark hook vessels to measure longline sink rates during 2015.
4 Research and monitoring 4.1 Research projects
Fisheries research is undertaken to support the achievement of management objectives. A Strategic Research Plan for 2011-2015 has been developed for the SESSF (excluding GAB) which is consistent with AFMAs framework for cost-effective research. This plan provides a basis for industry, managers, scientists and other interested parties to work together to address management and research issues facing the fishery.
Further details may be obtained from http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Research-plan-2011-15-SESSF-FINAL1.pdf.
A list of research projects relevant to the SESSF supported by AFMA for 2009-2015 is given in Table 3 below.
Table 3: Key research projects in the SESSF 2009–2015. Research project Status Principal
Investigator(s) Designing information requirements for ecosystem based fisheries management (EBFM) of Commonwealth Fisheries (RR2008/878)
Completed in April 2013
Cathy Dichmont CSIRO Cleveland
Provision of fish ageing and length frequency services in the SESSF 2009- 2014 (RR2009/826)
Completed Kyne Krusic Golub Fish Ageing Services
Provision of fish ageing and length frequency services for the SESSF 2014-2017 (RR2014/0817)
Active Kyne Krusic Golub Fish Ageing Services
Monitoring of Deepwater Shark catches from the SESSF (RR2008/0841)
2010 Russell Hudson, Ian Knuckey, Terry Walker, Matt Koopman, Bastien Rochowski Fishwell Consulting
15
Continuation of the SESSF Fishery Independent Surveys (RR2014/0816)
Active Simon Boag SETFIA
Fishery independent survey of shelf resources in the Great Australian Bight Trawl Fishery:2015 (RR2014/0809)
Active Ian Knuckey Fishwell Consulting
Stock assessment for the SESSF 2014 (RR2013/0010)
Active Geoff Tuck CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
Stock assessment for the SESSF 2013 Completed Geoff Tuck CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
Implications of current spatial management measures on AFMA ERAs for habitats. (FRDC 2014/204)
Active Roland Pitcher CSIRO
SESSF Monitoring and Assessment – Strategic Review (FRDC 2014/203)
Active Nick Rayns AFMA
Targeting and CPUE definition in the SESSF trawl fishery through auxiliary data (FRDC 2008/002)
Active Mark Bravington CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
Use of a habitat proxy to assist in spatial management of Gulper Sharks
Completed Alan Williams CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
Orange Roughy Conservation Program: eastern zone surveys and trials of a cost-effective acoustic headline system
Active Rudy Kloser CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
Industry monitoring and sampling of Gulper Shark catches in the SESSF
Completed Matt Koopman Fishwell Consulting
Distribution, movement and monitoring of Gulper Sharks in southern and eastern Australia
Completed Alan Williams CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research
Operationalising the risk cost catch trade-off (FRDC 2012/201)
Active Cathy Dichmont CSIRO
Research to underpin better understanding and management of western gemfish stocks in the Great Australian Bight (FRDC 2013-013)
Active Andrew Moore ABARES
Developing improved methods for stock assessment in spatially complex fisheries using Blue–Eye Trevalla as a case study (FRDC 2013/015)
Active Alan Williams CSIRO
Review of proposed indicators of abundance for School Shark (RR2013/0800)
Completed Robin Thomson CSIRO
Blue-eye trevalla catch per unit effort standardisation (RR2014/0820)
Active Malcolm Haddon CSIRO
Estimating the abundance of school shark in Australia using close kin genetic methods (FRDC 2014/024)
Active Robin Thomson CSIRO
16
Options for Tier 5 approaches in the SESSF and identification of when data support for harvest strategies are inappropriate (FRDC 2013/202)
Active Neil Klaer CSIRO
Development of a Gulper Shark Exclusion Device in the Royal Red Prawn fishery
Active Matt Koopman Fishwell Consulting
5 Catch data 5.1 Catch of target and byproduct species
Catches for the years 2012-2014 for target and byproduct species in the SESSF are shown in tables 4 and 5 respectively.
Table 4: Catch (tonnes) for target species in the SESSF in calendar years 2012-2014. Catch data includes research catch. Source: AFMA CDR landings.
Species 2012 2013 2014 Alfonsino 153.9 22.3 10.6 Bight Redfish 272.9 248.7 211.0 Blue Grenadier* 3887.8 3846.1 1326.8 Blue Warehou 50.3 66.8 14.7 Blue-eye Trevalla 327.1 263.9 324.3 Deepwater Flathead 1024.2 1047.1 830.0 Deepwater sharks+ 82 104.8 108.5 Eastern School Whiting 445.6 511.9 725.0 Elephantfish 75.9 73.1 59.9 Tiger Flathead 3050.3 2141.8 2640.7 Western Gemfish# 125.4 69.1 91.4 Eastern Gemfish 71.6 57.6 36.1 Gummy Shark 1445.8 1470.8 1528.3 Jackass Morwong 395.6 322.9 213.1 John Dory 80.8 80.6 62.4 Mirror Dory 413.0 307.5 214.7 Orange Roughy** 61.6 67.7 66.0 Oreos 77.0 26.4 9.4 Pink Ling 1137.4 825.7 933.7 Redfish 72.1 66.2 95.9 Reef Ocean Perch 223.9 203.4 202.9 Ribaldo 122.4 132.1 147.5 Royal Red Prawn 164.4 264.1 143.0 Sawsharks 179.0 195.3 192.8 School Shark 141.8 157.1 221.0 Silver Trevally 136.0 136.9 118.1 Silver Warehou 842.9 644.6 382.5 Smooth Oreo* 1.3 8.7 0.6
* The decrease Blue Grenadier catch is due to a decrease in effort in the winter fishery + Catches of eastern and western deepwater shark basket are included in this total. # western gemfish catches include GAB catches caught under a trigger limit. ** includes catches across all zones combined.
