Coral Sea Fishery - Department of the Environment · Line, trap and trawl sector 8. Mr Corrie...

Coral Sea Fishery

2016 Stakeholder Panel Meeting

MINUTES

CHAIR: Dr Brigid Kerrigan

20 September 2016

Cairns, QLD

1

Minutes

Chair: Dr Brigid Kerrigan

Tuesday 20 September

The Chair commenced the meeting at 8:40am.

Agenda Item 1 – Preliminaries

1.1. Welcome and introductions/apologies

1. Dr Brigid Kerrigan (The Chair) welcomed participants to the meeting and noted apologies from Dan

Boserio and Rene Jensen of Northern Barrier Marine.

Table 1 Attendees of the Coral Sea Fishery panel meeting, September 20, 2016

Name Affiliation

Dr Brigid Kerrigan AFMA (Chair)

Mr Timothy Skewes Tim Skewes Consulting

Mr Daniel Corrie AFMA

Mr Andy Prendergast Industry, Austral Fisheries

Mr Brian Van Wyk Industry, Austral Fisheries

Mr Malcolm Mackay Industry, representing Terry Clarke

Mr Lindsay Hill Industry, leases permit from Kevin and Sandra Finn.

Mr Wayne Delongville Industry, Seavine Marine (Broker)

Mr Les Scott Industry, Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing

Mr Chauncey Hammond Industry, Bass Oceanics

Mr Ian Fanning Industry, Bass Oceanics

Mr Ryan Donelly Industry, Cairns Marine

2. The Chair asked that each participant introduce themselves and provide some background to their

involvement in the Coral Sea Fishery:

2

Brigid Kerrigan: Previously worked as a fisheries consultant and for Queensland Fisheries as

manager Trawl Fisheries; Harvest Fisheries including Coral and Aquarium Fish and Reef Line

Fisheries. She is the manager of the Coral Sea Fishery as well as the Commonwealth trawl sector and

Great Australian Bight trawl sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery.

Tim Skewes: Previously worked as a scientist at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial

Research Organisation (CSIRO) and is now working as a private consultant. He has been the scientific

member on several Coral Sea Fishery panel meetings since 2003. He is an expert in marine

invertebrates, particularly sea cucumbers.

Daniel Corrie: Management officer in the Coral Sea fishery as well as the Commonwealth trawl

sector and Great Australian Bight trawl sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark

Fishery.

Andy Prendergast & Brian Van Wyk: Representing Austral Fisheries who traditionally operate

trawlers. They are one of two trawl and trap permit holders in the CSF. The initial proposal for

Commonwealth marine reserves caused enough uncertainty that they decided to stop fishing. Austral

believes that if the proposed zones are implemented then the fishery will become untenable.

Malcolm Mackay: Boat owner and operator in the CSF. He has sold his fishing permits and is

participating in this meeting on behalf of Terry Clarke. He doesn’t believe there is going to be any

viable commercial fishing in the CSF.

Lindsay Hill: Director of Coral Sea Crayfish Pty Ltd. He began drop lining in the CSF 12 months ago

and believes that the proposed zoning will exclude him from his fishing grounds.

Wayne Delongville: Owner and operator of Seavine Commercial, a broker of commercial fishing

licences, quota and commercial fishing boats. He was involved in discussions with the Department of

the Environment regarding the marine reserve zoning.

Les Scott: Director of Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing (PSDF) which operates a longline vessel in

the CSF and the gillnet hook and trap sector of the SESSF. PSDF has held permits in the CSF since its

beginning. He is concerned with the proposed reduction of area available to demersal long lining and

that those remaining in the fishery will need to cover more the management costs if others leave the

fishery.

Chauncey Hammond: Representing Tasmanian Seafoods PTY LTD who hold lobster and trochus,

line and trap and sea cucumber fishing permits. Bass Oceanics have a joint fishing arrangement with

Seafresh Quota Pty Ltd fishing for sea cucumber.

3. Mr Hammond said that he didn’t think they were fishing for sea cucumber under any sort of rotational

plan in the Coral Sea. The Chair noted that the rotational plan is detailed in the sea cucumber fishing

permits and that fishing should be in accordance with that plan. Mr Hammond to check with Sea

Fresh who organise the fishing schedule to confirm.

3

Action item - AFMA and Tasmanian Seafoods to confirm that fishing is happening in accordance with the

three year rotational plan.

Ian Fanning: Has been involved in the sea cucumber sector for 14 years and currently manages

Tasmanian Seafoods (Bass Oceanics) out of Darwin. He noted that the cost of operating in the CSF is

higher than any other fishery given what is harvested.

Ryan Donnelly: Representing Cairns Marine who are one of two aquarium permit holders in the CSF.

When the 2004 rezoning of the Great Barrier Reef marine parks was implemented they focussed more

on fishing in the aquarium sector of the CSF. Approximately 33 per cent of the fishing grounds will be

closed under the new proposal. They can adapt but that requires a large amount of exploration. Cairns

Marine have substantial shore-based infrastructure and so their operations are limited to the area. They

are also concerned about the management costs having to be covered by fewer operators.

4. Mr Donnelly reiterated a formal request from Cairns Marine to AFMA in January 2016 to:

- allow for limited collection of coral species from Acropora and Pocillopora genera and that

AFMA adopt a similar risk approach to the Queensland Coral Fishery

- allow for dual jurisdiction trips between Queensland and Commonwealth waters

- extend the issue of Coral Sea Fishery fishing permits to 5 years as permitted under Section 32 of

the Fisheries Management Act 1991.

1.2. Adoption of agenda

5. The Chair asked for any additional items to be added to the agenda. There were no additions and the

agenda was formally adopted.

1.3. Fishery overview

2. The Chair presented an overview of the Coral Sea Fishery noting the following:

- There are 16 permits across the fishery; 2 trap and trawl, 8 line and trap, 2 lobster and trochus, 2

aquarium, 2 sea cucumber.

- Total catch across the fishery has been historically low, with a maximum catch of approximately

210 tonne in 2005/06 and more recently as low as 50 tonne.

- Harvest strategies were developed in 2007 and implemented from 1 July 2008 across the four

sectors;

o Line, trap and trawl

o Sea cucumber

o Lobster and trochus

o Aquarium

4

- Each harvest strategy provides for continued low level fishing activity with little or no additional

costs.

- Triggers are in place to monitor catch and effort.

3. Mr Scott asked for a breakdown of the 8 line and trap permits with regards to which gear types are

used under each permit.

Action item – AFMA to provide a breakdown of the eight line and trap permits as an Appendix to the

minutes (Appendix A)

4. The panel discussed some of the points made in the presentation:

- A maximum catch of 200 tonne is low, and that any review of harvest strategy triggers should be

considered in that context.

- The drop in catch in 2008 was concurrent with the original proposal for marine reserve zoning and

industry was reluctant to invest.

5. Mr Donnelly noted that Cairns Marine has made a substantial investment in the Coral Sea Fishery, and

noted the uncertainty associated with a 12 month renewal period for fishing permits. He requested that

AFMA consider extending the renewable period of fishing permits to five years in the Coral Sea

Fishery. This was supported by other industry members on the panel.

Action item – AFMA to provide advice on extending the renewal period for fishing permits in the Coral Sea

Fishery to 5 years.

6. The Chair outlined some of the work that is due to be completed in the Coral Sea Fishery over the next

12 months:

- Review of triggers within the harvest strategies

- Obtaining Wildlife Trade Operation export approval

- Updating Ecological Risk Assessments

- Updating Bycatch and Discard Workplans

- Updating fishing permits

- Reviewing levy allocation model (observers)

7. Mr Donnelly suggested that the Ecological Risk Assessments (ERA) should be complementary across

Queensland and Commonwealth fisheries and asked if it was possible to use a single assessment for

both sectors. Mr Corrie explained that the ERA considers fishing effort within a single jurisdiction

(fishery), and that the cumulative effects of fishing across fisheries are not typically considered. Mr

Mackay added that the fish caught in the CSF are typically different to species to what are caught in

State waters.

5

Agenda Item 2 – Review of Coral Sea Fishery harvest strategies

2.1 Fishery data and trigger monitoring

Line, trap and trawl sector

8. Mr Corrie presented the trigger review for the line, trap and trawl sector.

Overarching catch triggers

The total annual catch must be less than the historical total highest catches across the main species

o The total catch across the main species (defined here as an average catch of more than 500 kg

over ten years) for 2014/15 and 2015/16 was 8.9 t and 46.1 t respectively.

o The panel questioned the historical highest catch across the main species of 386.6 t because it is

much higher than the reported 210 t highest catch for the sector in 2005/06. The panel agreed

that total catch over the last two years is low and the overarching rule is unlikely to have been

triggered.

