Download Small Pelagic Fishery - The Australian Fisheries Management

Small Pelagic Fishery
BYCATCH AND DISCARDING WORKPLAN
2011 - 2013
Table of Contents
Introduction........................................................................................................................3
Fishery description.............................................................................................................4
Bycatch and discarding risks in the SPF .........................................................................5
Definitions and scope of workplan ......................................................................................5
Bycatch of TEP species .......................................................................................................5
Existing measures to reduce bycatch ...............................................................................7
2011 – 2013 Bycatch and Discarding Workplan .............................................................8
Appendix 1: The Ecological Risk Assessment Process ...................................................9
2
Small Pelagic Fishery
Introduction
In carrying out its functions, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA)
must pursue objectives in the Fisheries Management Act 1991 including to ensure ‘that
the exploitation of fisheries resources and the carrying on of any related activities are
conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable
development (which include the exercise of the precautionary principle), in particular the
need to have regard to the impact of fishing activities on non-target species and the long
term sustainability of the marine environment’.
To help achieve this objective, in September 2009 AFMA released the Small Pelagic
Fishery Bycatch and Discarding Workplan (2009 Workplan) which provided fishery
specific implementation of the framework established under the Commonwealth Policy
on Fisheries Bycatch (2000). The 2009 Workplan applied for two years. No interactions
with threatened, endangered and protected species1 (TEP species) have been reported in
the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) since the 2009 Workplan commenced.
This Small Pelagic Fishery Bycatch and Discarding Workplan replaces the 2009
Workplan. It aims to:
•
•
respond to high ecological risks assessed through AFMA’s Ecological Risk
Assessment process and management response completed in 2010 (refer to
Appendix 1) and other assessment processes
avoid interactions with species listed under the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)
•
reduce discarding of target species to as close to zero as practically possible
•
minimise overall bycatch in the fishery over the long-term.
This workplan incorporates changes from the formal review of the 2009 Workplan, the
results of the Ecological Risk Assessment process and management response completed
in 2010 and the outcomes of measures implemented under the 2009 Workplan.
This workplan will be reviewed by AFMA annually and formally reviewed, in
consultation with the Small Pelagic Fishery Research Assessment Group (SPFRAG),
after two years. This workplan should be read in conjunction with the Commonwealth
Policy on Fisheries Bycatch (2000) and AFMA’s program for addressing bycatch and
discarding in Commonwealth fisheries: an implementation strategy (2008).
1
See Principle 2 in Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities,
Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries – 2nd Edition (2007).
3
Fishery description
The SPF includes Commonwealth waters (3-200nm) extending from south east
Queensland around southern Australia to latitude 31°00’00” in Western Australia. The
fishery is currently divided into two sub areas, east and west of latitude 146°30’00”.
Figure 1. Eastern and western sub areas of the SPF Fishery
There are four target species in the SPF:
• Blue Mackerel (Scomber australasicus)
• Jack Mackerels (Trachurus declivis, Trachurus murphyi)
• Redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus)
• Australian Sardines (Sardinops sagax).
The two fishing methods permitted in the SPF are purse seine and midwater trawl.
4
Bycatch and discarding risks in the SPF
Definitions and scope of workplan
In the SPF:
• bycatch means catch other than of the four target species in the SPF. Bycatch also
means that part of catch that does not reach the deck of the fishing vessel but is
affected by interaction with fishing gear
• discarding means catch (of either target species or bycatch) which is discarded
because either it has low commercial value or because regulation precludes it
from being retained.
Discarding of target or non-target fish species is not currently a concern in the SPF
because:
• operators can selectively catch the four target species without catching significant
numbers of other fish species
• catches of target species are generally well below Total Allowable Catch (TAC)
limits so operators are not restricted in the amount of target species they can
retain.
Accordingly, this workplan deals primarily with the reduction of the risk of bycatch of
TEP species such as marine mammals and seabirds. Data has been obtained primarily
through logbooks, catch disposal records, research projects and onboard observers.
Bycatch of TEP species
Purse seine
The risk of bycatch of TEP species when using purse seine gear is low. There have been
no reported purse seine gear interactions with TEP species since the 2009 Workplan
commenced, which continues the historically low levels of reported interactions
described in the 2009 Workplan.
