Application to the Department of the Enviornment on the Marine Aquarium … · WA Marine Aquarium...

PROPOSED HARVEST STRATEGY FOR THE

TAKE OF CITES LISTED SPECIES

(HARD CORAL, GIANT CLAMS AND SEAHORSES)

BY THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN

MARINE AQUARIUM FISH MANAGED FISHERY

November 2013

Contents

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 History of the MAFMF .......................................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Harvest Strategy for the take of CITES listed species – 2013 .............................................................. 2

2.3 History of catch limits for CITES listed species in the MAFMF ............................................................ 3

2.3.1 Hard Coral .................................................................................................................................... 3

2.3.2 Giant Clams .................................................................................................................................. 4

2.3.3 Seahorses ..................................................................................................................................... 4

3.0 Proposed Harvest Strategy for Hard Coral, Giant Clams and Seahorses ................................................. 5

3.1 Harvest Strategy Framework ............................................................................................................... 9

3.1.1 Design ........................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1.2 Evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 10

3.1.3 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 10

3.1.4 Review ........................................................................................................................................ 10

3.2 Reference Points ................................................................................................................................. 10

3.2.1 Appropriateness of Reference Points ....................................................................................... 10

3.2.2 Level of Limit Reference Point ................................................................................................... 11

3.2.3 Level of Threshold Reference Point .......................................................................................... 11

3.2.4 Level of Target Reference Point ................................................................................................ 11

3.2.5 Low Trophic Level Species Target Reference Point .................................................................. 12

3.3 Harvest Control Rules ......................................................................................................................... 12

3.3.1 Design and Application .............................................................................................................. 12

3.3.2 Accounting for Uncertainties..................................................................................................... 12

3.3.3 Evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 13

3.4 Information and Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 13

3.4.1 Range of Information ................................................................................................................. 13

3.4.2 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 13

3.4.3 Hard Corals ................................................................................................................................. 14

3.4.4 Giant Clams ................................................................................................................................ 17

3.4.5 Seahorses ................................................................................................................................... 17

3.4.6 Commercial Effort ...................................................................................................................... 18

3.4.7 Recreational Catch and Effort ................................................................................................... 18

APPENDIX 1 – Harvest Strategy 2013 .................................................................................................................. 30

APPENDIX 2 – WTO Declaration 2013 ................................................................................................................. 34

APPENDIX 3 – NDF Factsheet ............................................................................................................................... 36

Proposed Harvest Strategy for the take of CITES Listed Species by the WA MAFMF (November 2014)

1

1.0 Introduction

The most recent policy development relevant to the assessment of the fisheries management systems used in Western Australia is the drafting of a formal Harvest Strategy Policy ‘Harvest Strategy Policy for the Aquatic Resources of Western Australia – (July 2013)’1. The Harvest Strategy Policy is being designed to provide high-level guidance on what elements and standards must be considered and included when developing a harvest strategy for each of the fisheries managed under WA’s jurisdiction.

During 2013, prior to the introduction of the overarching Harvest Strategy Policy, the take of species listed under Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (i.e. hard corals, giant clams and seahorses) by the WA Marine Aquarium Fish Managed Fishery (MAFMF) was guided by an “informal” harvest strategy (Appendix 1). The 2013 harvest strategy was developed by the WA Department of Fisheries (the Department), in consultation with the CITES Scientific Authority for Marine Species, to support making Non-Detriment Findings (NDFs) for CITES listed species. With positive NDFs for CITES listed species, the Department of the Environment (DOTE) was able to declared the MAFMF an approved Wildlife Trade Operation (WTO) for 2013 under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) (Appendix 2).

Condition 4 of the 2013 WTO declaration requires “…the Western Australian Department of Fisheries to review the management arrangements of all species listed on Appendix II of CITES, which are permitted to be retained in the Western Australian Marine Aquarium Fish Managed Fishery. The review should include, but not be limited to, the need for spatial effort indicators and a review of the process for setting performance measures and trigger reference points for each species with reference to CITES requirements”.

The ‘Proposed Harvest Strategy for the take of CITES Listed Species (Hard Coral, Giant Clams and Seahorses) by the Western Australian Marine Aquarium Fish Managed Fishery’, which addresses Condition 4 of the 2013 WTO, has been developed in accordance with WAs overarching Harvest Strategy Policy to manage the take of CITES listed species from 2014 onwards.

2.0 Background

2.1 History of the MAFMF

The MAFMF operates in Western Australia’s state waters spanning the coastline from the Northern Territory border in the north to the South Australian border in the south. The fishery targets over 380 species (or species groups) and supplies both the domestic and international marine aquarium markets.

The fishery dates back to the early 1960’s when operators fished under permits or conditions on Professional Fishing Licences. In 1986, the number of commercial licences endorsed to operate in the fishery was limited to 20, however, this number increased to 25 following a review of the fishery in 1991. During this period the fishery primarily focused on

1 Harvest Strategy Policy for the Aquatic Resources of Western Australia. WA Department of Fisheries – July

2013 (in prep).


2

the take of marine finfish (Class Osteichthyes - all bony fishes, or the Class Chondrichthyes - all cartilaginous fishes) for the domestic aquarium market.

In 1995, the marine finfish component of the fishery was raised to “managed fishery” status. The MAFMF was formally established with the introduction of the Marine Aquarium Fish Management Plan 1995 (Management Plan) and thirteen Managed Fishery Licences (MFLs) were granted in accordance with access criteria outlined in Fisheries Management Paper 63 ‘Management of the Marine Aquarium Fishery’.

The take of invertebrate species continued to be managed through endorsements on Commercial Fishing Licences (CFLs) until 2005 when a Ministerial Exemption was granted under section 7 of the Fish Resources Management Act 1995 (FRMA) to enable MFL holders in the MAFMF to take invertebrates, seagrass and algae within prescribed limits. Two years later the Prohibition on Fishing (Coral, ‘Live Rock’ and Algae) Order 2007 came into effect. This Order allocated quantities of coral and live rock to MFL holders in the MAFMF based on the quantities previously endorsed on CFLs.

In 2010, the number of licences reduced from 13 to 12 when one MFL was surrendered as a result of the expansion of the Ningaloo Marine Park. There are currently 12 MFLs in the MAFMF, with no capacity to grant additional licences under the current Management Plan. The Department is currently reviewing the existing management arrangements for the MAFMF with a view to consolidating the existing three legislative instruments into one new Management Plan during 2014.

2.2 Harvest Strategy for the take of CITES listed species – 2013

To be able to trade internationally, the MAFMF requires WTO declaration by DOTE (formally known as the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities or DSEWPaC) under the EPBC Act. As the MAFMF harvest CITES listed species, the CITES Scientific Authority (situated within DOTE) must determine that the proposed export will not be detriment to the survival of the species (i.e. Non-Detriment Finding or NDF) before the fishery can be declared an approved WTO.

