Q: Why has AFMA released still frame images from electronic monitoring systems to the media?

AFMA received a request for video footage of sea lion interactions from the Adelaide Advertiser under Freedom of Information Laws. AFMA is respectful of the privacy of fishers when camera systems are used and in order to protect the privacy of fishers involved has agreed to release edited still footage to ensure individuals and boats involved in the interactions cannot be identified.

Q: When were the images released?

The images were sent to the Adelaide Advertiser by post on 18 April 2013.

Q: What do the images portray?

The 64 still images represent 10 sea lion interactions reported between July 2011 and March 2012. All sea lion interactions have been previously publically reported under requirements of the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. There have been no further sea lion interactions reported in the fishery since March 2012.

Q: What has AFMA been doing to stop sea lions interacting with gillnets?

In 2010 AFMA implemented gillnet fishing closures around sea lion colonies off South Australia closing an area of 6,300 square kilometres.  These closures were increased in size covering 18,500 square kilometres in 2011 providing increased protection for Australian sea lions.  In 2012 further sea lion interactions triggered larger gillnet fishing closures and AFMA closures now total an area of approximately 102,000 square kilometres (an area much bigger than the size of Tasmania) to fishing. There have been no sea lion deaths since March 2012 and this is confirmed by monitoring every trip, either with video cameras or an AFMA observer on board. AFMA’s quick intervention, and the cooperation of the fishing industry, has provided urgent and comprehensive protection for sea lions.

Q: What is the Australian Sea Lion Management Strategy and how do the closures work?

In July 2010, AFMA implemented the Australian Sea Lion Management Strategy for South Australian waters under Commonwealth jurisdiction. This included introducing closures around sea lion colonies as well as establishing larger areas that would be closed if a certain number (trigger) of sea lions deaths occurred. The total trigger limit across all management zones is 15 sea lion deaths within the 12 month fishing season. This trigger limit is broken down into several zones, as outlined in the map of the fishery (current from 15 May). If the trigger limit for an individual zone in exceeded then the zone is closed to gillnet fishing. If the total limit across all zones is exceeded then all waters off South Australian under Commonwealth jurisdiction will be closed to gillnet fishing. Smaller zone closures have proven so successful that AFMA hasn’t needed to close all zones. The Sea Lion Management Strategy is reviewed regularly by AFMA’s Marine Mammal Working Group, which comprises marine mammal experts, industry and conservation representatives and government officials.

Q: Will the closures be permanent?

AFMA will continue to consult with stakeholders, industry members and advisory groups on the development of longer term solutions.

AFMA also works very hard to balance competing priorities; to limit the impact of fishing operations on the environment but still enable fishing business to be viable and to meet the needs of Australian seafood consumers.

Q: How does AFMA know if sea lions are being caught by fishers?

The Gillnet, Hook and Trap (GHAT) sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery is subject to 10% on-board observer coverage. When fishers are in South Australian waters under Commonwealth jurisdiction, they must have electronic monitoring systems or on-board observers at all times. This includes the Australian Sea Lion management zone. All interactions with sea lions must be reported to AFMA.

Q: Is electronic monitoring a useful fisheries management tool?

Electronic monitoring of fishing operations with camera systems has been highly successful at increasing our knowledge of the impacts of fishing on protected and endangered species. This helps AFMA manage Commonwealth fisheries more effectively.

Q: Why wasn’t all information released under freedom of information?

AFMA collects a variety of data including personal and business information in undertaking its functions.  AFMA may only disclose the information it collects if authorised by law.  The Privacy Act 1992 governs how AFMA may use and disclose the personal information it collects. In addition to the Privacy Act, the Freedom of Information Act 1982 states that material does not need to be disclosed if it would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal or commercially information. Under this act, commercially valuable information held by AFMA is considered exempt from disclosure.

Read about AFMA’s good work on limiting sea lion deaths

Read the letter AFMA has written to the Adelaide Advertiser to clarify some of the points raised in the article of 13 May 2013.

The post Q&A: Release of Australian Sea Lion still frame images from electronic monitoring systems appeared first on Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

Tropical Tuna RAG (TT RAG)

• Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery
• Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery
• Skipjack Tuna Fisheries

Scallop RAG (ScallopRAG)

• Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery

Small Pelagic Fishery RAG (SPF RAG)

• Small Pelagic Fishery

Squid RAG (SquidRAG)

• Southern Squid Jig Fishery

Sub-Antarctic RAG (SARAG)

• Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery and Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery

Shelf RAG

• Southern and Eastern and Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF)

Slope RAG

• Southern and Eastern and Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF)

Shark RAG

• Southern and Eastern and Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF)

Great Australian Bight RAG (GABRAG)

• Southern and Eastern and Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF)

The role of resource assessment groups

Resource assessment groups provide scientific and economic advice to AFMA and AFMA’s management advisory committees on the biological, economic and wider ecological factors affecting the relevant fishery. This includes advice on the status of fish stocks and non-target species, and the impact of fishing on the marine environment. Advice provided by the resource assessment groups is used to inform AFMA’s management decisions.

Read more on information about fisheries and the relevant resource assessment group, including minutes of past meetings.

Who should apply?

Appointments are expertise based and members are being sought for the following positions:

• Scientific
• Economic
• Industry
• Conservation/environmental
• Recreational/Charter (where relevant to the fishery)

How do I apply?

To be considered for industry positions please submit a written expression of interest (no more than one page) outlining your relevant experience and/ or qualifications.

For all other positions please submit a curriculum vitae and brief cover note summarising your experience, qualifications and reason for your application to AFMA before close of business 15 May 2013.

Submit your expression of interest by;

Post:

Sally Weekes
Acting Manager, Projects
AFMA
Box 7051
CANBERRA BC  ACT  2610

Email:

sally.weekes@afma.gov.au

All applicants will be notified of the outcome of their application.

For more information about the role or selection process please contact:

Sally Weekes
(02) 6225 5341
sally.weekes@afma.gov.au

or

Beth Gibson
(02) 6225 5305
beth.gibson@afma.gov.au

The post Expressions of interest sought for resource assessment group membership appeared first on Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

During this time you can email info@afma.gov.au or phone 02 6225 5555 and leave a message and someone will get back to you when the office reopens.

Merry Christmas and happy holidays!

The post AFMA office closed for Christmas/New Year period appeared first on Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

Why do levies change from year to year?

How have this year’s levies changed from last year’s?

Who is most affected by changes this year?

Why was a new levy formula needed for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery?

What does the new levy formula for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery achieve?

How is the fishing industry involved in decision-making?

What is AFMA doing to help licence holders who are having difficulty paying their levies?

What is AFMA doing to reduce the costs of fisheries management?

Do fishers have to pay any other AFMA fees on top of levies?

Why do fishers have to pay levies?

Fisheries resources in Commonwealth waters belong to the Australian community and to ensure our Commonwealth fisheries are sustainable, the Australian Government regulates fishing activity on behalf of the Australian community. This costs money and the government and commercial fishers share the cost.

The independent regulator, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), charges commercial fishing concession holders for the direct costs of managing fisheries, including the costs of developing and implementing management rules, collecting data, conducting scientific research and running advisory committees. Other costs, such as the cost of ensuring fishers comply with management rules, are funded by the Australian Government. Although they pay for some of the costs of managing their fishery, fishing operators don’t have to pay a resource rent.

Why do levies change from year to year?

AFMA charges licence holders the actual costs of managing a fishery rather than a fixed amount. This means that if the costs of management reduce, the saving is passed on to the industry. Conversely if the costs of management increase, industry levies go up.

How have this year’s levies changed from last year’s?

In 2012-13 the total amount AFMA will collect from fishing concession holders has increased from the previous year by only 1.7 per cent.

This year a new formula will change the way that levies are calculated in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery to ensure that the management costs are more appropriately spread among fishing concession holders.

Levy fees will increase in ten fisheries and will decrease in seven fisheries. Of the increases, most are small and some reflect specific management actions that AFMA has had to take. For example, in the Antarctic fisheries research and observer costs have increased, in the Northern Prawn Fishery research needs have increased because a new quota management system is being developed, in the Gillnet, Hook and Trap sector AFMA has increased monitoring and made new rules to protect marine mammals and in the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery research needs have increased and there is additional work needed to fulfil increased monitoring obligations.

Who is most affected by changes this year?

The Northern Prawn Fishery and Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery have had the largest dollar increases in levies for 2012-13. The increase in the Northern Prawn Fishery is primarily due to additional research and monitoring. The increase for the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery is due to an increase research needs and requirements for the implementation of improved monitoring systems.

