Draft Minutes South East MAC 5 - Australian Fisheries ... · Web viewThe MAC noted that a quick...

SOUTH EAST

MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (SEMAC)

Meeting No. 14

30 and 31 January 2014

Aquarium Room

AFMA - Canberra

MinutesMembers

Ms Di Tarte (Chair) Ms Anissa Lawrence (conservation member)

Mr Sandy Morison (scientific member) Ms Frances Seaborn (state invited participant)2

Mr George Day (AFMA member) Mr Malcolm Poole (recreational fishing member)

Mr Simon Boag (trawl industry member) Mr Jeff Moore (GABTF invited participant)3

Mr Shane Dugins (shark industry member) Mr Anthony de Fries (executive officer)

Mr Les Scott (auto-longline industry member)1

RAG chairs

Professor John Buckeridge (SESSF RAG Chair) Mr Lance Lloyd (GABRAG Chair)

Dr Brendan Kelaher (SharkRAG Chair)

Observers

Mr Ross Bromley (AFMA) Mr Diarmid Mather AFMA)

Mr Daniel Corrie (AFMA) Mr Andrew Penney (ABARES)

Dr Marcus Finn (AFMA) Mr David Power (AFMA)

Mr Lee Georgeson (ABARES) Mr Erik Raudzens (AFMA)

Ms Danait Ghebrezgabhier (AFMA)4 Mr Vyt Vilkaitis

Apologies

Mr Gerry Geen (SPF industry member) Ms Debbie Wisby (squid jig industry invited participant)

Dr Ian Knuckey (scientific invited participant)1 arrived at 9:55 am on Day 1 3 arrived at 12:55 pm on Day 12 arrived at 9:50 am on Day 1 4 attended afternoon of Day 1

1 Preliminaries1.1 Welcome and apologies

Ms Tarte (MAC Chair) opened the meeting at 9.35 am and acknowledged the traditional owners past and present. The Chair then welcomed members, Resource Assessment Group (RAG) Chairs and observers to South East MAC’s 2014 TAC meeting.

The Chair welcomed Dr Brendan Kelaher (SharkRAG Chair) and Mr Lance Lloyd (GABRAG Chair) to the meeting and acknowledged the MAC’s scientific member Mr Sandy Morison (Chair) who would be presenting in his capacity as chair of both ShelfRAG and SlopeRAG. The Chair acknowledged the participation of Professor John Buckeridge who was attending in his capacity as SESSF RAG Chair.

The Chair welcomed Mr Andrew Penney and Mr Lee Georgeson from ABARES.

The Chair noted apologies from Mr Gerry Geen (SPF industry member) who was attending the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO), Dr Ian Knuckey (invited scientific participant) and from Ms Debbie-Lee Wisby (squid jig industry invited participant).

The Chair noted that Mr Jeff Moore (GAB invited participant) would be joining the meeting in the afternoon.

1.2 Declaration of interests

The MAC agreed to deal with Agenda Item 1.2 after Item 1.3 Adoption of Agenda because Ms Seaborn and Mr Scott had not yet arrived.

The Chair noted that Fisheries Management Paper No. 1 (June 2009) required consideration of pecuniary and other interests and asked members to review the standing table of members’ and invited participant’s standing declarations provided in their papers (Agenda Item 1.2 Table 1). A number of members provided updates and Table 1 below reflects the revised record of members’ and invited participants’ declared interests and those of a number of observers.

The Chair indicated that the Committee would review specific conflicts of interest before starting Agenda Item 2. The Chair noted that the advice from AFMA was that these could be done all at once rather than being done before the commencement of every TAC agenda item. Members noted that it would be impractical to stop and start the meeting each time a quota species (30+) came up for TAC recommendation.

Table 1: Members, observers and officers declared interests as at the 30 th January 2014.Ms Di Tarte No pecuniary or other interests.Mr George Day Senior Manager Demersal and Midwater Fisheries. No interest whether pecuniary or

otherwise.

Mr Sandy Morison Director of Morison Aquatic Sciences.Chair of ShelfRAG and SlopeRAG.Contracted by government departments, non-government agencies and companies for a range of fishery related matters including research.No pecuniary or other interest.

Ms Anissa Lawrence Independent consultant.

Conservation member on SharkRAG

Conservation advisor in the hook trial design project. Undertakes environmental work with Southern Shark Industry Alliance on an ad-hoc basis. Undertakes contracts for a number of Conservation NGOs (with only one currently related to fisheries but in the Asia Pacific region). Contracted to the MSC – outreach management training. Provides environmental advice to industry associations. No pecuniary interest.

Mr Simon Boag Executive Officer South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association (SETFIA)Board member Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA)Non-beneficiary Director of two fishing companies in the SESSF.Member Victorian Fisheries Advisory Council.Industry member on both ShelfRAG and SlopeRAG.SETFIA accept funding from AFMA, Caring for our Country and other funding sources to manage research projects including fishery surveys (FIS, Eastern Orange Roughy AOS,

South East MAC 14 – 30 and 31 January 2014 of 59

http://www.afma.gov.au/information/publications/fishery/fmp/fmp01_2009.pdf

shortened codend project and Royal Red Prawn Gulper Exclusion Device Trial). Involved in the delivery of industry training courses through East Gippsland TAFE. Undertakes contracts as an independent consultant

Mr Shane Dugins Shareholder and Director of a Fishing Company that holds: Commonwealth SFRs including Shark and Scalefish quota SFRs, Victorian and Tasmanian licenses and Victorian Crayfish quota. Representative of the Sustainable Shark Fishing Incorporated.

Mr Les Scott I Ronald Leicester Scott (Les) in my capacity as a member of the South East Management Advisory Committee (SEMAC) provide below a disclosure of my interests that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of my functions as a member of the SEMAC: Managing Director: Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing P/L an Australian resident

company which holds various fishing rights in, and operates vessels in the SESSF, GHAT, East Coast Deepwater Fishery, Coral Sea and International fisheries operating a vessel under an Australian Flag;

Managing Director: Australian Longline P/L an Australian resident company which holds various fishing rights in, and operates vessels in the Australian Sub-Antarctic fisheries (Heard Island and McDonald Islands, Macquarie Island Fisheries) and waters under the jurisdiction of CCAMLR; and

Advisor to PG&UM Rockliff – Petuna Fisheries who hold various fishing rights in the SESSF, GHAT, Commonwealth and State (Tasmania) Scallop Fishery, Small Pelagic Fishery, East Coast Tuna Fishery, Off Shore Fisheries and Tasmanian State Fisheries.

RAG / Other Memberships SlopeRAG; Sub-Antarctic RAG; Threat Abatement Plan - (Sub-Antarctic demersal longline member); and Industry representative - Australian Delegation to CCAMLR.

Fishing Associations Director of CFA; Director of SETFIA.

Neither myself, or the company’s I represent are aware of, or involved in any litigation with AFMA. My pecuniary interest is limited to the extent of: an employee of the company’s and partnership disclosed.

Mr Malcolm Poole No pecuniary interest.Chairman - Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW. Member – New South Wales Maritime Ministerial Advisory Council. Treasurer and Board member RECFISH AustraliaMember of Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation (ARFF)Member of the NSW Recreational Fishing Saltwater Expenditure committee (subcommittee of the Advisory Council of Recreational Fishing (ACoRF))Member NSW DPI Baitfish Working Group.Recreational member on ShelfRAG

Mr Jeff Moore Executive Officer GABIA, Member on GABMAC and on GABRAGBoard Member CFAIndustry Liaison Officer Commonwealth MPAs

Ms Frances Seaborn No interest whether pecuniary or otherwise. Employed by the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE)

Mr Anthony de Fries Executive officer for South East MAC and SESSF RAG. No pecuniary interest in the SESSF, SPF or SSJF. Fisheries consultant. Undertaking contract work for SAI Global road test of the NSW Ocean Hauling Fishery (purse seine component) against FAO based suitability criteria.

ObserversMr Ross Bromley AFMA - Senior Management Officer (CTS). No pecuniary interest.Professor John Buckeridge SESSF RAG Chair, SARAG Chair. RMIT. No interest whether pecuniary or otherwise.


Dr Marcus Finn AFMA – Manager Southern Trawl Fisheries. No interest whether pecuniary or otherwise.Dr Brendan Kelaher SharkRAG Chair. No interest whether pecuniary or otherwise.Mr Lance Lloyd Director of Lloyd Environmental Pty. Ltd.

GABRAG Chair, Scientific member on GABMACNo interest whether pecuniary or otherwise.

Mr Andrew Penney ABARES Officer – ABARES is a potential research provider relating to fisheries.Co-investigator on the proposal Review of monitoring and assessment in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery which is before the FRDC.

Mr David Power AFMA - Acting Manager Gillnet Hook and Trap Fisheries and Southern Squid Jig Fishery. No interest whether pecuniary or otherwise.

Specific conflicts of interest – agenda Items for this meeting

The Committee reviewed members’ specific conflicts with respect to the agenda for this meeting.

Mr Scott, noting his declaration, indicated that he had potential conflicts with all of the agenda items except Items 1 - Preliminaries, 7 - Other business and Item 8 - Next meeting.

Mr Boag noted that his interests hadn’t changed but indicated that in terms of his role with SETFIA some of the research projects he was involved with had changed. Mr Boag asked that his involvement with the Royal Red Prawn Gulper Exclusion Device be added to his standing declaration. Mr Boag indicated he had potential conflicts with most items on the meeting’s agenda. Mr Boag declared his interest (non-pecuniary) as Principal Investigator for the Continuation of SESSF Fishery Independent Surveys – Winter 2014 which was one of the research EOIs that would be discussed under Other business Item 7.3. Mr Boag added that he was also a member of the project team Review of monitoring and assessment in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery.

Mr Poole advised that he had no pecuniary interest but referred members to his potential conflicts as tabled.

Ms Lawrence advised that she had no pecuniary interest and confirmed her standing declaration.

Mr Dugins, noting his declaration, advised that he had an interest in most items under consideration at this meeting except for the SPF and the Southern Squid Jig Fishery (SSJF). Mr Dugins advised that he held Pink Ling quota and quota for some associated fish species but didn’t have any quota for deepwater species like Oreos.

Mr Penney (ABARES observer) having declared his potential interests as an ABARES officer (Table 1) then advised that he had no direct interests in any of the items before this meeting.

Mr Morison updated his description of potential interests as a consultant. Mr Morison noted that he had no interest pecuniary or otherwise in the matters being discussed at SEMAC 14.

The Chair noted that Messrs. Boag, Dugins and Scott had direct interests in some of the matters up for recommendation at the meeting and the MAC needed to consider how these conflicts should be managed. The Chair noted that the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 required that conflicted members leave the meeting temporarily while their situation was considered by the rest of the Committee. The AFMA member confirmed that this process had to be undertaken on a member by member basis.

Mr Scott then left the room at 10:02 am. The AFMA member quoted the requirements set out in FMP 1.

Unless otherwise determined by the MAC, the Member must:

(a) not be present during any deliberation by the committee on the matter; and


(b) not take part in any decision of the committee with respect to the matter.

The Chair recalled that in previous deliberations at SEMAC 13 the Committee had concluded that Mr Scott had a wealth of information and expertise and that accordingly the MAC would welcome his input in discussions. The Chair, noting member support for this, sought views on whether Mr Scott (and members with similar conflicts) should be involved regarding the making of recommendations.

The recreational member considered that the distinction between contributing to recommendations rather than decisions had been resolved at previous MAC meetings. The Chair agreed that this was mostly the case but reminded members that Mr Scott had voluntarily left the previous meeting on the basis that a particular recommendation on cost recovery before the MAC had a significant and specific financial impact on a company that Mr Scott represented.

The AFMA member acknowledged the recreational member’s view and confirmed it was the AFMA Commission who was the decision maker. The member considered that it was important that we had the interests disclosed and that we were aware of them and that it was valuable to have advice from an industry perspective for both the discussion and decision. The AFMA member recalled that Mr Scott had voluntarily absented himself from a recommendation which would have a direct financial impact on the company he represented. The AFMA member proposed that for items on this agenda that Mr Scott be present for the discussion and making of recommendations.

The recreational member supported this approach noting that it was difficult (for both MACs and RAGs) if everyone with an interest had to walk out.

The trawl member observed that because the MAC rarely resorted to a vote there was the potential for a blurring of the line between the discussion and the forming of recommendations. The member indicated that, based on the typical process, he didn’t see this as a clear point of separation. The trawl member indicated that members had been appointed as individuals and had to act from a perspective of having a fiduciary duty to the fishery rather than to their employer or company.

The AFMA member noted that if at any stage of the meeting a member becomes concerned about a conflict (including one of their own) then they should feel free to raise it.

The executive officer reported that Mr Scott was a party to one of the industry submissions on Blue-eye Trevalla.

The MAC Chair indicated that the MAC should document its decisions around managing conflicts of interest in a consistent manner and one which reflected the legislative requirements. The Chair noted support from members for the following approach:

SEMAC noted that it provides management advice to AFMA. In this context the MAC recognised that Mr Scott’s conflicts of interest had been disclosed and that the Committee was aware of them in relation to matters being considered at this meeting but had agreed it would be valuable to have advice from an industry perspective for both the discussions and forming of recommendations for all agenda items.

On this basis the Committee agreed to invite Mr Scott back in and he rejoined the meeting at 10:08 am.

Mr Dugins then stepped outside at 10:09 am. The trawl industry member observed that Mr Dugins held his own quota which was potentially different to his own situation where, in his role with SETFIA, his remuneration did not change with outputs. The member compared the latter situation to the role a MAC conservation member might face if they derived income from consultancies with environmental Non-Government Organisations. The Chair observed that there were usually multiple grades of pecuniary interest in terms of direct and indirect interests and all had the potential to


influence advice. The conservation member advised that she wasn’t engaged by any NGOs in relation to any fisheries matters in Australia.

The Chair then addressed Mr Scott and explained that the MAC had discussed its approach to declarations generically before considering his circumstances. The Chair advised Mr Scott that the Committee had agreed that he should participate in the discussions and forming of recommendations for all agenda items.

The Chair added that members should raise any specific direct conflicts of interest if they arise during the course of discussions.

Mr Scott thanked the Chair for the explanation and noted that while he did not hold any fishing rights he represented three companies which held substantial fishing rights and as Managing Director of those companies would treat those rights as if they were my own interests.

The MAC then returned to consideration of Mr Dugin’s conflicts of interest. The MAC recognised that Mr Dugin’s conflicts of interest had been disclosed and that the Committee was aware of them in relation to matters being considered at this meeting but agreed it would be valuable to have advice from a shark industry perspective for both the discussions and forming of recommendations for all agenda items. On this basis the Committee agreed to invite Mr Dugins back in and he rejoined the meeting at 10:12 am. The Chair explained the MAC’s decision to Mr Dugins and noting that he held quota asked him to alert the Committee when those species came up for consideration.

Mr Boag then left the room at 10:12 am. The MAC recognised that Mr Boag’s conflicts of interest had been disclosed and that the Committee was aware of them in relation to matters being considered at this meeting but agreed it would be valuable to have trawl industry expertise and knowhow for both the discussions and forming of recommendations for all agenda items. On this basis the Committee agreed to invite Mr Boag back in and he rejoined the meeting at 10:13 am.

1.3 Acceptance of agenda

The MAC reviewed the draft agenda while waiting for Ms Seaborn and Mr Scott to arrive.

The Committee agreed to:

Accept three SESSF Research Expressions of Interest (EOIs) tabled by AFMA for consideration under Other Business at Agenda Item 7.3. The Chair noted that a working group might be convened to review the EOIs after the end of Day 1 and report back to the Committee on Day 2.

Schedule Agenda Item 3.2 Hook fishing arrangements for targeting Gummy Shark in South Australia to the morning of Day 2 to ensure all interested parties were present.

The Committee agreed to also review the gillnet shark species and Western Gemfish on the morning of Day 2.

Add an update on the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) and the recent consideration of definitions around localised depletion by a number of southern RAGs to Other business at Agenda Item 7.4.

The recreational member asked if AFMA could update the Committee on the work of Expert Panel on the Declared Commercial Fishing Activity (Small Pelagic Fishery). The AFMA member advised that SPF RAG had been in contact with the Expert Panel but hadn’t received any new information.

The Chair briefed Ms Seaborn and Mr Scott on the status of the agenda prior to Agenda Item 1.4.

A copy of the final agenda is provided as Attachment 1.

1.4 Chairs Summary South East MAC Meeting No. 13

The MAC noted the Chair’s Summary from its most recent South East MAC Meeting No. 13.

1.5 Confirmation of minutes from South East MAC Meeting No. 13


http://www.environment.gov.au/node/16955

http://www.environment.gov.au/node/16955

Subject to the following amendments, the MAC confirmed the minutes of South East MAC Meeting Number 13 held at AFMA’s Canberra office on the 15-16 October 2013 as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Page 132nd paragraph

The conservation member recalled that AFMA had agreed to develop Seabird Management Plans for the trawl industry at a previous meeting1. Other members noted that, at about that time, a number of conservation NGOs had proposed that an overarching national plan for reducing seabird impacts from trawling be developed. and asked if this was being progressed.

Page 152nd last paragraph

Industry members noted that confidentiality and privacy obligations must be taken into account prior to any do not limit data release under Freedom of Information (FOI).

Page 16Recommendation Electronic Monitoring

Remove the following recommendation and make it an Action.‘AFMA convene a Working Group to provide guidance and input for the cost benefit analysis’ Now reported as Action 12 of 24.

Page 181st paragraph

Members recognised that the maximum net length for use in state coastal waters and waters adjacent to South Australia was currently 4,200 m but operators were allowed to use also trialling up to 6,000 m in Commonwealth waters.

