Draft Minutes South East mac 5

Interests and Committee’s decision

Mr Boag

Mr Boag indicated that he did not hold Pink Ling quota. Mr Boag noted his role with SETFIA. Mr Boag stepped outside the meeting room at 2:46 pm. The Chair noted that now there was a formal process whereby the MAC decided if Mr Boag had a conflict of interests with agenda items 4.3 and 4.4 and if how it should be addressed. The Chair indicated that he believed there was level of conflict but that we needed Mr Boag’s expertise in the room for the Pink Ling items. Members categorised Mr Boag’s conflict as indirect and supported his return to the meeting to participate in agenda items 4.3 and 4.4. Mr Boag rejoined at 2:48 am.

Mr Scott

The Committee noted that Mr Scott had direct and indirect conflict of interests with the agenda items 4.3 and 4.4 which were set out in a statement of conflicts of interest. Mr Scott had already stepped outside the meeting room at the close of Item 4.2 at 2:45 pm. The MAC Chair acknowledged Mr Scott’s direct conflict of interest (as a holder of Pink Ling quota) and asked MAC members’ views on Mr Scott’s role in the discussion of, and in the forming of recommendations for agenda items 4.3 and 4.4. The Chair considered that we recognise Mr Scott’s direct conflict of interest but that we needed his expertise in the room for these items. The recreational invited participant indicated he was not comfortable with industry members with a direct conflict of interest being involved in those items. The participant noted that involvement in the discussion could influence the MAC’s forming of recommendations and did not think there was necessarily a clear line that could be drawn in that regard. Mr Boag suggested that if the objection was upheld then industry members should be either in the room or out for the entire item. The recreational participant responded noting that he was only one person and would abide by the Committee’s decision and move on but would like his concerns recorded. Mr Boag indicated that his terms were that he was here for all or none and was happy to step outside if that was the Committee’s wish. The Chair indicated we couldn’t operate on that basis as we would not have a quorum. The GAB invited participant considered that it constituted proper process as long as the MAC minutes record that Mr Boag has an indirect conflict and that Mr Scott had both a direct conflict and an indirect conflict and that the MAC wished both to participate in the relevant agenda items because they were the experts in relation to Pink Ling management matters. The recreational invited participant confirmed that he was happy with what the MAC decides. The GAB invited participant, speaking generally, noted that recommendations could be agreed by the whole MAC or a majority with one or two dissenting views which would be also be reported. The MAC Chair invited Mr Scott back into the meeting at 2:50 pm.

4.3Implementation of Pink Ling closures in eastern Bass Strait; and

4.4Managing the mortality of eastern stock of Pink Ling

The MAC Chair introduced Mr Bromley (Acting Trawl Manager) to present the Pink Ling papers. Mr Bromley noted that while there were two papers that were interrelated and could be discussed together. Members were comfortable with this approach.

Mr Bromley explained the management challenge of managing the eastern and western stocks of Pink Ling under one ‘Global TAC’. Mr Bromley noted that the Pink Ling TAC of 834 tonnes (t) therefore needed to be managed with reference to the biological status of eastern and western stocks. Mr Bromley advised that AFMA has identified a ‘notional TAC’ for the eastern zone based on assessment advice that the stock was around B₂₆.

Mr Bromley advised that this translated to a notional TAC of 584 t for the western zone and a notional TAC of 250 t for the eastern zone. The MAC noted industry advice that constraining Pink Ling catches in the east would be very difficult as while it could be targeted it was also taken in operations targeting other quota species. Mr Bromley advised that catches in the eastern zone in the last fishing year were about 358 t and that a significant adjustment by industry would be needed to constrain catches in the east under 250 t.

The MAC recalled its 18 March 2013 Teleconference where the Committee reviewed the utility of three Ling closures (Seiners Horseshoe, Everard Horseshoe and Maria Island) in the east and noted that these for these closures had previously being enacted to reduce impacts on spawners and thereby enhance recruitment. The MAC recalled that there was little evidence available to support that these closures improved recruitment however the Committee noted that targeting of Pink Ling by the auto-longline sector and to a lesser extent by trawlers did occur in these features and that the reinstatement of the three eastern closures could be justified on the basis of reducing catches in the east.