NB: Total highest catch across main species to date was calculated as the highest catch for the main species

across years. Within a year, the highest catch of the main species is 153.8 t.

Level 1 trigger = 450 t; Level 2 trigger = 1000 t

o The total catch for 2014/15 and 2015/16 was 10.1 t and 51.6 t respectively.

9. Species specific triggers

Common name Level 1 trigger (t) Level 2 trigger (t) 2014/15 catch (t) 2015/16 catch (t)

Whitetip reef shark 2.5 5 0.099 0.063

Grey reef shark 13 26 0 0

10. Triggers pertaining to changes in catch composition

If the relative catch proportion of any species changes by more than 30 per cent from its historical

average AND the catch of this species is greater than 1 t, invoke a Level 1 response on the relevant

species.

o Six species triggered a Level 1 response: flame snapper, ruby snapper, rosy snapper, bar

rockcod, amberjack, and Ray’s bream.

o The panel noted that total catch for each of these species was relatively low, and that a 30 per

cent change in catch proportion is likely in a fishery where the catch of other species is so low.

6

o Flame snapper also triggered a Level 1 response in 2014/15 with a 679 % increase (9.71 up to

55.46). However, the total catch was lower than the historical average, and the proportion was

only high because of the low catch of other species at 10.1 t.

o The panel agreed that the total catch of each of the species that triggered a Level 1 response was

relatively low except for flame snapper. There was 28.6 t of flame snapper caught in 2015/16

which is the highest historical catch for that species. AFMA will consider the risk to the species

as part of the formal trigger review.

Action item – AFMA to consider the risk to flame snapper as part of the formal 2016 trigger review.

If the relative proportion of any species in the catch declines inter-annually by 10 per cent or greater over

3 consecutive years, invoke a Level 1 response. If this is accompanied by a more than a 50 per cent

overall decline in CPUE over the last 3 years, invoke a Level 2 response.

o Not triggered for any species in 2014/15 or 2015/16.

11. Triggers pertaining to spatial changes

The percentage of areas fished increases or decreases by 40 per cent or more.

o The area fished was calculated by allocating a quarter degree cell (approximately 773 km2)

where a shot had occurred. If two shots were completed within a given cell, no extra area was

allocated. The area fished increased by 407 % from 2014/15 to 2015/16 (table 2).

o The panel agreed that in such a small fishery, with a relatively small number of shots, the area

fished from year to year is likely to change significantly. This rule is not particularly useful in

this fishery and will be reviewed as part of the trigger review.

Table 2 Area fished in the line, trap and trawl sector from 2013/14 to 2015/16

13/14

14/15

15/16

Gear

description

QTR

degree

cells fished

Area

fished

(km2)

QTR

degree

cells fished

Area

fished

(km2)

Change

in

effort

QTR

degree

cells fished

Area

fished

(km2)

Change

in

effort

Dropline/Longline 10 7010 7 4896 ↓ 30% 33 24826 ↑ 407%

o For the reasons mentioned above, two of the spatial triggers were not assessed:

if 40 per cent or more of the total catch is taken from a single area (fishery

contraction/undue fishing pressure on one area) OR

if 40 per cent or more of previously exploited areas are no longer fished

7

12. Triggers pertaining to catch per unit of effort (CPUE)

If CPUE for any species has shown a decline over the last three years, but without any of the above

indicators being triggered, a Level 1 response shall be invoked if the decline is less than or equal to 50%,

and a Level 2 response shall be invoked if the decline is greater than 50%.

o Nine species or species groups triggered a Level 1 response in 2015/16. However, none of those

species were caught in large amounts, with alfonsino being the most caught species with 358 kg.

o 21 species met the rule for a Level 1 trigger in 2014/15 however no more than 100 kg was

caught for any of these species.

o The CPUE used to assess this trigger is not standardised. In a sector such as the line, trap, and

trawl where fishing is targeted on aggregated species, CPUE is not particularly useful. The panel

agreed that the risk to these species is low.

13. The panel discussed the risks to the key species in the Coral Sea Fishery in the context of the triggers

reviews. The overall catch in the fishery is well below the trigger for a level 1 response, and flame

snapper is the only species caught in excess of 10 t. AFMA will consider the risks to flame snapper as

part of the formal trigger review. The panel does not believe any of the other species in the CSF are at

risk from the impacts of fishing.

Aquarium sector

14. Mr Corrie presented the trigger review for the aquarium sector, noting the following rules:

A trigger will be reached if:

there is more than 200 days fishing (total as distinct from individual operator)

o The total days fished in 2014/15 and 2015/16 were 67 and 97 respectively.

the number of specimens collected exceeds 40,000 individuals

o The total number of specimens collected in 2014/15 and 2015/16 were 19,421 and 32,462

respectively.

there is a significant change in the relative proportion of the catch of a functional group (if no other

triggers have been reached) and the number of specimens is greater than 500.

o Mr Corrie presented the following tables showing the catch and relative proportion of each

functional group for the last two seasons:

Table 3 Analysis of functional group catch (specimens) and total proportion of catch for the aquarium sector of the CSF.

Cells highlighted green are >30% below the 5 year average, cells highlighted red are >30% above the 5 year average

Species group No.

taken

5 yr

average

no.

No.

range

Perc.

of total

5 yr

Average

%

Perc.

range

8

2014-15

Angelfish 88 197 138-256 0.45 0.27 0.19 - 0.35

Damselfish 2 893 5 646 3 952-7 340 14.9 8.86 6.20 - 11.52

Gobies 454 711 498-924 2.34 1.39 0.97 - 1.81

Surgeonfish 1 158 2 381 1 667-3 095 5.96 3.55 2.49 - 4.62

Wrasse 5 451 8 646 6 052-11 240 28.07 16.7 11.69 - 21.71

Other 9 377 15 056

2015-16

Angelfish 194 183 128-238 0.6 0.58 0.41 - 0.75

Damselfish 4 665 5 655 3 959-7 352 14.37 13.93 9.75 - 18.11

Gobies 951 877 614-1 140 2.93 2.84 1.99 - 3.69

Surgeonfish 3 355 2,623 1 836-3 410 10.34 10.02 7.01 - 13.03

Wrasse 5 419 8 269 5 788-10 750 16.69 16.18 11.33 - 21.03

Other 17 878 15 886

15. The panel discussed the following:

2014-15

- These triggers were put in place to monitor the total catch and proportion of each functional group

within the 40,000 specimen limit, to ensure that no single group constitutes a disproportionate

amount of catch.

- The triggers are set at 30 per cent above and below the five year average using two metrics; the

number of specimens collected, and the proportion of total catch.

- The number of damselfish, surgeonfish, and wrasse collected in 2014-15 was more than 30 per cent

below the five year average, and more than 30 per cent above the five year average for proportion of

catch.

- The number of specimens can be attributed to relatively low fishing effort in 2014-15. The total

catch for all species was 19,421 which is well below the average of 32,637 specimens.

- The catch proportion for each of those groups is above the five year average due to the relatively low

catch of all other species.

9

- The panel agreed that there is little risk to damselfish, surgeonfish and wrasse because the number of

specimens collected are below the five year average for each group.

2015-16

- In 2015-16 the number of wrasse collected was more than 30 per cent below the five year average.

- All functional groups were within 30 per cent of the five year average for catch proportion. Given

the number of wrasse collected was below the five year average, the panel agreed that there is little

risk to wrasse species.

2.4 Harvest strategy review - trigger limits

16. Dr Timothy Skewes provided an overview of the triggers detailed in the Coral Sea Fishery harvest

strategies:

- There are five sectors managed through input and output controls such as limited entry, catch limits,

spatial closures, move-on provisions and size limits.

- The Coral Sea Fishery is regarded as a low data fishery due to the lack of local survey and

assessment information available. The harvest strategies were developed assuming that existing

fishing effort was sustainable, and that any changes in catch and/or catch composition would result

in further action.

- There are generally 2 trigger levels that describe the further action:

Level 1 - lower trigger level to detect early changes and result in simple analysis to identify the

reasons behind these without immediately placing limitations on the fishery.

Level 2 - second level trigger level acts a limit reference point in the absence of further information.

For fishery to exceed these triggers, there generally needs more detailed/robust assessments and a

strong justification for continued expansion.

Line Trap and Trawl Sector

17. Dr Skewes referred to the ABARES project ‘Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status (RUSS)’. Refer to

Appendix B for a detailed report.

18. The panel noted the following:

- This was a research project aimed at reducing the number of Commonwealth fish stocks classified as

uncertain.

- The assessment was focused on the key commercial species taken by line and trap methods (due to a

lack of recent trawl effort). These species comprised around 30 taxa and made up about 90 per cent

of the catch.

