Northern Prawn Fishery
Management Advisory Committee
(NORMAC) 75 DRAFT MINUTES
Date: 20th June 2012
Venue: Riverview Hotel, Kingsford Smith Drive, Brisbane
Attendance
NORMAC
Stuart Richey Chairman
Steve Bolton AFMA member
Eddie Hegerl Conservation Member (To 1.30 pm)
Ian Knuckey Scientific Member/RAG Chair
David Carter Industry Member
Norm Peovitis Industry Member
Greg Albert Industry Member
Ron Earle Industry Member
George Raptis Industry Member
Eddie Jabreen State Government Permanent Observer
Annie Jarrett Executive Officer
Observers
Nick Rayns AFMA
Fiona Hill AFMA
Rik Buckworth CSIRO
Trevor Hutton CSIRO
Phil Robson Industry
Andy Prendergast Industry
Mike O’Brien Industry
John Palmer Industry
Col James Industry
Item 1. Chairman’s Opening Remarks/Adoption of Agenda
The Chairman opened at the meeting at 8.30 am and welcomed all attendees including Nick Rayns, Senior Manager of Fisheries and Steve Bolton newly -appointed AFMA member on NORMAC and Senior Manager for Northern Fisheries. The Chairman sought comments on the agenda. NORMAC agreed to add the following items to the agenda for consideration under ‘Other Business’:
· US Certification – timing/logistics
· MPA’s
· NPF Scientific Observer Tender Evaluation
Resolution:
That NORMAC adopts the agenda as amended
Item 2. Declaration of Interests
The Chairman reminded members that the AFMA policy paper on MACs and the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 required members to declare their interests in relation to the MAC and/or specific agenda items.
The Chairman reiterated that declarations of interest must also include any conflict of interest or possible conflict of interest arising from any legal or political actions or pending prosecutions pertaining to the fishery. All MAC members are required to make conflicts of these types known when other declarations of interests are recorded.
The specific interests of members were declared as follows:
Stuart Richey: FRDC Board Member
The specific commercial interests of the industry members of NORMAC were recorded as follows:
David Carter: CEO of a company holding 10 Class B SFRs and a number of gear SFRs
Norm Peovitis: 4 B Class SFRs and 2568 gear SFRs
Greg Albert: 2 B Class SFRs and 1275 gear SFRs
George Raptis: Shareholder in 10 Class B’s and a number of gear SFRs
Ron Earle 3 B SFR and 2105 gear SFRs
Dr. Knuckey declared that he is also participating on the steering group which was overseeing the tendering process for the NPF scientific observer program and doing some work for industry in relation to the North and North West MPA process.
The MAC noted that Annie Jarrett & Eddie Hegerl have on-going non-pecuniary interests in relation to the MSC.
Item 3. Correspondence
The MAC noted the correspondence which had been received since the last meeting.
Resolution:
That NORMAC notes the correspondence
Item 4 Confirmation of Out of Session Decisions
NORMAC noted that a number of issues had been considered out of session and that two specific out of session decision had been taken over the past few months as follows:
· To implement a specific input control harvest strategy for the JBG fishery
· To approve the draft minutes of NORMAC 74, September 2012 Special Meeting and February 2012 and April 2012 Teleconferences
Resolution:
That NORMAC reconfirms the above out-of session-decisions
Item 5. Action Arising
NORMAC reviewed the Action Arising, noting that many of the actions had been completed and could be removed from the Action sheet.
NORMAC noted comments from Eddie Hegerl that the reason the item on seasonal closures/ MPA’s was still on the action list is to get seasonal closures formally accepted by the United Nations as protected areas. It was noted that no Australian fisheries protected areas are on the IUCN list. Something of a shift in the thinking of world ecologists over recent years meant that the IUCN does now not want to see fishery closure areas as conservation areas. AFMA management provided the metadata files to Mr. Hegerl during the discussions to progress this issue.