17
Table 5: Catch (tonnes) for major non-quota (byproduct) species in the SESSF. Source: AFMA CDR landings. Species 2012 2013 2014 Frostfish 203.7 213.9 254.1 Gould’s Squid 976.8 723.0 319.0 King Dory 124.2 108.9 132.3 Latchet 197.5 239.3 253.7 Leatherjackets 133.7 98.2 104.7 Ocean Jacket 442.2 450.9 458.8 Ornate Angelshark 100.7 100.0 33.0 Red Gurnard 169.5 151.4 147.5 Snapper 47.4 48.5 42.4 Stargazers 89.4 101.1 82.1
5.2 Catch by sector
The total catch per fishery sector in the SESSF is shown in Table 6. Catches in the CTS have shown slight declines over the period 2011–2014. Catches in the GHAT have declined from 2011-13 likely due to the ASL and dolphin closures implemented in gillnet fishing grounds, but have increased again in 2014.
Table 6: Catch (tonnes) by each sector, 2011 – 2014. Source: AFMA CDR landings. Year CTS GAB GHAT Total 2011 14 484 2 129 2 943 19 731 2012 13 836 2 102 2 565 18 678 2013 12 236 2 289 2 384 16 909 2014 9 310* 2 018 2 661 13 989
* The decrease in catch is due to a drop in effort in the Blue Grenadier winter fishery
5.3 Fishing effort by sector
The trawl fishing effort (trawl hours) by calendar year for the different sectors in the SESSF is shown in Table 7. Fishing effort across all sectors has been relatively consistent across years. Table 7: Trawl fishing effort (trawl and Danish seine) by calendar year in the SESSF for 2011–2014. Source: AFMA logbook records. Sector Year Number of shots Trawl hours CTS and ECD
2011 24 338 67 604 2012 23 997 59 863 2013 22 636 57 335 2014 23 934 57 742
GAB
2011 3 832 16 847 2012 4 197 17 890 2013 4 162 19 397
2014 4 093 19 301 Effort levels in the GHAT fishery are detailed in Table 8.
18
Table 8: Gillnet and hook fishing effort by calendar year in the SESSF 2011–2014. Source: AFMA logbook records. Method Year Number Shots Number Hooks Length Gillnet
Gillnet 2011 9 551 36 613 490 Gillnet 2012 8 284 32 841 682 Gillnet 2013 7 254 30 930 099 Gillnet 2014 7 425 32 394 606 Hook 2011 5 981 5 512 564 Hook 2012 3 514 6 084 430 Hook 2013 3 728 4 633 882 Hook 2014 4 711 5 284 024
6 Status of target stocks 6.1 ABARES fishery status reports
In the 2013-14 fishery status report, for the first time since 2006, no solely Commonwealth managed stocks were classified as subject to overfishing.
Six stocks remained classified as ‘overfished’ in 2013-14, however all are subject to stock rebuilding strategies. They are blue warehou, eastern gemfish, orange roughy (southern and western zone), gulper sharks and school shark. AFMA continues to work with stakeholders to control the level of fishing mortality for these stocks to facilitate rebuilding. See section 3 above and appendix 3 for more information on the progress of these rebuilding strategies.
A copy of the ABARES Fishery Status Reports can be found at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/ABARES/Pages/publications/default.aspx.
7 Interactions with protected species 7.1 Frequency and nature of interactions
The numbers of interactions with TEP species which have been reported in SESSF logbooks during the period 2012-2014 are provided in Tables 9 to 11. These data are presented by species, fishery and year. South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association (SETFIA) and AFMA undertook several education and extension programs as part of the 2011-13 bycatch and discard workplans aimed at improving reporting of TEP species interactions in SESSF fisheries. Similar programs are included in the 2014-16 workplans. As such, increases in the number of reported interactions detailed below are likely a result of increased reporting.
Table 9: Number of reported interactions with TEP species in the CTS by calendar year for 2012 to 2014. Source: AFMA logbook data.
Species 2012 2013 2014 Alive Dead Alive Dead Alive Dead Albatrosses 5 9 2 30** 0 14 Australian fur seal 12 89 63 54 20 72 Dolphins 1 0 0 1 0 3
19
Grey nurse shark 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Zealand fur seal 0 4 0 1 3 1 Seahorses & pipefish 99 237 0 81 0 0 Seals (unidentified species) 19 77 22 102 18 32 Shortfin Mako+ 0 22* 0 10* 1 3 White Shark 2 1 2 0 0 0 Petrels Prions and Shearwaters 0 1 3 11 0 1
Porbeagle+ 0 1 0 0 0 0 Longfin Mako 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pacific Gull 0 0 0 1 0 0 Total 138 434 92 280 42 126
+ Listed as Migratory species under Part 13 of the EPBC Act on 29 January 2010. * Interactions are estimates based on number logbook entries. ** 10 of the Albatross interactions resulting in mortalities were due to the Seabird Trial Table 10: Number of reported interactions with TEP species in the GHAT (gillnet & hook) by calendar year for 2012–2014. Source: AFMA logbook data.
Species
2012 2013 2014 Alive Dead Alive Dead Alive Dead
Albatrosses 2 8 2 1 2 1 Australian fur seal 2 2 0 1 0 2 Australian Sea Lions 2 6 0 1 0 0 Cormorants 0 1 0 0 0 3 Dolphins 0 18 1 8 3 22 Little Penguin 0 0 0 0 0 0 New Zealand fur seal 1 4 0 5 1 7 Pacific Gull 0 0 0 0 0 0 Petrels Prions and Shearwaters 3 168* 2 13 2 21 Porbeagle+ 0 15 0 7 0 9 Seals (unidentified species) 0 1 1 0 4 7 Shortfin Mako+ 0 249 0 122 0 153 Turtles 1 0 0 0 0 0 White Shark 5 0 3 3 23 5 Total 16 472 9 159 35 354
+ Listed as Migratory species under Part 13 of the EPBC Act on 29 January 2010. * Increase due to automatic longline trials Table 11: Number of reported interactions with TEP species in the GABT by calendar year for 2012–2014. Source: AFMA logbook data.
