Draft Minutes South East mac 5
Yüklə 262,58 Kb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Species Percentage of quota landed Notes
|
3Managers Report The AFMA Member noted that AFMA was meeting with representatives from a number of recreational bodies on the 20th June 2013 and would also be meeting with Conservation Non-government organisations (NGOs) in the same week. The AFMA member explained that AFMA was looking to improve consultation with both sectors which was raised in the Borthwick Review The AFMA member noted Commission and Executive decisions in relation to:
The MAC noted the final catch against quota percentages for a number of SESSF species:
The trawl member indicated that SETFIA had down of lot of work with operators in relation to minimising catches of Blue Warehou and Eastern Gemfish. The trawl member emphasised that it was crucial that the AFMA did not further reduce the Bycatch TACs, the member explained that collectively good outcomes can be achieved but if the TACs were reduced substantially then the unfortunate operator that gets the one big hit is then impacted significantly. The AFMA member noted that only 400 kgs of Gummy Shark have been caught since the decision was made not to impose closures on the auto-longline fleet in response to that sector exceeding Auto-longline Gummy Shark trigger (10 t). The AFMA member noted that the AFMA Research Committee had supported a review of SESSF assessment and monitoring arrangements and expected that the details would be announced by late July 2013. The MAC noted that AFMA had established a scoping group to assist with development of the call for research. The Committee noted that the Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy had been implemented and that AFMA was looking at research proposals in relation to the power handline method and Gulper Shark exclusion devices in Royal Red Prawn trawl sector. The AFMA member advised that the 6,000 m gillnet trial was proceeding more slowly than envisaged and that it was likely to be some time before an analysis could be undertaken. The MAC noted that the target number of shots for the trial was 600 and that to date 132 shots using 4,200 m nets and 38 shots using 6,000m nets had been observed. One of the issues complicating the data collection was that some operators were using intermediate lengths. The AFMA member noted that the 2013/14 budgets were nearly finalised and advised there had been a reduction from the draft budgets consulted on earlier in the year. The AFMA member advised that AFMA would be examining the levy allocation model although qualified that this was more about some fine tuning. Industry members indicated they were pleased with the revised model but did have a few concerns that they would like AFMA to consider. The MAC noted an industry request to contribute to the discussions about adjustments to the model. There was general comfort that the principles underpinning the current model were appropriate. The Committee, noting that AFMA intended to examine if refinements to the model were needed, encouraged management to continue liaising with the levy working group. 4Management arrangements 4.1Gillnet, Hook and Trap Fishery (GHaT) Future Directions The MAC Chair introduced Mr Power (Acting Manager GHaT) who was presenting AFMA’s paper. Mr Power explained that AFMA was keen to get SEMAC’s input on the recommendations from the GHAT Future Directions Working Group. The MAC noted that the Working Group had met three times and its tenure concluded with its final meeting in April 2013. The MAC noted that the fishery had been through a difficult period in recent years following implementation of large closures to protect marine mammals and that AFMA was keen to try and establish a vision for the fishery. The Committee welcomed the development of a strategic outlook for the GHaT noting that the gillnet sector in particular had been had been through a difficult period which was characterised by reactive management responses in relation to marine mammal interactions. Members also recalled advice raised earlier in the meeting in relation to challenges facing the hook sector as a result of Upper Slope Dogfish closures, the pending gazettal of large Commonwealth Marine Reserves and seabird bycatch. Mr Power advised that the AFMA Commission had provided guidance on the scope for the review process. Mr Power noted that essentially the approach was to review management measures and where necessary identify where arrangements could be rationalised to ensure they more closely followed AFMA’s legislative objectives. Mr Power reported that the Working Group identified three main areas for reform:
Mr Power noted that monitoring was the most expensive cost centre in the GHaT and that AFMA had engaged Archipelago Marine Research Ltd (preferred supplier) to provide more detailed costings to move the auto-longline sector and fulltime gillnet boats to electronic monitoring. The auto-longline member noted that, subject to satisfactory costings, industry had indicated a preference for buying the cameras and providing AFMA with the information they needed in order to maintain control over the camera footage. Industry members advised that they were also interested in using camera technology to monitor OH&S matters on vessels and this was the main reason for wanting to own the system (to avoid having to piggyback extra functions). The MAC also recognised there were privacy and confidentiality concerns around footage. The GAB invited participant noted that latest AFMA Update (Volume 10, Issue 5 - 22 May 2013) indicated that: AFMA retains ownership of the data including the footage and protects this information according to AFMA policy and Commonwealth legislation requirements. AFMA may be required to disclose e-monitoring and other information where it is necessary to perform its functions under legislation or required by law such as under freedom of information provisions. AFMA cannot disclose any information unless authorised or required by law. In certain circumstances information collected by AFMA may be exempt from legal disclosure on a number of grounds. The GAB invited participant sought clarification on the ownership of the data/information. The MAC considered that the ownership referred to the information that you are required to forward to AFMA. The Committee recognised strong industry interest in e-monitoring provided AFMA was able to address broader industry concerns relating to data ownership, the protection of commercially sensitive information and ensuring appropriate data security (no leaked footage). Industry members noted that the CFA was engaged on the strategic aspects and concerns associated with e-monitoring. The Committee noted that these were complex issues and that the MAC remained interested in advice on these matters. The Committee then considered interim arrangements and noted that the Working Group supported rolling over the interim hook permits to allow gillnet operators with a history off South Australia to fish using hook methods inside the ASL Management Zone. The