The MAFMF received its first 3 year WTO in 2005 and was subsequently re-accredited for a further 3 years in 2008. In August 2011, the Department submitted the fisheries third application for WTO declaration. Following an initial assessment, the CITES Scientific Authority advised that it was no longer able to make positive NDFs for CITES listed species at historic harvest levels due to the recent adoption of more rigorous assessment requirements to meet international CITES obligations. Without positive NDFs for CITES listed species, DOTE was not able to approve the MAFMF as a declared WTO and the fishery subsequently lost its export approval (for both CITES and non-CITES listed species) in October 2011.

To be able to make positive NDFs for CITES listed species, the CITES Scientific Authority requires additional information as set out in the “Guidance for Domestic Implementation of CITES in Commercial Fisheries – Non-Detriment Findings” (Appendix 3), including fishery independent estimates of abundance and the determination of sustainable harvest levels for all species. In recognition that it may take time for WTO applicants to gain some of the new information requirements, the CITES Scientific Authority determined that CITES


3

obligations could be met in the interim by implementing precautionary management measures.

In 2012, the CITES Scientific Authority made NDFs containing recommended harvest levels for the take of hard corals2, giant clams3 and seahorses4 based on advice from the CSIRO5 to support the grant of a short term (12 month) WTO for the MAFMF. Following consultation between the Department, DOTE and MFL holders, an agreement was reached to manage the take of hard corals and giant clams during 2013 to the recommended harvest levels specified in the NDFs.

However, an agreement to manage the take of seahorses to levels specified by CITES Scientific Authority could not be reached at the time. To enable seahorses to be removed from the WTO assessment process, the Management Plan was amended to prohibit the take of Hippocampus spp. during 2013 (although seahorses continued to be harvested by MFL holders under Exemption for non-export purposes only).

The agreement to manage the take of hard corals and giant clams to the recommended harvest levels resulted in the development of an “informal” harvest strategy for the take of CITES listed species by the MAFMF for 2013. The 2013 harvest strategy was set out in the “Proposal to meet the requirements of the CITES Scientific Authority for Marine Species for Non-Detriment Findings to support a 12 month WTO for the WA Marine Aquarium Fishery - December 2012” (Appendix 1).

With the 2013 harvest strategy managing the take of hard corals and giant clams to the recommended levels contained in the NDFs, DOTE was able to approve a 12-month WTO accreditation for the MAFMF and the fishery was able to resume exporting specimens harvested from 3 January 2013. The 2013 WTO expires on 31 December 2013 (Appendix 2).

2.3 History of catch limits for CITES listed species in the MAFMF

2.3.1 Hard Coral

During the mid-1980’s five commercial fishing licences were issued with endorsements to take up to 10,000kg of hard and soft coral combined per year. During the 1990’s this amount was reduced to 7,500kg due to the non-renewal of a licence.

In 2005, the take of soft corals of the Orders Corallimorpharia and Zoanthidea were excised from the combined limit for hard and soft corals and can now be harvested by all MFL holders within a limit of 60 litres per day. In 2007 a daily harvest limit of 100kg for hard and ‘other’ soft corals was introduced as a precautionary measure to minimise the potential for localised depletion.

2 Assessment of Coral Harvest in Western Australian Marine Aquarium Fish Managed Fishery. DSEWPAC –

January 2012. 3 Assessment for the export of Giant Clams, Tridacna maxima and T. squamosal from the Western Australian

Marine Aquarium Fishery, Australia. DSEWPAC – January 2012. 4 Assessment of Seahorse (Hippocampus spp.) Harvest in Western Australian Marine Aquarium Fish Managed

Fishery. DSEWPAC – January 2012. 5 CSIRO review of the WA Department of Fisheries for the re-assessment of the WA Marine Aquarium Fishery.

CSIRO – December 2011.


4

In September 2007, the take of Catayphyllia jardinei was prohibited as a precautionary measure following anecdotal reports from MFL holders of decreased abundance. The take of C. jardinei resumed in 2009 and a daily harvest limit of 5kg per MFL holder was introduced in the Dampier region.

To support the grant of a WTO export approval for 2013, MFL holders agreed to voluntarily limit the take of hard corals to recommended harvest levels specified by the CITES Scientific Authority to meet NDF requirements. These harvest levels were informed by a harvest strategy recommendation by the CSIRO, whereby the limit for five hard coral species of highest concern was set at 50% of the 2010 levels and the limit for the total combined hard coral harvest was set at the average harvest level over 2009 and 2010. Due to anecdotal concerns about the status of C. jardinei prior to 2007, the CITES Scientific Authority determined that the limit for this species should again be set at zero during 2013 (Table 1).

2.3.2 Giant Clams

In 2005, a combined species harvest limit of 2,600 (200 x 13 MFLs) Tridacna maxima and T. squamosa was introduced in the MAFMF. This limit was a precautionary measure introduced to meet Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) requirements. The combined limit for giant clams reduced to 2,400 in 2010 due to the removal of one MFL.

To support the grant of a WTO export approval for the 2013 calendar year, MFL holders agreed to voluntarily limit the take of giant clams to recommended harvest levels specified by the CITES Scientific Authority to meet NDF requirements. These harvest levels were informed by a harvest strategy recommendation from the CSIRO, whereby the limit for the take of each species was set at the average harvest level over 2005 to 2010 (Table 2).

2.3.3 Seahorses

In 2000, a notional harvest limit of 750 Syngnathids per year was introduced to meet ESD requirements. This limit was a precautionary measure based on historic catches between 1994 and 1999 and did not purport to represent a sustainable harvest level. In 2008, the Synganthid limit was increased to 2,000 per year based on a status report prepared by the Department as part of the WTO assessment process.

To support the grant of WTO export approval for the 2013, the CITES Scientific Authority developed recommended harvest limits for Hippocampus spp. based on advice from the CSIRO. Recommended limits for H. tuberculatus and H. angustus were set at the average harvest level over 1999 to 2010. However, based on advice from CSIRO which suggested an apparent decline in catch rates for H. elongatus, the CITES Scientific Authority formed the view that any take of this species presented an unacceptable risk (Table 3).

The Department did not support the CITES Scientific Authorities’ assessment on the basis that no reliable measure of effort was available to undertake catch rate analysis. To enable the grant of a 12-month WTO for the MAFMF, Hippocampus spp. were formally removed from the management arrangements of the fishery for 2013 and continue to be harvested for non-export purposes under Exemption within the limit of 2,000 for all Sygnanthids.