Species 2012 2013 2014 Alive Dead Alive Dead Alive Dead
Shearwaters 1 0 0 0 0 0 Seals 0 0 0 0 1 0 Total 1 0 0 0 0 0
20
7.2 Management actions to reduce interactions with TEP species
AFMA is continually reviewing management arrangements in the SESSF to further reduce interactions with TEP species. The SESSF Ecological Risk Management Strategy (ERM) has been developed to support the objectives of the Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch 2000. The ERM Strategy outlines the management arrangements and strategies for addressing bycatch and TEP issues in the SESSF, including:
• bycatch and discard workplans
• species-specific management strategies
• industry co-management arrangements
• restrictions of effort and catch
• observer and monitoring arrangements
• reporting requirements for certain species
A number of closures have periodically been implemented under species-specific management strategies, including:
• Australian sea lion closures
• upper slope dogfish closures
• dolphin closures
• deepwater (700m) closure which was put in place to provide protection for orange roughy and also offers some protection to gulper shark and other deepwater species
• shallow water (183m) closure was developed to protect gulper sharks and school shark.
For more information on management arrangements to minimise TEP interactions, and bycatch more generally, see AFMAs Ecological Risk Management webpage at http://www.afma.gov.au/sustainability-environment/ecological-risk-management-strategies/.
Information is also available in the SESSF Management Arrangements Booklet at http://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries-services/fisheries-management-plans/.
8 Impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem in which it operates
8.1 Environmental risk
In 2007 the SESSF underwent an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) for the effects of fishing and an Ecological Risk Management (ERM) strategy was subsequently prepared for the fishery.
21
Recent updates have consisted of:
• a 2012 Sustainability Assessment for Fishing Effect (SAFE) for the SESSF
• a 2012 residual risk assessment of the Level 2 Productivity Susceptibility Assessment for non-teleost and non-chondrichthyan species
• a 2014 residual risk assessment for teleost and chondrichthyan species.
The ‘Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing on Habitats and Communities’ (Hobday et al 2011) provided a framework to move to ERM for habitats. Guidelines are outlined for assessing residual risk to habitats including consideration of management arrangements including seasonal, spatial and depth closures
Hobday et al 2011 also outlined an approach for Level 2 (Productivity Susceptibility Analysis) assessments of ecological communities. This assessment considered relative risk to communities.
AFMA finalised the updated ERA for all SESSF species in late 2014. This resulted in a list of high risk species which will be addressed in the ERM Strategy. The ERM Strategy describes management arrangements and strategies aimed at mitigating the risk to species identified through the ERA. The SESSF ERM Strategy has been drafted and will be finalised by mid-2015.
Since the introduction of ERA/ERM, there have been significant changes to fisheries management, including the implementation of the Harvest Strategy Policy. As part of the ERA/ERM revitalisation project, AFMA is working with CSIRO and other stakeholders to review the ERM framework and ERA methodology.
22
9 Progress of recommendations and conditions from the WTO accreditation of the SESSF
Table 12: Reports on AFMA’s progress meeting the conditions and recommendations of the WTO declaration for the SESSF from 25 February 2013 to 25 February 2016. Condition Level of Achievement Deadline Condition 1. Operation of the fishery will be carried out in accordance with the management arrangements for the SESSF in force under the Act.
Fulfillment of this condition is carried out and reported against in the AFMA annual report. The latest report can be found at http://www.afma.gov.au/about/corporate-publications/.
Ongoing.
Condition 2. AFMA to inform the DotE of any proposed substantive changes to the SESSF management arrangements that may affect the assessment against which EPBC Act decisions are made.
AFMA has reported changes to the SESSF management arrangements carried out in accordance with the WTO conditions. See section 3 – changes to management arrangements.
As required.
Condition 3. AFMA to produce and present reports to DotE annually, as per Appendix B to the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries – 2nd Edition.
AFMA continues to manage the SESSF and respond to any issues that impact on bycatch and discarding with the fishery. This report is the annual report required under Condition 3, and includes progress reports against the SESSF Bycatch and Discarding Workplans (see section 3.1.8 and Appendices 1).
Annually.
Condition 4. AFMA to ensure that there is sufficient ongoing fishery independent monitoring effort to reliably understand
A comprehensive set of monitoring programs, both fisheries dependent and independent, are in place to gather information in the SESSF.
Ongoing.
23
and evaluate the nature and level of impacts of fishing on threatened and protected species. Monitoring effort must be representative of each sector of the fishery across all gear and vessel types, with particular focus on locations where fishing effort is increasing or new gear types are being used.
These include logbooks, catch disposal records, electronic logbooks, vessel monitoring systems, the observer Integrated Scientific and Monitoring Program and fishery independent surveys. During the first half of 2015, AFMA is expanding e-monitoring to all full time gillnet and demersal longline boats. This will substantially improve independent monitoring in the GHAT. More information on AFMA’s monitoring programs are provided in section 4 of this report. A report on the level of observer coverage by gear-specific effort is publicly available on the AFMA observer website as part of the meeting papers for SESSFRAG.
Condition 5. AFMA to:
a) implement long-term management measures, including fisheries closures and other actions, that are clearly directed towards stopping the decline and supporting the recovery of Harrisson's dogfish and southern dogfish, and
b) continue, in consultation with relevant experts, to monitor and review the
(a) AFMA has developed and implemented
the revised Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy in 2012 in consultation with industry, CSIRO, ABARES, DotE and scientific experts (see section 3.1.3 of this report for further detail).
(b) AFMA developed a monitoring and
research program in 2014 for the Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy. This
(a) Completed.
(b) Ongoing.
24
adequacy of management measures designed to stop the decline and support the recovery of Harrisson's dogfish and southern dogfish.
program is intended to monitor and review the adequacy of management measures implemented under the strategy (see section 3.1.4 of this report for further detail).
Condition 6. AFMA to:
a) ensure that management measures are in place to meet the objectives of the rebuilding strategies for species listed as conservation dependent under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and
b) continue to evaluate and report
to the department on the effectiveness of rebuilding strategies for conservation dependent listed species.
