Issue

Conditions/Recommendations

1

Data issues

A key input into fishery management is accurate data on the total mortality of all target and by-product species. In an ecologically-sensitive area such as the GBRWHA, data are also required for by-catch and interactions with listed, threatened, endangered and protected species.

The panel believes there is inadequate data on which to base management decisions in this fishery. While basic data are available on the level of catch for key target species, in the case of sharks there is a lack of detail on species breakdown (currently only required to distinguish between two species groups - one of which includes 31 species) and for some years (2003 and 2004) catch figures are considered to be potentially highly inaccurate. Reporting of discards is not currently required, nor will this reporting be mandatory under the proposed new logbook. More information is also required on the effort expended in the fishery. Currently logbooks are frequently not filled out at sea and while required to be submitted regularly, there may be a considerable lag in this process. As an example of a current best practice logbook design, DPI&F may wish to refer to the AFMA NT01A logbook.

There is also insufficient information on the take of ECIFF species by other Queensland commercial fisheries, the recreational and charter fishing sector and by Indigenous fishing. It is important that estimates of all possible mortality are obtained regularly and factored into estimates of total catch and sustainability. Given the possibility of localised depletion of these species, every effort should be made to collect, verify and report these on a regional basis.

There is currently little or no independent verification of logbook data, which is of particular concern when it comes to the take, discarding and interactions with the significant number of vulnerable and listed species in the ECIFF.

Condition 1:

DPI&F to introduce a logbook for the ECIFF by 1 February 2009, that will provide information on all catches, discards, better recording of effort and species-specific data on shark catch (linked to new ID guide) including as a minimum:

• blacktip (C. tilstoni & C. limbatus)
• spot-tail (C. sorrah)
• milk (R. acutus, R. taylori)
• hammerhead (Sphyrna spp.)
• Where necessary the product form of shark.

Condition 2:

By 1 July 2009, DPI&F to obtain estimates of take of ECIFF target species, split by species, from other Queensland fisheries, recreational fishing and indigenous fishing, with a particular focus on shark catch and mortality. These estimates should be updated regularly and factored into estimates of total catch and sustainability.

2

Observer program – lack of independently verified data

The lack of data upon which to base management decisions in this fishery has already been discussed. Even with a contemporary and comprehensive logbook program, good practice dictates that logbook data be independently verified and that a range of other data which is not collected in logbooks be available for management. An observer program would provide such information and also facilitate improved biological data collection leading to a better understanding of species vulnerability, and to exploitation levels through estimation of reporting rates in future tagging programs.

An observer program is required to provide verified information on a range of factors including:

• Spatial, temporal catches by all sectors
• Catch composition
• Discard rates and non-retained mortality
• Interactions with protected species;
• Data on effort
• Data on possible localised depletion.

While coverage may differ given logistic difficulties of some sectors, coverage must
be high enough to estimate with reasonable certainty (we suggest to CV’s <20%)
total catch/interactions of low productivity bycatch and no-take protected species.

Condition 3:

DPI&F to implement a statistically robust observer program by 31 December 2009, with an appropriate level of coverage to validate logbook estimates of total removals, species composition data for difficult-to-identify shark species, discard levels and interaction with protected species across all sectors of the commercial fishery.

Recomentadion 1:

There should be annual reporting and public reporting of observer data.

3

Shark species stock status concerns

There are significant concerns and uncertainty about the stock status and sustainable harvest of shark spp. in the ECIFF. As a multi-species, multi-gear fishery, controlling the take of any one of these species presents challenges. The species taken in this fishery vary widely in their productivity and while the limited information available suggests that catches tend to be focussed on the more productive species, this information is based on a very limited sample size, from a small area of the fishery. In these circumstances continuing to operate at historic levels presents high risks to the more vulnerable species and is not precautionary. The precautionary approach requires a significant lowering of the catch level until more certainty can be given the fishery impact on these species. Conditions 1-3 (above) will help provide the information necessary to lower this risk, but this will take time.

The development of a harvest strategy using a tiered approach - see for example, the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy - will enable the risks to different species to be assessed and managed. Implementing an effective harvest strategy will also prevent an increase in the take of low productivity/high risk species.

Condition 4:

By 31 December 2010, DPI&F to develop and implement a harvest strategy for shark
catches (all species) in the ECIFF. The strategy should set limits to prevent a significant change in the species mix of sharks.

Condition 5:

By 31 December 2010, DPI&F to implement an appropriate research program to determine exploitation rates for all commonly caught shark species, including tagging studies as appropriate.

Condition 6:

By 31 December 2011, DPI&F to work with other relevant jurisdictions to develop
and implement a stock assessment model for blacktip and spot-tail shark in the ECIFF.

Recommendation 2:

DPI&F to increase research on shark species in the ECIFF to address the following areas:

• Update demographic parameters and risk assessments
• Standardise catch rates of the main target shark species
• Spatial heterogeneity of shark species taken in the ECIFF, particularly inshore listed and highly vulnerable species
• Post-release survival of hook and net caught sharks from recreational and commercial sectors.

