Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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