8950 Martin Luther King Jr. Street North, Suite 202 St. Petersburg, FL 33702 USA Tel: (727) 563-9070 Fax: (727) 563-0207 Email: mrag.americas@mragamericas.com

President: Andrew A. Rosenberg, Ph.D.

South Australian Sardine Fishery

South Australian Sardine (Sardinops Sagax)

Purse seine

MSC Fishery Assessment

Public Comment Draft Report

Prepared for South Australian Sardine Industry Association Inc Port Lincoln, SA, 5606, PO BOX 2909, Australia

MRAG Americas, Inc. September 4th, 2018

Authors: Richard Banks, Mihaela Zaharia and Cameron Dixon

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 1

Project Code: US2299_S01 Issue ref: Public Comment Draft Report Date of issue: 4 September 2018 Prepared by: R.Banks, C.Dixon, M. Zaharia Checked/Approved by: ASP MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 2 Table of Contents Glossary ...... 5 1 Executive Summary ...... 6 2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 9 3 Description of the Fishery ...... 11 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 11 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification ...... 11 Final Unit of Certification ...... 11 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data...... 11 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 15 Scope of the fishery in relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries ...... 15 3.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 15 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 19 Assessment of sardine against key Low-Trophic Level species criteria ...... 19 Biology and life history ...... 21 Estimates of biomass from the Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM) ...... 22 Stock assessment modelling ...... 24 Reference Points and assessment of stock status ...... 27 Harvest strategy and Harvest Control Rules ...... 28 Sustainability of sardine harvest in an ecosystem context...... 29 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 30 Primary Species ...... 31 Secondary Species ...... 35 Endangered Threatened and Protected Species (ETPs) ...... 37 Habitat...... 66 Ecosystem ...... 73 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 76 3.5.5 Decision making processes ...... 85 3.5.6 Compliance ...... 86 4 Evaluation Procedure ...... 92 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 92 4.2 Previous assessments ...... 92 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 92 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 92 Site Visits and persons met ...... 92 Additional Consultations by telephone ...... 93 Evaluation Techniques...... 93 5 Traceability ...... 95 MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 3 5.1 Eligibility Date...... 95 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 95 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 98 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 98 Proposed variation ...... 98 Rationale/Justification ...... 99 Stakeholder consultation ...... 99 Inseparable or practically inseparable (IPI) catches ...... 99 Request to allow an exemption to detailed requirements for IPI stocks ...... 101 6 Evaluation Results ...... 103 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 103 6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 103 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 104 6.4 Recommendations...... 104 6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 104 6.6 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment ...... 104 References ...... 105 Appendices ...... 116 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 116 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 116 Appendix 1.3 Conditions...... ccxii Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports ...... ccxiii Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions and Interviews ...... ccxiv Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency ...... 240 Appendix 5 Objections Process ...... 241

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 4

Glossary

AFZ Australian Fishing Zone BMSY Biomass at Maximum Sustainable Yield CCSA Conservation Council for South Australia CDR Catch and Disposal Record CEBEL Cetacean Ecology Behaviour and Evolution Lab (Flinders University) CoA Commonwealth of Australia CoP Code of Practice CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort DEE Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy DEPM Daily Egg Production Method EBFM Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management ENGO Environmental Non Government Agency EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected species FCR Fishery Certification Requirements FMA Fisheries Management Act FPV Fisheries Patrol Vessel GAB Great Australian Bight IPI Inseparable or Practically Inseparable stocks ITQ Individual Transferrable Quota LTL Low Trophic Level LRP Limit Reference Point MRAC Management Research and Advisory Committee MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation MSF Marine Scalefish Fishery OCS Offshore Constitutional Settlement RBF Risk Based Framework PTFT Sardine Fishery Transit Form SACAT South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal SARDI South Australian Research and Development Institute SASF South Australian Sardine Fishery SASIA South Australian Sardine Association Inc. SDI Stock Differentiation Index SLA Service Level Agreement SOP Standard Operating Procedure SPF Small Pelagic Fishery TEP same as ETP TACC Total Allowable Commercial Catch TRP Target Reference Point UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VMS Vessel Monitoring Scheme WIWG Wildlife Interaction Working Group

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 5 1 Executive Summary

This report sets out the results of the assessment of the South Australian Sardine Fishery (SASF) carried out by MRAG Americas, Inc. against the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Fisheries Standard. The purpose of this report is to provide background information, evaluation of the fishery, and justification for scoring the performance indicators provided by the MSC in the generic assessment tree of the Fishery Assessment Methodology, as defined in the Guidance to MSC FCR Version V2.1. The default assessment tree was used without adjustment. MRAG Americas conducted no primary research as part of this assessment, and relied on existing information provided by the client and other stakeholders to conduct the analysis. The report intends to clearly set out key issues for consideration during annual surveillance audits, should this certification be successful.

This is the 1st MSC assessment for the South Australian Sardine Fishery (SASF). There are no conditions applied to the certification of the fishery. There are however 3 recommendations.

The assessment team consisted of Richard Banks (Team Leader and Principle 3 Expert), Dr Cameron Dixon (Principle 1 Expert) and Mihaela Zaharia (Principle 2 Expert). The announcement for the site visit was posted on the MSC website on 19 April, 2018. The site visit commenced on 22 to 25 June, 2018 in Adelaide and Port Lincoln and all interviews, including subsequent telephone interviews were completed by 15 July. Meetings with fishery managers and fisheries scientists took place at the offices of PIRSA (in both Adelaide and Port Lincoln) and SARDI (Adelaide), Meetings with fishery representatives took place in Port Lincoln. Discussions with eNGOs and CEBEL (Flinders University) were face to face, but additional interviews took place by phone with DEWNR and the South Australian Museum. Documents and publications were presented by fishery representatives, managers, fisheries scientists and eNGOs. Client representatives were thorough in their approach and provided the assessment team with supporting documents. The fishery operates in South Australian waters of Spencer Gulf, Gulf of St Vincent and the Outer Zone. Purse seine fishing takes place on an annual basis and operates under a limited entry licensing system and management by quota. The commercial fishery began in the late 1990s. It is now a limited entry fishery with 14 license entitlements. Sardines are the target species for the fishery. A very low number of other species may be caught in the purse seine, and these collectively account for less than 2% of the total catch. Annual sardine catches have been at between 27,500-36,100 t. The current status of the Sardine stock is summarised in Ward (2017). The species is classified as a sustainable stock, with available evidence indicating that the current level of fishing mortality is unlikely to cause the stock to become overfished. A management plan for the fishery was implemented for the fishery in 2014, providing an overarching framework for management decision making. The plan incorporates a harvest strategy for the fishery. Co- management arrangements with industry are in place in several South Australian fisheries, and are especially important in terms mitigating a Code of Practice against interactions with Dolphins. The South Australian Sardine Association (SASIA) is the representative industry body for the commercial SASF. The South Australian Fisheries Minister has oversight of the management of the fishery under the management plan. Day-to-day management is conducted by Primary Industries and Regions South Australia Fisheries and Aquaculture in collaboration with the SASIA. In this assessment report the assessors provide the rationales for all scores proposed. Detailed rationales are presented for all Performance Indicators (PIs) under Principle 1 (Stock status and Harvest strategy), Principle 2 (Ecosystem Impact) and Principles 3 (Governance, Policy and Management system) of the MSC Standard. This report is the Public Comment Draft Report for stakeholder review. MRAG Americas determines that this fishery should be certified in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Standard. This is a determination and not a final decision, and no score is final until the public certification report that contains the certification decision is issued. There are no Conditions proposed for the fishery in this assessment. Three recommendations have been suggested.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 6 Summary of the evaluation results

Principle 1 examines the status of the target stock and whether the management system maintains the reproductive capacity within safe and rational limits. Exploited populations should be maintained at levels of abundance sufficient to maintain their productivity and reproductive capacities for yields over the long term, provide margins of safety for error and uncertainty, and restore and rebuild stocks that have become depleted. The overall score for Principle 3 was 98.3.

Principle 2 examines five components, which are considered to cover the range of potential ecosystem elements that may be impacted by a fishery, taking into account the status, management strategies and information relevant to each of these components. The overall score for Principle 2 was 95.7.

Principle 3 examines the structure and performance of the management system. The overall score for Principle 3 was 97.5.

Harmonisation with other MSC assessments

There is no requirement for harmonisation of the SAF fishery with sardine assessments as the stock is distinct. There are requirements for harmonisation of governance (3.1) and the scores are consistent with those in the Spencer Gulf Prawn Trawl Fishery.

Conditions and recommendations

There are no conditions required for this fishery. There are three recommendations:

Recommendation 1: The SASF collects sufficient and adequate quantitative information to: • quantify with a high degree of certainty (90% probability) the magnitude of UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of common dolphin population; • support a comprehensive strategy and to assess with a high degree of certainty that the strategy is achieving its objective to minimise direct and indirect impacts on common dolphin.

Recommendation 2: that the SASF observer program is subject to external review and that that the review focuses on the following areas:

• how representative the sampling is • whether observer coverage is based on the total effort or number of trips, • any spatial or temporal limitations on data collected, • definition of data collection protocols, • the formal process of training observers in terms of species identification the rigour applied to data collection protocols, and • the priorities for observer time on the vessel

Recommendation 3: Other key parts of the management system are subject to external review, including:

• The Sardine stock assessment • The Harvest Strategy • The Management Plan • The TEPs Code of Practice • The Compliance System

The record of document amendments is provided in Table 1.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 7 Table 1. Document Amendment Record

Version Start End Description

Inserted comments SASIA, PIRSA Client Draft 16/04/2018 30/07/2018 and SARDI.

Peer review Responded to Peer Review comments 31/07/2018 30/08/2018 draft and inserted changes where required. Public 3/09/2018 Comment draft Final Report and Determination Certification

Report

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 8

Table 2: South Australian Sardine Association, Client Group Vessels:

Company Owner Registration Vessels Australian Fishing Sam Sarin M491 M262 M433 Maria Luisa, Enterprises M429 Sardinops, Delamere Challenge Fisheries/ Anne Tapley M273 Karie Australian Southern Exporters

Blaslov Fishing Justin & Nancy M324 Simoan Nelligan S & Z Lukin Stan Lukin M255, M274 Violet White Fisheries Peter White M505 Gemma Marie Markane Seafoods Sean Kalling, Christian M153, M329, M285 Markane Huntington, James Orloff Marinkol Fisheries Mario Valcic M354 Christina S, Emma J

Dinko Tuna (M172) Lukina Lukin M172 Lukina 1

Note: Companies collectively hold 14 licences but may transfer entitlements to owner vessels. 2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers

Richard Banks is the lead assessor. He has considerable MSC experience having served as the Lead Assessor for four prawn trawl fisheries in Australia and on the PNA free school skipjack full assessment. Richard has also designed several fishery improvement plans in South East Asia and the Pacific, and acted as external reviewer to a number of MSC assessments on behalf of WWF. Richard currently works as an advisor to Parties to the Nauru Agreement. Richard is an economist and fisheries management and policy programming specialist having worked on similar issues for international agencies, Commonwealth and State Fisheries. Richard holds a bachelor degree in Fisheries Economics and a Masters in Agricultural Economics from the University of Portsmouth, and Wye College, London University, respectively. • He has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in management and research in fisheries; • He has passed the MSC team leader training; • He has the required competencies described in Table PC1, section 2; • He has undertaken four fishery assessment as a team leader in the last five years • He has experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques and is able to effectively communicate with clients and other stakeholders. In addition, he has the appropriate skills and experience required to serve as a Principle 3 assessor and is qualified to undertake assessments using the MSC Risk Based Framework, as described in FCR V2 Annex GPF. MRAG Americas confirms that Mr. Richard Banks has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment Dr. Cameron Dixon works as a Fishery Consultant for MRAG Asia Pacific. His recent work includes Marine Stewardship Council assessment and peer review. In addition, he has undertaken independent reviews of fisheries assessed against the Coles’ Responsible Sourcing Seafood Assessment framework and the World Wildlife Fund’s Ecological Sustainability Evaluation of Seafood framework. Cameron is currently the Chair of the Northern Territory’s Coastal Line Fishery Management Advisory Committee, and is a Technical Advisor for FisheryProgress.org. Prior to becoming a consultant, he worked as a Senior Fisheries Scientist for 20 years in South Australia and Victoria, during which time he completed his PhD with Melbourne University researching density-dependence in abalone stocks. MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 9 Dr Dixon meets the competency criteria in Annex PC for team members as follows:

• He has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in management and research in fisheries, • He has completed the required MSC online training for team members • He is able to score a fishery using the default assessment tree and describe how conditions are set and monitored. In addition, he has the appropriate skills and experience required to serve as a Principle 1 assessor as described in FCR V2 Annex GPF, and MRAG Americas confirms he has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment. Mihaela Zaharia earned her M Sc. In biological and ecosystem sciences. Her relevant experience includes involvement as a marine science researcher for Poseidon Aquatic Resources Management Consultants Ltd and prior to that with the National Institute for Marine Research and Development (Gr. Antipa), Romania. Ms. Zaharia was the P2 Assessor for both the Spencer Gulf and Northern Prawn Fishery, and also participated as a team member in a number of pre-assessments and Fisheries Improvement Plans on clam, blue swimming crab, tuna. In addition, she was one of the specialist trainers in the WWF Capacity Building programme for SE Asia, focussing primarily on the use of RBF in data poor fisheries. Ms. Zaharia meets the competency criteria in Annex PC for team members as follows:

• She has an appropriate university degree and more than five years’ experience in management and research in fisheries, • She has completed the MSC training and passed the verification tests. • She has undertaken at least two MSC fishery assessments or surveillance site visits in the last five years, • She is able to score a fishery using the default assessment tree and describe how conditions are set and monitored In addition, she has the appropriate skills and experience required to serve as a Principle 2 assessor as described in FCR V2 Annex GPF, and MRAG Americas confirms she has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 10 3 Description of the Fishery 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification UoA Species South Australian sardines (Sardinops Sagax) Stock Australian sardines (Sardinops sagax) are broadly distributed throughout temperate and sub-tropical waters between Rockhampton (Queensland) and Shark Bay (Western Australia), including northern Tasmania (Gomon et al. 1994). Waters off South Australia are the centre of sardine’s Australian distribution and support the largest component of the Australian population. Geographical Area All waters adjacent to South Australia to the edge of the 200-nautical-mile Australian Fishing Zone, except for closed areas (FAO Region 57) Harvest method Purse seine Client Group South Australian Sardine Association Inc Other eligible None fishers

Final Unit of Certification UoC Species South Australian sardines (Sardinops Sagax) Stock Australian sardines (Sardinops sagax) are broadly distributed throughout temperate and sub-tropical waters between Rockhampton (Queensland) and Shark Bay (Western Australia), including northern Tasmania (Gomon et al. 1994). Waters off South Australia are the centre of sardine’s Australian distribution and support the largest component of the Australian population. Geographical Area All waters adjacent to South Australia to the edge of the 200-nautical-mile Australian Fishing Zone, except for closed areas (FAO Region 57) Harvest method Purse seine Client Group South Australian Sardine Association Inc Other eligible None fishers

Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data Table 3. TAC and Catch Data

TAC Year 2016 Amount (mt) 42.750 UoA share of TAC Year 2016 Amount 42,750 UoC share of total TAC Year 2016 Amount 42,750 Total green weight catch by UoC Year (most 2016 Amount 34,561 recent) Year (second 2015 Amount 36,110 most recent)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 11 Fishers licensed in the South Australian Sardine Fishery (SASF) are authorised to harvest Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax), Australian Anchovy (Engraulis australis), maray (Etrumeus jacksoniensis), blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus), sandy sprat (Hyperlophus vittatus), blue sprat (Spratelloides robustus) and redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus) (Fisheries Management General Regulations, 2017, as amended 15 January 2018). For the purposes of this assessment all these species other than Sardine are defined as “Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stocks” for MSC Chain of Custody purposes. The fishery is managed through an individual transferrable quota (ITQ) system with a total allowable commercial catch (TACC) set for each calendar year. The TACC is divided equally between the licence holders. The TACC from 2010 to 2014 was 34,000 t, while the TACC for 2016 was 42,750 t. Following the SASF’s inception in 1991 the fishery reached 3,241 t in 1994 (Figure 1) before the first mass mortality event in 1995 (Ward et al. 2001). Catches increased rapidly thereafter reaching 5,973 t in 1998, when a second mass mortality event occurred (Ward et al. 2001). Since the recovery that followed the second mortality event, the fishery expanded rapidly with an estimated total catch of 39,831 t in 2005 (Figure 1). Total annual catches recorded in Catch and Disposal Records (CDRs) have exceeded catches estimated in logbooks in most years. Since 2007, the estimated catch has ranged from of 27,500-36,100 t. The catch in 2016 was 34,561 t.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 12

Figure 1. Total catches (estimated from logbooks, CDR), fishing effort (nights, net-sets) and mean annual CPUE (t.night-1, t.net-set-1, ± SE). Data prior to 1999 is derived from Marine Scalefish Fishery (MSF) records, specific SASF logbooks (LB) were introduced in 1999. Source Ward et al. (2017a).

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 13 In order to better manage the spatial distribution of the catch, management zones were introduced into the fishery. The SASF is now divided into two zones: Gulfs Zone and Outside Zone (Figure 2). Historically, the bulk of the commercial catch has been harvested from Spencer Gulf (GZ). The TACC for 2017 is 42,750 t, including up to 30,000 t from the Gulfs Zone and 12,750 t from the Outside Zone (Figure 2).

Figure 2. The two spatial management zones defined in the harvest strategy for the SASF. Abbreviations: OZ, Outside Zone; GZ, Gulfs Zone (source PIRSA 2014)

From 1992, up until the first mortality event in 1995, most sardines were taken from Spencer Gulf (Figure 3, Ward et al. 2017a). A small proportion of the catch was first taken from the Outside Zone in 1999 and 2000. In 2005, when the TACC was set at 51,100 t, the spatial extent of the SASF expanded substantially. In 2005 and 2006, relatively large catches were taken from the Gulf St Vincent zone and then between 2007 and 2009, the Spencer Gulf zone was the primary fishing area. Since 2010, when additional quota was allocated outside of the Spencer Gulf, a significant amount of catch has been taken from Investigator Strait (Gulf St Vincent zone) and waters between Anxious Bay and Flinders Island (Outside zone).

Figure 3: Distribution of catch within two spatial management zones of the SASF. Source Ward et al. (2017a)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 14

Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries The fishery is not an enhanced fishery

Scope of the fishery in relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries The SASF has been assessed with regard to special considerations for the scope of the MSC certification sought (FCR 7.4): • Unit of Certification – see Section 2.3; • Low Trophic Level (LTL) species – MSC CR v2.0, Box SA1 defines species that are default LTL species. This includes species from the Family Clupeidae (sardines,). However, sardines will NOT be assessed as a key LTL for this assessment. Sardine will be assessed under the default assessment tree. The rational is laid out under principle 1 • Enhanced Fishery – the SASF does not meet the MSC definition of an enhanced fishery; • Unilateral Exemption – the SASF is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement; • Destructive Fishing Practices – the SASF does not use fishing with poisons or explosives; • Dispute or Controversy – the SASF is not the subject of controversy and/or dispute; • Past MSC Record – the SASF has not previously failed assessment nor had a certificate withdrawn; • Other Eligible Fishers – All licence holders in the SASF would be eligible to use an MSC certificate awarded to the fishery; • IPI Stocks – Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable stocks are defined and listed in a Variation (https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/south-australia-sardine- fishery/@@assessments) • Enhanced Stocks – the SASF does not comprise any enhanced stocks; • Overlapping Fisheries – the SASF unit of certification does not directly overlap with other MSC certified fisheries, but does co-occur in South Australia with the Spencer Gulf Prawn Fishery. The main areas of overlap which could require harmonisation are in the P3 performance indicators (PIs); • Introduced Species – the SASF is not based on any introduced species.

3.2 Overview of the fishery The following overview of the fishery is primarily adapted from Ward et al (2017a) and PIRSA (2014): Sardine occur in cool temperate to sub-tropical waters of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres where, along with a local species of anchovy (Engraulis spp.), they commonly dominate the fish biomass in upwelling regions. Sardine support important commercial fisheries throughout the world, particularly where highly productive Northern hemisphere upwelling systems are found. Australia’s waters are generally less productive than their northern counterparts; however, Australian sardines (Sardinops sagax) are broadly distributed throughout temperate and sub-tropical waters between Rockhampton (Queensland) and Shark Bay (Western Australia), including northern Tasmania (Gomon et al. 1994). Waters off South Australia are the centre of sardine’s Australian distribution and support the largest component of the Australian population (Ward et al. 2006). Shelf waters off South Australia also include Australia’s largest upwelling system, the Flinders Current system (Middleton and Cirano 2002). Sardine is the dominant clupeid off South Australia, occurring in the southern portions of Gulf St Vincent and Spencer Gulf and over the continental shelf (Ward et al. 2001a, b). The area of the sardine fishery includes all the waters adjacent to the state of South Australia to the edge of the 200-nautical-mile Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ, Figure 4), with the exception of closed areas. MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 15 The legislative instrument defining the area of jurisdiction for the sardine fishery is the 1996 Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS) arrangements for scalefish species between South Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia.

Figure 4. Waters of the SASF. Source PIRSA (2014)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 16

There are 14 licence holders in the SASF and they are entitled to harvest S. sagax and a number of other small pelagic species. However, South Australian commercial catches currently and historically are comprised almost entirely of sardine (PIRSA 2014). While the majority of catch is harvested from Spencer Gulf (Figure 2), since zones were introduced in 2010 to spread the catch, a higher proportion of the total catch has been harvested from the Outside and Gulf St Vincent zones (Figure 3). Access to the sardine fishery is provided through a licence for the Marine Scalefish Fishery (MSF) with a sardine net endorsement. The net endorsement allows the licence holder to use a small-mesh purse seine net when fishing for marine scalefish. The Fisheries Management (General) Regulations describe a sardine net (meaning a purse seine net) that meets all the following requirements: (a) is no more than 1,000 m in length (b) is no more than 200 m in depth (c) has a minimum mesh size of 14 mm (d) has a maximum mesh size of 22 mm Most fishing activity occurs at night, with schools of sardines generally located by sonar. Nets are deployed around a school, then pursed and drawn into a smaller area adjacent to the vessel. The catch is removed from the net with a pump and transferred into the hold of the vessel (DEE 2016).

Figure 5. Intra-annual patterns in Sardine catch (tonnes, bars) by region and effort (net-sets, Blue = Gulf Zone and Red = Outer Zone) in SASF between 2014 and 2016

Between 1991 and 2016, there has been a reasonably consistent intra-annual pattern in fishing effort. Years 2014 to 2016 (Figure 5) are typical exploitation years. Relatively little fishing is usually conducted during August to October. Effort and catches often begin to increase in November/December, prior to the start of the southern bluefin tuna farming season. Catches continue to increase during January-February and usually peak in March-June. The peak fishing season reflects the extended periods of calm weather between April and June and the high demand for Sardine to feed southern bluefin tuna following their capture during summer. The months in which significant catches have been taken from the Outside and Gulfs Zone have varied among years.

PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture contracts research services for each fishery. SARDI Aquatic Sciences is currently the primary research provider for core research for the sardine fishery. Costs of the annual research program for the fishery are recovered through licence fees. In addition to the core stock assessment work that informs periodic decision-making in the fishery, additional research projects are also undertaken to meet longer-term fishery objectives or to underpin the development of strategies under this plan. This research plan is reviewed and updated annually by the SASIA Research and Management Committee. The biology of the species is well understood (summary provided in Ward et al. 2017a), and importantly being a Low Trophic Level (LTL) species, its role in the ecosystem is also well understood (e.g. Goldsworthy et al 2010, 2013). The primary tool for stock assessment is use of the Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM, Parker 1980; Lasker 1985), which has been used to estimate the spawning biomass of sardine in South Australia since 1995. The method is considered appropriate for the stock and the fishery, and the uncertainties around the estimates are well understood (Ward et al. 2017a, 2016) and have been explicitly accounted for in the development of the harvest strategy (PIRSA 2014). MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 17 In addition, two stock assessment models have been developed for the fishery. The first was developed by SARDI in 2005 and has been progressively improved over time, as reported in the bi-annual stock assessment reports. Key outputs of the model include estimates of total biomass relative to unexploited levels, and annual exploitation rates for the fishery. The limitations of the assessment are well understood and are also discussed in detail in each Stock Assessment Report. The second stock assessment model was conducted opportunistically (and once only) for the SASF as part of a broader stock assessment for the four target species of the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF). Single species models (including sardine) were developed and the assessment included Management Strategy Evaluations to determine optimum Reference Points, equilibrium BMSY and exploitation rates required to achieve target refence points (B50) with estimated certainty. Combined, these two models provide critical information for the assessment of stock status and appropriateness of current Harvest Control Rules for the SASF. The South Australian Sardine Industry Association Inc. (SASIA) is recognised as the representative industry body for the SASF. The Minister has oversight of the management of the fishery under the Management Plan (PIRSA 2014), but day to day management is conducted by PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture in association with SASIA. SARDI Aquatic Sciences provides a bi-annual Stock (Fishery) Assessment Report (e.g., Ward et al. 2017a) for the fishery, with key statistics from catch and effort data and from fishery-independent survey data assessed at appropriate spatial and temporal scales. In alternate years, a Spawning Biomass Report (e.g., Ward et al. 2016) is produced to document the results of the biennial fishery-independent spawning biomass survey. In November 2004, a targeted seven-month independent monitoring program was initiated to monitor interactions of the sardine fishery with endangered, threatened and protected (ETPs) specie. The program was implemented to address recommendations from the Part 13 and Part 13A accreditation under the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The results from this monitoring program revealed that the fishery was having high interaction rates with common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) and therefore an independent program was put in place to monitor 10 per cent of fishing nights, which was increased to 30 per cent in July 2007 due to the level of interaction rates (Hamer et al. 2009). In response to the interactions, industry implemented a Code of Practice (CoP) that mitigated against interactions with common dolphins by introducing an avoidance and delay approach. This CoP raised awareness within the industry and saw a reduction in the interaction rates with common dolphins (Hamer et al. 2009). While significant initial discrepancies existed between commercial logbook interactions and independent observer data, through collaborative management between the industry (SASIA), PIRSA and SARDI, the discrepancies have been minimised over time. Industry have continuously been proactive in implementing any measures they consider appropriate to help reduce the discrepancy between the two rates and to reduce the level of interactions with dolphins. While fishery interactions with ETPs are reported annually by SARDI in a single document for all South Australian fisheries, two fishery-specific reports were documented for the sardine fishery in 2015 (Ward et al., 2015b and Mackay and Goldsworthy, 2016).