MAC noted that the current temporary hook permits issued to fishers with a history of gillnet effort in the closures off South Australia were due to expire on the 30th of October 2013. Mr Power advised that AFMA was seeking preliminary advice on a rollover of these permits for another two years (possibly with additional conditions). The MAC indicated in-principle support for renewing the temporary permits to provide relief for gillnet operators directly affected by closures and asked that AFMA would give further consideration to the following potential concerns (list not exhaustive): Catches of state species and GABTF quota species Mr Power noted it was generally agreed there was capacity to simplify management by removing some of the current input controls but acknowledged advice from the state participant that the Department of Primary Industries and Resources of South Australia (PIRSA) was concerned about the potential removal of some input controls. The MAC recognised the need for simplification of the multi-layered access arrangements in the GHaT and a reduction in input controls. Member were also cognisant that any transition in the operating methods needed to be facilitated in a manner which did not diminish the access rights (and relative equity) of existing hook and auto-longline concessions (and in other fisheries –e.g. GABTF). The Committee recognised that the Commonwealth had entered into certain agreements when the OCS arrangements were negotiated and that most of the bycatch limits were administered as trip limits which to large extent were configured around a gillnet fishery. The state invited participant noted that simplification of access arrangements could increase Commonwealth impacts on state managed species. The state invited participant advised that South Australia was concerned about the expansion of hook effort and its potential impact on Snapper stocks3. The state participant explained that PIRSA considered that bycatch data from the research and industry trial should be analysed before any expansion in auto-longline effort in shelf waters was approved. The state participant recommended that efforts be made to minimise the bycatch of Snapper and other state species rather than pushing for increased trip limits etc. The MAC indicated that close involvement with the states, particularly South Australia, was important in working through this issue. Mr Stevens declared an interest as a member of the Fisheries Council of South Australia and supported the state invited participant’s advice noting that it was important to work closely with states on both interim matters and in the development of longer term measures arising from possible reforms. The state participant noted that the Working Group document indicated there was an offer to send video footage of Snapper being discarded but noted that this hadn’t been actioned. The AFMA member clarified that AFMA had not made this commitment and that it may have been an industry participant on the Working Group. A number of members considered that AFMA’s obligations were to pass on data from the trial not footage. The MAC also recognised that GABIA was concerned about the potential for catches/impacts of GAB quota species (shelf-associated) by auto-longline methods under these temporary permits and had not yet seen an analysis of trial data which addressed this. The GAB invited participant noted that the GAB Trawl Sector had long attributed the resilience in the Bight Redfish resource to its propensity to aggregate in reefy areas which were not suitable for trawling. The GAB invited participant observed that hook boats could fish this sort of terrain and asked if they started targeting Bight Redfish would they have to cover it with quota and would they be subject to costs associated with data collection and stock assessments for that species etc ? The GAB invited participant indicated that GABIA was also concerned about the potential impacts on existing SFRs that may flow from changes to other access rights with a similar area of waters. The auto-longline member and GAB invited participant recognised the need for interim relief through temporary hook permits and supported this approach but emphasised that any future changes to Commonwealth access rights needed to take into account existing access rights in both the SESSF and GABTF.
AFMA advised that seabird catches in the commercial auto-longline trial had exceeded the Longline Fishing TAP demersal threshold. The MAC recognised that addressing the seabird issue was paramount because breaching the TAP could close a particular hook sector and while these interactions occurred in the trial, it highlights the importance of managing this issue to avoid any greater impacts within the fishery. Members noted that using hooks was a new method for many operators and will require time to tailor appropriate mitigation techniques for each vessel. The Committee was pleased that AFMA had responded to these interactions with a range of measures (minimum sink rates) and per boat triggers. Members noted that if longer term measures were based around individual accountability then the triggers would need to be calibrated against the overall TAP requirement for the SESSF which was currently expressed as a fleet wide interaction rate of < 0.01 birds per 1000 hooks. The MAC noted that observer data showed there were different seabird risk profiles for hook operations under temporary permits (inshore waters, new operators) and established auto-longline operations in deeper water. The auto-longline member noted that the inshore trial had been compromised by a bycatch of Fleshy footed Shearwaters whereas it appeared there was a different seabird assemblage for auto-longline vessels working outside of 200m (White-chinned Petrels). The MAC considered that AFMA should ensure that the temporary hook permits be treated as separate ‘temporary sector’ under the TAP. The conservation member reminded the MAC that staged review intervals were needed to avoid situations where breaches of TAP rates were detected after they occurred. Selectivity The MAC noted that AFMA had also sought scientific advice on potential impacts on shark stocks that might arise from higher catches by hook methods given hook methods had a different selectivity to gillnets. The Committee noted that AFMA had the capacity to apply additional measures to minimise impacts on School Shark and to keep catches of Gummy Shark under levels which would not disproportionally impact the stock due to a different selectivity pattern. Clarity around temporary permits There was a strong MAC view that AFMA must continue to make it clear that the temporary permits provide only temporary access, hold no value and are non-transferable. The MAC supported a suggestion to link the temporary permits to existing permits rather than to the holder to avoid complications if a ‘holder’ died. The MAC noted that access to the trial summary information would assist stakeholders evaluate current concerns and noted that AFMA expected that the report would be finalised by July 2013.