5

3.0 Proposed Harvest Strategy for Hard Coral, Giant Clams and Seahorses

Table 1 - Summary of 2013 harvest strategy and proposed 2014 harvest strategy for the take of hard corals

Hard Corals (Order Scleractinia)

“Informal” 2013 Harvest Strategy (3 January – 31 December 2013)

Proposed 2014 Harvest Strategy (from 1 January 2014)

Stock assessment “Level 1” - Catch analysis “Level 1” - Catch analysis

Performance Indicators

Hard coral suite; and Indicator species: Duncanopsammia axifuga Euphyllia ancora Euphyllia glabrescens Moseleya latistellata Trachyphyllia geoffroyi Catalaphyllia jardinei

Hard coral suite; and Indicator species: Duncanopsammia axifuga Euphyllia ancora Euphyllia glabrescens Moseleya latistellata Trachyphyllia geoffroyi Catalaphyllia jardinei

Reference period 2009 - 2010 Hard coral suite: 2005 - 2011 Indicator species: Duncanopsammia axifuga: 2008 - 2011 Euphyllia ancora: 2008 - 2011 Euphyllia glabrescens: 2005 - 2011 Moseleya latistellata: 2008 - 2011 Trachyphyllia geoffroyi: 2007 - 2011 Catalaphyllia jardinei : 2005 - 2011

Reference levels

Hard coral suite (except indicator species)

Limit – Average harvest over reference period

Indicator species (except C. jardinei)

Limit – 50% of 2010 C. jardinei

Limit – no take

Hard coral suite and indicator species

Target range – range of observed values over reference period

Threshold – upper and lower boundary of target range

Limit – 30 % of the lower threshold – or + lower and upper threshold values, respectively

Catch ranges Hard coral suite

Limit - 5,200kg (Note: non-indicator species limit set at average harvest level over reference period) Indicator species D. axifuga

Limit – 440kg E. ancora

Limit – 300kg E. glabrescens

Limit – 190kg

Hard coral suite

Target range – 4,054kg to 6,235kg

Threshold (upper) – 6,235kg

Limit (upper) – 7,451kg Indicator species D. axifuga

Target range – 407kg to 877kg

Threshold (upper) – 877kg

Limit (upper) – 1,000kg E. ancora



Limit (upper) – 717kg E. glabrescens



Limit (upper) – 480kg


6

M. latistellata

Limit – 150kg T. geoffroyi

Limit – 320kg C. jardinei

Limit – 0kg

M. latistellata



Limit (upper) – 318kg T. geoffroyi



Limit (upper) – 759kg C. jardinei



Limit (upper) – 383kg

Control rules Catch < Limit – No action. Catch = Limit – Licence holders instructed to cease fishing for relevant species for remainder of season. Catch > Limit – Review and consider need for management response.

Catch within Target Range – No action. (Justification: Based on the minimum and maximum annual catches during the period 2005-2011 when the commercial fishery was considered to be at a sustainable level. This level is considered to correspond to 1.2 BMSY).

Catch > Threshold (upper) – If catches fall outside of the target catch range then a review of the fishery-specific data is undertaken. If fishing level is considered unacceptable, then appropriate management action will be taken. (Justification: These performance measures are considered to correspond to 1 and 1.4 BMSY, respectively).

Catch > Limit (upper) – If either limit is breached, immediate and severe management action will be taken. (Justification: These are considered to correspond to 0.5 BMSY and below which there is considered risk to the reproductive ability of the stock).

Monitoring Compulsory daily log sheets and monthly Catch and Effort Statistical (CAES) log sheets required to be submitted by 15

th day of following

month. Quarterly reporting requirement to DOTE on performance of fishery against Harvest Strategy.

Compulsory daily log sheets and monthly Catch and Effort Statistical (CAES) log sheets required to be submitted by 15

th

day of following month.

Compliance Nomination requirement prior to fishing. At sea and point of landing inspections.

Nomination requirement prior to fishing. At sea and point of landing inspections.


7

Table 2 - Summary of 2013 harvest strategy and proposed 2014 harvest strategy for the take of giant clams

Giant Clams (Tridacna spp.)

“Informal” 2013 Harvest Strategy (3 January – 31 December 2013)


Stock assessment “Level 1” - Catch analysis “Level 1” - Catch analysis


T. maxima T. squamosa

T. maxima T. squamosa

Reference period 2005 - 2010 2005 - 2011

Reference levels

Indicator species


Indicator species




Catch ranges T. maxima

Limit – 485 T. squamosa

Limit – 65

T. maxima

Target range – 538 to 1180

Threshold (upper) – 1180

Limit (upper) – 1341 T. squamosa



Limit (upper) – 123

Control rules

Catch < Limit – No action. Catch = Limit – Licence holders instructed to cease fishing for relevant species for remainder of season. Catch > Limit – Review and consider need for management response.


Catch > Threshold (upper) – If catches fall outside of the target catch range then a review of the fishery-specific data is undertaken. If fishing level is considered unacceptable, then appropriate management action will be taken. (Justification: These performance measures are considered to correspond to 1 and 1.4 BMSY, respectively). Catch > Limit (upper) – If either limit is breached, immediate and severe management action will be taken. (Justification: These are considered to correspond to 0.5 BMSY and below which there is considered risk to the reproductive ability of the stock).


th day of following

month. Quarterly reporting requirement to DOTE on performance of fishery against Harvest Strategy.

Compulsory daily log sheets and monthly Catch and Effort Statistical (CAES) log sheets required to be submitted by 15

th



Nomination requirement prior to fishing. At sea and point of landing inspections.


8

Table 3 - Summary of 2013 harvest strategy and proposed 2014 harvest strategy for the take of seahorses

Seahorses (Hippocampus spp.)

“Informal” 2013 Harvest Strategy (Not implemented)


Stock assessment methodology

“Level 1” - Catch analysis “Level 1” - Catch analysis


H. tuberculatus H. angustus H. elongatus/subelongatus

Indicator species H. angustus H. elongatus

Reference period 1999 - 2010 2005 – 2011

Reference levels

H. tuberculatus and H. angustus


H. elongatus/subelongatus

Limit – no take

Indicator species




Catch ranges H. tuberculatus

Limit (Perth region) – 28

Limit (Exmouth region) – 28

Limit (Dampier region) – 28

H. angustus

Limit (Exmouth region) – 71

Limit (Dampier region) – 25

H. elongatus/subelongatus

Limit – 0

*H. angustus



Limit (upper) – 196 *H. elongatus Target range – 165 to 1141


Limit (upper) – 1190 *Within trigger limit of 2,000 for all Syngnathids

Control rules N/A – Hippocampus spp. was removed from fishery/WTO assessment for 2013, however, the take of Hippocampus spp. continued to be managed within a trigger limit of 2,000 for Syngnathids.


Catch > Threshold (upper) – If catches fall outside of the target catch range then a review of the fishery-specific data is undertaken. If fishing level is considered unacceptable, then appropriate management action will be taken. (Justification: These performance measures are considered to correspond to 1 and 1.4 BMSY, respectively).