Recommendation 3:

DPI&F to continue education programs across all sectors on species identification, safe handling and release procedures and conservation.

4

Protected species

There is the potential for ECIFF net fishing to interact with a significant number of protected species, both in and outside of the GBRWHA. These species include white, grey nurse and whale sharks, Glyphis spp, freshwater and green sawfish, dugong, whales and dolphins, turtles, crocodiles, sea snakes and sygnathids.

Despite the introduction of the Species of Conservation Interest (SOCI) logbook in 2003, there appears to be limited information on interactions with these protected species. The observer program (Condition 3 above) will improve the quantity and accuracy of the information available on interactions. Annual reporting will enhance the transparency of this information.

In written submissions and subsequent discussions with the panel, ECIFF stakeholders have suggested that for two important protected species (dugong and sawfish) a closure of the waters north of Cooktown to net fishing would potentially enhance their recovery/rebuilding. Concerns about impacts of net fishing on recreational fishing in this area indicate that DPI&F consideration of measures to avoid localised depletion of some fish stocks should be a high priority.

Recommendation 4:

DPI&F to include in the annual reporting on the ECIFF, estimates of interactions and mortality of protected species based on the SOCI logbook, the observer program and surveillance and compliance information.

Condition 7:

DPI&F to examine and report by 31 December 2009 on the conservation benefits of a closure of waters north of Cooktown to mesh net fishing to provide additional protection to dugong and sawfish.

Recommendation 5:

DPI&F to continue education programs across all sectors on species identification, safe handling, release procedures and conservation.

5

Effort management

The ECIFF is managed primarily through input controls. Despite successfully removing considerable latent effort over the years, there remains considerable scope for operators in this fishery to increase effective effort over the current levels should economic conditions (e.g. reduced costs, increased demand and prices) allow. Based on DPI&F figures, average days fished by operators is between 50 and 60 days per year and average catches between one and 15 tonne. Many operators switch back and forth from the ECIFF to other Queensland fisheries during the year, or use the ECIFF as a supplement to predominantly land-based employment. Given the number of commercial operators, a huge recreational sector, uncertainty around sustainability of catch, interactions with vulnerable and protected species in a GBRWHA, and taking lessons from fishery management around the world, the relatively open possibility of effort expansion is of concern.

Using a cap of “net days” as a management measure is also of concern given that the number of sets per net day is currently not limited, allowing fishers to set more than once per day if desired. Given the proposed new attendance rules, it is entirely possibly that fishers will chose to set more than once per day, in so doing making a “net day” an imprecise measure and control mechanism. A standardised unit of effort needs to be developed for both net (see for example the SESS definition – km net/hrs) and line fishing to ensure changes in effective effort can be properly monitored.

The trigger limit set to respond to changes in effort is at the top end of the effort recorded in the ECIFF. This is not considered to be precautionary by the panel and Condition 8 requires a significant reduction in this figure to reduce the scope for a substantial blow out in effort without a commensurate management response. A clear and decisive management response needs to be developed and announced so that action can be taken to manage any further fishing should the new effort trigger be reached.

Condition 8:

By 1 February 2009, DPI&F to review and lower the proposed trigger for effort from 34 000 net days to more closely reflect the average level of effort in the fishery over the last two years.

Condition 9:

By 1 February 2009, DPI&F to develop and implement an appropriate management response to triggering of the effort cap.

Condition 10:

DPI&F to develop and implement by 1 July 2009 a standardised unit of effort for both net and line fishing in the ECIFF.

6

Localised depletion/spatial management

Submissions to the panel documented (albeit, based largely on anecdotal information) localised depletion for some species. These depletions are not always obvious when fishery “assessments” are based on aggregate data, as they have been in the ECIFF. Yet in schooling species with local residency and/or those that form seasonal spawning aggregations, the risk of localised depletion is high e.g. grey mackerel. The panel notes that localised depletions of inshore sawfish populations (now largely absent from southern Queensland) and documented reductions in numbers of dugong have occurred in the same area. While it is unlikely that these are solely due to mortality in the ECIFF, there is likely to have been a significant impact from the fishery.

The DPI&F have indicated that they intend to explore greater spatial management once the proposed management changes have been implemented. The panel considers that given the geographical size of the fishery and the potential for interactions with protected species this should be a priority. However, we recognise that improved data will be required (from Conditions 1 to 4 above) to ensure decisions are based on the best outcomes for the stocks and protected species.

Condition 11:

DPI&F to conduct a review seeking broad public and scientific input on the use of spatial management in the ECIFF to reduce the potential for localised depletion of key species (i.e. grey mackerel but also garfish) and interactions with protected species such as dugong, inshore dolphins and humpback whales. The findings are to be implemented by the 31 December 2010.

