Fishery status reports 2012data.daff.gov.au/.../01_FishStatus2012Start_1.00.pdf · 2013. 10. 25. · Fishery status reports 2012 FIGURE 1.1 Relative catch levels of all Australian

Fishery status reports 2012

Research by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences

OCTOBER 2013

© Commonwealth of Australia 2013

Ownership of intellectual property rights Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to as the Commonwealth).

Creative Commons licence All material in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence, save for content supplied by third parties, logos and the Commonwealth Coat of Arms.

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode.

This publication (and any material sourced from it) should be attributed as: Woodhams, J, Vieira, S & Stobutzki, I (eds) 2013, Fishery status reports 2012. CC BY 3.0.

Cataloguing data Woodhams, J, Vieira, S & Stobutzki, I (eds) 2013, Fishery status reports 2012, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

ISBN 978-1-74323-155-5 (printed) ISBN 978-1-74323-154-8 (online) ISSN 1325-8893 ABARES project 43018 and 43350

Internet Fishery status reports 2012 is available at daff.gov.au/abares/publications.

Contact Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES)

Postal address GPO Box 1563 Canberra ACT 2601 Switchboard +61 2 6272 2010 Facsimile +61 2 6272 2001 Email [email protected] Web daff.gov.au/abares

Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document should be sent to: [email protected].

The Australian Government acting through the Department of Agriculture represented by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, has exercised due care and skill in the preparation and compilation of the information and data in this publication. Notwithstanding, the Department of Agriculture, ABARES, its employees and advisers disclaim all liability, including liability for negligence, for any loss, damage, injury, expense or cost incurred by any person as a result of accessing, using or relying upon any of the information or data in this publication to the maximum extent permitted by law.

ABARESFishery status reports 2012

i

ForewordFishery status reports 2012 is the 18th edition of the publication which provides an independent evaluation of the biological status of fish stocks and the economic status of fisheries managed, or jointly managed, by the Australian Government. The reports describe trends in stock status and economic performance and the drivers of these trends through time.

This edition covers the biological status of 93 fish stocks across 21 fisheries. The reports show an improvement in the status of Australian Government–managed fish stocks in 2012, compared with previous years. The number of stocks classified as not overfished has increased, while the number of stocks classified as subject to overfishing and/or overfished has decreased. The number of stocks classified as uncertain with regard to the level of biomass has also decreased.

The economic status of Commonwealth fisheries is evaluated against the economic objective of the Fisheries Management Act 1991, which is to maximise the net economic returns to the Australian community. This assessment is undertaken by evaluating key economic trends in each fishery and evaluating each fishery’s management arrangements. Combining this with information about the biological status of stocks in each fishery, conclusions are drawn about each fishery’s performance against the economic objective.

The reports also examine the broader impact of fisheries on the environment, informed by the requirements of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Australian Government’s fisheries management objectives recognise the need to consider the broader impacts of fishing on bycatch species (including threatened, endangered and protected species), marine habitats, communities and ecosystems. Fishery status reports 2012 reports on the outcomes of strategic assessments and ecological risk assessments, as well as the level of interaction between fisheries and protected species.

The Fishery status reports form part of a suite of ABARES publications aimed at providing a comprehensive and multi-dimensional account of the trends and outlook for Australian fisheries. The Australian fisheries statistics reports provide annual updates of fisheries production and trade data. Detailed analysis of the net economic returns of selected Australian Government (Commonwealth) fisheries is provided in the annual Australian fisheries surveys report.

Kim Ritman Executive Director (A/g) October 2013


ii

Foreword i

Acknowledgements iv

1 Overview 1

2 Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery 35

3 Coral Sea Fishery 48

4 Norfolk Island Fishery 59

5 Northern Prawn Fishery 62

6 North West Slope Trawl Fishery 80

7 Small Pelagic Fishery 87

8 Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery 103

9 Commonwealth Trawl and Scalefish Hook sectors 118

10 East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector 193

11 Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector 199

12 Shark Gillnet and Shark Hook sectors 218

13 Southern Squid Jig Fishery 236

14 Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery 247

15 South Tasman Rise Trawl Fishery 255

16 Torres Strait fisheries 261

17 Torres Strait Finfish Fishery (Spanish mackerel and reef line) 264

18 Torres Strait Tropical Rock Lobster Fishery 274

19 Torres Strait Prawn Fishery 284

Contents


iii

Contents

20 Torres Strait Bêche-de-mer and Trochus fisheries 297

21 International fishery management arrangements 314

22 Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery 319

23 Skipjack Tuna fisheries 339

24 Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery 346

25 Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery 356

26 Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery 373

27 Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery 382

28 High-seas fisheries for non–highly migratory species 388

29 Joint authority fisheries 398

30 The status determination process 410

Appendix A 421

Acronyms, abbreviations and units 422

Glossary 426

Index 443


iv

AcknowledgementsThe 18th edition of the Fishery status reports was produced with financial support from the Fisheries Resources Research Fund, administered by Australian Government Department of Agriculture. The reports are an outcome of collaboration with fisheries researchers, management and industry throughout Australia. They draw on both published and unpublished reports from fishery assessment meetings and workshops organised and funded by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA).

The considerable assistance of officers within AFMA during the preparation of these reports, including the provision of information on management arrangements, fishery data and photographs, is appreciated. The input of the scientists, industry representatives, fishery managers and other members of resource assessment groups is also appreciated, as are the contributions from CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Australian Antarctic Division and the fishery research agencies of state and territory governments.

Status determination of stocks in jointly managed fisheries requires the use of data and assessments compiled by regional fisheries organisations, including the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, the Secretariat of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation, and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. The contribution of these data is greatly appreciated.

The following data sources used in compiling maps are acknowledged:• Geoscience Australia: coastline, state boundaries, place names, bathymetric features,

Australian Fishing Zone and Exclusive Economic Zone boundaries• AFMA: Australian Government fisheries logbook, catch disposal and observer data,

fisheries management boundaries• Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR):

CCAMLR statistical division boundaries• Australian Government Department of the Environment marine protected

areas boundaries• Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, Indian Ocean Tuna

Commission, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission: catch and effort data.

The Species Identification and Data Programme within the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations are thanked for the use of species line drawings included within the report, as are the other contributors of line drawings (acknowledged within).

1ABARESFishery status reports 2012

Chapter 1 OverviewJ Woodhams and S Vieira

The Australian Government’s approach to fisheries management aims to maintain fish stocks at ecologically sustainable levels and, within this context, maximise the net economic returns (NER) to the Australian community (DAFF 2007). It also considers the impact of fishing activities on non-target species and the long-term sustainability of the marine environment, as required by the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (FM Act). This requires an understanding of the biological status of stocks, the economic status of fisheries and the state of marine environments that support fisheries.

Fishery status reports 2012 provides an independent assessment of the biological status of fish stocks and the economic status of fisheries managed, or jointly managed, by the Australian Government (Commonwealth fisheries). It summarises the performance of these fisheries in 2012, and over time, against the requirements of fisheries legislation and policy. The reports aim to be comprehensive and, in doing so, aim to assess all key commercial species from Australian Government–managed fisheries.

Some of the main fisheries (by catch weight), include the Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF) in the north, the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (ETBF) in the east, and the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) in the south-east (Figure 1.1). The 2012 reports assess 93 fish stocks across 21 fisheries. Total Commonwealth fisheries gross value of production (GVP) in 2011–12 was $308.2 million; about 13 per cent of Australia’s total fisheries and aquaculture GVP ($2.3 billion).

Scallops being collected from dredge AFMAPrawn trawlers James Larcombe, ABARES

2

Chapter 1: Overview


FIGURE 1.1 Relative catch levels of all Australian Government–managed fisheries, 2012

1.1 Assessing biological statusAssessments of stock status provide an indication of whether the current size of a fish stock is adequate to sustain the stock at, or near, target levels in the long term (biomass status), and whether current levels of catch will allow the stock to remain in that state ( fishing mortality status). Stock status is expressed in relation to the reference points prescribed by the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy (HSP; DAFF 2007).