(a) and (b) reports on the implementation and progress of existing rebuilding strategies are included in sections 3.1.3 – 3.1.7 and Appendix 3 of this report.
Annually.
Table 13: Recommendations to AFMA on the ecologically sustainable management of the SESSF.
Recommendation Level of Achievement Deadline
AFMA to determine the extent of the impact of fishing of non target shark species, including seeking to identify the species impacted, and develop
AFMA developed bycatch and discarding workplans for the 2014-16 fishing seasons. Several projects (described as action items) are designed to determine the impact of fishing
Ongoing.
25
appropriate management measures to mitigate the impact for shark species that are identified through the Ecological Risk Assessment process and protect species listing processes.
on non-target species, and to mitigate further bycatch. Determining catch composition of chondrichthyan species is one of the proposed projects for the updated workplans.
AFMA to continue to undertake Ecological Risk Assessments and implement appropriate management responses to address and mitigate risks and impacts for species that are identified as high risk. Following reviews of the Ecological Risk Assessments and Ecological Risk Management frameworks for all sectors in the fishery in 2012, the AFMA to provide update ERA and ERM reports to the department.
AFMA has recently completed an ERA reassessment for the SESSF. This included a residual risk assessment for all non-teleost and non-chondrichthyans, and a Level 3 Sustainability Assessment of Fishing Effects for all teleost and chondrichthyan species. Species assessed as high risk under the SAFE were subsequently assessed using the residual risk guidelines. AFMA, in consultation with MACs and RAGs has developed an Ecological Risk Management strategy which provides detailed mitigation options and workplans to reduce the overall impact of fishing on high risk species. This is currently being finalised and is due for implementation in mid-2015.
Ongoing.
At the expiry of the Bycatch and Discard Work plan in place for each sector of the fishery, the AFMA to:
a) implement new work plans to reduce bycatch and discards in each sector, and
b) provide an evaluation of the performance of each plan to the department within six months of expiry.
Bycatch and discard workplans are reviewed and updated every two years and provided to DotE. Progress reports against the actions for each bycatch and discard work plan are completed at 6, 12 and 18 month intervals. The GABT, CTS and GHAT workplans were updated in 2014, and are available on AFMAs website.
As required.
26
AFMA to continue to pursue and report on collaborative and complementary management of shared SESSF stocks with relevant fisheries management agencies.
OCS agreements relevant to the SESSF exist between the Commonwealth, NSW, Vic, SA, Tas and WA. Discussions between AFMA and the States to further develop complementary management arrangements are ongoing. AFMA is currently liaising with Vic and SA regarding Snapper, NSW for pink ling, eastern gemfish and current OCS arrangements and SA, Tas and Vic regarding the GHAT Future Directions Project.
Ongoing.
Table 14: Conditions on the Part 13 accreditation for the SESSF. AFMA to:
a) maintain management measures clearly directed toward limiting the impact of fishing activity on Australian sea lions to levels which will assist in enabling the recovery of the species, including all subpopulations.
b) In consultation with marine
mammal experts, continue to monitor and review on an annual basis the adequacy of its Australian sea lion management measures.
a) Ongoing. See section 3.1.2 for more information on actions designed to mitigate the impact of fishing activity on ASL. b) Ongoing: As specified in the ASL management strategy, SharkRAG continues to monitor the effectiveness of the strategy in consultation with marine mammal experts
a) Ongoing. b) Ongoing.
AFMA to determine the extent of the impact of fishing on dolphins, including identifying the species impacted, and
AFMA developed the Dolphin Strategy which includes management measures to minimise the impact on dolphins and ongoing monitoring
Ongoing.
27
develop appropriate management measures to minimise the impact. This should include ongoing monitoring and appropriate review of these measures, in consultation with marine mammal experts.
and review for gillnet fishers in the GHAT. This strategy was created in consultation with the Marine Mammal Working group. See section 3.1.10 for more information on AFMAs work on dolphins. The expansion of e-monitoring to all full time gillnet boats will improve information on the extent of dolphin interactions in this sector.
AFMA to continue to develop and implement management measures to minimise mortality of seals in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector of the fishery.
Ongoing. AFMA continues to work with operators to minimise mortality of seals in the CTS. AFMA is working with SETFIA and the Australian Maritime College to develop alternative seal mitigation devices in the CTS.
Ongoing.
AFMA to: a) ensure efficient and effective
Seabird Management Plans remain in place for vessels in the fishery using otter trawl gear
b) consider the introduction of
Seabird Management Plans for other methods of fishing to reduce the risk of seabird interactions
c) continue to investigate methods
for improving data collection on seabird interactions, particularly interactions with trawl gear and longlines, and
a) On 31 October 2011 AFMA amended
operators’ concession conditions to require every trawl boat to have an AFMA approved Seabird Management Plan (SMP). AFMA continues to work with operators to support the implementation of efficient and effective seabird mitigation measures. For more information refer to 3.1.9 or visit www.afma.gov.au/portfolio-item/seabirds/.
b) During 2014, AFMA developed SMPs for all active auto-longline vessels in the SESSF. Refer to 3.1.9 for more information.
c) In late 2011, AFMA introduced new
observer protocols which collect detailed information on seabird interactions during
Ongoing.
28
d) implement management measures to ensure seabird mortality in all sectors of the fishery is minimised. Where appropriate, this should include implementing offal management measures that have been demonstrated to be highly effective in reducing seabird mortality.
every shot. This information records the extent of interactions between seabirds and gear. The protocols are currently being reviewed. From 1 September 2014, AFMA implemented a 100 per cent monitoring requirement for all SESSF auto-longline vessels. This can be met using either an AFMA observer or camera-based e-monitoring.
d) Ongoing. AFMA, with SETFIA, are currently trialling alternative mitigation devices for trawl vessels operating in the CTS. Offal management measures are currently in place for trawl, gillnet and line methods. During 2014 AFMA required all active auto-longline vessels to demonstrate a sink rate of 0.3 m/sec to a depth of 15 m prior to fishing during the 2013/14 summer TAP season.
