Draft National Plan of Action for minimising the incidental catch of seabirds in Australian capture fisheries

Submission No.: 05

Submission by: Small Pelagic Fishery Industry Association

South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association

Sustainable Shark Industry Association

Submission:

Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Industry comment on the Draft National Plan of Action (NPOA) seabirds

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSION:

1. This submission is on behalf of three Commonwealth managed fishing associations who combined hold more than 50,000 tonnes of quota and operate 50 fishing vessels in southern Australia; a region with many threatened groups of seabirds.

2. The phrasing “catch of seabirds” within the NPOA is clumsy. Many seabird interactions are cryptic and the relationship between seabird and fishing vessels is sometimes even beneficial. The NPOA should use the word “interact” and define this as any contact between a seabird and fishing vessels which causes harm or stress to the seabird.

3. Seabird interactions have been managed to very low levels in these fisheries; heavy interaction with trawl warps have reduced by more than 90%, auto-longliners have an interaction rate of <1 seabird per 10,000 hook sets and the gillnet fishery does not generally interact with threatened groups of seabirds.

4. The NPOA draws largely on international experiences which are not relevant to Australia. Comparatively, Australian fisheries are small in catch, use smaller vessels and do not experience net captures. The NPOA should draw on Australian learnings where possible.

5. The NPOA’s proposals for longline (auto-longline) and trawl are incorrect and would do more harm than good for these reasons (point 4 above). Best practice is explained in (6) below.

6. Best practice in Australian southern trawl fisheries is the use of approved bafflers, sprayers or pinkies/offal control and in auto-longline fisheries is to night set and use tori lines. There is no need for seabird mitigation in the gillnet section of the GHaT fishery given point (3) above and the tests in the draft by-catch strategy.

7. Management responses (like the NPOA) to seabird interactions should consider risk and where risk is low, especially where industry has invested to reduce this risk, additional cost burden should not be added. Consideration should be given to the conservation status of seabird that are being interacted with. These principles are well described by the catch-cost-risk framework. These three fisheries are already experiencing very high management costs and low profitability and cannot incur additional cost where no material conservation gain is possible.

8. Training fishermen is important and industry would welcome Australian Government assistance on other conservation-gain projects.

9. The NPOA’s focus should be on state-run commercial and recreational fisheries where the seabird interaction rate is unknown and little or no seabird management actions are in place.

This submission is on behalf of three Commonwealth managed fisheries in southern Australia represented by three industry associations (“the Industry” or “this submission”). Combined

1

these associations represent 50,000 tonnes of quota and operate 50 vessels within these fisheries (see Table 1). These fisheries are the:

1. Commonwealth Trawl Sector (South East Trawl Fishery) represented by the South East Trawl Fishing industry Association (SETFIA)

2. Small Pelagic Fishery represented by the Small Pelagic Fishing Industry Association (SPFIA)3. Gillnet, Hook and Trap Fishery represented by the Sustainable Shark Industry Alliance

(SSIA).

By way of introduction this submission questions the use of the words “catch of seabirds” in the title and numerous mentions in the body (pages 1, 4, 7, 8, 12, 19 etc.) of the NPOA. This is because some fishing gear types (such as trawling) very rarely ‘catch’ (retain) seabirds but still present a risk. Seabirds sometimes strike trawler warps1 and are injured or sometimes slide down warps underwater. In this way interactions between seabirds and trawl fishing gear are “cryptic” meaning that seabird bodies are generally not returned to the vessel.

The term “catch” also suggests that vessels intend to catch seabirds in the way they do fish. Australian trawlers very rarely “catch” seabirds in nets (net captures) as is the case in other fisheries such as New Zealand.

Figure 1 Seabirds resting on the baffler boom arm of a Commonwealth trawler

Figure 2 (below) Seabirds feeding on a bag of trawl caught fish without incident (image: AFMA Observer Eddie Freeman).

The NPOA should instead use the word “interaction”. An interaction being defined as any contact between a seabird and a vessel that causes harm or stress to the seabird. This definition of interaction is already widely and successfully used within the Commonwealth fishery when describing relationships between fishing vessels and other threatened, endangered and protected (TEP) species. The use of the words “harm” and “stress” in the definition is important because many interactions between TEPs and seabirds are not harmful and are indeed beneficial (Figure 1). Using the word interaction would be more consistent with the Department’s draft By-catch Policy.

Seabirds regularly and actively feed on trawl caught fish as they are brought aboard without risk.