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 18

3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background Assessment of sardine against key Low-Trophic Level species criteria Australian sardines, Sardinops sagax, are from the family Clupeidae, which are listed as a default key Low Trophic Level (LTL) species under MSC FCR v2.0 (MSC 2014). Under Principle 1 of the FCR, key LTL species are assessed differently for stock status, where the status of the stock must consider the needs of the ecosystem. SA2.2.9 of FCR 2.0 (MSC 2014) defines the stock as a key LTL species if in its adult life cycle phase the stock holds a key role in the ecosystem, such that it meets at least two of the following sub-criteria: i. A large proportion of the trophic connections in the ecosystem involve this stock, leading to significant predator dependency; ii. A large volume of energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock; iii. There are few other species at this trophic level through which energy can be transmitted from lower to higher trophic levels, such that a high proportion of the total energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock (i.e., the ecosystem is ‘wasp-waisted’). Criterion (i) – Connectivity: GSA2.2.9 indicates that connectivity can be assessed against a “SURF” index determined from ecosystem studies, stating “SURF values of less than 0.001 will normally indicate a non-key LTL stock. SURF values of greater than 0.005 will normally indicate a key-LTL stock” (MSC 2014). Anon (2014) present a SURF estimate of 0.0022 for Australian sardine in the GAB ecosystem. This value falls in the uncertain area between the thresholds established for defining a key-LTL stock. GSA 2.2.9 states “In the intermediate zone, where the classification of the stock is uncertain, further qualitative evidence of predator dependency may be taken into consideration” (MSC 2014). Criterion (ii) – Energy Transfer: GSA2.2.9 indicates that energy transfer can be empirically determined as the Consumer Biomass Ratio, which is “calculated as the biomass of the candidate key LTL stock, divided by the biomass of all consumers in the ecosystem” (MSC 2014). Goldsworthy et al (2010) conducted an ecosystem study specific to the SASF and Table 5.4 of the report provides data on the biomass by functional group from the balanced Ecopath model. Sardine comprised 1.7% of the total biomass of all consumers in the system (Table 4), and thus do not meet the key-LTL definition for Criterion (ii). Criterion (iii) – Wasp-waistedness: GSA2.2.9 requires that there are few other species at this trophic level through which energy can be transmitted from lower to higher trophic levels, such that a high proportion of the total energy passing between lower and higher trophic levels passes through this stock (i.e., the ecosystem is ‘wasp-waisted’) (MSC 2014). Sardine represent a substantial proportion (31%) of the total combined consumption of small pelagic fish in the EGAB ecosystem (Goldsworthy et al 2013). Other small pelagic fishes including anchovy, blue mackerel, jack mackerel, yellowtail scad, redbait, maray and saury. In other parts of the world, ecological studies examining the trophic impacts of fisheries targeting low-trophic level species have generally focused on high trophic level species which are often sensitive to subtle changes in the abundance and distribution of the lower trophic level species on which they prey (see Boyd et al., 2006 for review). In contrast, Goldsworthy et al (2013) found that cephalopods (primarily arrow squid) appeared to be the group most likely to provide a wasp-waist effect. The authors suggested that a ‘predator gap’ that had resulted from reduced biomass of long-lived predator species such as fur seal, Southern bluefin tuna and sharks, may have been quickly filled by semelparous species,

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 19

Table 4. Trophic level and biomass per square km for species or species groups in the GAB ecosystem (data source Goldsworthy et al 2010).

Species / Species Group Trophic Level Biomass (t km-2) %Total Biomass 1 Baleen whales 3.01 0.0389 0.0% 2 Bottlenose dolphin 4.61 0.00611 0.0% 3 Common dolphin 4.66 0.0039 0.0% 4 NZ fur seal 4.8 0.00453 0.0% 5 Aust fur seal 4.53 0.00047 0.0% 6 Aust sea lion 4.91 0.00422 0.0% 7 Little penguin 4.71 0.000698 0.0% 8 Petrels 4.09 0.00306 0.0% 9 Gannets 5.01 0.0000308 0.0% 10 Terns 4.52 0.00000635 0.0% 11 Pelagic sharks 4.92 0.0459 0.1% 12 Demersal sharks 3.92 0.307 0.3% 13 Rays and skates 3.68 0.459 0.5% 14 SBT 4.52 0.145 0.2% 15 Other tunas-kingfish 4.5 0.0769 0.1% 16 Large bentho-pelagic piscs 4.68 0.452 0.5% 17 Blue mackerel 3.23 0.219 0.2% 18 Jack mackerel 3.22 0.919 1.0% 19 Redbait 3.38 0.561 0.6% 20 Anchovy 3.63 1.272 1.4% 21 Sardine 3.36 1.517 1.7% 22 Inshore small planktivores 3.93 0.489 0.5% 23 Salmons & ruffs 4.51 0.246 0.3% 24 Medium demersal piscs 3.47 0.302 0.3% 25 Small demersal piscs 2.66 1.467 1.6% 26 Medium demersal invert feeders 4 0.0786 0.1% 27 Small demersal invert feeders 3.53 0.149 0.2% 28 Mesopelagics 3.07 0.106 0.1% 29 Small demersal omnivore 3.77 0.17 0.2% 30 Arrow squid 4.18 0.341 0.4% 31 Calamary 4.5 0.0837 0.1% 32 Other squids 3.14 0.111 0.1% 33 Octopus 4.16 0.294 0.3% 34 Large zooplankton (carnivores) 2.2 1.287 1.4% 35 Small zooplankton (herbivores) 2 35.119 39.1% 36 Benthic grazer (megabenthos) 3.24 11.013 12.3% 37 Detritivore (infauna - macrobenthos) 2.52 30.983 34.5% 38 Filter feeders 2.8 1.581 1.8% Total consumers 89.85602515

such as cephalopods which can build up biomass quickly in response to increased small pelagic fish availability and reduced predation pressure. A build-up in cephalopods may reduce trophic flows to

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 20

high trophic levels, with their short generation times and reduced predation pressure resulting in much of their biomass being returned to detritus. Another study of the role of small pelagic fish in southern Australian ecosystems identified that these ecosystems were largely bottom-up forced, but that different parts of these food webs could exert both bottom-up and top-down control (Bulman et al., 2010). Furthermore, switching between these states may occur in response to fishing and climate change pressures (Bulman et al., 2010). Goldsworthy et al (2013) conclude that it is possible that cephalopods may be able to exert some degree of ‘wasp-waist’ control (Cury et al., 2000), by restricting energy flow to competitors at similar or higher trophic levels. Therefore, SA2.2.9 (iii) is not met. In summary, criterion (i) was uncertain but criteria (ii) and (iii) were not met. Therefore, sardine will NOT be assessed as a key LTL for this assessment. Sardine will be assessed under the default Scoring Guideposts for stock status and reference points.

Biology and life history Sardine occur in cool temperate to sub-tropical waters of the Northern and Southern Hemispheres where they commonly dominate the fish biomass in upwelling regions. The largest sardine fisheries operate in the eastern boundary current systems off the west coasts of northern and southern Africa and North and South America. (insert stats on size). Sardine fisheries also operate in coastal waters surrounding Japan, and the generally less productive waters off southern Australia and around New Zealand. In Australia, sardine are distributed south of Rockhampton in Queensland and Shark Bay in Western Australia, including northern Tasmania (Gomon et al. 1994). Waters off South Australia are the home to Australia’s largest upwelling system, the Flinders Current (Middleton and Cirano 2002), which supports the largest biomass of the Australian sardine population (Ward et al. 2006). Sardine is the dominant clupeoid off South Australia, occurring in the southern portions of Gulf St Vincent and Spencer Gulf and over the continental shelf (Ward et al. 2001a, 2001b). As for other global upwelling regions, one species of engraulid, the Australian anchovy (Engraulis australis) is also abundant off South Australia (Dimmlich et al. 2009). When sardine biomass is high, the Australian anchovy occurs mainly in the northern gulfs, but when sardine biomass is low this species has the capacity to increase in abundance and expand its distribution into shelf waters (Ward et al. 2001a, Dimmlich et al. 2004, Dimmlich and Ward 2006). Izzo et al. (2017) used a Stock Differentiation Index (SDI) that integrated genetic, morphological, otolith reproductive and fishery data from a 60-year period to confirm that the Australian Sardine is a meta-population comprising of four stocks: the Eastern Australian; Southern Australian (western Victoria and South Australia); Western Australian South Coast; and Western Australian West Coast stocks. Previous studies had suggested potential sub-structuring of the population in South Australia based on chemical and Fourier (shape) analysis of sardine otoliths, likely the result of environmental fluctuations (Izzo et al. 2012). This finding led to the development of a Gulf Zone and an Outside Zone for the fishery (PIRSA 2014). The movement patterns of the Southern Australian Sardine stock are not well understood although there is evidence of an ontogenetic shift in distribution with larger and more mature fish most commonly found in shelf waters and smaller, younger fish mainly found in embayments including Spencer Gulf (Rogers and Ward 2007). The SASF is concentrated in southern Spencer Gulf and therefore a substantial proportion of the spawning biomass is located outside of the primary fished areas in the Great Australian Bight. An improved understanding of the rate of sardine movement between shelf and gulf waters has been identified as a high priority for the fishery. The schooling behaviour of sardine is complex and many studies have demonstrated variations in behaviour at both spatial and temporal scales (Ward et al 2017a). It is suggested that schooling behaviour may be influenced by factors including habitat heterogeneity, food availability, predation levels and vessel noise (Freon et al. 1993, Giannoulaki et al. 2003). In South Australia, Ward et al.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 21

(2011b) provided evidence that spawning may also influences schooling behaviour, with spawning females under-represented in commercial catches. This unpredictability of schooling behaviour impedes the application of acoustic techniques for stock assessment. Sardine are serial spawners, releasing numerous batches of pelagic eggs throughout an extended spawning season (Ward et al. 2015a). The number of eggs in a batch is correlated with female size and varies among locations and years (Lasker 1985). Ward and Staunton-Smith (2002) found approximately 50% of males and females reach sexual maturity (L50) at 146 and 150 mm, respectively. Sardine usually spawn in open waters between the coast and shelf break (Blackburn 1950; Fletcher and Tregonning 1992; Fletcher et al. 1994). In South Australia, spawning occurs during the summer-autumn upwelling period of January-April (Ward et al. 2001a, b; Ward and Staunton-Smith 2002) and females spawn batches of 10,000-30,000 pelagic eggs approximately once per week during the extended spawning season. Eggs are abundant in the southern gulfs and shelf waters (Ward et al. 2006). Sardine fisheries worldwide are characterised by highly variable recruitment and hence population abundance (e.g. Guisande et al. 2001, Miguel et al. 2001). Fluctuations in recruitment are understood to be influenced by environmental factors, regime shifts and over-fishing (e.g. Galindo-Cortes 2010). It is predicted that the intensity and duration of upwelling events could increase under future climate change scenarios (Hobday et al. 2009) but the effects of such changes on the future recruitment success of sardine in South Australia are poorly understood (Ward et al. 2015a). As sardine have a relatively long larval phase (eggs hatch approximately two days after fertilization; larvae metamorphose at 1-2 months of age (Neira et al. 1998)), survival of eggs and larvae strongly affects recruitment success (Lo et al. 2005). The factors that affect larval survival such as food availability (Lasker 1975) and predation (e.g. Agostini et al. 2007) vary substantially at all spatial and temporal scales. Rogers and Ward (2007) showed that the growth rates of sardine are higher in South Australian waters than off other parts of the Australian coastline, but lower than those in more productive boundary current ecosystems (Ward et al. 2006). Mass mortality events in 1995 and 1998/99, likely caused by an exotic pathogen to which Australian sardine were naïve (Jones et al. 1997; Gaughan et al. 2000; Whittington 2008), spread throughout the entire Australian range of sardine and at the time were thought to have killed more fish over a larger area than any other single-species fish-kill recorded (Jones et al. 1997). Each event was estimated to have killed over 70% of the spawning biomass in South Australian waters (Ward et al. 2001a). While stock recovery has been monitored through a fishery-independent biomass estimate called the Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM), the use of age structured models to assess the capacity of the population to recover has been impeded by difficulties associated with obtaining representative estimates of catch-at-age (Ward et al. 2005).