7

Management arrangements

As noted throughout this report, a serious concern for the panel is the uncertainty and risk associated with the proposed TAC for shark catches by the commercial sector. In forming this view the panel is particularly mindful of:

• The general lack of data
• the lack of validated data
• the lack of species-specific catch data
• the lack of fishing mortality estimates for sharks from all catching sectors
  

• The vulnerability of shark stocks to overexploitation
• The lack of knowledge about sustainable catch levels by species
• The lack of reliable estimates of incidental mortality of protected species
• The lack of knowledge about potential ecosystem effects.

The panel is also mindful of the fact that the TAC, as proposed, will only apply to the commercial sector, and the total mortality of sharks could therefore be well  above the proposed TAC. In addition, under the proposed arrangements even when the TAC is reached sharks can continue to be caught and landed (albeit at much lower levels) but additional directed and incidental mortality will occur. 

In addition, the resources available to effectively enforce a range of important management arrangements (and hence their overall effectiveness) including, net attendance rules, catch limits and no-take (i.e. no mortality) measures to manage both the commercial and recreational catch of shark are also of concern.

A precautionary approach should be implemented where the extent of risk is unclear and involves consideration of the adequacy of current or proposed management arrangements having regard to the current levels of knowledge of risk. Managing the take of a species in a manner consistent with the precautionary principle involves considering risk-weighted options in the context of all sources of mortality.

Consequently the panel, based on its experience, has assessed the risk associated with the proposed TAC as high; in our judgement too high. The lack of data and knowledge are such that the panel cannot provide an indication of what might constitute a ‘safe’ TAC. However, the lower the TAC (and the lower the total catch of sharks), the lower the risk to the target, byproduct, bycatch and protected species and the less the urgency for rapid completion of Condition 5.

In developing Condition 13, the panel considered the need to address the take of the
species in question by the recreational fishing sector. The panel believes that there
should be a zero possession limit for these species in this sector but is not able to
make such a condition.

More generally, the proposed management arrangements for the ECIFF are complex
and inter-dependent. DPI&F indicated to the panel that the arrangements were akin to a house of cards - if one were removed, the house would collapse. Such an approach does not allow the flexibility necessary to deal with a fishery operating in a complex, dynamic, world heritage listed ecosystem. Similarly, the past approach in the ECIFF of developing stronger management measures (e.g. quota controls) only when information (anecdotal and research data) suggested there was a problem (e.g. spotted mackerel, tailor and most recently grey mackerel) is a concern.

The management complexity in the proposed arrangements adds to the cost and difficulty in successfully implementing these arrangements and achieving the stated objectives for the fishery. DPI&F informed the Panel of the significant financial constraints under which ECIFF managers operate when it comes to compliance, monitoring and observing programs. The mixture of complexity and lack of resources lead the panel to have significant concerns about how well the proposed management measures could be implemented, enforced and ultimately made to work. It is clearly not enough to draw up measures without having the capability of enforcing them and measuring performance against management objectives.

The panel also has concerns over the potential impact of the fishery on highly vulnerable species, notably inshore dolphins and dugongs (particularly in the extensive non-DPA components of the fishery). Increasing numbers of humpback whales along the Queensland coast are also likely to see increased interactions with ECIFF gill nets.

Finally while recognising that management of the ECIFF has been significantly improved over recent years, and that DPI&F are committed to further advances towards best practice management in a WHA, the panel suggests there needs to be a fundamental rethink of the management approach for the ECIFF over the next three years, to reduce complexity, ensure sustainability of all species, and to take into account significant spatial heterogeneity in the risks.

Condition 12:

DPI&F is to review and set a TAC less than 700 tonnes for the shark fishery by 1 July 2009. Based on this revised TAC, DPI&F should review the desirability of management arrangements which provide for a target shark fishery. The TAC should be further reviewed once adequate data are available to update vulnerability and/or stock assessments for species caught by the fishery.

Condition 13:

From 1 July 2009 DPI&F is to make at risk species such as narrow sawfish (Anoxypristis cuspidata), and white-spotted guitar fish (Rhynchobatus spp) no take species.

Condition 14:

From 1 July 2009, DPI&F is to implement a catch receiver system, with enforcement checking to provide confidence in these data, to verify sales against landings and to cross check logbook catch data with catch landing data.

Recommendation 6:

While recognising that ideally shark fins should be attached to trunks to facilitate compliance with management arrangements, where this is not possible the DPI&F should develop product to fin weight relationships for shark species and consider DNA random testing of landed product for no-take species.

Recommendation 7:

DPI&F to review the hanging ratio for all nets to ensure they are fixed at a level that minimise capture of large sharks or protected species.

Recommendation 8:

DPI&F to review management arrangements for the ECIFF and develop a management regime which:

• If based on managing effort, provides for individual effort units, assesses and quantifies annual effort creep and provides a mechanism to adjust effort in response to increases in effort; or
• Through alternative management models which implement firm catch limits for all key species and allows autonomous adjustment of the fleet as catch limits change.