Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 13July 2012:

(1) Does the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) have an industry strategy to deal with localised depletion within fisheries; if so, can details be provided; if not, what attempts has AFMA made to address this issue.

(2) Does AFMA have any modelling to show the length of time it takes for small pelagic fish to repopulate an area following localised depletion: if so, can a copy of that modelling be provided; if not, what data is AFMA relying on to ensure recovery from localised depletion events.

(3) Is there a spatial management plan for the small pelagic fishery to ensure localised depletion events cannot occur; if so, can a copy of the plan be provided; if not, how will the fishery be managed to guard against localised depletions.

(4) How would any new or adjusted spatial management plans or spatial management conditions be arrived at, by whom, and how would they be funded.

(5) Given that modelling indicates that Tier 2 level exploitation rates may pose a greater threat to fish stocks than Tier 1 levels, even though Tier 1 levels of exploitation may be at a higher rate, and given that Tier 2 levels do not require ongoing validation by the daily egg production method (DEPM) assessments of fish stocks, what is the justification for not requiring ongoing DEPM assessments for Tier 2 levels to ensure stocks are protected.

(6) Have assessments been done on the fishing induced mortality of lanternfish or on the related ecosystem based impacts; if so, can copies of those assessments be provided; if not, on what data is AFMA relying to determine the impact of activities on lanternfish or related ecosystem based impacts and can a copy of that data be provided.

(7) Why was the harvest strategy general meta-rule used to increase jack mackerel (east) recommended biological catch from 5 000 tonnes to 10 600 tonnes when the research meta-rule presents a better fit within the harvest strategy for such a situation.

(8) Is it true that the review of the SPF Harvest Strategy is many months, if not a year, overdue and that if completed it would better consider issues critical to this debate such as localised depletion and the sustainability of Australian fish stocks.

(9) Do any safeguards and protocols exist within the AFMA Small Pelagic Fishery Total Allowable Catch setting process to remove any conflicts of interest regarding financial advantage; if so, what are they and when were they last reviewed.

(10) What effort has been undertaken to test the ability of Seal Exclusion Devices (SEDs) to work on a trawler the size of the FV Margiris, given the net size, shape, and construction materials to be used.

(11) Given that Seafish Tasmania has only used SEDs on trawlers approximately one-third the size of the FV Margiris, what evidence is there to support the view that SEDs will lessen or eradicate mammalian by-catch.

(12) Is there potential for SEDs to act as a method of removing dead mammalian by-catch before such occurrences can be observed and recorded.

(13) Does any standing AFMA policy block public access, transparency, or scrutiny of any compliance data that would be collected on a single 'super trawler' like the FV Margiris.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the senator's question is as follows:

Catch quota in the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) is divided between east and west zones which spreads effort and lowers the risk of localised depletion. Further, state waters and many Commonwealth Marine Reserves are off limits to mid-water trawling. In addition, the annual fishery assessment for the SPF aims to determine the likelihood of localised depletion. AFMA considers under the current management arrangements the risk of localised depletion is low, but that the risk will continue to be monitored and will be discussed at the upcoming SPF Harvest Strategy review commencing in August 2012.

Further, I have established a working party consisting of members of industry and recreational fishing groups (SPF Working Party) to seek agreement on operational measures for the FV Margiris including responses to concerns about localised depletion. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) is supporting this working group.

Research into SPF species shows they are mobile, often moving in response to dynamic oceanographic factors such as the Tasman Front and the East Australian Current.

CSIRO and other science agencies have conducted studies and ecosystem modelling to assess the position of small pelagic fish in the food web. These have shown that in Australian ecosystems there is a diverse range of species and food-web pathways such that top predators are not heavily reliant on the SPF species as may be the case in other parts of the world.

Scientific studies have also determined that at catch levels of around 30 000 tonnes per annum the South Australian sardine fishery is not impacting on the healthy functioning of the local ecosystem. This strongly suggests that, at the much lower catch levels in the SPF over a much larger area, the risk of ecosystem impacts from localised depletion are low.

(3) AFMA considers that under the current management arrangements the risk of localised depletion is low. Quota allocations in the SPF are divided into east and west zones by a line along 146°30' East. This spreads effort across zones and lowers the risk of localised depletion. Part of the Australian Fishing Zone is closed to midwater trawling under existing marine protected areas and exclusion from state waters.

(4) See answer to (3).