Estimates of biomass from the Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM) The Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM) was originally developed for stock assessment of northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax, off the west coast of North America (Parker 1980) and has been used to estimate the spawning biomass of sardine in South Australia since 1995 (Ward et al. 2015a). The method uses data from the collection of pelagic eggs during fishery-independent surveys to estimate the biomass of spawning adults by dividing total daily egg production by mean daily fecundity (Lasker 1985). The DEPM can be applied to fishes that spawn multiple batches of pelagic eggs over an extended spawning season (e.g. Parker 1980) and has been used for stock assessment of at least 15 species of small pelagic fishes, mostly clupeoids (Ward et al. 2017a). Ward et al. (2017a) lists the key assumptions of the DEPM survey methodology as: 1) surveys are conducted during the main (preferably peak) spawning season; 2) the entire spawning area is sampled; 3) eggs are sampled without loss and identified without error; 4) levels of egg production and mortality are consistent across the spawning area; and 5) representative samples of spawning adults are collected during the survey period (Parker 1980; Alheit 1993; Hunter and Lo 1997; Stratoudakis et al. 2006).

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 22

The key uncertainties of DEPM spawning biomass estimates are also listed by Ward et al (2017a) and include: 1) estimation of total daily egg production (P0) and spawning area (A) (Fletcher et al. 1996; McGarvey and Kinloch 2001; Ward et al. 2001b; Gaughan et al. 2004; Stratoudakis et al. 2006), and 2) difficulties obtaining representative samples of spawning adults for estimation of adult reproductive parameters, especially spawning fraction (S) (see Stratoudakis et al. 2006). DEPM estimates of spawning biomass are considered to be an accurate measure, however they are a notoriously imprecise measure (Alheit 1993; Hunter and Lo 1997; Stratoudakis et al. 2006), with Coefficients of Variation (CV) commonly >35% of the mean (Ward et al. 2017a). The DEPM is also currently considered the best technique available for this species off the west coast of North America (e.g. Lo et al. 1996, 2005) and the western and southern coasts of Australia (Fletcher et al. 1996; Ward et al. 2001a; Gaughan et al. 2004). Despite these limitations, DEPM estimates of biomass are considered more appropriate than other commonly used approaches, such as acoustic techniques. In Australia, the schooling behaviour of sardine varies substantially both spatially and temporally and complicates the application of acoustic techniques. Also, there is evidence that spawning influences schooling behaviour, with spawning females under-represented in commercial catches (Ward et al. 2011b). Recently, a project was completed that examined issues associated with the precision of DEPM estimates in South Australia (Ward et al 2018b). Key outcomes of the project were identified as: 1) a new generalised egg staging method that has several advantages over previous egg staging systems; 2) refinements to methods used to identify samples where a zero count should be allocated to one or more egg cohorts; 3) identification of factors that cause the high levels of uncertainty associated with estimates of mean daily egg production (P0) and egg mortality (z); 4) confirmation that the log-linear model is the most precise method currently available for estimating P0 and z for Australian Sardine off South Australia; 5) a simulation model that can be used to evaluate the effects of key processes (e.g. sampling method) on the precision of estimates of P0 and z; and 6) recommendations to trial a new oblique plankton sampler that may improve the precision of future estimates of P0. Ward et al (2017b) report DEPM estimates of spawning biomass from surveys conducted between 1995 and 2017 (Figure 6). Surveys were conducted annually up to 2007 and have been generally biannual thereafter. The 2017 estimate was the highest recorded for the fishery, with a mean estimate of 305,086 t, and lower and upper 95% confidence intervals of 176,973 t and 521,285 t, respectively (Ward et al 2017b).

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 23

Figure 6. Spawning biomass estimates (mean +/- 95% CL) from 1995 to 2017 DEPM surveys (Ward et al 2017b). Horizontal lines represent HCRs from the Management Plan (PIRSA 2014).

Stock assessment modelling SARDI stock assessment model The first age-structured stock assessment model was developed for the fishery in 2005 (Ward et al. 2005). From 2012, a statistical catch-at-age model that describes a single stock and single area fishery was developed (Ward et al. 2012) using Stock Synthesis (Methot and Wetzel 2013; Version 3.24S). The latest model (Ward et al 2017a) fits to commercial catch data, fishery-independent spawning biomass estimates, and fishery-dependent age composition data. Biological parameters (e.g. growth and maturity) are estimated from fishery-dependent and fishery-independent data. Ward et al (2017a) report that the current Stock Synthesis assessment model provides several improvements over the original model including: • Estimations of stock recruitment deviations from an assumed underlying stock recruitment relationship using penalised likelihoods and bias adjustments (Methot and Taylor 2011). • Adjustments of time varying and age-specific natural mortality that can be altered to represent the mass mortality events of the SASF in 1995 and 1998 (Ward et al. 2001b). • Improved fits to age-composition data. • Estimation of dome-shaped selectivity (as a ‘double-normal’ curve) that better represents the reduced availability of older fish in the main fishing areas (i.e. Spencer Gulf). • A more robust data-weighting approach consistent with Francis (2011, 2017). All available data from 1992–2016 as well as spawning biomass estimates from 2017 were integrated into the model (Ward et al 2017a). Prior to 1992, the population was assumed to have been in a state of unfished equilibrium. Unfished equilibrium recruitment (R0) was estimated in relation to an assumed Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment relationship. Natural mortality was assumed to be constant across all years and sizes except for 1995 and 1998 when the two mortality events each killed an estimated 70% of the adult population (Ward et al. 2001b). All other details of the model structure, biological and fishery parameters, model selection and weighting procedures are documented in Ward et al (2017a).

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 24

Ward et al (2017a) report that in general, the base–case model fitted well to commercial catch-at-age data aggregated across all surveyed years with the exception of 1995 and 1998 following the mass mortality events. Regarding model fits to the female component of DEPM spawning biomass estimates, Ward et al (2017a) report that due to the change in weighting of catch-at-age data, model fits to DEPM estimates of spawning biomass in 2017 are much better than previous years models (Figure 7). It is important to note that the model appears to smooth out the high degree of variability observed in mean estimates of spawning biomass from DEPM methods (i.e. Figure 6 above).

Figure 7. Base-case model fit (blue line) to the index of spawning biomass (females only, +/-CV) from DEPM surveys (source Ward et al 2017a).

Model outputs include estimates of total biomass and these are presented below (Figure 8) with 95% confidence limits. The 2017 model estimates the carrying capacity, i.e. unfished biomass (Bzero), as approximately 200,000 t which was 20% lower than the 2015 model estimate (250,000 t Ward et al 2015). Due to the substantial improvements in the 2017 model, 200,000 t is considered the best available estimate of unfished biomass for the fishery.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 25

Figure 8. Base-case model estimates of total biomass (mean +/- 95% CL), including 2018 forecast estimate. Horizontal lines are Bzero (top line) and the reference points from the Management Plan (PIRSA 2014).

Catches for the fishery did not exceed 10 t until 2002 and the initial declines in stock biomass reflect the two mass mortality events when approximately 70% of the population was lost on each occasion. It must be noted that the model estimates of biomass following the disease events is much higher than the DEPM estimates of biomass due to an inability for the model to accurately represent the mortality and recovery events. After each mortality event, the fishery showed signs of immediate and rapid recovery which was sustained after the 1998 event and by 2003 the stock had fully recovered to levels that approximated carrying capacity. Biomass has fluctuated around these levels since 2003 and in 2017, which was the highest level recorded, biomass exceeded the estimates of unexploited biomass. The 2018 forecast indicates a decline in biomass, however this is due to constraints in the model and thus the forecast results are not meaningful (Ward et al 2017a). Utilising data on commercial catch and mean estimates of total spawning biomass, the model also estimates annual fishing mortality. Ward et al (2017a) state “The exploitation rate has increased over the history of the fishery (1992–2017); it is currently estimated to be approximately 22%. Annual estimates reveal an increase in exploitation rate in 1998, when spawning biomass was estimated to be low and recovering from the second mass mortality event (Ward et al. 2001b). This was followed by a significant increase in exploitation rate between 2000 and 2005, when catches peaked. Since that time (2006–2017) the exploitation rate of spawning biomass is estimated to have fluctuated between 15– 30%.” The key uncertainties in the current stock assessment model are explicitly discussed by Ward et al (2017a). Firstly, the application of otolith-based age-determination methods has proven to be problematic in South Australia, Western Australia and California due to difficulties associated with interpreting and counting opaque and translucent zones (Butler et al. 1996; Fletcher and Blight 1996; Rogers and Ward 2007), while age validation studies involving the capture and maintenance of sardine and other clupeoids have proven to be problematic owing to logistical difficulties (Fletcher 1995) and

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 26

sensitivity to handling (Rogers et al. 2003). Secondly, commercial catches are regularly biased towards younger and smaller sardines than those obtained in fishery- independent samples.

Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) stock assessment model

Smith et al (2015) undertook ecosystem and population modelling to evaluate and provide advice on reference points and exploitation rates for target species in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF). Ecosystem modelling was undertaken using an adaption of Atlantis, thereafter named Atlantis- SPF. The study also examined separate population models for the four target species of the SPF, which included sardine (Sardinops sagax). Although not a part of the SPF, the report opportunistically included an assessment of the SASF sardine stock, identified in the report as the western component of the southern Australian stock. Two stocks (east and west) of sardine were parameterised separately, with data for the west derived from Ward et al. (2012). The population model examined a range of performance measures and management strategies in a formal Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE). Full details of the model are provided by Smith et al (2015).

The key outcomes of the model in relation to HCRs for the SASF regard estimates of equilibrium BMSY and annual exploitation rate. Equilibrium BMSY for SA sardines was estimated to be 33% of unfished levels. Smith et al state “However, these levels are uncertain and it may be more appropriate to use the default values from the HSP with BMSY set at B40 (40% of unfished levels) and the default BMEY set at 1.2 times this level, close to B50. This study suggests that the target reference point for these SPF target species should be set at B50 and the limit reference point at B20, in line with the HSP default settings”. The study estimated an annual exploitation rate of 33% “to achieve a median depletion of 0.5 or B50, while maintaining less than a 10% chance of falling below the suggested limit reference point of B20”.

Reference Points and assessment of stock status The Limit Reference Point (LRP) and Target Reference Point (TRP) for the SASF are established as 75,000 t and 150,000 t spawning biomass, respectively (PIRSA 2014). Based on the estimates of Bzero = 200,000 t obtained from the latest SARDI stock assessment model (Ward et al 2017a), the LRP and TRP represent approximately 37% and 75% of the unfished biomass, respectively. These levels are much higher than the LRP and TRP suggested by Smith et al (2015) for the “west” sardine stock. Notably, the SASF LRP and TRP reflect the default MSC levels for key LTL stocks, and they have been set conservatively in this manner to ensure that the stock remains at highly productive levels. The LRP and TRP are assessed against estimates of spawning biomass from DEPM surveys, rather than from the outputs of the stock assessment model. While there are a number of sources of uncertainty that impact the model, all of which are discussed in detail by Ward et al (2017a), the key issue regards differences between the age distribution of the catch versus the age distribution of the population. For this reason, the model is heavily weighted towards the DEPM biomass estimates, with the age data being of secondary importance in fitting. As a result, the estimates of biomass from the model tend to hold similar trends to the DEPM data but the highs and lows are “smoothed out”. Thus, the major flaw with using biomass estimates from the model to determine stock status is that as the stock approaches the LRP the model estimates are likely to overestimate the biomass. For this assessment, we have assessed stock status for the fishery against the MSC default values for PRI (i.e. B20) and MSY (i.e. B40). While Smith et al (2015) determined that equilibrium BMSY approximated B33 for the stock, they suggested that using BMSY set at B40 was an appropriate measure. We use the estimates of unfished biomass (Bzero) of 200,000 t from Ward et al (2017a) to determine a biomass at PRI of 40,000 t and a biomass at MSY of 80,000 t. Following the approach of the Management Plan (PIRSA 2014) and that recommended by Ward et al (2017a), we use the DEPM biomass estimates (Section 2.3.3) to assess against these reference points. Further demonstrating the appropriateness of the use of the default MSC reference points, the estimated PRI (40,000 t) is well above levels from which the fishery has previously recovered. In 1996, following

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 27

the first mortality event, DEPM biomass estimates were approximately 35,000 t, and following the second mortality event, 1999 biomass levels were approximately 20,000 t, around half of the level of the PRI used here. On both occasions the fishery recovered rapidly, with biomass levels recovering to carrying capacity by 2003. Figure 6 in Section 3.3.3 shows the history of DEPM biomass estimates, with 95% confidence intervals around the mean. The 2017 biomass estimate was the highest recorded for the fishery, with a mean estimate of 305,086 t, and lower and upper 95% confidence intervals of 176,973 t and 521,285 t, respectively (Ward et al 2017b). This exceeds the estimated PRI and MSY with a high degree of confidence. Indeed, the lower confidence level estimate of biomass has exceeded both PRI (40,000 t) and MSY (80,000 t) in all years following the recovery of the fishery (i.e. from 2002).