10

- Three separate species assemblages were considered within the line and trap sub-sectors;

deep scalefish assemblages (120-350 metres)

reef scalefish assemblages (coral reef associated, 0-150 metres)

shark assemblages (all shark species)

- Estimates of yield were derived from surplus production models and the quantity of production

habitat to estimate yield per unit area.

19. The panel discussed possible modifications to the triggers in the Line, Trap and Trawl Harvest

Strategy:

- Species composition triggers may be oversensitive in a fishery where total catch is relatively low.

- Catch per unit of effort (CPUE) is difficult to administer and of limited use as an indicator given the

inherent variability of the fishery and difficulty in standardising effort data.

- The species composition and CPUE based triggers could be replaced by more defensible species

assemblage triggers, as well as species specific triggers for high risk and key species. MSY estimates

from the RUSS project could be used as a guide.

- The species composition and CPUE based triggers could then be included in the level 1 and level 2

analyses.

20. Mr Scott noted that triggers for species such as blue-eye trevalla and alfonsino, which are caught in

other fisheries and constitute a single stock, should be considered in the context of a single stock

assessments for these species.

Aquarium Sector

21. Dr Skewes referred to the ABARES RUSS project. See Appendix B for a detailed report.


- Given the diversity of species taken and the data available, species-specific stock assessment

methods were not possible.

- Three assessment approaches were used:

i. An estimate of the total amount of area operators could cover within a fishing season

ii. An estimate of annual extraction rates for key commercial families

iii. A species-specific risk analysis, based on vulnerability and susceptibility.

- Estimates of density for key commercial families were obtained from published surveys.

23. Dr Skewes noted the outputs of the study for the aquarium sector:

- Total area of habitat analysed was 1,530.5 km2.

11

- Operators can only fish about 7 per cent of suitable habitat within the CSF in any given year.

- Around 35 per cent of the suitable habitat in the fishery is fully protected.

- The estimated extraction rate for key families was less than 0.02 per cent in 2008, and estimated at

less than 0.04 per cent for a fully operational fishery (200 days).

- Species-specific risk assessments of 623 species suggests low or very low risk to the species

harvested in the fishery.

- The aquarium sector stock is classified as not overfished and not subject to overfishing.

24. The panel discussed possible modifications to the triggers in the Aquarium Sector Harvest Strategy:

- Industry is concerned that the 40,000 specimen trigger is restrictive. The trigger was initially

based on historical catch, rather than sustainability.

- Given the results of the RUSS project, overarching catch and fishing day triggers could be

increased, if there were appropriate mechanisms in place to protect vulnerable and/or newly

targeted species.

- In 2012, a CSF Aquarium expert panel recommended the following:

Increase the 200 day limit to 400 days.

Remove the 40,000 fish limit subject to a full report on trends in catch composition and

effort for assessment.

Report catches at family or species level (specifically for goby [Gobiidae] and

damselfish [Pomacentridae] species). The potential for depletion of individual species

within these family groups should then be considered.

Revisit the appropriateness of catch proportion triggers in the context of the

effectiveness of functional group-based triggers.

There is a need to assess the potential of localised depletion at the reef or sub-reef level.

25. The Chair noted that operators in the aquarium sector are not currently providing the species level data

required to monitor species-specific catch within families. She proposed that operators in the aquarium

sector provide an annual report at a species level, rather than AFMA spending the time assessing the

triggers and having that levied back to industry.

26. The panel made the following recommendations:

- Increase the 200 fishing day limit to 400 days.

- Remove the 40,000 individual trigger and introduce a limit based on functional groups. This will

depend on what data industry can provide.

Sea cucumber sector

12

27. Dr Skewes provided background on the harvest strategy, management arrangements and current catch

levels in the sea cucumber sector of the CSF. See Appendix B for a detailed summary.

28. The panel discussed components of the harvest strategy and recent catch in the sea cucumber sector:

- Annual catch has fluctuated between 1.9 and 9.2 tonne since 2001.

- There has been no fishing since the 2013-14 season.

- The RUSS project assessed the four primary target species (black teatfish, white teatfish, surf

redfish and prickly redfish) and found the following:

o Black teatfish and prickly redfish median biomass is > 99 % of 1997 biomass.

Classified as not overfished and not subject to overfishing.

o Surf redfish median biomass was between 70 % and 91 % of 1997 biomass.

Surf redfish catch was greater than the median MSY for 3 of 14 years since

1997.

Recent catches for surf redfish have been less than the median MSY.

Classified as unlikely to be overfished and not subject to overfishing.

o White teatfish biomass could not be established.

White teatfish catches in recent years well below the historical peak of 19.7 t.

White teatfish stock remains uncertain with respect to being overfished and

overfishing.

o No stock assessments of the group of other sea cucumber species.

Catch has recently been very low.

Classified as uncertain with respect to being overfished and not subject to

overfishing.

29. The panel discussed options for amendments to the Sea Cucumber Harvest Strategy noting the

following:

- A three-year rotational harvesting strategy (RHS) was implemented in 2005 (included in permit

conditions). The RHS identifies 21 reefs with a set number of days fishing on each reef. Each

reef is only open every third year.

- Previous FRDC work has shown that rotational plans result in lower risk and higher profit for

industry.

13

- The harvest strategy refers to TACs and trigger limits as whole wet weight. There is a need to

clarify as most catch is weighed as wet gutted weight. There is a difference in weight of about 60

per cent.

Action item – AFMA to check whether the TAC for the sea cucumber sector should be based on wet whole

or wet gutted. The harvest strategy refers to whole wet weight.

30. Considering the low recent effort in the fishery and that current TACs are quite conservative, the panel

agreed that the harvest strategy for the sea cucumber sector does not need to be amended.

31. There was a brief discussion regarding the impact of illegal fishing in the sea cucumber sector. The

AFMA managers could not provide any further detail about the impact of illegal fishing to further the

discussion, however Mr Hammond asked whether industry could buy any illegal catch from AFMA to

sell on the market.

Action Item – AFMA to investigate whether illegally caught sea cucumber can be purchased by industry for

sale on the market and quota deducted from annual total.

Lobster and trochus sector

32. Dr Skewes provided background on the harvest strategy, management arrangements and current catch

levels in the lobster and trochus sector of the CSF. See Appendix B for a detailed summary.

33. The panel discussed components of the harvest strategy and recent catch in the sea cucumber sector:

- There is a 30 t trigger for both species which if triggered in one year results in an assessment

with consideration of adjacent fisheries and increased monitoring.

- If an assessment does not occur within the following 12 months there is to be no further

increases in catch (i.e. annual catch must not exceed 30 t)

- There are move-on provisions when 5 t of trochus and 3 t of lobster tails are taken from a single

reef in a single year.

- The total catch of rock lobster over the history of the fishery has been less than 10 t and the

highest annual catch was 2.5 t.

- There has been no lobster caught since 2006–07.

- The total catch of trochus has been limited to 160 kg from a single reef in 2001.

- There has been no trochus caught since 2001.

34. Given the lack of effort, and the relatively straight forward process for monitoring triggers, the panel

agreed that the Lobster and Trochus Harvest Strategy does not require amendments.

14

Summary of proposed changes to triggers in the harvest strategies

35. Mr Corrie summarised the proposed changes to triggers within the line, trap and trawl and the

aquarium sector harvest strategies:

Line, trap and trawl sector

The 450 t (Level 1) and 1000 t (Level 2) total catch triggers to be replaced by three

separate species assemblages triggers for deep water scalefish, reef associated

scalefish and shark assemblages. The triggers will be based on the outcomes of the

RUSS project (which will include revised mortality estimates for several key reef

fish species).

Implement species-specific triggers for key fish species based on MSY estimates

from the RUSS project. A key species is any species with a 5-year average catch of

more than 1000 kg.

CPUE and effort (area) based triggers will be removed and incorporated into Level 1

and Level 2 assessments, when catch based triggers are reached.

Aquarium sector

Increase the 200 fishing day limit to 400 days

Remove the 40,000 individual trigger and introduce a limit based on functional

groups. This will depend on what data industry can provide.

Sea cucumber sector

There are no proposed changes to the triggers in the sea cucumber harvest strategy.

Lobster and trochus sector

There are no proposed changes to the lobster and trochus sectors harvest strategy.

Agenda Item 3 – Managing risk to humphead Maori wrasse

3.1 Background – CITES and current controls

36. Dr Skewes provided background information for Maori wrasse:

- It was listed on the International Union for Conservations of nature (IUCN) Red List since 1996,

initially as Vulnerable and since 2004 as Endangered.

- It was listed in Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species

(CITES) in 2005.

- The species is susceptible to overfishing due to its longevity, late sexual maturation, aggregation

spawning, accessibility and low natural abundance.

15

- Studies have estimated the population density of adult Maori wrasse in the CSF is between three

and five adults per hectare, with a population of between 50,000 and 100,000 adults.