Page 24 Action 17(formerly Action 16)

Action 16 – AFMA, SharkRAGThat SharkRAG provide advice on the rationale for:• Maintaining the 10 t trigger limit for Gummy Shark caught on hooks outside of 183 m.• Recommending a separate 200 t trigger limit for Gummy Shark caught by hook

methods for the duration of the trial inside of 183m;and rather than an integrated 200t trigger limit for Gummy Shark caught by hook methods. off South Australia for the duration of the hook trial inside 183m.

Page 29Numbered points

The MAC agreed to simplify the numbered points outlining the proposed review schedule for the SESSF Levy Allocation Model:1. Noted that AFMA’s intention was to only review the ‘species to fishery sector

allocations’ every three years but Supported the adjustments being made after one year in this case to bring the model into alignment with the 50% catch criteria.

2. Recommended that the next review of ‘species to fishery sector allocations’ be undertaken in 2015 (three years after the revised model was implemented).

3. Supported AFMA retaining the flexibility to review the model structure on an ‘as needs basis’ rather than restrict itself to a review period in case anomalies arise.

The MAC noted that a quick turnaround on the Chairs Summary for this meeting was needed because of the need to convey TAC recommendations to the Commission. The MAC resolved for future meetings to adopt more streamlined Chair’s Summaries which would take the form of an Executive Summary to the minutes. The MAC noted that the draft minutes for this meeting were due on 3 March 2014 and agreed to finalise them out of session.

The shark industry member, through the Chair, sought to clarify a matter raised in a previous MAC, relating to a funding agreement between Mr Hurry AFMA’s previous CEO and Mr Bailey (President Sustainable Shark Fishing Association). The shark industry member explained that the funding ($20,000) was provided to support the formation of a shark industry association with a view that the association would then develop a Code of Conduct. The shark industry member confirmed that the financial side of this agreement had been acquitted by AFMA and added that the final draft of the Code was now before the MAC.

The trawl industry member indicated that he had thought the funding was linked to production of a Code of Conduct and welcomed the arrival of the code.

1.6 Correspondence

1 SEMAC 6 – Action 22


The MAC noted two items of correspondence. In relation to an item of correspondence from Origin Energy the MAC noted that the Executive Officer had contacted Origin Energy’s Fisheries Liaison and explained that the MAC was not the appropriate body to comment on seismic surveys and other oil work and installations etc.

The MAC noted that AFMA was now considering comments from an out of session consultation on Fisheries Administration Paper No. 12 (FAP 12) - Resource Assessment Groups (RAGs). The MAC requested that AFMA circulate the policy to members when it was finalised.

Action 1 – AFMA Management, Executive OfficerAFMA to circulate Fisheries Administration Paper No. 12 (FAP 12) to SEMAC members when it is finalised.

1.7 Actions arising

The MAC reviewed the 24 action items from SEMAC 13: Ten were completed through intersessional work. Eight items would be addressed at this meeting. Six items were being progressed and would remain as ongoing actions.

Table 2 summarises the status of the actions agreed by SEMAC 13. The Committee discussed the following two items in more detail.

Action 7 – Clearance of the Gummy Shark auto-longline trial report for release

The MAC discussed progress with the Gummy Shark auto-longline trial report. The AFMA member advised that the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) will determine the release and noted that they were waiting on the Principal Investigator to respond to comments arising from an internal review process. The scientific member noted that this was consistent with the normal FRDC processes for research reports.

The conservation member noted that it was difficult for the conservation NGOs to engage meaningfully in consultations around the granting of temporary hook permits in South Australia when they were not included in circulation of the draft report. The member noted that this was particularly problematic given that the renewal of temporary hook permits needed to occur before the Gummy Shark auto-longline trial report had been made public.

The AFMA member noted that this was a two year trial and subject to discussions under Agenda Item 3.2 AFMA may consider delaying the implementation of auto baiting in the trial to allow stakeholders to consider the report - which was expected shortly. The AFMA member cautioned that AFMA would also need to consult with industry in South Australia to make sure a short delay wouldn’t create hardship.

The MAC considered that this action in relation to clarifying clearance protocols for the report was now completed. Members looked forward to the distribution of the final FRDC report by AFMA

Action 2 – AFMA Management

AFMA to circulate the Gummy Shark auto-longline trial report to SEMAC members when the FRDC clears it for release.

The MAC noted that the review of the Dolphin Management Strategy needed to be completed by 1 July 2014.

Action 9 - Report on seabird mitigation trials on trawl vessels


The MAC noted that the draft report was being finalised by AFMA’s Bycatch Section and agreed to maintain this action as ongoing.


Table 2. Status of the actions arising from SEMAC 13No. Action Member/s Status Outcome

1 That SEMAC confirm its 2014 meeting schedule as soon as possible. AFMA, SEMAC COMPLETED Confirmed out of session November 2013

2 AFMA to circulate FRDC project 2011/045 Shark Futures – a synthesis of available data on Mako and Porbeagle sharks in Australasian waters. AFMA Management COMPLETED Report provided to SEMAC members on

1 November 2013.

3 AFMA to provide SEMAC 14 with more information on seabird interactions and mitigation practices for the small scale manual hook sector in the SESSF. AFMA Management COMPLETED

Interim information on seabird interactions was emailed to members on 8 Nov. 2013. Addressed in more details at Agenda Item

3.2

4Executive Officer to contact Origin Energy’s Liaison officer to clarify that SEMAC is not the appropriate forum for consultation on operational matters arising from oil and gas sector activity and that fishing industry associations should be consulted directly.

Executive Officer COMPLETEDExecutive Officer called Origin Energy’s

Liaison officer in December 2013.

5 Circulate the information from AFMA’s webpage: Petroleum industry information for fishing operators to SEMAC members. Executive Officer COMPLETED Provided with SEMAC 14 papers

6 Circulate Dr Thomson’s (CSIRO) hook selectivity analysis when it is completed and cleared by SharkRAG AFMA Management

ONGOINGNEW Action 2

Information incorporated in the Gummy Shark Tier 1 assessment.

Report not finalised.

7 Clarify the circulation protocols for the draft Gummy Shark auto-longline trial report.AFMA Manager GHaT, Conservation member,

Dr KnuckeyCOMPLETED

The AFMA member advised that the FRDC will determine the release and noted that

they were waiting on the Principal Investigator to respond to comments arising

from an internal review process. The scientific member noted that this was

consistent with the normal FRDC processes for research reports.

8That AFMA provide SEMAC meetings with updates (summaries) for: • catch versus TACs for the GABTF and the SPF • catch to date in the SSJF.

AFMA Management COMPLETED

Status of the fishery is not on the SESSF TAC Meeting’s agenda but was covered (briefly) under Agenda Item 3 Manager’s report and

under Agenda Item 91. Catchwatch.

9 AFMA to circulate the report on seabird mitigation trials on trawl vessels to SEMAC. AFMA Bycatch SectionONGOING

NEW Action 3SEMAC looks forward to circulation of the

draft report.10 AFMA to check if a one month comment period for the Future Directions for the GHaT

consultation is sufficient for the Southern Shark Industry Alliance.AFMA Management

COMPLETEDCompleted – all comments have been

accepted and timelines were extended.

11 AFMA to circulate a copy of the GHaT Future Directions presentation to members. AFMA Management COMPLETED Attached

12 That AFMA convene a Working Group to provide guidance and input for the cost benefit analysis AFMA Management ONGOING

NEW Action 4 Addressed under Agenda Item 3.2No. Action Member/s Status Outcome

13AFMA to ensure that the temporary hook permits are linked to the Gillnet Boat SFR rather than the holder to provide certainty to operators in the event of death or disability.

AFMA Management COMPLETEDCompleted - in progress and part of

proposal.

14AFMA to work with industry to develop conditions which would specify handling requirements for landed fish and sharks on auto-longline operations conducted under temporary hook permits for use in waters under 183 m off South Australia.

AFMA ManagementIndustry COMPLETED

Draft conditions included inAgenda Item 3.2

15aAFMA to provide more detailed information on seabird mitigation options and adaptive management proposed for the temporary hook permits for use in waters less than 183 m off South Australia.

AFMA Management COMPLETED Addressed in Agenda Item 3.2

15bAFMA to work with industry and seabird mitigation experts to implement seabird mitigation training for crews using hook methods to target shark inside 183 m off South Australia.


16That AFMA develop a monitoring plan which would track performance against KPIs at regular intervals through the trial period to enable management to respond quickly to any concerns.


17

That SharkRAG provide advice on the rationale for:• Maintaining the 10 t trigger limit for Gummy Shark caught on hooks outside of 183 m.• Recommending a separate 200 t trigger limit for Gummy Shark caught by hook

methods for the duration of the trial inside of 183m;and an integrated 200t trigger limit for Gummy Shark caught by hook methods.

AFMASharkRAG

COMPLETED

SharkRAG’s advice included in AFMA’s paper Agenda Item 3.2 Hook fishing

arrangements for targeting Gummy Shark in South Australia

18

That SharkRAG provide advice on maintaining a 5 t trigger limit for School Shark caught on hooks outside of 183 m to prevent targeting of School Shark rather than the application of the 20% quota holding ratio (School Shark to Gummy Shark) to the scalefish auto-longline sector.

AFMASharkRAG COMPLETED Completed – as above.

19 That AFMA and SquidRAG review the Southern Squid Jig Fishery Harvest Strategy to ensure it is consistent with the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy.

AFMASquidRAG

ONGOING NEW Action 4 Included in the SSJF draft budget

20

That AFMA, subject to an examination of the boundaries, remove the Kent Group (Schedule 3) and Tasmanian Seamounts Marine Reserve (Schedule 21) from AFMA’s Closure Directions. AFMA ONGOING

NEW Action 5

AFMA is currently compiling technical information on the boundaries for

consideration by the relevant RAGs before bringing seeking a final recommendation

from SEMAC to remove these nine closure directions (including Action 20).

21AFMA to review the Bass Strait Closure (Schedule 4) and Portland Area Trawl Closure (Schedule 23). AFMA

ONGOINGRolled in with New Action 5

Rolled in with Action 19.

No. Action Member/s Status Outcome22 Review of the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework AFMA Management COMPLETED AFMA acknowledged the detailed


AFMA to amend the lead in to the breakout rule dot points in Section 6.4.5 - ‘Breakout rules for multi-year TACs may be applied as appropriate having regard to any one or more of the following points:’AFMA to better specify the breakout rule dot point in Section 6.4.5 which currently refers to ‘interactions with TEP species’ so that it is clear that it only refers to SESSF quota species listed under the EPBC Act.

suggestions provided by Dr Knuckey, Mr Penney and Mr Morison which had enabled

AFMA Management to submit a revised draft of the SESSF Harvest Strategy

Framework for approval by the AFMA Commission at its February 2014 meeting.

23 AFMA to provide SEMAC with an out of session update on research commissioned by the Expert Panel on the Declared Commercial Fishing Activity. AFMA Management COMPLETED

Advice provided to SEMAC members on 1 November 2013.

The Expert Panel Chair advised that as the Panel reports to the Environment Minister its work will remain confidential until such

time as the Minister decides otherwise.

24 Members to provide out of session comments to AFMA /Executive Officer on Agenda Item 8.1 - Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy review. SEMAC members COMPLETED

No comments receivedThe AFMA members advised that the draft Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy will shortly be posted on AFMA’s website as

part of a public comment period.


2 TAC recommendations for the 2014/15 fishing seasonThe MAC Chair introduced the RAG Chairs to the meeting and noted that it was usual practice for the respective Chairs to lead off on the discussions for the species under their supervision. The Chair acknowledged AFMA Management’s efforts in preparing its TAC position paper and getting it out to operators and stakeholders before Christmas 2013. The Chair then referred members to pages 2 to 4 which provided general information on the process from the stock assessment work to the determination of Recommended Biological Catches (RBCs) and their translation to Total Allowable Catches (TACs) or Multi-Year Total Allowable Catches (MYTACs).

The Chair indicated that the meeting would need to work through AFMA’s paper and cross reference that information with the scientific advice summarised in the Species Summary reports. The AFMA member acknowledged Mr Penney’s contribution to the implementation of a template based approach. The Scientific Member (ShelfRAG and SlopeRAG Chair) explained how the summaries varied from previous iterations. The MAC agreed to review the new format for the Species Summaries for the SESSF when it finalised its TAC recommendations.

The MAC Chair acknowledged two industry submissions on Blue-eye Trevalla (included in the papers). The Chair accepted additional clarification from industry members in relation to specific conflicts:Mr Scott Advised that companies he acted for had substantial interest (over 25% of the SFR

pool) for the following species: Blue-eye Trevalla, Blue Grenadier, Blue Warehou, Gemfish-west, Pink Ling, Ribaldo and Silver Warehou.Hold no interest in: Bight Redfish, Deepwater Flathead, School Whiting and the two non-quota species (ECDW sector)

Mr Boag Advised that he was engaged by SETFIA and noted that its members have interests in all species covered under Agenda Item 2.

Mr Dugins Advised that he held quota for: Blue-eye Trevalla, Blue Grenadier, Blue Warehou, Deepwater Shark-east, Elephantfish, Flathead Gemfish-east, Gummy Shark, Jackass Morwong, Mirror Dory, Ocean Perch, Pink Ling, Redfish, Ribaldo, Sawshark, School Shark, Silver Trevally and Silver Warehou. No interest in the other species.

The Chair then invited Mr Morison (in his capacity as SlopeRAG Chair) to commence proceedings with Alfonsino.

The TAC recommendations are minuted in the same order as they appear on the agenda – which does not reflect the order in which they were considered in the meeting. SEMAC’s TAC recommendations do not include a full description of deductions to RBCs based on estimates of discards and state catch as these were applied routinely and are not subject to MAC deliberations. The TAC recommendations do note:

the application/or not of discount factors for Tier 3 and Tier 4 assessments the application of the small and large change limiting meta-rules whether the TAC recommendation is for the next season (2014/15) only or is a MYTAC If a MYTAC is recommended if there are accompanying break-out rules support (or not) for over and undercatch percentages in-principle support for research catch allowance for research projects other than Fishery

Independent Surveys (FISs)2.

A summary of the Committee’s TAC recommendations is provided at Attachment 2.

2 The reconciliation of catches of quota species taken in a FIS is undertaken in the season following the conduct of the FIS.

2.1 Alfonsino

The SlopeRAG Chair noted that Alfonsino was considered to be a straddling stock and advised that this year the RAG had access to information on catches taken outside the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ).

The SlopeRAG Chair noted that, based on advice from AFMA, the RAG had restricted its formal assessment to the stock within the AFZ. The auto-longline member observed that this approach was consistent with New Zealand’s approach to Orange Roughy on the Challenger Plateau.

The Committee noted that SPRFMO was currently in session and that approaches for dealing with straddling stocks was on their agenda. The SlopeRAG Chair noted that the RAG’s view was that Alfonsino was lightly fished and catches had been relatively low. The auto-longline member indicated that the cost of carrying an observer (allow boat to fish inside and outside of the AFZ on a single trip) was a significant economic impost for operations which were already expensive given the fuel costs associated with steaming to these remote grounds.

SEMAC’s recommendation for Alfonsino was consistent with SlopeRAG’s advice and AFMA Management’s position.

Alfonsino (Tier 3) SlopeRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC No

MYTAC 3 year RBC 3 year MYTAC 3 year MYTAC Consistent with SlopeRAG & AFMA

Discount Factor 5% Yes Yes Yes as above2014/15 1017 t 1070 t 1070 t as above2015/16 1017 t 1070 t 1070 t as above2016/17 1017 t 1070 t 1070 t as above

Break out rule Yes Yes Yes as aboveOver catch 10% 10% 10% as above

Under catch 10% 10% 10% as aboveResearch catch 0 0 0

2.2 Blue-eye Trevalla

The SlopeRAG Chair advised that SlopeRAG had devoted considerable time to the Blue-eye Trevalla assessment in 2013 (2 meetings and a phone-hook-up). The SlopeRAG Chair noted two submissions from industry and acknowledged concerns raised in those submissions relating to changes in fleet dynamics and CPUE time series as a result of depredation by Orcas and from closures and potentially structural adjustments. The SlopeRAG Chair emphasised that impacts of these factors on the CPUE time series were difficult to address in Tier 4 assessments.

The SlopeRAG Chair explained that Dr Haddon (CSIRO) had undertaken a more detailed investigation of the data but noted that older logbook data did not allow for recording at shot by shot resolution and this made it difficult to account for recent closures by partitioning times series CPUE data.

Mr Scott spoke to his and Mr Mure’s submission which he noted had been provided to AFMA and copied to SEMAC. Mr Scott indicated that the submission was not criticising the RAG process but tried to demonstrate that there was a lot of noise in the fishery’s signals and that accordingly sticking strictly to the Tier 4 was problematic. Mr Scott noted that SEMAC had previously recommended rollovers in situations where there was lack of confidence in a Tier 4.

The SlopeRAG Chair advised that SlopeRAG had dealt with items 1 to 7 in the Scott/Mure submission but noted that industry concerns persisted. The Chair noted, in relation to Item 8, that the RAG had considered the integration of industry data relating to Orca impacts. He agreed, however, to respond to the request for the RAG to provide further advice to Industry on the types of data


required, an explanation as how these data could be used and the difficulties encountered with analysing the currently available data.

The SlopeRAG Chair suggested that only Item 9 in the submission, which concerned the economic impacts associated with the proposed reduction in TAC, was a legitimate matter for consideration by the MAC.

Mr Penney (ABARES) considered that the 2013 assessment had explored the data to the extent possible. Given that Blue-eye Trevalla was a low productivity species and could potentially display hyperstability he considered it was appropriate to respond to the risk indicated in the Tier 4 signal.

