Impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Annual Status Report 2008

  1. Results of the Ecological Risk Assessments
  2. Nature of impacts on the ecosystem
  3. Management action taken to reduce impacts

8.1. Results of the Ecological Risk Assessments

A key component in AFMA’s move towards Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) has been the undertaking of ecological risk assessments (ERA) for all AFMA-managed fisheries. By assessing the impacts of fishing on all parts of the marine environment, the ERAs encompass an ecosystem-based assessment approach. The ERAs will help to prioritise research, data collection monitoring needs and management actions for fisheries and ensure that they are managed both sustainably and efficiently.

Level 2 ERA Results

The Level 2, productivity susceptibility analysis (PSA), is a semi-quantitative analysis of the risk posed by fishing to all individual species, habitats and communities identified in the scoping stage. A total of 390 species were assessed at Level 2 in the ETBF. Of these, 34 were assessed to be at high risk, including one target species (broad billed swordfish), three byproduct species, zero bycatch species and 30 TEP species. By taxa, the high vulnerability species comprised one teleost, four chondrichthyans, 23 marine birds, five marine mammals, and one marine reptile.

Level 2 ERA Residual Risk Results

Due to the semi-quantitative nature of the Level 2 risk assessment, the analysis did not take into account all management measures currently in place in fisheries, resulting in a potential over-estimate of the actual risk for some species. To take account of this constraint residual risk of the 34 high risk species was quantified using AFMA developed guidelines with input from CSIRO and stakeholders. Residual risk is broadly defined as the risk remaining after the implementation of mitigation measures.

Following residual risk assessment there was a change from 34 high risk species to eight high residual risk species. These included two bycatch/byproduct shark species (longfin mako and dusky shark) and six TEP species including three seabirds (Tristan, Campbell and Gibson’s albatross), two whales (short-finned pilot and false killer) and a turtle (leathery turtle). The two primary reasons behind changes in risk were because of a zero observed interaction with the species[6] and the fact that the fishery is meeting (exceeding) targets set under the statutory Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) for the incidental catch of seabirds.

Level 3 Quantitative Assessment Results

AFMA commissioned CSIRO to conduct a comprehensive rapid quantitative assessment of the risk from fishing to sustainability of (mainly bycatch) species in several Commonwealth Fisheries (including the ETBF). The project extended the methodology of the previous level 2 PSA to provide quantitative estimates of risk for a large number of fish species. Classifications of risk were divided into: low, medium, high and extreme high with each category having a corresponding precautionary criterion to take into account uncertainty.

Two hundred and seven fish species in the ETBF were examined with 11 species (nine chondrichthyans and two teleosts) being classified as at risk of potential overfishing. Following overrides by experts, five species were classified into one of the two high risk categories:

  • Longfin Mako (Isurus paucus) – precautionary high risk
  • Crocodile shark (Pseudocarcharias kamoharai) – precautionary high risk
  • Pelagic thresher (Alopias pelagicus) – precautionary high risk
  • Ocean sunfish (Mola mola) – precautionary extreme high risk
  • An ocean sunfish (Mola ramsayi) – precautionary extreme high risk

The results of the level 3 assessment will be incorporated with the results of the residual risk assessment and addressed through Environmental Risk Management (ERM) strategies, a chondrichthyan working group of experts and the Australian Tuna and Billfish Longline Fishery (ATBLF) bycatch work plan. These will be implemented and reviewed over the coming years.

[top]

8.2. Nature of impacts on the ecosystem

The nature of impacts the ETBF has on the ecosystem is mainly in relation to the take of target, byproduct and bycatch species. No habitats were identified as high risk from the effects of pelagic longline fishing in the ERA process.