- The size of fish targeted in the CSF is approximately one metre in length.

- Fish of this size are mostly males and have had the opportunity to breed and contribute to the

population.

- The Threatened Species Scientific Committee assessed Maori wrasse in 2013 concluding that it

was not eligible for listing as a threatened species in Australian waters.

- The take of Maori wrasse is limited to 50 individuals (annual limit) between the two fishing

permits in the aquarium sector of the Coral Sea Fishery.

37. The panel discussed the current catch and potential risk to Maori wrasse in the aquarium sector of the

CSF:

- The recent catch of Maori wrasse is less than 10 individuals per year.

- This is low relative to the permitted catch of 50 individuals.

- This species is caught using barbless hook which is a highly selective method, with little impact

on the environment or other species.

- While the total catch is well below the catch limit, most of the recent catch is taken from a single

reef. The reef represents less than 0.2 per cent of the available reef area in the CSF but is

accounting for more than 10 per cent of the allowed catch.

Action Item – AFMA to seek expert advice on the potential risk to localised depletion (intra-reefal) for

Maori wrasse under current catch levels in the aquarium sector of the CSF.

Agenda Item 4 – Managing new effort in the Coral Sea Fishery

38. Mr Corrie introduced the item noting the following:

- AFMA identifies the risk to species and stocks through a number of processes including stock

assessments, ecological risk assessments (ERA) and research projects.

- Risk is then managed within ecological risk management strategies and processes within fishery

harvest strategies such as closures, catch triggers and bycatch mitigation.

- There are no formal stock assessments in the Coral Sea Fishery.

- Risk is mitigated through total allowable catches for sea cucumber, lobster and trochus, and

catch triggers for the line, trap and trawl and aquarium sectors.

- Any increase in fishing effort effectively increases the risk to species or stocks.

16

- Any proposal to increase effort in the fishery will be assessed by AFMA on a risk-based

approach and on a case by case basis.

- The process will generally involve the following steps;

Formal application to be considered by AFMA. If approved;

Feasibility fishing to collect data under scientific permit

Formal risk assessment. If the activity is assessed as low risk and approved;

Amendments to fishing permits.

- If a proposal is considered low risk, then there may not be a requirement to undertake feasibility

fishing or a formal risk assessment. Each proposal will be considered on a case by case basis.

- Any costs associated with the proposal, including any assessments, will be borne by the

applicant.

39. The panel did not have any substantive comments on the issue and noted AFMA’s approach to

managing new effort in the Coral Sea Fishery.

40. Mr Corrie noted that AFMA does not intend to introduce new fishing permits to the Coral Sea Fishery.

41. Mr Scott commented on the ERM more broadly noting that the release of live shark in the line fishery

should be considered as a form of bycatch mitigation.

42. The panel discussed aspects of the ERA, particularly the issue of localised depletion, and noted the

following:

- Industry believe that the risk of fishing on target species at a sub-reef level is self-mitigating

because once the catch rates begin to drop, it is no longer economically efficient to continue

fishing in that spot.

- From a management perspective, AFMA is not just considering the risk to target species, but

also the risk to non-target species. Non-target species may be more susceptible to fishing than

the target species.

- The industry members noted that fishermen are unlikely to fish in areas where there are large

amounts of bycatch.

Agenda Item 5 – Other items

5.1 Planned changes to fishing permits

43. Operators are currently only permitted to use a single gear type per trip.

44. There is a proposal to allow operators to use multiple gear types on a single trip, provided that gear

type is endorsed on their fishing permit.

17

45. The change will be implemented through amendments to fishing permits for the 2017-18 fishing

season.

46. The panel supported the proposal noting that it will provide economic efficiencies.

47. Mr Scott referred the panel’s earlier request to extend fishing permits from a 12 month renewable

period, to a 5 year renewable period. He added that he would like to see statutory fishing rights

introduced to the Coral Sea Fishery.

Action item – AFMA to provide feedback to the panel on the proposal to extend fishing permits to a 5 year

renewable period, and Mr Scott’s proposal to introduce statutory fishing rights in the Coral Sea Fishery.

5.2 Observer coverage

48. Industry members had previously requested a review of onboard observer coverage requirements in

the Coral Sea Fishery.

49. Mr Scott proposed that any boat with electronic monitoring (cameras) should not have to bear any

additional observer costs.including the carriage of observers.

50. The cost of observers is currently levied across the fishery; 80 per cent to line, trap and trawl, and 20

per cent to the rest of the fishery.

51. AFMA will need to discuss the proposal to remove observers from vessels in the context conditions

CSF wildlife trade export approval.

52. AFMA will also consider the level of observer coverage required for trawl and trap methods in the

context of data requirements.

Action item – AFMA to review current observer coverage requirements for trap and trawl methods (1st trip

and every 4th thereafter) including a proposal to remove observers from vessels with electronic monitoring.

5.3 Levy allocation


- The cost of levies should reflect effort in the fishery, and with people exiting the fishery, that

should be reflected in a reduction in cost.

54. The panel agreed there was no further conversation needed because most of this agenda item was

about observer coverage and how it is proportioned.

5.4 Dual jurisdiction trips

55. There was a proposal from the aquarium sector to allow for dual jurisdiction trips when fishing in

Commonwealth waters and State waters.

56. The Chair noted advice received from Queensland fisheries:

18

Marine Aquarium Fish

If dual jurisdiction trips are to occur, then operators should ensure information about catch and effort

are recorded for a jurisdiction prior to entering another jurisdiction. For example., if the fisher

collects marine aquarium fish in the Coral Sea then intends to collect aquarium fish in Queensland

waters prior to returning to port, catch and effort details for the Coral Sea should be recorded in the

relevant logbook prior to entering the Queensland Fishery. The dates and areas fished should also be

kept up to date on the ship’s log. It would also be helpful to notify the local QBFP office prior to

embarking on a dual jurisdictional trip and the expected dates.

57. AFMA will need to discuss this internally and provide advice to the aquarium sector.

Action item – AFMA to provide advice to industry on dual jurisdiction trips in the aquarium sector.

58. The Chair formally closed the meeting and thanked everyone for attending.

19

Outstanding Action Items from September Panel Meeting

Table 4 Outstanding action items

Action

Item

Description Due for

completion

Progress/Comments

1 AFMA and Tasmanian Seafoods to

confirm that fishing is happening in

accordance with the three year rotational

plan.

As soon as

practicable

Complete. Belinda Werden has

confirmed that fishing is in

accordance with the rotational

plan.

2 AFMA to provide a breakdown of the

eight line and trap permits as an

Appendix to the minutes

Include in the

minutes

Complete. Appendix A.

4 AFMA to consider the risk to flame

snapper as part of the formal 2016

trigger review.

As part of the

trigger review

Late 2016

In draft. ABARES RUSS project

suggests sustainable harvest of

32 tonne. Highest take in the

CSF is 28 t.

5 AFMA to check whether the TAC for

the sea cucumber sector should be based

on wet whole or wet gutted. The harvest

strategy refers to whole wet weight.

As soon as

practicable

6 AFMA to investigate whether illegally

caught sea cucumber can be purchased

by industry for sale on the market and

quota deducted from annual total.

As soon as

practicable

7 AFMA to seek expert advice on the

potential risk to localised depletion for

Maori wrasse under current catch levels

in the aquarium sector of the CSF.

As part of the

trigger review

Late 2016

Contacted Maori wrasse expert

Lori Colin on 5/10/16

8 AFMA to provide feedback to the panel

on the proposal to extend fishing

permits to a 5 year renewable period,

and Mr Scott’s proposal to introduce

statutory fishing rights in the Coral Sea

Fishery.

As soon as

practicable

Must be prior to

2017/18 season

9 AFMA to review current observer

coverage requirements for trap and trawl

methods (1st trip and every 4th

thereafter) including a proposal to

remove physical observers from vessels

with electronic monitoring.

As part of the

harvest strategy

review. Early

2017.

20

10 AFMA to provide advice to industry on

dual jurisdiction trips in the aquarium

sector.

By end of 2016.

Appendix A

Table 5 Fishing permits types in the Coral Sea Fishery

Permit type Fishing method Number of permits

Sea Cucumber Hand collection 2

Trap and Trawl Finfish trap

Demersal trawl

2

Line and Trap Demersal longline

Droplines

Trotlines

Setlines

Handlines

Demersal finfish traps

8

Lobster and trochus Hand collection 2

Aquarium Hand collection

Barbless hook

Scoop net

2

21

Appendix B

Coral Sea Fisheries Harvest Strategy Trigger Review Discussion paper for Fishery Consultation Meeting, Cairns, 20th September, 2016

Tim Skewes

September 2016

AFMA

Commercial-in-confidence

TIM SKEWES CONSULTING

22

Copyright and disclaimer

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of

this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, PO Box

1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.