Mr Scott considered that it was not reasonable to suggest the analysis on the impacts of closures had been completed. The member suggested that there was further scope to evaluate the impacts of fleet displacement arising from recent closures and added that closures also provided additional biological precaution. The member noted that the following closures had impacted the fleet and provided protection to Blue-eye Trevalla stocks (Cascade Plateau - Hook Closure, Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy closures, seamount closures for the auto-longline method and Commonwealth MPAs.

The MAC noted that the research project being undertaken by Dr Tuck (CSIRO) - FRDC 2011/032 Incorporating the effects of marine spatial closures in risk assessments and fisheries stock assessments was nearing completion and might provide additional insight in relation to Blue-eye Trevalla. The MAC asked AFMA to contact Dr Tuck (Principal Investigator) to find out when the report was expected to be completed.

Action 6 – AFMA, Executive OfficerContact Dr Tuck (CSIRO) in regard to the likely completion date for FRDC 2011/032 Incorporating the effects of marine spatial closures in risk assessments and fisheries stock assessments.

The SlopeRAG Chair then referred to the submission from the Queensland Tasmantid Fisherman’s Group. The Chair agreed that it was worth noting that the level of Orca depredation off the east coast was not significant however added that this wasn’t important to the Tier 4 assessment as CPUE data from up there is not incorporated (east coast catch is included).

The SlopeRAG Chair did not support calls for splitting stocks as put forward in the submission as stock structure had not yet been resolved. The auto-longline member supported this view noting that research had also been commissioned to investigate stock assessments in spatially complex fisheries3 using Blue -eye Trevalla as an example and agreed it would be premature to adopt spatial constraints on quota until we had a sound understanding of the stock.

The auto-longline member considered that the remarks about de-hookers on auto-longline vessels in the Tasmantid Fisher’s submission were erroneous.

The MAC, noting two industry submissions, observed that a number of operators who targeted Blue-eye Trevalla did not consider that the current CPUE data series constituted a reliable index of abundance for this species. The Committee was however mindful of revisiting RAG discussions and noted that most of the issues raised in these submissions had been considered during SlopeRAG’s deliberations.

The Committee was also cognisant that having rolled over the previous TAC that the proposed reduction in the TAC would cause significant hardship to operators – particularly if applied in full in 2014/15. The AFMA member observed that SlopeRAG had described its RBC as conservative and noted that the MAC had previously recommended step downs in TACs to reduce economic impacts.

3 FRDC 2013/015 Developing improved methods for stock assessment in spatially complex fisheries using Blue-eye Trevalla as a case study -CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research (Principal Investigator Alan Williams)


The AFMA member suggested that SlopeRAG may be in a position to provide advice on the risk associated with a step-down in the TAC compared to an immediate reduction. Mr Penney (ABARES), cautioned that, in the absence of a Tier 1 assessment, SlopeRAG was unlikely to be able to provide substantive information on additional risk associated with step-down scenarios. Mr Penney characterised the decision to adopt a step-down as a management decision and added that it was normal practice for managers to weigh up such matters when phasing in management responses which were expected to have a significant impact on industry.

The MAC appointed a sub-group to draft a recommendation around a step down in the Blue-eye Trevalla TAC and agreed to revisit the discussion later in the meeting. The Committee noted that there was the potential to improve the robustness of the assessment in the short to medium term as a result of: Fresh insight from the CSIRO research projects currently underway (FRDC 2011/032 and FRDC

2013/015) Additional emphasis in the RAG and assessment in relation to closures – in particular the Gulper

Shark closures Strong industry interest in pursuing better data collection and additional analyses to better

understand the impacts associated with Orca depredation on the Tier 4 assessment.

The MAC returned to Blue-eye Trevalla later on Day 1. The Committee considered SlopeRAG’s recommendations and noted that, following additional work by CSIRO on the Tier 4 assessment, SlopeRAG had accepted an RBC (determined through application of the Tier 4 harvest control rule) of 269 t. The MAC noted that SlopeRAG had indicated that the RBC was relatively conservative as a result of the effects of Orca depredation and recent spatial closures on the CPUE time series in zones 20 and 30.

The MAC was comfortable in supporting SlopeRAG’s advice to waive the 15% Tier 4 discount factor on the basis that considerable precaution was now provided by recent closures around seamounts and on the continental slope as a result of the gazettal of new Commonwealth Marine Reserves as well as closures under AFMA’s Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy which included core Blue-eye Trevalla habitat.

The MAC noted RAG advice that the shifting of fishing effort to new areas had the potential to mask a reduction in the abundance of Blue-eye Trevalla (due to CPUE hyperstability) and, considering the CPUE declines evident in the Tier 4 assessment, that a reduction in the TAC was called for, despite concerns raised about the potentially negative effect Orca predation and spatial closures might have on CPUE time series.

The MAC agreed with industry advice that an immediate reduction in the TAC from 388 t to 229 t (41%) would cause significant economic impacts and proposed a phased reduction in the TAC over three years. The Committee, noting longstanding uncertainties around the assessment, recommends that an immediate effort be made to reconcile key uncertainties in the Tier 4 assessment which have undermined stakeholder confidence in the assessment model - Orca depredation and the effect of closures.

Recommendations – Blue - eye TrevallaSEMAC acknowledges advice from SlopeRAG that the recommended RBC of 269 t is likely to be conservative. On this basis the MAC considers that there is scope for a phased reduction of the TAC to reduce economic impacts.

Accordingly SEMAC recommends a step-down to the Blue-eye Trevalla TAC of (⅓ reduction per year) over three years unless SlopeRAG determines that:

• the recommendation represents an unacceptably high risk


• that the step-down is no longer appropriate in the light of a revised or an updated assessment.

Recommend TAC schedule: 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17

335 t 282 t 229 t

That SlopeRAG continues to investigate alternative assessment approaches, given problems experienced with the existing assessment and that such alternative assessment approaches be supported with a concerted effort to quantify the impact of Orca depredation and closures on the Tier 4 assessment.

Blue-eye Trevalla (Tier 4) SlopeRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC Yes

MYTAC No No Step-down MAC’s advice is different to SlopeRAG’s advice and AFMA Management’s original

positionDiscount Factor 15% No No No Consistent with RAG & AFMA

Waived due to recent additional protection provided by closures

2014/15 229 t 229 t 335 t2015/16 - - 282 t2016/17 - - 229 t

Break out rule na na Refer to SlopeRAG

SEMAC referred the need for ‘break-out rules’ to SlopeRAG (subject to the AFMA

Commission’s decision)Over catch 10% 10% 10% Consistent with RAG & AFMA

Under catch 10% 10% 10% Consistent with RAG & AFMAResearch catch 0 0 0

2.3 Blue Grenadier

The SlopeRAG Chair advised that the updated Blue Grenadier assessment was positive noting that the model predicted large recruitment for the 2010 cohort (base case) is yet to be confirmed in the fishery. The MAC noted that fishing to TACs derived from the base case RBCs posed a minimal risk to the stock.

Mr Scott advised that companies he acted for retained around 60% of the Blue Grenadier SFRs in the SESSF. Mr Scott added that they considered the assessment to be sound and noted that this confidence in the process had been conveyed through SETFIA. Mr Scott advised that the Blue Grenadier fishery was approaching Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification and that the companies concerned had recently held a public open day. Mr Scott acknowledged support from AFMA and CSIRO for this accreditation and anticipated that MSC certification would be in place by 2015.

The MAC noted that observations had confirmed good recruitment event in 2009 had entered the fishery and while comfortable with the assessment would like to see evidence of the predicted 2010 recruitment.

The MAC noted that Blue Grenadier had just come off a 3 Year MYTAC and that SlopeRAG had, on the basis of the 2013 assessment, proposed 3 and 5 year MYRBC options for this species. The Committee endorsed AFMA’s proposed 3 Year MYTAC with one adjustment.

The MAC noted that industry preferred a lower first year TAC to lead into a 3 Year MYTAC because it would provide a platform for stability in the economic return from the fishery. The MAC observed that the current TAC was 5,208 t. Members agreed that this was a risk adverse approach given the strength of the 2010 recruitment had yet to be reflected in commercial data. The MAC recognised


that it was important to recognise that the stock was assessed to be in good shape irrespective of the 2010 recruitment event.

The MAC provided in-principle support for a 200 t Research Catch Allowance (RCA) to support the winter acoustic survey subject to AFMA’s acceptance of an application for a scientific permit. The MAC noted that if the AFMA Commission supported the proposed TAC then the RCA would be in addition to the TAC given that the proposed TAC is less than the RBC.

The MAC noted broad industry concern about complex break-out rules having potential to compromise savings associated with MYTACs. Industry members reiterated that it was important to retain flexibility around the catch break- out rule (catch <70% of the TAC) to take into account operational issues which might impact the winter fishery in particular.

The MAC agreed that further technical consideration of break-out rules was needed and referred this to SESSF RAG.

SEMAC’s recommendation for Blue Grenadier was consistent with (but slightly more conservative) than SlopeRAG’s advice and AFMA Management’s position.

Blue Grenadier (Tier 1) SlopeRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC No

MYTAC 3 year RBC 3 year MYTAC 3 year MYTAC Consistent with RAG & AFMAMeta rule Large change2014/15 8810 t 7812 t 6800 t More conservative than the RAG

and AFMA – economic stability2015/16 8810 t 8810 t 8810t Consistent with RAG & AFMA2016/17 8810 t 8810 t 8810t as above

Break out rules Yes Yes Yes Supported – with broader reviewOver catch 10% 10% 10% Consistent with RAG & AFMA

Under catch 10% 10% 10% as aboveResearch Catch

Allowance (RCA)200 t 200 t 200 t Supported for the Acoustic Survey

RCA On top of the 2014/15 TAC

Action 7 – AFMA Management, SESSF RAGAFMA to request SESSF RAG review the role of break –out rules in the context of broader uptake of MYTACs in the SESSF (subject to Commission decision).

2.4 Blue Warehou

The ShelfRAG Chair noted that the most recent Tier 1 (2005/06) conducted on Blue Warehou determined that the eastern stock was under the limit reference point (B LIM). The MAC noted that since then it had been a difficult stock to assess because CPUE was no longer considered a useful index of abundance and this also created uncertainty around Tier 4 approaches.

The ShelfRAG Chair acknowledged efforts by the trawl industry to gather additional length data to investigate if an alternative assessment approach, Spawning Potential Ratio (SPR), could be applied. The trawl member noted that the SPR approach was reported not to be suitable for Blue Warehou due to possible sampling bias (trawling may catch smaller fish because the larger ones swim too fast). The shark member advised that the gillnet sector was seeing evidence of a rebuild around the south-east reef off Lakes Entrance but considered that seismic surveys scheduled for that area could disrupt these aggregations. The recreational member noted that this species was a target for recreational fishers in Tasmania and estimates of the recreational catch had been published in a recent DPIPWE report. The state member added that most of the recreational catch in the north (near Stanley) was taken using line methods whereas the catch in the east and south of Tasmania is mostly taken using recreational nets.


The MAC noted that the Commonwealth incidental catch was quite low with reported catch of 7 t in the west and 4 t in the east. The Committee, noting that SlopeRAG recommended zero RBCs for both eastern and western stocks was comfortable supporting AFMA Management’s recommendation that an incidental catch TAC of 118 t be maintained.

The MAC noted that this amount had been established using the Klaer and Smith ‘targeting analysis’ which was based on the relative value of the components of reported trawl catches.

SEMAC’s recommendation to maintain an Incidental Catch TAC of 118t for Blue Warehou was consistent with SlopeRAG’s advice and AFMA Management’s position.

Blue Warehou (Tier 4) ShelfRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC Yes Yes Yes (Incidental Catch TAC)

MYTAC No No No Consistent with RAG & AFMADiscount Factor 15% No No No Not applicable to Incidental catch TACs

2014/15 RBC - 0 t 118 tIncidental Catch TAC

118 tIncidental Catch TAC

Consistent with RAG & AFMA

2015/162016/17

Break out rule na na NaOver catch 0% 0% 0% Consistent with RAG & AFMA

Under catch 0% 0% 0% Consistent with RAG & AFMAResearch catch 0 0 0

2.5 Bight Redfish

2.6 Deepwater Flathead

The Great Australian Bight Trawl Fishery MAC (GABMAC) provides advice to AFMA on Bight Redfish and Deepwater Flathead and consequently these species were not considered by SEMAC.

2.7 Deepwater Shark basket - east

The SlopeRAG Chair advised that Deepwater Shark was assessed as separate east and west stocks using Tier 4 methods. The Chair advised that the 2013 assessment indicated a slow decline in CPUE since 2009. SlopeRAG recommended a 1 RBC (78 t) or a 3 Year MYTAC set at 47 t (calculated using last 3 years standardised CPUE).

The MAC supported AFMA’s recommend 3 Year MYTAC which was a direct translation of the 3 Year RBC proposed by SlopeRAG. The Committee maintained its position on waiving the 15% Tier 4 discount factor for Deepwater Sharks noting that a large proportion of their habitat (~ 50 %) was closed to trawling under the 700m closure administered as part of the Orange Roughy Conservation Program (ORCP).

The MAC noted an in-principle objection from the conservation member to operations targeting Deepwater Sharks given our limited understanding of these species and their low productivity. The SlopeRAG Chair noted that Deepwater Sharks were not as vulnerable as Gulper Sharks given their higher fecundity.

SEMAC’s support for a 3 Year MYTAC of 47 t for Deepwater Shark (east), noting the conservation member’s reservation, is consistent with SlopeRAG and AFMA Management’s recommendations.

Deepwater Shark (east) Tier 4

SlopeRAG AFMA SEMAC Notes

Single season TAC Yes – 78 t No No

MYTAC 3 year RBC 3 year TAC 3 year TAC Consistent with SlopeRAG & AFMA


Discount Factor 15% No No No Consistent with SlopeRAG & AFMAWaived due to significant protection

provided by the 700m closure2014/15 47 t 47 t 47 t2015/16 47 t 47 t 47 t Consistent with RAG & AFMA2016/17 47 t 47 t 47 t as above

Break out rule Yes Yes Yes as aboveOver catch 10% 10% as above

Under catch 10% 10% as aboveResearch catch 0 0 0

2.8 Deepwater Shark basket - west

The MAC noted that advice from SlopeRAG was that the standardised CPUE had fluctuated over time and while currently above the target had declined over the last four years. The Chair added that the CPUE data analysed did not include the area that was recently opened up.

The trawl member advised that the industry position (achieved through a formal vote) did not consider that the stock had improved to this extent and preferred a more precautionary approach with a setting near the mid-point of the long term RBC (124 t) and proposed 3 Year MYRBC (263 t). The SlopeRAG Chair considered this was a reasonable proposal given that peak catches had remained under 200 t.

The auto-longline member observed that Deepwater Shark wasn’t a substantial target species but noted that catch is targeted by a small number of vessels. The member didn’t think there were stock concerns and suggested maintaining the current 215 t TAC with options for a review if targeting intensity changed was consistent with SETFIA’s position. The trawl member agreed that a rollover was a more justifiable or logical recommendation and agreed that 215 t was consistent with SETFIA’s intent of a reduced RBC.

The trawl industry member explained that operators needed reasonable catch rates of this relatively low value stock to maintain profitability and this had been a key factor in the sector working with AFMA to open up more grounds to allow industry to fish to the TAC but from a larger area. The member emphasised that setting the TAC lower increased prospects of higher catch rates and hopefully more profitable operations.

The MAC noted that industry supported a rollover of the 2012/13 TAC of 215 t into a 3 year MYTAC for Deepwater Shark (west) which was less than AFMA’s proposed 263 t for three years. The MAC supported a rollover of the current TAC on the basis that the economics of this small but targeted sector depended on maintaining reasonable catch rates and that fishing for the species is limited by depth closures implemented to protect Orange Roughy. Members noted that this was consistent with the recent opening up of a small area formerly closed under the ORCP in order to allow operators targeting Deepwater Shark to fish the TAC from a larger area.

The MAC recognised the in-principle objection raised by the conservation member to operations targeting Deepwater Sharks applied to operations generally (both east and west stocks of these species (basket TAC).

SEMAC’s recommends a 3 Year MYTAC of 215 t (rollover of current TAC) for Deepwater Shark (west) which is more conservative than SlopeRAG and AFMA Management’s recommendations. The MAC considers that a lower TAC will pursue higher net economic returns based on the need for stable catch rates coming out of the small open areas in this targeted sector.

Deepwater Shark (west) Tier 4


Single season TAC Yes – 300 t No No


MYTAC 3 year RBC 3 year TAC 3 year TAC Consistent with RAG & AFMADiscount Factor 15% No No No Consistent with RAG & AFMA

Waived due to significant protection provided by the 700m closure

2014/15 263 t 263 t 215 t SEMAC recommends a rollover of current TAC as a 3 Year MYTAC – more conservative than with

SlopeRAG and AFMA – rationale is to support higher catch rates and enhance

net economic returns2015/16 263 t 263 t 215 t2016/17 263 t 263 t 215 t

Break out rule Yes Yes Yes Consistent with RAG & AFMAOver catch 10% 10% as above


2.9 Elephantfish

Dr Kelaher (SharkRAG Chair) advised that SharkRAG had selected the Tier 4 analysis without discards as the basis for its RBC advice. The SharkRAG Chair indicated that a transition to a Tier 4 which incorporated discards would be possible once a longer time series of discard estimates was established. The Committee noted that estimates of discards for this species were improving.

The SharkRAG Chair indicated that the RAG had limited confidence in the Tier 4 given: The potential for intentional avoidance persisted; and estimated discard rates were quite high and had been reasonably variable.

The MAC noted that SharkRAG had, for these reasons above, agreed to restrict its advice to a single year RBC for the 2014/15 fishing season.