1 Steel cables used to tow trawls.

2

It is worthwhile initially to understand the fisheries represented by these three associations, their gear types and the nature of their seabird interactions (Table 1).

Table 1 Fisheries covered by this submission (with a focus on embolden gear types), representative associations, gear types and the nature and extent of seabird interactions.

All three fisheries have already significantly reduced their risk to seabirds and it is worthwhile reviewing these gains.

What work has occurred on trawl fishing vessels?

Seabirds are attracted to trawl fishing vessels by the sight and smell of fish and fish offal. They can be injured or killed when they collide with trawl warps.

In 2014, SETFIA received an Australian Government ‘Caring for our Country’ grant of $330,000 and with the Great Australian Bight Industry Association (GABIA) travelled to New Zealand on a seabird study tour. The team of eight fishermen, industry association staff and research scientists short-listed two devices to protect seabirds; sprayers and bafflers.

A Project team consisting of the Australian Antarctic Division, CSIRO, AFMA, Ocean Watch and Industry oversaw the project in which an independently observed paired trials of interactions between a control pinky (a large brightly coloured buoy run in front of the warp that physically pushes seabirds out of the way without harm) and the two trial devices. The trial ran over 124 day-time fishing operations (shots) in south-east Australia over 12 months between November

3

2014 and October 2015. Shots only qualified to provide data if seabirds were present and there were many periods in which there was no seabird activity.

The trial focused on heavy interactions. A heavy interaction being contact between a cable and a seabird that caused the seabird to vary its course. The vast majority of warp interactions do not injure the seabird but it is likely that some heavy interactions do so the project focused on heavy interactions.

Bafflers are designed to prevent seabirds from entering the zone where trawl warps enter the water. They are made from long curtains of rope and pieces of plastic piping, which act as a fence and stop seabirds from coming near the warps. During the trial bafflers reduced heavy interactions by 96% when compared to bare warps.

Seabird sprayers create a curtain of water around the area where the warps enter the water. Sprayers are more expensive than bafflers. During the trial bafflers reduced heavy interactions by 92% compared to bare warps.

Pinkies have previously been shown to reduce heavy interactions by 75% (vs. bare warps). Anecdotal observations suggest that this performance is increased if offal is not discharge while fishing gear (warps) is in the water.

On June 30, 2016 SETFIA and GABIA issued a press release calling on AFMA to make these devices mandatory for all trawl vessels by May 1, 2017. AFMA responded in support and as of May 1, 2017 all commercial trawl fishing vessels in the SESSF now use one of:

1. sprayers,2. bird bafflers, or,3. pinkies (large buoys that are placed in front of where trawl warps enter the water, also

known as warp deflectors). If pinkies are used, fishers must not dispose of any offal while fishing.

Figure 3 A compliant bird baffler in the CTS.

Most operators (95%) in the Commonwealth managed Great Australian Bight (GAB) and

CTS have installed bafflers. Due to high cost only one operator installed a sprayer and only one part-time trawl operator has been approved to retain offal and use pinkies.

Baffler design and criteria for approval have been described by AFMA. An approved baffler must meet the following requirements:

1. Have brightly coloured droppers spaced no more than 500mm apart.2. Have droppers constructed of a brightly coloured, durable material and be weighted

sufficiently to maintain rigidity and contact with the water.3. When deployed, the baffler must run between one and three metres outside the trawl

blocks.4. Baffler droppers must extend as far aft of where the warps enter the water as practicable.

4

5. The baffler must be able to remain deployed at all times whilst trawl gear is under tow (during daylight hours).

Similarly, sprayers and pinkies also have approved specifications that are available on the AFMA website but not reproduced here.

SETFIA would like to take this opportunity to thank all members of the Steering Committee (the Australian Antarctic Division, CSIRO, AFMA and Ocean Watch) and also AFMA’s By-Catch Team who were instrumental in the execution of this project.

What progress has been made on auto-longline vessels?

As explained within the NPOA longlining is managed under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) as a Key Threatening Process (KTP). This states that seabird interaction (returned to vessel) rates must stay below 1 in 10,000 hook sets. In order to achieve this all Commonwealth managed auto-longliners now:

Have 100% Electronic Monitoring (EM) using three cameras (with secured hard drives) which show:

o line shooting,o the hauling operation,o the deck operation.