Biomass status indicates how many fish there are—specifically, whether the biomass in the year being assessed is above or below the level at which the risk to the stock is considered to be unacceptable. The HSP defines this level as the limit reference point, below which the stock is considered to be overfished.

Fishing mortality status reflects the level of fishing mortality of a stock in the year being assessed and whether that mortality level is likely to result in the stock becoming overfished, or prevent the stock from rebuilding from an overfished state. If fishing mortality exceeds either of these thresholds, a stock is considered to be subject to overfishing.

Stocks are included in the Fishery status reports if they meet one or more of the below criteria. Alternatively, stocks may be removed from the report if they fail to meet at least one of these criteria:• a target or key commercial species in an Australian Government–managed fishery• a species managed under a total allowable catch (TAC)• a species previously classified as ‘overfished’ that has not yet recovered to above

the limit reference point

3

Chapter 1: Overview


• a species previously included in the Fishery status reports as a single stock that has been reclassified as multiple stocks to align with species biology or management

• a byproduct species of ecological and/or economic importance may be included if it meets one or more of the following criteria

ሲ for several consecutive years or fishing seasons, the total catch (landings and discards) of the byproduct species is approximately equal to or greater than that of any other stock currently targeted and/or assessed in that fishery or sector

ሲ the value of the total catch landed of the byproduct species is considered to be an important economic component of the fishery or sector

ሲ the byproduct species or stock is listed as being at high risk from fishing activity in the ecological risk assessment process for the fishery or sector.

1.2 Biological status in 2012Fishery status reports 2012 assessed 93 fish stocks (down from 95 in 2011) across 21 fisheries (Figure 1.2). In 2012, there are 66 stocks assessed across 9 fisheries that are managed solely by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) on behalf of the Australian Government, and 27 stocks assessed across 12 fisheries that are managed jointly with other Australian jurisdictions or other countries. Summary statistics are provided separately for solely domestically managed and jointly managed stocks. This allows an evaluation of performance of fisheries management against relevant legislation and policy.

Two jointly managed stocks assessed in 2011 were not assessed in 2012: longtail tuna in the Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery (WTBF) and toothfish in the Antarctic Waters Fishery (AWF). Longtail tuna was not assessed in 2012 because the stock is no longer considered to be a key commercial stock in this fishery. This is primarily a recreational species for which a 35 t annual catch limit (not a formal TAC) is applied to prevent commercial targeting. Although there has been some catch of longtail tuna in the WTBF for a number of years (an average of 11 t per year over the past five years), the species is not regarded as an important byproduct species in the fishery.

The chapter on the AWF (introduced in 2008), covering new and exploratory fisheries in the area of competence of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) in Statistical Divisions 58.4.1, 58.4.2, 58.4.3a and 58.4.3b, has been removed from Fishery status reports 2012. Australia has not commercially fished these divisions since 2005, and the total Australian catch (including research catch) since 1990 has been comparatively small (149 t). Although the stock in these divisions has been classified as overfished and subject to overfishing since 2009, and possibly remains so, Australia’s activity in the fishery no longer contributes to the status of the fishery. Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing was likely to be the cause of the initial depletion, and these catches are likely to continue to exceed the CCAMLR catch limits. Further, export approval for the fishery, granted under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, was allowed to lapse in February 2012. As of 15 March 2012, products harvested from the fishery cannot be exported; AFMA (and the industry) are not seeking export reapproval for these areas.

The status of Australian Government–managed fish stocks has improved in 2012, compared with previous years (Figures 1.3 and 1.4). The number of stocks classified as not overfished has increased, while the number of stocks classified as subject to overfishing and/or overfished has decreased. The number of stocks classified as uncertain with regard to the level of biomass has decreased, while the number of stocks classified as uncertain with regard to the level of fishing mortality is the same as in 2011.

4

Chapter 1: Overview


Of the 93 stocks assessed in 2012: • 77 stocks were classified as not subject to overfishing (77 in 2011), and 63 stocks

were classified as not overfished (58 in 2011); of these, 60 stocks were both not subject to overfishing and not overfished (56 in 2011)

• 4 stocks were classified as subject to overfishing (6 in 2011), and 9 stocks were classified as overfished (11 in 2011); of these, 2 stocks were both subject to overfishing and overfished (4 in 2011)

• 12 stocks were classified as uncertain with respect to their fishing mortality status (12 in 2011), and 21 stocks were classified as uncertain with respect to their biomass status (26 in 2011); of these, 8 stocks were uncertain with respect to both fishing mortality and biomass.

FIGURE 1.2 Biological status of fish stocks in 2012, by fishery or sector

5

Chapter 1: Overview


FIGURE 1.3 Fishing mortality status (number of stocks), 2004 to 2012

�

�

�

�

�

� �

� �

�

�

�

�

�

� �

� �

�

�

�

�

�

� �

� �

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90Figure 1.3 Fishing Mortality Status

�

Not subject to overfishing

Subject to overfishingUncertain if subjectto overfishing

Num

ber o

f sto

cks

1215

4145

57

73 71

77 77

1215

4145

57

73 71

77 77

912

5 6 8 10 8 649

12

5 6 8 10 8 64

5356

51

45

33

18 1712 12

5356

51

45

33

18 1712 12

FIGURE 1.4 Biomass status (number of stocks), 2004 to 2012

��

��

�

��

�

�

��

��

�

��

�

�

��

��

�

��

�

�

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120

10

20

30

40

50

60

70Figure 1.4 Biomass Status

�

Not overfishedOverfishedUncertain if overfished

Num

ber o

f sto

cks

20

25

3133

44

5956

58

63

20

25

3133

44

5956

58

63

1417

1511

13 12 11 119

1417

1511

13 12 11 119

40 41

51 52

41

30 2926

21

40 41

51 52

41

30 2926

21

Trawl nets and buoys AFMA

6

Chapter 1: Overview


1.2.1 Stocks managed solely by the Australian Government

All stocksIn 2012, 66 stocks were assessed across the 9 fisheries managed by AFMA on behalf of the Australian Government. Of these:• 55 stocks (83 per cent) were classified as not subject to overfishing, and 42 stocks

(64 per cent) were classified as not overfished; of these, 41 stocks were both not subject to overfishing and not overfished

• 2 stocks (3 per cent) were classified as subject to overfishing, and 6 stocks (9 per cent) were classified as overfished; of these, 2 stocks were both subject to overfishing and overfished

• 9 stocks (14 per cent) were classified as uncertain with regard to the level of fishing mortality, and 18 stocks (27 per cent) were classified as uncertain with regard to the level of biomass; of these, 6 stocks were uncertain with respect to both fishing mortality and biomass.

Stocks that have changed statusThe status of nine Australian Government–managed fish stocks changed in 2012 (Tables 1.1 and 1.3). The level of uncertainty around the fishing mortality and biomass status of commercial scallops (Pecten fumatus) in the Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery (BSCZSF) has increased in recent years. The stock remains classified as uncertain with respect to biomass status in 2012 as a result of the low scallop abundance in the areas surveyed, limited evidence of recruitment and recent reports of scallop die-offs. Given that the harvest strategy was not applied in 2012 and a potentially less precautionary management approach was adopted, the stock is classified as uncertain with regard to the level of fishing mortality (previously classified as not subject to overfishing).

New research conducted by ABARES under the Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status project allowed for the determination of status for black teatfish (Holothuria whitmaei), prickly redfish (Thelenota ananas) and surf redfish (Actinopyga mauritiana) in the Coral Sea Fishery in 2012 (previously classified as uncertain, ABARES 2013). This was the first attempt at estimating habitat area and, using this, to estimate biomass for sea cucumber species in the fishery. In each case, historical catches were not considered to have been sufficient to reduce population sizes below the default HSP limit reference point (20 per cent of the prefished level, B20). Catches in 2012 were less than 1 t for each of these species.

