Northern Prawn Fishery

Northern Prawn Fishery Management Advisory Committee (NORMAC)

NORMAC 48, Chair's summary

30 June 2000

This was the first meeting of the new MAC since its appointment in May. SFR holders are encouraged to keep informed of NORMAC activities and to raise any issues of concern with the MAC members at any time. However it should be remembered that all MAC members are appointed for their expertise and are not representative of any particular group or organisation. The following persons can be contacted regarding NORMAC issues:

• Brian Jeffriess - NORMAC Chairman
• Trysh Stone - AFMA Member
• Ian Poiner - Research Member
• Eddie Hegerl - Conservation Member
• David Carter - Industry Member
• Ron Earle - Industry Member
• Efrem Gamba - Industry Member
• Les Lowe - Industry Member
• George Raptis - Industry Member
• Rosemary Lea - State Government Permanent Observer
• Annie Jarrett - NORMAC Executive Officer

Discussions at NORMAC 48 were largely focussed around familiarising the new NORMAC members with meeting procedures and administrative practices adopted by NORMAC; consideration of the draft report from the Strategic Planning workshop, and the process and timetable for progressing the development of the NPF Strategic Plan.

Other issues of discussion included reports on TEDs and BRDs, the role and appointment of NORMAC sub-committees, native title and the need for further effort reduction in the future.

NPF Strategic Planning Workshop

The NORMAC meeting was preceded by the NPF Strategic Planning Workshop on 19^th & 20^th June in Cairns. 70 people attended the workshop comprising NPF industry, all NORMAC members, research personnel , representatives from AFMA and invited speakers. A good cross section of NPF industry attended, representing SFR owners (or their nominees) from Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia, and included single boat owners, small family companies and fleet operators. In total, approximately 70% of all NPF SFR owners were represented at the workshop.

The workshop was held in working group forum, with each working group comprising between 8 and 10 people. Following each of the presentations on the specific agenda items, each working group table discussed the issues and provided a verbal report to the workshop on the outcomes of their discussions.

Topics of discussion included environmental issues, research, management strategy evaluation and balancing fishing effort and sustainability. Issues arising from the Senate Inquiry into the NPF Amendment were also considered at this workshop. While there were many important outcomes arising from the workshop, the overall theme from industry was the desire for a long term sustainable fishery, with management and research initiates in place to deliver a sustainable fishery. A report on the broad outcomes of the workshop has been prepared by Mr. Roly Nieper, independent workshop facilitator and chairman of the NORMAC Strategic Planning Sub-committee, and is attached for your information.

A full analysis of the reports from each of the working group tables will be undertaken in due course and will form part of a more comprehensive report from the workshop which will be circulated to the AFMA Board, NPF industry and other stakeholders. The outcomes of the workshop will be taken into account in the development of the new NPF Strategic Plan and future research priorities. NORMAC reiterated its decision to hold another workshop in February 2001 in Fremantle at which time industry and other stakeholders will consider the draft strategic plan. SFR holders will be advised on the times and venue for this workshop in due course.

Senate Inquiry Issues

As mentioned above, a number of issues arising from the Senate Inquiry into the NPF Amendment were discussed at the NPF Strategic Planning Workshop. These were the proposals for an industry funded research vessel, an industry funded buy back, time units to replace seasonal closures, and the proposal to manage the fishery through effort units.

NORMAC noted that the general opinion of all working groups was that, given gear units were in place, time units and effort units were no longer applicable in the management of the NPF at this time. The workshop report indicated that the use of these options in other fisheries should be monitored and could be reconsidered if benefits for the NPF were identified in the longer term. NORMAC resolved that given the clear indication from the workshop that time units and effort units were no longer applicable to the NPF, these options should not be further pursued at this time.

NORMAC noted that none of the working groups supported the proposal to purchase an industry funded and operated research vessel, although there was a strong view that more at-sea research should be conducted. NORMAC resolved that the proposal to purchase an industry funded buy back scheme should not be further pursued at this time, and that the appropriate options for undertaking more at sea research should be developed between industry, NORMAC and researchers as required.

NORMAC noted that there was very little support from the working groups for an industry funded buy back scheme, but noted suggestions the matter should be reconsidered if ever government funds for a buy out became available. NORMAC noted that a couple of groups had proposed the VAS should be re-introduced to buy out latent (unattached) B Class SFRs. NORMAC noted that this suggestion came from a very small minority of the working groups. NORMAC agreed that mechanisms for removing B class units were already in place with surrender provisions attached to B Class units. NORMAC noted that it was likely that B Class SFRs would be surrendered with the introduction of gear units and the need for further reductions in the total number of gear units in the future due to the requirement for a minimum number of gear units (net) to be held to retain a B class SFR. NORMAC agreed to monitor the issue of latent B Class SFRs over time. NORMAC resolved that, as there was not majority support for an industry funded buy out of effort, the matter should not be further progressed at this time.

I have advised the AFMA Board of the outcomes of both the workshop and NORMAC on the above matters.

NPF Management Costs

NORMAC noted advice from AFMA Management that the costs associated with the Strategic Planning review had not been included in the 1999/2000 budget, and that as a result, an overrun of expenditure against budget would occur in this financial year. NORMAC was advised that the costs associated with the requirement for the process to be overseen by an independent consultant, and costs incurred by issues arising from the Senate Inquiry had also not been included in the 1999/2000 or 2000/2001 NPF budget. NORMAC resolved to recommend to the AFMA Board that the costs associated with the independent consultant and those arising from the Senate Inquiry be recovered from non-industry sources. The NORMAC Management Costs sub-committee is preparing a formal proposal in accordance with the NORMAC resolution which I will provide for consideration by the AFMA Board at its July meeting.