[top]

8.3. Management action taken to reduce impacts

The main ecological sustainability issue for species in the ETBF appears to be catches of TEP species, in particular, seabirds, turtles, and to a lesser extent, sharks and marine mammals. The non-target group at highest risk is undoubtedly seabirds, with this issue being addressed through the TAP process. The TAP requires all longline operators fishing south of 25 degrees to use a tori line, line weighting and thawed baits, whilst there is a total banning of offal discharge throughout the fishery. The fishery is compliant with the TAP in not exceeding catch rates of 0.05 birds per 1000 hooks. The high vulnerability target species, swordfish, is now under a total allowable catch (TAC) of 1,400 tonnes with monthly trigger limits, and is being addressed in the ETBF Harvest Strategy. A ban on the use of wire trace and a 20 shark trip limit were introduced in 2005 and 2000 respectively in the ETBF to reduce the capture of shark species. Line cutters and de-hookers were provided to all operators in 2005 to assist in mitigating fatal interactions with turtles and shark species. All interactions with turtles, shark species, marine birds and marine mammals will continue to be closely monitored in the ETBF through logbooks and observer reports.

Those species identified by the residual risk assessment and the quantitative rapid level 3 assessments for all Commonwealth managed fisheries will be combined with any identified protected species to form First and Second Priority lists on which AFMA will focus the ERM process. AFMA will implement measures to mitigate that risk under various actions that are outlined in the following policies: Harvest Strategies, the Program for Addressing Bycatch and Discards in Commonwealth Fisheries, Byproduct (non key commercial species) and in line with the Shark Policy under the Chondrichthyan Working Group.

AFMA in 2008 will develop a bycatch work plan for the Australian Tuna and Billfish Longline Fishery (ATBLF), including both the eastern and western sectors which covers a two year period from 1st January 2008 to the 31st of December 2009. The objective of the plan will be to develop a longer-term strategy for overall minimisation of bycatch. However, the focus of the ATBLF work plan will be on developing management responses to high ecological risks and measures to avoid fishery interactions with species listed under the EPBC Act.

Whilst this work plan is under development AFMA is continuing to report against the latest BAP performance indicators for the fishery. The latest report from March 2008 is below:

Six-monthly bycatch action plan (BAP) progress report

MAC/Fishery: Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery BAP release date: September 2004 Report date: March 2008