The gulper shark stock (multiple species) in the SESSF has been classified as overfished and subject to overfishing since 2008 (overfished since 2005). There is currently no evidence of recovery to above the limit reference point for the stock and so the stock remain classified as overfished. Although it is possible that there were unreported interactions with gulper sharks in 2012, given the overlap of fishing operations with the species distribution, the level of reported catch of gulper sharks continues to decline. As a result, the stock is classified as uncertain with regard to the level of fishing mortality in 2012. New spatial management measures took effect in 2013 (AFMA 2012).

7

Chapter 1: Overview


The eastern orange roughy stock in the SESSF is classified as not subject to overfishing in 2012 as a result of large spatial closures and low reported catches. Because of conflicting evidence of rebuilding provided by recent acoustic surveys, compared with stock assessment results (declining catches and decreases in old fish in the catch), orange roughy in the eastern zone is classified as uncertain with regard to the level of biomass in 2012 (previously classified as overfished).

The biomass of the eastern and western pink ling stocks in the SESSF is predicted to be above B20, and the stock is therefore classified as not overfished. Catches have been in line with recommended biological catches (RBCs) estimated by the 2012 stock assessment, but the 2012 assessment results indicate that the biomass of the eastern stock is declining towards the limit. It is unclear to what extent this decline results from overfishing, from changes in fishers targeting practices or from recent changes to the stock assessment model. Based on the most recent stock assessment for the western pink ling stock, the stock would be classified as not subject to overfishing. However, because eastern pink ling may be declining and both pink ling stocks are managed as a single unit, with a single TAC, the pink ling stock is classified as uncertain if subject to overfishing.

Ribaldo in the SESSF has previously been classified as uncertain with regard to both the level of fishing mortality and the level of biomass. However, given the acceptance by the Slope Resource Assessment Group in 2012 of the assessment as a basis for RBCs, the fact that standardised catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) has remained stable well above the target level for the past decade, and the fact that catches have been only about one-quarter of established TACs over this period, ribaldo is classified as not overfished and not subject to overfishing in 2012.

In 2012, the Shark Resource Assessment Group concluded that the catch-rate series does not provide a reliable index of abundance for elephantfish in the Shark Gillnet and Shark Hook sectors (SGSHS) of the SESSF and that the assessment could not provide a reliable RBC. Discard rates for elephantfish have not been well quantified and could be relatively high in some areas of the fishery at certain times of the year. There is also no reliable estimate of the current recreational catch of elephantfish (understood to be have been significant in some years) and little information on how recreational catches may have changed over time. Because of all these uncertainties in levels of current and historical mortality (including discards and recreational catch) and the absence of a reliable index of abundance, elephantfish is classified as uncertain with regard to biomass and fishing mortality status in 2012.

Stocks classified as subject to overfishing and/or overfishedSix stocks solely managed by the Australian Government were classified as overfished and/or subject to overfishing in 2012 (Table 1.2), two of which (eastern gemfish and school shark) are assessed as being both overfished and subject to overfishing. The most recent stock assessment for eastern gemfish indicates that biomass has been reduced to below the limit reference point, and that the stock is unlikely to rebuild to B20 under current catches, within the timeframe specified in the rebuilding strategy. The most recent stock assessment for school shark indicates that biomass has been reduced to below the limit reference point, and that fishing mortality in 2012 exceeded the level that should allow rebuilding within the timeframe specified within the guidelines to the HSP (one mean generation time plus 10 years).

8

Chapter 1: Overview


Although the catch of blue warehou in recent years has been declining, it is unclear whether total mortality has been reduced enough to allow the stock to rebuild to the limit reference point within the timeframe specified in the rebuilding strategy (2015). As a result, the stock is classified as uncertain with regard to the level of fishing mortality. The stock remains classified as overfished because the average CPUE over the past four years is below the CPUE limit reference point.

The biomass of southern and western stocks of orange roughy was substantially reduced in the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, recent catches have been relatively low, and most areas deeper than 700 m have been closed to trawling. As a result, these stocks remain classified as overfished but not subject to overfishing.

1.2.2 Jointly managed stocks

All stocks

In 2012, 27 stocks were assessed in 12 fisheries that are jointly managed by the Australian Government and other Australian jurisdictions, or with other countries through international arrangements. Of these:• 22 stocks (81 per cent) were classified as not subject to overfishing, and 21 stocks

(78 per cent) were classified as not overfished; 19 of these were classified as both not subject to overfishing and not overfished

• 2 stocks (7 per cent) were classified as subject to overfishing, and 3 stocks (11 per cent) were classified as overfished; no stocks were classified as both subject to overfishing and overfished

• 3 stocks (11 per cent) were classified as uncertain with regard to the level of fishing mortality, and 3 stocks (11 per cent) were classified as uncertain with regard to the level of biomass; 2 stocks were uncertain with respect to both fishing mortality and biomass.

Stocks that have changed statusThe status of two jointly managed stocks changed in 2012. Assessment of stock status for the multispecies sea cucumber stock in the Torres Strait Bêche-de-mer Fishery is complicated by the number of species included in the stock and a scarcity of information for some species. While some species that make up this stock were considered to be at, or near, pre-fished biomass levels in 2009 (Skewes et al. 2010), the uncertain density and population sizes for a few species, relative to pre-fished levels, results in an uncertain biomass classification for the stock as a whole. Uncertainty regarding the level of catch for some species in 2012 leads to an uncertain fishing mortality status.

An updated stock assessment for striped marlin in the ETBF facilitated reconciliation of stock status in 2012. The stock is classified as not subject to overfishing and not overfished in 2012.

9

Chapter 1: Overview


Stocks classified as subject to overfishing and/or overfishedFive jointly managed stocks were classified as either overfished or subject to overfishing in 2012. With the exception of the AWF toothfish stock (which, as explained above, has been removed in Fishery status reports 2012), classification of these stocks remained the same as in 2011.

Swordfish being offloaded John Kalish, ABARES

10

Chapter 1: Overview


TABLE 1.1 Stocks with a changed status in 2012 and their status in 2011

FisheryCommon name (scientific name)

2011 2012

Fishing mortality

Biomass Fishing mortality

Biomass

Australian Government–managed stocks

Bass Strait Central Zone Scallop Fishery

Commercial scallop (Pecten fumatus)

Coral Sea Fishery: Sea Cucumber Sector

Black teatfish (Holothuria whitmaei)


Prickly redfish (Thelenota ananas)


Surf redfish (Actinopyga mauritiana)

SESSF: Commonwealth Trawl and Scalefish Hook sectors

Gulper sharks (Centrophorus harrissoni, C. moluccensis, C. zeehaani)

SESSF: Commonwealth Trawl Sector

Orange roughy, eastern zone (Hoplostethus atlanticus)


Pink ling (Genypterus blacodes)


Ribaldo (Mora moro)

SESSF: Shark Gillnet and Shark Hook sectors

Elephantfish (Callorhinchus milii)

Jointly managed stocks

Torres Strait Bêche-de-mer Fishery

Other sea cucumbers (up to 15 species)

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery

Striped marlin (Tetrapturus audax)

Note: SESSF Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery.

Fishing mortality Not subject to overfishing Subject to overfishing Uncertain

Biomass Not overfished Overfished Uncertain

11

Chapter 1: Overview


TABLE 1.2 Stocks classified as subject to overfishing and/or overfished in 2012, and their status in 2011


2011 2012

Fishing mortality

Biomass Fishing mortality

Biomass



Blue warehou (Seriolella brama)


Gemfish, eastern zone (Rexea solandri)




Orange roughy, southern zone (Hoplostethus atlanticus)


Orange roughy, western zone (Hoplostethus atlanticus)


School shark (Galeorhinus galeus)


South Tasman Rise Trawl Fishery Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus)

Torres Strait Bêche-de-mer Fishery Sandfish (Holothuria scabra)

Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)

Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery Southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii)

Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery Albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga)

Note: SESSF Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery.