The recreational member noted that the scale of the recreational catch used to be important and asked if the methodology allowed this to be taken into account. The recreational member also recalled that industry had previously explained why discarding rates could be high for low value species like this which were taken mostly as bycatch in operations for Gummy Shark. The member appreciated these challenges but expressed concern about situations where discarding might approach or exceed the RBC. The recreational member reminded the Committee that the recreational sector in Victoria had experienced a reduction in its trip limit.

The shark industry member indicated that the sector retains it where possible but noted the TAC was low and its low value meant leasing in quota made retaining Elephantfish marginal at times. The shark member suggested a rule of thumb was that operators could not afford to pay more than ⅓ of the value of species to lease in quota. The scientific member observed that better industry reporting of discards would help improve the reliability of discard estimates and ultimately improve the Tier 4. The shark member agreed with this view. The shark member observed that there seemed to be a prevailing assumption that all discards in the shark sector, including Elephantfish, came up dead. The member emphasised that this view was incorrect and that survivorship for many species was influenced by soak time. The member indicated that, in his experience, a proportion of the animals released were in good condition and stood a good chance of survival.

The MAC accepted SharkRAG’s recommendation to waive the Tier 4 discount factor (15%) in response to equivalent protection provided by gillnet closures in South Australia and inshore closures across the wider fishery.

SEMAC’s support for a single season TAC of 109 t for Elephantfish is consistent with SharkRAG’s and AFMA Management’s recommendations.


Elephantfish (Tier 4) SharkRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC Yes Yes Yes

MYTAC No No No Consistent with SharkRAG & AFMADiscount Factor 15% No No No Waived due to protection provided by

closures in South Australia and more generally by inshore closures

Meta rule Small change rule applied

TAC unchanged as proposed increase <10% and 50 t

2014/15 RBC - 116 t 109 t 109 t Consistent with SharkRAG & AFMABreak out rule na na na

Over catch 10% 10% 10% Consistent with SharkRAG & AFMAUnder catch 10% 10% 10% as above

Research catch 0 0 0

2.10 Flathead (Tiger)

The MAC noted that the Tier 1 assessment for Flathead was updated in 2013 and estimated the stock to be at B50. SlopeRAG provide an RBC for 2014/15 and three and five year MYRBCs based on projections from the stock assessment. The Committee noted that AFMA Management had proposed a three year MYTAC for Tiger Flathead and that this was supported by SETFIA.

Mr Penney (ABARES) suggested that Tiger Flathead was a textbook case of stock that had recovered from being fished down to its limit and had been kept close to its target by recent management actions.

SEMAC’s support for a three year MYTAC of 2,878 t for Tiger Flathead was consistent with ShelfRAG’s and AFMA Management’s recommendations.

Flathead (Tier 1) ShelfRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC 3428 t RBC

MYTAC 3 and 5 year MYRBCs

3 year MYTAC 3 year MYTAC

Consistent with ShelfRAG and AFMA

Deduction of state catch and discards Yes - 456 t

Meta rule No - increase >50 t

2014/15 TAC is 128 t larger than the 2013/14 TAC

2014/15 3334 t 2878 t 2878 t Consistent with ShelfRAG and AFMA2015/16 3334 t 2878 t 2878 t as above2016/17 3334 t 2878 t 2878 t as above

Break out rules Yes Yes Yes Supported – with broader reviewOver catch 10% 10% 10% as above


Allowance (RCA)0 t 0 t 0 t

2.11 Gemfish - east

The MAC Chair noted that Mr Dugins and Mr Scott had declared a conflict in relation to Gemfish (east) SFRs.

The ShelfRAG Chair indicated that the most recent assessment in 2009 indicated that the eastern stock was under B20. The MAC noted that CSIRO was undertaking a review of Gemfish (east) which would, amongst other aspects, investigate the possibility of a productivity shift and where a stock then struggled to produce a good recruitment.

The MAC noted that the CSIRO analysis had indicated that targeting remained at very low levels and separate analyses indicated that discarding was now lower than landed catch.


The Committee was comfortable recommending that the Incidental Catch TAC be maintained at 100 t for three years.

Gemfish (east) (Tier 1)

ShelfRAG AFMA SEMAC Notes

Single season TAC NoMYTAC RBC 0 t

3 year Incidental catch TAC



Consistent with ShelfRAG & AFMA

2014/15 100 t 100 t 100 t as above2015/16 100 t 100 t 100 t as above2016/17 100 t 100 t 100 t as above

Break out rules Yes Yes Yes as aboveOver catch 0% 0% as above

Under catch 0% 0% as aboveResearch Catch

Allowance (RCA) 0 t 0 t 0 t

2.12 Gemfish - West

Mr Lloyd (GABRAG Chair) presented the assessment advice for Western Gemfish. The GABRAG Chair advised that ABARES had updated the Tier 1 assessment and noted that it applied to the entire stock (currently a single stock assumption). The Chair added that a Tier 4 was also undertaken to provide an RBC for the component of the eastern part of the fishery accessible by the Commonwealth trawl sector.

Mr Penney (ABARES) explained that the Tier 1 was very sensitive to the addition or subtraction of new information and a lot of work had been undertaken to understand why this was the case. The MAC noted that this was potentially a problem because running assessments using different time periods lead to different outcomes. Mr Penney indicated that it appeared that the patchiness and inter-annual variability of the data feeding into the assessment was the main issue, with some of the data not being representative of the fishery. The ShelfRAG Chair noted that some assessment problems appeared to be historical given the fishery had jumped around a fair bit. The auto-longline member observed that demise of the Orange Roughy fleet had impacted the Western Gemfish fishery as some vessels used to move onto Western Gemfish after the Orange Roughy season.

Mr Jeff Moore noted that the FRDC project investigating Western Gemfish stock structure4 was underway and stakeholders anticipated having more information on stock structure in a few years which would inform assessment and management processes. Mr Moore noted that GABRAG helped facilitate the FRDC project and had worked with ABARES to support the Tier 1 assessment. Dr Knuckey indicated that his company was involved with the collection of samples and in his view the project may not change the quality of the Tier 1 assessment but may provide the evidence to allow it to be split up. The MAC noted that it was important to get adequate genetic samples from the two spawning areas and emphasised that it was important for industry members and the associations to bring this to relevant operators’ attention.

The trawl member, speaking in his capacity as SETFIA Executive Officer, advised that the Association’s members wanted the assessment of Western Gemfish to be aligned with the quota managed portion of the fishery and return to ShelfRAG (where it would sit beside Eastern Gemfish). Mr Moore observed that GABRAG was uncomfortable about recommending an RBC for another fishery.

4 FRDC 2013/014 Research to underpin better understanding and management of Western Gemfish stocks in the Great Australian Bight- ABARES


The Committee recognised that this was a shared stock (GABTF and SESSF) and that currently there was no formal arrangement in place for allocating this species across the two fisheries.

The Committee supported AFMA’s TAC recommendation of a 3 Year MYTAC of 199 t for the CTS and GHaT. The Committee supported application of 10% over and under catch provisions and asked that AFMA Management seek GABRAG’s advice on break-out rules.

The MAC also provided in-principle support for a Research Catch Allowance of 5 t for samples needed for the FRDC project investigating Western Gemfish stock structure.

Action 8 - AFMA Management, GABRAGThat AFMA seek GABRAG’s advice on break-out rules for Western Gemfish subject to AFMA Commission support for the recommended three year MYTAC for CTS and GHaT concessions.

Gemfish (west) (Tier 1 and Tier 4)

GABRAG AFMA SEMAC Notes

Single season TAC NoMYTAC 3 year MYRBC 3 year MYTAC 3 year MYTAC Consistent with GABRAG & AFMA

Deduction of state catch and discards Yes - 68 t


Change from 2013/14 from 199 t to 183 t is less than 10% therefore

retain the 2013/14 TAC.2014/15 247 t 199 t 199 t Consistent with GABRAG & AFMA2015/16 247 t 199 t 199 t as above2016/17 247 t 199 t 199 t as above

Break out rules TBA TBA TBA Request GABRAG’s advice on break - out rules

Over catch 10% 10% Consistent with GABRAG & AFMAUnder catch 10% 10% as above

Research Catch Allowance (RCA) 5 t 5 t 5 t as above

RCA in addition to the TAC

2.13 Gummy Shark

The SharkRAG Chair reported that the 2013 Gummy Shark assessment indicated that the Gummy Shark stock was above its target reference point for all sub-stocks.

The SharkRAG Chair advised that SharkRAG had determined an RBC of 2010 t which it considered could be applied for three years. The allocation of state catches then converted this RBC to a Commonwealth RBC for Gummy Shark at 1,918 t.

The MAC noted that AFMA had recommended a 3 Year TAC be set at the existing TAC of 1836 t and had cited a number of reasons for this including uncertainty about the magnitude of recent state catches and possible impacts of higher than expected catch of large sharks by hook methods off South Australia. The MAC noted that some of these concerns had been raised in the RAG and were shared by some stakeholders however also noted views that these concerns needed to be examined in the context of the recent assessment which indicated the stock was above the target reference point. The MAC acknowledged that, while there were some sustainability concerns associated with changes in the fishery, the Committee needed a clear rationale for departing from RBCs generated by a recent Tier 1 assessment (even if its recommendation was more conservative).

The Committee recognised that quota stability and maintaining catch rates was important to many in industry and stability more generally provided AFMA and industry with greater comfort around the management of the incidental catch of School Shark which was currently below its limit


reference point. The shark industry member indicated that it was becoming difficult for operators to target Gummy Shark while avoiding School Shark.

SEMAC supported the 3 Year MYTAC being set at 1836 t which is lower than the RBC determined from the 2013 model run (1918 t). This is based on the need to provide stability to the fishery particularly in relation to the management of the incidental take of School Shark in operations targeting Gummy Shark.

Gummy Shark (Tier 1) SharkRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC No

MYTAC 3 year MYRBC 3 year MYTAC 3 year MYTAC Consistent with SharkRAG & AFMADeduction of state catch and discards Yes - 92 t

Meta rule No

2014/15 2010 t 1836 t 1836 t

SEMAC supports the 3 Year MYTAC being set at 1836 t rather than at

the TAC determined from the 2013 model run (1918 t) based on the need to provide stability to the

fishery particularly in relation to the management of the incidental take of School Shark in operations

targeting Gummy Shark.2015/16 2010 t 1836 t 1836 t as above2016/17 2010 t 1836 t 1836 t as above

Break out rules Yes Yes Yes Consistent with SharkRAG & AFMAOver catch 10% 10% as above

Under catch 10% 10% as aboveResearch Catch


2.14 Jackass Morwong

The ShelfRAG Chair noted that the assessment was updated with recent catches in 2013 and both east and west stocks were estimated at B40 and B68 respectively. ShelfRAG recommended a 2 Year RBC.

The MAC supported ShelfRAG’s and AFMA Management’s recommended 2 Year MYTAC of 568 t.


Jackass Morwong Tier 1 ShelfRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC No

MYTAC 2 year MYRBC 2 year MYTAC 2 year MYTAC Consistent with ShelfRAG & AFMA

Deduction of state catch and discards Yes


Change in the recommended TAC was less than 10% for 2013/14 TAC

2014/15 624 t 568 t 568 t Consistent with ShelfRAG & AFMA2015/16 624 t 568 t 568 t as above

Break out rules Yes Yes Yes as aboveOver catch 10% 10% 10% as above



2.15 John Dory

The ShelfRAG Chair noted that John Dory is currently in the second year of a 3 Year MYTAC of 221 t and advised that that none of the break-out rules for this species had been triggered.

The MAC supported continuing the MYTAC at 221 t into the 2014/15 fishing season.

John Dory (Tier 3) ShelfRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC No

MYTAC ContinueMYTAC

ContinueMYTAC

ContinueMYTAC Consistent with ShelfRAG and AFMA

Deduction of state catch and discards No

Meta rule No

2014/15 221 t 221 t 221 t Continue last year of a 3 year MYTAC Consistent with ShelfRAG and AFMA

2015/16 na na naBreak out rules Yes Yes Yes Continue as above

Over catch 10% 10% 10% as aboveUnder catch 10% 10% 10% as above

Research Catch Allowance (RCA) 0 t 0 t 0 t

2.16 Mirror DoryThe ShelfRAG Chair indicated that the RAG had decided against using the Tier 3 assessment because it was not robust either due to insufficient and/or unrepresentative age data. The ShelfRAG Chair advised that the RBC was based on a Tier 4 assessment.The MAC noted that ShelfRAG had not recommended Mirror Dory as a candidate for a MYTAC because of high variability and assessment uncertainty. The MAC supported the application of a 15% discount factor to the RBC.The MAC supported ShelfRAG and AFMA Management’s recommended single season approach for Mirror Dory.


Mirror Dory (Tier 3) ShelfRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC Yes Yes Yes

MYTAC No No No Consistent with ShelfRAG & AFMA

Discount factor Yes Yes Yes 15% discount factor was applied as the Tier 4 was used to calculate the RBC


Meta rule Large change rule applied

2014/15 680 t 808 t 808 t Consistent with ShelfRAG and AFMAOver catch 10% 10% 10% as above



2.17 Ocean Perch

The ShelfRAG Chair advised that this basket comprised two species (inshore and offshore) and that assessment and management were complicated by different discard behaviours for the two species (higher discarding rate for the smaller inshore species).

The MAC welcomed that the AFMA Commission now supported the Ocean Perch basket being managed to a BMSY target reference point (proxy given it is assessed using by the Tier 4 method).

The MAC acknowledged that this Basket TAC was complex because it combined two species which, while very similar in appearance, had very different marketability due to size differences. Members reported that they had found it more difficult to reconcile information in the separate species summaries with the translation of the respective RBCs to a single TAC. The Committee asked ShelfRAG and AFMA Management to more clearly clarify the steps in establishing separate RBCs through to the recommendation of single basket TAC.

The MAC noted that industry welcomed AFMA’s support for managing these species to a B MSY target reference point. Industry members, noting that ShelfRAG and AFMA Management were recommending a 3 Year MYTAC (195 t), had trouble reconciling the risks and benefits of persisting with annual Tier 4 analyses and single season TACs against settling on a 3 Year MYTAC. The trawl member observed that for a species with variable discarding behaviour like Ocean Perch it might be preferable to stick with an annual process rather than the more conservative settings associated with a MYTAC (i.e. based on long term RBC). The member added that one needed to be able to compare assessment costs to make such a decision and that that he had tried repeatedly (in consultation with AFMA and CSIRO) to establish the cost of running a single Tier 4 assessment compared to the cost of doing all the Tier 4s (job lot). The trawl member explained that without knowing the cost of individual assessments it was not possible to properly weigh up the benefits of recommending MYTACs against sticking with an annual assessment cycle. The AFMA member agreed to pursue further advice on the SESSF stock assessment contract specifications.

The conservation member suggested that for secondary species the RAGs and MAC should give some consideration to the TACs for companion species as presumably there is some sort of relationship.

The Committee then discussed the operation of the small and large change rules with MYTACs. Mr Penney considered it was important that responses were symmetric and if the change rules are in place then they need to work both ways. Members noted that they provided additional stability to TACs in the SESSF. The GAB invited participant agreed that if the small and large change rules were in place then they should operate symmetrically but reminded the MAC that the GABTF did not have limiting rules for its two quota species. The MAC recognised that consideration of the small and


large change limiting rules with respect to MYTACs was largely a technical matter and agreed to refer it to SESSF RAG.

The MAC supported SlopeRAG’s and AFMA’s recommendation for a 3 year MYTAC at 195 t based on the BMSY targets for both species in the basket.

Ocean Perch (basket) Tier 4


Single season TAC NoMYTAC 3 year RBC 3 year TAC 3 year TAC Consistent with SlopeRAG & AFMA

Discount Factor 15% Yes Yes Yes 15% discount factor was applied as the Tier 4 was used to calculate the

RBCDeduction of state catch and discards Yes

Meta rules Small change meta rule applied

2014/15 385 t 195 t 195 t SEMAC supports a 3 Year MYTACConsistent with SlopeRAG & AFMA

2015/16 385 t 195 t 195 t Consistent with SlopeRAG & AFMA2016/17 385 t 195 t 195 t as above

Break out rule Yes Yes Yes as aboveOver catch 10% 10% as above


Action 9 – AFMA ManagementAFMA to pursue further advice on the SESSF stock assessment contract specifications with respect to unit costs of various assessment costs.

Action 10 – AFMA Management, SESSF RAGThat AFMA seek SESSF RAG’s advice on the application of the small and large change limiting meta- rules with respect to Multiple Year TACs.

2.18 Orange Roughy (general)

The Committee noted that there were no updates to the assessments for any of the Orange Roughy zones in 2013. The SlopeRAG Chair advised that a workshop was scheduled for 8 and 9 May 2014 and the main item of business was to try to reconcile the results of the Acoustic Optical Surveys (AOS) and the outcomes from the age based assessment for eastern zone Orange Roughy.The AFMA member noted that the review of the Orange Roughy Rebuilding Strategy needed to be completed by 1 July 2014. The MAC supported rolling over the current Incidental catch TACs for the southern, eastern and western zones and the TAC for the Cascade Plateau.

2.19 Orange Roughy – southThe MAC noted the RBC was zero and endorsed rollover of the Incidental Catch TAC of 35 t.

2.20 Orange Roughy – eastThe MAC noted the RBC was zero and endorsed rollover of the Incidental Catch TAC of 25 t.

2.21 Orange Roughy – westThe MAC noted the RBC was zero and endorsed the rollover of the Incidental Catch TAC of 60 t.


2.22 Orange Roughy – Cascade PlateauThe MAC noted that the assessment hadn’t been updated and agreed to rollover the TAC. The MAC agreed to maintain 10% over and under catch levels.

