South East
Management Advisory Committee
(South East MAC)
MAC CHAIR’S summary
MeEting 10
6december 2012
South East MAC Meeting 10 6 December 20121 of 11
SOUTH EAST MAC (SEMAC)
CHAIR: Steve McCormackDate:6December2012
South East MAC met in Canberra on the 6th December 2012 and made recommendations in relation to a number of management measuresfor the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) and the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF).
Summaryof the recommendations
Directions
The MAC,with two reservations,endorsed SESSF (Closures) Direction No. 7intended to implement closures prescribed in the Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy. The Committee noted that additional specifications in relation to these closures and concerns identified by stakeholders would be addressed by AFMA in the final draft Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategywhich would be circulated after the MAC meeting.
The MAC supported AFMA’s proposal to remake the 700m Closure Direction into two separate but compatible Directions in order to provide a cost effective pathway for proposed area specific management of operations targeting Deepwater Sharks.
The MAC supported refinements to the 700m closure off eastern Bass Strait in response to more accurate information for that depth contour.
The MAC, noting one reservation, recommended that AFMA implementthe proposed Directions (Shark Hook and Gillnet Deep Water Closure and Automatic Longline Shallow Water Closure)consistent with technical refinements to the line of best fit for the 183 m closure.
The MAC noted a desire from industry to see AFMA provide closure coordinates to operators electronically however members acknowledged that were a range of issues with this including technical hurdles (such as document control and datum) to configuring coordinates in a format that would be compatible with the range of plotters across the fleet.
Other matters
The MAC recommended that AFMA approve automated jigging as a method under the Small Pelagic Fishery Management Plan. The Committee recommended that AFMA initially focus observer coverage at the start of the vessel’s campaign in case there are unexpected issues.
The Committee supported an extension of the industry trial of auto-longline gear to target Gummy Shark in South Australian waters however recorded a strong reservation from an industry member about having a stated objective of the trial ‘seeking to establish the economic viability of the method’, given the longstanding operation of the fishery under Statutory Fishing Rights (SFRs).
The MAC endorsed AFMA’s proposal to reduce the trip limit for Striped Trumpeter in waters adjacent to Tasmania to 150 kg (part of a 250 kg basket trip limit with Snapper and Yellowtail Kingfish).
The MAC endorsed AFMA’s proposal to move to a post determination of Research Catch Allowance for the SESSF FIS, whereby the research catch of each quota species would be deducted from the next year’s TAC for that species.
The MAC handled declarations of interest in accordance with the requirements of the Fisheries Administration Act 1991. The general view was that requiring members torepeatedly leave and re-enter the meeting while fellow members decided if they should participate wasan onerous requirement given that the MAC was an advisory body. Members anticipated that the requirement to review members’ interests before each agenda item would be even more cumbersome at the Committee’s 2013 TAC meeting because most quota species were afforded status as separate agenda items.
The meeting was well attended and operated with a quorum throughout. Apologies were received from Mr Geen (SPF industry member), Mr Moore (GABinvited participant), Mr Poole (recreational invited participant) and Ms Seaborn (state invited participant). The Committee appreciated submissions in relation to Striped Trumpeter from Mr Poole(recreational participant) and Mr Pullen (DPIPWE observer).
State of the fishery
The MAC noted strong industry concern about the recent Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Declared Commercial Fishing Activities) to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). A number of industry members indicated that this amendment had created wider uncertainty about the security of their access rights with corresponding uncertainty as to investment in the fishery. One member observed that the amendment now allowed for an additional review of management arrangements already assessed under the fisheries accreditation sections of the EPBC Act but potentially involving a different interpretation of the precautionary principle.
Industry members expressed disappointment that the Government appeared to be backing away from evidence based management despite acknowledged improvements in fisheries management under a good policy framework (Harvest Strategy Policy) which was supported by a dedicated scientific community.
Industry members advised that the Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA) and other fishers had raised this matter when providingsubmissions to the Review of Commonwealth fisheries management legislation(Borthwick Review).
The MAC noted that currently SEWPaC was required, under settings in the EPBC Act,to accept nominations for listings if there was evidence a species’ population was under 60% of its pre-exploitation biomass. The MAC noted that this was inconsistent with species like Tiger Flathead for which BMEY had been estimated at B36 and most other Commonwealth specieswhich were managed at reference points well below B60. Members agreed that this disconnect between the EPBC Act and Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy needed to be remedied.