12

Chapter 1: Overview


TABLE 1.3 Biological stock status of all stocks assessed in 2012, and their status since 1992


Status

1992

1993

1994

1996

1997

1998

1999

200

1–0

220

02–

03

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

sFi

shin

g m

orta

lity

Bio

mas

s



Commercial scallop (Pecten fumatus)






Surf redfish (Actinopyga mauritiana)


White teatfish (Holothuria fuscogilva)


Other sea cucumber species (11 spp.)

Coral Sea Fishery: Aquarium Sector

Multiple species

Coral Sea Fishery: Lobster and Trochus Sector

Tropical rock lobster (Panulirus ornatus)

Coral Sea Fishery: Line and Trap Sector

Mixed reef fish and sharks

Coral Sea Fishery: Trawl and Trap Sector

Demersal and midwater fish and crustaceans

Northern Prawn Fishery

Red-legged banana prawn (Fenneropenaeus indicus)


White banana prawn (Fenneropenaeus merguiensis)

continued...

13

Chapter 1: Overview




Status

1992

1993

1994

1996

1997

1998

1999

200

1–0

220

02–

03

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

sFi

shin

g m

orta

lity

Bio

mas

s



Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus)


Grooved tiger prawn (Penaeus semisulcatus)


Blue endeavour prawn (Metapenaeus endeavouri)


Red endeavour prawn (Metapenaeus ensis)

North West Slope Trawl Fishery

Scampi (Metanephrops australiensis, M. boschmai, M. velutinus)

Small Pelagic Fishery

Australian sardine (Sardinops sagax)


Blue mackerel, east (Scomber australasicus)


Blue mackerel, west (Scomber australasicus)


Jack mackerel, east (Trachurus declivis)


Jack mackerel, west (Trachurus declivis)


Redbait, east (Emmelichthys nitidus)


Redbait, west (Emmelichthys nitidus)

continued

continued...

14

Chapter 1: Overview




Status

1992

1993

1994

1996

1997

1998

1999

200

1–0

220

02–

03

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

sFi

shin

g m

orta

lity

Bio

mas

s



Blue-eye trevalla (Hyperoglyphe antarctica)


Blue grenadier (Macruronus novaezelandiae)


Blue warehou (Seriolella brama)


Deepwater sharks, eastern zone (multiple species)


Deepwater sharks, western zone (multiple species)


Eastern school whiting (Sillago flindersi)


Flathead (Neoplatycephalus richardsoni and 4 other spp.)


Gemfish, eastern zone (Rexea solandri)


Gemfish, western zone (Rexea solandri)

continued

continued...

15

Chapter 1: Overview




Status

1992

1993

1994

1996

1997

1998

1999

200

1–0

220

02–

03

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

sFi

shin

g m

orta

lity

Bio

mas

s





Jackass morwong (Nemadactylus macropterus)


John dory (Zeus faber)


Mirror dory (Zenopsis nebulosa)


Ocean jacket (Nelusetta ayraud)


Ocean perch (Helicolenus barathri, H. percoides)


Orange roughy, Cascade Plateau (Hoplostethus atlanticus)


Orange roughy, eastern zone (Hoplostethus atlanticus)


Orange roughy, southern zone (Hoplostethus atlanticus)


Orange roughy, western zone (Hoplostethus atlanticus)

continued

continued...

16

Chapter 1: Overview




Status

1992

1993

1994

1996

1997

1998

1999

200

1–0

220

02–

03

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

sFi

shin

g m

orta

lity

Bio

mas

s



Oreodory: smooth, Cascade Plateau (Pseudocyttus maculatus)


Oreodory: smooth, non–Cascade Plateau (Pseudocyttus maculatus)


Other oreodories (Allocyttus niger, Neocyttusrhomboidalis, A. verrucosus, Neocyttus spp.)


Pink ling (Genypterus blacodes)


Redfish, eastern (Centroberyx affinis)


Ribaldo (Mora moro)


Royal red prawn (Haliporoides sibogae)


Silver trevally (Pseudocaranx georgianus)


Silver warehou (Seriolella punctata)

continued

continued...

17

Chapter 1: Overview




Status

1992

1993

1994

1996

1997

1998

1999

200

1–0

220

02–

03

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

sFi

shin

g m

orta

lity

Bio

mas

s


SESSF: East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector

Alfonsino (Beryx splendens)

SESSF: Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector

Bight redfish (Centroberyx gerrardi)


Deepwater flathead (Platycephalus conatus)


Ocean jacket (Nelusetta ayraud)


Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus)


Elephantfish (Callorhinchus milii)


Gummy shark (Mustelus antarcticus)


Sawshark (Pristiophorus cirratus, P. nudipinnis)


School shark (Galeorhinus galeus)

Southern Squid Jig Fishery

Gould’s squid (Nototodarus gouldi)

Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery

Bugs (Ibacus spp.)



continued

continued...

18

Chapter 1: Overview




Status

1992

1993

1994

1996

1997

1998

1999

200

1–0

220

02–

03

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

sFi

shin

g m

orta

lity

Bio

mas

s



Ruby snapper (Etelis carbunculus)

Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery

Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides)


South Tasman Rise Trawl Fishery


Torres Strait Finfish Fishery

Coral trout (Plectropomus and Variola spp.)

Torres Strait Finfish Fishery

Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson)

Torres Strait Tropical Rock Lobster Fishery

Tropical rock lobster (Panulirus ornatus)

Torres Strait Prawn Fishery

Brown tiger prawn (Penaeus esculentus)

Torres Strait Prawn Fishery

Blue endeavour prawn (Metapenaeus endeavouri)






Sandfish (Holothuria scabra)


White teatfish (Holothuria fuscogilva)

continued

continued...

19

Chapter 1: Overview




Status

1992

1993

1994

1996

1997

1998

1999

200

1–0

220

02–

03

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

sFi

shin

g m

orta

lity

Bio

mas

s



Other sea cucumbers(up to 18 species)

Torres Strait Trochus Fishery

Trochus (Trochus niloticus)




Swordfish (Xiphias gladius)


Albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga)


Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)


Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)

Skipjack Tuna Fishery: Pacific Ocean

Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)

Skipjack Tuna Fishery: Indian Ocean

Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)

Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery

Southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii)

Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery



Swordfish (Xiphias gladius)


Albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga)


Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)


Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)

Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery

Mackerel icefish (Champsocephalus gunnari)

continued

continued...

20

Chapter 1: Overview




Status

1992

1993

1994

1996

1997

1998

1999

200

1–0

220

02–

03

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

s

Fish

ing

mor

talit

y

Bio

mas

sFi

shin

g m

orta

lity

Bio

mas

s


Heard Island and McDonald Islands Fishery

Patagonian toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides)

Notes: Individual stocks may have been classified as multi-species stocks in earlier years. SESSF Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery.



continued

1.2.3 Status of key Australian fish stocks reports In 2012, the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation released the inaugural Status of key Australian fish stocks reports 2012. These reports consider biological information for 49 species or species complexes across all Australian states and territories that have commercial wild-capture fisheries, including the Commonwealth fisheries. Within these reports the term ‘stock’ is used generally in reference to all three levels of stock status assessment, i.e. biological stocks, management units and populations assessed at the jurisdictional level. The reports consider much the same biological information as that considered in Fishery status reports 2010, but interpret the information within a slightly different, nationally agreed, status classification system (Appendix A). This national reporting framework was designed to facilitate the reporting of the status of fish stocks across Australia.

Line-setting chutes on a longline vessel Heesh Garroun, AFMA

21

Chapter 1: Overview


1.3 Economic status in 2012Fishery status reports 2012 assesses the economic status of all Commonwealth fisheries managed solely and jointly by the Australian Government. These fisheries generated an estimated GVP of $308.2 million in 2011–12, or about 13 per cent of Australia’s total fisheries and aquaculture GVP.