Orange Roughy (Tier 1) Zones

SlopeRAG’s and AFMA Management’s TACRecommendation

Overcatch

Under catch

Research CatchAllowance

Outcome

South Rollover of the Incidental Catch TAC 35 t 0 0 Agreed by MAC

East Rollover of theIncidental Catch TAC 25 t 0 0 Agreed by MAC

West Rollover of the Incidental Catch TAC 60 t 0 0 Agreed by MAC

Cascade Plateau 500 t TAC – rollover 10% 10% Agreed by MAC

2.23 Orange Roughy – Albany and Esperance

GABMAC provides advice to AFMA on Orange Roughy stocks west of 120o east and therefore this item was not considered by SEMAC.

2.24 Oreo Smooth – Cascade

The SlopeRAG Chair observed that there hadn’t been much fishing on the Cascade Plateau in 2012/13 and as a result of this it wasn’t valid to update the Tier 4 assessment. The MAC supported a rollover of the 2013/14 TAC of 150 t in combination with a 10 t trigger which, if exceeded, would activate the Tier 4 assessment.

Oreo- Smooth Cascade (Tier 4)


Single season TAC Rollover Rollover Rollover Consistent with SlopeRAG and AFMAMYTAC No No No

Discount factor No No No Discount factor not applied in rolloversMeta rule Not applicable

2014/15 150 t 150 t 150 t Consistent with ShelfRAG and AFMAMaintain 10 t catch assessment trigger



2.25 Oreo Smooth – otherThe SlopeRAG Chair observed that very little fishing for Smooth Oreo had occurred in 2012/13 because most of the features where they were previously caught were closed under the ORCP. The Chair noted that it wasn’t valid to update the Tier 4 assessment based on recent catches. The MAC supported a rollover of the 2013/14 TAC of 23 t in combination with a 10 t trigger which, if exceeded, would activate the Tier 4 assessment.

Oreo- Smooth - other (Tier 4)


Single season TAC Rollover Rollover Rollover Consistent with SlopeRAG and AFMAMYTAC No No No

Discount factor No No No Discount factor not applied in rolloversMeta rule Not applicable

2014/15 23 t 23 t 23 t Consistent with ShelfRAG and AFMAMaintain 10 t catch assessment trigger




2.26 Oreo basket

The MAC noted that catches of Oreo basket species had reached 104 t which represented 79% of the 2013/14 TAC. The SlopeRAG Chair explained that the Tier 4 analysis was performed for the areas currently open to fishing.

The MAC, consistent with SlopeRAG’s and AFMA Management’s advice, endorsed the ongoing waiving of the Tier 4 discount factor (15%) noting that over 50% of the habitat was closed under the 700m deepwater closure.The SlopeRAG Chair noted that catch rates had been relatively stable and this had only led to a small decrease in the RBC which fell within the scope of the small change rule resulting in the recommendation to maintain the TAC at the 2013/14 level of 132 t. The MAC supported SlopeRAG’s and AFMA Management’s recommendation to implement a 3 Year MYTAC at this level.

Oreo- basket (Tier 4) SlopeRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC No Consistent with SlopeRAG and AFMA

MYTAC Yes 3 Year RBC

Yes 3Year TAC

Yes 3Year TAC

Discount factor No No No

Consistent with SlopeRAG and AFMADiscount factor waived due to

substantial protection provided by the 700 m closure.


2014/15 128 t 132 t 132 t Consistent with SlopeRAG and AFMA2015/16 128 t 132 t 132 t as above2016/17 128 t 132 t 132 t as above




Day 1 concluded at 5:20 pm after Agenda Item 2.26

Day 2 commenced at 8:37 am and after brief discussion on Gummy Sharkmoved to Agenda Item 2.31 Sawshark.

2.27 Pink Ling

The SlopeRAG Chair noted that SlopeRAG had spent a lot of time on Pink Ling which had been premised on considerable amount of work done to model the stock using two stock assessment packages:

Professor Andre Punt - Stock Synthesis 3 (SS3) Mr Patrick Cordue - CASAL5

The Chair noted the support of CSIRO in supporting a collaborative approach and acknowledged trawl and auto-longline industry funding which supported Mr Cordue’s involvement and participation at relevant RAG meetings.

The SlopeRAG Chair indicated that the RAG had made its key decisions without looking at the outcomes.

5 CASAL (C++ Algorithmic Stock Assessment Laboratory) - NIWA


The MAC noted that previous Pink Ling assessments were conducted using the Stock Synthesis modelling program which was updated and run in 2013 but that SlopeRAG adopted the outputs from a 2013 CASAL based stock assessment model developed by Mr Cordue as its preferred base case. The MAC noted that both models produced similar outputs when applying the same inputs and assumptions but CASAL was able to incorporate some agreed data treatments and approaches to the assessment that Stock Synthesis could not currently implement.

The CASAL assessment was taken through to Marcov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulations to more fully explore uncertainties around all of the inputs. The MCMC results were then used to generate projections of future stock status under a range of constant catch scenarios, together with confidence intervals.

The Committee noted that the model estimated that:

Pink Ling (eastern stock) was at B26 (which was similar to the previous assessment) but that there was a significant range in the assessment in spite of the work completed

Pink Ling (western stock) was at B58 (which was a bit more optimistic than the previous assessment).

The MAC noted that the MCMC was only applied to the eastern stock as it was below target.

The AFMA member noted that AFMA was seeking MAC support for separate east/west management arrangements. The MAC noted that AFMA Management was seeking final advice on arrangements which would enable the Authority to manage Pink Ling with separate east and west quota and without the use of trip limits.

The MAC concentrated on the arrangements for the eastern stock. The conservation member noted that if the TAC for the eastern stock was based solely on the harvest control rule (122 t) the economic impact would be significant. The member sought an explanation of how selecting a larger catch (349 t was proposed) from the alternative catch scenarios analysis remained consistent with the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework.

The SlopeRAG Chair explained that the MCMC explored a range of catches (0 to 500 t) against the objectives of the Harvest Strategy Policy. The Chair noted that it was a requirement under the policy that the fishery settings had less than a 10% probability of the stock going under its limit reference point (B20). The MAC noted that the additional analysis estimated that a range of catches higher than 122 t would not breach this requirement and still support a rebuild of the eastern Pink Ling stock.

The MAC recognised that a decision to adopt a TAC higher than 122 t was not consistent with some aspects of the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework however was compatible with the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy. Members noted that the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework was premised on the application of Harvest Control Rules and did not anticipate the extra scope provided by a quantitative exploration of outcomes for a range of TAC settings. The Committee noted that RAGs and the MAC have previously been provided with estimates of rebuilding timeframes under different catch scenarios but these had not characterised the probabilities. The conservation member asked if this approach should be considered for other stocks. Mr Penney observed that the work on Pink Ling was the most detailed and complex assessment yet undertaken for a SESSF quota species, requiring substantial additional time for both running and reviewing the assessment.

The SESSF RAG Chair asked if this called into question the SS3 approach and if the process could be subject to criticism as cherry picking. The SlopeRAG Chair advised that the two assessments only varied by a few percent. Mr Bromley (SlopeRAG Executive Officer) confirmed that the RAG had deliberately structured its review of the ‘competing’ assessments and data handling before looking at the model outputs.


The trawl member observed that at present there was the perverse situation whereby, under the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy, a stock assessed as being overfished (under B20) and under a rebuilding strategy was allowed a slower rebuild time than a stock which was not overfished and managed under the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework, like eastern Pink Ling which was assessed at around B26.

The trawl member acknowledged the support and professionalism of AFMA, the SlopeRAG Chair, RAG members and CSIRO in facilitating the participation of Mr Cordue in the assessment process.

The SlopeRAG Chair responded to a question about the merits of a three year TAC by noting that, given the level of investigation that went into the 2013 assessment, an update in 2015 or 2016 wasn’t justified until we accumulate a bit more data.

The MAC recognised that the additional analysis provided a more detailed evaluation of future catch settings against the requirements of the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy. In this context the MAC was comfortable that the revised assessment and additional analysis provided a robust basis for a MYTAC recommendation. SEMAC, subject to AFMA advice on a suitable mechanism, endorsed a 3 Year MYTAC to be administered as east and west TACs:

a 3 year TAC for Pink Ling (east) of 349 t a 3 year TAC for Pink Ling (west) of 647 t

The Committee was comfortable supporting the proposed MYTAC (with east and west catch limits) without break-out rules noting that the investigation of uncertainties conducted in the accepted assessment provided high confidence of gradual stock rebuilding under this MYTAC.

The MAC noted that undisclosed catch (or discarding) or a ramping up of the NSW catch represented the most significant risks to the east coast stock’s ability to rebuild to target that the assessment model has not taken account of. Industry urged AFMA to continue discussions with NSW about controlling or limiting their eastern catch.

The MAC noted that AFMA was seeking final advice on arrangements which would enable the Authority to manage the Pink Ling with separate east and west quota without the use of trip limits. The AFMA member noted that presently a single SFR provided access to Pink Ling and that AFMA envisaged issuing eastern and western quota against those SFRs. The member explained that AFMA was still working through additional mechanism which would allow trading and leasing of the east and western quota components. The GAB invited participant observed that a stock regionalisation working groups’ recommended solution to east/ west or other management splits in stocks was put on the back burner three years ago. The GAB participant advised that industry was concerned about the lack of consultation on the interim approach and was mindful that there may be legal implications of changing SFRs. The auto-longline member considered that the proposed interim approach was better than trip limits.

The trawl member, speaking in his capacity as SETFIA Executive Officer, noted that at the recent SETFIA meeting they had owners of 80% of the Pink Ling quota in attendance. Mr Boag advised that SETFIA members:

were concerned about transiting rules if the interim arrangement is implemented; and had provided reserved (and reluctant) support for the splitting of Pink Ling quota into

eastern and western rights.Mr Boag emphasised that SETFIA members were irate about unregulated catch by NSW Ocean Trap and Line Fishery vessels given that Commonwealth quota holders pay for all regular research and management costs, had contributed an additional $45,000 to support the 2013 stock assessment and as industry representatives had attended all RAG meetings. Mr Boag indicated that having NSW licensed boats working the same waters and enjoying higher catch rates without quota and


contributing nothing to research was untenable when Commonwealth boats were placed on a 50 kg daily limit.

The AFMA member advised that AFMA had raised these concerns formally with the NSW Department of Primary Industries. The recreational member indicated that there should be positive changes in NSW’s arrangements over the next 2 to 3 years as the NSW state government’s commercial fisheries reform process is implemented.

The MAC noted that if the east/west approach envisaged by AFMA cannot be administered then an amendment to the SESSF Management Plan may be necessary (grant of separate SFRs for east and west stocks). The MAC endorsed AFMA Management’s fall-back position of a Global TAC of 996 t for the 2014/15 season only - noting that this would need to be accompanied by separate measures as necessary to constrain mortality of Pink Ling in the east and west to below the respective RBCs.

RecommendationsThat AFMA, subject to its ability to administer separate east west quotas, set:

a 3 Year TAC for Pink Ling (east) at 349 t (10% over and under catch provision); and a 3 Year TAC limit for Pink Ling (west) at 647 t (10% over and under catch provision)

with both commencing in the 2014/15 fishing season.

In the event separate east west quotas cannot be established in time for the 2014-15 season or administered under the current management plan then AFMA should:

1. Set a Global TAC for Pink Ling for the 2014-15 season at 996 tonnes with a 10% over and undercatch provision and develop alternative controls as necessary to keep eastern and western catches under their respective RBCs; and

2. Pursue alternative strategies to split Pink Ling SFRs into eastern and western rights in time for the 2015-16 season.

Pink Ling (Tier 1) ShelfRAG AFMA SEMAC Notes

Single season TAC Yes No No SlopeRAG advised 2014/15 RBCs at: 122 t east and 807 t west

MYTAC 3 Year MYRBC

3 year MYTAC

3 year MYTAC

Consistent with SlopeRAG and AFMA

MCMC projections used to estimate the probabilities of a range of fixed

catch scenarios for the eastern stock which were consistent with agreed

management objectives.Deduction of state catch and discards Yes

Meta rule No

2014/15 400 t east661 t west

349 t east647 t west


MYAC administered as separateeast and west components

Consistent with SlopeRAG and AFMA

2015/16 400 t east661 t west


349 t east647 t west as above

2016/17 400 t east661 t west


349 t east647 t west as above

Break out rules No No No -Over catch 10% 10% 10% Consistent with SlopeRAG and AFMA




2.28 Redfish

The ShelfRAG Chair reported that there was a fundamental conflict between the Tier 3 and Tier 4 assessments for Redfish. The MAC noted that this problem had previously occurred in the 2011 and 2012 assessments. The Chair advised that ShelfRAG had based its advice on the Tier 4 not because it had greater confidence in the Tier 4 over the Tier 3 but because the signal was clear, showed a steady and continuing decline, and there was a risk to the stock if this signal was correct but was ignored. The Chair added that advice from industry was that Redfish were not around in any numbers.

The ShelfRAG Chair advised that Redfish was scheduled for Tier 1 in 2014 and noted that there was reasonable confidence that the assessment would be successful. The Chair suggested that even with an integrated approach there was an expectation that the outcome would indicate that Redfish was strongly depleted.

The recreational member advised that the recreational sector in NSW were concerned about Redfish in part because it is a component of the charter sector’s catch within 10 nautical miles (nm) of the coast. The Committee noted that Redfish wasn’t subject to a recreational size limit.

The MAC noted that future management of this species would be sensitive to the outcomes of the planned Tier 1 assessment. Members noted that the large change rule had slowed the decline in the TAC relative to the Tier 4 RBC but recognised that it was possible that the upcoming Tier 1 might determine that Redfish is overfished.

The MAC supported AFMA’s recommendation of a single season 138 t TAC for 2014/15.

Redfish (Tier 3) ShelfRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC Yes Yes Yes

MYTAC No No No Consistent with ShelfRAG & AFMA

Discount factor No No No

Tier 4 indicated a zero RBC therefore a discount factor could not be applied. The Tier 4 discount factor (15%) was

applied to the 2012/13 RBC.Deduction of state catch and discards -


The large change rule applied so that the 2013/14 TAC could be no lower

than 50% of the 2012/13 TAC (276 t)2014/15 RBC 0 t 138 t 138 t Consistent with ShelfRAG and AFMA



2.29 Ribaldo

The SlopeRAG Chair observed that Ribaldo was assessed as Tier 4 species and was estimated to be well above its target reference point. The MAC noted that Ribaldo was considered to be a secondary species and welcomed AFMA’s decision to now manage this species to a MSY target (B 40). Members noted that for a Tier 4 this reference point is the level of CPUE assumed to produce a spawning biomass of 40 % of the unfished stock.

The MAC supported maintaining the waiving of the Tier 4 discount factor (15%) for Ribaldo because SlopeRAG’s advice was that the extensive deepwater closures (700m) provide a level of precaution that is at least equivalent to a 15% discount.


The SlopeRAG Chair advised that, despite auto-longline catch now exceeding trawl catch, the Tier 4 is still referenced to trawl CPUE. The Chair explained that this is because trawl is the longer dataset and is more reflective of the reference period. The MAC noted that SlopeRAG had also reviewed auto-longline CPUE time series CPUE and had found nothing contrary to the trend from trawl data.

The MAC was comfortable with this advice and supported SlopeRAG and AFMA’s proposed 3 year MYTAC noting the TAC for the lead-in year (2014/15) would be lower than the two subsequent years due to the application of the large change limiting rule.

The MAC endorsed SlopeRAG’s proposed break-out rules and noted that the RAG would also monitor the proportion of the catch taken by trawl and auto-longline methods for significant changes.

Ribaldo (Tier 4) SlopeRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC No

MYTAC 3 Year MYRBC 3 Year MYTAC 3 Year MYTAC Consistent with SlopeRAG & AFMA

Discount factor No No No Equivalent protection (at least) provide by Deepwater Closures (700m)

Deduction of state catch and discards No state catch


The large change rule applied so that increase in the 2013/14 TAC was

limited to 252 t which represented a 50% increase on the current 168 t TAC.

2014/15 RBC 355 t 252 t 252 t Consistent with SlopeRAG and AFMA2015/16 RBC 355 t 355 t 355 t as above2016/17 RBC 355 t 355 t 355 t as above




2.30 Royal Red Prawn

The ShelfRAG Chair noted that the Tier 4 for Royal Red Prawns was fairly straight forward and that SlopeRAG recommended a 3 year RBC. The ShelfRAG Chair advised that the RAG had not previously applied the Tier 4 discount factor to this species because catch was constrained by the market (operators only fished under instruction from processors). The MAC was comfortable with this noting marketing constraints strongly influenced the level of effort directed at Royal Red Prawns.

The MAC noted that industry had recently submitted a research proposal to AFMA to trial a Gulper Shark Excluder Device in the Royal Red Prawn sector. Mr Boag declared an interest in the proposal and explained that the device would be similar to the grids used in NPF operations. Mr Boag noted that the grid would be the only variable in the trial and indicated it was yet to be determined if codend covers would be employed. The MAC noted that these could be used to detect if dogfish have been successfully ejected by the device. The MAC noted that the prawn catch would also be reviewed to see if efficiency was affected.

The MAC noted that the proposal included an application for a 37.5 t research catch allowance. The trawl member envisaged, subject to a successful trial, that the sector would then seek to negotiate access to the eastern margin of the Endeavour Dogfish Closure off Sydney which was formerly an important catching strip for Royal Red Prawns. The Committee provided in-principle support for a Research Catch Allowance of 37.5 t (this being expected catches during the project based on previous catch history) for the 2014/15 fishing season to support trialling of Gulper Shark excluders in the Royal Red Prawn trawl sector off NSW.


The MAC noted that the deduction of state catch and a discard estimate from the Global RBC (393 t) produced a Commonwealth RBC of 382 t. The MAC noted that no other adjustments were required and the Commonwealth TAC was therefore 382 t. The MAC supported SlopeRAG’s and AFMA Management’s recommended 3 Year MYTAC at 382 t for Royal Red Prawns.