Important disclaimer

Tim Skewes Consulting advises that the information contained within are general statements based on

scientific research. The information may be unsuitable to be used in any specific purpose. No actions should

be made based on that information without considering expert professional, scientific and technical advice.

To the extent permitted by law, Tim Skewes Consulting excludes all liability to any person for any

consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation,

arising directly or indirectly from using any information contained in this publication.

Coral Sea Harvest Strategy Trigger Discussion Paper | iii

Contents

Acknowledgments v

1 Background 1

1.1 Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status (RUSS) project 3

2 Harvest strategy review 5

2.1 Line, Trap and Trawl sectors 5

2.2 Aquarium sector 8

2.3 Sea cucumber sector 11

2.4 Lobster and Trochus sector 14

Appendix A Management timeline 16

References 17

Coral Sea Harvest Strategy Trigger Discussion Paper | iv

Figures Figure 1. Area of the Coral Sea Fishery ........................................................................................................ 2

Figure 2. Management arrangements for Coral Sea Fishery. Information sources are represented in pentagons: RUSS=Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status; ERA=Ecological Risk Assessments. ..................... 3

Figure 3. Commonwealth fisheries status for 2004 to 2014 as reported in the 2015 Fishery Status Reports (Patterson et al., 2015) as Biomass status (is it overfished or not). ............................................... 4

Figure 4. Tradeoff curve between median risk performance (defined as probability of biomass being reduced below 40% of the comparable no fishing scenario; +1 SD encompasses variation across nine species) and total revenue (million dollars) for RZSs with the different cycle times (year) as indicated on the symbols. (Plaganyi et al., 2015) ............................................................................................................ 14

Tables Table 1. Biological stock status of stocks in the Coral Sea fishery, assessed in 2014, and their status since 1992. As reported in the 2015 Fishery Status Reports (Patterson et al., 2015) as Fishing mortality status (is it being overfished or not); and Biomass status (is it overfished or not). ............................................... 4

Coral Sea Harvest Strategy Trigger Discussion Paper | v

Acknowledgments

This discussion paper was funded by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA). It was guided

by AFMA managers Daniel Corrie and Brigid Kerrigan.

Coral Sea Harvest Strategy Trigger Discussion Paper | 1

1 Background

The Coral Sea Fishery (Figure 1) has five sectors that are managed through input and output controls

including limited entry, catch limits, spatial closures, move-on provisions, size limits and catch-and-effort

triggers that are used to initiate further analysis and assessment. Fishers must hold permits to fish in the

fishery and they can only catch species associated with the type of permit they hold. The fishery has 16

limited entry permits (AFMA Website).

1. Trawl and Trap Sector – 2 permits

2. Lobster and Trochus Sector – 2 permits

3. Line and Trap Sector – 8 permits

4. Aquarium Sector – 2 permits

5. Sea Cucumber Sector – 2 permits.

[Note Trap fishing was added to original Trawl and Line Sector Permits in 2007 after a 3-year Trap trial that

was carried out by operators from both sectors. Conditions included a maximum number of 50 traps per boat;

and metal traps to be used.]

The fishery has a long history of management through management regulation and permit conditions

managed by AFMA, and through the granting of a Wildlife Trade Operation permits by the Commonwealth

Environment Department based on ecological sustainability considerations (Figure 2). However, in 2008

there was also implemented a formal Harvest Strategy as part of a rollout of Harvest Strategies in

Commonwealth fisheries (see Appendix 1 for timeline of management activities). This was in response to the

Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy 2007 (HSP) (DAFF 2007) which directed that

Commonwealth fisheries should be managed to pursue ‘the sustainable and profitable utilisation of

Australia’s Commonwealth fisheries in perpetuity through the implementation of harvest strategies that

maintain key commercial stocks at ecologically sustainable levels and within this context, maximise the

economic returns to the Australian community’. During this time, there was a perceived (rightly or wrongly)

lack of demonstrable sustainable management in many Australian fisheries, especially smaller low

information fisheries (Dowling et al., 2008).

A harvest strategy (HS) is a framework for setting catch and effort limits to achieve biological, economic and

social objectives built on consensus and transparency. HS can provide two key benefits:

1. Improved certainty around total allowable catch or effort decisions. This is important for business planning and investment; and

2. A tool to better assess the potential return on investments in research and data collection.

The Coral Sea Fishery was regarded as “low data” fishery in that there is a lack of local survey and

assessment information available (Dowling et al., 2008). The basis of the HS was therefore predicated on an

assumption that existing fishing effort was sustainable, and that any changes in catch and/or catch

composition would result in further action. HS for data poor fisheries include:

They included existing management controls (TACs) and spatial closures.

They were based on simple triggers to detect changes in the fishery, with increasing levels of assessment response.

There was an appropriate level of risk to account for information available, and a conservative approach to account for uncertainty.

HS could be modified as additional information became available and potentially increase the catch.


HS aims to avoid imposing additional restrictions unless the fishery shows signs of expansion or significant change: suite of conservative triggers provides a precautionary basis for development.

Most of the trigger limits that either control catch or initiate additional analysis and/or assessment are

contained in the harvest strategies.

There are generally 2 trigger levels that decided the further action. They were:

L1 - lower trigger level to detect early changes and result in simple analysis to identify the reasons behind these without immediately placing limitations on the fishery.

L2 - second level trigger level acts a limit reference point in the absence of further information. For fishery to exceed these triggers, there generally needs more detailed/robust assessments and a strong justification for continued expansion.

HS for the Coral Sea Fisheries were first developed by the CSIRO in consultation with CSF stakeholders at a

meeting on 7th March 2007. Four separate harvest strategies were formulated for the Coral Sea fishery:

Line, Trap and Trawl Sector Harvest Strategy

Lobster and Trochus Sector Harvest Strategy

Aquarium Sector Harvest Strategy

Sea Cucumber Sector Harvest Strategy.

Figure 1. Area of the Coral Sea Fishery


Figure 2. Management arrangements for Coral Sea Fishery. Information sources are represented in pentagons:

RUSS=Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status; ERA=Ecological Risk Assessments.

Once formulated, the HS and triggers were meant to undergo an almost continuous process of review and

potentially modification as the fishery developed and more information became available. Formal review

processes occurred in 2010, 2011 and 2012, and some recommendations were made. However, without new

information on the fishery stocks in the Coral Sea, changes to harvest strategy trigger points were difficult to

justify.

The purpose of this document is to help set the scene for a consultative fishery meeting to be held in

September 2016 to discuss general management arrangements in the fishery, with the intent to review the

current HS across the fishery.

1.1 Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status (RUSS) project

The status of Commonwealth fisheries has been reported in the Fishery Status Reports produced by

BRS/ABARES since 1992. These document scientific and economic information for each Commonwealth

fishery and they provide government, industry and the community with an independent overview of trends in

the biological status of fish stocks for Commonwealth fisheries.

The number of fish stocks considered in the reports increased from 31 in 1992 to 101 in 2009. The number of

stocks that were classified as having an uncertain status also increased, peaking at 52 in 2007 (Figure 3;

Patterson et al., 2015).

The Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status (RUSS) project was a research programme to try and reduce the

number of Commonwealth fish stocks that classified as uncertain. A series of stock assessments were

undertaken including in the Coral Sea Fishery.

Although the outputs of the RUSS project have been used to modify the assessments of fisheries in the

Fishery Status Reports since about 2012, resulting in many previously uncertain stock status and fishing

mortality assessments being reclassified as not overfished and not being subject to overfishing (Table 6), the

final report has only recently been fully published (ABARES, 2015).


Figure 3. Commonwealth fisheries status for 2004 to 2014 as reported in the 2015 Fishery Status Reports (Patterson et al.,

2015) as Biomass status (is it overfished or not).

Table 6. Biological stock status of stocks in the Coral Sea fishery, assessed in 2014, and their status since 1992. As reported in

the 2015 Fishery Status Reports (Patterson et al., 2015) as Fishing mortality status (is it being overfished or not); and

Biomass status (is it overfished or not).


2 Harvest strategy review

2.1 Line, Trap and Trawl sectors

There has been no trap effort recorded in this sector since 2010–11, and no trawl effort recorded since 2006–

07. Most of the recent catch is split between auto-longline and dropline gear types. There has been no formal,

single-species stock assessments for any of the species taken in these sectors.

2.1.1 HS Triggers

Overarching catch triggers

1. Level 1: Catch of any species meets or exceeds the historic high level for that species (based on all permits over a financial year); Main species are those with 10-year average >500kg.