29
Appendix 1: Commonwealth Trawl Sector Bycatch Workplan 2014-16, 6 Month Review
Action Item 1: Continue shortened codend investigation Expected Output Timeframe Responsible Parties Actions taken Progress – output
achieved Sufficient data collected to determine if a shortened codend reduces seal interactions
Dec 2014 SETFIA
Supported by AFMA Bycatch program
• Field work completed • Final report completed
The final report has been completed and will be distributed to SEMAC out of session
Action Item 2: Review all vessel Seabird Management Plans across the fishery Expected Output Timeframe Responsible Parties Actions taken Progress – output
achieved All vessel Seabird Management Plans reviewed during 2014
June 2016 Managed by SETFIA
Supported by AFMA • Report ‘Effectiveness
of Seabird Mitigation Devices’ received
• Changes were made to SMPs
Changes to SMPs were implemented in November 2014 based on the findings of the pinkie trials. Key changes were;
• increasing pinkie size from 400 mm to 600 mm diameter (the size used in the trial)
• removing the requirement to use physical mitigation at night
• removing the warp scarer as an approved mitigation device
30
Action Item 3: Develop and test additional mitigation devices Expected Output Timeframe Responsible Parties Actions taken Progress - ongoing Seabird mitigation devices developed and tested
June 2016 Managed by SETFIA
Supported by AFMA • Designs submitted • Scientific permit
approved • Pre-trials completed • AFMA performance
requirements developed
AFMA has worked with SETFIA and fishermen to progress the trials. Official trials started in early 2015.
Action Item 4: Deliver an online learning module for seabird bycatch issues and mitigation methods Expected Output Timeframe Responsible Parties Actions taken Progress – ongoing Module made available to and completed by skippers crew
June 2016 Managed by SETFIA
Supported by AFMA • Content developed AFMA has written the
content and is consulting with SETFIA to develop the online component.
Action Item 5: Distribute seabird identification guides to all vessels in the CTS Expected Output Timeframe Responsible Parties Actions taken Progress - Seabird Identification guides distributed to all vessels in the CTS by June 2015
June 2015 SETFIA
Supported by AFMA • I.D guides distributed I.D guides were distributed
in 2014 to most vessels as part of port visits. AFMA will distribute guides to remaining vessels either by post or as part of the 2015 port visits.
Action Item 6: Develop mitigation devices for dogfish species when fishing for Royal Red Prawns
Expected Output Timeframe Responsible Parties Actions taken Progress – Ongoing Mitigation devices developed for use with RRP gear
June 2015 SETFIA
AFMA Bycatch Program (support role)
AFMA Trawl
• The cameras are fitted to the survey vessel
• The grid has been fitted to the trawl net
• The vessel has
Trials have commenced and initial results have been positive. Trials will continue into 2015.
31
Management Team completed some trial tows
Action Item 7: Develop and distribute chondrichthyan (sharks and rays) best handling practices guide to all operators in the CTS Expected Output Timeframe Responsible Parties Actions taken Progress – completed Chondrichthyan best handling practices guide distributed to all operators in the CTS
December 2014 AFMA Bycatch Program
AFMA Observers
Monash Uni
• Guide developed by AFMA and industry
• Distributed to industry and made available on AFMA website
Guides have been distributed to industry and are now available on AFMA’s website.
Action Item 8: Deliver an online learning module for shark & ray bycatch issues and mitigation methods
Expected Output Timeframe Responsible Parties Actions taken Progress – ongoing Module made available to and completed skippers crew
June 2016 Managed by SETFIA
Supported by AFMA
N/A The seabird module is the priority for now. Once the content has been developed, it can be used as a template for the remaining modules.
Action Item 9: Implement a chondrichthyan (sharks and rays) I.D guide and catch composition project in the CTS * funding dependant Expected Output Timeframe Responsible Parties Actions taken Progress – yet to start Project is implemented and results are made available for ERA purposes
June 2016 AFMA Bycatch Program
AFMA Trawl Management Team
CSIRO
SETFIA
N/A This project is dependent on funding and is yet to start
32
Action Item 10: Deliver an online learning module for general bycatch reporting Expected Output Timeframe Responsible Parties Actions taken Progress -
Module made available to and completed by skippers crew
June 2016 Managed by SETFIA
Supported by AFMA
N/A The seabird module is the priority for now. Once the content has been developed, it can be used as a template for the remaining modules
Action Item 11: Assess trends in catch of high risk bycatch species Expected Output Timeframe Responsible Parties Actions taken Progress - ongoing
Module made available to and completed by skippers crew
June 2016 AFMA Trawl Management team
List of high risk species established
AFMA has compiled a list of high risk species and will monitor catch/interactions over time.
Action Item 12: High risk species I.D guide distributed to operators * funding dependent Expected Output Timeframe Responsible Parties Actions taken Progress – yet to start
Module made available to and completed by skippers and crew
June 2015 AFMA Bycatch Program
AFMA Trawl Management Team
• List of high risk species established
This project is dependent on funding and is yet to start.
33
Appendix 2: Catch reported for high risk species Table 1: Catch reported (tonnes) in Commonwealth logbooks for High Risk (excluding TEP mammals) and key minor species in the gillnet sector of the Gillnet, Hook and Trap (GHAT) fishery between 2001 and 2014. Upper (U) and Lower (L) reference limits previously set by SharkRAG are shown where applicable. High Risk species are in bold. Broadnose Shark includes the logbook category of ‘six and seven gill shark unspecified’; Wobbegong includes the logbook category of ‘Wobbegongs, Blind Nurse, Carpet and Zebra Sharks’. Triggers met in 2012 were reviewed by SharkRAG in 2013 and attributed to lower gillnet effort in South Australia. The RAG supported maintaining current triggers and will continue to monitor these species.