Issue: Protected species and ecological communities
Strategy (1): Take all reasonable steps to ensure that species listed under Part 13 of the EPBC Act 1999 are not killed or injured as a result of fishing.
Performance Indicator (output): Actions taken for output Output achieved (y/n) and date
1) The BAP elements of the fishery data plan identified within 6 months of the commencement of the BAP. The plan will include data collection requirements for protected species Final data plan was endorsed by Eastern Tuna MAC at MAC 66 in October 2006 and included the elements of the BAP. AFMA provides an annual logbook catch and effort data summary and this includes interactions with TEP species. Observer data has been reported to the MAC and has been incorporated in the ERA for the fishery Yes – this is part of regular logbook reporting and has been since the first Threat Abatement Plan introduced in 2001
AFMA also assists in the preparation of Australia’s Annual Report to the WCPFC, which contains this information
2). A set of actions developed within six months to reduce the killing and injury of protected species and implemented where appropriate The level of interactions has been assessed and MAC has recommended changes in management arrangements to reduce seabird interactions. Arrangements are being developed for turtle releasing devices to be placed onboard all ETBF vessels and the use of wire trace has been banned in the fishery Yes and ongoing
3) Strategic research plans developed with actions to reduce the killing and injury of protected species Specific research has been undertaken to reduce seabird interactions in the development of tori lines, underwater setting chutes and bait capsules. Research is also under way to assess circle hooks to reduce turtle impacts. A research project on a new device to mitigate seabird interactions has been submitted for consideration at Eastern Tuna MAC 71 in March 2008 Yes and ongoing
4) MAC assessment of the range of species caught, level of interactions and effectiveness of management arrangements A steering group from Eastern Tuna MAC has been formed to address this issue and also AFMA’s discards policy and will report to the MAC at its June 2007 meeting with options to address any high risk species requiring additional management as identified by the ERA Ongoing
5) Efficacy of the industry codes of practice (CoP) assessed and reported by MAC. A field trip in February 2007 by the MAC executive officer ascertained the level of awareness of the CoP by industry was low. Plans to review efficacy of the CoP have been overtaken by a study investigating if there are any voluntary actions in the BAP that are not now mandatory under fishing permit conditions. Yes, efficacy of CoP ascertained as low although the voluntary actions in the CoP that related directly to the BAP are now mandatory under permit conditions
6) ERA completed and management arrangements for high risk species in place. This was considered at MAC 70 in November 2007. As a consequence of the residual risk assessment the original list of 34 high risk species has been reduced to 8. Management arrangements to mitigate interactions with most of these 8 species are already in place or being developed Yes, November 2007
7) A communication strategy developed and implementation progressed. A series of workshops and port meetings were held in August and September 2005 where the importance of minimising interactions with TEPs was explained and the usage of dehookers demonstrated. Operators were provided with the materials and instructions to make up their own tori lines. Meetings were held in Mooloolaba (2), Coffs Harbour, Sydney, Ulladulla and Eden and were well attended by local operators. Follow up meetings have been held in 2006 and 2007 to ensure minimising interactions with TEP species remains in the forefront of operators minds. Yes and ongoing
An additional port meeting was held in February 2008 to discuss management issues and remind operators of their obligations with mitigation measures to reduce interactions with TEP species
8). Actions addressing fishery interactions reviewed by MAC An update on the effectiveness of seabird mitigation measures is provided at each MAC meeting along with reports of any interactions with other TEP species. In addition the MAC has formed a discards steering committee to advise the MAC on measures to meet the objectives of AFMA’s discards policy Yes – since 1998 and ongoing at each MAC meeting
9). Monitoring and reporting procedures in place to ensure that there are minimal fishery interactions with protected species. AFMA monitors interactions with TEP species via logbooks, a dedicated Observer program and specific trials such as seabird mitigation trials Yes
10). The compliance plan reviewed to determine achieved compliance and appropriateness of program objectives. The Compliance Operational Plan is reviewed as part of the draft budget and levybase at a MAC meeting in March/April of each year. In 2007 the MAC recommended an increase in funding for enforcement of seabird mitigation measures. The Compliance Plan will be reviewed again at MAC 71 in March 2008 Yes – annually
Desired outcome: All reasonable steps taken to minimise injury and deaths of species listed under Part 13 of the EPBC Act 1999.
Outcome achieved? Yes – the need to minimize interactions with TEP species is now a priority for industry and a focal point in their daily fishing operations
Issue: High risk and other bycatch species
Strategy (2) : Take all reasonable steps to reduce the bycatch of high risk and other species
Performance Indicator (output): Actions taken for output Output achieved (y/n) and date
1. Develop and implement management strategies for species identified as high risk from the ERA process This was considered at MAC 70 in November 2007. As a consequence of the residual risk assessment the original list of 34 high risk species has been reduced to 8. Management arrangements to mitigate interactions with most of these 8 species are already in place or being developed. Yes – ongoing although wire traces banned in 2005 and seabird mitigation developed and implemented on the past few years.