(5) The SPF Harvest Strategy provides the framework for setting total allowable catches (TAC). It uses a three tiered approach which allows for a higher potential TAC depending on the level of information known about a stock. Tier 1 allows for the highest potential catch because it is based on a quantitative stock assessment technique, which includes a DEPM survey, therefore there is more certainty in the stock size. Tier 2 still requires a detailed stock assessment to be completed each year but it is based on less information and therefore results in a more precautionary TAC.

If a DEPM survey is undertaken for a stock then the assessment will be at Tier 1, not Tier 2.

If Tier 2 levels were not adjusted to take into account new information they may pose a greater risk to fish stocks than Tier 1. However, Tier 2 maximum levels can be reviewed and changed through:

the SPFRAG recommending catches below the maximum levels to take into account additional information

regular reviews of the Harvest Strategy

the ability to use the meta-rule to take new information into account (increasing or decreasing the maximum catches).

The SPF Harvest Strategy has been in place since 2008. It is based on scientific research and advice and was developed in consultation with scientists, industry members and the recreational and environmental sectors. It is consistent with the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy.

The SPF Harvest Strategy is available on the AFMA website at www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/fisheries-a-to-z-index/small-pelagic-fishery/publications/small-pelagic-fishery-harvest-strategy/

(6) AFMA has assessed almost 2000 species as part of the Ecological Risk Assessment process, with 69 species being identified as high risk. Lanternfish are not part of this group.

Lanternfish have been caught in the SPF but only rarely. They have been caught more often in other fisheries and are assessed in the Ecological Risk Assessments for the Commonwealth Trawl Sector Otter Trawl Fishery and the Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fisheries. All species assessed were found to be low risk expect for large scaled lanternfish. This was assessed as medium risk in the Otter Trawl Fishery because of spatial uncertainty of the species.

These assessments are available on the AFMA website at www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/environment-and-sustainability/Ecological-Risk-Management/.

(7) The SPFRAG applied the general meta-rule because the recommended biological catch was increased in 2012 on the basis of research published in 2011. While the SPF Harvest Strategy has a meta-rule for additional catch allowance to support an exploratory fishing and research program, this was not appropriate because the research had already been done. No application was made to use the research meta-rule.

(8) The SPF Harvest Strategy is required to be reviewed within the first 12 months of its commencement and at least every three years following. The Harvest Strategy commenced in 2008 and was reviewed in October 2009. There is currently a review of the Harvest Strategy being conducted which is within the three year time frame specified since the last review.

(9)Total allowable catches for Commonwealth fisheries are set by the AFMA Commission, an independent, expert-based group. Industry members are excluded by legislation from being AFMA Commissioners.

AFMA's policies on the roles and responsibilities of members of the bodies that advise the AFMA Commission (Management Advisory Committees and Resource Assessment Groups) describe how conflicts of interest should be dealt with. This includes that members must disclose conflicts of interest.

The policy on Management Advisory Committees was last reviewed in 2009 and the policy on Resource Assessment Groups was last reviewed in 2005. The Management Advisory Committee Policy can be found at www.afma.gov.au/resource-centre/publications-and-forms/fisheries/fisheries-management-papers/.

(10) Seafish Tasmania has advised AFMA that the Dutch company developing their SED has conducted research in the north and central Atlantic, North Pacific, and Antarctic waters to develop similar release systems for large unwanted species. While the SED has not been operationally tested in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery, the material used in the net has already been tested by the Dutch company and the SED design is upward opening to comply with Australian best practice. Research has shown that upward opening SEDs reduce the risk of mortalities of marine mammals.

AFMA assesses and monitors SEDs used on Commonwealth fishing boats. The SED used on the Margiris will be monitored through high levels of onboard AFMA observer coverage. AFMA will satisfy itself that the SED is effective and if it is not require modifications to be made.

(11) The design of bycatch reduction devices is dependent on the size of the target fish species, the size and type of animal to be excluded and the size of the net. The size of the boat is not relevant.

(12) AFMA understands that an upward excluding device will be fitted to the net. This will increase the ability of onboard observers to record any mortalities that may occur. It is important to note that the upward excluding device is designed to allow mammals to exit the net alive.

(13) AFMA can release information if it is specifically authorised by legislation and where it is necessary to carry out its functions. AFMA has a policy to guide general release of information into the public domain which is designed to release information fit for its purpose while maintaining reasonable confidentiality for the fishing industry. The policy does not generally provide for single boat-level information to be released to the public but provides a level of accountability to the Australian community through release of fishery-level information.