Harvest strategy and Harvest Control Rules The MSC definition of Harvest Strategy is “The combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management actions, which may include an MP or an MP (implicit) and be tested by MSE” (MSC 2014). The MSC definition of a Harvest Control Rule is “A set of well-defined pre-agreed rules or actions used for determining a management action in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to reference points” (MSC 2014). It should be noted that the Management Plan for the SASF (PIRSA 2014) refers to the Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) for the fishery as the “Harvest Strategy”. Here, we follow the MSC convention. The harvest strategy for the SASF considers that the southern Australia stock of sardines is a shared stock (i.e. a small fishery exists in Port Phillip Bay, Victoria) but assumes that there is no or negligible traditional or recreational catch. The fishery is limited to shallow coastal waters by the efficiency of purse seines, whereas the stock is more widely distributed across the continental shelf and into Victoria. The harvest strategy is based on a mixture of input and output controls. There are 14 existing licence holders, who hold a licence for the Marine Scalefish Fishery (MSF) with a sardine net endorsement. The fishery is managed through an individual transferrable quota (ITQ) system with a Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) set for each 12-month period, which is managed spatially within zones. The net endorsement allows the licence holder to use a small-mesh (14-22 mm) purse seine net when fishing for sardines. The fishery is monitored using Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) which assists in ensuring compliance with closed areas and zonal quotas. The TACC is calculated from pre-determined Harvest Control Rules (HCRs). The HCRs are based on: the latest DEPM spawning biomass estimate from fishery-independent surveys (e.g. Ward et al. 2017b); an associated maximum exploitation rate; and, the level of certainty in the data available for assessment (Table 5). Exploitation is set to zero for biomass estimates below the LRP. Maximum exploitation rate increases in a stepwise manner as biomass increases to the TRP, above which it is capped. There are Tiers set within each biomass category that reflect certainty in the data. The greater the frequency of stock assessment reporting and or DEPM surveys, the higher the level of maximum exploitation rate. The highest exploitation rate is 25%, which is allowed when the stock is above the TRP and both stock assessment reports and DEPM surveys are conducted in the same year. The TACC increases with increasing DEPM biomass estimates in a stepwise manner above the TRP and is capped at 190,000 t (i.e. maximum TACC of 47,500 t). The maximum exploitation rate is well below the maximum level of 33% as evaluated by Smith et al. (2015) for this stock. In all recent years, stock assessment reports and DEPM surveys have been done in alternate years and thus maximum exploitation has been capped at 20%. Table 5. Decision table for determining TACC based on DEPM estimates of spawning biomass. Source: Ward et al (2017a) refined from PIRSA (2014).

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 28

Two separate zones have been established for the fishery: a Gulf Zone and an Outside Zone (PIRSA 2014). HCRs determine the amount of the TACC that can be taken in each Zone based on length frequency data collected from the fishery, with a maximum catch from the Gulf Zone of 30,000 t (PIRSA 2014, Table 6). It is noted that there have been some difficulties at times in obtaining independent and representative length frequency samples. Improvement in the collection of independent, representative length frequency data would further strengthen the harvest strategy. Table 6. Decision table for determining maximum catch from the Gulf zone (GZ) (source: PIRSA 2014).

SASIA routinely collects data on sardine size for industry decision-making. These data are not used to inform harvest strategy decisions. These data are collected using the same methods as independent samples collected by SARDI and are collected on all net-sets with an observer on-board, as well as other net-sets throughout the season. The objective of the data collection is to provide information on specific locations to avoid sardines of sub-optimal size to ensure that mean size targets are met (Marcus Tanner pers. comm).

Sustainability of sardine harvest in an ecosystem context Marine ecosystems represent a rich assemblage of co-evolved species that have complex, non-linear dynamics (Boyd et al. 2006). Although sardines harvested by the SASF do not meet the MSC definition of key LTL, they are nevertheless a critical component of the Great Australian Bight (GAB) ecosystem that they inhabit. With this understanding, a specific study was undertaken examining the impact of the increase in sardine harvest over the last three decades on the GAB ecosystem (Goldsworthy et al 2010, 2013). The authors report that the growth of the SASF since its establishment in 1991 has been rapid, and its current catch exceeds that of all other fisheries in the region by a factor of three. As expected, the Mean Trophic Level of the Catch (mTLC) in the model decreased significantly between 1991 and 2008 as a consequence of growth in the SASF catch. However, Kempton’s Q biodiversity index increased over the period of the study: the index usually increases with growing biomass of high trophic level species, and decreases with increased fishing impacts. Also, there was an increasing trend in FIB index over the study period, which may have reflected geographic expansion of fishing effort and/or more catch than

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 29

expected due to bottom-up effects such as increased primary productivity (Coll et al., 2009). FIB index values generally close to zero suggest high production at low trophic levels with fishing in balance. Another potential impact when a low trophic level fishery expands rapidly is the replacement of predation mortality with fishing mortality, while overall total mortality remains relatively constant. Ecosim results suggested that predation mortality instead increased as fishing mortality and total mortality has increased, with predation mortality as a proportion of total mortality increasing significantly between 1991 and 2008 (Goldsworthy et al 2013). Finally, most functional groups from cephalopods to small pelagic fish and high trophic level predators increased in biomass over the study period. This may have resulted from management interventions (e.g. reductions in catch of SBT and Commonwealth demersal gillnet shark fishery) and from likely increases in primary production, as indicated by model fits (Goldsworthy et al 2013). In summary, each of these results suggests that the substantial growth of the SASF catch appears to have occurred in an ecologically sustainable manner.

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

The MSC Standard for Principle 2 (environmental impact) requires that fishing operations allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends (MSC, 2014). The ecosystem where the SASF operates is part of the Great Australian Bight (GAB), located on Australia’s south facing coastline and including the two Australia’s largest estuaries, Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent. South Australia is exposed to arid climate and experiences only marginal and highly transient river flows. The annual mean-domination of the evaporation over the fresh-water inflows makes Spencer Gulf and Gulf St. Vincent inverse estuaries where salinity increases with increasing distance from the estuary mouth (Wolanski, 2013). Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent represent the only semi-protected, ‘seasonally subtropical systems’ at this otherwise temperate latitude (35° S) (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). The shelf waters of the eastern GAB (EGAB) and the interface with southern gulf waters form a complex oceanographic system. Thermal and salinity fronts form at the mouths of the gulfs and limit exchange between the cool, low salinity Southern Ocean water masses and the warmer, higher salinity gulf waters (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). In addition, shelf waters of this region are characterised by coastal upwellings that occur between the Bonney Coast in south-eastern South Australia and the eastern GAB during summer-autumn, and thermoclines that form during periods of lower wind stress. Upwelling refers to the raising of cooler, nutrient-rich waters to the surface. Strong SE winds that blow for three to ten days, two to four times during summer-autumn, lead to strong upwellings of deep cold water onto the shelf of the EGAB and are transported to the coastal areas (Shepherd & Edgar, 2013). These processes are coupled with the South Australian and Flinders Currents at the continental shelf margins and intrusion of the tropical Leeuwin Current water mass in early winter. This complex interaction of oceanographic processes supports a regionally productive marine ecosystem inhabited by a diverse suite of marine predators that have high global conservation significance and substantial economic value to local communities (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). PIRSA, in association with SASIA, recognize the need for an ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM), the exploitation of a target species being managed as part of the broader ecosystem. In Australia, fisheries management agencies are legally required to reduce the risks to ecosystems from which fishing resources are extracted. Some of the central principles of EBFM are: i) avoid degradation of ecosystems, ii) minimise risk of irreversible change to species groups and ecosystems, iii) maintain socio-economic benefits, while minimising risk to ecosystem integrity; iv) generate understanding of the ecological processes and impacts of human activities; v) adopt the precautionary approach where knowledge is limited (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). Additional components of EBFM include the identification and management of regions that form critical foraging and breeding habitats

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 30

of top predators that are likely to have important ‘top-down’ roles in ecosystems. Removal of top predators from marine ecosystems through bycatch, targeted fishing or competition for resources has the potential to inflict cascading impacts on lower trophic levels and fisheries (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). As the SASF targets a low trophic species part of the small pelagic assemblage, the fishery is competing with the diverse top predator groups, and sardine depletions can potentially have significant impacts on those predators. The SASF is a purse seine fishery. As the purse seine fishing method targets schooling pelagic fish that are generally highly homogenous, the catch composition includes few non-target species in very low quantities, compared to other fishing methods (PIRSA, 2013a). Also, purse seine nets are pelagic in nature, with no or limited interaction with benthic habitats. Fishing operations avoid rough benthos and are conducted on generally sandy bottom (PIRSA 2013a). The nets used on the SASF are light and cause minimal damage to benthic habitats in rare occasions when contact occurs, any such impact occurring is small and confined to localised areas. Potentially more significant impacts of the SASF on the environment are the interactions with Endangered, Threatened and Protected species (ETPs) during fishing operations. The majority of the SASF ETP interactions are with the common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), which is not considered threatened or endangered, although it is protected under the EPBC Act (1991). Previously recognized as two globally distributed species of common dolphin, short-beaked common dolphin (D. delphis) and long-beaked common dolphin (D. capensis), only one species, common dolphin (D.delphis)1 is currently recognized. The interactions with common dolphin are managed through the application of an Industry Code of Practice (CoP) in addition to the operational management of the fishery (PIRSA, 2014a; SASIA, 2015). The following sub-sections detail the outcome for each component of the ecosystem (primary and secondary species, ETPs, and habitat), and ecosystem overall, assessed against the MSC performance indicators (PIs), based on the fishery-dependent and fishery-independent information that was available to the assessment team.

Primary Species

3.4.1.1 Outcome Status (PI 2.1.1) Primary species are defined as species that are not identified as the specific target species in the Unit of Assessment (UoA), and where each primary species is subject to fishery specific management, with established reference points (SA3.1.3, MSC, 2014, p.132). The ‘main’ designation is given where either i) “the catch of a species by the UoA comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA”, or ii) “The species is classified as ‘Less resilient’ and the catch of the species by the UoA comprises 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA.” Even if these thresholds are not reached, “the assessment team shall still classify a species as main if the total catch of the UoA is exceptionally large (≥ 400,000 t), such that even small catch proportions of a P2 species significantly impact the affected stocks/populations” (SA3.4.2, MSC, 2014, pp. 138-139). Fishers licensed in the South Australian Sardine Fishery (SASF) are authorised to harvest Australian sardine (Sardinops sagax), Australian anchovy (Engraulis australis), maray (Etrumeus jacksoniensis), blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus), sandy sprat (Hyperlophus vittatus), blue sprat (Spratelloides robustus) and redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus) (Fisheries Management General Regulations, 2017, as amended 15 January, 2018). The only managed species, other than sardines, is the Australian anchovy, although this species is not currently targeted and there is no incentive for the fishers to target it (no specific demand) (M. Turner, 2018, pers. comm). In addition, anchovies are very fast to disperse and very difficult to catch with the current technical capacity of the SASF vessels (T. Ward, pers. comm. May 2018). The incidental catch of anchovies, when targeting sardines, is very low because the two species distributions do not highly

1 https://www.marinemammalscience.org/species-information/list-marine-mammal-species- subspecies/

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 31

overlap (Dimmlich & Ward, 2006). According to data held by SARDI from observer sampling, anchovy is caught in very low proportions of the total catch and this species is assessed as primary ‘minor’ for the scope of this assessment. Australian Anchovy (Engraulis australis)

The Australian anchovy (Engraulis australis) is widely distributed throughout temperate Australian coastal waters, south of the Tropic of Capricorn (Blackburn, 1950, in Dimmlich & Ward, 2006). South Australia is situated at the centre of the Australian anchovy distribution and all life stage, eggs, larvae, and juveniles and adults have been recorded throughout gulf and shelf waters, with spawning occurring during summer-autumn (Dimmlich & Ward, 2006). There have been many studies on anchovies’ growth, but comparatively few studies in Australia where the rate of exploitation is very low (Dimmlich & Ward, 2006). Dimmlich and Ward (2006) used otolith microstructure analysis to determine age- structured reproductive strategy of Australian anchovy in South Australian waters and found that age increased from the northern to the southern Spencer Gulf and only individuals up to 3-year old inhabited the southern gulf area. Older individuals were found in shelf waters, supporting the authors hypothesis that anchovies spawned in Spencer Gulf move offshore with age to utilise a wide range of environments that might provide suitable nursing and spawning areas (Dimmlich & Ward, 2006). Anchovies also seem to compete unsuccessfully with sardines for habitat (Ward et al, 2001, Dimmlich et al, 2004). There was no evidence that anchovies from shelf waters migrate in the gulfs for spawning, and it is likely that anchovies spawned in the gulf reproduce before migrating to shelf waters (Dimmlich & Ward, 2006). Data from catch samples collected by fishery-independent observers from 435 sets, between 2011 and 2015, indicate that anchovies represented around 0.3% of total abundance. The percentage contribution of anchovies to total catch abundances varied between 0.1% to 0.5% per year. It can be inferred that percentage contribution by weight will be at similar levels, thus lower than 5%. Australian anchovy is a ‘minor’ primary species. The stock of Australian anchovy that occurs in South Australian waters is estimated to be abundant and highly productive (Dimmlich et al. 2004, Dimmlich et al. 2009). In 2000, the daily egg production method (DEPM) surveys conducted for sardines were extended into the northern part of the Gulf St Vincent and Spencer Gulf and a Spawning Biomass (SpB) estimate of anchovy could be completed (Dimmlich et al. 2009). The SpB for Australian anchovy in South Australian waters in 2000 was over 126,000 t (Dimmlich et al. 2009). Although anchovies are not currently targeted in South Australia this information was used to set a precautionary TACC of 1000t for Australian anchovy (PIRSA, 2013a)