The trawl member first qualified his opening comments by noting that he didn’t accept the Pink Ling assessment but noted that from a process perspective that it was the assessment and we had to deal with it. The member noted the extent of the problem was that probable catch was 108 t > Eastern RBC based on last year’s catch as a guide. The trawl member advised that a large quota owner had agreed to lease 30 t of quota to Portland (the west) based boats but reducing the remaining 78 t would be very difficult because there was virtually no trawl targeting of Pink Ling in the east. The trawl member, speaking in his capacity as SETFIA Executive Officer member indicated that SETFIA supported closures to all fishing methods in Maria Canyon, Everard Horseshoe and Seiners Horseshoe. The MAC noted that the closures weren’t expected to reduce catches sufficiently to bring the anticipated eastern catch in under 250 t. The trawl member observed that there were no other obvious solutions to contain eastern catches and noted that recent industry reports in the east were that the fishery was experiencing higher catch rates of that species.

The MAC noted that these closures had previously been applied during the spawning periods but recalled advice from the SlopeRAG Chair (MAC’s scientific member) that there was no scientific evidence available to suggest that the closures had improved recruitment. The auto-longline member indicated that these closures had a greater impact on auto-longline vessels. The member was however prepared to support the closures provide it was documented that the only justification for the closures was to constrain the catch of eastern Pink Ling and not to increase recruitment. The MAC spent some time discussing the period of the closure but settled on 1 year given the Tier 1 assessment was being updated and the rationale for the closure was linked to TAC settings.

The MAC supported the proposed shelf edge closures on the basis that it would constrain catches of Pink Ling however noted that because these areas were productive grounds that this could reduce economic efficiency.

The MAC Chair noted that that further reductions would still be required even if the AFMA Commission supported the closures. The Chair noted it was an elegant solution wasn’t available. Mr Bromley agreed and encouraged the MAC to look at this as a total mortality equation and accordingly noted that AFMA was seeking the best way of limiting the catch of Pink Ling in the east without driving up discarding. .

The MAC paused to consider the longer term settings and noted that AFMA had previously proposed mechanisms to convert SFRs into east and west components. Mr Bromley observed that even if that could be achieved in a short time frame there would still be fishers with large holdings who had structured their fishing operations around catching most of their Pink Ling in the east.

The MAC agreed that splitting the SFR pool for species which had different stocks was a high priority (i.e. regionalise the quota). Members agreed that this would promote adjustment but accepted industry advice that it would cause hardship in the short term. The MAC recalled a mechanism proposed by AFMA Management previously which was considered feasible at the time and suggested that this be given a high priority and advice also be sought on issues raised at the time like legal aspects and capital gains tax implications.

The trawl member spoke of industry’s concern about the Pink Ling situation and appreciated the AFMA CEO and Executive’s preparedness to meet with SETFIA Directors to discuss this and important matters recently. The trawl member advised that SETFIA and a number of auto-longline operators had committed funds to support independent scientific input into the upcoming Pink Ling assessment. The MAC recognised industry concern in relation to the Pink Ling stock assessment and welcomed industry’s initiative to bring additional expertise to the 2013 stock assessment.

The Committee also welcomed the AFMA Commission’s support for a step down approach in its TAC determination and appreciated industry’s commitment to try and work within current management settings despite their lack of confidence in recent assessment outputs.

The MAC noted that the auto-longline sector caught much of its Blue-eye Trevalla in the east however due to recent seamount and Gulper closures would now have to concentrate more of its fishing effort along the continental slope. The MAC noted industry advice that fishing for Blue-eye Trevalla along the continental slope would be characterised by a significant bycatch (30 to 40%) of Pink Ling.