For 2012-2013 there has been a change to the levy formula used to allocate costs in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery. This is to more fairly charge costs to those who are using AFMA services the most. While the total amount charged to operators in this fishery has only increased slightly from 2011-12 to 2012-13, there may be large changes for some individual fishing concession holders.

Why was a new levy formula needed for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery?

The industry has changed significantly since the previous levy formula was developed in 2005. A buyback of fishing concessions changed the structure of the industry, quota management has changed the way that fisheries are managed and there is a greater focus on the environmental impacts of fishing. The new formula takes all of these into account and ensures that concession holders pay for the activities necessary for the management of their fishery.

What does the new levy formula for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery achieve?

The new levy formula is fairer because it means that fishing companies that hold a lot of quota and fish frequently pay more than businesses that hold fewer fishing concessions. So the amount of levy paid reflects the level of costs incurred by AFMA from the fishing concessions held by an operator.

How is the fishing industry involved in decision-making?

AFMA works closely with industry associations and management advisory committees in developing fishery budgets, including levies. Relevant industry associations and representatives were directly involved in the design of the new levy formula for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery.

What is AFMA doing to help licence holders who are having difficulty paying their levies?

AFMA can offer flexible payment options for licence holders facing difficulty paying their levies, allowing an operator to continue to fish while paying their levy debt over a longer time frame.

AFMA works closely with fishing industry associations to identify ways to reduce costs and ensure that allocation of costs is fair.

What is AFMA doing to reduce the costs of fisheries management?

AFMA is continuing to provide opportunities for operators to reduce costs through new technology. These include the development of

• Electronic logbooks so that operators can submit their information online;
• Electronic monitoring via on-boat video cameras (to partially replace the need for human observers on boats); and
• Online licensing.

To encourage the uptake of these more cost effective options, AFMA is developing a fee structure which means that users are charged for the services they use rather than paying a standard amount through their levies. Options that are more time-consuming and expensive for AFMA, such as processing paper forms, will cost more than electronic options.

Do fishers have to pay any other AFMA fees on top of levies?

Commonwealth-managed fisheries do not pay an access fee or any additional tax on profits generated from use of the public resource. Levies are the primary source of AFMA’s cost recovered budget, however a small amount (3.1 per cent) is collected through fee-for-service, that is, fishers paying for the specific services they use.

The post AFMA levies 2012-13 – Frequently asked questions appeared first on Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

AFMA is currently considering whether or not to market test its observer program. If AFMA proceeds with market testing, this would involve advertising for expressions of interest from companies who could provide observer services and comparing the proposals to AFMA’s own observer program. Then a decision would need to be made as to whether AFMA called on potential providers to tender to deliver observer services for AFMA.

AFMA is committed to ensuring that its observer program continues to be cost effective and continues to deliver value for money to those fishers who are required to use observers. One way of ensuring that this is happening is to compare our ‘in-house’ service with alternatives in the market place.

AFMA recognises that it currently has a quality ‘in-house’ observer program delivered by well trained staff. AFMA observers work closely with AFMA fisheries managers so have a good understanding of what information AFMA requires.

There are many issues to consider in deciding whether to market test the AFMA observer program. For example:

• Can other providers match or exceed AFMA’s standards of data collection?
• What are the risks to AFMA and its broad range of stakeholders if it decides to outsource its observer program?
• Are there any known instances of other providers of observer services being more cost-effective than AFMA?

An internal project is underway to gather information to help AFMA make an informed decision on whether or not to market test the AFMA observer program. AFMA expects to make a decision on market testing by 30 April 2013.  All key stakeholders will be regularly updated on progress and engaged in the process where appropriate.

For more information please contact Graham Rudd, Projects Manager on 02 6225 5342 or graham.rudd@afma.gov.au.

The post Observers – Consideration of Market Testing appeared first on Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

AFMA welcomes Dr Wadsley’s input and encourages ongoing scientific debate to improve the scientific advice on which to base total allowable catch limits and other decisions in our fisheries.

To that end, AFMA invites Dr Wadsley to make a submission to the Small Pelagic Fishery Resource Assessment Group in the hope that this might lead to more robust scientific advice in future. We also invite Dr Wadsley to contact the Dr Tim Ward, Chair of the Small Pelagic Fishery Resource Assessment Group, regarding his attendance or other participation in future work of this expert group.

In the meantime, AFMA maintains that the total allowable catches set for the current season in the Small Pelagic Fishery are based on the best available science.

The post AFMA response to Wadsley claims that science is wrong appeared first on Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

In response to claims made by Andrew Wilkie on 15 September, AFMA maintains that the total allowable catches set for the Small Pelagic Fishery were legally made.

Decisions on total allowable catches are made by the independent AFMA Commission and not the South East Management Advisory Committee or any other stakeholder advisory group.  In line with the Ombudsman’s press release of 20 August, AFMA trusts that the final report from the Commonwealth Ombudsman will examine the whole administrative process for setting the total allowable catches for the Small Pelagic Fishery.   

In the meantime we note that the minutes of the South East Management Advisory Committee meeting in question regarding the total allowable catch recommendation for Jack Mackerel east clearly state that, ‘the Chair also noted that he wouldn’t seek a position from Mr Geen (SPF industry member) given his direct conflict of interest this matter’.

The post AFMA maintains legality of catch limits despite Wilkie claims appeared first on Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

Contrary to claims made by Andrew Wilkie MP, if the FV Abel Tasman was approved to fish in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery, there would be two observers on board the vessel along with a bycatch management officer.

There would also be an underwater camera deployed to ensure the seal excluder device (which functions as an escape hatch for seals and dolphins) is functioning correctly.

The introduction of e-monitoring will ensure that the Commonwealth fisheries management remains at the leading edge of world’s best practice and will improve the reporting and recording of data including about bycatch and any wildlife interactions.

E-monitoring (fixed cameras on fishing boats) provides a reviewable record and there is scope to have several cameras on a boat, rather than just one or two observers.

The government’s proposal to provide for the option of e-monitoring is not intended to replace observers but rather expand monitoring of fishing activity in a practical and cost effective manner.

In many fisheries 100 per cent observer coverage is impractical due to the number and size of the fishing vessels operating in the fishery and the sheer expense of high observer coverage and in these situations e-monitoring means that coverage can be greatly expanded.

High levels of monitoring or coverage made possible by e-monitoring are particularly valuable for rare but important events like interactions with protected species.

E-monitoring has been successfully trialled in several fisheries and the aim of the Bill is to strengthen AFMA’s ability to use e-monitoring more widely.

As the Bill’s explanatory memorandum notes, as ‘e‑monitoring becomes more widely implemented, the relative costs to both fishers and AFMA of collecting data to manage fisheries and ensure compliance are expected to decrease’.

The efficiencies associated with scale and familiarity of use will bring much-needed cost savings to fishers, who pay the direct costs of the management of their fisheries.

The post AFMA responds to e-monitoring criticisms appeared first on Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

Helpful documents and publications

• 17 March 2013 – Simulation analysis of Jack Mackerel Stock Sizes, (Fulton E A, 2013) (PDF, 3.3MB)
• 13 March 2013 – Estimates of biomass and sustainable catch levels for the Eastern Jack Mackerel stock in the Small Pelagic Fishery (Word, 110kb)
• 18 September 2012 - AFMA response to Dr Andrew Wadsley’s criticisms of fisheries science
• 10 September 2012 – Report by the Institute of Marine and Antarctic Studies in response to Dr Andrew Wadsley’s criticisms of their science and Reanalysis of Neira egg density data.
• 3 September 2012 – Letter to the Canberra Times which remains unpublished.
• 23 August 2012 – Letter to TARFish responding to recreational fishing concerns.
• 21 August 2012 - Small Pelagic Fishery: General background to the scientific issues (PDF, 676kb) Seven of Australia’s leading fisheries scientists have produced this paper in response to the public debate about this issue.
• Assessment of the fishery and the health of its fish stocks – Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES)  Fisheries Status Report 2010 – Small Pelagic Fishery
• United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (Fisheries and Aquaculture Department) information about midwater trawling.
• Application of daily egg production to estimate biomass of Jack Mackerel (Niera, 2011) (PDF, 1.6MB)
• April 2011 – Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery Assessment Report (PDF, 3MB)

Frequently asked questions

What is the issue?
What is the current status of the FV Margiris (FV Abel Tasman)?
How does AFMA ensure that fishing in the SPF is sustainable?
What sort of rules and regulations apply to boats in the fishery?
How much fishing is happening in the fishery now?
Why does AFMA consider that its fisheries management is best practice?
What is the state of the science used for managing the SPF?
What is the status of fish stocks in the fishery?
How does AFMA limit the amount of fish that can be taken from the fishery?
What does AFMA consider in setting catches?
What are the total allowable catch limits in the Small Pelagic Fishery?
How do the total allowable catches for this fishery compare?
Why did the Jack Mackerel (East) catch limit increase for 2012-2013?
Do environmental and recreational sectors have a say in the catch limits?
Are State issues considered?
How is research funded and are their stock assessments planned for the coming years?
What is the effect of small pelagic catches on predator species such as tuna?
What does AFMA do to prevent localised depletion?
Why is the SPF only split into two management zones and not more?
What is the risk of SPF boats interacting with non-target species?
How are SPF boats required to minimise bycatch of protected species?
How do AFMA  deal with fishing operations that break the rules?