Run a stern tori line. Only set at night. Control offal to not attract seabird when shooting. (One vessel is trailing a Mustad seabird laser mitigation device.)

These arrangements have effectively eliminated interactions with only a few triggers of the TAP caused by mutton birds – a species of the lowest conservation concern that supports an annual commercial harvest of 200,000 individuals in Tasmania.

There are very few interactions with seabird species with a negative conservation status in the gillnet section of the GHaT fishery.

TEP reporting within the GHaT gillnet fleet should be considered to be highly reliable given the EM in place. A review of the publicly available TEP reporting shows that gillnetters interact with 150-200 seabirds annually.

The three most common seabird groups interacted with (80% of all seabirds reported) and their IUCN conservation status are:

o petrels, prions and, shearwaters (66% with almost all being mutton birds),o cormorants (IUCN least concern 7%) and,o little penguins (IUCN least concern, 7%).

There are only a handful (<10) seabird records (annually) without species identification and no albatrosses (many groups of which have negative conservation status) within the data studied by this submission.

The low level of interactions and positive conservation status of species interacted with, mean that there is currently no need for management actions. This submission notes that the NPOA best practice (Appendix D pages 25-28) correctly does not address gillnetting.

Best practice should where possible be based on the Australian experience

This submission notes the FAO best practice guidelines (NPOA page 2) and best practices have been used to develop the guidelines in Appendix D. Best practice should consider international experience but given that:

Australian seabird species have unique behaviours,

o the Australia fishing fleet operates on average much smaller vessels than global fleets,

5

o the Australian fleet is comparatively very small in terms of vessel number,o the Australian fleet is comparatively very small in terms of (fish) catch,o Australia leads the world in seabird mitigation in most or all classes of small vessel,

…preference should be given to the Australian experience and Australian research where it exists.

The Department should be careful not to make unreasonable global comparisons. For instance, it is ridiculous and unnecessary to cite the global mortality of 400,000 seabirds (NPOA page 5) as being in any way representative of the number (likely less than 200 per annum) of mortal interactions in the comparatively tiny Australian GHaT sector. The GHaT sector incurs enormous management levies for observer and EM coverage and a simple AFMA data request would have shown that seabird interactions are in the very low hundreds per annum. We urge the Department to take care to not create outrage where a problem does not exist.

The nature of seabird interactions in these three fisheries means that many of the best practice recommendations (NPOA page 25) are incorrect and/or irrelevant and would likely increase the risk to seabirds. Appendix D is not an accurate description of best practice on Australian fishing vessels:

1. There would be no decrease in risk in the CTS and SPF if vessels engaged in net binding (NPOA page 25), net weights and net cleaning. These points should be removed. Observer reports show that there is no evidence of net captures in Australian trawl fisheries.

2. Simplifying baffler design to “bird scaring lines” (NPOA page 25) might allow Commonwealth managed trawl vessels to abandon carefully designed and approved bafflers and revert to simplified and unproven tori lines. The description should be changed to bafflers and use AFMA’s definition.

3. This submission supports the contention that net-monitoring cables (NPOA page 25) increase risk on trawlers but that this risk could likely be managed with a baffler-like device. There is only one southern Commonwealth managed trawl fishery likely to use a net-monitoring cable and this fishery currently has no active vessels.

4. Batching offal (NPOA page 25) is complicated, potentially dangerous for stability reasons and not practicable on the majority of small Australian vessels. Unless done well it can create periodic seabird feeding frenzies that increase risk. Large vessels with meal plants (of which there are none presently in Australia) can retain offal for processing. Vessels in some fisheries such as the SPF do not process and as such do not discharge offal.

5. Seabird interactions have been almost eliminated from Commonwealth managed fisheries in Australia without spatial closures (NPOA pages 26 and 27). That said south-east Australia already has 14 Commonwealth marine reserves spanning 388,000km2 some of which cite seabirds as a conservation value (i.e. aim). Further, research by CSIRO has shown that CTS trawlers only trawl round 6% of the entire fishery. The mobility of seabirds means that they follow fishing vessels until they begin fishing outside of closures. Closures are not a best practice seabird mitigation measure in fisheries with other highly effective seabird mitigation measures in place.

6. Line weighing (NPOA pages 27 and 28) demersal longlines is a valid measure but not applicable in Australia for auto-longliners that only set at night.