2. Level 1: Total catch exceeds 450 t

– Never been exceeded (2014/15 = 10,141 kg; 2015/16 = 51,615 kg)

3. Level 2: Total catch exceeds 1000 t

– Never been exceeded

Species-specific triggers

Whitetip reef shark:

1. Level 1: 2.5 t (1/6 historical high catch);

2. Level 2: 5 t (1/3 historical high catch).

– Neither of these triggers has been exceeded since the HS implementation (2014/15 = 99 kg; 2015/16 = 63 kg)

Grey reef shark:

3. Level 1: 13t (1/2 historical high catch);

4. Level 2: 26t (historical high catch).

– Neither of these triggers has been exceeded since the HS implementation (2014/15 = 0 kg; 2015/16 = 0 kg)

Note: there is currently no-take on several species including white pointer, grey nurse, sawshark, dogfish and

pelagic tuna.

Catch composition triggers

5. If the relative catch proportion of any species changes by >30% from its historical average AND the catch of this species is greater than 1 t, invoke a Level 1 response on the relevant species. If this is accompanied by a ≥50% overall decline in CPUE over the last 3 years, invoke a Level 2 response.

– Catch proportion trigger reached for 1 species in 2014/15 and 6 species in 2015/16.

6. If the relative proportion of any species in the catch declines inter-annually by 10% or greater over 3 consecutive years, invoke a Level 1 response. If this is accompanied by a ≥50% overall decline in CPUE over the last 3 years, invoke a Level 2 response.

– Not triggered for any species in 2014/15 or 2015/16


[Note: 2011 CSF Harvest Strategy review meeting noted that the catch composition triggers have been

removed from the CSF harvest strategy as they relate to Line, Trap and Trawl sectors]

Spatial changes triggers

7. If the following changes occur:

the percentage of areas fished increases by ≥40% (fishery expansion) OR

the percentage of areas fished decreases by ≥40% (fishery contraction), OR

if ≥40% of the total catch is taken from a single area (fishery contraction/undue fishing pressure on one area) OR

if ≥40% of once-exploited areas are no longer fished; invoke a L1 response.

– Trigger not assessed due to changes in effort in fishery.

Changes to CPUE

8. If CPUE for any species shows a significant decline (< 50%) over the last three years, but without any of the above indicators being triggered, a Level 1 response shall be invoked if the decline is less than or equal to 50%, and a Level 2 response shall be invoked if the decline is greater than 50%.

– In 2014/15, L1 CPUE trigger was exceeded for 21 species, however no catch in excess of 100 kg. – In 2015/16, the L1 CPUE trigger was exceeded for 8 species groups, and the L2 trigger was

exceeded for 6 species groups.

2.1.2 RUSS Project outputs

The combined line and trap sub-sectors of the Coral Sea Line, Trap and Trawl fisheries were assessed by the

ABARES RUSS project (Larcombe and Roach, 2015). As it was not practical (nor within the scope or

resources available) to assess single species or stocks separately, multispecies assemblages were assessed.

Three separate species assemblages were considered:

Deep scalefish assemblage (120–350 metres),

Reef scalefish assemblage (coral reef associated, 0–150 metres),

Shark assemblage (all shark species).

ABARES used a multispecies approach that considered historical catch levels and conservative yield

estimates to evaluate stock status. The approach was described is a preliminary or first stage assessment.

The assessment was focused on the key commercial species taken by line and trap methods (due to a lack of

recent trawl effort). These species comprised around 30 taxa and made up about 90 per cent of the catch.

The assessment included estimates of biomass based on the size of the habitat that supports those catches and

the biological and life history characteristics of the taxa within the assemblage (and therefore their robustness

to fishing). Estimates of yield were derived from surplus production models and the quantity of production

habitat to estimate yield per unit area. Comparisons were then made to similar fisheries where more

information was available. Potential yields for the fishery were considered in the assemblage context.

The analysis applied two methods of quantifying fish habitat: bathymetric contour (200 m isobath) lengths

and reef edge lengths — applicable to the different species assemblages. Thirty individual reef and seamount

units were mapped that encompassed 83 per cent of line operations and 95 per cent of trap operations.

The outputs of the analysis are summarised below (Larcombe and Roach, 2015):

Deepwater assemblage

There was an estimated 1,446 nautical miles of linear 200 metre isobath.

Based on data from other studies, two density estimates of 0.7 (low) to 2 (high) tonnes per nautical mile were applied.


Species composition was assumed as proportional to catch (e.g. Pristipomoides filamentosus was 49.6 % of catch).

Three scenarios of exploitation of the surplus yield constant were examined — 0.3 (low yield), 0.5 and 0.7 (high yield).

Analyses were undertaken for each of the identified reefs and seamounts, but results were pooled for whole of fishery.

Estimated deepwater scalefish biomass ranged from 1,012.3 t to 2,892.3 t.

Maximum sustainable yield (MSY) ranged from 82 t (conservative) to 548 t (high yield).

Historical mean annual catch for Line and Trap sectors was 37.9 tonnes.

Peak of the three-year moving average annual catch was 91.9 tonnes per year.

Six reefs/seamounts mean catch exceeded the conservative MSY, no reefs exceeded medium MSY.

Nine reefs/seamounts had 3 year moving average that had peaks that exceeded the medium MSY estimate.

Considering the Coral Sea Fishery as a whole, the deep scalefish assemblage was considered not subject to overfishing and would not overfished.

The study made no specific recommendations on future catches of the deep scalefish assemblage or the individual species taken within it.

20 % of deep scalefish assemblage habitat in the CSF is located within the Coringa-Herald and Lihou National Nature Reserves (NNR), and not accessible to fishing.

Shallow assemblage

This assemblage was predominantly made up of fishes of the families Lutjanidae, Lethrinidae and Serranidae (57 % of the entire catch is made up of the three species: red emperor Lutjanus sebae, redthroat emperor Lethrinus miniatus and paddletail seabream Gymnocranius euanus)

Density estimates were based on available information from visual census on the GBR and NNR of the Coral Sea. Estimates were likely biased downwards, particularly for main target species.

High abundances of coral trout in Coral Sea shallow reef habitats, compared with the GBR.

The abundance of non-coral trout Serranidae and the families Lutjanidae and Lethrinidae appear to be lower in the Coral Sea than the GBR.

1,421 nautical miles of reef perimeter was mapped.

Two biomass scenarios: 0.8 t (low) and 1.5 t (high) per n.m.; and three exploitation constant scenarios: 0.3 (low), 0.5 (medium) and 0.7 (high), were applied.

Estimated standing stock ranged from 1,137 t to 2,134 tonnes.

MSY ranged from 96 t to 420 t.

Historical average catch was 26.9 t, peaking at 93 tonnes.

Three reefs had average catch exceeding low MSY, two reefs exceeded high MSY.

Four reef had 3-year moving average annual catch that exceeded low MSY.

Considering the Coral Sea Fishery as a whole, the shallow scalefish assemblage was considered not subject to overfishing and would not overfished.

25 % of shallow assemblage habitat located in the NNR of the Coral Sea, and not accessible to fishing.

Sharks

In some fishing seasons, sharks have comprised a large component of the total catch.

Catches were predominantly blacktip sharks, tiger shark, whitetip reef shark, scalloped hammerhead and grey reef shark.

Not enough data was currently available to evaluate the stock status of sharks, so the remain uncertain with regard to their biomass status.

Recent catches have been very low, therefore it is unlikely that this would constitute overfishing.

Overall assessment

Although finfish are unlikely to be overfished, there is uncertainty about the impact of historical fishing on several low-productivity finfish species, and on sharks.


Trawl fishing effort has been very low in recent years, and the status of the trawl sector fishery has not been addressed within these analyses.

Overall, Line, Trawl and Trap sectors are classified as uncertain with regard to their biomass status.

2.1.3 Potential HS modifications

The species composition and CPUE based triggers in the Line Trap and Trawl HS are reasonably complex

and appear to be overly sensitive. Beside changes in species composition, species composition could be: new

markets, increasing effort, shifts in exploitation patterns. While considering this together with the CPUE

mitigates against over-reacting to “benign” changes, the triggers are considered as not being very useful for

sustainable management of the fishery. It is notable that the 2011 CSF Harvest Strategy Review meeting

record states that the removal of catch per unit effort based triggers was supported, noting these triggers are

both difficult to administer and of limited usefulness as an indicator given the inherent variability of the

fishery and difficulty standardising effort data.

The species composition and CPUE based triggers could be replaced by more defensible species assemblage

triggers for Deep, Shallow and Shark species groups using ABARES RUSS project MSY estimates as a

guide. The CPUE and Spatial effort change Triggers could then be removed as a trigger from HS and

included in L1 and L2 assessments

Other potential HS/management and assessment options include:

Species-specific triggers for other high risk/vulnerable and key species could also be implemented (pending future risk assessments) including TAC limits. High risk species may be revised pending outcomes of 2017 ERA.