What is the issue?

Seafish Tasmania, an Australian fishing company, intended to operate a large mid-water trawl freezer vessel in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF). The vessel was brought in from overseas and is larger than other fishing vessels operating in the Australian fishing zone.

What is the current status of the FV Margiris (FV Abel Tasman)?

When the Lithuanian-flagged FV Margiris was registered as an Australian-flagged vessel, under the Shipping Registration Act 1981 on 5 September 2012, it was re-named the FV Abel Tasman.  The boat was docked in Port Lincoln for approximately six months.

On 20 September 2012, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, the Hon. Tony Burke MP, issued the Interim (Small Pelagic Fishery) Declaration 2012 under section 390SD of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Interim Declaration prevented the FV Abel Tasman and similar vessels operating in the fishery for a 60 day period while consultation was undertaken. On 19 November 2012 Minister Burke announced a 24 month ban on mid-water trawl freezer vessels, like the FV Abel Tasman while an expert panel undertakes an assessment of certain impacts of the activity.

On 25 February 2013, Minister Burke made a further interim declaration which prevented the FV Abel Tasman from operating as a freezing and processing vessel in the Small Pelagic Fishery for an initial period of 60 days while consultation with affected parties was carried out. On 26 April 2013, Minister Burke signed the Final (Small Pelagic Fishery) Declaration (No. 2) 2013 which prohibits declared mid-water trawl activities and fish processing activities in the SPF for a period of up to 24 months while an expert panel assesses the environmental impacts of those activities.

The FV Abel Tasman was de-registered as an Australian boat on 28 February 2013 and has since left Australian waters.

How does AFMA ensure that fishing in the SPF is sustainable?

As an independent government regulator, AFMA takes advice from Australian and internationally recognised scientists to set sustainable total allowable catches (TACs). TACs for target species in the fishery for the 2013-14 season are set at less than 7.5% of stock size. This is considered a precautionary approach and is more conservative than internationally accepted standards.

TACs are strictly enforced by AFMA using high tech systems to support compliance officers working both at sea and in ports. Information on compliance tools can be found on the Compliance page of the AFMA website (http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/compliance-activities/).

This type of fishing, mid-water trawling, is a selective fishing method which means bycatch will be low. AFMA works closely with fishers to minimise bycatch and ensure wildlife isn’t impacted. All Commonwealth operators are required to report any interactions in their fishing logbooks.

Scientific information shows localised depletion is unlikely to occur in the fishery. However, AFMA will continue to monitor the issue closely given the concerns raised in the community.

What sort of rules and regulations apply to boats in the fishery?

AFMA has strict regulations in place to ensure that all fishing operations, including those of large boats, are undertaken sustainably.

The fishery is managed through a strict quota system, which restricts the catch of each target species to sustainable levels. Operators in the fishery are allocated a share of the TAC limits for each target species, which can be transferred between operators. Smaller operators are able to fish the share of the quota they currently hold and the introduction of a large boat into the fishery would not affect their access.

All fishing vessels operating in the SPF are subject to rules including: being fitted with a GPS tracking system, carrying an AFMA observer, using a seal excluder device to prevent capture of seal and dolphins and strict TACs.

How much fishing is happening in the fishery now?

This resource is currently being lightly fished and over the past three fishing seasons, only 3% of the combined SPF TAC has been taken. This is because for most smaller vessels it is not economically viable to operate in the fishery. Smaller vessels without at-sea processing and freezer capacity need to return to port more often which increases fuel costs, reduces fishing time, affects product quality and also reduces their fishing range.

As small pelagic species are highly mobile, the ability for boats to move throughout the area of the fishery is important. Small pelagic species are a low-value product and the ability to freeze the catch straight away preserves the quality of the fish, so the product is suitable for human consumption and not just fishmeal. This adds value to the product.

Why does AFMA consider that its fisheries management is best practice?

Australia’s fisheries management has been consistently ranked amongst the world’s best in independent reports by international experts. One of the world’s best known critics of fisheries management, Dr Daniel Pauly of the University of British Columbia, ranked Australian fisheries second out of 53 countries for environmental sustainability in his comparative assessment report.

This report included an assessment of a variety of areas of fisheries management including compliance with the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and compliance with international conventions for the conservation of seabirds and marine mammals, ecological and socio-economic aspects, quality of fisheries statistics and managing marine protected areas.

Australia was also ranked first for performance in protecting marine mammals and the government response in mitigating or preventing human-induced damage to marine mammal populations including those from fishing.

A report by the FAO also highlighted Australia’s effective fisheries management including actions to rebuild overfished stocks. This has been evidenced in the ABARES fishery status reports where the number of fish stocks classified as overfished and/or subject to overfishing has fallen from 24 in 2005 to 4 in 2011. In contrast, the number of stocks classified as not overfished and not subject to overfishing increased from 19 to 56 in the same period.

Australia was also a driving force behind the development and implementation of the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, adopted by FAO members in 2001.

What is the state of the science used for managing the SPF?

AFMA uses the best available science to set TACs. Seven world leading Australian scientists have publicly supported the science in setting TACs in the fishery in their report titled The Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery: General background to the scientific issues (PDF, 673kb).

Recently, the science used to assess the stock size of jack mackerel in the fishery was independently reviewed. An ecosystem modeling study by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation indicated that spawning fish stock size used to set TACs was plausible given existing information and ecological understandings of the system.

SPF TACs are set according to the SPF Harvest Strategy. The strategy uses a tiered approach which recognises that where information on a species is limited, harvest rates should be set at a lower level. The strategy identifies that, once improved and more recent species information becomes available, primarily through stock assessment, harvest rates may be increased.

There will always be uncertainties in the biomass estimates and because of this, catch levels must be set at a safe level despite the uncertainties. This approach for dealing with uncertain information is precautionary and is applied in the SPF Harvest Strategy.

What is the status of fish stocks in the fishery?

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) Fishery Status Report 2011 lists all stocks of SPF species, except for Redbait west, as ‘not overfished and not subject to overfishing’. Redbait west is assessed as ‘uncertain’ because limited information is available to assess its status. AFMA has set a low catch limit to reflect this uncertainty.

How does AFMA limit the amount of fish that can be taken from the fishery?

AFMA sets TAC limits for the fishery each year. TAC limits are restrictions on the total amount of fish (by weight) that can be taken from the fishery each season. The best available science is used to set these limits, and due to the importance of lower order species in the food chain, the TACs are set at precautionary levels in the SPF.

The TACs set for each target species in the fishery are divided up between the operators in the form of quota. The TAC doesn’t change simply because the number or size of boats changes. Operators must inform AFMA of all catch landed. AFMA checks this information, to verify compliance with TACs for species and the quota holdings of operators. If operators are found to have caught more than their quota holdings, strict penalties apply.

What does AFMA consider in setting total allowable catches?

In setting the TAC each year, the AFMA Commission considers advice from the Small Pelagic Fishery Resource Assessment Group (SPFRAG), SEMAC and AFMA Management. Agreement amongst Resource Assessment Group and Management Advisory Committee members is not always unanimous and the AFMA Commission takes into consideration the views of all members when making its decisions.

The SPFRAG is made up of scientific, government industry and state members, as well as representatives from environmental and recreational sectors. The group provides its advice following consideration of the annual stock assessment prepared by scientists led by the South Australian Research and Development Institute, catch and effort trends, risks and other relevant factors.

SEMAC includes representatives from AFMA, resource assessment groups, states, industry bodies, scientists and economists. It also has representatives from the environment and recreational sectors. SEMAC considers the recommendations of the SPFRAG and makes its own TAC recommendations to the AFMA Commission.

