Antarctic Fisheries

SouthMAC meeting 11, 3 April 2001, Canberra

Chair's summary

The eleventh meeting of the Sub-Antarctic Fisheries Management Advisory Committee (SouthMAC) was held in Canberra on 3 April 2001 and attended by all members. The primary objective of the meeting was to finalise details of the Heard Island and McDonald Islands (HIMI) Fishery Management Plan.

Outcomes of the 83rd AFMA Board meeting

The Chair noted the advice from the Chair of the AFMA Board regarding the outcomes of the 83rd Board Meeting held on 15-16 February 2001. The advice indicated while the Board had approved all SouthMAC 10 recommendations in relation to the Fisheries Assessment Plan, no decisions were made in relation to the allocation of quota for bycatch and longlining. The Board requested that these issues be considered further by SouthMAC taking into account, among other considerations, advice from the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) in relation to the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) Total Allowable Catch (TAC) setting process and protocols.

The Board also advised that "In relation to the allocation of quota for new species the Board does not believe that this is appropriate for incorporation in the current Management Plan. In the absence of information on such species, the Plan can only apply to the specified target and bycatch species. If new species which might be commercially fished are identified within the region then access to those species will be considered by the Board according to its current policy Exploration of Fish Resources as set out in Fisheries Management Paper Number 5 (FMP5)".

The Committee sought clarification from the AFMA Member as to the Board's definition of new target species. Mr Richardson advised the Board had not discussed the issue of bycatch species already taken in the Fishery, but made it quite clear that new species, that is, those that had never been caught before in the Fishery, would be dealt with in accordance with FMP5. The Committee noted that there was no discussion by the Board about a current bycatch species moving to a target species in the future.

Members noted the Board's concerns over SouthMAC's progress to date in considering matters related to the Management Plan so recommended that outcomes from SouthMAC 11 be considered out-of-session by the AFMA Board.

Members further noted that the Board endorsed SouthMAC 10 recommendations that the Interim Management Policy for the Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery be rolled over for an additional 18 months, that is, until 30 December 2002 and that the current operator in the Fishery be permitted to continue fishing during this time.

HIMI Management Plan

The Committee discussed all outstanding issues in relation to the HIMI Fishery Management Plan culminating in a number of recommendations to the AFMA Board.

Minimum Quota Holdings

The Committee noted that at SouthMAC 10 members, in general, accepted the Minimum Quota Holding (MQH) system proposed by AFMA.

The MQH Discussion Paper considered by SouthMAC 11, was based on SouthMAC 9 and 10 recommendations, that should MQHs be introduced, the MQH requirement would apply to holding 25.5% of the total number of SFRs granted for all target species and that an equal number of SFRs be granted for each target species.

The AFMA member took the Committee through the Agenda Paper, covering each of the issues SouthMAC had requested to be addressed, and noted the various effects on the MQH system that would be caused through the inclusion of additional target species, quota management areas (QMAs) and changes in the number of vessels operating in the Fishery.

Addition of new target species (major bycatch species of commercial interest)

SouthMAC expressed concern over the potential inequitable impact that the introduction of additional target species may have on their ability to meet future MQH requirements, for example, if one operator developed the fishery for grey rockcod and in return was granted all, or even a disproportionate number, of the SFRs available for this species, operators holding the bare minimum SFRs required to operate previously would no longer qualify and need to acquire additional SFRs in order to operate.

SouthMAC recognised that fishing operations and SFRs should not be jeopardised in this way and agreed that the Management Plan initially apply to the two target species being, Patagonian toothfish and mackerel icefish, as well as the following major bycatch species of commercial interest:

• Grey rockcod (Lepidonotothen squamifrons);
• Unicorn icefish (Channichthys rhinoceratus);
• Macrourus spp. (rat tails, grenadiers); and
• Sub-Antarctic stone crabs (Lithodes murrayi).

In the event that a major bycatch species of commercial interest becomes a target species, members agreed that the Management Plan stipulate that these would be allocated in proportion to the number of SFRs for other target species held at that time. The Committee further recognised that the process for moving from a major bycatch species of commercial interest to a target species would involve the Australian delegation initiating the proposal at CCAMLR with relevant supporting data for approval. It would not be until the proposal to move to a target species is approved by CCAMLR and the AFMA Board these rights would be allocated.

In line with the decision from the 83rd meeting of the AFMA Board, the Committee agreed that, with the exception of toothfish, icefish and the four identified major bycatch species of commercial interest, all other potential target species, that is, other bycatch species currently taken within the constraints of the CCAMLR bycatch limits would be considered under FMP 5 separate to the arrangements of the Plan.