3.4.1.1 Management (PI 2.1.2)

PIRSA uses an EBFM approach to the management of the SASF. Goal 1 of the SASF Management Plan includes one of the long-term objectives referring to anchovies’ sustainability. This long-term objective is consistent with achieving the outcome expressed at PI 2.1.1. As there are no main primary species, a strategy for main primary species is not necessary. However, there is a strategy in place to manage Australian anchovies. Management arrangements for anchovies, general and specific, are articulated in the South Australian Commercial Marine Scalefish Fishery, PART B – Management arrangements for the taking of sardines (SASF Management Plan, PIRSA 2014a). General operational measures which are contributing to the management of the impact of the SASF on Australian anchovies include: • Input controls o maximum of two vessels per licence, o maximum of two nets per licence, o regulated dimensions for nets and mesh size,

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 32

o limited entry, and o closed areas enforced by Vessel Monitoring System. • Output controls o Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC) and Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) system, o Catch Disposal Records submitted to PIRSA upon landing on a per trip basis, o Daily logbook catch and effort data submitted monthly to SARDI (PIRSA, 2017a). Specific management measures for anchovies are included in the SASF Management Plan under Goal 1, as an objective to “limit and monitor Australian Anchovy catches” using catch levels relative to TACC as performance indicator to assess the risk to the stock. The strategy to achieve the objective consist in: • Setting a TACC for anchovy annually within sustainable limits, • Monitoring catch levels of the harvested anchovy during season, • Adopting a precautionary principle to make decisions when robust information is lacking. A precautionary TACC was set based on a daily egg production stock assessment from 2000 (Dimmlich et al. 2009). This has been set at 1000t (PIRSA, 2013a, PIRSA, 2017a) and the current TACC is still 1,000t (SASIA, 2017). The management plan also makes the following provisions: “Should expansion of anchovy fishing operations occur in the future, there is the potential to develop a Harvest Strategy for the anchovy fishery that is conceptually similar to the Sardine Harvest Strategy, with appropriate levels of research” (PIRSA, 2014a). In addition, before a Licence is permitted to take anchovy using a sardine net, the Licence must have a minimum holding of 10,000 kg of sardine quota available (PIRSA, 2017a). Overall, there is a strategy to manage anchovies in the SASF. The MSC definition for a strategy is: A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification of fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. The strategy includes measures specifically designed for anchovies. At the current level of catch, which is extremely low (5 years average =0.3% of total catch), monitoring catch against TACC is appropriate to the scale and intensity of the fishery. Modification of the fishing practices is not explicit in the SASF Management Plan, although provisions are made for the situation where an increase in the risk from the fishery is identified. There is an objective basis of confidence that the strategy is likely to work based on catch data from CDRs and independent observers reports which show that catch levels for anchovy are very low (SARDI, 2018, unpublished data), while the species is highly productive (Dimmlich et al. 2009). Testing of the strategy There is no formal testing of the strategy and stock assessments are not regularly undertaken. Although Goldsworthy et al (2011) found that Australian anchovy stock is positively affected by a reduction in sardine biomass. This, together with evidence that the stock is highly productive, and that the species had consistently low contributions to the catch, can be considered testing of the current strategy, (i.e. targeting only sardines and maintaining anchovy catch at minimum). The very low levels of sardines caught in the recent past are empirical evidence that the strategy will continue to work in maintaining anchovy stock at highly productive levels. Strategy implementation and effectiveness

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 33

The SASF Management Plan includes an explicit objective of effective compliance with the management arrangements. Measures of compliance include: reporting of quota use throughout the season, maintaining the instances of non-compliance at a minimum, and a compliance risk assessment being undertaken annually. In addition, marine scalefish fishery licence holders with sardine net entitlements are required to have an operational vessel monitoring system (VMS) fitted to their vessel (PIRSA, 2014a). These allow compliance with spatial management measures (SA and Commonwealth marine parks zoning) to be assessed. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance, and there is clear evidence that the strategy is implemented successfully (see Principle 3, Compliance section). According to ecosystem modeling studies (Goldsworthy et al, 2011 and Gillanders et al, 2015), the anchovy abundance is positively affected by increases in sardine removals. There is no evidence to suggest an increase in the risk to anchovy population due to the SASF since these ecosystem modeling studies were undertaken, catch data showing very low levels of catch. The ecosystem modeling studies show that the strategy is achieving its objective of maintaining Australian anchovy at sustainable levels.

3.4.1.2 Information (PI 2.1.3)

The SASF Management Plan requires to “limit and monitor anchovy catches”. Information on anchovy catch comes from two main sources – fishery independent and fishery dependent data • Fishery independent data Fishery independent data is collected through DEPM surveys and the Independent Observer Program. The DEPM surveys are the main data source for Australian sardine stock assessment and this method has been used to estimate the SpB of sardines in South Australia since 1995. These surveys are undertaken by SARDI. The DEPM survey was extended to collect data on anchovy stock in 2000 and a stock assessment could be completed for anchovies (Dimmlich et al. 2009). The observer program was implemented in November 2004 to monitor TEPS interactions. Initially run by SARDI Aquatic Sciences, the program was taken over by Protec Marine Pty Ltd in 2006 (PIRSA, 2014a), and thereafter by Seatec Contractors and Consultants. Since implementation, observer coverage was set at 10% of fishing operations except for 2007/2008 to 2009/2010 fishing seasons when target coverage was set at 30% (Mackay, 2017). Observers sample the catch from each observed set using grab sampling method. Observer samples are frozen and sent to SARDI for species identification, together with identification information used by SARDI to link each sample to the data recorded in logbooks, for each net-set. Logbook and catch composition data are stored in an Oracle database maintained by SARDI. The database stores data on numbers of non-target species individuals, including the number of anchovies, found in the catch samples collected by observers (Ward, pers. comm, May 2018). Australian anchovy has also been assessed in an ecological risk assessment in 2013. The ESD risk assessment workshop was conducted by PIRSA in order to facilitate preparation of the SASF management plan. The workshop participants included key fishery stakeholders and Dr. Rick Fletcher as an independent facilitator. The risk level outcome for Australian anchovy was ‘negligible’ (PIRSA, 2013a) • Fishery dependent data Fishery dependent data consists of commercial catch and effort logbook data. Daily catch and effort data are provided by licence holders, through compulsory logbook periodic returns, to SARDI, at the end of each month. SARDI maintains a comprehensive catch and effort database for the SASF, using data collected from these returns. Catch data is linked to the VMS data showing the time and location of the set where was taken PIRSA, 2013a). • Research SARDI Aquatic Sciences has assessed the status of the stock of Australian Sardine of South Australia

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 34

since 1998 and has provided scientific advice to PIRSA to assist with the management of the fishery. The research was extended to produce one study on Australian Anchovy stock status (Dimmlich et al. 2009). • Compliance monitoring PIRSA runs a compliance program that has dual objectives: 1. To maximise voluntary compliance with fisheries rules. 2. To create effective deterrence to breaching fisheries rules. PIRSA maximises voluntary compliance by ensuring that fishers are aware of the rules that apply to their fishing activities, that they understand the rules and the purpose of those rules, and that they operate in a culture of compliance. A Sardine Fishery Operator User Guide is produced and distributed before each fishing season starts (i.e. PIRSA, 2017a). PIRSA creates effective deterrence through the presence of fisheries officers and the visibility of compliance operations, as well as through detection and prosecution of illegal activity. A compliance risk assessment is undertaken every year for each fishery managed by PIRSA.

Secondary Species ‘Secondary’ species are defined by the MSC as those species that are not considered to be ‘primary’ species (i.e., where there are no management tools and measures in place that are intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points), or species that are out of scope of the program, but where the definition of ETP species is not applicable (MSC 2014). The ‘main’ designation is given according to the same rules as for primary species (see section 2.4.1).

3.4.2.1 Outcome Status (PI 2.2.1) The purse seine fishing method targets schooling pelagic fish. As schools of these species are generally highly homogenous, the catch composition of purse seine fishing includes few non-target species in very low quantities, compared to other fishing methods (PIRSA, 2013a). Fishers licensed in the South Australian Sardine Fishery (SASF) are authorised to harvest Australian sardine (Sardinops sagax), Australian anchovy (Engraulis australis), maray (Etrumeus jacksoniensis), blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus), sandy sprat (Hyperlophus vittatus), blue sprat (Spratelloides robustus) and redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus) (Fisheries Management General Regulations, 2017, as amended 15 January, 2018). Some of these species feature in species composition samples collected by observers in recent years (SARDI, 2018, unpublished catch data). Table 7 presents the species composition in the catch from the most recent five years of available observer data. Table 7. Catch species composition for the period 2011-2015 based on observer samples. Grey shading = Target and Primary species, no shading = Secondary species

Specie % contribution from total catch (in number of individuals) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Average (2010-2015) Sardine (Sardinops 99.51 98.55 99.69 99.84 98.25 99.17 sagax) -target Anchovy (Engraulis 0.37 0.07 0.25 0.10 0.37 0.23 australis) Maray (Etrumeus - 1.35 - - 0.61 0.39 jacksoniensis) Blue mackerel (Scomber 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.05 0.72 0.19 australasicus) Silver whiting (Sillago - - - - 0.02 0.004 spp.)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 35

Barracouta (Thyrsites - - - - 0.02 0.004 atun) Dumpling squid 0.04 - - - - 0.008 (Euprymna tasmanica)- Total secondary 0.12 1.38 0.06 0.05 1.37 0.60 Note: species composition data were not collected for the 2016 season because non-target species catch is very low and did not warrant priority, however, data for 2017 were collected but not yet validated and SASIA is committed to continue to collect such data to be able to identify any increase in risk for the species involved Source: Observer data held and provided by SARDI (2018, unpublished) Other potentially impacted species were also identified with the occasion of the SASF ESD risk assessment in 2013. These species include ETPs and non-ETP species. The non-ETP species were: blue shark (Prionace glauca), bronze whaler (Carcharhinus brachyurus), snapper (Pagrus auratus), barracuda (Sphyraena spp.), toadfish (Batrachoididae) and cuttlefish (Sepia spp.). Sharks and other fish with larger bodies are released alive (are not pumped on board of the vessel, (T. Ward, pers. comm., May 2018). Data from catch samples collected by observers from 435 sets in five years (Table 7) indicate that all secondary species represented, on average, 0.6% of total abundance. All secondary species are ‘minor’. All these species were subject of an ESD risk assessment and all were considered to be at negligible or low risk from the SA sardine fishery (PIRSA, 2013a). 3.4.2.2 Management (PI 2.2.2) PIRSA uses an EBFM approach to the management of the SASF. Goal 3 of the SASF Management Plan requires: “protect and conserve aquatic resources, habitats and ecosystems”. One of the long-term objectives in achieving this goal is “fishery impacts on by-catch and by-product species are sustainable”, (PIRSA, 2014a) where by-catch refers to non-target and unwanted catch and by-product refers to retained non-target catch. Bycatch and byproduct species this objective refers to are the “secondary’ species in the MSC’s definition. This long-term objective is consistent with achieving the outcome expressed at PI 2.2.1. Due to the specificity of the fishing method, the target species contributes more than 98% of the landed catch. In consequence, all non-target species catch is below 2% (Table 7) and each species percentage contribution is below 1% (SARDI, 2018, unpublished data). Thus, a strategy for ‘main’ secondary species is not necessary. The general operational measures are likely to benefit minor secondary species: gear restrictions, limited entry, netting closures (with some exemptions), marine parks closures, quota monitoring and VMS monitoring, are likely to minimize the catch of non-target species and allow population recovery. These measures form a partial strategy for secondary species. A “partial strategy”, in the MSC definition, “represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically” (MSC, 2014, Table SA8, p. 134). By limiting effort, and sardine catch, the impact on bycatch is also limited. Some of these species might find refuge in closed areas. The gear restrictions (net dimensions and mesh size) increase the selectivity of the gear for the target species, minimizing non-target species catch. Empirical testing of this partial strategy from practical experience and current and past performance shows consistently low levels of catch of minor secondary species. Simulation testing (Goldsworthy et al, 2011, Gillanders et al, 2015) demonstrated that small pelagic fish (most of the minor secondary species in species composition data) are positively affected by reductions in sardines stock. Maintaining catch composition at over 98% sardines and only negligible quantities of all other species in the catch, give high confidence that the partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the SASF and the species involved.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 36

This partial strategy is implemented successfully, as shown by compliance information, and is achieving its objective of minimising non-target catch.