The SPF Harvest Strategy specifies decision rules for setting sustainable TACs based on the level of information known about stocks. It uses a three tiered approach which allows higher potential catches where there is a higher level of information known about a stock. The SPF Harvest Strategy has been in place since 2008 and was last reviewed in 2012.

What are the total allowable catch limits in the Small Pelagic Fishery?

The table below outlines the total allowable catches (TACs) for the current season (1 May 2012 to 30 April 2013) and for previous seasons. The percentage of estimated spawning biomass also indicates what proportion of the fish population is allowed to be caught in the current fishing season.

How do the total allowable catches for this fishery compare to other Commonwealth Fisheries?

The TACs set for species in the SPF for 2013-14 are all at or below 7.5% of the estimated spawning fish population. This is low compared to other Commonwealth fisheries, and is also considered conservative when compared to international standards for small pelagic fishes.

The TACs for 2013-14 are similar those set for 2012-13. The TACs for Blue Mackerel East and Australian Sardine East have increased slightly due to lower average state catches. TACs for all other species are the same or below the level set for 2012-13.

Why did the Jack Mackerel (East) catch limit increase for 2012-13?

The catch limit was increased because  research that was published in 2011, based on surveys conducted in 2002-2004,  suggested the spawning biomass of jack mackerel in the eastern zone was approximately 141,000 tonnes. This estimate of spawning biomass was higher than previously thought.

This new estimate has been confirmed as plausible by independent reviews and ecosystem modeling undertaken by CSIRO. A summary of this supporting information can be found in the report, Estimates of biomass and sustainable catch levels for the Eastern Jack Mackerel stock in the Small Pelagic Fishery.

Do environmental and recreational sectors have a say in the catch limits?

The views of the environmental and recreational sectors were taken into account when developing the SPF Harvest Strategy and setting TACs for small pelagic species. Environmental and recreational members sit on SPFRAG and SEMAC. Both bodies provide advice to the AFMA Commission on Small Pelagic Fishery TACs.

Are State issues considered?

State catches are incorporated into the catch setting process. State representatives also attend meetings of the Small Pelagic Fishery Resource Assessment Group and the South East Management Advisory Committee to provide advice on state issues.

How is research funded and are there any stock assessments planned for the coming years?

SPF research is primarily funded by the fishing industry through fishing levies. Certain SPF research projects may be funded by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation or the AFMA Research Council.

The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation are considering a proposal from CSIRO to review the current harvest rates at different tiers in the SPF Harvest Strategy.  This project will ensure that the individual species’ productivities, life histories and roles in the food chain are taken into account.

In addition, AFMA continues to facilitate the annual stock assessment of this fishery which is used to assist in making catch limit decisions. This assessment is funded through fishing levies.

What is the effect of small pelagic catches on predator species such as tuna?

The SPF is unlikely to cause impacts on the feeding patterns of predators including through localised depletion. The main reason for this is that catch levels are set low, the food-web in the South East Australian marine ecosystem has been well studied, and predators (tuna, marine animals etc) and their pelagic prey are highly mobile.

The SPF Harvest Strategy recognises that small pelagic species like mackerel and redbait are an important component of the wider ecosystem, providing food for a range of species including larger fish, marine mammals and seabirds. TACs for these species are set at precautionary levels that take into consideration both the species’ productivity and broader ecosystem impacts.

For the 2013-14 fishing season (from 1 May 2013) the TAC in the fishery for all species is less than 7.5% of the estimated spawning fish population. A study of the exploitation of small pelagic species by the international Lensfest Forage Fish Taskforce has indicated that fishing at levels less than approximately 20% of the stock’s spawning biomass does not show evidence of negative effects on predator species or the broader ecosystem. The Lensfest report, Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a crucial link in ocean food webs can be accessed on the Lensfest website.

Recent ecosystem studies concluded that, at the current catch rates in the SPF, the ecosystem impacts of fishing on small pelagic fish populations and their predators are low and the food-web in the SPF ecosystem has many different forage species. Compared to the annual consumption of some predators such as seals and tunas/billfish, the catch levels set for quota species in the SPF are low. For example, it is estimated that seals consume between 25,000 to 40,000 tonnes of Redbait alone per year.

What does AFMA do to prevent localised depletion?

Research and experience in similar fisheries both here and overseas suggests that there is a very low risk of localised depletion in the SPF. Given the highly mobile nature of small pelagic species any localised reductions in abundance are likely to be short term and impacts on local ecosystems are likely to be very limited.

The risk of localised depletion may be reduced by the introduction of larger boats that can range more widely throughout the fishery which stretches from southern Queensland to southern Western Australia (see map below).

The area of the small pelagic fishery is split into two management zones, east and west of longitude 146°30’ East (roughly through the middle of Tasmania). Separate TACs are set for each zone which ensures that the quota for each species can not all be taken from one zone and reduces the potential for localised depletion to occur.

AFMA and fisheries scientists continue to monitor  localised depletion in the fishery. Should evidence of localised depletion be detected additional management action will be taken.

Why is the SPF only split into two management zones and not more?

The SPF used to be split into four separate management zones, however scientific advice from three fisheries experts concluded that the four fishery zones were unlikely to reflect the natural delineation of these stocks.

An analysis of the literature on the biology, habitat and catches of target species was reviewed in a study published in 2008. This review suggests there is likely to be two major sub-populations of SPF species, one on the eastern seaboard including east Tasmania and another west of Tasmania across the Great Australian Bight and the Western Australia region. Based on these findings the report recommends the fishery should be managed as two separate stocks east and west of Tasmania separated by a line north and south directly through the center of Tasmania at 146°30′E longitude. The AFMA Commission agreed that the fishery be split into two zones, east and west of 146°30′E to more effectively manage the stock structure of SPF species.

In addition to the two management zones, there are specific areas within each of these zones that are closed to commercial fishing under the Commonwealth Marine Reserve network.

What is the risk of SPF boats interacting with non-target species?

Midwater trawling, is relatively selective, which means it has low levels of bycatch. This is evidenced by SPF observer data from 2001 to 2006 that found that mid-water trawl operators fishing adjacent to Tasmania caught minimal levels of non-target species.

AFMA implemented high levels of observer coverage in response to the accidental capture of dolphins in the SPF during 2004 and 2005. Voluntary measures were also adopted by operators to minimise the risk of interactions with dolphins. Since the measures were implemented, no dolphin captures have been reported by operators or observers.

How are SPF boats required to minimise bycatch of protected species?

When requested by AFMA, Commonwealth fishing boats must carry independent AFMA observers to monitor fishing activities and any impact on the marine environment. Observers collect biological data about fish and bycatch, which forms part of the scientific assessment used to decide sustainable TAC limits.

All SPF mid-water trawl boats must develop, carry and abide by vessel management plans tailored to each boat to minimise interactions with seabirds, seals and dolphins.

AFMA also requires mid-water trawl boats to use seal excluder devices to protect species such as seals and dolphins. AFMA routinely assesses and monitors seal excluder devices used on Commonwealth fishing boats.

How does AFMA deal with fishing operations that break the rules?

All Commonwealth-endorsed fishing vessels (concession holders) are subject to AFMA’s national compliance and enforcement programs and monitoring arrangements.

AFMA has in place a range of monitoring programs and technologies which are used to monitor the activity of each of the vessels in the Commonwealth fleet:

• Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) – All Commonwealth-endorsed fishing vessels are required to fit and maintain a satellite based electronic VMS unit, which reports a vessel’s position to AFMA in near-real time on a regular basis to ensure vessels are not fishing in closed areas.
• Electronic monitoring systems – AFMA has implemented electronic monitoring systems in a number of fisheries. These systems comprise both cameras and sensors which record and monitor all fishing activity.
• Observers – Commonwealth fishing boats must carry independent AFMA observers, when required, in order to monitor fishing activities and any impact on the marine environment.

AFMA has a program of inspections and at-sea patrols that focus on targeting identified high risk ‘key’ fishing ports, vessels/operators and fish receivers relevant to Commonwealth jurisdiction. These inspections are carried out by uniformed AFMA fisheries officers and are conducted based on risk analysis and relevant intelligence information.

The Fisheries Management Act 1991 and Regulations allow for a range of enforcement measures. These measures can be used in combination or separately depending on the severity of the offence and include:

• Warnings & cautions
• Commonwealth Fisheries Infringement Notices – a $340 “on the spot” fine
• Amendments to fishing concession conditions – to prevent the offence being repeated
• Directions by fisheries officers – such as ordering a vessel to port
• Suspension or cancellation of fishing concessions
• Prosecution – Maximum penalties under the Act which can be imposed by a court include:
  • fines up to $55,000 for an individual or $275,000 for a corporation
  • forfeiture of vessel, catch and fishing equipment
  • suspension or cancellation of fishing concessions or prohibiting a person from being on a boat either within or outside the AFZ for a period prescribed by the court, and
  • up to 12 months imprisonment in the case of obstructing, threatening, assaulting or impersonating an officer.