The auto-longline member, noting earlier discussion about reviewing historic closures, suggested that AFMA consider re-opening up the Cascade Plateau to the auto-longline sector. The member noted that the sector had previously fished there but that it had been closed to auto-longline for reasons which were no longer applicable. The auto-longline member suggested this would allow redirection of a significant proportion of auto-longline effort to features where Blue–eye Trevalla could be targeted but with an insignificant bycatch of Pink Ling. The MAC noted that the Cascade was open to the trawl sector for Blue Eye Trevalla.

The MAC recommended that AFMA review opening up the Cascade Plateau to the auto-longline sector taking into account the reasons for the original closure and with regard to potential shift of effort away from fishing grounds where Pink Ling was reported to be a significant bycatch component of operations targeting Blue eye Trevalla.

The MAC then considered management options available to AFMA should catches of eastern Pink Ling approach the notional TAC of 250 t recognising that AFMA was determined to keep total mortalities in the east under 250 t. The MAC identified a need for short interval monitoring once catches reached 200 t in the east. Industry members also suggested that the early implementation of a reporting arrangement would help promote industry ownership of the issue. The MAC considered a number of proposed options put forward by AFMA:
No take Direction - once landings of Pink Ling in the eastern zone once 200 t

The MAC was not able to support a proposed ‘No take Direction’ once 200 t was reached noting that such a measure would encourage a race to fish and that the auto-longline sector could be disadvantaged due to seasonality being a factor in Ling’s availability to that sector (better catches in Spring).

Industry members suggested if a ‘No take Direction’ was in place that this would lead to high grading in the lead up to the trigger and discarding afterwards so any biological objective would be compromised. The auto-longline member raised concerns that the high grading in the lead-up to the 200t trigger would mean smaller fish would be discarded (mostly dead) and this would exacerbate the biological impact.

Trip limits

Industry members did not support the implementation of trip limits from season commencement because they would be economically efficient and because, as a standardised measure, would not reflect people’s shares and were therefore inequitable.

The MAC was not able to identify suitable instruments to constrain catch and mortality of eastern Pink Ling once landed catches approached 200 t. The MAC was optimistic that the voluntary shifting of quota, the recommended shelf edge closures and possible opening of the Cascade Plateau to auto-longline sector could significantly reduce the take of eastern Pink Ling.

The Committee encouraged AFMA to work with industry to determine what the most equitable measures were to constrain catch and mortality of eastern Pink Ling as landings approached the notional TAC.

Recommendations

That AFMA pursue stock regionalisation options in the SESSF as matter of priority.

That AFMA implement full year closures to all fishing methods in the Maria Canyon, Everard Horseshoe and Seiners Horseshoe to reduce catches of the eastern Pink Ling stock for one fishing season.

That AFMA investigate removing the prohibition on auto-longlining on the Cascade Plateau.

Action 11 – Co-management AFMA, SETFIA and the auto-longline sector

AFMA to consult with industry regarding voluntary and statutory measures to constrain catch and take of eastern Pink Ling once landings reach 200 t.

4.5Striped Trumpeter arrangements for Commonwealth operators

AFMA circulated information showing the catch of Striped Trumpeter by all GHaT sectors had fallen significantly from 2011 and 2012 levels (Attachment 2). The Committee noted that AFMA expected that the reduction in the Commonwealth trip limit to 150 kg for Striped Trumpeter would be implemented before the Tasmanian state spawning closures were enacted. The state invited participant advised that Tasmania would have preferred to see the Commonwealth mirror the state’s seasonal (spawning) closures but could live with a year round reduction in the Commonwealth trip limit.

The shark invited participant supported the reduction noting that the extra 100 kgs (formerly available) was an incentive for some Commonwealth operators to target Striped Trumpeter.

The recreational participant took issue with the length of time (since December 2012) to implement the reduction in the trip limit. The AFMA member explained that AFMA had signed off on the amendment internally but noted that trip limits were enacted in fisheries management regulations which took longer to amend (rather than as conditions on fishing concessions). The recreational participant indicated that the recreational sector supported the reduced trip limit but reiterated that they would have still like to see a zero take requirement apply during the period of the Tasmanian spawning closure.