3.4.2.3 Information (PI 2.2.3) Information on catch composition comes mainly from one fishery independent source- the observer program. The observer program was implemented in November 2004 to monitor ETP interactions and especially dolphin interactions. Initially run by SARDI Aquatic Sciences, the program was taken over by Protec Marine Pty Ltd in 2006 (PIRSA, 2014), now Seatec Contractors and Consultants. Since implementation, observer coverage was set at 10% of fishing operations with the exception of 2007/2008 to 2009/2010 fishing seasons when target coverage was set at 30% (Mackay, 2017). Catch composition information is obtained from samples collected by observers and sent to SARDI for species identification. Collection data provided by observers (e.g. logsheet number) are used to link each sample to the data recorded in logbooks for each net-set. Logbook and observer catch composition data are stored in an Oracle database maintained by SARDI. The database includes data on numbers of bycatch species in catch samples. To be noted that when catches contain large or rare species these may not be included in catch samples. Historically, by-catch data have not been recorded comprehensively. As the occurrence of species other than sardine in catch samples is relatively infrequent, quantifying bycatch has not been a priority (T. Ward, pers. comm. May 2018). Although samples collected by observers are small and cannot identify all rare species, it is widely agreed that sardines contribute over 98% of the catch, thus any quantities of species caught but not identified through sampling, will be negligible (observer data, SARDI, 2018, unpublished, T. Ward (SARDI), pers. comm. May 2018, L. Mackuch (engineer), pers. comm. May 2018). Qualitative information on minor secondary species is also available from the SASF ESD risk assessment. The identified non-target species (all the species mentioned in this section) were subject of a qualitative risk assessment. In 2013 at the ESD risk assessment workshop conducted by PIRSA and key stakeholders. The risk assessment methodology was closely based on the National ESD framework ‘how to’ guide for Australian fisheries developed by Fletcher et al. (2002) and supporting resources found on the website http://www.fisheries-esd.com.au (PIRSA, 2013a). In addition, information on the productivity, abundance and mortality of the minor secondary species was reviewed and used in modelling ecological change associated with the growth of the SASF (i.e. Goldsworthy et al, 2013 and Gillanders et al, 2015) (PIRSA, 2013a). The information available for secondary species is adequate to show that all secondary species are ‘minor’ and at negligible risk from the fishery.

Endangered Threatened and Protected Species (ETPs)

3.4.3.1 Outcome (PI 2.3.1) ETP species are defined by the MSC (MSC 2014) as species that are: i) Recognised by national ETP legislation, ii) Listed on Appendix I of CITES (unless it can be shown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the UoA under assessment is not endangered), iii) Listed in any binding agreements concluded under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), or iv) Classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Red List as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE). A number of endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species are found in the SA waters, including cetaceans, pinnipeds, elasmobranchs (sharks and rays), syngnathids (seahorses and pipefish), seabirds and migratory shorebirds, and occasional marine turtles (Mackay 2017).

Legislation relevant to ETPs in South Australia includes:

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 37

International agreements • Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 1979 (CMS or the Bonn Convention)2; • The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)3; • The Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds in Danger of Extinction and their Environment 1974 (JAMBA) 4; • The Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the People’s Republic of China for the Protection of Migratory Birds and their Environment 1986 (CAMBA) 5; • The Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Korea on the Protection of Migratory Birds 2007 (ROKAMBA) 6; and • Any other international agreement, or instrument made under other international agreements approved by the Environment Minister.

National legislation: • EPBC Act: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/index.html • Fisheries Management Act: South Australia Fisheries Management Act 2007. http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/Fisheries%20Management%20Act%202007.aspx • National Parks and Wildlife Act: South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/sa/consol_act/npawa1972247/ • Animal Welfare Act: South Australia Animal Welfare Act, 1985. https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/A/Animal Welfare Act 1985.aspx

The requirements of the EPBC Act includes all the other binding agreements requirements, thus compliance with this act reflects also compliance with other national and international legislation. The fishery meets CITES requirements for all Appendix 1 listed species, most specifically because under the EPBC Act, Part 13 prohibits trade in Appendix 1 listed species. All major Australian fisheries must undergo an environmental assessment under the guidelines for the ecologically sustainable management of fisheries, pursuant to the EPBC Act, and address any subsequent recommendations by DEE before an exemption to remove or export a native species is granted. The SASF has been found to comply with the guidelines and has been re-certified under the EPBC Act Part 13, in 2016, with the export approval extended to 20 August 2021 (DEE, 2016c). As part of the requirement under the EPBC Act 1999, licensed fishers must report any interactions of their fishing activity with threatened, endangered and protected species to PIRSA, which reports to the Commonwealth’s Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE). Since 2007, SASF licence holders have reported interactions of their fishing activity with ETPs to PIRSA, using the Wildlife Interaction Forms. The interactions are recorded against the corresponding catch and effort logbook number. The most recent wildlife interactions report, Mackay (2017), documents interactions from 2007/08 to

2 Further information on the CMS, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA is provided at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/index.html 3 CITES Appendices Listing 4 Further information on the CMS, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA is provided at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/index.html 5 Further information on the CMS, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA is provided at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/index.html 6 Further information on the CMS, JAMBA, CAMBA and ROKAMBA is provided at www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/index.html

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 38

2015/16, inclusive. During this period, a total of 741 interactions with 1,947 individual ETPs have been recorded for the SASF. Out of this number of interactions, not all were physical interaction and most animals were released unharmed. Most interactions were with dolphins and although species are not always reported in logbooks, it is assumed, based on long term observer monitoring, that all were common dolphins (Delphinus delphis). Other ETP interactions involved pinnipeds, sharks and birds.

3.4.3.1.1 Cetaceans

All cetaceans are protected under both, South Australian state and Australian Commonwealth Legislation. The relevant state legislation includes the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972, the Fisheries Act 1982 and the Wilderness Protection Act 1992, which specifically prohibit the intentional or negligent killing and exploitation of marine mammals. The Commonwealth Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), which is administered by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Energy (DEE), also prohibits the intentional killing or exploitation of any listed marine species, including dolphins, in both South Australian and Australian Commonwealth waters. Although there are protection requirements, there are no conservation plans or rebuilding strategies and there are no set limits. Common dolphin is the species that interacts most often with the SASF in the area of Spencer Gulf, Gulf St Vincent and the eastern Great Australian Bight (Mackay, 2017). IUCN Red List status for the common dolphin is ‘least concern’ (Hammond et al, 2008). Globally, common dolphins are found in tropical, subtropical and temperate waters of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans occurring in both shallow and deep offshore waters (DEE, 2018). Common dolphins appear to occur in two main locations around Australia, with one cluster in the southern south-eastern Indian Ocean and another in the Tasman Sea (DEE, 2018). Common dolphins are highly gregarious and mobile, having been observed to travel over specific ocean features such as seamounts, ridges and escarpments (DEE, 2018). Thus, the genetic differentiation would be expected to be low, especially when the continental shelf in SA lacks obvious barriers for common dolphin dispersal. However, population sub-structuring has been reported between locations along the south coast of Australia and from samples collected off New South Wales and the south-east of Tasmania (Bilgmann et al. 2008, 2014a, Möller et al. 2012). An assessment of the SASF impact on common dolphin at sub-population level is limited by the insufficient understanding of the species/sub-populations’ abundance and spatial and temporal movements. Given the documentation of long-range longitudinal movement of individuals from different genetic populations into upwelling areas of the Indian Ocean off southern Australia (Bilgmann et al. 2014a), it is not clear which sub-populations are affected (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017). Research studies suggest that at least two of these sub-populations might interact with the SASF (Bilgmann et al, 2014a, Möller et al. 2012). Two aerial surveys have been conducted to estimate common dolphin abundance in areas within South Australian waters. Möller et al. (2012) reported a preliminary estimate of abundance of 14,549 (95% CI = 9,462-22,371) common dolphins in the region of Spencer Gulf, Gulf St Vincent and Investigator Strait, out to the 100 m depth contour, during summer (March-June). The same region was surveyed in winter (August and September) and produced an abundance estimate of 20,749 (95% CI = 15,206-28,313). Also, Bilgmann et al. (2014b) reported an abundance estimate of 21,366 (95% CI =12,221-37,356) common dolphins from an aerial survey in winter 2013 between Ceduna and Coffin Bay, on the west coast of Eyre Peninsula, from the coast out to the 100 m depth contour. Direct effects on common dolphin populations from SASF interaction In 2015-2016, the SASF interacted with 195 common dolphins (reported in WIF) (Mackay, 2017). Two of the dolphins that were reported interacting with the SASF in 2015-16 were recorded as ‘dead’ (Figure 9). In 2015/16, the reported interaction rate was 0.08, which is equivalent to 8 interactions per 100 purse seine sets. Highest interaction rates were reported in 2013/14 (103), while the highest number of individuals (304) were reported in 2011/12. The number of dolphins reported during an encirclement in 2015/16 ranged from 1-12 individuals, with a mean of 3 dolphins. The overall average number of

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 39

dolphins reported encircled in a set between 2007/08 and 2015/16 was 3 individuals. The maximum number of dolphins reported in an encirclement was 15 in 2007/08 and 2011/12. The highest dolphin mortality reported in WIFs was in 2007/08 (15); thereafter the average dolphin mortality has been 4 dolphins per year. The proportion of individuals reported as dead from the total number of dolphins encircled per financial year has decreased from a maximum of 0.09 in 2007/08 (15 of159) to a minimum of 0.004 in 2013/14 (1 of 240). In 2015/16, the proportion of dead dolphins from all encircled dolphins was 0.01 (2 of 195) (Figure 9) (Mackay, 2017). Mackay (2017) mentions that during 2015-16, 57% of reported dolphin interactions were in “other” category which means dolphins becoming encircled, but not entangled, in purse seine nets after they are set. It was later clarified that the above sentence does not imply 43% of the interacting dolphins were entangled. Encircled dolphins used to be reported in either ‘caught’ or ‘other’ category (A. Mackay, pers. comm. May 2018). Even though 43% of the dolphins were recorded as caught, most of these were reported as free swimming in the net and only two entangled but released without injury (A. Mackay, pers. comm. May 2018). This ambiguity will be avoided in the future, with the recently introduced SASF consolidated Wildlife Interaction Form, which details: number of dolphins free in the net, number of dolphins entangled inside the net and number of dolphins entangled outside the net (A. Mackay, pers. comm. May 2018). The new form for SASF aligns with the observer reporting to allow comparisons.

Figure 9: Interaction rates and fates of dolphins reported to interact with the SASF between 2007-08 and 2015-16. Source Mackay (2017).

For the 2016-17 and 2017-18 financial years, 174 and 220 animals were reported as encircled in 55 and 52 events respectively. Only one mortality was recorded for the 2016-2017 season and no mortalities in 2017-18 (SASIA, 2018). Fishery-independent data on the occurrence and nature of operational interactions between the SASF and common dolphins have been collected since 2004 (Mackay and Goldsworthy 2016). An initial independent observer program was undertaken by SARDI between November 2004 and June 2005 and indicated high interaction rates with dolphins (three encirclement events per 10 net-sets). The fishery was closed for two months in 2005 while an industry Code of Practice (CoP) and an independent monitoring program were developed. This observer program reported an 87% reduction in dolphin encirclement rates and a 97% reduction in mortality rates after the CoP had been developed (Hamer et al. 2008). Observed encirclement rates of dolphins have reduced from 37 dolphins per 100 net-sets in 2004-05, before the introduction of the CoP, to 8 dolphins per 100 net-sets in 2015-16 (Mackay, 2017), and 7 dolphins per 100 net-sets in 2016-2017 (Mackay and Goldsworthy, 2017). The mortality rate estimated

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 40

from observer data declined from 39 (95% CI = 22–55) dolphins per hundred net-sets in 2004–05 to 1 (0−2) in 2005–06, then increased to 9 (2−16) in 2006–07 and declined to 6 (3−9) in 2007–08. Less than three mortalities were predicted per hundred net-sets since 2007–08 (Ward et al, 2018). No mortalities were observed in 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2017-18, and mortality rates could not be estimated from observed data (Ward et al, 2018, SASIA, 2018). Box 1 presents the method of extrapolation of encirclement and mortality rates from the observed sets to the whole fishery. There has been a concern that the total number of dolphin encirclement events and mortalities estimated from observer data were higher than the total number of encirclement events and mortalities reported in fishery logbooks (in the years when mortality was observed); however, the discrepancy has reduced over time. During the initial observer program (by SARDI), logbooks reported 3.6% of the total number of encirclement events estimated from observer data, while since 2013-14 the estimated and reported numbers of encirclement events were similar (Hamer et al, 2008, Ward et al. 2015b, Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017, Ward et al, 2018). Before the CoP implementation, the level of reported mortalities when observers were not present was 1.8% of the observer estimates (Hamer et al 2008). After seven months of the implementation of the CoP, mortality rates reported in logbooks increased to 58.9% of the estimated mortality from observer data. At the current observer coverage, current mortality rates cannot be compared with estimates from observer data. To be noted that the purpose of the observer program contracted by PIRSA is to assess the effectiveness of the CoP and identify increases encirclement and mortality rates that would require extra management actions. Thus the observer coverage is set for this purpose, and not for the purpose to be to identify a decreasing mortality trend from 2006 levels (2-16 range) when mortality events became rare (see Hamer et al, 2008, Ward et al, 2018). In consequence, at 10% observer coverage, mortality estimates from observer data cannot be meaningfully compared with logbook reported mortality. More exactly, when a mortality event occurs by chance when an observer is on board, when extrapolated to the entire fishery, this is likely to overestimate mortality rate and, if no mortality is observed, mortality will be underestimated. Lower reported mortalities in logbooks compared to the estimate from observer data, in some years, does not represent evidence of underreporting. Observed mortality rates were not always higher than unobserved mortality rates, but there have been years when no mortalities were observed (2013-14 and 2015-16) while mortalities were reported in logbooks (one for each year). In 2016-2017, no mortalities were reported from either, observed and unobserved sets. In 2013, the experts participating at the SASF ESD risk assessment workshop concluded that fishery’s impact on dolphins is negligible (PIRSA 2013a). This conclusion has been criticised by the ENGO stakeholders in a submissions to the DEE for the SASF assessment under the EPBC Act, on the grounds that the abundance considered for the risk assessment may have been overestimated (Wilikins, 2014). In addition, the population sub-structuring and possible unobserved mortality (e.g. calf-mother separation (Archer et al, 2001, 2004), stress-related post-encirclement reproductive failure (Cramer et al, 2008, Edwards, 2007)) were not taken into consideration (Wilkins, 2014). For this reason, the authors of the submission recommended a Population Viability Analysis (PVA) to be undertaken, as recommended by Möller et al. (2012). Moller et al (2012) estimated the lowest potential biological removal (PBR) for the SASF region, around 61 and 92, for summer and winter respectively. The PBR level is, conceptually, the maximum number of anthropogenic mortalities a marine mammal population can sustain while still allowing that “stock” to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (OSP). Möller et al. (2012) emphasised that these estimates are preliminary and thus should not be used for informing management decisions. Nevertheless, the authors of the ENGOs submission to the DoE (2016) believe these estimates provide a useful benchmark for assessing the potential risk from the SASF to common dolphin populations. Concerns were raised about a possibility that dolphin mortalities are at a similar level to the PBR estimates (Wilkins, 2016). During the stakeholder meetings, this was clarified that the concerns refer to the numbers of dolphins encircled and potentially suffering unobserved mortalities, which are at similar levels to the PBR estimates (J. Brook, pers. comm. May 2018). According to the wildlife interaction reports (e.g. Mackay, 2017), the annual number of reported encircled dolphins is higher than the PBR