AFMA to circulate the Gummy Shark auto-longline trial report to MAC members and state agencies. 4.2Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) management response for hook sectors of the GHAT Mr Power advised that both the auto-longline and demersal longline sectors had breached the Seabird TAP interaction rate of 0.01 observed seabird interactions per 1000 hooks set in the summer 2012-13 season. Members noted that this rate could also be expressed as 1 seabird every 100, 000 hooks. Mr Power noted that in the event of a breach AFMA was required to implement a management response and if the limit was breached in the 12 months following the implementation of additional measures then AFMA was obliged to close the fishery. Mr Power reported that the auto-longline sector there had been 9 interactions with White-chinned Petrels (7 while setting and 2 during hauling). The auto-longline member indicated that this species was particularly bold around fishing boats in offshore waters Mr Power indicated that AFMA intended to implement new measures by the end of July 2013 and had been consulting closely with auto-longline operators. The MAC noted that the auto-longline sector had already responded with improvements to their Tori (seabird scaring) lines and with the adoption of Brickle curtains for hauling. Mr Power advised that AFMA had written to the Australian Antarctic Division (AAD) which administers the TAP on behalf of SEWPaC in relation to scope for implementing individual accountability in the SESSF. The Committee noted that the Threat Abatement Plan 2006 for the incidental catch (or bycatch) of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations was up for review this year and this provided a good opportunity for broader formalisation of individual accountability. Mr Power noted that AFMA had approached the TAP because AFMA’s view was that specifications can only achieve so much whereas accountability promotes diligence in how a vessel organises its mitigation strategy, constructs its mitigation devices and particularly with regard to how carefully they are deployed each time (take account of the weather etc). The MAC welcomed news that AFMA was holding a seabird workshop for the demersal hook sector in July 2013. AFMA also noted it would also be ensuring timely monitoring and assessment of rates under the TAP. The AFMA member emphasised that individual accountability sheets home the responsibility for diligence and encourages effectiveness in contrast to AFMA trying to further specify its regulations or SFR conditions. The conservation member asked if recent training programs include expertise from leading seabird mitigation practitioners and industry champions which had been successful in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (ETBF). The auto-longline member advised that Dr Graham Robertson (AAD) had been working with industry in recent years. The AFMA member indicated that line weighting (by way of minimum sink rates) was another established mitigation approach and had been incorporated in the auto-longline temporary permits. The trawl member noted that AFMA had aligned their specifications with the CCAMLR sink rate. The auto-longline member acknowledged that weighted line was a significant mitigation tool but cautioned that it would complicate targeting of Blue-eye Trevalla. The auto-longline member preferred to concentrate on improving Tori lines, Brickle curtains and attention to other measures (offal control) before resorting to weighted lines. The AFMA member cautioned that under current policy that we may not be afforded another review option if catches exceed the rate. The conservation member noted the auto-longline member’s views and noted that the TAP was scheduled for review but supported AFMA’s concern that half way house measures carried a risk of shutdown in the period the new TAP was being consulted on and then when it was being considered by the Minister for the Environment. The auto-longline member made it clear he didn’t disagree with the cautionary views being put forward but emphasised that while ever the sanction (closure) was applied at a fishery wide level then as an operator his investment was at risk. The member suggested that his $60,000 investment on weighted line (for example) could be jeopardised by another operator who let his Tori line blow away from the corridor it should be protecting. The auto-longline member reiterated his preference for individual accountability in these scenarios. The shark invited participant observed that there were still professionals operating in the fishery and considered that individual accountability provided an opportunity for them to maintain their access rather than have the actions of ‘cowboys’ close them down. The conservation member supported individual accountability but emphasised that there had to meaningful linking of the overall impact with the sum of the parts. The MAC endorsed the conservation member’s earlier suggestion to AFMA to introduce a more regular check on seabird mortalities across its hook fisheries to ensure we knew where things were at with respect to the TAP thresholds. The Committee noted that, due to the small scale of the demersal shark sector, one shearwater mortality could trigger the TAP threshold for the whole sector and supported AFMA raising this situation with the TAP team. Mr Power explained that the vessel in question was complying fully with its mitigation responsibilities and that the shearwater was hooked when hauling. The MAC welcomed AFMA raising the appropriateness of rate triggers in small scale sectors of the hook fishery. Pink Ling The MAC agreed, given the Pink Ling Items (4.3 and 4.4) included recommendations that the Committee should review specific conflicts of interest.
Yüklə 262,58 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|