The recreational participant thanked AFMA for providing the information but asked next time if the associated levels of fishing effort could be included. The member suggested that a frequency histogram of catches i.e. 0 to 25 kgs, 26 to 50 kgs etc would help the Committee better understand the nature of the Striped Trumpeter bycatch.

4.6Catches of Australian sardine under NSW and Victorian state fishing concessions

The Chair noted that with departures of members to catch flights⁴ the MAC was now operating without a quorum. The Chair indicated that the discussion was also weakened due to the absence of the Small Pelagic Fishery member.

The MAC Chair introduced Mr Shanks (Manager SPF) to present this item. The Chair then provided background information on the Victorian fishery noting that the state had supported a significant fishery for Australia Sardine (formerly Pilchards) at various times for over 100 years and that it was now centred in Lakes Entrance. The Chair noted that the fishery in Port Phillip Bay used to take between 3,000 and 5,000 tonnes of Australian Sardine each year up until the dieback in the late 1990s.

Mr Shanks noted that the NSW Ocean Hauling Fishery also took significant volumes of Australia Sardine and that Commonwealth SPF concession holders had access to Australia Sardine outside 3nm off New South Wales. The MAC noted that some of the NSW operators also held concessions in the SPF.

The meeting noted that the way the Commonwealth assessment process and translation of Recommended Biological Catches (RBCs) to TACs was structured resulted in the Commonwealth ‘accepting’ the residual once state catches had been deducted from the RBC. The meeting recognised this was inequitable and noted that neither of the states currently had the capacity to implement hard limits on catches (through routine instruments). Mr Shanks noted that if economic circumstances improved it was possible that the NSW and Victorian catches could exceed the RBC. Mr Shanks advised that AFMA had contacted NSW DPI and Fisheries Victoria about sharing within the RBC but added that AFMA was also considering establishing a threshold below which it wouldn’t reduce the Commonwealth TAC even if the states did not rein in their catches.

The meeting noted that AFMA however was required to act consistently with the SPF Harvest Strategy.

The meeting supported AFMA consulting with the respective jurisdictions and industry representatives in relation to establishing cooperative research and management arrangements.

5Research

5.1Report from SESSF RAG’s Chair’s Meeting

The MAC was not able to discuss outcomes of SESSF RAG’s Chair’s Meeting (February 2013).

5.2Royal Red Prawn fishery Gulper exclusion device trials in the Sydney Endeavour Dogfish closure.

Mr Boag (trawl member) briefed the MAC on the impact of the Endeavour Dogfish Closure off Sydney on the trawl vessels that targeted Royal Red Prawns. Mr Boag noted that extensions to the closure in combination with the existing no trawl zones around submarine cables essentially closed the ground where Sydney operators usually caught most of their prawns. The MAC noted that most of catch was taken from around 400 to 500m but was associated with muddy substrates which weren’t considered to be preferred habitat for Upper Slope Dogfish (Gulper Sharks).

Mr Boag provided a draft research proposal to test Gulper Shark Excluder in the vessels targeting Royal Red Prawns. The MAC noted that further refinements were needed including dialogue with researchers involved with excluder devices in other trawl fisheries.

The MAC noted that the proponents were seeking support from AFMA Research Fund. The conservation member suggested approaching WWF as they would be prepare to consider this sort of work particularly given reports that the fishery for these deepwater prawns had low levels of bycatch.

The MAC provided in principle support for an industry research proposal to trial a ‘Gulper Shark Excluder Device’ in trawl nets used in the Royal Red Prawn sector which operated out of Sydney and NSW south coast ports. The MAC considered it was a worthwhile initiative and noted that it would be subject to normal RAG scrutiny and comment.⁵

6Other business

6.1Enquiry about local depletion in the Small Pelagic Fishery

The conservation member asked AFMA if any additional work had been done or commenced to address concerns raised about localised depletion in the Small Pelagic Fishery. The AFMA member noted that there were arrangements (based on advice of SPFRAG) which were to be put in place if large scale fishing resumed (i.e. freezer trawler) which would involve a review of fishing effort (heat maps). Mr Shanks noted that in period leading up to, and since, the Interim (Small Pelagic Fishery) Declaration (No. 2) 2013 there had only been small scale fishing taking place in the SPF. Mr Shanks added that given the low levels of activity there had been no basis for engaging the RAG to review effort levels.