Industry members advised that the National Seafood Industry Alliance (NSIA) had advised the Minister for the Environment that they were left with no option but to withdraw from further discussions to develop the fisheries adjustment assistance package on the basis that the adjustment assistance package as tabled by the Government falls short of all reasonable expectation. Additionally an industry commissioned study clearly shows the impacts on the fishing industry, upstream and downstream family businesses and regional communities reliant on the industry have not been adequately assessed. The MAC noted that CFA and NSIA members consider it a basic tenant that the Government commit to the guiding principal that “Australians negatively impacted should receive fair and reasonable adjustment assistance.”
The MAC welcomed advice that the School Shark Workshop had been well received by all stakeholders. The Committee noted that following the workshop CSIRO had reviewed the School Shark assessment and after consideration by SharkRAG a general view emerged that the rebuilding strategy should specify a more biologically appropriate recovery period (3 generations).
The MAC heardthat School Shark bycatch was currently limiting good fishing opportunities for Gummy Shark and there was uncertainty about how accurately School Shark discards were being reported.
The MACnotedadvice from AFMA confirming that all landings of Chimera species had to be covered by quotagiven similarities in the processed product meant compliance issues could arise if deepwater species were not acquitted against quota.
Industry members advised that the shift of South Australian boats to Bass Strait had exacerbated discarding of Elephantfish due to increased catch and the resultant pressure of quota availability. The MAC noted that Elephantfish catch is much lower off South Australia. The MAC recommended that AFMA seek SharkRAG’s assistance in calibrating its RBC recommendations in light of the basket nature of the TAC.
The trawl member noted that catch rates and prices in the trawl fishery remained high, but operators were concerned about continued closures given that 90% of the fishery was now closed. The MAC notedthat industry’s expectation was that additional Upper Slope Dogfish closures off Sydney and Portland threatened the viability of up to two boats in each port.
The member indicated that the average trawler was now paying $60,000 in levies per annumand further departures could pushup fees for the remaining operators to unsustainable levels. The member indicated that industry was working with AFMA to reduce costs. The member, speaking in his capacity as SETFIA Executive Officer confirmed that the association valued the RAG’s work highly but noted that the current RAG schedule was at a scale of ‘200 person days’ to set TACs for 30 + species (many of which are rolled over) and urged AFMA and the RAGs to consider opportunities for rationalising meetings to reduce travel and accommodation costs. AFMA have requested a letter to this affect from the Association.
The trawl member commented that the 2011acoustic optical surveys continued to indicate thatthere weresignificantlymore Orange Roughy on the eastern hills than estimated by the assessment. The scientific member recognised that industry was keen to see the differences in estimates from the surveys and the age based assessment resolved but indicated that this would depend on resourcing for Tier 1 assessments in 2013 as well as the relative priorities across the suite of SESSF species.
SESSF (Closures) Direction No.7 2012 - Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy
The MAC considered the draft Direction which incorporated the coordinates for the spatial closures introduced under the revised Upper-slope Dogfish Management Strategy.
The MAC recognised strong concerns from the auto-longline and trawl sectors in regard to the hardship the proposed closures (including the recent expansion of a number of them) would cause to operators. The Committee, while cognisant of these concerns, understood that consultation on these measures had now concluded and that the matter before them was largely a procedural one, that being the accurate reflection of the intended closures in the legal instrument (the Direction).
TheMAC,with two reservations, endorsed the draft Direction following advice from AFMA that additional elements and concerns raised by members would be addressed in the final draft Management Strategy. The Committee provided advice in regard to the proposed additions:
Additional specification needed to manage hook operations inside the Freycinet and Murray Commonwealth Marine Reserves
AFMA advised that the current Direction did not include schedules for waters inside the Freycinet and Murray Commonwealth Marine Reserves(CMR) which were open to the hook methods. The MAC considered that this was a novel situation whereby a more conservative management measure would be overlayed across a CMR by way of a fisheries management instrument.
The Trawl Manager explained that AFMA had originally intended to administer requirements for hook fishers in relation to handling procedures and Dogfish catch triggers through conditions on SFRs but now intended to incorporate these in the Direction.
The auto-longline industry member noted that access for a particular concession would be stopped for a pre-determined period if more than three interactions occurred with either Southern or Harrison’s Dogfish.The member emphasised that this Schedulewould need to be constructed very carefully to deal with operational realities and in particular any captures of Endeavour Dogfish and potentially similar looking shark species. The MAC agreed that AFMA would need to give careful consideration to balancing the settings and the capacity of observers or e-monitoring to differentiate between interactions with the two Dogfish species likely to be listed and interactions with Dogfish not subject to listing.