Royal Red Prawn (Tier 4)


Single season TAC No

MYTAC 3 Year MYRBC 3 Year MYTAC 3 Year MYTAC Consistent with SlopeRAG & AFMA

Discount factor No No NoEquivalent protection provided by

marketing constraints. Boats only fish to orders from processors.


Meta rule na2014/15 RBC 393 t 382 t 382 t Consistent with SlopeRAG and AFMA2015/16 RBC 393 t 382 t 382 t as above2016/17 RBC 393 t 382 t 382 t as above


Under catch 10% 10% 10% as above

Research Catch Allowance (RCA) 37.5 t 37.5 t

37.5 tfrom within the TAC for

2014/15

SEMAC provides in-principle support for a Research Catch Allowance of 37.5 t to support trialling of Gulper

Shark excluders in the Royal Red Prawn sector off NSW.

2.31 Sawshark

The SharkRAG Chair noted that the SharkRAG had considered updated Tier 4s for both the trawl and gillnet sectors. The SharkRAG Chair advised that the RAG had decided to use the Tier 4 based on trawl CPUE as the basis for their RBC advice because the trawl index was considered to provide the better index of abundance (some gillnet operators actively avoid Sawshark). The shark industry member noted that they were a labour intensive catch as they required more effort to get them out of the net and if Gummy Sharks were around fishers would move areas to concentrate on them. Mr Moore (GABIA) indicated that Sawshark were a byproduct in the GAB trawl and the RBC based on trawl catch rates seemed to be more in line with both fishery sectors’ experience as well as the signal from the GAB FIS for Sawshark. The SharkRAG Chair expressed interest in SharkRAG having access to FIS data.

The MAC noted that SharkRAG did not consider Sawshark to be a suitable candidate for a MYTAC at this point because there was still some uncertainty about discard rate estimates. The RAG recommended that the Tier 4 discount factor (15%) be waived due to the recent additional precaution provided by the gillnet closures off South Australia.

SEMAC’s support for a single season TAC of 459 t for Sawshark is consistent with SharkRAG’s and AFMA Management’s recommendations.

Action 11 – AFMA Management, SharkRAGAFMA Management to facilitate SharkRAG access to FIS data for shark species.


Sawshark (Tier 4) SharkRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC Yes Yes Yes

MYTAC No No No Consistent with SharkRAG & AFMA

Discount Factor 15% No No NoConsistent with SharkRAG & AFMA waived due to protection provided by closures particularly

recent gillnet closures in South Australia.Meta rule No2014/15 RBC - 459 t 459 t 459 t Consistent with SharkRAG & AFMA


Research catch 0 0 0

2.32 School Shark

The SharkRAG Chair noted that the last assessment (2009) indicated that School Shark was under the limit reference point (B20) and in the absence of an updated assessment SharkRAG agreed to maintain a zero RBC. The SharkRAG Chair noted that the most important research need was to identify an alternative index of abundance.

The SharkRAG Chair indicated that the RAG had recommended that the Incidental Catch TAC for School Shark be maintained at 215 t which was estimated to be the unavoidable bycatch of the shark fishery at recent levels of activity in the fishery. Mr Penney (ABARES) asked that SEMAC formally note ABARES’s concern about setting of an incidental catch allowance for School Shark at this level (215 t).

Mr Penney noted that at last year’s TAC meeting SharkRAG’s initial advice had not included an estimate of discards however AFMA had, after consultation with CSIRO, tabled a discard estimate based on CSIRO’s analysis of ISMP observer data. Mr Penney added that AFMA had also tabled a preliminary estimate of discards based on logbook data which led to a lengthy discussion about the discrepancy in these two estimates. Mr Penney then recalled that the estimates showed closer alignment when differences in the fishing year and calendar year were taken into account and that SEMAC 11 had, with some concern, endorsed the recommended 215 t TAC. Members noted that the MAC had also recommended that the estimate of School Shark discards needed to be improved for the following season6.

Mr Penney advised that he wasn’t in a position to disagree with the proposed number for the 2014/15 fishing season because he needed to know what the estimated discards were. Mr Penney did however caution against adopting a MYTAC for School Shark given the level of uncertainty around current settings. The MAC noted that research was being commissioned to identify an index of abundance and efforts to improve the discard estimate were ongoing6.

A number of members then sought an explanation about the TAC (215 t) proposed for 2014/15. The AFMA member advised that this amount was determined by factoring up the 2011 landed catch by the estimated fleet wide discard rate obtained from a CSIRO analysis of discard observations collected by observers from the Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program (ISMP) for the same period. The AFMA member explained that 2011 was chosen because it was the last full year before the large marine mammal closures were introduced.

The shark industry member cautioned that if the Incidental Catch TAC was set too low there is a risk that higher lease prices will discourage fishers from leasing in quota to cover their incidental catch. The member added that this may also lead to under reporting of discards.

6 Paragraphs 2 and 3 under Item 2.32 School Shark were added in response to comments on the draft minutes suggesting that elaboration of the ABARES observer’s observations about uncertainty in the discard estimate for School Shark be reflected in the record.


Noting recent incidental catch was under the proposed TAC, the MAC was reasonably comfortable maintaining the Incidental Catch TAC at 215 t noting longstanding industry advice that the trading and leasing of quota had the potential to tighten up towards the end of the season. Members agreed that the important figure biologically would be the total take in 2014/15 fishing season (landed catch plus estimated discards).

The MAC then considered whether locking the Incidental Catch TAC in for three fishing seasons was appropriate. The SharkRAG Chair observed that there were some promising avenues of research emerging in relation to identifying a new index of abundance however it may take several years before any trend in the new index is confirmed. Members noted that the establishment of an alternative abundance of index was a key priority and agreed that the annual RAG and MAC process associated with producing TAC recommendations maintained a spotlight on the rebuild of the School Shark stock and associated research initiatives.

The MAC noted that while MYTACs were not intended to be ‘set and forget arrangements’ the Committee considered they were better suited to stocks where there was greater certainty about stock status and the robustness of the relevant assessment. There was broad agreement in the MAC that a Multi-year Incidental Catch TAC was not suitable for School Shark at this time because it would reduce management scrutiny at a key juncture in the research and management efforts for this species.

The MAC did not support SharkRAG and AFMA Management’s proposals for a three year Incidental Catch TAC for School Shark (which was balanced to a three year MYTAC for Gummy Shark aimed at providing fishery stability) because members agreed that an annual TAC would help maintain the focus on the stock status of School Shark and the need to develop an alternative index of abundance.

RecommendationThat AFMA set the incidental catch TAC for School Shark at 215 t for the 2014/15 fishing season with no provision for over or undercatch.

School Shark (Tier 1) ShelfRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC No No Yes

MYTAC Yes Yes No

SEMAC proposed a more conservative approach (Single season Incidental Catch TAC) than SharkRAG’s & AFMA’s proposed 3 Year Incidental catch TAC

Discount factor na na naDeduction of state catch and discards No

2014/15RBC 0 t

Incidental Catch TAC 215 t

Incidental Catch TAC 215 t

Incidental Catch TAC

215 t

Consistent with the size of the Incidental catch TAC but not the

MYTAC arrangement proposed by SharkRAG and AFMA

2015/16 Incidental Catch TAC 215 t

Incidental Catch TAC 215 t No

2016/17 Incidental Catch TAC 215 t

Incidental Catch TAC 215 t No Consistent with SharkRAG and AFMA




2.33 School Whiting

The ShelfRAG Chair advised that the School Whiting assessment had not been updated but was being managed under a long term constant catch scenario. The Chair added that this arrangement would be maintained until the Tier 1 assessment was updated.

The MAC noted that the ShelfRAG and AFMA Management did not consider School Whiting to be a suitable candidate for a MYTAC in the absence of an arrangement with New South Wales in relation to catch sharing. Members noted that the Commonwealth sector currently bears the precaution by deducting state catches from the Global TAC and calculating the Commonwealth TAC from the remainder.

The MAC supported SlopeRAG’s and AFMA’s proposed settings for School Whiting for the 2014/15 fishing season.

School Whiting (Tier 1) ShelfRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC Yes Yes Yes Consistent with ShelfRAG and AFMA

MYTAC No No NoNot suitable for a MYTAC at present

given that the NSW state catch is currently not constrained


Meta ruleSmall

change limiting rule

No change in the TAC due to the operation of the small change limiting

rule2014/15 RBC - 1660 t 809t 809 t Consistent with ShelfRAG and AFMA

Break out rule na na na as aboveOver catch 10% 10% 10% as above

Under catch 10% 10% 10% as aboveResearch catch 0 0 0

2.34 Silver Trevally

The ShelfRAG Chair advised that the Tier 4 assessment for Silver Trevally had been updated in 2013. The MAC noted that ShelfRAG was cognisant that the creation of the Batemans Bay Marine Park (state waters) was likely to have influenced the assessment of Silver Trevally. The MAC noted that the park had excluded state trawlers from waters which were regarded as good spots to target Silver Trevally. The SlopeRAG Chair explained that the park now provided a measure of protection to Silver Trevally but also had potentially impacted the CPUE time series and as a result the RAG agreed that the assessment would only use catch rates from outside the closure.

The MAC endorsed ShelfRAG’s recommendation that the 15% discount factor not be applied due to protection provided by the Batemans Bay Marine Park. The MAC also supported the recommended 3 Year MYTAC TAC of 615 t for Silver Trevally.


Silver Trevally(Tier 4)

ShelfRAG AFMA SEMAC Notes

Single season TAC NoMYTAC 3 Year MYRBC 3 Year MYTAC 3 Year MYTAC Consistent with ShelfRAG and AFMA

Discount factor No No NoEquivalent protection provided by

the Batemans Bay Marine Park (state MPA)


Meta rule na2014/15 RBC 791t 615t 615 t Consistent with ShelfRAG and AFMA2015/16 RBC 791t 615t 615 t as above2016/17 RBC 791t 615t 615 t as above



Allowance (RCA) 0 0 0

2.35 Silver Warehou

The MAC noted that Mr Scott had declared a substantial interest in Silver Warehou SFRs and Mr Dugins had declared an interest as part of his company’s mixed holding.

The SlopeRAG Chair reported that the 2012 assessment had been used to set MYTACs but noted that the CPUE break-out rule has been triggered in 2012 and was again triggered in 2013. Mr Penney observed that in renewing the MYTAC after the 2012 assessment there was an expectation that the CPUE break out rule would be triggered and noted that this suggested that there was a retrospective pattern in the assessment.

The MAC noted that triggering of a break-out rule did not automatically mandate a fresh assessment and noted that SlopeRAG (and AFMA) were recommending that Silver Warehou remain on its MYTAC.

The MAC noted that SlopeRAG was comfortable with the other indicators and recognised industry advice that the TAC is likely to be under caught. The auto-longline member explained that Silver Warehou was a low value species for which there is not a strong domestic market. The member added that formerly there had been a market in Japan for frozen at sea product but interest had since diminished. The member considered that Pollock from the northern Pacific Ocean was now a more attractive alternative.

The SlopeRAG Chair indicated that addressing the problem in the assessment would require significant investigation and until this work was done it would be pointless to rerun the current model.

The MAC supported SlopeRAG’s and AFMA Management’s recommendation to maintain Silver Warehou MYTAC with the expectation that additional work on the assessment model would be undertaken prior to the next scheduled assessment.


Silver Warehou (Tier 1) SlopeRAG AFMA SEMAC NotesSingle season TAC No

MYTAC ContinueMYTAC

ContinueMYTAC

ContinueMYTAC Consistent with SlopeRAG and AFMA

Deduction of state catch and discards - - - Discards were deducted from the

initial RBC – 2544 tMeta rule No

2014/15 - 2329 t 2329 t Continue 2nd year of a 3 year MYTAC Consistent with SlopeRAG and AFMA

2015/16 - 2329 t 2329 t Consistent with SlopeRAG and AFMABreak out rules Yes Yes Yes as above



2.36 Non-quota species in the East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector

The MAC noted that Mr Scott had declared a substantial interest in the two species.

Dr Finn (AFMA Trawl Manager) explained that Boarfish and Orange Roughy were managed by non-quota TACs in the East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector (ECDWT) which also acted as trigger limits within the fishery. The MAC also noted that the proposed 50 t limit for Orange Roughy stocks in the ECDWT was considered a bycatch limit and as such was consistent with the ORCP.

South East MAC supported the recommended Non-quota TACs (administered by way of permit conditions) for the 2014/15 fishing season

ECDWTS Non-quota TAC Recommendation

Overcatch %

Undercatch %

Research catch

Boarfish 200 t (whole weight) 0 0 0 Agreed by MACOrange Roughy 50 t (whole weight) 0 0 0 Agreed by MAC

2.37 Review of the Species Summary templates

The MAC agreed to review the new format for the Species Summaries introduced for the 2013 assessment cycle. Members were positive about the standardised approach and reported that they had found it quicker to review information on particular species than the previous Species Summaries where more information was provide as narrative.

The following suggestions were noted:

Comments AFMA response (if any)

Members noted a degree of convergence/overlap with information in AFMA’s TAC Position Paper. A suggestion was made that AFMA’s paper could be streamlined by limiting comments to those species where AFMA’s proposal differed from that of the relevant RAG.

The AFMA member agreed that some of the information in AFMA’s paper duplicated information in the Species Summary but explained that this was because the AFMA paper had a broader audience. The member advised that AFMA’s TAC Position Paper was also aimed at an industry audience and hard copies were mailed out to all SESSF concession holders. The MAC recognised that most concession holders were not in a position to access draft RAG documents before the MAC’s TAC meeting.The Committee was comfortable with this explanation and agreed that a level of overlap was necessary in the interest of full consultation.


Comments (continued) AFMA response (if any)

Several members commented that they had found it difficult to follow the steps in converting some of the RBCs to TACs.The MAC noted that the potential application of a discount factor, deductions for discards and state catch and then the application (or not) of the small or large change limiting meta –rules determined the translation of an RBC to a recommended TAC.The Committee noting that both the Species Summaries and the AFMA position paper were public documents agreed that readers should be able to follow the numbers from an RBC through to a TAC.The MAC asked AFMA and the RAGs to ensure that the documents were compatible in this regard and that the standardised format includes specific references to the amounts/percentages involved in converting an RBC to a TAC.

The AFMA member noted that some deductions were primarily the province of the RAGs (discount factors, state catch, fleet-wide discard estimates) whereas the meta rules were technically management adjustments. The member noted that meta rules had been simplified in recent years and only the small and large meta rules applied now.

The AFMA member noted that AFMA Management maintained a spreadsheet which covered all the relevant calculations but accepted that MAC members appreciated having the process documented within the Species Summaries and AFMA Position Paper. The AFMA member observed that there may be some confidentiality issues with state data for some species.

Gross Value of Production (GVP) data and percentage of total fishery GVP

The MAC noted that it needed to be clear what the GVP percentage was referring to:i.e. Gummy Shark GVP to GHaT GVP; or Gummy Shark GVP to SESSF GVP.

Standardise common names across AFMA papers and Species Summaries i.e. Tiger Flathead versus FlatheadSmooth Oreo versus Oreo (Smooth)Gemfish (west) versus Western Gemfish

Better alignment of the SEMAC agenda, AFMA’s TAC paper with the Species Summaries.

Strategic matters for SESSF RAGThe Committee did not set aside a specific session after Agenda Item 2 (SESSF TACs) to list those issues which had arisen which it considered needed to be referred to SESSF RAG. The Committee did however flag these when they arose and noted in some cases that an issue wasn’t confined to a particular species.

These issues were reported in the SEMAC 14 Chairs Summary and a copy of the recommended actions is included in the Minutes to ensure these matters are given appropriate emphasis.

Excerpt SEMAC 14 Chairs Summary

The MAC noted that SESSF RAG Chair’s Meeting (4-5 March 2014) would conduct a general review of the 2013 assessment and TAC recommendation process including the new format for the Species Summaries.

The Committee agreed to seek SESSF RAG’s advice on how MYTACs should be accommodated in the SESSF Harvest Strategy. The MAC noted the general intent of MYTACs was to reduce assessment and management costs and provide stability to industry. Members noted however that MYTACs with complex breakout rules could potentially diminish these benefits by replacing assessment workload with a range of annual analyses needed to inform breakout rules. The Committee noted strong industry concern that it was difficult to compare the relative costs of different assessment scheduling approaches due to the current structure of the SESSF stock assessment contract.

The Committee also noted that the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework had been tested under Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) but that MYTACs have not been similarly tested. The MAC noted further examination of their compatibility with the Harvest Strategy Policy may be helpful and may also inform the selection of break out rules. The Committee noted the following suggestions:


Experience with the updated Pink Ling model illustrated that where there is confidence in the model (and particularly projections) the adoption of break-out rules based on catch or catch rates may not improve sustainability outcomes and therefore not constitute cost effective management.

That break-out rules based on CPUE can be problematic (availability, market factors) and can also create as much work as Tier 4 assessments themselves.

If break-out rules are required they should be necessary and implementable and give rise to serious consideration to change in a management action.

That the application of the small and large change limiting meta-rules should be reviewed in relation to MYTACs.

The MAC, recognising the uptake of MYTACs was a work in progress, agreed to refer the integration of MYTACs into the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework to SESSF RAG with particular reference to the role of break-out rules. The MAC also asked SESSF RAG to review how other factors (i.e. change limiting meta-rules) which were currently administered on an annual basis should apply to MYTACs.

RecommendationThat, subject to AFMA Commission support, SESSF RAG review the transition to MYTACs for the majority of SESSF quota species and examine the scope for break-out rules to support compliance with the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy and AFMA’s legislative objectives notably, ecologically sustainable development, net economic returns and cost effective management.