The post Super trawler FAQs appeared first on Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

Introduction

The Independent Upper-Slope Dogfish Scientific Working Group (SWG) is a technical, science based group, established to provide advice to inform the development of a revised AFMA Upper-Slope Dogfish Management Strategy. The SWG is also tasked to provide technical review and advice on CSIRO projects and other scientific research as tasked.

Below is a list of questions and advice provided by the SWG.

SWG Advice

What is the justification for the MSY of B50 noting that the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy states that, in the absence of a robust MSY estimate, MSY is B40?[1] [2]

The SWG noted that B_MSY for teleosts is typically in the range of 20 to 50% of unfished levels with higher values corresponding to low productivity stocks. Values for chondrichthyans are typically not well estimated but B_MSY for marine mammals which share some of the life history features of chondrichthyans are estimated to be around 65% of unfished levels. Attempts by the SWG to directly estimate B_MSY for gulper sharks were not successful but there was general consensus that it would be somewhere near the upper end of the range for teleosts. The value of 50% was accepted by the SWG as an appropriate figure for species with the life history characteristics of gulper sharks, noting that this estimate was uncertain. There was consensus that the default value in the Harvest Strategy Policy of 40% was too low for these species. More detail on this question can be found in previously provided papers (Recommendations of the Independent Upper-Slope Dogfish Scientific Group, October 2011; and Depletion reference points for upper slope dogfish)

Should Southern Dogfish be managed as a single stock or more than one stock?

The SWG considered the information presented in the CSIRO papers Southern Dogfish in the Far West GAB: distributional status and protection in closed areas (5 April 2012) and Identifying candidate areas for gulper shark conservation (25 January 2012)). In particular, the disjunct distribution of Southern dogfish east and west of Tasmania and in the central GBR (Ceduna Terraces), with these two areas representing large areas with few if any historical records of Southern Dogfish.

The SWG agreed that based on currently available information there is likely to be three distinct stocks of Southern Dogfish; one along the east coast of Australia down to eastern Tasmania (referred to hereafter as the eastern stock) and one from western Tasmania through the GAB (central stock) and one from the western GAB southern Western Australia (western stock). In summary, this is based on:

• Apparent gaps in the distribution off southern Tasmania, through Bass Strait and Ceduna Terraces. Catch records from some surveys and commercial fishing that has occurred in these areas indicate that no Southern Dogfish were captured.
• The differences in the physical characteristics of the seafloor in the upper-slope area off southern Tasmania and on the Ceduna Terrace.
• The limited along-slope movement of the species based on acoustic tag data from the CSIRO research in the GAB.

Back to top

What is the relationship between stocks of Harrisson’s Dogfish on the coast and seamounts?

The SWG noted there has been less focus on the potential stock structure of Harrisson’s Dogfish. A key uncertainty is the relationship between the populations on the continental margin down the east coast and those on offshore seamounts of northern NSW and southern QLD. The SWG considered the available information on stock structure and noted that there is no specific information (genetics or tagging studies) that directly addresses stock structure in this species.

The SWG concluded:

1. That the population of Harrisson’s Dogfish that occurs on the continental margin is likely to be a separate stock to that which occurs on the offshore seamounts. This conclusion was based on the large distance and substantial break in habitat (deep water) between these two areas. It is also the most conservative assumption.
2. That the populations occurring on the offshore seamounts be considered a single stock, noting there was less certainty around this conclusion. This conclusion was based on the fact that there was strong sex-bias in the dogfish that occur at some of these seamounts, which would require movements between seamounts for mating.

The SWG recommended that research to address stock structure in Harrisson’s Dogfish would be beneficial to the management process.

What is the proportion of Harrisson’s Dogfish habitat that is under NSW jurisdiction?

The proportion, by area, of the core range of Harrisson’s Dogfish (based on the core range on the east coast continental margin) in the waters off northern NSW, where NSW has responsibility for fisheries out to the AFZ waters is 27%. Further calculations will be undertaken of the area off southern NSW (south of Barrenjoey) where longline and dropline fisheries are managed under NSW jurisdiction and Commonwealth line methods are excluded, but Commonwealth trawling is allowed.

Back to top

Can an appropriate recovery timeframe for rebuilding to B_LIM and then B_TARG for Harrisson’s and Southern Dogfish be estimated and what are those estimates?

The recovery times for gulper sharks from low levels of depletion are likely to be very long (multiple decades). Factors influencing recovery times will include: the level of depletion at the start of the management strategy, the time taken to colonise previously depleted areas from areas where the species are currently more abundant, and any ongoing fishing mortality arising during the recovery phase. It was noted that spatial closures provide the most certain protection to aid recovery, but that measures outside closed areas may also play an important role, including catch and release codes of conduct.

Is the scoring scheme for habitat segments, in terms of the four attributes, appropriate in terms of characterising their contribution to rebuilding gulper shark populations? Including:
Does the scheme differ from the one used to develop the network of closures in 2010? Noting, that in 2010 there were different objectives in the upper-slope dogfish management strategy.

The attributes used are similar, but the ‘proximity’ attribute has been added to capture the potential of habitat areas for re-occupation based on their distance from areas of currently extant populations.

Are the cut-offs between scores for each attribute appropriate in terms of the relative contribution to rebuilding?

Given the qualitative nature of this assessment, the cut-off values are necessarily arbitrary but aimed to provide a realistic contrast in the context of rebuilding. The SWG considered the overall rationale provided was appropriate. The SWG has discussed the need to use different cut-off values for each of the species for the ‘abundance’ attribute which is based on catch rates in recent surveys. The CSIRO paper Outline of methods to determine gulper shark depletion (12 April 2012) indicates that the unfished biomass of Harrisson’s Dogfish was likely to be less than Southern Dogfish; suggesting the cut-off for the abundance attribute should be different between the species.

A sensitivity test carried out by CSIRO of a 20% change in the abundance attribute cut-off value between the medium and high categories showed little change in the overall outcome, with only a few (<5) locations scoring high instead of medium for abundance. Given sufficient time, more extensive testing of the sensitivity of the method to changes in cut-off values would be beneficial.

Back to top

What are the uncertainties and how should they be addressed / incorporated?

There are a broad suite of uncertainties related to the MSE-like approach, mostly associated with uncertainty in relation to the data paucity, cut-off values and the weightings of the attributes. Currently equal weighting of attributes is currently assumed. The CSIRO paper Identifying options for spatial closures to conserve Harrisson’s and Southern Dogfish using a management strategy evaluation (MSE) approach (12 April 2012) lists a range of factors about which there is uncertainty. It is not possible to provide metrics for all uncertainties, but the main sources of uncertainty are listed. Missing data are explicit in the mapping.

Sensitivity testing could be undertaken to explore the effects of changes in cut-off values and weightings of attributes. While sensitivity testing will provide an understanding of the effect of changing these values, it will not provide an indication of what are the correct or best values.

How should attributes be combined to determine the relative value of habitat segments to rebuilding upper-slope dogfish populations? Are all the attributes independent?

The attributes are not independent of each other in that some attributes are dependent upon the values of other attributes (this was done deliberately). However, no analysis of the correlations between attributes for habitat segments was provided so it was difficult to assess if there were redundant attributes.

Should there be any weighting?

The methodology as currently presented assumes equal weighting for all attributes. If there are strong correlations between factors then these will increase the weighting of these attributes. No information was available to assess if weighting was necessary or useful.

Back to top

Can you quantify a measure of the confidence/uncertainty for different segments in terms of attributes?

The current methodology does not provide for quantifying the uncertainty of the outcome for each segment. As indicated above, sensitivity testing will provide an understanding of the effects of different cut-off and weighting values, but not of the specific uncertainty about the outcomes.

Has the historical data been used appropriately?

CSIRO has provided a full list of the data sets evaluated and the ways in which they have been used or not used for specific analyses in the paper Identifying candidate areas for gulper shark conservation (25 January 2012). The limited resources available to the project (especially time) have meant that all data have not necessarily been fully utilised or analysed. The abundance attribute in the current MSE approach is based on recent survey data Identifying options for spatial closures to conserve Harrisson’s and Southern Dogfish using a management strategy evaluation (MSE) approach (12 April 2012).