Quota Management Areas within the existing TAC area

The Committee noted that the possible introduction of QMAs may not be able to be provided for in the Management Plan as this would change the nature of the SFRs, and therefore, would require an amendment to the Plan. At the same time SouthMAC recognised that QMAs are likely management mechanisms for the toothfish fishery and could be introduced in the short to medium term. The Committee agreed that should QMAs be introduced quota for target species in each QMA should be allocated in direct proportion to quota SFRs for that target species held at that point in time.

The Committee agreed that the Plan include an outline of the process to be undertaken if a QMA is introduced, which would cover allocation of quota SFRs for each QMA.

The Committee:

• noted the MQH Discussion Paper prepared by AFMA; and
• agreed to the Objectives, Rules and operating parameters of the MQH system proposed by AFMA in their Discussion Paper, subject to clarification of the objectives and the inclusion of their rules for QMAs and major bycatch species of commercial interest. (Refer Attachment 1).

Number of Boats in the Fishery

The impact of the operation of the MQH system (as set out in Attachment 1) on the number of boats that could potentially be present in the HIMI fishery in any one season (as compared to the limit of 3 boats at any one time) was raised and debated again at length. No recommendation was made to amend the previously agreed rules pertaining to this issue.

Management of Bycatch Species under the HIMI Management Plan

Ms O'Brien informed the Committee that the AFMA Board had made no decision on the recommendations made by SouthMAC 10 in relation to the management of bycatch and requested that SouthMAC 11 consider these issues further, taking into account, among other considerations, advice from AAD in relation to the CCAMLR TAC setting processes and protocols.

Ms O'Brien informed the Committee that the total bycatch levels of the Fishery since its inception in 1996/97, have remained at less than 1% of the total catch. Members noted that the level of bycatch of the Fishery has never neared the limits set by CCAMLR with the highest percentage ever recorded for any bycatch species being 13.6% of the CCAMLR limit, which was reached for skates during the 1999/2000 season.

The Chair noted that the following three options had been proposed for the management of bycatch species:

1. status quo, that is, continue to manage bycatch limits on a global basis as a condition on SFRs, with the addition of a reserved portion of 50% of the CCAMLR limit for each bycatch species;
2. allocation of fully tradeable bycatch quota in proportion to SFR holdings; and
3. allocating 15% of bycatch limits to each vessel as a condition on their SFRs.

SouthMAC discussed these three options, with industry members expressing a clear preference for option 2 given their concerns over one operator inadvertently closing the Fishery by accidental overcatch.

The remaining members of SouthMAC agreed that they would not be comfortable in allocating bycatch, as per AFMA Legal Section advice, that bycatch should not be allocated as it goes against the intent of setting bycatch limits and has the potential to lead to the targeting of bycatch species.

Following discussions on the issue, SouthMAC agreed that:

• bycatch be managed on a global basis, in line with CCAMLR Conservation Measures through conditions on SFRs; and
• if 50% of the TAC for any one species is taken, an immediate review of the bycatch management policy would be undertaken by AFMA.

Approval of New Methods

The AFMA Member informed the Committee that, as agreed by SouthMAC 10, AFMA and EA held discussions on 5 March 2001 to determine a mechanism within the approval process to ensure adequate assessment of the environmental impact of introducing new methods under the Management Plan. Members noted that AFMA Legal Section advised it would not be appropriate to list methods other than trawling in the Management Plan as:

• the Plan would contradict itself, as it would state that it allows other methods and then go on to state a process for approving them; and
• it would be unlikely that the Plan would be approved with the inclusion of longlining and other methods, that is, while the Direction prohibiting longlining could form part of the public consultation package, no consultation is required to remove a Direction.

The EA permanent observer confirmed this advice, stating that EA would have reservations in supporting a Plan of Management that included methods other than trawling, for approval by their Minister, unless those methods and their environmental impacts had been fully assessed, as there would be a high possibility that such a Plan would not be approved.

The AFMA Member advised that given time needed to develop and implement the Threat Abatement Plan (TAP), it is not likely that longlining would be introduced under the Management Plan for a number of years. Ms O'Brien stated that AFMA Legal has advised that as an amendment to the Plan would be required in any case there were strong advantages in leaving the Plan silent on longlining until it is actually introduced. She explained that it would be preferable to take this approach as it would expedite the determination of the Plan by 1 December 2001. The Committee noted that this would allow SouthMAC the opportunity to make a more fully informed decision on longlining, when and if, it is actually introduced. Industry expressed a strong preference for longlining and other methods to be included in the Plan indicating that it is likely that new methods will be introduced into the Fishery in the future.