3 Management Items3.1 Manager’s updateThe MAC covered this item after Item 3.2.

The AFMA member briefed the MAC on catch against triggers in the SESSF. The MAC noted that catches of the Boarfish and Orange Roughy in the ECDWT Fishery were well below the triggers. The MAC devoted most time to the following matters:

Gummy Shark Trigger limit for the Scalefish auto-longline sector (10 t).

The AFMA member advised that based on latest reports the auto-longline sector catch of Gummy Shark had exceeded the 10 t trigger by 2.6 t. The conservation member, noting there was three months of the season to go, asked if there had been any indication of targeting. The AFMA member indicated that AFMA hadn’t analysed the data. The auto-longline member advised that this sector of industry did not target Gummy Shark and the catch was both seasonal and incidental to target fishing.

The AFMA member recalled that the trigger was breached last season and that SEMAC recommended against moving auto-longline vessels onto 100 kg trip limits. The Committee noted that catches (by the auto-longline sector) tended to occur mainly in later winter and early spring and as such that AFMA Management didn’t expect current levels to increase significantly.

The Committee noted that auto-longline catch of School Shark was currently 4 t against the 5 t trigger for that species. The shark member indicated that he had heard reports of large amount of School Shark being landed into Tasmania. The auto-longline member indicated that he would like to see these concerns acted upon by Tasmanian Police in this instance because ‘wharf talk’ was unhelpful in the context of sustainably managed fisheries.

The MAC acknowledged lengthy discussion around both trigger limits under Agenda Item 3.2 discussed earlier on Day 2. The SESSF RAG Chair observed that not responding to trigger limits called their validity into question. The auto-longline member acknowledged this concern but reiterated his


earlier view that the current trigger was inappropriate biologically and from the point of view of cost effective management. The member identified targeting as the real concern and supported a trigger in this context but insisted it should be a scientifically based number. The member considered that SharkRAG had already delivered such an estimate based on the Gummy Shark assessment scientist’s analysis and it was around 193 t for hook caught shark.

The shark member noted arguments existed to review the trigger but considered that, until it was changed, the trigger should be observed and management action taken i.e. trip limits. The AFMA member suggested that thinking about the management action you are trying to achieve with the trigger limit would assist decision making. The member noted that in his view, preventing targeting was the primary objective but noted that the risk in going to trip limits was the potential for discarding.

The trawl member indicated his view was that this trigger had no place in an output managed fishery given that auto-longline vessels were excluded from waters deeper than 100 fathoms (183 m) and because the Gummy Shark stock was assessed as being above its target and on all indications the current TAC was likely to be under caught by 500 t.

The shark member expressed concern that there had been consistent pressure to increase the limit since the introduction of shark trip limits for the auto-longline sector. The auto-longline member recommended that the data from the auto-longline sector be reviewed to confirm catches were sporadic and that trip limits were unsuitable because sharks tended to be caught in batches in auto-longline operations and then you wouldn’t see them for some time.

The MAC noted advice from SharkRAG in relation to the rationale for limiting Gummy Shark catch in the scalefish auto-longline sector (deeper than 183m) and noted that the RAG supported maintaining the 10 tonne trigger on the basis that hook operations outside 183 m could take a higher proportion of larger sharks and this could negatively impact future TACs. The auto-longline member considered that the advice provided by SharkRAG was inconsistent when compared to the level of take recommended by SharkRAG to be taken by auto-line inside 183m.

The Committee wasn’t able to resolve the concerns raised in relation to the 10 tonne trigger and an observation was made that these sorts of issues appeared to be driven by sectoral viewpoints rather than being dealt with holistically in the context of an established output controlled fishery . The MAC noted views that 10 t would have no adverse impact on future TACs particularly given that SharkRAG was content for auto-longlining to be conducted in areas of the shark fishery closed to mesh nets.

The following points were noted:

1. Has SharkRAG evaluated observer data on Gummy Shark size composition from auto-longline operations to test the notion that catches are biased towards larger sharks?

2. Noting that recent trawl bycatch of Gummy Shark is considerably higher than that taken in the scalefish auto-longline sector, has SharkRAG reviewed the size composition of the trawl bycatch to investigate if this could be a concern?

3. Investigating the size structure of the bycatch of Gummy Sharks taken by the trawl fleet and by the auto-longline sector is a waste of resources in the context of a recommendation to set the Gummy Shark TAC under the RBC produced by the 2013 Tier 1 assessment update which indicated the stock was above target. The MAC also noted that current trends suggest Gummy Shark is likely to be significantly under caught.

4. The pressure to keep increasing this limit overlooks the reason it is there which is to prevent targeting of Gummy Sharks by the scalefish line sector as there are concerns that this would lead to increased catch of School Shark. The flipside of this arrangement is the exclusion of gillnet operations from waters deeper than 183 m which they formerly had access to.


The MAC asked AFMA Management to review observer data and to make sure that the ongoing data collection for sharks taken by the auto- longline sector was sufficiently detailed to support a detailed examination of the concerns relating to the size structure of the shark bycatch.

Action 12 - SharkRAGSharkRAG to examine observer length frequency data on Gummy Shark for the auto-longline sector.

Action 13 - AFMA Management/Observer ProgramAFMA Management to review data collection protocols for observers on auto-longline boats to maximise chances of collecting representative size data on Gummy and School Shark bycatch.

6000 m Gillnet Trial

The AFMA member advised that observer coverage of 6,000 m net shots had now reached 23% of the target and that the slow progress was mostly a function of the small number of vessels using the full 6,000 m. The shark industry member noted that only 2 or 3 vessels were using the full 6,000 m however many were using more than 4,200m.

The shark member advised that he was using 6,000 m because, as an industry representative, he wished to understand firsthand the benefits and disadvantages of using longer nets. The member indicated that thus far he was undecided but was concerned about the increase in greening (fish spoiling) as the water warmed up. The member suggested that the use of 6,000 m nets might be advantageous in winter but perhaps not in summer because it would lead to higher discarding. The member’s main concern however was the potential for problems for new entrants/skippers which could still occur with 4,200m nets but would be considerably worse with 6,000 m nets. The member remarked that the transition to a sector from mostly owner operators to a fishery where quota owners tended to employ skippers had reduced the capacity for mentoring of new entrants.

The AFMA member indicated that the issue of greening or damage was ultimately a matter for operators to manage.

The MAC noted that AFMA was seeking advice on whether an interim analysis could be supported looking at classes of longer nets to try and utilise the observer data collected from operations using nets between 4,200m and 6,000m.

Electronic Monitoring

The AFMA member advised that AFMA was working with the provider but also was looking at different funding models.

The trawl member indicated that e-monitoring equipment on the trawl vessel trialling shortened codends had exhibited a failure rate of 99% to date. The AFMA member took this concern on notice.

The conservation member asked if AFMA could provide information on the utility of cameras on the gillnet boats to provide some assurance that the technology was capable. The AFMA member advised that AFMA had nearly completed a review of footage from gillnet boats between 2011 and the end of 2013 which would be released soon. Mr Power (AFMA) indicated that the trawl vessel experience appeared to be an exception and referred the Committee to published reports on three recent trials which had demonstrated that cameras were reliable and highly effective in certain fisheries.

Daily Egg Production Method Survey – Jack Mackerel

The AFMA member reported that an FRDC funded Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM) survey had just been completed for Jack Mackerel off the east coast with the secondary target being Australian Sardine. The MAC noted that the project was been run by the South Australian Research and


http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/data-collection/electronic-monitoring-of-commonwealth-fisheries/

http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/data-collection/electronic-monitoring-of-commonwealth-fisheries/

Development Institute (SARDI) in conjunction with the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies (IMAS). The AFMA member noted that the associated analyses wouldn’t be completed in time to inform the 2014/15 TACs in the Small Pelagic Fishery but would be an important input for the 2015/16 fishing season.

3.2 Hook fishing arrangements for targeting Gummy Shark in South Australia

Mr Power (AFMA) indicated that AFMA was proposing to extend the temporary hook permits for an additional two years in South Australia to assess the sustainability of using longline and automatic baiting equipment for targeting Gummy Sharks in waters shallower than 183 m. The MAC was advised that an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) on the effects of longlining for Gummy Shark will be conducted over the next two years. Mr Power noted that the trial thus far experienced problems with seabird (shearwater) interactions and concerns had been raised in relation to bycatch of skates and rays.

AFMA advised that the temporary hook permits will include strict conditions to minimise bycatch issues associated with the use of auto-longline gear and will include a formal review against performance criteria (specified below). Conditions will include:

Limiting the number of hooks set to 5,000 per day Handling procedures that require all sharks and fish that are not retained to be manually

removed before they pass through the de-hooker Measures to minimise seabird interactions

zero discharge of offal whilst setting deploying a Tori line according to AFMA specifications whilst setting deploying a birds scaring device (Brickle curtain) whilst hauling gear achieving a sink rate of at least 0.3 metres per second whilst setting gear AFMA will continue to monitor seabird bycatch in real time for all boats and if seabird

bycatch exceeds 0.01 birds per 1,000 hooks, that boat will be required to set at night for the remainder of the TAP season

individual operators will be subject to a review by AFMA and the Department if their seabird interactions rate exceeds 0.01 seabird per 1,000 hooks and additional mitigation may be specified.

The MAC supported these conditions noting that they were comfortable that they are precautionary and included strong measures to minimise seabird bycatch. The MAC made additional suggestions including:

Consult with industry in relation to how sink rates will be verified noting experience in CCAMLR fisheries have shown that this can be tested using Time Depth Recorders (TDRs) and less expensive bottle tests.

Consider the development of tagging program for sharks, skates and rays that are released. Consider making it a condition to minimise deck lighting when setting at night (though not to a

point of compromising crew safety). Consider using move on provisions if interactions are high in specific areas. Any review of seabird bycatch should take into account species risk.

The MAC noted and supported the proposed performance measures to be included in the monitoring plan. These include:


Ensure that Gummy Shark catch is sustainable and that hook caught Gummy Shark catch levels do not significantly exceed the Recommended Biological Catch (RBC) results from the current stock assessment:

SharkRAG will monitor length frequency data and identify if the length of Gummy Shark caught with hook methods is different to that accounted for in the model. It was noted that if a larger proportion of large sharks were caught with hook methods than is estimated in the current stock assessment model it could impact the RBC calculations. The current assessment noted annual catches exceeding 400 tonnes in South Australia could result in the RBC being reduced.

Ensure that School Shark can continue to rebuild:

SharkRAG will monitor catch and size frequency of School Shark and ensure it is consistent with the rebuilding strategy.

Seabird bycatch minimised to levels acceptable under the Seabird Threat Abatement Plan:

Meeting seabird TAP interaction requirements and ensuring bycatch catch levels do not exceed rates that threaten the sustainability of the individual species.

Other bycatch is assessed and does not threaten sustainability of those species:

Noting that SharkRAG has recommended that AFMA conduct an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) for hook fishing in gillnet areas over the next two years as data becomes available.

SharkRAG will review the results of the ERA for hook methods in gillnet fishing area to assess impacts on bycatch and state managed species.

Mr Power advised that AFMA would delay provisions which would allow automatic baiting equipment to be used under the temporary hook permits to allow for further consultation with SEMAC and the public release of the finalised FRDC auto-longline trial report. It is expected automatic baiting provisions will be included in temporary permits before March 2014. The MAC noted that the temporary hook permits authorising the use of manual longline gear have been renewed.

4 Compliance

4.1 Compliance activity report

The MAC appreciated a compliance update provided by AFMA officers Phil Ravanello, Manager National Intelligence Unit on compliance strategies for the SESSF, SPF and SSJF. Mr Ravanello noted that the operations unit employed a risk based approach which was reviewed using biennial risk assessments.

Mr Ravanello advised that the two main areas of work currently were compliance with Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) requirements and quota evasion and that compliance risk management teams had been assigned to both these work areas.

The Committee noted that quota evasion was a difficult problem to measure and that AFMA worked with state agencies and police to detect and investigate possible cases. Mr Ravanello noted that AFMA also looked at situations where licensed fish receivers might also be involved in fraud associated with quota evasion.

The Committee noted that AFMA officers also undertook a lot of desk based analysis to detect possible cases of quota evasion.

Mr Ravanello indicated that the unit had estimated quota evasion to be around 6 % based on recent work and analyses. The trawl member expressed surprise at this amount and could only recall one


significant prosecution in the SESSF in recent years. Mr Ravanello explained that compliance officers had monitored large number of unloads over a period of time and compared this to catch declared on Catch Disposal Records (CDRs) and in some ports found good alignment but in others found underreporting. Mr Ravanello cautioned that the 6% estimate was preliminary (small subset extrapolated out) and advised that AFMA intended to continue investigations in this area. The trawl member supported this work but added he didn’t think quota evasion was occurring at that level across the fishery.

Members clarified that the differences detected by the investigations team did not refer to the expected discrepancy between logbook estimates (eyeball estimates from the deck) and CDRs but to the difference in boxes unloaded and the landings subsequently declared in CDRs.

The scientific member expressed an interest in obtaining information that could assist the RAGs to correct for any under reporting of landed catch given this information was potentially important for stock assessments. The member also noted that analyses of observed versus unobserved trips would be of interest to the various RAGs from an assessment point of view because this could provide additional insight with respect to the estimation of discards.

Mr Ravanello advised that AFMA had maintained an average compliance rate of 98 % with respect to VMS. Mr Jeremy Thule (National Intelligence Unit) then provided more information on VMS. Mr Thule explained that AFMA was examining web based fleet information systems. The Committee noted that these systems allowed a user to superimpose VMS data (including closure boundaries), cloud cover data, peak wave periods over marine maps, Google maps etc. Mr Thule noted officers could access this information in the field using a number of browsers.

The MAC noted that partitioned data access could be made available to industry which might include an operator’s historical data, ship movements and sea surface temperature.

The auto-longline member emphasised the importance of being able to get data on fishery closure boundaries onto vessels’ plotters. The AFMA member indicated that there had been allowance made in the budget to look at this issue. The Chair observed that there were a number of similar platforms being used and one example was the work being done by the North East Shipping Management Group and Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) in relation to shipping through the Great Barrier Reef.

The Chair thanked Mr Ravanello and Mr Thule for their presentations.

5 Environment5.1 Ecological Risk Management update

Mr Daniel Corrie (AFMA) briefed the MAC on the current status of the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) and the associated Ecological Risk Management (ERM) responses.

Mr Corrie explained that AFMA had received advice from the SharkRAG on the Gillnet ERA and Shelf and SlopeRAG on the trawl and auto-longline ERAs and intended to present this information to SESSF RAG in March 2014.

Mr Corrie briefly described the hierarchal approach used in ERAs and further refinement through the Level 3 Sustainability Assessment for Fishing Effects (SAFE) which only covered chondrichthyans and teleosts. Mr Corrie then covered the conduct of the residual risk reassessments which help refine the estimates of risk obtained from the ERAs and SAFE assessments by examining specific management measures which could be demonstrated to reduce the actual risk to certain species.

The MAC noted that the CSIRO SAFE assessment did not include marine mammals, seabirds, marine reptiles and invertebrates and accordingly there was no refinement to the risk profiles determined through the ERA process. Mr Corrie advised that AFMA had subsequently applied residual risk


guidelines to the Level 2 Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) results from the ERAs for the non-fish bycatch for the SESSF.

The scientific member indicated it would be helpful to know what risk ratings had changed since the last review i.e. which species had dropped out of high risk categories and what the new additions were. Mr Corrie noted that the biological references points for sharks had changed since the last time the ERAs were conducted and this had changed the risk categories for some species. The scientific member reiterated that highlighting changes would assist the RAGs review the documents and added that it was also important that changes like reference points be brought to the RAG’s attention.

Dr Finn (AFMA) noted that the approaches was precautionary and were likely to throw up false positives because when biological, susceptibility and survivorship information was unknown or uncertain the assessments assigned higher risk ratings.

The MAC noted that AFMA was currently seeking advice from the RAGs on the draft reports after application of residual risk guidelines to Level 2 and Level 3 results for the SESSF gear sectors. Mr Corrie indicated that AFMA would refine the drafts based on RAG feedback before seeking advice from SESSF RAG in March 2014 and then SEMAC.

Mr Corrie noted that there was also a revitalisation of ERA approaches underway and noted that a decision had been made to exclude those species managed under the Harvest Strategy Policy from the ERA/ERM framework.

6 Finance6.1 Update on the SESSF Levy Allocation Model

The AFMA member advised the following changes in levies: 22% decrease in Gillnet, Hook and Trap Fishery (GHaT) 30% decrease in the South East Trawl (SET) 4% decrease in the Southern Squid Jig Fishery (SSJF) 207% increase in the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF)

The AFMA member explained that the significant increase in the SPF levy was largely a result of the prior year underspend.

The AFMA member advised that expenditure of the sectors to the end of December 2013: GhaT was underspent SET was on target SSJF well underspent SPF underspent

The AFMA member indicated that AFMA was currently preparing its draft 2014/15 budgets and intended to seek advice from industry and SEMAC between March and April 2014. The MAC noted that the Federal Budget would be handed done on the 14 th May 2014 and after that AFMA would move to finalise the fishery budgets by July 2014.

The AFMA member explained that the costs of the stock assessment contract would be split across fisheries based on the assessment being done and the Fishery Independent Survey (FIS) would be split according to usable CVs.

The trawl member acknowledged AFMA’s preparedness to work with industry and to support a discussion on the risk/catch cost framework.


7 Other business 7.1 Final draft of the Sustainable Shark Fishing Incorporated Code of Conduct

The MAC welcomed the revised Code of Conduct from the Sustainable Shark Fishing Inc.

The SESSF RAG Chair suggested that the Code could be improved by separating out the action points some of which were interspersed amongst background information. The state invited participant supported the suggestions of the SESSF RAG Chair. The SESSF RAG Chair emphasised that his comments should not be interpreted as criticism but were supportive.