Year Broadnose Shark
Bronze Whaler &
Dusky Shark
Shortfin Mako
Smooth Hammerhead
Whiskery Shark
White Shark* Wobbegongs Pencil
Shark Boarfishes
2001 31.660 24.820 3.957 8.229 25.308 0 1.289 0.437 17.857 2002 33.905 31.463 2.204 8.785 28.768 0 1.228 0.085 21.745 2003 28.986 23.865 2.169 9.361 29.277 0 1.575 0.088 20.089 2004 30.887 18.301 1.487 3.993 19.423 0 0.968 0.004 17.908 2005 31.142 20.039 2.074 7.237 32.473 0 1.045 0.014 16.364 2006 34.548 20.802 2.891 7.602 53.871 4 1.814 0.001 19.193 2007 21.986 15.353 2.455 7.097 35.593 1 1.210 0.004 15.684 2008 23.269 17.041 2.020 3.588 30.786 0 1.296 0.046 15.582 2009 23.390 31.121 1.756 9.843 29.979 0 1.836 0.036 18.586 2010 23.176 25.197 1.924 10.146 39.173 1 1.574 0.030 17.565 2011 27.820 12.403 1.842 3.662 24.065 2 0.965 0.034 14.035 2012 24.345 4.634 2.089 1.062 7.851 0 0.673 0.006 9.081 2013 27.203 3.203 1.448 1.377 8.476 3 0.275 0.008 9.402 2014 28.214 5.756 1.571 3.126 12.233 2 0.345 0.028 10.689
Lower Limit (t) 20 10 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 15 Upper
Limit (t) 70 35 5 10 60 5 1 25 *White Shark mortalities are listed as individual mortalities for the calendar year, not by weight.
34
Appendix 3: Summary of progress against rebuilding strategies Table 1: Orange Roughy Conservation Program (ORCP) Criteria Actions How is stock tracking against strategy objectives?
All orange roughy fisheries except the Cascade Plateau remain closed to targeted fishing in 2014 with incidental catch TACs. Acoustic optical surveys were undertaken in the eastern zone during 2012 and 2013. The most recent accepted stock assessment for orange roughy in the eastern zone was conducted in 2014. The assessment indicated that the eastern stock was above the limit reference point. The limit reference point for orange roughy is 20 per cent of unfished biomass. The target reference point is 48 per cent of unfished biomass.
Is the strategy meeting its performance measures?
Yes. Estimates of spawning biomass on the Cascade Plateau are above 60 per cent. Management measures are in place in all other zones to enable a maximum rate of recovery. Research is carried out in a manner approved by AFMA and monitoring arrangements demonstrate performance in accordance with the ORCP.
Has stock decline ceased, is rebuilding apparent?
There was no targeted fishing in 2014 (except Cascade Plateau) and rebuilding is indicated in areas surveyed and assessed.
Is the stock likely to rebuild to B20 or BLIM within the proposed timeframe of the rebuild strategy?
Yes, Orange Roughy are a long lived late to mature species and consequently recovery times will be protracted. One mean generation time is estimated to be around 55 years and as per the HSP the recovery timeframe will be around 65 years.
If the strategy has identified stages, please identify which stage of the strategy is currently being applied to the stock
N/A
If triggers to next stage of management have been met and the strategy not moved to the subsequent stage, explain why
N/A
What changes, if any, have been made to the strategy since first established?
N/A
Has there been a different approach applied to the management of the stock that is not identified within the rebuilding strategy? What are they
Not in 2014.
35
and why? Is the strategy due for a review? If so, what are the plans for this? What is the progress or outcomes of those initiated?
The Orange Roughy Rebuilding Strategy 2015 replaced the existing ORCP in 2015.
If the stock has been categorised by ABARES as ‘subject to overfishing/fishing mortality’ what is the explanation?
No orange roughy stocks are classified as being ‘subject to overfishing’.
Is there any relevant research planned or underway?
• An acoustic optical survey of the eastern stock is planned to occur in the period 2015 – 2018
• MSE testing of assessment outcomes using different stock structures
If so, what are the likely timeframes for availability of new information?
Sometime during 2016 – 2019.
Knowledge gaps to be addressed. • Biomass estimates in the southern and western zones
• Investigation uncertainty and improve the base case model
36
Table 2: Eastern Gemfish Stock Rebuilding Strategy Criteria Actions How is stock tracking against strategy objectives?
When last assessed in 2010, eastern gemfish (Rexea solandri) was estimated to be at 15.6 per cent of its unfished biomass (Little and Rowling, 2010), which is below its limit reference point of 20 per cent of the unfished spawning biomass. AFMA updated the Eastern Gemfish Stock Rebuilding Strategy in 2015. AFMA has adopted the rebuilding timeframe to the limit reference point of one mean generation time plus 10 years (being approximately 19 years from 2008), in line with the example given in the Harvest Strategy Policy. This means eastern gemfish should be rebuilt to or above the limit reference point by 2027. Based on the most recent biomass projections in 2011, under a 100 t catch the stock is estimated to recover to have a biomass larger than its limit reference point within about 13 years (by 2025). However, this conclusion depends strongly on average recruitment for the stock occurring in the future and whether catches remain within the 100 t incidental catch TAC. In 2013 landed catch was 79 tonnes and estimated discards were 141 tonnes, meaning that total mortality exceeded the 100 t TAC. ShelfRAG noted the estimate of discards for 2013 was an increase from 28 t discarded in 2012 but below the levels seen in 2008 (164 t), 2009 (171 t) and 2010 (191 t).
Is the strategy meeting its performance measures?
Uncertain. There was no formal assessment of eastern gemfish during 2014, however AFMA is investigating conducting a Tier 1 assessment in 2015/16 to get a better estimate of stock biomass and whether the strategy is meeting its performance measures.
Has stock decline ceased, is rebuilding apparent?
Uncertain, landed catches remain below the incidental catch TAC, however estimated discards remain high.
Is the stock likely to rebuild to B20 or BLIM within the proposed timeframe of the rebuild strategy?
Unknown, AFMA is investigating conducting a Tier 1 assessment in 2016 to update the index of abundance to determine if the stock is rebuilding.
If the strategy has identified stages, please identify which stage of the strategy is currently being applied to the stock
N/A. The Eastern Gemfish Stock Rebuilding Strategy 2015 does not contain stages.