Catch > Limit (upper) – If either limit is breached, immediate and severe management action will be taken. (Justification: These are considered to correspond to 0.5 BMSY and below which there is considered risk to the reproductive ability of the stock).


th




9

3.1 Harvest Strategy Framework

3.1.1 Design

The proposed harvest strategy for the take of CITES listed species is responsive to stock

status and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving the

management objectives reflected in the reference points. The proposed harvest strategy is

consistent with a constant catch strategy for which performance measures are explicitly

linked to objectives via the specified control rules.

The proposed harvest strategy adopts species identified by the CITES Scientific Authority for

Marine Species as being of particular concern during the 2012 assessment of fishery as

performance indicators. Similar to the 2013 harvest strategy, the proposed harvest strategy

utilises an assessment of catch (referred to as a “Level 1” assessment in the Harvest Strategy

Policy) to set reference points (i.e. target catch, threshold and limit levels) for the

performance indicators. The harvest strategy is based on harvest strategies currently in

place for other WA fisheries with “Level 1” assessments which use similar performance

indicators where the catches are allowed to vary annually within a target (acceptable) catch

range (Tables 1, 2 and 3).

The proposed target catch ranges are calculated based on catch information from 2005 –

2011, a period when the fishery was considered to have been sustainable (i.e. reference

period), whereas the 2013 harvest strategy utilised catch information from 2009 and 2010

only. The target catch range for each performance indicator is defined as the values within

the minimum and maximum catches observed during the reference period. This approach

permits the take of CITES listed species to be managed against the principle of maintaining

biomass above BMSY.

The take of CITES listed species will be assessed annually by comparing commercial catches

of each performance indicator against the target catch range. If the overall catch of

indicator species falls outside the threshold levels, a review is triggered to investigate the

likely cause (e.g. market forces, other non-biological factors, poor recruitment, over-

exploitation). If the review suggests that performance limits were (or may have been)

exceeded because of a decline in spawning biomass, the management response could

include, following consultation with industry, a reduction in total effort (e.g. spatial or

temporal closures). Proposed reference points and control rules are consistent with those

currently adopted for other fisheries and the general approach outlined in WA’s Harvest

Strategy Policy.

Recreational fishers are prohibited from taking hard corals in Western Australia. Although

recreational fishers are not prohibited from fishing for giant clams or seahorses, the

recreational catch is thought to be a relatively small component of total catch, therefore the

harvest strategy is not prescriptive for this sector.


10

3.1.2 Evaluation

The relative consistency of catch trends in the MAFMF provides evidence that the harvest

strategy will achieve its objectives. There has been no indication of a downward trend in

catch that might be expected if recruitment was being impaired.

The MAFMF supplies a live ornamental aquarium market and changes in catch levels over

time are mostly in response to changes in market trends. Changes in catch levels are also

effected by management changes, for example a decline catches in 2012 is attributed to loss

of market access as a result of fishery losing its WTO export approval. The occasional

fluctuations of catch outside of the target catch range are thus considered to have not been

caused by stock depletions, but attributed to these other factors.

3.1.3 Monitoring

Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working

(Table 4).

Catch of performance indicators are assessed on an annual basis and a change in catch

levels will indicate the response of the fishery to control rules enacted. In this way, scope is

provided for detecting whether control rules are working, at an annual time step.

3.1.4 Review

The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and updated as necessary.

While the 2014 harvest strategy adopts species identified by the CITES Scientific Authority

as being of particular concern during the 2012 assessment of fishery (due to their global

IUCN status and level of take) as performance indicators, indicator species for future harvest

strategies (i.e. from 2015 onwards) will be informed through a formal Environmental Risk

Assessment (ERA) of the MAFMF scheduled for 2014.

Furthermore, as more detailed biological information on CITES listed species becomes

available in future years (i.e. as a result of proposed research projects) it may be possible to

incorporate higher level assessments which consider fishery-dependent effort and/or

fishery-independent surveys of relative abundance, exploitation rate, recruitment, or

standardised fishery dependent relative abundance data (referred to as “Level 2, 3 or 4”

assessments in the Harvest Strategy Policy) into future harvest strategies.

3.2 Reference Points

3.2.1 Appropriateness of Reference Points

Reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated.

The acceptable catch range is appropriate given the historically consistent small size and

economic value of the fishery. This is consistent with the prioritization of the level of


11

research, monitoring, assessment, compliance and management activities across the WA

Department of Fisheries, which are assessed and reviewed to reflect management strategies

and risks set out in the Department’s five year planning document “FishPlan”.

The upper and lower limits of acceptable catch range have been proposed as the catch

threshold points. Limit and target reference points for the catch have been proposed as

levels consistent with other WA fisheries assessed by “Level 1” assessment.

3.2.2 Level of Limit Reference Point

The limit reference points for CITES listed species have been calculated as 30% of the lower

threshold value subtracted from or added to the lower and upper threshold values,

respectively.

The proposed values of the lower and upper catch limit reference points for the

performance indicators are shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3.

3.2.3 Level of Threshold Reference Point

Target catch ranges for performance indicators have been calculated based on information

from 2005 - 2011, a period when the fishery was considered to have been sustainable.

Given the loss of WTO export approval during 2012 caused a downward trend in catches,

this year has not been included in the reference period.

A standardized method of calculating reference points in various fisheries in WA has been

adopted whereby threshold values (and therefore acceptable catch range) is calculated as

the minimum and maximum values of the catch in the fishery during the reference period

(2005 - 2011).

The proposed values of the lower and upper catch threshold reference points for the

performance indicators are shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3.

3.2.4 Level of Target Reference Point

The proposed target reference points for catch are such that the stock is maintained at a

level consistent with or higher than BMSY or some measure or surrogate with similar intent

or outcome, with a high degree of certainty. The target catch reference point is defined as

the average of the upper and lower catch threshold performance measures i.e. the midpoint

of the acceptable catch range.

The proposed values of the catch target reference points for the performance indicators are

shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3.


12

3.2.5 Low Trophic Level Species Target Reference Point

Hard coral, giant clams and seahorses are not considered to be a major prey source upon

which the overall food chain is highly dependent. Therefore there are no reference points

specifically relevant to these lower trophic level species.

3.3 Harvest Control Rules

3.3.1 Design and Application

Generally understood harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest

strategy.

If the catch falls outside the catch thresholds a review will be conducted to determine the

likely cause (e.g. market forces, other non-biological factors, recruitment, over-exploitation).

If there is reasonable evidence to suggest that the breach of the trigger was not due to a

decline in spawning biomass, then no action will be taken.

For instance, although the catch for several indicators was below the target range during

2012, it was noted that this was attributed the loss of access to the export market due to

the fishery not being declared an approved WTO.

Ability to implement actions to reduce effort is provided through the Marine Aquarium Fish

Management Plan 1995, the Prohibition on Commercial Fishing (Coral, ‘Live Rock’ and

Algae) Order 2007 and relevant powers under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994.