The shark industry member tabled a deck sheet for avoiding interactions with dolphins. The MAC noted that the laminated sheet was intended for quick reference in the wheelhouse and on the deck. The MAC considered that deck sheets for specific issues like dolphin mitigation and mitigation of Australian Sea-lions were a valuable supplement to the Code of Conduct.

Action 14 – Executive Officer, SESSF RAG Chair and Shark Industry MemberCirculate a copy of the draft Sustainable Shark Fishing Incorporated Code of Conduct which incorporates suggested amendments tabled at SEMAC 14.

7.2 Offshore Constitutional Settlement update

The AFMA member indicated that AFMA had been discussing trip limits with New South Wales Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI) as well as longer term arrangements with respect to the SESSF.

The trawl industry member noted that SETFIA and the NSW Professional Fishermen’s Association (PFA) were engaged on matters of common interest and were working together to bring fish trawling operations (south of Barrenjoey Head) under Commonwealth quota management which would involve an allocation of rights to Commonwealth species they already catch. The MAC noted around 90% of NSW trawl operators already held some Commonwealth concessions.

The recreational member noted that under the approach being developed that fish trawling north of Barrenjoey Head would remain under state management.

7.3 SESSF Research EOIs

SEMAC 14 accepted three SESSF Research Expressions of Interest (EOIs) tabled at the meeting. Ms Danait Ghebrezgabhier (AFMA) provided the Committee with background on the EOIs and noted that the AFMA Research Committee (ARC) was meeting on 26 February 2014.

The Committee agreed to convene a working group to review the research EOIs and provide advice back to the ARC/ComFRAB Secretariat. The research EOIs tabled were:

1. Continuation of the SESSF Fishery Independent Surveys – Winter 2014

2. Provision of fish ageing and length frequency services for the SESSF

3. Various stock assessments for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) 2015.

The SESSF RAG Chair briefed the MAC on the Working Group’s deliberations on the three research Expressions of Interest. The SESSF RAG Chair noted that the Working Group considered that there was potential for closer synergy between the FIS and ageing work in terms of the collection of otoliths.

A copy of the Working Group’s feedback to the AFMA Research Committee (ARC) Secretariat is provided at Attachment 2.

The MAC asked AFMA Management to respond to the following request about recent fish ageing work from the GAB invited participant but noted that it wasn’t directly related to the current EOI:


Action 15 a & b – AFMA Management and FAS

a. Confirm the number of otoliths collected in the last 5 years which are attributable to the GAB and what is the proportion of the GAB otoliths constitute in comparison to the whole GAB and SESSF ageing collection for that period.

b. Provide a breakdown of the last 5 year’s GAB /SESSF otoliths collected/ prepared /read.

7.4 Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) update and localised depletion

The AFMA member noted that SPF RAG had recently considered the issue of localised depletion and AFMA had since sought comment from other fishery RAGs on a definition for localised depletion. The MAC noted that the period for RAG comments would close at the end of the first week of February 2014. The AFMA member expected that SPF RAG would consider the feedback from the other RAGs at its March 2014 meeting.

The recreational member indicated that a definition for localised depletion would be the first step in deciding how it could be monitored and potentially measured. The member added that if it can be detected then there would be a basis for considering management responses.

The AFMA member observed that the issue was presently confined to the SPF and was linked to potential concerns about trophic impacts. The recreational member suggested that similar concerns might also apply to fisheries for Australian Sardine and Squid.

Information Items

Catchwatch data

The MAC reviewed the 20 December 2013 Catchwatch Report for the SESSF and discussed the level of catch against TACs for a number of significant quota species. Industry members noted that fishing operations for Gummy Shark had been affected by water movements in eastern Bass Strait but observed that catch rates had recently returned to normal.

The MAC supported a suggestion from the ABARES observer that an additional column be added to the Catchwatch reports which listed the percentage of the previous year’s TAC caught for all species.

Action 16 – AFMA ManagementThat AFMA consider adding an extra column to the Catchwatch reports which lists the percentage of the previous fishing season’s TAC which was caught for each SESSF quota species/basket.

8 Date and venue of next meetingThe MAC Chair confirmed that according to the agreed schedule the MAC would hold a teleconference on the 2nd of April 2014 and the next formal meeting on the 22nd and 23rd of May 2014.

The MAC asked AFMA to add SPF RAG’s meeting dates to the SESSF schedule.


http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/fisheries-a-to-z-index/southern-and-eastern-scalefish-and-shark-fishery/publications-and-forms/catchwatch/

Action 17 – AFMA Management / Executive officerThat AFMA include the dates of SPF RAG meetings and teleconferences on the SESSF, SPF and SSJF MAC and RAG Meeting Schedule.

The MAC Chair thanked the RAG Chairs, members, invited participants and observers for their interest and input and wished everyone a safe trip home. The Chair closed the meeting at 5.05 pm on Thursday 31st of January 2013.

Di TarteChair – SEMAC

27 April 2014

Attachments

1 Final agenda South East MAC 14

2 Working Group report on SESSF Research Expressions of Interest


Action Arising

Action items shading indicates an ongoing item Member to action

1AFMA to circulate Fisheries Administration Paper No. 12 (FAP 12) to SEMAC members when it is finalised.

AFMA ManagementExecutive Officer

2Circulate Dr Thomson’s hook selectivity analysis when it is completed and cleared by SharkRAG.

AFMA Management

3 AFMA to circulate the report on seabird mitigation trials on trawl vessels to SEMAC. AFMA Bycatch Section

4That AFMA convene a Working Group to provide guidance and input for the cost benefit analysis

AFMA Management

5That AFMA, after seeking advice from the relevant RAGs before seek final recommendations from SEMAC to remove these nine closure directions (identified at SEMAC 13) from AFMA’s Closure Directions.

AFMA

6Contact Dr Tuck (CSIRO) in regard to the likely completion date for FRDC 2011/032 Incorporating the effects of marine spatial closures in risk assessments and fisheries stock assessments.


7AFMA to request SESSF RAG review the role of break –out rules in the context of broader uptake of MYTACs in the SESSF (subject to Commission decision).

AFMA ManagementSESSF RAG

8That AFMA seek GABRAG’s advice on break-out rules for Western Gemfish subject to AFMA Commission support for the recommended three year MYTAC for CTS and GHaT concessions.

AFMA ManagementGABRAG

9AFMA to pursue further advice on the SESSF stock assessment contract specifications with respect to unit costs of various assessment costs.

AFMA Management

10That AFMA seek SESSF RAG’s advice on the application of the small and large change limiting meta- rules with respect to Multiple Year TACs.

AFMA ManagementSESSF RAG

11 AFMA Management to facilitate SharkRAG access to FIS data for shark species.AFMA Management

Shark RAG

12SharkRAG to examine observer length frequency data on Gummy Shark for the auto-longline sector.

SharkRAG

13AFMA Management to review data collection protocols for observers on auto-longline boats to maximise chances of collecting representative size data on Gummy and School Shark bycatch.

AFMA Management

14Circulate a copy of the Sustainable Shark Fishing Incorporated Code of Conduct which incorporates suggested amendments tabled at SEMAC 14.

Executive OfficerSESSF RAG ChairShark member

15a Confirm the number of otoliths collected in the last 5 years which are attributable to the GAB and what is the proportion of the GAB otoliths constitute in comparison to the whole GAB and SESSF ageing collection for that period

AFMA Management and FAS

15b Provide a breakdown of the last 5 year’s GAB/SESSF otoliths collected/prepared /read.

16That AFMA consider adding an extra column to the Catchwatch reports which lists the percentage of the previous fishing season’s TAC which was caught for each SESSF quota species/basket.

AFMA Management

17That AFMA include the dates of SPF RAG meetings and teleconferences on the SESSF, SPF and SSJF MAC and RAG Meeting Schedule.



Attachment 1

South East Management Advisory Committee(SEMAC) Meeting 14 - TAC SettingAgenda30 and 31 January 2014 - Aquarium Room, AFMA

Corner of Northbourne Avenue and Barry Drive, CanberraDay 1 - Commence at 9:30 am

ITEM SPEAKER

1 Preliminaries

1.1 Welcome and introductions Chairman1.2 Pecuniary interest declarations1.3 Acceptance of agenda1.4 Chairs Summary SEMAC 13 1.5 Acceptance of minutes from South East MAC Meeting No. 131.6 Correspondence1.7 Action arising

2 TAC recommendations for the 2013/14 fishing season for decision

2.1 Alfonsino SlopeRAG Chair

2.2 Blue-eye Trevalla // //

2.3 Blue Grenadier // //

2.4 Blue Warehou ShelfRAG Chair

2.5 Bight Redfish For information – GAB MAC

2.6 Deepwater Flathead For information – GAB MAC

2.7 Deepwater Shark basket (east) SlopeRAG Chair

2.8 Deepwater Shark basket (west) // //

2.9 Elephantfish SharkRAG Chair

2.10 Flathead ShelfRAG Chair

2.11 Gemfish (east) // //

2.12 Gemfish (west) GABRAG Chair2.13 Gummy Shark SharkRAG Chair

The 2013 RAG Stock Assessment Summaries are provided as a separate

document

2.14 Jackass Morwong ShelfRAG Chair

2.15 John Dory // //

2.16 Mirror Dory // //

2.17 Ocean Perch ShelfRAG Chair

2.18 Orange Roughy (general) SlopeRAG Chair

2.19 Orange Roughy (south) SlopeRAG Chair

2.20 Orange Roughy (east) // //

2.21 Orange Roughy (west) // //

2.22 Orange Roughy (Cascade) // //

2.23 Orange Roughy (Albany and Esperance) For information – GAB MAC

2.24 Oreo smooth (Cascade) // //

2.25 Oreo Smooth (other) // //

2.26 Oreo basket // //

2.27 Pink Ling // //

2.28 Redfish ShelfRAG Chair

2.29 Ribaldo SlopeRAG Chair

2.30 Royal Red Prawn ShelfRAG Chair

2.31 Sawshark SharkRAG Chair

2.32 School Shark SharkRAG Chair

2.33 School Whiting ShelfRAG Chair

2.34 Silver Trevally SlopeRAG Chair

2.35 Silver Warehou ShelfRAG Chair

2.36 Non-quota species (East Coast Deepwater Sector) AFMA

2.37 Review of the new Species Summary templates SEMAC

Stakeholder submissions TACs

1 Submission from Queensland Tasmantid Fisherman’s Group – Blue-eye Trevalla2 Submission from the auto-longline industry (Scott/Mure)

3. Management Items

3.1 Manager’s update Presentation3.2 Hook fishing arrangements for targeting Gummy Shark in South Australia for decision

4. Compliance


4.1 Compliance activity report Presentation

5. Environment5.1 Ecological Risk Management update for noting

6. Finance

6.1 Update on the SESSF Levy Allocation Model Presentation

7. Other business7.1 Final draft of the Sustainable Shark Fishing Incorporated Code of Conduct For comment7.2 Offshore Constitutional Settlement update for noting7.3 Research EOIs For comment7.4 Update on the Small Pelagic Fishery and localised depletion

8. Date and venue of next meeting

Information Items - The following items are presented for the information of South East MAC members, time constraints usually limits discussion on these items.

9.1 Catchwatch data


SEMAC 14 Minutes Attachment 2

South East MAC 14 Research Working Group

SESSF Research Expressions of Interest – 30 January 2014

SEMAC 14 accepted three SESSF Research Expressions of Interest (EOIs) at Agenda Item 7.3. The Committee agreed to convene a working group to review the research EOIs and provide advice back to the ARC/ComFRAB Secretariat. The Working Group assembled after close of Day 1 of SEMAC 14 on Thursday the 30th January 2014.

The research EOIs were:

1. Continuation of the SESSF Fishery Independent Surveys - Winter 2014

2. Provision of fish ageing and length frequency services for the SESSF

3. Various stock assessments for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) 2015

Working Group participants

Professor John Buckeridge SESSF RAG ChairMr George Day SEMAC AFMA memberMr Anthony de Fries SEMAC Executive OfficerDr Brendan Kelaher SharkRAG ChairMr Lance Lloyd GABRAG ChairMr Sandy Morison SEMAC Scientific member, ShelfRAG Chair and SlopeRAG ChairMr Simon Boag SEMAC Trawl Industry MemberMr Jeff Moore SEMAC GAB Invited ParticipantMr Les Scott SEMAC Auto-longline industry member

Overview

The Working Group recognised that all three projects were proposals which sought to renew established research programs which formed important parts of the research framework for the SESSF.

Continuation of the SESSF Fishery Independent Surveys - Winter 2014

Declarations of interest

Mr Boag indicated an interest in the following project as Principal Investigator.

Continuation of the SESSF Fishery Independent Surveys - Winter 2014

The Working Group did not consider that Mr Boag had a direct pecuniary interest in the Fishery Independent Survey (FISs) but was acting in his capacity as Executive Officer for the applicant - the South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association (SETFIA). The Group also noted that SETFIA had lost money on a recent survey.

The Working Group noted:

That some Working Group members considered there was a risk that the community might form a perception that there was the potential for bias in a survey managed by industry and where a trawl industry spokesperson was engaged as the Principal Investigator.


Advice that Mr Boag’s role would mostly involve oversight and be primarily concerned with selection of the vessel, accounting and the reconciliation of funds from the sale of any catch taken during the survey. The Group recognised that the survey worked to fixed shots with standardised trawl gear and that independent scientists/observers would be present on the survey vessels.

That some Working Group members considered it would be preferable if an independent fisheries consultant was put forward as the Principal Investigator. Mr Boag noted that one of the co-investigators, Dr Knuckey, had formerly been the Principal Investigator for the FIS. Mr Boag noted that, unlike SETFIA, a consultant could not take the risk of the surveys costs (charter, observers, analyses etc) exceeding the funds coming in (project contract fee and money from the sale of fish) without factoring in an additional amount to ensure they didn’t incur a loss. Mr Boag noted that SETFIA’s preference was that costs be clearly outlined so that industry have a clearer understanding of the real cost of running a FIS as well as the risk of a shortfall associated with the sale of fish.

The Working Group remained concerned that Mr Boag’s role as Principal Investigator may still give the impression that he will take an active role in the actual conduct of the survey vessels’ scientific program which the Working Group understood wouldn’t be the case. The Group was comfortable with Mr Boag being nominated as an administrative contact in this proposal

The Working Group would welcome AFMA’s and the ARC’s view on how SETFIA’s authority to project manage the FIS might be secured but still allow the appointment of an independent scientist as Principal Investigator without exposing that person to liability if the survey was to run at a loss.

Scope

The Working Group identified the establishment of a time series fishery independent abundance indices as very important. Those present were comfortable with the scope of the project and the methodology.

The Group considered that better integration of the biological sampling conducted in the FIS with that undertaken by the Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program (ISMP) was important so that over sampling is avoided and where possible costs can be reduced (or ISMP observers can focus on other tasks). It was noted that there may be some limitations to the use of length frequency data and otolith readings from the FIS in those components of the stock assessment which are based on fishery dependent data.

Two issues related to the financial aspects of the FIS were raised:

That FISs conducted thus far (in the GABTF and in the SESSF) have demonstrated that reliable data on the relative abundance of many bycatch species can be obtained and that this information has a broader benefit than just within the commercial fishery. The Group acknowledged views that the current cost recovery arrangements for FISs did not reflect this broader flow of benefit.

The Working Group noted that the internal flow of benefit in the SESSF FIS needed to be taken into account when the cost of this research was allocated across the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS) and GHaT cost centres.

Provision of fish ageing and length frequency services for the SESSF

The Working Group suggested:

That the objectives section of the EOI be revised as it currently included some methodology. The Working Group agreed to forward a copy of the EOI with the sections the Group considered could be rationalised highlighted.

That greater emphasis be given to the ageing priorities (which was implied in the current EOI).


The Working Group noted that advice on priority ageing species is normally raised in the specific RAGs, then overarching advice is provided by SESSF RAG at its annual Chair’s Meeting and this was then cleared through AFMA. The Executive Officer noted that Mr Krusic-Golub (Principal Investigator) normally attended SESSF RAG meetings. The Working Group nevertheless considered that the mechanism for establishing annual priority species needed to be better articulated in the EOI (or in the ensuing full proposal) and that FAS could indicate which scientific and management consultations they would need to be involved with or respond to so that they would age the right species in a given year.

The Group recognised that industry wanted cost recovery arrangements (between sectors) to reflect more closely the level of research work that was commissioned and delivered. The Group noted that this wasn’t a matter for the proponents but agreed that if EOIs, full proposals and final reports could, where possible, present summaries of recent data collection targets (~ last 5 years) that this would help AFMA allocate potential costs across fishery cost centres. The Group noted that costs for both the ageing and stock assessment contracts were allocated across the CTS, the GHaT and GAB sectors.

Various stock assessments for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) 2015

The Working Group was comfortable with the technical aspects of the EOI.

The Group noted strong concerns from industry participants that it was difficult for industry and other stakeholders to reconcile assessment costs when consideration was been given to recommending species for MYTACs. The Group noted that industry was keen to know the unit costs of the particular assessments so they could compare the cost of putting, for example, Tier 4 species on MYTACs which may still require annual analyses to address breakout rules against leaving those Tier 4 species on annual TACs and continuing to run annual CPUE standardisations.

The Working Group agreed that greater prescription in the stock assessment EOI and subsequent proposal would allow industry and SEMAC to better understand the risk, cost catch framework for SESSF quota species.


Draft Minutes South East MAC 5 - Australian Fisheries ... · Web viewThe MAC noted that a quick...

Documents

Transcript of Draft Minutes South East MAC 5 - Australian Fisheries ... · Web viewThe MAC noted that a quick...