Resolution:
That NORMAC notes the Action Arising
Item 6. Industry Report
NORMAC noted comments from industry MAC members on various aspects of the fishery as follows:
Marketing: Market conditions improved in 2012 with prices of up to $1 higher per kg achieved compared to last year when the fishery experienced very high catches. This is a function of supply and demand. The majority of the banana prawn catch was once again sold through Australian supermarket chains.
Catches: The fishery experienced a very good season with catches widely spread from the Kimberley fishery to Cape York. There were a couple areas of low production around the Vanderlins and Maria Island. Top end catches were strong with a small amount of activity in JBG. Industry estimated that approximately 4600 tonnes of banana prawns were caught, with approximately 50% of catch taken in first 17 days. It was felt that the late (March) rainfall resulted in catches being higher than original industry expectations.
Some good tiger prawn catches were also experienced in May/June with catches estimated to be around 30 tonnes. Areas around the Vanderlins and West Mornington had some reasonable catches and the outlook for tiger prawns looked generally more promising than last year.
The few boats that did go tiger prawn fishing looked into areas which were traditionally fished before being shut as part of the stock rebuilding strategy in 2002. The areas showed good signs of stock recovery but have now been included in the proposed Gulf of Carpentaria marine reserve which will be big loss to the NPF in the future.
The fishery experienced very bad weather in the last month of the season and a lot of smaller boats which were tiger prawn fishing left the fishery due to the poor weather conditions. Another problem experienced this year was the difficultly in retaining crew for the full length of the season now the fishery is open to tiger prawn fishing until 15th June.
Cost: Fuel continues to be a major cost (eg $1.06 cents/litre at Karumba and between 90 and 94 cents/ litre in port). There is also a possibility that the mothership operations which currently service the NPF may be discontinued which would mean boats would have to unload in either Karumba or Darwin. This will significantly increase operating costs (including increased fuel usage and loss of fishing time) if this service is discontinued. Increasing AQIS costs are also a threat to profitability.
License trading: There are currently approximately 6 leased licenses operating in the fishery. The lease price is approximately 5% of the value of gear SFRs. A recent sale of 84 units had occurred.
Item 7. AFMA Management Report
NORMAC received a report from AFMA management in relation to staff changes, AFMA budgets, the commencement of the pre-season spawning survey and the Bycatch and Harvest Strategy policy reviews being undertaken by DAFF in consultation with stakeholders.
The MAC noted that the total Northern Prawn Fishery budget for 2012/13 is $2,460,310, an increase from the 2011/12 budget of $1,994,096. This is an increase from the amount discussed at the June NPFI meeting ($2,424,343). It was noted that the large variances related to increases in the research and scientific observer budgets, as well as overhead increases.
Industry MAC members expressed concerns about the ongoing increases in the NPF fishery budget, noting that despite reductions in some areas since the consultation on budgets began earlier in the year, the overall budget had increased by approximately 21%. Industry MAC members queried the reasons for the large, erratic movement and variations in the budget between individual cost centres from year to year. Concerns were also expressed that regardless of how much industry tries to prune costs through initiatives such as co-management (which had achieved savings), overheads and other cost centres continued to go up.
AFMA management indicated that it was well known that the move to quota management would result in increased costs of managing the fishery and that despite some savings being achieved by AFMA (renting out part of the building etc), the reduction in government expenditure is causing increases across the board.
The MAC discussed the high level of overheads and administration costs which were applied to research and noted that in the NPF, research administration costs were up as high as 38%.
The MAC noted that CFA had queried whether AFMA could collect research payments over and above .25% of GVP that do not attract overheads Dr. Rayns indicated that AFMA was yet to respond to the request but had developed a target to reduce research overheads to between 8 -9% by 2013/14.
The MAC noted that cost savings had been achieved by NPFI managing the data management function and that Matt Barwick was doing an excellent job in ensuring timely provision and reconciliation of log book information. This was recognized as a triumph for the co-management approach being implemented in the NPF. NORMAC noted that compliance in the fishery was extremely high and that no breeches had been detected in the 2012 banana prawn season. The MAC agreed that the broader industry should be congratulated on this outcome.