The authority to adjust effort is held by the Minister of Fisheries. Current constraints on

effort within the fishery enforced by the Department include: limited entry, spatial closures

and gear restrictions.

3.3.2 Accounting for Uncertainties

The selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main uncertainties.

Control rules (catch-based reference points) are employed to manage the catch of CITES

listed species taken by the MAFMF. The control rules are designed so that there is a

response (further investigation and possible management) if the catch of indicator species

falls outside the target range (based on an historical period when catches of those species

were at sustainable levels).

A major source of uncertainty with this performance measure is that an increase in the

fishery catch levels to above, or a decrease in fishery catch levels to below, historical catch

levels could be attributed to reasons other than a declining stock biomass. The review step

of the control rule (Section 3.1) accounts for uncertainty in the performance measure by

extending the assessment to other available evidence. The review takes into account all

other available information (e.g. effort, changing fleet composition, market forces, other


13

available biological information) in order to evaluate whether the breach of the trigger was

or was not attributed to a decline in stock biomass.

The mandatory reporting of commercial catches means that total catches of CITES listed

species in the MAFMF have a high level of certainty.

3.3.3 Evaluation

There is some evidence that tools used to implement harvest control rules are appropriate

and effective in controlling exploitation in that the current level of breeding stock and

fishing for this stock are assessed as ‘Acceptable’ (Newman et al. SoFAR 2012).

3.4 Information and Monitoring

3.4.1 Range of Information

There are currently two types of information available to support the harvest strategy for

the take of CITES listed species by the MAFMF (Table 4).

Table 4 - Information available to support the harvest strategy for the take of CITES listed

species

Data type

Fishery dependent or independent

Analyses used in stock assessment

Additional analyses and purpose

Areas of data collection

Frequency of data collection

History of data collection

Catch and effort statistics

Dependent Catch trends and spatial analysis

Statutory requirement

60x60nm & 10x10nm blocks

Monthly Since 1977 (10x10nm block since 2005)

Daily logbooks

Dependent Catch and catch rate trends and spatial analysis

Statutory requirement

Latitude and Longitude

Daily Since 2008

3.4.2 Monitoring

All information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency (i.e.

monthly) and there is an understanding of the inherent uncertainties in the data and

robustness of assessment and management to this uncertainty.

The harvest control rule (Section 3.3) requires data on annual catches that have minimal

uncertainty. There is also a good understanding of the uncertainties inherent in the

assessment (Section 3.3.2), and the review step of the control rule explicitly accounts for

this uncertainty (Section 3.1).

Commercial fishers have completed monthly catch and effort statistical (CAES) returns in

the fishery since 1977, however, as monthly returns provide aggregate catch and effort data

(i.e. total days fished and total catch for each month), this information provides no reliable


14

estimate of effort to undertake “Level 2” catch rate assessment at a species (or species

group) level.

Although daily logbook information has been collected since 2008, this data only provides

relevant catch and effort information at species level since 2013. It is anticipated that once

long term time series of daily logbook data is available (i.e. five years) it may be possible to

introduce “Level 2” catch rate analysis of CITES listed species into the harvest strategy.

3.4.3 Hard Corals

The total catch of hard corals by the MAFMF has shown an upward trend until 2010 as a

result of the fishery maturing and the growth in domestic and export markets (Figure 1).

Hard coral have been recorded from 70 CAES blocks (i.e. 10 x 10 nm) between 2008 and

2012, indicating a wide spread of fishing activity, spanning the area from Port Headland,

south to Bremer Bay (Figure 2).

The catch composition of hard coral species (or species groups) has remained relatively

consistent over the period 2008 – 2012 (Table 5). The six hard coral indicator species fall

within the top 14 hard coral species (or species groups) over this period supporting their

appropriateness as being indicators for the health of the suite of hard coral species.

There has been no indication of a downward trend in catches that might be expected if

recruitment was being impaired. A major decline in the total hard coral catch in 2012

(slightly below the lower threshold) is attributed to loss market access as a result of fishery

losing its WTO export approval between October 2011 and January 2013. This trend was

also evident in the catch of four of the six indicator species (D. axifunga, E. ancora, M.

latistellata, and T. geoffroyi) during 2012. During 2013 the total catch of hard corals is being

managed to a limit of 5,200kg (as a result of the 2013 harvest strategy) which is within the

target catch range of 4,054kg to 6,235kg.

D. axifunga has been recorded from 31 CAES blocks ranging from Karratha to Carnarvon

between 2008 and 2012 (Figure 3). Following a peak in 2010 when catches were reported

from 30 CAES blocks, the catch declined in 2011 as a result of changes in popularity of this

species effecting market demand (pers comm MFL holders)(Figure 4). The catch of D.

axifunga during 2012 was within the target catch range and fishing occurred in 16 CAES

blocks. During 2013 the total catch of D. axifunga is being managed to a limit of 440kg (as a

result of the 2013 harvest strategy) which is within the target catch range of 407kg to 877kg.

E. ancora has been recorded from 23 CAES blocks ranging from Karratha to Exmouth Gulf

between 2008 and 2012 (Figure 5). Catches peaked in 2010 and 2011 when catches were

reported from 20 CAES blocks (Figure 6). The catch of E. ancora during 2012 was within the

target catch range and fishing occurred in 15 CAES blocks. During 2013 the total catch of E.

ancora is being managed to a limit of 300kg (as a result of the 2013 harvest strategy) which

is below the target catch range of 370kg to 606kg.


15

E. glabrescens has been recorded from 21 CAES blocks ranging from Port Headland to

Exmouth Gulf between 2008 and 2012 (Figure 7). Catch has increased since 2010 as a result

of changes in popularity of this species effecting market demand (pers comm MFL

holders)(Figure 8). The catch of E. glabrescens during 2012 was above the upper limit with

fishing occurring in 13 CAES blocks. During 2013 the total catch of E. glabrescens is being

managed to a limit of 190kg (as a result of the 2013 harvest strategy) which is within the

target catch range of 150kg to 435kg.

M. latistellata has been recorded from 17 CAES blocks ranging from Karratha to Shark Bay

between 2008 and 2012 (Figure 9). Following a peak in 2010 when catches were reported

from 12 CAES blocks, the catch declined in 2011 as a result of changes in popularity of this

species effecting market demand (pers comm MFL holders)(Figure 10). As a result of this

declining trend, the catch of M. latistellata during 2012 was below the lower limit, with

fishing occurring in 12 CAES blocks. During 2013 the total catch of M. latistellata is being

managed to a limit of 150kg (as a result of the 2013 harvest strategy) which is within the

target catch range of 70kg to 294kg.