Commonwealth fishery GVP is dominated by the production of a few major fisheries. In 2011–12, the multisector SESSF was the most valuable Commonwealth fishery, with a GVP of $83.8 million (Figure 1.5). The NPF was the next most valuable, with a GVP of $64.7 million, making it the most valuable single-method fishery. The wild-catch sector of the Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery (SBTF) and the ETBF also made substantial contributions to Commonwealth GVP in 2011–12, with values of $40.6 million and $28 million, respectively. Together, these four fisheries accounted for 70 per cent of total Commonwealth fishery GVP.

The evaluation of economic status in the Fishery status reports assesses each Commonwealth fishery’s performance against the economic objective of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (FM Act) to maximise NER to the Australian community, within the constraints of ecologically sustainable development. Each fishery’s economic performance is assessed using indicators of trends in NER, effects of management arrangements and performance against the HSP’s objective of maximum economic yield (MEY). For jointly managed fisheries (to which the HSP does not apply), performance is evaluated against relevant management objectives.

Figure 1.5 Gross value of production of Commonwealth fisheries, including jointly managed fisheries, 2000–01 to 2011–12

2001−02 2003−04 2005−06 2007−08 2009−10 2011−120

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Figure 1.5 Value of production of major Commonwealthfisheries/sectors

Other

Torres Strait Fisheries

Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery

Eastern Tuna and Billfish FisherySouthern and Eastern Scalefishand Shark FisheryNorthern Prawn Fishery

Rea

l GVP

(201

1−12

A$

milli

on)

22

Chapter 1: Overview


1.3.1 Fisheries managed solely by the Australian Government The ABARES financial and economic surveys are important in assessing the economic performance of Commonwealth fisheries. The economic survey data allows each fishery’s NER to be estimated. ABARES undertakes regular economic surveys of the most valuable fisheries managed solely by the Australian Government: the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS) and Gillnet, Hook and Trap (GHaT) Sector of the SESSF, and the NPF. These fisheries are managed under MEY objectives. Together, they accounted for 85 per cent of the GVP of fisheries managed solely by AFMA and 44 per cent of the GVP of all Australian Government–managed fisheries in 2011–12.

For the NPF and the CTS, NER have been positive and increasing in recent years. NER were $11.9 million in the NPF in 2010–11 (George et al. 2012) and $5.5 million in the CTS in 2011–12 (preliminary estimate; George & New 2013). For both the NPF and the CTS, increases in NER have been partly driven by increases in economic productivity (Skirtun & Vieira 2012; Stephan 2013). These productivity increases reflect efficiency and general improvements in the way inputs (e.g. fuel, labour, capital) are used to produce output (fish caught). Such improvements may be a result of operational changes applied at the vessel level, and recent structural adjustment of these fisheries which may have lead to a greater proportion of the catch being taken by more efficient vessels.

For the NPF, productivity increases have been particularly important in allowing profitability to increase, despite relatively low prawn prices and relatively high fuel prices over the past five years (Table 1.4). Recent increases in banana prawn catch rates have also contributed to improvements in productivity and profitability. The NPF is explicitly managed to an MEY target for the tiger prawn component of the fishery, using a bioeconomic model to set effort levels that are estimated to produce MEY.

The CTS and GHaT are also managed to MEY targets for key commercial species. However, unlike in the NPF, fishery-specific BMEY targets (biomass targets consistent with achieving MEY) have not been quantitatively estimated. Instead, MEY is targeted through the application of proxies for BMEY (generally 1.2 times BMSY the biomass that should produce maximum sustainable yield), equivalent to 0.48 of the unfished biomass; B0 (see Glossary for definition of these terms). For the most valuable species targeted in these two sectors, biomass levels are generally estimated to be close to or above their respective BMEY targets, meaning that stock levels are not constraining profits. An exception may be the eastern component of the pink ling stock (the entire stock accounted for 8 per cent of GVP in the CTS and 12 per cent in the GHaT in 2011–12). Estimates of fishing mortality for the eastern and western components of this stock differ, making fishing mortality status for the combined stock uncertain. Both sectors also have stocks that previously generated significant economic returns but are now overfished and require rebuilding. For example, orange roughy catches in the CTS previously accounted for more than half the sector’s GVP, but two of the three orange roughy stocks previously fished in the CTS are assessed as overfished (the third has an uncertain biomass status), and all are subject to substantial spatial closures to facilitate rebuilding.

23

Chapter 1: Overview


In the GHaT, positive NER were maintained in the decade leading up to, and including, 2008–09.However,NERturnednegativein2009–10,decliningto−$0.4million(George & New 2013). NER are estimated to have remained at similar levels in 2010–11(−$0.1million)and2011–12(−$0.2million—preliminaryestimate).Therecent reduction in economic performance in the GHaT occurred despite biomass levels of gummy shark (Mustelus antarcticus; the sector’s main target species) being close to or above the stock’s target reference point. Recent spatial closures aimed at reducing marine mammal interactions and efforts to avoid school shark (Galeorhinus galeus) may have contributed to the sector's recent economic performance.

In the Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector (GABTS), the development of a bioeconomic model for its two key target species (deepwater flathead—Neoplatycephalus conatus, and Bight redfish—Centroberyx gerrardi) has improved management’s ability to target BMEY (Kompas et al. 2012). The most recent stock assessment for Bight redfish projected that biomass levels at the start of 2013–14 will be above the stock’s BMEY target (Klaer 2011), potentially allowing increased profits to be generated as it is fished down to its target. The most recent stock assessment for deepwater flathead suggests that biomass levels are below the BMEY target (Klaer 2012). Nonetheless, fishery profitability is unlikely to be constrained by stock status, with biomass forecast to increase to 0.39SB0 in 2013–14, just below the MEY target reference point of 0.43SB0.

The BSCZSF produced negative NER in both 2009–10 (–$1.1 million) and 2010–11 (–$1.0 million) (George et al. 2012). These negative NER are likely to reflect the poor biological status of the stock and recently reported scallop die-offs, resulting in reduced catches. The development of an appropriate economic target for the BSCZSF harvest strategy, consistent with the intent of the HSP, is a challenge for this fishery.

Catch rates in the Southern Squid Jig Fishery increased substantially in the 2011 and 2012 seasons and beach prices have reached their highest levels in more than a decade. The fishery’s GVP increased from $0.10 million in 2009–10 to $1.69 million in 2010–11. Profitability in the 2012 season is likely to have increased, despite a small decrease in effort, with a further increase in GVP to $2.1 million in 2011–12. The degree to which these changes have generated positive NER in the fishery is uncertain.

The economic performance of smaller Commonwealth fisheries was mixed in 2011–12. For the Coral Sea Fishery, catches in the Aquarium Sector increased substantially in 2011–12, indicating a possible improvement in NER. The impact on NER of changes in gear used in other sectors of the fishery is uncertain. The TAC for the Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery (MITF) is often fully caught, indicating that NER are likely to be positive. However, an increase in TAC latency due to rough sea conditions is likely to have resulted in lower NER in 2011–12. Low catch and effort levels in the other active fisheries (East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector, North West Slope Trawl Fishery, Small Pelagic Fishery—SPF, and Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery) indicate low NER in these fisheries in 2011–12.

24

Chapter 1: Overview


1.3.2 Jointly managed fisheries Of the fisheries jointly managed by the Australian Government and other Australian or international jurisdictions, major fisheries in value terms include the SBTF, the ETBF and the Torres Strait Tropical Rock Lobster Fishery (TSTRLF). In 2011–12, these fisheries generated GVPs of $40.6 million, $28 million and $16.1 million, respectively. Combined, these three fisheries accounted for 57 per cent of the GVP of all jointly managed fisheries and 27 per cent of the GVP of all Australian Government–managed fisheries in 2011–12.