MAC members noted the update on staff changes, with industry members expressing concern that the turnover appeared to be excessive in recent years. It was noted that some staff turnover is important and healthy for organizations however too much turnover becomes symptomatic of bigger concerns, particularly if mentoring opportunities for newer staff are reduced. Dr. Rayns indicated that there were a number of reasons for staff turnover including lack of career opportunities in a small organization, opportunities in other departments becoming available and remuneration levels.
NORMAC noted that reviews of the Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch and the Commonwealth’s Harvest Strategy policy are currently underway. CFA has representation on the review teams and DAFF has been asked by AFMA to recognise the role of the MACs and the RAGs to ensure that the broader fishing industry is consulted in these processes.
The review of the Harvest Strategy policy will look at how the policy has been implemented over the past five years, including the implementation of the MEY target. A key issue of concern to industry will be the implications for trawl fisheries around bycatch issues. It was noted that some stakeholders may push for settings on bycatch species however this was unlikely to occur given the number of bycatch species across fisheries and the costs associated with implementing and monitoring such an approach. It was more likely that the focus would be on by-product species however this is also a concern to AFMA and industry. The MAC noted that AFMA would prefer that the risk-based approach is improved upon rather than trying to develop harvest strategies for non-target species.
Resolution:
That NORMAC notes the report
Item 8. Update on Venables et al Banana Prawn TAC Project
The MAC received a presentation on the March milestone report on the “Incorporation of predictive models of banana prawn catch for MEY-based harvest strategy development for the NPF” ( Venables et al.) project which was provided to the Commission in April. It was noted that the current phase of the project is aimed at enhancing the feasibility of predicting banana prawn catches from rainfall, and developing a TAC-setting mechanism in an MEY framework. The MAC noted that the “robustification” process is currently underway and elaboration of the variance structure of predictions is being investigated.
The MAC noted that the preferred ‘Effort Weighted (new)’ model had predicted a banana prawn catch of approximately 2989 tonnes in 2012. The reconciled catch data was not available for the meeting as the season has only just concluded however industry estimated that approximately 4600 tonnes of banana prawns had been caught in the first season.
The MAC noted that the CSIRO predictions resulted in an underestimation of approximately 1500 tonnes of catch (or $15 million ) in the first season alone. Industry members stated that this was an unacceptable level of error and reiterated their concerns regarding the timing constraints of obtaining rainfall data and the implications of variables such as late rainfall on the TACs. Concerns were also expressed about using historical data over a long period of time when there were considerably more boats in the fishery, and comparing it with the current system of management with 52 boats and trigger limits to allow escapement. It was also noted that the model only looks at rainfall and does not use measures such as prevailing winds and other factors which cause rivers to be restocked with larvae.
The MAC noted that, based on the need to use February data, the earliest a TAC could be set would be mid-March. This would have significant implications for quota trading as well as operational impacts. The MAC noted that the project is due to be finalised and reported against in September.
Resolution:
That NORMAC notes the report
Item 9. Definition of Effort Creep (AFMA/ ABAREs Papers - April 2012)
The MAC noted the ABAREs and AFMA management papers which had been written in response to advice provided to the AFMA Commission by CSIRO on effort creep and other issues relating to the ITQ debate. It was noted that the definitions of effort creep differed between agencies, with the ABAREs work focusing primarily around input substitution, whereas the CSIRO work focused on identifying and monitoring increases in effective fishing effort through changes/advances in technology.
Dr. Rayns advised that the Commission had received the ABAREs and AFMA Management papers but had not discussed them at the February meeting. The MAC noted that the Commission had since moved on and was open to considering an alternative rules-based ITE system.
The MAC noted that the term ‘effort creep’ had been coined in the mid- 1980’s in response to studies to define the “unaccounted increase in effort, relative to nominal effort, due to changes in technical efficiency and fishing practices (ie fishing power: technical efficiency gains, increased knowledge and fishing behaviour). It was noted that effort creep resulting from new technologies and fishing practices is not the same as input substitution. It was agreed that the historical definition of the term effort creep should be adopted in the NPF for consistency.