However, the SWG did not identify any situations where the historic data had been used (or not used) inappropriately.

How will the effectiveness / robustness of using a spatial proxy (habitat value and metric of biomass) for the reference points be tested? What confidence do the working group have in the likely effectiveness of a spatial proxy?

In its initial discussions the SWG agreed that while a number of issues were identified with using habitat as a proxy, on balance habitat, with the incorporation of metrics of abundance (such as density or carrying capacity) could be used as a proxy for biomass. The SWG noted that there was not likely to be a simple one to one relationship between area of habitat and unfished biomass, and that further research is required to establish the relationship. Consequently this work has been incorporated into the current CSIRO project. The project had initially aimed to examine whether a habitat-based method used to estimate population health can generate quantities that are equivalent to reference points in the HSP; and whether the ‘calibration’ between habitat and biomass reference points has been sufficiently well established.

At the 16 April meeting the SWG discussed the progress to date and noted that the integration of the depletion and the habitat analyses had not yet been undertaken. The data paucity in some areas may result in an uncertain outcome for components of this integration.

Back to top

In translating B_LIM to a spatial proxy, can a quantitative level of uncertainty be determined?

No. As a reference point, there is no uncertainty associated with B_LIM. The uncertainty should be expressed in the estimate of depletion used.

Has a spatial proxy area figure for B_LIM been determined? If a figure has been determined, how was it determined and what is it?

To date the CSIRO MSE analysis has assumed a performance measure of 25% of area protected within the core range of each stock of each species.

The SWG has not had full discussions on how the heterogeneity in species distribution and estimates of depletion relate to the spatial proxy for B_LIM.

The SWG recognises that the diel movement patterns of individual gulper sharks means that protection needs to be applied across the full depth range of the upper slope area to provide the most effective protection. Thus closures that do not extend across this depth range will be less effective and the area corresponding to such closures should be down-weighted. The level of down-weighting may be determined by the proportional overlap between the closure and the depth distribution of each species. However, it should also be noted that not protecting across the full core depth range for a significant proportion of the areas is not recommended.

Can the working group advise on measures to determine when the network of closures will lead to the two species reaching B_LIM? Can the other actions in the strategy aimed at conserving the stock contribute to achieving B_LIM in a measurable way and how would these be measured?

The SWG was unsure whether this question is asking: (1) about monitoring strategies (i.e. how will we know when we are back to B_LIM); or (2) how will we know when the habitat proxy method gets to protect the 25% of the unfished stock. We have provided responses to both of these interpretations:

1. These considerations are part of ongoing work. The MSE discussion paper Identifying options for spatial closures to conserve Harrisson’s and Southern Dogfish using a management strategy evaluation (MSE) approach (12 April 2012) outlines how habitat areas can be summed towards the target reference point. The paper will provide suggestions for other management measures to enhance/ fill gaps based on considering the key requirements of the listing guidelines and the scientific and implementation uncertainties related to the closure network.

2. Knowledge of the status of the populations after the implementation of the habitat proxy strategy will rely on ongoing surveys. It is possible that for some stocks (e.g. far west Southern Dogfish) the population is currently at or above B_LIM. Future monitoring of recovery could also help improve estimates of depletion and thus fine tune the strategy. Other actions in the strategy could be evaluated by examining the proportional change in the mortality of gulper sharks that results (e.g. the change in post-release mortality that changes in fishing practices would result in).

Back to top

What role should life history stages and ‘corridors’ play in developing a spatial closure network?

Given the sex-biased distribution of gulper sharks in southern Australia it will be important that the network include areas that protect each of the sexes within their normal ranges, as well as provide the ability of the sexes to migrate to mating or pupping grounds. These migrations could be facilitated by the use of corridors. However, the limitation of the current understanding of gulper shark movement makes advice on the form of these corridors difficult.

Can the scientific working group provide advice on what immediate management measures may be taken to facilitate recovery? This would allow greater time for monitoring and further research to underpin refinements.

Any management measure (in addition to the closures currently being evaluated) that reduces the mortality of gulper sharks will be of benefit to recovery. These should focus on measures that reduce the likelihood of interactions (e.g. temporal closures, gear modification) with fisheries, the combination of measures that may provide most effective (e.g. night-time fishing bans in conjunction with closures of the deep slope) and those that increase the survival of individuals that are caught (e.g. potential improvements to the ALL code of conduct, changes in fishing practices). However, the SWG has not evaluated any specific measures that would meet these criteria.

Southern Dogfish – separate stock and generic work

1. Are there genetic samples obtainable from the various habitat segments?
2. Can these be used (in this project time) to determine if there are separate stocks of Southern Dogfish and if so, how many. In particular, if Area 7 is distinct, and in testing the genetic separation between Areas 1 and 2?

There are samples available but there is not sufficient time to develop new stock discrimination markers and it is unlikely that existing markers would be successful, although Verrissimo et al have had some recent success with closely related species. It seems a reasonable assumption that the area to the south and west of Tasmania and the Ceduna Terrace are both barriers to dispersal for Southern Dogfish, based on the physical characteristics of the seafloor. Thus the SWG agrees that based on current information there are likely to be three stocks.

Back to top

We note there is no current work underway to determine age characteristics. Can the scientific working group provide an approximation of generation length for Harrisson’s and Southern Dogfish? We note the species are sexually dimorphic.

There are estimates of age at maturity available based on existing ageing data: 23 years for female Harrisson’s Dogfish, 14 years for female Southern Dogfish (see previous SWG advice Depletion reference points for upper slope dogfish). The methods used in this previous document also allowed the calculation of generation time using a standard demographic approach (but not the TSSC approach). This yielded values of 28.5 years for Harrisson’s Dogfish and 20.5 years for Southern Dogfish.

The Threatened Species Scientific Committee uses

(longevity + age at maturity)/2 = generation length.

We note that mean generation time is defined in the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines (DAFF, 2007) as the average age of a reproductively mature animal in an unexploited population.

An example of how the information may be written up for listing advice is as follows:

The length of first sexual maturity for Harrisson’s Dogfish varies between sexes, with maturity in males occurring between 80–85 cm, and in females at approximately 100 cm in total length (Daley et al., 2002). Harrisson’s Dogfish are sexually dimorphic in size at maturity. It is likely Harrisson’s dogfish reach maturity at lengths close to their maximum size (Daley et al., 2002). Specimens of Southern dogfish up to 81 cm in total length have been aged as old as 46 years (Fenton, 2001). There have been estimates based on dorsal spine bands for Harrisson’s dogfish (Whitely, 2007) suggesting(?) age a maturity is 19-32 years. Other species of Centrophorus have been aged as high as 70 years with females maturing at 35 years (Clarke et al., 2002; Simpfendorfer and Kyne, 2011).

Back to top

Is there any reason why the SWG would suggest a recovery time for the dogfish strategy to be other than the suggested minimum of either 1) the mean generation time plus ten years, or 2) three times the mean generation time, noting that the mean generation time is defined as the average age of a reproductively mature animal in an unexploited population?

Typical recovery times identified in the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines (DAFF, 2007) are defined as the minimum of 1) the mean generation time plus ten years, or 2) three times the mean generation time, noting that the mean generation time is defined as the average age of a reproductively mature animal in an unexploited population.

Stock rebuilding strategies must include clear specification of rebuilding targets and time frames, rebuild timeframes for the strategy must be provided, if only possible based on estimates; and recovery times for gulper sharks from low levels of depletion are likely to be very long (multiple decades).

Given the above generation times, the recovery times for Harrisson’s dogfish would be 38.5 years and for Southern Dogfish 30.5 years if a one generation time plus ten years calculation was used. The SWG does not support the use of this standard calculation of recovery time for either species for the following reasons:

1. The calculation of the recovery time is based on teleost species for which recruitment processes are much different than for slow reproducing gulper sharks. The very low reproductive rates of gulper sharks (one pup every three years) means that if the stocks are well below B_LIM it would be highly unlikely to be able to recover the populations in the standard time frame, even with complete protection.
2. Given that the level of depletion in the populations is currently unknown predicting how long it will take for them to recover to either B_LIM or B_TARG, is not feasible.

The SWG suggests that recovery times will be many decades, and that until further research has been completed it is not feasible to set more definitive timeframes for recovery. In the interim, setting a recovery time of three times the generation time is likely to provide a more realistic estimate based on the biological characteristics of the species (Harrisson’s Dogfish 85.5 years; Southern Dogfish 61.5 years) than one generation plus ten years.

To what extent will the proposed measures also protect Endeavour Dogfish and Greeneye Spurdog?