Estimates of NER are not available for the SBTF. However, the fishery produces a high-value product and is thought to be highly profitable, despite the overfished state of its stock. The SBTF provides fish to South Australia’s southern bluefin tuna aquaculture industry. The GVP of the South Australian southern bluefin tuna aquaculture sector was $150 million in 2011–12. The overfished status of southern bluefin tuna means that a proportion of the historical NER was generated while the total catch levels on the global stock were unsustainable. The stock’s current low biomass level may pose a risk to the future flow of NER from the fishery. If management arrangements allow the stock to rebuild, economic status would be expected to improve.

Economic status in the ETBF has improved. In 2010–11, NER were positive for the first time since 2000–01 (George & New 2013). In 2011–12, NER are estimated to have increased to $3.0 million (preliminary estimate), with a decrease in operating costs outweighing a decline in revenue in this year. Improved economic performance in the fishery is consistent with an increasing trend in economic productivity since the early 2000s (Stephan 2013). This occurred at the same time as the reduction in fleet size, driven primarily by market forces in the early 2000s and later in the same decade by the Securing our Fishing Future structural adjustment package. These changes are likely to have left the more efficient vessels continuing to operate in the fishery. The fishery’s move to individual transferable quotas in 2011 and a new harvest strategy may result in further improvement in economic performance.

The Torres Strait fisheries are managed in accordance with the Torres Strait Fisheries Act 1984. This Act details a range of management priorities, including to acknowledge and protect the traditional way of life and livelihood of Traditional Inhabitants, including their rights in relation to traditional fishing; to manage commercial fisheries for optimum use; and to have regard, in developing and implementing licensing policy, to the desirability of promoting economic development and employment opportunities for Traditional Inhabitants in the Torres Strait area. As such, while the Protected Zone Joint Authority has asked management forums to provide advice on applying the HSP to Torres Strait fisheries, these fisheries are not evaluated against the MEY objective from the HSP in these reports.

25

Chapter 1: Overview


Back deck of a trawler AFMA

The TSTRLF was the most valuable commercial fishery in the Torres Strait in 2011–12. An increase in whole lobster production and unit prices in 2010–11 resulted in GVP increasing from $10.1 million in 2009–10 to $29 million in 2010–11 (2010–11 dollars). However, a fall in both prices and catch in 2011–12 resulted in GVP decreasing to $16.1 million. Although profits are expected to have also decreased, GVP remains relatively high compared with years before 2010–11, indicating that profit may also have been high relative to previous years.

Management objectives for the Torres Strait Prawn Fishery include promoting economic efficiency and ensuring the optimal use of fishery resources. Despite these objectives, negative NER persisted in this fishery for the five years leading up to 2008–09 (the last year for which NER estimates are available). A number of indicators suggest that vessel-level profitability may have improved in 2011–12, with vessel numbers stabilising after a declining trend, and revenue per vessel being at its highest level in a decade, despite fishing effort levels per vessel remaining low relative to historical levels. Despite these positive signs, current management arrangements may still be preventing the fishery from achieving its optimal economic performance. Of particular concern are the high levels of latent effort that have prevailed in the fishery for some time, as well as a number of input controls that are likely to be unnecessarily impeding the economic efficiency of active operators.

26

Chapter 1: Overview


TABLE 1.4 Indicators and summary of economic status by Commonwealth fishery or sector in 2012

Fishery Performance relative to MEY target

NER trend Fishing right latency


MEY target not specified Negative in 2010–11 and not avialable in 2011–12

High

Coral Sea Fishery MEY target not specified Not estimated Low in Aquarium Sector, higher in other sectors

Norfolk Island Fishery MEY target not specified Not estimated Unknown

Northern Prawn Fishery Tiger prawn stocks approaching MEY target; MEY targets not specified for banana prawn

May have declined in 2011–12

Low

North West Slope Trawl Fishery MEY target not specified Not estimated High

Small Pelagic Fishery MEY target not specified Not estimated High

SESSF: Commonwealth Trawl and Scalefish Hook sectors a

Most key species close to BMEY targets. Some previously valuable species require rebuilding

Positive and increasing for the CTS

Low for key species

SESSF: East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector

Fishing mortality below target reference point

Not estimated High


Bight redfish above BMEY

target. Deepwater flathead just below target

Not estimated but likely to be positive

High

SESSF: Shark Hook and Shark Gillnet sectors b

Gummy shark stock close to, or above, target. Biomass of school shark requires rebuilding

Became slightly negative in 2010–11 and 2011–12 for the GHaT

Low

Southern Squid Jig Fishery MEY target not specified Not estimated High


MEY target not specified Not estimated High

Torres Strait Finfish Fishery Not applicable c Not estimated Not applicable

27

Chapter 1: Overview


wTABLE 1.4 Economic performance and indicators for 2011

2011–12 GVP (% change from 2010–11)

2011–12 management costs ($ million) (% share of GVP)

Primary management instrument

Economic status comments

$1 million (–66%) 0.4 (36%) ITQs and spatial management

Western part of the fishery and two eastern beds were closed and die-offs were reported in late 2010 and 2011.Negative NER suggest that economic status can be improved.

Confidential 0.2 (confidential) Catch triggers and TACs

Estimates of NER are not available. Aquarium Sector catch increased substantially in 2011–12, indicating an improvement in NER. For the remainder of the fishery, it is unclear how changes in gear and reduced catch have affected NER.

Not available Not available Input controls The offshore fishery is closed to commercial fishing. Only non-commercial fishing occurs in the inshore fishery. Economic status is unknown

$64.7 million (–33%)

2.2 (3%) Individual transferable gear units (headrope length)

Economic status has been improving, but NER may have declined in 2011−12 as a result of lower banana prawn catches. Targeting of MEY for tiger prawn stocks has seen that component of the fishery move towards MEY over recent years.

Confidential 0.1 (confidential) Limited entry and catch triggers

Latent effort in the fishery indicates low NER.

Confidential 0.3 (confidential) ITQs NER are likely to be low given the low levels of effort and high latency in the fishery.

$53 million (+1%) 3.2 for the CTS (7% of CTS GVP)

ITQs A positive trend in NER since 2002–03, partly driven by increased economic productivity, suggests a movement towards MEY. Most key species are close to their BMEY targets, but economic status can still be improved by rebuilding overfished stocks.

Confidential 0.1 (confidential) ITQs Low catches indicate low NER. NER are likely to have improved in 2011–12 as a result of increased participation.

$11.6 million (+3%) 0.4 (3%) ITQs NER are likely to have decreased slightly in 2011–12, as negative impacts from higher effort and fuel costs on fishery profitability outweigh higher GVP.

$14.9 million (–19%)

2.4 for the GHaT (12% of GHaT GVP)

ITQs Although gummy shark biomass is unlikely to be constraining NER, management of marine mammal interactions and school shark catch is likely to have contributed to a fall in NER in 2010–11 and 2011–12.

$2.1 million (+22%) 0.1 (5%) Individual transferable gear units (jig machines)

NER are likely to have improved in the 2012 season, given an increase in GVP and a relatively small decrease in effort.

Confidential 0.1 (confidential) Limited entry Estimates of NER are not available but were likely to be low in 2011–12 given low levels of effort, catch and active fishing permits.

$1.1 million (–17%) Not available Non-tradeable quota

Positive NER are likely in the TVH sector. The leasing of quota to TVH operators also provides funding for economic development. While these outcomes meet the fishery’s objectives of providing opportunities for fishery participation and economic development, it is uncertain whether the objective of optimum utilisation is being met.

continued...