The Ecological Risk Management Report for the Purse Seine Sector (2010) identified that
purse seine fishing represents minimal risk to TEP species in the SPF.
Midwater trawl
There have been no reported midwater trawl gear interactions with TEP species since the
2009 Workplan commenced. However a number of dolphin and seal interactions were
reported during midwater trawl operations in 2004-05. Following the introduction of
management measures further monitoring found:
• interactions with dolphins are rare with none were observed over two seasons of
observations
• fur seals were frequently observed entering the trawl nets with evidence for some
mortality.
5
Seabird interactions in the SPF are low with a few isolated interactions reported in the
2005-06 season. The only other TEP species interactions involved the catch of one
syngnathid during 2004-05.
The Ecological Risk Management: Report for Midwater Trawl Sector of the Small
Pelagic Fishery in March 2010 identified eight species as priority species for the
midwater trawl sector outlined in Table 1.
Table 1: The priority list of species to be addressed in the midwater trawl sector of the
Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) assessed under the Level 2 Productivity Suceptability
Analysis Residual Risk Assessent..
Taxonomic
Group
Role in
Fishery
Risk
Score
Australian Fur Seal
TEP
High
Grampus griseus
Risso's Dolphin
TEP
High
Marine Mammal
Tursiops truncatus
TEP
High
Marine Mammal
Tursiops aduncus
Bottlenose Dolphin
Indian Ocean
bottlenose dolphin
TEP
High
Marine Mammal
Lagenodelphis hosei
Fraser's Dolphin
TEP
High
Marine Mammal
Lagenorhynchus cruciger
TEP
High
Marine Mammal
Lissodelphis peronii
Hourglass dolphin
Southern Right
Whale Dolphin
TEP
High
Marine Mammal
Stenella coeruleoalba
Striped Dolphin
TEP
High
Scientific Name
Common Name
Marine Mammal
Arctocephalus pusillus
doriferus
Marine Mammal
6
Existing measures to reduce bycatch
Purse seine
•
In 2010 the Small Pelagic Fishery Research Assessment Group (SPFRAG) and
Small Pelagic Fishery Management Advisory Committee (SPFMAC, which has
been replaced by the South East Management Advisory Committee (SEMAC))
resolved for purse seine boats:
o observer coverage target of 10% of shots
o for new boats entering the fishery or existing boats moving into
significantly new areas, observer coverage of the first five trips.
•
The SPF purse seine fishery operates under the Commonwealth Small Pelagic
Fishery Purse Seine Code of Practice, which includes provisions regarding
minimising the risk of interactions with TEP species.
Midwater trawl
•
In 2010 SPFRAG and SPFMAC resolved for midwater trawl boats:
o observer coverage target of 20% of shots
o for new boats entering the fishery, or existing boats moving into
significantly new areas, observer coverage of the first 10 trips.
•
The predominant midwater trawler in the SPF uses a bottom opening Seal
Exclusion Device (SED) with a large escape hole and steel grid. The 2009
Workplan identified a trial of upward excluding SEDs which has not proceeded
due to lack of funding and virtually zero midwater trawl effort in the fishery. The
outcomes of a similar trial taking place in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector may
be adopted for the purposes of the SPF should midwater trawl effort resume.
•
The 2009 Workplan included the development and implementation of individual
vessel management plans (VMP) to minimise TEP species interactions and record
procedures for reporting on catch and wildlife interactions. A VMP for the
predominant trawler in the SPF has not been implemented because of the minimal
effort since the 2009 Workplan. VMPs (also known as Seabird Mitigation Plans
(SMP)) have been prepared for boats in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector and will
be able to be adapted to SPF trawl boats. A VMP observer is available to develop
the plan when midwater trawl effort recommences in the fishery.
•
The 2009 Workplan included the development of triggers to identify shifts or
expansion of effort within the fishery, including increased interaction with TEP
species. AFMA and the SPFRAG are continuing to develop triggers and
performance measures based on recent research.2 Triggers have not yet been put
in place in the SPF and therefore the development of triggers has also been rolled
over from the 2009 Workplan.