T. geoffroyi has been recorded from 20 CAES blocks ranging from Port Headland to Shark

Bay between 2008 and 2012 (Figure 11). Catches peak in 2010 when fishing was reported

from 11 CAES blocks (Figure 12). The catch of T. geoffroyi during 2012 was slightly below the

lower limit, with fishing occurring in 11 CAES blocks. During 2013 the total catch of M.

latistellata is being managed to a limit of 320kg (as a result of the 2013 harvest strategy)

which is below the target catch range of 397kg to 640kg.

C. jardinei has been recorded from 23 CAES blocks ranging from Karratha to Exmouth Gulf

between 2008 and 2012 (Figure 13). The catch of C. jardinei showed a downward trend

between 2007 and 2009 due to a temporary prohibition on the take of this species while

anecdotal reports of localised depletion could be investigated (Figure 14). Catches increased

from 2010 as a result of precautionary management arrangements being introduced for this

species (i.e. 5kg per day limit in the Dampier Region). The catch of C. jardinei during 2012

was within the target catch range and fishing was spread over 14 CAES blocks. During 2013

the total catch of C. jardinei is being managed to a limit of 0kg (as a result of the 2013

harvest strategy). The zero catch limit for 2013 was a precautionary measure by the CITES

Scientific Authority in response to the species IUCN status and the anecdotal reports of

localised depletion during 2006 - 07.


16

Table 5 – Hard coral catch (kg) by species or species group (where species have been aggregated)

from 2008 to 2012

Species or species group 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Ave 2008 - 2012

Duncanopsammia axifuga 439.2 548.0 877.4 407.3 456.4 545.7

Euphyllia ancora 370.5 414.8 605.6 599.7 491.8 496.5

Trachyphyllia geoffroyi 405.3 503.5 640.4 470.9 266.3 457.3

Lobophyllia spp. 271.6 481.8 527.2 475.5 293.2 409.9

Symphyllia spp. 151.5 725.6 572.8 308.5 192.3 390.1

Favia spp. 458.9 540.2 326.4 326.8 140.6 358.6

Euphyllia glabrescens 198.7 149.8 374.1 402.0 504.6 325.8

Echinophyllia spp. 175.3 511.0 340.0 222.4 197.3 289.2

Acropora spp. 367.9 333.3 193.5 285.6 186.2 273.3

Turbinaria spp. 228.9 189.3 276.3 169.0 94.2 191.5

Acanthastrea spp. 216.3 159.3 193.9 197.4 129.5 179.3

Catalaphyllia jardinei 78.3 63.2 154.1 239.0 265.2 160.0

Goniopora spp. 265.0 102.5 68.4 156.1 145.1 147.4

Moseleya latistellata 110.0 188.6 294.1 79.3 11.4 136.7

Scolymia spp. 124.7 151.8 83.5 138.7 69.7 113.7

Plerogyra sinuosa 10.8 22.0 382.0 30.0 111.2

Platygyra daedalea 195.8 118.4 77.5 93.4 21.4 101.3

Fungia spp. (inc. F. repanda) 85.2 139.6 78.5 105.2 57.8 93.3

Euphyllia spp. 31.0 46.2 150.0 75.7

Tubastrea spp. 150.7 90.9 9.4 9.0 62.3 64.5

Goniastrea spp. 104.6 88.8 32.2 55.8 35.1 63.3

Cynarina spp. 10.4 84.1 118.6 34.9 62.0

Blastomussa spp. 47.1 54.3 33.3 94.4 63.4 58.5

Montipora spp. 77.7 118.1 32.7 30.6 18.0 55.4

Pocillopora spp. 51.1 49.4 48.3 58.2 26.7 46.7

Leptastrea purpurea 81.2 9.4 20.8 37.1

Lithophyllon spp. 37.4 32.7 58.1 9.8 34.5

Euphyllia paraancora 29.0 29.0

Favites spp. 5.4 46.0 60.4 8.1 2.0 24.4

Cycloseris cyclolites 32.3 28.6 11.4 24.1

Euphyllia divisa 14.2 34.0 24.1

Balanophyllia spp. 8.2 41.1 6.6 30.6 21.6

Herpolitha spp. 37.0 3.7 17.4 20.4 20.0 19.7

Dendrophyllia spp. 52.9 3.0 0.5 18.8

Galaxea spp. 39.0 14.0 14.4 8.4 10.4 17.2

Scleractinia Undifferentiated 18.6 16.0 4.0 16.4 18.2 14.6

Oculinidae Undifferentiated 12.7 12.7

Pavona spp. 8.6 4.0 4.8 24.6 19.7 12.3

Micromussa spp. 21.6 9.8 7.7 15.8 4.0 11.8

Hydnophora spp. 25.8 4.7 4.8 4.2 17.8 11.5

Alveopora spp. 0.8 20.4 12.0 3.7 14.0 10.2

Oulophyllia spp. (inc. O. bennettae) 2.6 1.0 20.5 8.0

Cyphastrea spp. 18.9 4.5 0.1 7.8

Porites spp. 23.8 0.5 3.7 0.1 7.0

Pectinia spp. 11.3 3.8 0.2 13.8 5.2 6.9

Caulastrea tumida 11.6 5.4 4.2 1.2 10.2 6.5

Polyphyllia spp. 3.4 3.6 3.6 5.9 16.0 6.5

Stylophora spp. 13.8 11.4 3.9 2.1 1.0 6.4

Mycedium spp. 6.2 6.2


17

Caryophylliidae Undifferentiated 5.7 5.7

Oxypora spp. 1.4 2.6 7.6 2.8 3.6

Australomussa spp. 6.2 1.0 3.6

Leptoria spp. 0.3 5.6 3.0

Mussidae Undifferentiated 2.6 3.0 2.8

Coscinaraea spp. 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.7

Merulina spp. 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.3

Echinopora spp. 3.0 1.0 2.0

Seriatopora spp. 2.0 2.0

Montastraea spp. 2.2 2.0 1.0 1.7

Plesiastrea spp. 0.1 2.0 0.6 0.9

Pachyseris spp. 0.6 0.6

Total 4933.0 6108.8 6235.0 5839.6 4037.7

3.4.4 Giant Clams

T. maxima has been recorded from 29 CAES blocks ranging from Port Headland to

Carnarvon between 2008 and 2012 (Figure 15). The catch of T. maxima declined to below

the lower threshold in 2012 as a likely response to loss of market access as a result of fishery

losing its WTO export approval between October 2011 and January 2013 (Figure 16). During

2013 the total catch of T. maxima is being managed to a limit of 485 (as a result of the 2013

harvest strategy) which is below the target catch range of 538 to 1180.

T. squamosa has been recorded from 16 CAES blocks ranging from Karratha to Carnarvon

between 2008 and 2012 (Figure 17). The catch of T. squamosa also declined in 2012 as a

likely response to loss of market access as a result of fishery losing its WTO export approval,

but remained within the target catch range of 11 to 120 (Figure 18). During 2013 the total

catch of T. squamosa is being managed to a limit of 65 (as a result of the 2013 harvest

strategy) which is within the target catch range.