28

Chapter 1: Overview


TABLE 1.4 Indicators and summary of economic status by Commonwealth fishery or sector in 2012

Fishery Performance relative to MEY target

NER trend Fishing right latency

Torres Strait Tropical Rock Lobster Fishery

Not applicable c Not estimated but likely to be positive

Low

Torres Strait Prawn Fishery Not applicable c Negative in 2008–09; may have improved in 2011–12

High

Torres Strait Bêche-de-mer and Trochus fisheries

Not applicable c Not estimated Low for white teatfish; high for all other stocks


MEY target not adequately specified or applied

Increasing trend; became positive in 2010–11

Low for striped marlin and swordfish; high for albacore, bigeye and yellowfin tuna

Skipjack Tuna Fisheries MEY target not specified No fishing High

Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery MEY target not specified Not estimated but likely to be positive

Low


MEY target not specified Not estimated High

Heard and McDonald Islands Fishery

Not applicable c Not estimated but likely to be positive

Low

Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery

Not applicable c Not estimated Low

continued

29

Chapter 1: Overview


TABLE 1.4 Economic performance and indicators for 2011

2011–12 GVP (% change from 2010–11)

2011–12 management costs ($ million) (% share of GVP)

Primary management instrument

Economic status comments

$16.1 million (–44%)

Not available Limited entry, size limits, gear limits and bag limits

NER are likely to have declined with lower beach prices in 2011−12 but are still likely to be positive. The fishery is meeting its objective to provide commercial opportunities for Traditional Inhabitants, but it is uncertain whether its objective to optimise value is being met.

$6.7 million (+73%) 0.2 (3%, AFMA costs only)

Tradeable effort units (nights)

NER were negative in 2008–09 but may have improved since then. The input control on vessel size and existing latent effort may be hindering the fishery’s performance against its objective of promoting economic efficiency.

Not available Not available TACs The TAC for highly valued white teatfish was fully caught and indicates some level of positive NER. This NER would have been captured by Traditional Inhabitant participants, meeting the fishery’s management objective to develop stocks to benefit Traditional Inhabitants. There was no fishing in the Torres Strait Trochus Fishery.

$28 million (–11%) 1.7 (6%) ITQs Positive trends in NER suggest that economic status may have improved. The move to ITQs in 2011 and a new harvest strategy may support further improvement.

No fishing 0.1 (no fishing) Limited entry Fishing is opportunistic and highly dependent on availability and the domestic cannery market. Currently, no domestic cannery has active contracts for skipjack tuna.

$40.6 million (+30%)

1.3 (3%) ITQs NER are expected to have remained positive. The overfished status of the stock poses a risk to future NER. Economic status will improve if the stock can be rebuilt under the new management procedure.

Confidential 0.3 (confidential) ITQs Latent effort remained high in 2012, suggesting low NER.

Confidential 1.2 (confidential) ITQs While not estimated, NER are likely to have been positive in 2010–11 and 2011–12, given that the TAC for Patagonian toothfish was mostly caught.

Confidential 0.3 (confidential) ITQs Rough sea conditions and associated operational problems may have resulted in lower NER in 2011–12.

a NER estimates and management costs are only available for the CTS and exclude the Scalefish Hook Sector. b NER estimates and management costs are only available for the GHaT, which includes Scalefish Hook Sector catches and gillnet scalefish catches. c These fisheries are jointly managed fisheries that are not managed under MEY objectives. Statistics are provided by financial year. Notes: AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority. B

MEY Biomass at maximum economic yield. CTS Commonwealth Trawl Sector. GHaT

Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector. GVP Gross value of production. ITQ Individual transferable quota. MEY Maximum economic yield. NER Net economic returns. SESSF Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery. TAC Total allowable catch. TVH Transferable Vessel Holder. South Tasman Rise Trawl Fishery is not shown, since it has been closed since 2007.

30

Chapter 1: Overview


1.4 Environmental status in 2012The Fishery status reports examine the broader impact of fisheries on the environment, in response to the requirements of the FM Act and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The Australian Government aims to implement an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management as part of meeting the requirements of ecologically sustainable development. This requires a holistic approach to management that considers fisheries’ interactions with, and impacts on, bycatch species (including threatened, endangered and protected [TEP] species), marine habitats, communities and ecosystems.

1.4.1 Ecological risk assessmentA key component of AFMA’s ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management has been the application of an ecological risk management (ERM) framework designed to respond to the outcomes of the ecological risk assessment (ERA) process (Hobday et al. 2007). Fishery-specific ERM reports integrate the information from the ERAs and other management requirements, such as recovery plans and threat abatement plans (TAPs), and detail AFMA’s management response. Fishery-specific actions with respect to bycatch and discarding are identified in fishery-specific bycatch and discarding workplans.

1.4.2 Protected species interactionsDuring the normal course of fishing operations, fishers interact with TEP species listed under the EPBC Act. There is a legislative requirement to take all reasonable steps to minimise interactions and report any interactions that do occur. The species involved and the level of interactions vary between fisheries and sectors, as well as with gear, area and season. Although interactions with TEP species are usually rare, they can still be a significant source of mortality for the affected populations.

Some fisheries have made considerable progress in implementing measures to reduce interactions with TEP species. The use of turtle excluder devices became compulsory in the NPF in 2001 and is reported to have reduced the bycatch of turtles from approximately 5700 turtles per year before 2001 to approximately 30 per year after 2001 (Griffiths et al. 2007). In 2012, 67 turtles were reported as being entangled in gear, 64 of which were reported as being released alive. Coupled with industry education programs, these devices are also understood to have been effective in reducing the bycatch of other large animals, such as stingrays and sharks.

The provisions of the TAP for the incidental catch (or bycatch) of seabirds during pelagic longline fishing operations (AAD 2001, 2006) apply to all longline fisheries managed by the Australian Government, including the ETBF, the WTBF and the MITF. Over the life of the first plan (2001 to 2006), substantial progress was made towards reducing the threat and level of seabird interactions (AAD 2006). The 2006 TAP is currently under revision.

Interactions with fur seals and dolphins in the SPF were identified as an issue of concern in 2004–05. Management has focused on gathering data to understand the level of interaction, research into mitigation measures and the introduction of seal excluder devices. AFMA established the Cetacean Mitigation Working Group to help develop long-term management strategies. Low levels of effort in recent years, coupled with use of mitigation measures, are understood to have resulted in few interactions.

31

Chapter 1: Overview


Seal excluder devices have been compulsory in the winter blue grenadier trawl fishery (of the SESSF) since 2005. The changed fishing practices appear to have reduced the incidence of seal bycatch in the midwater trawl nets of factory vessels.

Dedicated observer coverage to examine interactions between the SGSHS of the SESSF and Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea) in 2006 identified a level of bycatch that was potentially significant for this endemic species. AFMA has since implemented management measures to reduce the bycatch of Australian sea lions in shark gillnets (AFMA 2010a, 2011a). These include gillnet fishing closures around known breeding colonies and the establishment of seven areas (zones) that will be closed if gillnet fishing interactions exceed the zone-based triggers. Zone-based triggers set an overall bycatch level of 15 animals per year across the seven management zones. As at 23 August 2013, all zones were open. All boats using gillnets in these management areas are subject to 100 per cent observer coverage either with AFMA observers or an electronic monitoring system.

The recent increase in observer coverage in the SGSHS identified bycatch and mortalities of dolphins as an issue of concern when using gillnets. The limited historical observer coverage in the SGSHS means that the extent or significance of the issue is uncertain. In September 2011, AFMA implemented a closure in the area of most observed interactions and increased observer coverage to 100 per cent in adjacent areas (AFMA 2011b). This measure has been extended to 23 September 2014. Interactions with seabirds in the SGSHS also became apparent as a result of the increased observer coverage in the sector. In response, AFMA required offal management measures and net cleaning to reduce seabird interactions (AFMA 2011a).

The potential significance of seabird mortalities resulting from interactions with trawl cables (warp strikes) has been identified globally, in Commonwealth fisheries and in early fishery bycatch action plans (Phillips et al. 2010). However, obtaining reliable data is difficult because of the difficulties associated with observing warp strikes. A dedicated seabird bycatch observer program is being trialled in the SESSF. Industry has implemented vessel-specific seabird management plans in the CTS and GABTS.

The potential for interactions with seals in the CTS wet-boat and Danish-seine sectors of the SESSF was identified by the ERA process for these sectors. Previous studies suggested that more than 700 seals could be caught annually in the wet-boat sector (NSSG & Stewardson 2007). Trials of seal excluder devices in the wet-boat sector have achieved positive results (Knuckey 2009) and the industry has adopted a code of conduct that includes voluntary measures to minimise seal bycatch. However, reliably estimating the level of interactions remains difficult.