The AFMA member noted there had been a modest amount of fishing by a small purse seine boat off northern NSW.

The MAC noted that further consideration may be given to this issue by the Expert Panel on the Declared Commercial Fishing Activity convened by the Minister for the Environment.

There was no other business.

7Date and timing of upcoming meetings

Prior to Agenda Item 4.5 Mr Boag, on behalf of the MAC, presented Mr McCormack with a farewell gift from all the members. Mr Boag thanked Mr McCormack for his hard work in a difficult role adding that we had mostly run to time, goodwill had prevailed and that members had enjoyed the Chair’s company.

Mr McCormack noted that he had been involved with MACs for a long time and observed that it wasn’t always an easy task and thanked Mr Boag for his kind words. Mr McCormack wished members the best for the future and indicated that if you were going to work in a bureaucracy that having a career in fisheries management was a great place to be. Mr McCormack added that it could be tough but that it was a good industry to work with and that he had a real buzz out of it over the years. Mr McCormack acknowledged Ms Tarte as incoming Chair and was confident that the MAC would afford her the same respect they had shown to him over the years. Mr McCormack then asked members to resume deliberations on the last few items so we could hand over a clean slate to the new Chair.

The Chair suggested that AFMA consult with the new Chair in regard to the timing of the next meeting but noted that the two day TAC meeting was routinely held in late January.

The MAC Chair then thanked members, invited participants and observers for their interest and input and closed the meeting at 4.32 pm.

Stephen McCormack

Chair – South East MAC

xx October 2013

Attachments

1. 
   Final agenda South East MAC 12
   
2. 
   Information on Striped Trumpeter bycatch in the GHaT 2008 to 2013 (tabled at the meeting)
   

Action Arising

Action items shading indicates an ongoing item		Member to action
1	Shark industry member to raise amalgamation of the shark Codes of Conduct with the SSIA Executive.	Mr Toumazos
2	SSFI to continue to report back to South East MAC regarding progress with their Code of Conduct.	SSFI
3	AFMA to develop a paper reviewing historic closures across all SESSF gear sectors for SEMAC 13.	AFMA Management
4	Executive Officer to circulate the section containing the SEMAC’s discussion on the potential need for a cross fishery allocation of the Western Gemfish resource.	Executive Officer
5	Circulate Dr Thomson’s (CSIRO) hook selectivity analysis when it is completed and cleared by SharkRAG	AFMA Management
6	Trawl Industry member to update SEMAC on the Code of Conduct for Deepwater Sharks.	Trawl member
7a	Members to provide additional comments on the SAFE assessment to AFMA Management	AFMA SEMAC members
7b	AFMA to formally request that CSIRO review the SAFE Report in relation to queries identified by SESSF RAG and SEMAC.
8	Conservation member to canvass conservation NGOs, industry and recreational peak bodies to gauge their interest in relation to developing a joint submission to the Commonwealth and NSW fisheries ministers (and shadow ministers) urging attention be paid to fixing up the Offshore Constitutional Settlement agreement.	Conservation member, industry members, recreational member
9	AFMA Bycatch Section to provide additional information on the definition of ‘interaction’ in the context of operators’ obligations to report interactions with protected species in their logbooks	AFMA Bycatch Section
10	AFMA to circulate the Gummy Shark auto-longline trial report to MAC members and state agencies.	AFMA Management
11	AFMA to consult with industry regarding voluntary and statutory measures to constrain catch and take of eastern Pink Ling once landings reach 200 t.	AFMA, SETFIA and the auto-longline sector