NORMAC noted a response from the AFMA Operations Manager in relation to the proposal from NORMAC for AFMA Management to investigate the option of outsourcing the NPF log book program, including the potential for extension services to be provided as part of an outsourced program.

NORMAC expressed disappointment with the negative response received from AFMA Management. NORMAC was particularly concerned that it did not appear that any investigation of the outsourcing proposal had occurred. NORMAC noted the issues raised in the response from AFMA Management but noted that protocols can be put in place to alleviate fears over service standards; and contractual arrangements can be renegotiated or reassigned to preserve the integrity of the log book system is necessary. NORMAC agreed to request AFMA to proceed with offering tenders for the outsourcing of the program. NORMAC agreed that the NPFAG also consider any issues which may need to be taken into account in outsourcing the program, including the need for longevity of the program.

Future Effort Reduction

NORMAC noted correspondence between Minister Truss and the Acting Chair of AFMA indicating that while there were annual variations of effort on tiger prawns, stocks were still overfished and that further effort reductions would need to take place to allow tiger prawn stocks to recover.

NORMAC considered a unanimous proposal put forward by NPFIO following the meeting of the four NPF industry associations which comprise NPFIO that, in recognition of the need for further effort reduction to rebuilt tiger prawn stocks, the required level of effort reduction would be determined following consideration of the NPFAG fishery assessment for the year 2000. NORMAC endorsed the NPFIO request that the NPFAG to provide advice on the relationship between gear and effort, noting that one of the broad outcomes of the workshop was that future effort reductions should be based on gear. NORMAC agreed that a stock assessment workshop would be held in February 2001 to familiarise industry with the stock assessment process. This workshop will be held in conjunction with the Strategic Planning workshop in Fremantle.

NORMAC unanimously supported the NPFIO proposal that the required level of effort reduction would be determined in June 2001 based on the year 2000 stock assessment report and would be implemented in 2002. Industry members of NORMAC sought advice on the process for changing the management plan to allow for adjustments to gear units to be implemented in a similar manner to the way quota fisheries are managed.

TEDs/BRDs

NORMAC received a report from the TED/BRD committee, noting that meetings had been held with skippers in both Darwin and Cairns following the 2000 banana prawn season to discuss operational issues relating to the use of TEDs and BRDs.

It was noted that considerable problems were experienced with TEDs and BRDs during the banana prawn season, with devices getting blocked up and large losses of prawns being reported by industry. Some of the problems were considered to be a result of the areas fished, the type of devices being used in different areas, the exceptionally bad weather which prevailed in the season, and in some cases, the inexperience of the skippers using TEDs for the first time. NORMAC agreed that more resources needed to be put into making the devices work efficiently to both reduce bycatch of large animals and to reduce prawn losses to industry.

NORMAC noted the moratorium which had been in place during the first two weeks of the banana prawn season could not be continued in the future unless sufficient data was collected to indicate that the danger to turtles during the moratorium was minimal and that the devices were causing large losses of prawns during the peak banana prawn season. It was noted that the monitoring program which was to be carried out in the last three weeks of the banana prawn season had been deferred due to the poor season and the possibility that insufficient data may be collected as a result.

NORMAC resolved that the project would be carried out in the first two weeks of the 2001 banana prawn season. To ensure that sufficient data was collected, for the first two weeks of the banana prawn season, all vessels would fish with a TED on one side and not the other, and independent observers would be used to monitor turtle captures and prawn losses. NORMAC noted that this proposal would need the support of Environment Australia and that it was essential that both the Minister for the Environment and NPF industry understood the NPF is committed to the continued use of TEDs, and that the proposed change in arrangements for the first two weeks of the 2001 banana prawn season arose out of the need for further research to be undertaken. All vessels would be required to use TEDs in both nets for the rest of the fishing year.

NORMAC noted that operators could apply for a scientific permit to trial devices that are different to those currently regulated, but that observers would be required if the permit was sought for more than one month. NORMAC agreed that the cost of observers would be funded out of t30 June, 2005vide written reports on the trials for distribution to industry.

NORMAC Sub-committees

NORMAC noted that a number of members had resigned from sub-committees and others were seeking membership. NORMAC approved membership to its sub-committees as follows:

SFR Holders are requested to raise any new proposals in relation to NPF closures with one of the industry members on NORMAC, who will then ensure proper consultation occurs throughout industry on the proposal. If the proposals put forward get support from industry, they will then be forwarded to NORMAC for consideration.

Other Issues

NORMAC also considered a number of issues in relation to the application for US certification for the fishery; the IUCN conference in October, an update on the management arrangements being introduced in the East Coast trawl fishery and native title issues.

In closing I would like to thank everyone for attending the NPF Strategic Planning workshop and for participating in the workshop discussions. Industry attendance was excellent and indicates the commitment of industry to achieving sustainable management of the NPF. I would also like to acknowledge the contribution made by Roly Nieper in facilitating the workshop and the efforts of the NORMAC Strategic Planning Committee in organising this very successful forum.

Page last updated 25 May, 2005