As part of the review of the Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch (discussed further under Policy reviews below), CSIRO assessed trends in bycatch for several Commonwealth fisheries (Tuck et al. 2013). They found that data limitations precluded the accurate assessment of trends in bycatch. For example, variations in observer coverage between years, fishing gear types, seasons, areas and sampling protocols could result in misleading estimates of bycatch trends. Furthermore, bycatch rates needed to be interpreted with caution, as a decrease in this indicator may be due to either the success of mitigation measures, a decrease in susceptibility to the gear or a decrease in the abundance of the bycatch population. Tuck et al. (2013), also found it difficult to accurately measure the effectiveness of bycatch mitigation measures. However, anecdotal evidence and incomplete data suggested that fisheries that introduced mitigation measures had generally experienced successful outcomes.

32

Chapter 1: Overview


1.4.3 Data collectionLimited availability of data on interactions with TEP species remains a key constraint in some fisheries. The rare nature of TEP species interactions creates a challenge for obtaining reliable estimates of interaction rates, particularly at lower levels of observer coverage. Reliable data are critical to determining the extent of interactions, evaluating the potential impact on populations and demonstrating the effectiveness of management measures. Electronic monitoring programs have been trialled in several fisheries and subfisheries (ETBF and SGSHS). These may provide more data to inform future fisheries management, but it is not yet known whether they will provide sufficient data to manage infrequent events, or animals that are difficult to identify on screen.

1.4.4 Cumulative impactsThe wide distribution of many TEP species across the Australian Fishing Zone means that some species may interact with a number of fisheries, including fisheries in other jurisdictions and on the high seas. Although interactions in a single fishery may be low, the cumulative impact across several fisheries could be significant and needs to be considered. Data constraints limit the assessment and understanding of cumulative impacts across fisheries and jurisdictions (Phillips et al. 2010). CSIRO currently has a project underway that is looking at extending the existing ecological risk assessment processes to look at cumulative risk.

1.5 Policy reviewsIn May 2013, the (then) Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (now Department of Agriculture) released separate review reports on the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy 2007 (DAFF 2013a) and the Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch 2000 (DAFF 2013b). The reviews involved public comment on discussion papers, stakeholder workshops and technical reviews by ABARES, CSIRO and the University of Wollongong.

Prawn trawlers AFMA

33

Chapter 1: Overview


The review of the HSP concluded that this policy has largely been successful in improving the management of Commonwealth fisheries and has provided a strong foundation for fisheries management. The review noted that the policy and guidelines meet or exceed international obligations and best practice in most respects. The review’s key recommendations for improvement of the policy include providing additional direction or guidelines on stock rebuilding strategies and discarding of commercial species; implementation of the MEY objective in multispecies fisheries; and ensuring that the policy applies to all commercial species, including byproduct.

The bycatch policy review recommended the development of a revised bycatch policy, based on an improved definition for bycatch and clearer objectives and principles. Key findings of this review included the need to develop a tiered approach to monitoring, assessing and managing bycatch; development of guidelines to underpin implementation of the revised policy (similar to those for the HSP); use of trigger points and decision rules, where appropriate; and a performance monitoring and reporting framework to facilitate evaluation of the implementation and effectiveness of the bycatch policy.

The HSP and bycatch policy review reports do not provide any policy direction themselves, but are intended to inform the future revision and update of the policy framework for Commonwealth fisheries. These reviews complement the high-level Review of Fisheries Management undertaken by Mr David Borthwick, AO PSM, in 2012–13. The current policies will continue to apply until any updated policies are endorsed.

1.5 Literature citedAAD (Australian Antarctic Division) 2001, Threat abatement plan for the incidental catch (or bycatch) of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations, AAD, Kingston.

——2006, Threat abatement plan for the incidental catch (or bycatch) of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations, AAD, Kingston.

ABARES (Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences) 2013, Coral Sea Fishery Sea Cucumber Sector: preliminary stock assessments, unpublished report for the Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status (RUSS) project, ABARES, Canberra.

AFMA (Australian Fisheries Management Authority) 2010, Australian sea lion management strategy, Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF), AFMA, Canberra.

——2011a, AFMA and trawl-fishers act to protect seabirds, 19 July 2011, media release, AFMA, Canberra.

——2011b, Fisheries management (Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery management plan 2003) temporary order 2011, AFMA, Canberra.

——2012, Upper slope dogfish management strategy, AFMA, Canberra.

DAFF (Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 2007, Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy: policy and guidelines, DAFF, Canberra.

——2013a, Report on the review of the Commonwealth Policy on Fisheries Bycatch, DAFF, Canberra.

——2013b, Report on the review of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy: policy and guidelines, DAFF, Canberra.

34

Chapter 1: Overview


George, D & New, R 2013, Australian fisheries surveys report 2012: financial and economic performance of the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery, the Commonwealth Trawl Sector and the Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector, ABARES, Canberra.

——, Vieira, S & New, R 2012, Australian fisheries surveys report 2011, results for selected fisheries 2008–09 to 2010–2011, ABARES, Canberra.

Griffiths, S, Kenyon, R, Bulman C, Dowdney, J, Williams, A, Sporcic, M & Fuller, M 2007, Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing: report for the Northern Prawn Fishery, report for AFMA, Canberra.

Hobday, A, Smith, A, Webb, H, Daley, R, Wayte, S, Bulman, C, Dowdney, J, Williams, A, Sporcic, M, Dambacher, J, Fuller, M & Walker, T 2007, Ecological rick assessment for effects of fishing: methodology, report R04/1072 for the AFMA, Canberra.

Klaer, N 2011, ‘Bight redfish (Centroberyx gerrardi) stock assessment based on data up to 2010/11’, in GN Tuck (ed.), Stock assessment for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery 2012, part 1, AFMA & CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, pp. 330–40.

——2012, ‘Deepwater flathead (Neoplatycephalus conatus) stock assessment based on data up to 2011/12’, in GN Tuck (ed.), Stock assessment for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery 2013, part 1, AFMA & CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart.

Knuckey, IA 2009, Trials of seal excluder devices (SEDs) on a South East Trawl Fishery wet boat, final report to the Natural Heritage Trust.

Kompas, T, Che, N, Chu, L & Klaer, N 2012, Transition to MEY goals for the Great Australian Bight Trawl Fishery, report to FRDC, Australian Centre for Biosecurity and Environmental Economics, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University, Canberra.

NSSG (National Seal Strategy Group) & Stewardson, C 2007, National assessment of interactions between humans and seals: fisheries, aquaculture and tourism, DAFF, Canberra.

Phillips, K, Giannini, F, Lawrence, E & Bensley, N 2010, Cumulative assessment of the catch of non-target species in Commonwealth fisheries: a scoping study, BRS, Canberra.

Skewes, T, Murphy, NE, McLeod, I, Dovers, E, Burridge, C & Rochester, W 2010, Torres Strait hand collectables, 2009 survey: sea cucumber, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Cleveland, Queensland.

Skirtun, M & Vieira, S 2012, Understanding the drivers of profitability in Commonwealth fisheries: assessing the influence of recent government policies, report to the Fisheries Resources Research Fund, Canberra.

Stephan, M 2013, Trends in total factor productivity of five key Commonwealth managed fisheries, contributed paper to the 57th Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Annual Conference, 5–8 February 2013, Sydney.

Tuck, GN, Knuckey, I & Klaer, NL 2013, Informing the review of the Commonwealth policy on fisheries bycatch through assessing trends in bycatch of key Commonwealth fisheries, FRDC Project 2012/046.

Documents

Fishery status reports 2012data.daff.gov.au/.../01_FishStatus2012Start_1.00.pdf · 2013. 10. 25. · Fishery status reports 2012 FIGURE 1.1 Relative catch levels of all Australian