The list of “key species” must be subject to periodic review given the temporally dynamic nature of the fishery.

Triggers may ultimately be area-specific. If there appears to be localized depletion, measures such as move-on provisions could be introduced.

Informing options for deep water closures and other spatial management options.

Analyses of CPUE and spatial data by species assemblage to determine whether CPUE is indeed a valid metric of assessing sustainability.

Further analysis to manage as a Tier 4 fishery; that is, using age and length information to provide estimates of natural and fishing mortality and spawner-biomass-per-recruit, which would form the basis for more informed decision rules.

Begin to collect otoliths and/or shark vertebrae to store for ageing purposes if required. At least 400 otoliths and 1000 length frequency measurements should be obtained for each key species per year, at a minimum of 10% per operator per year. This needs to be revisited in a more informed manner. Need to define sampling regime to ensure that this will yield robust/representative data for fishery assessment needs – e.g. samples must be staggered in space and time as opposed to aggregated, samples randomly selected from size classes

Future assessment options:

Updated biological parameters for finfish populations.

Better habitat mapping.

Assessment of proportion of the fishable area currently exploited.

Spatial pattern analysis of given assemblages

2.2 Aquarium sector

The aquarium sector is probably the most continually active sector in the Coral Sea fishery. There has been

no formal, single-species stock assessments for any of the species taken in this sector.


2.2.1 HS Triggers

Fishing days

9. L1 Trigger of 200 days’ fishing (total for all operators)

– Never been triggered (2014/15 days fished, 67; 2015/16 days fished 97)

Total catch

10. L1 Trigger of total catch >40,000 individuals

– Never been triggered (when formulated, the maximum historic catch for the Aquarium sector had been approximately 30,000; 2015/16 specimens caught was 19,421; 2015/16 specimens caught was 32,494)

Catch composition:

11. L1 will be invoked if a significant (>30%) change in the relative proportion of the catch of a functional group IF no other triggers have been reached, AND the number of specimens is greater than 500 (to avoid trigger being reached unnecessarily). Functional groups include Angelfish, Damselfish, Gobies, Surgeonfish and Wrasses.

– This trigger was exceeded for 2 groups in 2009/10; 3 groups in 2011/11; 5 groups in 2014/15; and none in 2015/16

Species triggers

12. 50 specimens of Humphead Maori Wrasse (all permits) (L2)

– This trigger has never been exceeded (see separate analysis for Maori wrasse below)

Live rock harvest

13. L1 Live rock harvest - 20t

14. L2 Live rock harvest - 40t

– These triggers have never been exceeded. (2014/15 harvest was 1860 kg; 2015/16 harvest was 3600 kg)


The aquarium sector of the CSF was assessed by the ABARES RUSS project (Leatherbarrow & Woodhams,

2015). Given the diversity of species taken and the data available, species-specific stock assessment methods

were not possible. Three assessment approaches were used: 1) a maximum footprint analysis that aimed to

estimate the total amount of area operators could cover within a fishing season; 2) estimation of annual

extraction rates for key commercial families; and 3) a species-specific risk analysis, based on vulnerability

and susceptibility.

Five coral reef geomorphological habitat classes that best reflected suitable habitat for the aquarium sector

species taken in the CSF were obtained from satellite data analysis. Dive effort was found to be concentrated

within the first 12 metres of the water column, with deeper, experimental collection activity not considered

‘typical’ activity.

Estimates of density for key commercial families were obtained from published surveys. Estimates of

densities from visual census were considered to be biased downwards (underestimates) because of fish

behaviour.

The risk assessment used a similar approach to that used on the Queensland Marine Aquarium Finfish

Fishery (MAFF).

The outputs of the study are summarised below (Leatherbarrow & Woodhams, 2015) included:


Total area of habitat analysed was 1,530.5 km2.

Operators can only fish about 7 per cent of suitable habitat within the CSF in any given year.

Around 35 per cent of the suitable habitat in the fishery is fully protected in NNR.

The estimated extraction rate for key families was < 0.02% in 2008, and estimated at


consequently, most are males. This size means that the animals collected have had time to breed and

contribute to the population (AFMA, 2011).

Management

CITES listing requires member nations, including Australia, to ensure the trade of Humphead Maori Wrasse

is controlled, so as not to jeopardise the survival of the species. Australia’s obligations under CITES are met

through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). For this

species to be exported, the EPBC Act requires a non-detriment finding to be made.

The Threatened Species Scientific Committee assessed Maori wrasse in 2013 and provided advice to the

Environment Minister, concluding that this species was not eligible for listing as a threatened species in

Australian waters (TSSC, 2013).

Take of humphead Maori wrasse is permitted in the Coral Sea Fishery for the aquarium sector for public

display, except for the Commonwealth reserves of Coringa-Herald National Nature Reserve (8,852 km2) and

Lihou Reef National Nature Reserve (8,428 km2).

Take is limited to 50 specimens per year (25 on each permit) implemented through permit conditions. This

number of fish is reported to be well within sustainable limits (AFMA, 2011).

Due to the spatial scale of the fishery, the low maximum catch limit, the highly selective and often

opportunistic targeting of the species, spatial management was not considered necessary (AFMA, 2011).

Current take

The current take (

10% of the TAC of 50 individuals.

It is recommended that expert scientific opinion be sought as the potential localised impact of fishing all the

potential quota (50 Maori wrasse) off a single small reef in the CSF. If it is deemed to be an unacceptable

risk to local populations, then spatial management and/or move on provisions should be implemented.

2.3 Sea cucumber sector

Catch of sea cucumbers peaked at 49 t in 2000–01. Since then, the annual sea cucumber catch has fluctuated

between 1.9 t and 9.2 t. Annual catches in the sea cucumber fishery since 2007–08 have generally been less

than 3 t, but increased to 8.2 t in 2013–14. There has been no fishing since 2013-14.

Primary target species in the Sea Cucumber Sector include:

Black teatfish (Holothuria whitmaei),

White teatfish (H. fuscogilva),

Surf redfish (Actinopyga mauritiana)

Prickly redfish (Thelenota ananas)


Another dozen species are or could potentially be taken in the fishery.

In 2002, an assessment examining logbook data and catch rates from 2000 and 2001 for a number of target

species in the CSF sea cucumber sector showed a decline in the number of the higher valued black teatfish,

prickly redfish and white teatfish (Hunter et al., 2002). Following the assessment results and

recommendations, AFMA reduced the annual TACs for black and white teatfish to 1 tonne and 4 tonnes

respectively in 2002. These catch quotas were considered as extremely conservative given the size of the

area and likely species density in the fishery habitats. At the time, sea cucumber operators queried whether

black teatfish are “overfished” in the CSF.

2.3.1 HS Triggers

Catch

15. Overarching total annual TAC of 150 t

16. Species TACs (L2 equivalent)

Black teatfish 1 t

White teatfish 4 t

Sandfish (Holothuria lessoni) 1 t

Surf redfish 10 t

Prickly redfish 20 t

17. Species triggers (L1 equivalent)

Greenfish (S. chloronotus) and Lollyfish (H. atra) 10 t

All other species 5 t per species

– These species triggers have never been exceeded.

Spatial management

18. Move-on provisions – max 5 t from any one reef annually, no fishing within 15 n.m.

19. A three-year rotational harvesting strategy (RHS) was implemented in 2005 (included in permit conditions). The RHS Identifies 21 reefs with a set number of days fishing on each reef. Each reef is only open one year in three.

20. Size limits.


The RUSS project assessed the 4 primary target species (Black teatfish, White teatfish, Surf redfish and

Prickly redfish) (Woodhams et al., 2015).

The assessment estimated a plausible potential biomass for each species in the CSF. It used habitat data from

satellite mapping and historical surveys of sea cucumbers in NNR, Qld (GBR) and Torres Strait. MSY was

estimated using surplus production models, and fished biomass in 2010 was estimated as a proportion of

biomass in 1997.

Generally, the data availability was poor across all species, and was particularly poor for White teatfish and

Surf redfish. Analyses was done at the reef level but status determination is undertaken at the fishery level.

A key finding was that CPUE analysis was not a reasonable index of abundance because of: species density

patchiness, potential for hyper-stability and different fishing methods used in the fishery.

The principal finding of the RUSS analysis (Woodhams et al., 2015) were:

Black teatfish and Prickly redfish median biomass > 99% of 1997 biomass.


– classified as not overfished and not subject to overfishing.

Surf redfish median biomass was between 70 % and 91 % of 1997 biomass.

– Surf redfish catch was greater than the median MSY for 3 of 14 years since 1997. – Recent catches for surf redfish have been less than the median MSY. – classified as unlikely to be overfished and not subject to overfishing.

White teatfish biomass could not be established.

– White teatfish catches in recent years well below the historical peak of 19.7 t. – White teatfish stock remains uncertain with respect to being overfished and overfishing.