The current MSE-like analysis is focused on Harrisson’s and Southern Dogfish and the potential benefits to other species will not be quantified in the current CSIRO project.

The proposed measures to protect Harrisson’s and Southern dogfishes will provide some protection for Greeneye Spurdog and Endeavour Dogfish. However, the SWG was not able to quantify what this level of protection would be.

In general, spatial closures on the upper slope of southern Australia will offer some protection to Greeneye Spurdog. However, this species is thought to be more mobile and widely dispersed than Harrisson’s and Southern Dogfish. Spatial closures on the upper slope of northern New South Wales will offer some protection to Endeavour Dogfish.

Back to top

The post Independent Upper-Slope Dogfish Scientific Working Group – FAQs appeared first on Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

Q. What is the issue?

AFMA understands that Seafish Tasmania, a fishing company in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF), intends to bring a vessel to fish in the SPF. The vessel is coming from overseas and is larger than other vessels that fish in the Australian fishing zone

Q. How would the boat be allowed to come into Australia?

To fish in Commonwealth waters a boat must meet the definition of an Australian boat under the Fisheries Management Act 1991.

There are a number of steps for the boat to become an Australian boat. These include AFMA declaring the boat to be an Australian boat under the Fisheries Management Act 1991, or the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) registering the boat under the Shipping Registration Act 1981.

AFMA understands that Seafish Tasmania has applied to AMSA for Australian registration of the Margiris.  AMSA will assess the application in accordance with the Shipping Registration Act 1981.

Q. What is the status of fish stocks in the fishery?

The ABARES Fishery Status Reports 2010 list all stocks of SPF species, except for Redbait west, as ‘not overfished / not subject to overfishing’. Redbait west is assessed as ‘uncertain’ because of limited information available to assess its status. AFMA has implemented a conservative total allowable catch to reflect this uncertainty.

Table 1: Status of the Small Pelagic Fishery stocks from ABARES Status report 2010

 Q. How will AFMA limit the amount of fish that can be taken from the fishery?

AFMA sets catch limits for the fishery each year, which are sustainable amounts of fish (by weight) that can be taken from the fishery. The best available science is used to set these limits, and due to the important place of small fish in the food chain, the limits are set at precautionary levels in the SPF. The total allowable catch is divided up between the operators in the form of quota. Operators must inform AFMA of all catch landed and AFMA verifies this information. If operators are found to have caught more than their quota holdings strict penalties apply.

Q. What does AFMA consider in setting catches?

In setting the total allowable catch each year, the AFMA Commission considers advice from the Small Pelagic Fishery Resource Assessment Group (SPFRAG), South East Management Advisory Committee (SEMAC), AFMA Management and other relevant information. Agreement amongst RAG and MAC members is not always unanimous and the AFMA Commission takes into consideration all views when making its decisions.

SPFRAG is made up of scientific members and members from fisheries management, industry, states and the environmental and recreational sectors. It provides its advice after considering an annual stock assessment prepared by scientists led by the South Australian Research and Development Institute, catch and effort trends, risks and other relevant factors.

SEMAC includes representatives from AFMA, resource assessment groups, states, industry bodies, scientists and economists. It also has representatives from the environment and recreational sectors. SEMAC considers the recommendations of SPFRAG and makes its own recommendations of total allowable catch to the AFMA Commission.

The SPF Harvest Strategy, in place since 2008, specifies decision rules for setting sustainable catch limits based on the level of information known about the stocks. It uses a three tiered approach which allows higher potential catches where there is a higher level of information known about a stock.

Q. How do SPF catch limits compare?

The catch limits for species in the SPF are all at or below 10 per cent of the estimated spawning fish population. This is low compared to other Commonwealth fisheries, and is also considered conservative when compared to international standards for small pelagic fishes.

Q. What are total allowable catches for the SPF for the current season?

The table below outlines the total allowable catches (TAC) for the current season (1 May 2012 to 30 April 2013) and TACs for last season.

 Q. Why did the Jack Mackerel (East) TAC increase for 2012-13?

The TAC was increased because of research, based on surveys conducted in 2002-2004, that was published in 2011. The research indicated Jack Mackerel (East) had a higher spawning biomass than previously thought.

Based on this information, SPFRAG recommended a take of 7.5 per cent of the estimated spawning biomass. This was reduced by 500 tonnes to account for other factors (such as state catches) to give a TAC of 10,100 tonnes.

Q. Do environmental and recreational sectors have a say in the catch limits?

The views of the environmental and recreational sectors were taken into account when developing the SPF Harvest Strategy and setting TACs for SPF species. Environmental and recreational members sit on SPFRAG and SEMAC, which provide advice to the AFMA Commission in relation to SPF catch limits.

Q. Are state issues considered?

State catches are incorporated into the catch setting process. State representatives also attend meetings of SPFRAG and SEMAC to provide advice on state issues.

Q. How is research funded and are there any stock assessments planned for the coming years?

AFMA continues to facilitate the annual stock assessment of this fishery, which is used to assist in making catch limit decisions and is funded by the fishing industry through levies.

There is a proposal for South Australian Research and Development Institute to undertake a daily egg production method survey later this year which would be funded by Seafish Tasmania. The research proposal has been considered by SPFRAG but would not impact on the TAC for 2012-13.

Q. What is the effect of SPF catches on predator species such as tuna?

The SPF Harvest Strategy recognises that small pelagic species are an important component of the wider ecosystem, providing food for a range of species including larger fish, marine mammals and seabirds. Total allowable catch levels for SPF species are set at precautionary levels that take into consideration both the species’ productivity and broader ecosystem impacts.

At the moment, the total available catch in the fishery for all species does not exceed 10 per cent of the estimated spawning fish population and therefore, at least 90 per cent of the fish remain in the ecosystem for predator species.

Q. What will AFMA do to prevent localised depletion?

The annual fishery assessment report, currently undertaken for all SPF stocks, aims to determine the likelihood of localised depletion or change in the size/age structure of the catch that cannot be adequately explained by reasons other than a decline in abundance. Scientific advice suggests that, given the mobile nature of small pelagic species, any localised reductions in abundance less likely in comparison to species that stay in one area.

Quota allocations in the SPF have been divided into east and west zones by a line along 146°30’ East (roughly through the middle of Tasmania). This spreads fishing effort across zones and lowers the risk of localised depletion. In addition, large boats with freezing capacity are not restricted to fishing in areas close to processing facilities, as has historically been the case in the SPF, and so can spread fishing effort over more of the geographical distribution of the stock. The fishery extends from southern Queensland to southern Western Australia as shown in the map below.

The area of the Small Pelagic Fishery

AFMA will be monitoring this issue closely and will address any suspected instances of localised depletion if they arise.

Q. How will the boat be required to minimise bycatch of protected species?

Fishing methods used in the SPF are relatively selective, which means they have comparatively low levels of bycatch.

When requested by AFMA, Commonwealth fishing boats must carry independent AFMA observers to monitor fishing activities and any impact on the marine environment. Observers collect biological data about fish and bycatch, which forms part of the scientific assessment used to decide sustainable catch limits. AFMA will implement high levels of observer coverage on the proposed large freezer boat if it is introduced to the SPF.

Seal excluder devices are required to be used on midwater trawl nets to protect species such as seals and dolphins.

While the risk is not high, AFMA will work with Seafish Tasmania to develop a seabird management plan to minimise seabird interactions. AFMA understands that the proposed freezer boat will be processing whole fish so expects that there will be little offal discharge to attract seabirds.

Q. What monitoring and enforcement powers does AFMA have to deal with fishing operations that break the rules?

All Commonwealth-endorsed fishing vessels (concession holders) are subject to AFMA’s domestic compliance and enforcement programs and monitoring arrangements. The FV Margiris, if permitted to fish in Australian waters, would be subject to these arrangements as is the case with any other Commonwealth-endorsed fishing vessel.

AFMA has in place a range of monitoring programs and technologies which are used to monitor the activity of each of the vessels in the Commonwealth fleet:

• Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) – All Commonwealth-endorsed fishing vessels (including the FV Margiris if it fishes in Australia) are required to fit and maintain a satellite based electronic VMS unit, which reports a vessel’s position to AFMA in near-real time on a regular basis to ensure vessels are not fishing in closed areas.
• Electronic monitoring systems – AFMA has implemented electronic monitoring systems in a number of fisheries. These systems comprise both cameras and sensors which record and monitor all fishing activity.
• Observers – Commonwealth fishing boats must carry independent AFMA observers, when required, in order to monitor fishing activities and any impact on the marine environment. AFMA will implement 100% observer coverage on the FV Margiris, if it is permitted to fish in Australian waters.