7. Night setting (NPOA page 28) is a valid mitigation measure in Australian auto-longline fisheries.

8. Tori lines (NPOA page 28) are a valid mitigation measure in Australian auto-longline fisheries

9. All Commonwealth managed commercial fishing vessels must report TEP interactions on a Listed Marine and Threatened Species Form (Figure 4). Reporting seabird interactions (noting that cryptic interactions are hard to quantify) is a best practice action. The absence of reporting in Appendix D is an oversight.

6

What is best practice on Australian fishing vessels (demersal auto-longline, gillnet and trawl)?

1) Best practice seabird mitigation on southern Australia trawlers is: Process offal on large vessels with meal plants If not possible (small vessels) use one of:

o Bafflers (approved)o Sprayers (approved)o pinkies with no offal discharge while fishing gear is in the water

2) Best practice seabird mitigation on southern Australian auto-longliners is: Night setting or line weighting Tori lines3) There is no need for seabird mitigation on southern gillnet vessels given their low level of

interactions with non-threatened species.4) All Australian fishing vessels should accurately report seabird interactions by species.

What is Catch-Cost-Risk?

The concept of cost-effective management of uncertainty in fisheries can be examined using the catch-cost-risk (CCR) trade-off framework. This framework sets down that where there are low interactions with protected species, there is lowered risk and there should also be lowered management cost (and vice versa) (Sainsbury 20052) (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Schematic for the interaction between risk, management cost and catch in a fishery (from Sainsbury 2005).

This submission is concerned by FAO guideline 3 which suggests that the extent of interactions should be identified. Further, that “all jurisdictions and fishing sectors” (page 15) must resource this work.

The management of Commonwealth fisheries is largely cost recovered. The four fisheries represented by this submission have port revenue of approximately $60m and cost recovered levies (2017-18) of 6.5m or 11% of revenue. The economic situation in these fisheries is dire:

The GHaT fisheries has been in negative economic return (unprofitability) since 2008/094 The SPF fishery currently have no full time active vessels and incurred cost recovered levies

of $1.4m in 2016/17 The CTS fishery’s profits are in decline and projected to fall to $1.4m in 2013/145

None if these fisheries can afford additional levies, especially to reduce seabird interactions that are already largely solved. Furthermore, one of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority’s (AFMA) objectives is the cost-effective management of fisheries. Attempting to qualify the extent of the few remaining interactions is not in line with this objective. Rather, fisheries that have already acted to effectively remove risk to seabirds should have reduced 2 Sainsbury K (2005) Cost effective management of uncertainty in fisheries. ABARES Outlook 2005 Conference, Canberra. Available http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/45562/20050622-0000/PC13024.pdf

7

levies. This submission supports NPOA objective 3 (NPOA page 7) which is to promote the development of mitigations and objective 5 which is to promote adoption of mitigations. The catch-costrisk framework is the most effective way to encourage fishers toward protective fishing practices; reduce or remove risk to seabirds and levied management cost and the complexity of management arrangements decreases.

Management responses should be in line with risk-catch-cost are proportionate to the conservation status of affected species and on Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) results (where applicable).

An example of how not to apply catch-risk-cost is set down in Appendix B (NPOA pages 18-23). The three fisheries in this submission already spend more than $2m per annum on data collection which includes electronic reporting and observer cover. Adding or modifying more than 100 inputs in this system would be very expensive and given the current low level of interactions would almost certainly have no gain. The cost of meeting Australia’s commitments to international reporting agreements should not be cost recovered from Commonwealth operators.

The importance of training

Industry is very supportive of the NPOA’s focus on training (NPOA page 2 FAO best practice 6). SETFIA (through a training partner) has issued 200 accredited qualifications to fishermen across four unit standards, three of which included training on seabird mitigation and identification:

1. SFIEMS302B Act to prevent interactions with protected species,2. SFIEMS301A Implement and monitor environmentally sustainable work practices and,3. SFIFISH402c Manage and control fishing operations.

SETFIA is grateful for the Australian Government funding received to date (FRDC support on Act to prevent interactions with protected species and Caring For Our Country funding of the development of bafflers) and would welcome more assistance that would lead to conservation gains in other areas.

Figure 5 Still images from videos within Act to prevent interactions with protected species

This submission urges the Department to take a risk-catch-cost focus and to place emphasis on State-run fisheries in which the extent of seabird interactions are not understood, there is no TEP reporting and no seabird mitigation management arrangements in place.

Yours sincerely,

Small Pelagic Fishery Industry Association

South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association

Sustainable Shark Industry Association

8