2. The BAP elements of the Data Plan will be identified within six months and includes data collection requirements for all bycatch species AFMA monitors interactions with high risk and other species via logbooks, a dedicated Observer program and specific trials such as seabird mitigation trials. A revised ALO5 logbook (ALO6) was developed and distributed to all ETBF operators in November 2007 for a 1 December 2007 commencement date. This continues to require reporting of bycatch species in a comprehensive manner. Yes and ongoing. New logbook (ALO6) – 1 December 2007
3. Strategic research plans developed which focus on high risk species Projects have been supported for mitigation of seabird interactions, including recent line weighting trials conducted by Australian Antarctic Division scientists. Funding has been provided to address turtle interactions. Mitigation projects are also rated 5 in the MAC’s research priority list Yes – ongoing
4. Jurisdictional arrangements addressed. AFMA has held discussions with QLD and NSW on bycatch/jurisdiction issues and these are ongoing. Discussions are ongoing but nothing has been finalised as yet Continuing
5. Communication strategy developed and implementation progressed. A series of workshops and port meetings were held in August and September 2005 where the importance of minimising interactions with TEPs was explained and the usage of dehookers demonstrated. Operators were provided with the materials and instructions to make up their own tori lines. Meetings were held in Mooloolaba (2), Coffs Harbour, Sydney, Ulladulla and Eden and were well attended by local operators. Follow up meetings have been held in 2006 and 2007 to ensure minimising interactions with TEP species remains in the forefront of operators minds. Yes – started in 2005 and ongoing
An additional port meeting was held in February 2008 to discuss management issues and remind operators of their obligations with mitigation measures to reduce interactions with TEP species
6. Through monitoring and reporting ensure that accepted measures are in place to minimise fishery interactions with high-risk species. AFMA monitors interactions with high risk and other species via logbooks, a dedicated Observer program and specific trials such as seabird mitigation trials. Yes – refer annual data summary and observer reports
7. ERA completed and risks to all species characterised. This was considered at MAC 70 in November 2007. As a consequence of the residual risk assessment the original list of 34 high risk species has been reduced to 8. Management arrangements to mitigate interactions with most of these 8 species are already in place or being developed. Yes, November 2007
Desired outcome: Greater knowledge of and reduced bycatch of high risk and other species.
Outcome achieved? Yes – reduced bycatch of high risk and other species. Knowledge level has also increased in terms of interaction levels
Issue: Broader marine ecosystem
Strategy (3): Take all reasonable steps to minimise the impact of the fishery on the broader marine ecosystem
Performance Indicator (output): Actions taken for output Output achieved (y/n) and date
1. The BAP elements of a fishery data plan identified. Final data plan was endorsed by Eastern Tuna MAC at MAC 66 in October 2006 and included the elements of the BAP Yes
2. Observer sampling regime for ecosystem research developed – component of data plan. The observer program is currently designed to provide catch and effort data to validate interactions with by-product and bycatch species and does not include a specific sampling regime for ecosystem research. The Observer program is being reviewed by the ETBF RAG in April 2008 so this can be considered during that review No – sampling is done on an ad hoc basis where possible but unlikely to be part of observer program due to cost
Some sampling is undertaken on an ad-hoc basis or when specifically requested by researchers
3. Management recommendations progressed on results of ecological indicator project. The final ERA is still to be provided to the MAC although several drafts have been considered over the past 3 years. Once this is available explicit management arrangements to address negative ecological impacts will be developed – No negative ecological impacts were identified in the ERA Not yet
4. Strategic research plans developed which focus on ecosystem research. Ecosystem research has been a priority on the ETBF research priority list for the past 5 years Yes, ecosystem research is a priority within the ETBF research plan.
CSIRO are undertaking the project” Determining ecological effects of longline fishing in the eastern tuna and billfish fishery”
Desired outcome: Greater knowledge of and decreased impact on the broader marine ecosystem by the tuna fisheries.
Outcome achieved? Yes – knowledge base has improved and continues to develop
Issue: Communication strategy
Strategy (4): Communicating the Bycatch Action Plan to industry.
Performance Indicator (output): Actions taken for output Output achieved (y/n) and date
1. Education and awareness programs on bycatch. A series of workshops and port meetings were held in August and September 2005 where the importance of minimising interactions with TEPs was explained and the usage of dehookers demonstrated. Operators were provided with the materials and instructions to make up their own tori lines. Meetings were held in Mooloolaba (2), Coffs Harbour, Sydney, Ulladulla and Eden and were well attended by local operators. Follow up meetings have been held in 2006 and 2007 to ensure minimising interactions with TEP species remains in the forefront of operators minds. An additional port meeting was held in February 2008 to discuss management issues and remind operators of their obligations with mitigation measures to reduce interactions with TEP species Yes – started in 2005 and ongoing
2. Industry extension. See above. Also regular field trips undertake by MAC executive Officer and AFMA staff to discuss current issues in the fishery and remind operators of the need to be fully cognisant of their impact on the wider eco-system. Also need to reduce bycatch or innovative ways of doing so regularly reported in AFMA news and fishing futures Yes and ongoing
Desired outcome: Increased industry awareness about BAPs, their objectives and actions as well as increased awareness about the impact fisheries have on the ecosystem and how to minimise this impact.
Outcome achieved? Yes – industry now has heightened awareness of the impact of fishing on the wider ecosystem.

See also:

[top]
(6) TEP species which have had one or more known interactions could not be reduced under this guideline