37
If triggers to next stage of management have been met and the strategy not moved to the subsequent stage, explain why
N/A.
What changes, if any, have been made to the strategy since first established?
The Strategy was updated in 2015. Key changes to the revised strategy are: • a revised rebuilding timeframe to be consistent
with the HSP; stock to be rebuilt to their biomass limit reference point within the biologically reasonable timeframe of 19 years (one mean generation time plus 10 years)
• the development of a template to streamline the assessment of the strategy against its objectives by ShelfRAG
• a focus on improving current knowledge of stock status to allow for more informed management in the future through improved data collection and monitoring
Has there been a different approach applied to the management of the stock that is not identified within the rebuilding strategy? What are they and why?
A code of conduct has been agreed to with the help of the South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association (SETFIA). The code includes move-on and reporting obligations to assist operators in avoiding incidental catches. AFMA Compliance has undertaken operations to ensure all catch is being recorded. Management includes boat level responses to large catches reminding operators of the need to avoid catches and liaison with the recreational sector. AFMA also introduced compulsory pre-reporting arrangements in 2015-16 for fisher’s landing eastern gemfish during the species annual spawning migration (north of latitude 36° 45’ South, between 1 June and 30 September) to support data collection.
Is the strategy due for a review? If so, what are the plans for this? What is the progress or outcomes of those initiated?
Review scheduled during 2015.
If the stock has been categorised by ABARES as ‘subject to overfishing/fishing mortality’ what is the explanation?
Eastern gemfish remains classified as overfished but uncertain as to whether the stock is subject to overfishing because there is increasing uncertainty that the current levels of recruitment and removals will allow the stock to rebuild. Some fisheries scientists have commented that there may have been a regime shift which may have affected the recovery of the stock.
38
Is there any relevant research planned or underway?
Yes – AFMA is committed to collecting additional length and age data required to conduct a Tier 1 assessment in 2016. Research understanding what environmental factors drive availability, movement and abundance has been prioritized.
If so, what are the likely timeframes for availability of new information?
The assessment is expected to be completed in 2016.
Knowledge gaps to be addressed. Ensuring that catches from all jurisdictions and sectors are understood and accounted for.
Table 3: Blue Warehou Stock Rebuilding Strategy Criteria Actions How is stock tracking against strategy objectives?
Uncertain. There is currently no reliable index of abundance for blue warehou. The standardised CPUE for both stocks continue to be low and declining in 2014, however, the use of CPUE as an index of abundance is no longer considered reliable. Tier 4 assessments use CPUE targets as a proxy of biomass targets. The Tier 4 target reference point is the level of CPUE assumed to produce a spawning biomass of 48 per cent of unfished levels. The limit reference point is 40 per cent of the target reference point.
Is the strategy meeting its performance measures?
Uncertain. Under the 2011 assessment stock decline appears to have been halted however recovery to B20 may not be completed in the biologically reasonable timeframe as defined by the 2014 strategy of one mean generation time plus 10 years, 16 years.
Has stock decline ceased, is rebuilding apparent?
The standardised CPUE for both stocks continued to be low and declining in 2013, resulting in a RBC of 0 t and an incidental catch TAC of 100 t. At its November 2013 meeting, ShelfRAG considered that Tier 4 assessments for blue warehou were not reliable because avoidance of the species meant that CPUE is not reflective of abundance. As such, there continues to be uncertainties regarding the stock status and other indicators of abundance are required. While the stock decline may have hailted, the RAG has noted that is currently no clear signs of rebuilding.
Is the stock likely to rebuild to B20 or BLIM within the proposed timeframe of the rebuild strategy?
Due to uncertainty of the CPUE data and the stock assessment, it is currently unknown whether the species will rebuild to B20 within a biologically reasonable timeframe as required under the rebuilding strategy.
39
If the strategy has identified stages, please identify which stage of the strategy is currently being applied to the stock
N/A.
If triggers to next stage of management have been met and the strategy not moved to the subsequent stage, explain why
N/A.
What changes, if any, have been made to the strategy since first established?
The Blue Warehou Stock Rebuilding Strategy was updated in 2014. The key changes to the revised strategy are:
• a revised rebuilding timeframe to be consistent with the HSP; stock to be rebuilt to their biomass limit reference point within 16 years (one mean generation time plus 10 years)
• the development of a template to streamline the assessment of the strategy against its objectives by ShelfRAG
• a focus on improving current knowledge of stock status to allow for more informed management in the future through improved data collection and monitoring.
Has there been a different approach applied to the management of the stock that is not identified within the rebuilding strategy? What are they and why?
A code of conduct has been agreed to with the help of the South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association (SETFIA). The code includes move-on and reporting obligations to assist operators in avoiding incidental catches.
Is the strategy due for a review? If so, what are the plans for this? What is the progress or outcomes of those initiated?
No.
If the stock has been categorised by ABARES as ‘subject to overfishing/fishing mortality’ what is the explanation?
The ABARES Fishery Status Report 2013-14 classified blue warehou stocks to be uncertain as to whether the stocks are subject to overfishing (fishing mortality). The report notes that total removals have been reduced since the introduction of an incidental catch TAC and successful avoidance by industry, but it is uncertain whether this is sufficient to enable rebuilding, resulting in an uncertain classification for overfishing.
40
Is there any relevant research planned or underway?
A workshop was held in April 2013 to address issues with the stock assessment, particularly the issue of establishing a reliable index of abundance. The workshop identified issues with CPUE, current stock assessment techniques, and data gaps, and identified new assessment options for the future A FIS was conducted in 2014 and industry is also independently collecting length frequencies of blue warehou to supplement the ISMP with improved spatial and temporal coverage of data. Data collected will help inform on the stock status and hence future management decisions.
If so, what are the likely timeframes for availability of new information?
As available. Industry will continue to independently collect length frequency data opportunistically.
Knowledge gaps to be addressed. Improving knowledge of stock status, including catch and discard monitoring and industry and ISMP data collection is required. Further work to determine specific locations and timing of blue warehou spawning events in the SESSF.