2
In particular, Establishing ecosystem-based management for the South Australian Sardine Fishery:
developing ecological performance indicators and reference points to assess the need for ecological
allocations (March 2011).
7
2011 – 2013 Bycatch and Discarding Workplan*
Action List
Project / Work
Risk / Issue to
be addressed
Timeframe
Projected Cost
Milestones
Who is responsible
1. Monitor the trial and use of upwardexcluding Seal Excluder Devices in the
Commonwealth Trawl Sector and adapt as
appropriate (having regard for health and
safety issues) for SPF midwater trawl boats.
Monitoring and
mitigation of seal
and dolphin
mortalities
2012/13
AFMA costs
included in budget
Review the
effectiveness of
upward opening SED
on SPF midwater
trawl boats.
AFMA SPF team and
Bycatch and Discard
Program with full support
from industry
2. AFMA, in consultation with SPFRAG, will
develop and implement individual vessel
management plans for midwater trawl
operators to minimise TEP species
interactions and record procedures for
reporting on catch and wildlife interactions.
TEP species with a
focus on marine
mammals and
seabirds.
2013, subject
to midwater
trawl effort
Approx. $5000 per
vessel
AFMA SPF team and
Bycatch & Discard Program
with full support from
industry
3. Develop triggers to identify shifts or
expansion in effort within the fishery,
including increased interaction with TEP
species.
Monitoring and TEP
interactions
Late 2013
Every vessel in the
SPF to develop,
design and carry an
up to date VMP.
Vessel operations in
accordance with
VMPs can be audited
by observers.
Triggers in place by
late 2013
Funded by AFMA
Bycatch and
Discard Program
Covered under
fishery budget
AFMA and SPFRAG
* Note that there has been very limited effort in the SPF since the introduction of the 2009 Workplan, with close to zero midwater trawl
effort. This has meant that this workplan includes some items that have been rolled over from the 2009 Workplan.
8
Appendix 1: The Ecological Risk Assessment Process
AFMA initiated the development of Ecological Risk Assessments (ERAs) for
Commonwealth managed fisheries in 2001 to assist in prioritising and guiding research,
data collection, monitoring and management. ERAs assess the impact, both direct and
indirect, a fishery’s or sub-fishery’s activities have on five ecological components of the
marine ecosystem – target species; byproduct and bycatch species; threatened,
endangered and protected (TEP) species; habitats; and ecological communities.
ERAs progress through a scoping stage and three progressive levels of analysis from a
semi-qualitative analysis under Level 2 Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) to a
fully qualitative assessment at Level 3 under either a stock assessment or by applying the
Sustainability Assessment of Fishing Effects (SAFE) methodology. This hierarchical
approach, described in the table below, is seen as an efficient way of screening activities
and identifying key ecological priorities for fisheries management.
A Level 2 PSA analysis for the midwater trawl and purse seine methods in the SPF has
been completed. The Level 2 PSA assessment categorises species, habitats and
communities into high, medium or low risk on the basis of their susceptibility to fishing
activities and their ability to recover from fishing impacts. It is an inherently
precautionary methodology with risks scored high in the absence of information or
evidence to the contrary. A residual risk process has been applied to the Level 2 PSA
9
results which considers additional information, particularly the mitigating effects of
management arrangements that were not explicitly included in the assessment and can
result in reduced risk categorisation where warranted and within the agreed Residual Risk
Guidelines.
The final stage to the ERA process, the Level 3 SAFE Assessment, has been applied to
the SPF and completed. The SAFE methodology includes two components: indicators
and reference points. The assessment focuses on one single indicator – the fishing
mortality rate. An estimate is made of the spatial overlap between species distribution
and the footprint of fishery activity, over the fishery jurisdiction, for specific fishing
methods and assesses the catchability of species given their likelihood of encountering
the fishing gear and the resultant post capture survivability (Zhou 2007).
The results of the various levels of risk assessment for the fishery were consolidated to
form a priority list which was the focus of the Ecological Risk Management (ERM)
responses, the results of which have been incorporated into this Bycatch and Discarding
Workplan.
10