The Committee agreed to recommend to the Board that:

• the Management Plan set out the approval processes for introducing new methods into the HIMI Fishery;
• the relevant instrument (eg Plan, Direction or Regulation) be amended when the new method has been approved; and
• that the SFRs to be issued for toothfish and mackerel icefish under the Management Plan should be quota SFRs and not method specific
• noting that Scientific Permits would be available under the Management Plan to allow for the trialing of new methods.

Report on Approval Processes

The AFMA Member informed the Committee that the changes agreed to by SouthMAC 10 had been incorporated into each of the approval processes to be included in the Plan and were reflected in the Agenda Paper presented to SouthMAC 11. He further advised that at AFMA and EA's meeting on 5 March 2001, they discussed the determination of a mechanism within the approval processes to ensure adequate assessment of the environmental implications of amending components of the Management Plan. This Group recommended and SouthMAC agreed that an additional step be included in all approval processes, which would require approval from the Minister for Environment and Heritage, eliminating any previous concerns by SouthMAC regarding insufficient/inadequate assessment of environment implications.

Review and modification of environment requirements

Members recognised that the environment requirements enforced by AFMA are over and above those required by CCAMLR. AFMA indicated that it is highly unlikely that CCAMLR would in the future introduce standards higher than those imposed by AFMA and recommended that environmental requirements be listed in the Plan. Mr Flanigan advised that this would streamline the Strategic Assessment process and would provide a higher certainty that the Plan would be approved by the Minister for Environment and Heritage. Industry members expressed concern that a Plan amendment would have to occur in the event that an additional requirement was introduced. The Committee noted that in the event that a completely new requirement was introduced, this could be implemented immediately as a condition of SFRs.

Ms O'Brien informed the Committee that in the event that existing environment requirements were changed by CCAMLR, a Temporary Order could be put in place whilst the Plan amendment was made, however, this situation was unlikely to occur. Members noted that a Temporary Order can be implemented for a period of no longer than 6 months, however, two consecutive orders are permitted. SouthMAC considered this sufficient time to allow for a Plan amendment, however, questioned whether the use of a Temporary Order was restricted to emergency situations.

The Committee agreed that AFMA seek legal advice on the legalities of using a Temporary Order and in the event that it is not permitted, SouthMAC would then revert back to the approval process agreed to at SouthMAC 10, with the additional process to seek agreement by the Minister for Environment and Heritage.

Update on the HIMI Independent Advisory Panel (IAP)

The AFMA Member informed the Committee that AFMA is expecting the final report of the HIMI IAP to be submitted by 17 April 2001 and considered by the AFMA Board at its 31 May 2001 meeting.

Industry members expressed concern that the May 2001 meeting may be too late to finalise allocation matters. Ms O'Brien advised that the inclusion of the allocation formula in the Management Plan would not take long to draft and could be easily and quickly inserted into the draft Plan. However, SouthMAC agreed that it would be more efficient to submit all matters from this meeting to the Board for its consideration out-of-session and have them signed off and finalised at one time. The AFMA member disagreed with this view and considered it unlikely that the Board would be willing to consider a matter of this nature out-of-session.

SouthMAC agreed to recommend that the IAP report be considered out-of-session by the AFMA Board.

Draft Budget

SouthMAC considered the Antarctic Fisheries management and observer draft budgets. AFMA advised that while the levy base for all Antarctic Fisheries had increased by around $43,000, the component of the budget attributed to industry increased by around $153,000. This is largely attributable to a revision by AFMA management in assessing the amount of time being spent on the development of the Management Plan and a reduction in the number of Government related functions such as the Bycatch Action Plan.

SouthMAC did not agree to the HIMI Fishery, Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery and the SouthMAC draft Budgets as presented. In particular, concerns were raised over the increase in observer costs in the absence of any additional observer requirements or services and the revised approach by AFMA management to cost attribution between Government and industry. Industry indicated, that as observer costs are already extremely high, the most they would be willing to accept was an increase equivalent to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). SouthMAC considered the indirect or fixed costs associated with the observer program to be unacceptably high.

SouthMAC also recommended a number of other minor changes to the draft Budgets.

SouthMAC did not support the draft budget and AFMA agreed that where possible it would amend the Budget according to comments and suggestions received.

Page last updated 12 July, 2005