Management

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Annual Status Report 2008

  1. Changes to management
  2. Performance of the fishery against objectives, performance indicators and performance measures
  3. Compliance risks present in the fishery and actions taken to reduce these risks
  4. Consultation processes
  5. Description of cross-jurisdictional management arrangements
  6. Compliance with threat abatement plans, recovery plans and domestic and international agreements

3.1. Changes to management

Since accreditation of the ETBF in 2005, one amendment has been made to the Plan  (252kb). The amendment to the ETBF plan was to correct technical errors identified by AFMA between late 2005 and early 2006. Although the errors in the Plan were technical in nature, they had the effect of rendering the SFR allocation provisions non-functional and preventing AFMA from undertaking the allocation process (see current management arrangements discussed in Section 1.2: Management Arrangements).

[top]

3.2. Performance of the fishery against objectives, performance indicators and performance measures

A statement of the performance of the ETBF (2.3MB) (PDF, 2.35mb) against its objectives, performance indicators and performance measures is made annually in AFMA’s annual report.

[top]

3.3. Compliance risks present in the fishery and actions taken to reduce these risks

Compliance risks

The unique and dynamic nature of fisheries presents great challenges to the effective management of risk. In the fisheries compliance context, risk equates to the failure of fishing operators to comply with fisheries management arrangements and/or fishing permit/concession conditions. AFMA compliance conducts a risk assessment each financial year of all risks to compliance across the major Commonwealth fisheries to direct resources towards high risks that are identified.

ETBF specific risks include:

  1. Breaching of seabird TAP regulations
  2. Logbook misreporting
  3. Take of prohibited or protected species
  4. Breaching the ban on sharkfinning
  5. Exceeding trip limits (including shark limits)
  6. Unauthorised and unlicensed fishing
Compliance management tools

To address these risks AFMA’s compliance program contains seven main elements:

1. Integrated Computer Vessel Monitoring System (ICVMS)

ICVMS is used to monitor pelagic longline operations and the movement of boats in and out of ports. AFMA monitors the activity of the fleet through ICVMS, at least three times per day during office hours. ICVMS allows AFMA to contact vessels whose reports are overdue within three hours of the missed position report and to ensure that the vessel and ICVMS is working in accordance with conditions imposed on fishing permits. Temporary reporting schedules are to be arranged for vessels whose ICVMS has stopped working while at sea.

2. Vessel Inspections

Random in-port vessel inspections are to be carried out on active boats in the fishery during the year. Additional inspections may be carried out on targeted vessels if intelligence indicates further attention is warranted.

3. Fish Receiver Inspections

Regular inspections of fish receiver premises will be carried out during the year. Additional inspections may be carried out on targeted receivers if intelligence indicates further attention is warranted.

4. At-Sea Compliance

AFMA each year determines an appropriate number of sea patrol days to be undertaken in Commonwealth waters.

5. Aerial Surveillance

AFMA each year determines an appropriate number of aerial surveillance flights to detect offences particularly related to the Threat Abatement Plan for Seabirds (eg use of tori lines).

6. Intelligence reports

Fisheries officers are required to submit intelligence reports to AFMA outlining any suspected breaches or significant information concerning the fishery that they obtain while working in the field.

7. Information Program

AFMA Compliance keep fisheries officers informed of compliance initiatives in the fishery and vice versa on an as-needs basis. Fisheries officers maintain a client liaison role to gauge operator response to compliance. AFMA Compliance provide fishers and processors with regular feedback on the level of compliance with the management arrangements.

[top]

3.4. Consultation processes

AFMA actively involves a wide range of stakeholders in the process of developing and implementing fisheries management arrangements. This approach is supported by specific consultative processes which are embodied in the Authority’s governing legislation and undertaken as part of effective fisheries management practice.

The Plan and associated management arrangements in place were developed in consultation with the Eastern Tuna Management Advisory Committee (ETMAC), the Eastern Tuna Resource Assessment Group (ETRAG), operators and other stakeholders. The Plan details the objectives for the fishery, measures to achieve these objectives and criteria to assess the Plan’s performance. Australia is a member of the WCPFC for highly migratory fish stocks, and therefore any conservation and management measures implemented by the Commission are binding. Therefore the AFMA Board, ETMAC and WCPFC (and its science and compliance committees) are all involved in determining management measures for the fishery.

ETMAC is the key advisory committee for management of the domestic fishery. The MAC membership is drawn from AFMA (1), scientific agencies (1), a conservation NGO (1) and the pelagic longline sector of industry (4). Representatives from the state fisheries agencies, the recreational/charter fishing sectors and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) have permanent observer status at ETMAC meetings. Agencies such as DAFF, Department of Environment Water Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) and Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS) have attended meetings as observers.

ETRAG is the key research and scientific committee for management of the domestic fishery. The RAG membership is drawn from AFMA (1), scientific agencies (3), ABARE (1) and the pelagic longline sector of industry (3). Agencies such as DAFF, DEWHA and BRS have attended meetings as observers. This committee in-part provides advice to the AFMA Board regarding the status of the target species stock in Australia and the Pacific and is the key group in implementing the Harvest Strategy policy.

[top]

3.5. Description of cross-jurisdictional management arrangements

Under Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) arrangements the Commonwealth has jurisdiction for most tuna and tuna-like species to the high water mark, except in NSW where jurisdictional negotiations are ongoing. For a description of what other fisheries operate in the same region as the ETBF and any species catches see Section 5.2: Total catch of target species taken in other fisheries.

[top]

3.6. Compliance with threat abatement plans, recovery plans and domestic and international agreements

The ETBF Management Plan and supporting instruments implement the requirements of Threat Abatement Plans (seabird TAP), recovery plans (sharks, turtles) and relevant national and international agreements.

In compliance with these plans and agreements AFMA has introduced a range of measures see Section 8.3: Management action taken to reduce interactions.

As a result of these measures the ETBF has to date not exceeded the agreed seabird bycatch level of 0.05 birds per 1,000 hooks.

For more information see the TAP report (1MB).

Australia is a member of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), and is therefore bound to their international conservation and management measures. As well as this Australia participates in meetings as part of the Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA).

[top]