Trawl sector concerns
The MAC noted that AFMA may need to slightly revise (downward) its estimates of overall protection afforded to Upper Slope Dogfish(both through the Strategy and other closures) noting that calculations had not factored in auto-longline access to Freycinet and Murray Commonwealth Marine Reserves.
The trawl industry member was concerned the trawl sector would be locked out of 35% of Upper Slope Dogfish habitat and was effectively providing the buffer which allowed differential access for other sectors to be facilitated. The member’s view was that trawl vessels should be allowed access to closures particularly those which were on the cusp of Gulper Shark habitat based on the 3 interaction threshold.
The trawl member supported the proposed arrangements which he considered had less impact on the auto-longline sector but noted that the trawl sector would be hugely impacted by the closures with the likely result being vessels exiting the fishery. Therefore, AFMA’s costs (which are now greater than $3million per annum for the trawl sector) would be spread across less vessels and impact more greatly on these vessels. He requested an urgent need for a significant reduction in management costs.
The MAC noted advice from AFMA that, unlike auto-longline, trawl operations could not be satisfactorily monitored by cameras for dogfish bycatch.The conservation member noted that observers could fulfil this role on trawlers. Members also noted that Upper Slope Dogfish caught in trawl gear were usually killed.
The Committee acknowledged that the lack of trawl access (under triggers) to some closures may be anissue however noted that in the case of the Freycinet and Murray CMRs trawl fishing was excluded under the EPBC Act.
The trawl member again requested the closure spreadsheet from AFMA noting that an updated and current version had not been provided for some months.
Recommendations
That AFMA proceed with SESSF (Closures) Direction No. 7including Schedules for the waters within the Freycinet and Murray CMRs; and
That AFMA address the following related matters in the final Upper-slope Dogfish Management Strategy
• Specification of accessrequirements for hook methods to the waters within the Freycinet and
Murray CMRs withrespect to interactions with Harrison’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish.
• A decision framework is specified with respect to species identification and tallying against the
‘three shark’ interaction trigger for Harrison’s and Southern Dogfish.
• Obligationswith regard tohandlingrequirements for Upper Slope Dogfish are specified.
The MAC noted that AFMA had defined the method used by some vessels on seamounts as Hydraulic hand reel dropliningand suggested AFMA develop a less contradictory name than ‘Hydraulic hand reel’.
Recommendation (jargon)
The MAC recommended AFMAdetermine a more appropriate name for the method currently referred to as ‘Hydraulic hand reel’.
Amendment of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery 183 and 700 metre closures
The MAC was comfortable with the technical realignment of both the 183 m and 700m closure lines based on work undertaken by Sinclair, Knight, Merzand subsequent consultation with industry sectors and South East MAC. Mr Bromley (AFMA) briefed the MAC on the new information and the process of establishing a line of best fit with suitable coordinates. The MAC recognised concerns from industry in relation to the 183 m line off the Maria Canyon and off South West Cape however noted AFMA’s view that advice from Sinclair, Knight, Merz was more accurate than current charts and observations with uncalibrated sounders.
The auto-longline industry memberbelieved there was no compelling reason to continue to restrict the autoline sector by way of continuing the 183m closure. The member noted that AFMA was, off South Australia, issuing line permits in fisheries subject to closure while maintaining the exclusion of automatic longline methods (Automatic Longline Shallow Water Closure). The member considered that precaution around School Shark formerly used to justify the exclusion of auto-longline methods no longer existed with the use of hook gear beingtrialledin inshore waters. The member noted that data from the Gummy Shark Trial showed little difference in shark size composition between 6” gillnets and auto-longline gear. The member observed that survival rates for sharks released from hook methods were good. The member concluded that the 183 m closure was not consistent with AFMA’s legislative objectives and was therefore contestable.
The shark invited participant raised a strong objection to the position put forward by the auto-longline member. The AFMA member advised that the GHaT Future Direction Project would be looking at matters associated with access across relevant concessions.
The MAC Chair acknowledged industry concerns about the 183 m line but noted that the MAC had been asked for advice on technical aspects to the proposed Directions rather than an analysis of their validity with regard to AFMA’s objectives. The Chair indicated that consideration of the latter issue would need to be supported with a comprehensive paper which covered the history and rationale behind the 183 m line as well as an analysis of information from the current trials.