3.4.5 Seahorses

H. angustus has been recorded from 10 CAES blocks in the north-west of WA between 2008

and 2012(Figure 19). The catch of H. angustus declined during 2009 and 2010 due to

changes in fishing operations by MFL holders specialising in seahorses (Figure 20). Catches

declined again in 2012 to below the limit.

H. elongatus has been recorded from 5 CAES blocks predominately along the west coast of

WA between 2008 and 2012. The catch of H. elongatus declined during 2009 and 2010 due

to changes in fishing operations by MFL holders specialising in seahorses (Figure 21).

Catches increased in 2011 as MFL holders actively targeted this species prior the expiry of

the 2008 WTO. The catch of H. elongatus in 2012 was slightly above the upper threshold as

MFL holders targeted seahorses off the west coast for the domestic market.


18

3.4.6 Commercial Effort

Although monthly returns provide no reliable estimate of effort at a species level, total

effort for the MAFMF (all CITES and non-CITES listed species combined, including land

hermit crab) provides broad trend information.

Total effort in the MAFMF has declined consistently between 2007 (981 days) and 2012 (475

days)(Figure 22). While the cause of this decline requires further investigation, it may be

attributed to a number of factors including market forces, reduction in MFL numbers,

increased fishing efficiently and investment uncertainty created by the WTO approval

process.

3.4.7 Recreational Catch and Effort

The state-wide survey of boat-based recreational fishing (Fisheries Research Report

[Western Australia] No. 249, 2013), covering the period March 2011 – February 2012,

reported no recreational catch of CITES listed species.


19

Figure 1 – Total hard coral catch distribution 2008 to 2012 (combined)

Figure 2 – Hard coral (combined) performance against proposed harvest strategy


20

Figure 3 – D. axifuga catch distribution 2008 to 2012 (combined)

Figure 4 – D. axifuga performance against proposed harvest strategy


21

Figure 5 – E. ancora catch distribution 2008 to 2012 (combined)

Figure 6 – E. ancora performance against proposed harvest strategy


22

Figure 7 – E. glabarescens catch distribution 2008 to 2012 (combined)

Figure 8 – E. glabrescens performance against proposed harvest strategy


23

Figure 9 – M. latistellata catch distribution 2008 to 2012 (combined)

Figure 10 – M. latistellata performance against proposed harvest strategy


24

Figure 11 – T. geoffroyi catch distribution 2008 to 2012 (combined)

Figure 12 – T. geoffroyi performance against proposed harvest strategy


25

Figure 13 – C. jardinei catch distribution 2008 to 2012 (combined)

Figure 14 – C. jardinei performance against proposed harvest strategy


26

Figure 15 – T. maxima catch distribution 2008 to 2012 (combined)

Figure 16 – T. maxima performance against proposed harvest strategy


27

Figure 17 – T. squamosa catch distribution 2008 to 2012 (combined)

Figure 18 – T. squamosa performance against proposed harvest strategy


28

Figure 19 – Hippocampus spp. catch distribution 2008 to 2012 (combined)

Figure 20 – H. angustus performance against proposed harvest strategy


29

Figure 21 – H. elongatus performance against proposed harvest strategy

Figure 22 – MAFMF total effort (days) all species (CITES and non-CITES) combined 2007 to

2012

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Day

s Fi

she

d

Year


30

APPENDIX 1 – Harvest Strategy 2013

PROPOSAL TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITES SCIENTIFIC AUTHORITY FOR

MARINE SPECIES FOR NON-DETRIMENT FINDINGS TO SUPPORT A 12 MONTH WTO FOR

THE WA MARINE AQUARIUM FISHERY

The following proposal has been developed by the Western Australian (WA) Department of Fisheries

with the support of Managed Fishery Licence (MFL) holders in the WA Marine Aquarium Fish Fishery

(MAFF) at the industry’s annual general meeting held on 24 August 2012.

The proposal is based on voluntary industry agreement to manage the take of hard corals and giant

clams to the levels specified by the Australian CITES Scientific Authority for Marine Species to be

able to make positive Non-Detriment Findings (NDFs) to support a 12 month WTO export

accreditation for the WA MAFF, commencing January 2013. During this period the Department of

Fisheries will be working towards providing more comprehensive information to inform a robust

longer-term NDF assessment for these species.

The effectiveness of the proposal in managing catches of hard corals and giant clams to the required

levels will be underpinned by a revised statutory daily logbook to allow for reporting at a species

level. The new daily logbook format will be supported by an enhanced compliance program to verify

the level of accuracy around catch reporting. The Department of Fisheries will be monitoring

statutory logbook returns in “near real time” and informing MFL holders when they are nearing their

agreed individual limits for hard corals and giant clam (~80%), and when limits have been reached.

The Department of Fisheries is of the view that the proposal to manage the take of hard coral and

giant clam species administratively (via a voluntary industry agreement) rather than legislatively is a

practical approach to meeting the requirements of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to support a 12 month WTO export accreditation.

Over the period of the 12 month WTO export accreditation, the Department of Fisheries will be

reviewing the management of the WA MAFF and developing a new consolidated legislative

framework to meet future management requirements under the (WA) Fish Resources Management

Act 1994 and the EPBC Act.

This proposal provides the opportunity for MFL holders in the WA MAFF to demonstrate a level of

industry stewardship by working in a co-operative fashion with the WA Department of Fisheries and

the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities.

Hard Coral

The Australian CITES Scientific Authority for Marine Species has determined that the total harvest of

hard corals for the 12 months of the WTO should not exceed 5,200 kg (based on the average of the

harvest levels reported for 2009 and 2010). Within this total harvest, harvest of individual species (or

genera, where species specific information is not available) should not exceed the average harvest


31

levels for that taxa reported in 2009 and 2010. Further, the 2010 level of take for five species of

hard coral should be reduced by 50% in order to be considered appropriately precautionary6.

The harvest levels for specific hard coral species under which the Australian CITES Scientific

Authority is able to make positive NDFs for the 12 months of the WTO are:

Duncanopsammia axifuga 440 kg

Euphyllia ancora 300 kg

Euphyllia glabrescens 190 kg

Moseleya latistellata 150 kg

Trachyphyllia geoffroyi 320 kg

The Australian CITES Scientific Authority for Marine Species has also determined that Catalaphyllia

jardinei has anecdotally been hard to find in recent years, and in the absence of any scientific data to

the contrary, it is not possible to determine that any continued take of this species for export would

not be detrimental to the survival of this species in the wild.

The take of hard corals in the WA MAFF is managed through the Prohibition on Fishing (Coral, ‘Live

Rock’ and Algae) Order 2007. This Order current limits the total take of hard corals to 7,500 kg

allocated across six MFLs.