Table 4: School Shark Stock Rebuilding Strategy Criteria Actions How is stock tracking against strategy objectives?
The stock is currently assessed at below the limit reference point and is subject to a rebuilding strategy. The School Shark Rebuilding Strategy was reviewed in 2014 (published 2015). The objective of the rebuilding strategy is to rebuild the stock to 20% of pre-fishing biomass. Pup production is used as a proxy for breeding biomass. SharkRAG reviewed the rebuilding time frame and recommended three times the mean generation which equates to approximately 66 years. SharkRAG noted there is no reliable index of abundance and it’s not currently possible to reliably track the stock against the rebuilding objectives. A CSIRO research project using close kin genetic methodology to develop an independent index of abundance for school shark commenced in late 2014.
Is the strategy meeting its performance measures?
The stock biomass trend estimated by the assessment model is the key performance measure of the rebuilding strategy. The index of relative
41
abundance is estimated by pup production, which is a direct index of breeding biomass. As school shark is not targeted, CPUE data for stock assessment modelling is currently inaccurate, and there is currently no reliable index of abundance. Until the recovery of school shark can be measured catches have been restricted within an incidental catch TAC.
Has stock decline ceased, is rebuilding apparent?
Evidence was presented to SharkRAG by CSIRO in 2014 that suggests stock decline has ceased. CSIRO released standardized CPUE from the trawl sector and identified a steady increased catch rates between 2003 and 2014. This increase in standardized CPUE suggests that catch levels were constrained to levels that allow rebuilding. A definitive answer won’t be known until the outcomes of the Close Kin project in 2017.
Is the stock likely to rebuild to B20 or BLIM within the proposed timeframe of the rebuild strategy?
The most recent assessment for school shark was undertaken in 2012 notes that catches of up to 225t would allow for rebuilding in three mean generation times (being 66 years). Standardised trawl CPUE data and anecdotal evidence from fishers suggests that the stock may be recovering at a greater rate than predicted by the model. A more accurate rebuilding timeframe will be determined upon the conclusion of the CSIRO close kin project.
If the strategy has identified stages, please identify which stage of the strategy is currently being applied to the stock
The 2014 School Shark Rebuilding Strategy does not have defined stages. Stage 2 of the 2008 rebuilding strategy is currently being applied to the stock. The School Shark TAC has been reduced to a level estimated to be unavoidable bycatch.
If triggers to next stage of management have been met and the strategy not moved to the subsequent stage, explain why
N/A.
What changes, if any, have been made to the strategy since first established?
The School Shark Stock Rebuilding Strategy was reviewed in 2014 and replaced by the School Shark Stock Rebuilding Strategy 2015. The key changes to the revised strategy are:
• a rebuilding timeframe of 66 years specified • a method for determining an independent
index of abundance specified. Also included in the strategy are management arrangements implemented after the 2008 strategy that are likely to facilitate rebuilding. These include:
• limiting net height to 20 meshes deep
42
• the 20% school shark to gummy shark catch ratio
• 5000 hook limit for temporary auto longline permits in South Australia.
Has there been a different approach applied to the management of the stock that is not identified within the rebuilding strategy? What are they and why?
N/A
Is the strategy due for a review? If so, what are the plans for this? What is the progress or outcomes of those initiated?
The School Shark Stock Rebuilding Strategy was reviewed in 2014 and replaced by the School Shark Stock Rebuilding Strategy 2015.
If the stock has been categorised by ABARES as ‘subject to overfishing/fishing mortality’ what is the explanation?
The 2012 stock assessment update indicates that at current catches the stock will rebuild to the limit reference point of B20 within the biologically reasonable timeframe of 66 years. However, there remains uncertainty about state catches. The most recent ABARES Fishery Status Reports 2013-14 classifies school shark as overfished, and uncertain if the stock is subject to overfishing.
Is there any relevant research planned or underway?
CSIRO have commenced work on a project which is using close kin genetics to determine the school shark stock size. The results from this project are expected to be published during 2017.
If so, what are the likely timeframes for availability of new information?
The close kin project is likely to be completed during 2017 as work commenced during 2014.
Knowledge gaps to be addressed. • Need a measure of abundance for the stock. • Uncertainty around state catches
43
Appendix 4: References
Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) (2009). Harvest Strategy Framework for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery 2009 (amended February 2014). [Online]. Canberra: AFMA. Available from: http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/harvest-strategies/southern-and-eastern-scalefish-and-shark-fishery-harvest-strategy/.
Georgeson, L. Stobutzki, I. and Curtotti, R. (eds 2014), Fishery status reports 2013–14, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.
Goldsworthy, S.D., Page, B., Shaughnessy, P.D. and Linnane, A. (2010). Options for mitigation of Australian Sea Lion Interactions in the Southern Rock Lobster and Demersal Gillnet Shark Fisheries off South Australia. SARDI Aquatic Sciences.
Hobday, A.J., Smith, A.D.M., Stobutzki, I.C., Bulmana, C., Daley, R., Dambacher, J.M., Deng, R.A., Dowdney, J., Fuller, M., Furlani, D., Griffiths, S.P., Johnson, D., Kenyon, R., Knuckey, I.A., Ling, S.D., Pitcher, R., Sainsbury, K.J., Sporcic, M., Smith, T., Turnbull, C (2011). Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing, 2011. Fisheries Research, 108 (2011) 372-384.
Skirtun, M, Sahlqvist, P, Curtotti, R & Hobsbawn, P, (2012), Australian fisheries statistics 2011, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.
Upston, J & Klaer, N (2012), Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery – Discard estimation 2011. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia.
Upston, J. and Klaer, N.L. (2013) Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery – Discard estimation 2012 (DATA summary). CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research. Report for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.
Walker, T.I., Wayte, S.E., Webb, H., Williams, A., Wise, B.S., Zhou, S. 2007. Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines, September 2007. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) (2007). . [Online]. Canberra: DAFF. Available from: http://www.daff.gov.au/fisheries/domestic/harvest_strategy_policy.
44