AFMA has a program of inspections and at-sea patrols that focus on targeting identified high risk ‘key’ fishing ports, vessels/operators and fish receivers relevant to Commonwealth jurisdiction. These inspections are carried out by uniformed AFMA fisheries officers and are conducted based on risk analysis and relevant intelligence information.

The Fisheries Management Act 1991 and Regulations allow for a range of enforcement measures. These measures can be used in combination or separately depending on the severity of the offence and include:

• Warnings & cautions
• Commonwealth Fisheries Infringement Notices – a $220 “on the spot” fine
• Amendments to fishing concession conditions – to prevent the offence being repeated
• Directions by fisheries officers – such as ordering a vessel to port
• Suspension or cancellation of fishing concessions
• Prosecution – Maximum penalties under the Act which can be imposed by a court include:

- fines up to $55,000 for an individual or $275,000 for a corporation
- forfeiture of vessel, catch and fishing equipment;
- suspension or cancellation of fishing concessions or prohibiting a person from being on a boat either within or outside the AFZ for a period prescribed by the court; and
- up to 12 months imprisonment in the case of obstructing, threatening, assaulting or impersonating an officer.

The post Super trawler FAQs appeared first on Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

Yes. The current rate of compliance is below the levels AFMA needs to satisfactorily meet all its compliance and resource management targets.

What action will be taken if my VMS is not operating?

The following action will be taken in respect of VMS non-compliance.

When a VMS unit stops reporting, the boat will be ordered to return immediately to its home port and/or to remain at port until:

• a technician has certified to AFMA that the VMS unit is operating
• AFMA has confirmed that the unit is operating
• AFMA has formally lifted the order to return to or remain at port.

Operators who have a temporary switch off (TSO) approval who switch off their VMS without notifying AFMA will be issued with a $220 Commonwealth Fisheries Infringement Notice.

Note Any operator who fails to comply with an order to return to port or who leaves port before AFMA has lifted a return-to-port order may be prosecuted.

I can’t tell when my VMS is and isn’t working. How will I know if there’s a problem?

It is standard practice for AFMA to notify operators when a unit stops reporting. Where the fault is a technical problem, AFMA will work with the operator to try to immediately restart the unit.

I am only fishing in state waters, so why does it matter that my VMS isn’t operating?

All boats nominated to Commonwealth concessions are required to have a VMS unit operating at all times regardless of the jurisdiction they are fishing in.

I have an e-monitoring system fitted to my boat, so will I be ordered back to port if my VMS fails?

No. Provided the e-monitoring unit is operating correctly and remains operating you will be able to continue on the current trip. However, you will not be allowed to leave port on future trips until the VMS is operating correctly again.

I have a TSO approval. Will AFMA take action if I turn my VMS off?

No, provided you meet all the notification requirements under the terms of the TSO.

My boat is on the slip and I’ve just turned the unit off and forgotten to tell AFMA. Why do I need a technician’s report?

Technically, by failing to notify AFMA you have committed an offence. By requiring a technician to have a look at the unit AFMA can be assured that there are no faults in the unit.

I have a TSO and just forgot to notify AFMA I was turning my VMS off. Why do I need a technician’s report?

Technically, by failing to notify AFMA you have committed an offence. By requiring a technician to have a look at the unit AFMA can be assured that there are no faults in the unit.

My VMS unit has never failed before. Why am I being punished for the bad behaviour of others?

Because this is a zero tolerance campaign, all instances of non compliance will be treated consistently regardless of history.

What if the problem is AFMA’s fault?

Whilst it is extremely unusual, the problem can occasionally be with AFMA’s system and in that case would normally affect the whole fleet. If the problem is with AFMA’s system no action will be taken against the operator.

My unit seems to be faulty Can I get some special consideration?

No. While AFMA will help where possible to rectify the issue, it is ultimately the concession holder’s responsibility to fit and maintain their VMS unit.

In the past I was allowed to manually report my position. Can’t I do that when I get back to port?

No. As part of the VMS crackdown operators will not be allowed to manually report under any circumstances for the period of the crackdown.

The post Vessel monitoring system crackdown – frequently asked questions for operators appeared first on Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

AFMA will consult with industry on how best to implement this measure.

At the 8th Regular Session of the WCPFC, held in Tumon, Guam, USA, the commission also agreed to extend, with minor amendments, the current longline catch for Bigeye Tuna and Yellowfin Tuna and purse seine effort limits for the remainder of 2012. These limits will be revisited at the next WCPFC meeting in December 2012. 

The WCPFC also agreed to an Australian proposal to ban the intentional setting of purse seine gear on cetaceans (whales and dolphins) but did not agree to a similar proposal to protect whale sharks. Such setting practices are not permitted in Australian purse seine fisheries.

The WCPFC considered a proposal to strengthen the management of Albacore Tuna on the high seas. This proposal was not agreed, but South Pacific Albacore Tuna management will be reconsidered at the December 2012 WCPFC meeting.

For more information please contact Trent Timmiss, Senior Manager Tuna and International Fisheries on 02 6225 5313 or trent.timmiss@afma.gov.au.

The post Eastern Tuna fishery to implement international shark retention ban appeared first on Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

Paul Ryan receiving his award for 10 years of service in 2002.

Melanie: So Paul you have been with AFMA for 20 years now, that is a huge achievement! When you joined AFMA in 1992 what was your role?

Paul: Actually AFMA joined me! I was employed by the Fisheries Division, Department of Primary Industry as Research Officer Grade 1, Economic Research and Statistics Section, in April 1975. Fisheries Division became the Australian Fisheries Service and then AFMA. When AFMA commenced in 1992 I was Acting Senior Officer Grade C (EL1), Fishing Operations Section (Licensing and Compliance).

Melanie: 20 years is a long time to stay in one place, what is it that has kept you working at AFMA for so long?

Paul: The opportunity to make a difference. Also, until the last eight years in the Environment Section I have moved around AFMA every three years or so to carry out different roles.

Melanie: What significant changes you have witnessed in AFMA over the past 20 years?

Paul: The role of industry has grown through management advisory committees, resource assessment groups and co-management. We have also become much more involved in environmental issues as part of the move from individual species to a broader ecosystem based fisheries management focus.

Melanie: So you started in the operations area – are there any patrols over the past 20 years that stand out in your memory?

Paul: From my time in Compliance the most memorable patrol was the pursuit, capture and successful prosecution of the South Tomi. That and similar operations have changed the Law of the Sea.

Melanie: There have been quite a few function changes in the compliance area since the beginning of AFMA. What stands out to you?

Paul: From a Compliance perspective, in-sourcing functions previously performed by the states and Northern Territory has led to more direct involvement with fishers but has led to issues about intelligence gathering that are still being worked through. The success of the northern illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing program has meant that alternative activities have to be considered including selling our services to the Northern Territory and the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Melanie: What about the observer program?

Paul: The Observer Program has moved from a focus on foreign vessels largely funded through the Japanese access fees to focussing on domestic fisheries with cost recovery. This has led to a number of reviews (seemingly one a year) and market testing exercises. The program has successfully beaten off all other applicants. The new issue to be addressed is how it will operate in concert with electronic monitoring.

Melanie: In your personal opinion what would you say the biggest achievements have been over the past 20 years?

Paul: Still being here. Introducing quotas in the South East Trawl fishery. Stopping the [fishing] boats off Northern Australia. Broadening the scope of fisheries management beyond target species through processes such as ecological risk assessment and ecological risk management.

Melanie: One last question. What is your fondest memory while at AFMA?

Paul: Opportunities such as attending meetings in Bangkok and Bali, and travelling in the Torres Strait developing the strategic assessment for turtle and dugong.

The post Paul reflects on 20 years at AFMA appeared first on Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

The government simultaneously ratified the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement and the Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Seas Fishery Resources in the South Pacific Ocean respectively.

AFMA expects to continue applying similar management arrangements for operators in these areas and hopes to see vessels from other countries adopting improved measures consistent with the Australian approach.

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Joe Ludwig, said that the Australian ratification of these treaties made sense, given the strong management of domestic fisheries.

The treaties will manage and conserve deep sea and non-highly migratory fishery resources in previously unregulated areas of the south Pacific and southern Indian Oceans. Fishery resources covered by the treaties include commercially valuable deep-water species such as orange roughy and alfonsino, which the Australian industry has been fishing for well over a decade.

For more information please see the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s media release.

The post Australia secures future fish stocks with two new treaties appeared first on Australian Fisheries Management Authority.