To limit the take of hard corals to 5,200 kg (approximately 70% of the current level) MFL holders

have reached a voluntary industry agreement to limit the take of hard corals to 70% of their

individual ‘entitlement’ for the 2013 calendar year.

MFL holders have also reached a voluntary industry agreement to not harvest Catalaphyllia jardinei

and manage the take of the five other hard coral species proportionally across all licences so that the

levels specified by the CITES Scientific Authority for Marine Species are not exceeded during 2013.

Giant Clams

The Australian CITES Scientific Authority for Marine Species has determined, based on the level of

catch reported for Tridacna maxima and T. squamosa from 2005 – 2010, that the harvest of 485 T.

maxima and 65 T. squamosa specimens over the coming 12 months is considered precautionary and

unlikely to be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild7.

The take of giant clams in the WA MAFF is managed through an Exemption to the Prohibition for

Commercial Fishers Unless Otherwise Endorsed - Shellfish, Coral, Fish of Class Echinoidea & Beche-

De-Mer Order 1988 (Exemption No. 2035). This Exemption currently permits each of the 12 MFL

holders in the WA MAFF to harvest up to 200 T. maxima and T. squamosa combined (2,400

individuals) per calendar year with spatial controls around harvesting each species.

To manage the take of giant clams to the level specified by the MAFF Australian CITES Scientific

Authority for Marine Species, MFL holders have reached a voluntary industry agreement to limit the

6 DRAFT Assessment of Coral Harvest in Western Australian Marine Aquarium Fish Managed Fishery - January

2012 (page 20 and 21). 7 Assessment for the export of Giant Clams, maxima and T. squamosa from the Western Australia Marine

Aquarium Fishery, Australia (page 10).


32

take of T. maxima to 40 per MFL and T. squamosa to 5 per MFL within the existing spatial controls

for the 2013 calendar year.

Catch monitoring and compliance

In accordance with Commercial Fishing Licence (CFL) conditions, operators in the MAFF must record

all catch in a daily logsheet and original copies of daily logsheets for fishing done in any given month

must be delivered to the Department of Fisheries’ Head Office no later than the 15th day of the

following month.

Outstanding logsheets will be referred to the Department’s Regional Services Division for further

investigation. The Department of Fisheries also undertakes routine vessel inspections to monitor

catch against reported logbook catch. Under regulation 130 of the Fisheries Resource Management

Regulations 1995 a contravention of a licence condition carries a maximum penalty of $5,000.

Daily logsheet information will be entered into the Marine Aquarium Fishery Database and catches

of hard corals and giant clams will be assessed against the limits specified by the CITES Scientific

Authority for Marine Species on a monthly basis.

The Department of Fisheries will advise MFL holders when approximately 80% of the species limits

for hard corals and giant calms have been reached. The Department will then advise MFL holders

when 100% of the species limits have been reached and direct MFL holders to cease fishing for these

species on a voluntary basis.

Should MFL holders continue to report catches of hard corals once the respective limits have been

reached, the Department will progress an amendment to the Prohibition on Fishing (Coral, ‘Live

Rock’ and Algae) Order 2007 to limit the take of hard corals in a statutory manner. Should MFL

holders continue to report catches of giant clams once the respective limits have been reached, the

Department of Fisheries will progress an amendment to Exemption 2035 to limit the take of giant

clams in a statutory manner. The Department of Fisheries will advise SEWPaC of any breaches in

catch limits and management response should this be required.

Seahorses (Hippocampus spp.)

The Australian CITES Scientific Authority for Marine Species has determined that the following

harvest of Hippocampus spp. may be considered non-detrimental over the 12 months of the WTO

for the WA MAFF (combined limit for all 12 MFLs combined)8:

H. tuberculatus

Perth region ~28 individuals

Exmouth region ~28 individuals

Dampier region ~28 individuals

H.angustus

Exmouth region 71 individuals

Dampier region 25 individuals

8 Assessment of Seahorse (Hippocampus spp.) Harvest in Western Australian Marine Aquarium Fish Managed

Fishery (pages 16 and 17).


33

H. elongastus/H. subelongatus

The Australian CITES Scientific Authority has assessed there is insufficient evidence to determine

that any harvest of this species from the WA MAFF over the coming 12 months will not be

detrimental to the survival of this species in the wild.

The take of Hippocampus spp. in the WA MAFF is managed through the Marine Aquarium Fish

Management Plan 1995. Given the low harvest levels for Hippocampus spp. specified by the

Australian CITES Scientific Authority for Marine Species to be able to make positive Non-Detriment

Findings (NDFs), the Department of Fisheries and MFL holders believe that it is not practical to

manage the take of Hippocampus spp. for export purposes.

MFL holders in the WA MAFF have requested that Hippocampus spp. be removed from the WTO

assessment for the Fishery, however, they be permitted to take Hippocampus spp. for non-export

purposes until additional information can be obtained to support a positive NDF for these species.

The Department of Fisheries is progressing an amendment to the Marine Aquarium Fish

Management Plan 1995 to remove Hippocampus spp. from the MAFF for the 2013 calendar year.

With Hippocampus spp. formally removed from the MAFF, an NDF for these species will not be

required to support a 12 month WTO for the Fishery. To enable the take of Hippocampus spp. for

non-export purposes, the Department of Fisheries will be considering the grant of an Exemption to

enable commercial fishers to continue to fish for these species outside of the legislative framework

of the WA MAFF.

Allowing fishing for Hippocampus spp. to continue at existing levels (i.e. within trigger limit of 2,000

for all Syngnathids) for non-export purposes will assist in the provision of additional species

abundance and distribution information to support future NDFs for these species.

Hard Coral - Voluntary MFL limits for 2013 to meet SEWPaC requirements (kg)

MFL No. 2567 2573 2571 2566 2568 2576 Total

Total hard coral entitlement (kg)

4,000

2,000

250

500

500

250

7,500

% of total hard coral entitlement 53% 27% 3% 7% 7% 3% 100%

Voluntary limits for 2013 to meet

SEWPaC requirements (kg)

Duncanopsammia axifuga

235

117

15

29

29

15

440

Euphyllia ancora

160

80

10

20

20

10

300

Euphyllia glabrescens

101

51

6

13

13

6

190

Moseleya latistellata

80

40

5

10

10

5

150

Trachyphyllia geoffroyi

171

85

11

21

21

11

320

Catalaphyllia jardinei

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total hard coral (kg)

2,773

1,387

173

347

347

173

5,200


34

APPENDIX 2 – WTO Declaration 2013


35


36

APPENDIX 3 – NDF Factsheet


37


38


39

Application to the Department of the Enviornment on the Marine Aquarium … · WA Marine Aquarium...

Documents

Transcript of Application to the Department of the Enviornment on the Marine Aquarium … · WA Marine Aquarium...