No stock assessments of the group of other sea cucumber species.

– Catch has recently been very low. – Classified as uncertain with respect to being overfished and not subject to overfishing.

2.3.3 Potential HS Modifications

Potential for increase in the Black teatfish TAC after collection of survey data.

Historical catch at some reefs has been high, and impacts of this reef-level catch should be considered further.

TACs and Trigger limits refer to whole wet weight. There is a need to clarify as most catch is weighed as wet gutted weight. Consider TACS based on numbers rather than weight.

Assessments and TACs for medium value species.

A related project by CSIRO (Plaganyi et al., 2011; 2015) that included an MSE for the Coral Sea Sea cucumber fishery indicated that risk was reduced under a RHS for sea cucumber (Figure 4). The continued implementation of the RHS is recommended for he CSF Sea cucumber fishery.

IUCN Red List

Several species of sea cucumber have been listed in the IUCN Red List. There is likely to be a decision soon

about listing under CITES. This will probably have some implications for the CS Sea cucumber fishery.

Species assessed as Endangered (a very high risk of extinction in the wild):

Holothuria lessoni (Golden Sandfish): Pop. decline 50%, trend: decreasing

Holothuria nobilis (Black Teatfish): Pop. trend: decreasing

Holothuria scabra (Sandfish): Pop. trend: decreasing

Holothuria whitmaei (Black Teatfish): Pop. Decline >70%, trend: decreasing

Thelenota ananas (Prickly Redfish): Pop. trend: decreasing

Species assessed as Vulnerable (a high risk of extinction in the wild):

Actinopyga echinites (Deep Water Redfish): Pop. trend: decreasing

Actinopyga mauritiana (Surf Redfish): Pop. trend: decreasing

Actinopyga miliaris (Harry Blackfish): Pop. trend: decreasing

Holothuria fuscogilva (White teatfish): Pop. decline 30%-50%, trend decreasing

Stichopus herrmanni (Curryfish): Pop. Decline 30-40%, trend: decreasing


Figure 4. Tradeoff curve between median risk performance (defined as probability of biomass being reduced below 40% of

the comparable no fishing scenario; +1 SD encompasses variation across nine species) and total revenue (million dollars) for

RZSs with the different cycle times (year) as indicated on the symbols. (Plaganyi et al., 2015)

2.4 Lobster and Trochus sector

Total catch of Rock lobster over the history of the fishery has been less than 10 tonnes and the highest annual

catch was 2.5 t. No lobster has been caught since 2006–07.

Total catch of trochus has been limited to 160 kilograms from a single reef in 2001. No trochus catch

recorded since 2001.

2.4.1 HS Triggers

Catch

21. 30 t catch trigger for each species (L2).

Spatial management

22. Move-on provision of total 5 t trochus and 3 t lobster tails per reef per year.

Size limits

23. Minimum tail size length for lobster; size range for trochus.

2.4.2 RUSS Project Outputs

Modelled population biomass for rock lobster was inferred from catch rates at 34 tonnes (minimum).

Current rock lobster fishing activity (


As there has been little recorded catch of Trochus in the CSF, the trochus stock in the Coral Sea is not overfished. There has been no recorded trochus catch from the Coral Sea since 2001, so trochus is not subject to overfishing.

2.4.3 Potential HS Modifications

Clarify the species of Tropical rock lobster in the catch in the CSF. It is likely from a number of tropical rock

lobster species (Panulirus spp.) and is unlikely to include P. ornatus.

Consider whether the maximum and minimum size range is appropriate for Tectus pyramis.


Appendix A Management timeline

2002 Assessment of CSF Sea cucumber fishery by CSIRO completed.

2002 Port meetings to formulate CS Consultative Forum. Various gear, input, limit and trigger points

(including spatial) were agreed and several effort performance criteria were removed. Sectors

include:

Trawl sector – 2 Concession holders

Demersal line sector – 9 Concession holders

Sea cucumber sector – 2 Concession holders

Trochus and Lobster sector – 2 Concession holders

Aquarium sector – 2 Concession holders

2003 First Strategic Assessment completed for CSF

2003 ERA (Preliminary) completed for CSF

2004 Coral Sea Fishery Statement of Management Arrangements finalised.

2004 A 2-year Trap trial commences carried out by operators from both the Line and Trawl sectors. The

trial commenced on 1 July 2004 and ran until 30 June 2006. Four vessels (3 from line and 1 from

trawl) participated, lifting over 17,000 traps and catching over 179 tonnes of which 147 tonnes of

fish were retained.

2004 CSIRO develops Harvest Strategy approach.

2005 Ministerial directive to end overfishing in Commonwealth fisheries, including implementing the

Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy (HSP); implement output controls; minimise discards;

enhance VMS; carry out independent surveys; implement spatial closures; and develop a source of

funding and program for independent surveys by 2007.

2007 ERA (Scoping and L1) completed for all sectors of the CSF

2006/7 Consultation meetings for CSF HS

2007 Trap fishing was added to Trawl and Line Sector permits. Conditions included a maximum number

of 50 traps per boat be allowed; and metal traps to be used.

2008 Implementation of CSF HS (July 2008)

2008 First HS review process (data driven)

2008 Eastern bioregional marine planning process begins

2009 RUSS Project starts. ‘Reducing Uncertainty for Stock Status for Coral Sea Fisheries’ project with

the objective of reducing the number of Commercial fish stocks from an ‘uncertain’ classification.

2009 HS Review and recommended modifications

2009 ERA for Sharks and Listed species

2011 HS structured review

2012 RUSS project completed. Outputs used in FSR

2015 RUSS project outputs published


References

ABARES 2015, Reducing uncertainty in fisheries stock status, ABARES research report, Canberra, August. CC BY 3.0

AFMA (2011) Management of Humphead Maori Wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus) in the Coral Sea Fishery.

AFMA (2015) Coral Sea Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2016, Australian Fisheries Management Authority. Canberra, Australia.

Chambers, M (2015) Status determination for trochus and tropical rock lobster stocks in the Coral Sea Fishery Hand Collection Sector, in J Larcombe, R Noriega & I Stobutzki (eds), Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status, unpublished report, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

Coral Sea Fishery Aquarium Expert Group (2012) Recommendations from teleconference meeting held on 13 March 2012. AFMA Unpublished report.

DAFF (2007) Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines, Australian Government Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

Dowling, N.A., D.C. Smith, I. Knuckey, A.D.M. Smith, P. Domaschenz, H.M. Patterson, and W. Whitelaw. (2008). Developing harvest strategies for low-value and data-poor fisheries: Case studies from three Australian fisheries. Fisheries Research 94(3): 380-390.

Hunter, C., Skewes, T., Burridge, C. Dennis, D. (2002) Research for management of the Coral Sea Collector Fishery (beche-de-mer). CSIRO Division of Marine Research Final Report. 21 pp.

Larcombe, J & Roach, J (2015) Coral Sea Fishery Line and Trap sector: preliminary stock assessments, In: J Larcombe, R Noriega & I Stobutzki (eds), Reducing Uncertainty in Fisheries Stock Status, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

Leatherbarrow, A & Woodhams, J (2015) Coral Sea Fishery: Aquarium Sector assessments, In: J Larcombe, R Noriega & I Stobutzki (eds), Reducing Uncertainty in Fisheries Stock Status, ABARES, Canberra.

Patterson, H, Georgeson, L, Stobutzki, I & Curtotti, R (ed) (2015) Fishery status reports 2015, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra. CC BY 3.0.

Plagányi, É., Skewes, T., Dowling, N., Haddon, M., Woodham, J., Larcombe, J. and M. Chambers (2011) Evaluating management strategies for data-poor sea cucumber species in the Coral Sea Fishery. CSIRO, Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart. 73 p.

Plagányi, É.E., T. Skewes, N. Murphy, R. Pascual, M. Fischer (2015) Crop rotations in the sea: Increasing returns and reducing risk of collapse in sea cucumber fisheries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 05/2015; DOI:10.1073/pnas.1406689112.

TSSC (Threatened Species Scientific Committee) (2013) Advice to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) on Amendment to the list of Threatened Species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

Woodhams, J, Chambers, M & Penrose, L (2015) Assessing Coral Sea Fishery sea cucumber stocks using spatial methods, In: J Larcombe, R Noriega & I Stobutzki (eds), Reducing Uncertainty in Fisheries Stock Status, unpublished report, ABARES, Canberra.

1

CONTACT Tim Skewes Consulting m +61 0419 382 697 e [email protected]

Coral Sea Fishery - Department of the Environment · Line, trap and trawl sector 8. Mr Corrie...

Documents

Transcript of Coral Sea Fishery - Department of the Environment · Line, trap and trawl sector 8. Mr Corrie...