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 41

estimates from Möller et al. (2012), although the reported mortalities and the estimated mortalities from observer data are much lower. Mackay et al. (2016) conducted a preliminary analysis of PBR for several iconic protected species, including common dolphin, for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) fishing zones, one of these zones encompassing the SASF fishing area that is outside the gulfs. The analysis was undertaken following a workshop of invited independent experts. The estimated PBR for dolphins occurring in the area overlapping SASF outside gulfs zone was 261 dolphins per year. It should be noted that most experts did not think it was appropriate to provide estimates for the common dolphin abundance for those zones where there were no empirical abundance data available. Also, two experts did not agree with the PBR estimation for this species in relation to SPF management zones, as the zones do not reflect published data on population structuring for this species across the area (Möller et al. 2012, Bilgmann et al. 2014a). The applicability of these estimates as a benchmark to assess the risk from the SASF on common dolphin populations is uncertain, although the suggest that direct observed mortality of common dolphins due to SASF would not create unacceptable effects on the local population/ sub- populations. Box 1. The method of estimation of interaction rates from observer data (adapted from Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017).

Operational interactions between the SASF and common dolphins recorded by observers and reported in the WIF were analysed using three metrics; encirclement events, number of dolphins encircled and number of mortalities. An encirclement event was defined as one or more dolphins being present inside the purse seine net after it had been set. For each encirclement event the total number of individuals encircled and the status of individuals (alive or dead) was recorded. Rates of encirclements per net- set and mortality per net-set were calculated and compared between observed and unobserved net- sets. Two methods were used to estimate the total number of encirclement events in the SASF. The first method used a simple ratio estimation, where calculated encirclement rates from observed net-sets were multiplied by the total fishing effort (i.e. number of net-sets) undertaken by the fishery. The second method was to fit generalised linear models (GLMs) to the observer data and use significant covariates associated with encirclement events to predict net-sets without an observer present. Forward and backward step-wise selection (Venables and Ripley 2002) was used to select the best model. The process was automated using the step function in R (R version 3.2.3), which uses Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) to evaluate the importance of each covariate to model fit. The binomial GLM previously used by Ward et al. (2015a, b) to estimate total encirclements for all data between 2004-05 and 2014-15 retained the explanatory variables financial year, region and catch. Fishery reported rates of interactions were assessed by comparing the total number of encirclement events reported in the WIF to the total number of encirclement events estimated from the observer data using the simple ratio estimation method and GLM.

Unobserved mortality The MSC standard requires “the consideration of the impact of the UoA on all components in P2, including unwanted catch, shall include mortality that is observed and mortality that is unobserved “(MSC, 2014, SA3.1.8, p. 133). Unobserved mortality can include, but is not limited to: • Illegal fishing and/or unregulated catches;

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 42

• Animals that are injured and subsequently die as result of coming in contact with fishing gear; • Animals that are stressed and die as a result of attempting to avoid being caught by fishing gear (MSC, 2014, GSA3.1.8, p. 420) There is no evidence of illegal fishing that would impact on common dolphin population. Illegal fishing is considered under Principle 3, Compliance section, in this report. During the stakeholder consultation at the site visit, the ENGO (CCSA) representative expressed that although SASF has improved its dolphin bycatch mitigation practices over the past decade, there is still a concern related to possible unobserved mortalities following interactions with the fishery. Interactions between dolphins and purse seine fisheries have received considerable attention in the available literature, especially those from the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETPO). Millions of spotted (Stenella attenuata), spinner (S. longirostris) and common (Delphinus spp.) dolphins were incidentally killed by the ETPO tuna purse-seine fishery between the 1960s and 1990s, with the annual kill peaking at 457,903 in 1969 (e.g. Archer et al., 2001, 2004). Dolphins indicate the presence of tuna in the ETPO because the two are closely associated, thus resulting in the intentional targeting of dolphins during 41.7% of the 18,609 net-sets conducted by the 132 United States registered vessels in 1974 (Joseph, 1995; Gosliner, 1999, in Hamer et al, 2008)). The US Marine Mammal Protection Act was introduced in 1972, partly in response to this issue. An observer program was implemented during the mid 1980s and a ‘back-down’ procedure was introduced to facilitate the escape of encircled dolphins, by creating an escape route between the top of the submerged net and the surface of the water. The USA effort on dolphin sets declined considerably in late 1970s while effort from Mexico and other Latin American countries increased, leading to a new increase in the number of dolphins killed. Due to management actions dolphin kill decreased again and starting with 1993, international agreements culminating with an International Dolphin Conservation Program Agreement (Hedley, 2001) were signed. By this time, total reported dolphin mortality had fallen to fewer than 3000 dolphins per year. In recent years, dolphin mortality has declined further to about 1000 animals per year, and for each dolphin stock, the annual bycatch is less than 0.1% of the estimated population size. The reduction of the dolphin bycatch by >99% is a conservation success story7. Currently, the Mexican tuna fishery in the ETPO, which uses dolphin sets, is MSC certified8. Even though in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery the observed mortalities have reduced significantly, dolphin populations affected did not recover as expected and unobserved mortalities (‘cryptic’ mortalities) related to stress or to calf-mother separation are among the hypothesised causes, along with other possible causes that do not depend on the fishery (e.g. Wade et al, 2007). Studies have shown support for most of these hypotheses, but it is not clear how strongly each may affect dolphin population dynamics (reviewed in Punt, 2013). According to Moller et al (2012), similar impacts are thought possible on common dolphin populations from interactions with the SASF. The authors write: In addition, there may be encirclement related stress causing change in tissue chemistry of dolphins (reviewed in Wade et al 2007). Although this has not been proven to have population level effects, it potentially does when it affects the ability for females to conceive or leads to increased foetal mortality. The ‘cryptic’ (unseen) deaths from purse-seine fishing encirclements of dolphins in the ETP, in particular of calves during the first 6 months of life, is likely to be much larger than previously expected (Wade et al. 2007). It is therefore possible that these factors also play a role in the impact of purse- seine fishing on common dolphins in SA, even in cases when the animals are released successfully by opening the front of the purse-seine nets as part of the Code of Practice (CoP) in mitigating interactions

7 https://swfsc.noaa.gov/textblock.aspx?Division=PRD&ParentMenuId=228&id=1408 8 https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/northeastern-tropical-pacific-purse-seine-yellowfin-and- skipjack-tuna-fishery/@@assessments

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 43

in SA (Hamer et al. 2007), the post-encirclement population level effects remain unknown with the potential for cryptic deaths (Moller et al, 2012). In order to compare the SASF with the eastern tropical Pacific purse seine tuna fishery, we must understand how similar/different the two fishing methods are. From Edwards’ (2007) description of the how the eastern tropical Pacific fishery used to operate (see Box 2) it is clear the process was very stressful for the dolphins involved and it might result in ‘cryptic’ mortality. The dolphins were chased with helicopters and speed boats before encircled and the operation could take up to four or more hours before the dolphins were released. The current operations in the Mexican tuna fishery are similar to the eastern tropical Pacific fishery, only with much shorter duration of encirclement and with no linear chase. Speed boats are used to not let dolphins escape before the set is made (SCS, 2015). In contrast, the SASF fishing operations do not involve the use of helicopters, speed boats, and dolphin chase with the scope to encircle the dolphins together with the associated target catch. Moreover, the SASF fishers are actively trying to avoid interactions and encirclements of dolphins, as it will be described later in the Management PI section and as Box 3, describing the net setting operation, suggests. Observer reports have shown that the average time from the start of the setting to the release of the dolphin (if the pre-setting search was not successful and dolphins were encircled) was 20 minutes (Mackay and Goldsworthy, 2017) and during this time the dolphins were not chased. Also, the SASF method allows continuous access to the water/air interface for marine mammals to breathe if encircled in the net and the release can be executed before any physical contact with the gear occurs. At 600 m net length, there is an encircled area of approx. 28,600 square meters where dolphins are enclosed, which gives them ample space to breathe.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 44

Box 2. Fishing strategy in eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery. Excerpt from Edwards (2007).

Dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP), particularly spotted (Stenella attentuata) and spinner (Stenella longirostris) dolphins, are frequently chased and encircled by tuna purse-seiners whith the intent on capturing the large yellowfin tuna often found associated with dolphin schools in this area of the Pacific Ocean. The set procedure involves using helicopters to search for the disturbances caused by tuna schools feeding in association with dolphins and seabirds (National Research Council, 1992) or for bird flocks over the horizon. Once an associated tuna school has been located and determined large enough to invest the time and effort in capture, the seiner begins to set the net while 4-5 speedboats with large outboard engines are dropped off the back of the vessel to separate dolphins associated with tuna and chase them into the closing purse-seine. In an association unique to the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP), the tuna remain associated with the dolphins during the chase and capture, so that the closed and pursed seine then contains both the yellowfin tuna and the dolphins. Once the net is entirely closed and pursed at the bottom, a specific maneuver by the vessel (“backdown”) creates a long finger of small-mesh net (the “backdown channel”) on the side of the seine opposite the vessel. Many dolphins have learned to expect this maneuver (Santurtun & Galindo, 2002) and gather near the appropriate area of the seine, waiting for the channel to form. The dolphins then escape over the submerged far end of the backdown channel and quickly leave the area (Chivers & Scott, 2002). ETP dolphins respond to an impending set by beginning to flee as soon as the tuna seiner, the helicopter, or the speedboats are perceived (National Research Council, 1992). Because the initial response tends to occur several kilometers from the vessel (Au & Perryman, 1982; Hewett, 1985), initial perception appears to be acoustic rather than visual. The dolphins respond by moving closer together and increasing their swim speed from about 1-2 m/sec to 2-3 m/sec (Chivers & Scott, 2002; i.e., doubling to tripling their previous swim speed and thereby increasing their swimming power requirement by a factor of 8 to 27 times the power required for non-chase swim speeds (Edwards, 2006)). The chase portion of the set typically lasts 30-40 minutes (with a small percentage of chases lasting up to about 80 minutes), encirclement lasts 30-60 minutes (with a very small percentage of encirclements lasting up to about 75 minutes), and length of confinement lasts another 40-60 minutes (with a small percentage lasting up to about 90 minutes) (Myrick & Perkins, 1995), so that time from initiation of chase to release typically ranges between about 1.5 and 2.5 hours (with a potential maximum in a few sets of about 4 hours). Once the dolphins perceive that the backdown channel is ready, they swim out quickly and continue their escape by swimming at even higher speeds (3-4 m/sec) for about 90 minutes before reverting to pre-chase behaviors (Chivers & Scott, 2002). Thus, each purseseine set experience may disrupt normal ETP dolphin behavior for at least 30-40 minutes, if the dolphin manages to escape prior to capture, and for 3-4 hours (occasionally up to 5.5 hours) if the dolphin is captured in the seine and then released.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 45

Box 3. Net setting operation in the SASF as explained at the site visit (vessel visit) by skipper L. Mackuch and then described by SASIA executive officer M. Turner in email communication to the MSC assessing team.

Smaller vessels in the fleet that do not have thrusters use a skiff to aid keeping the net open and away from the vessel. These vessels also use the people on the skiffs to further search for dolphins or other protected species throughout the set.

Larger vessels deploy using a buoy and water anchor/parachute style system as operating a skiff from the high decks is not feasible. The skippers release the net at the same speed at which they are travelling and set a much wider perimeter than the sardine school. Upon completing the circle they retrieve the buoy attached to the parachute off the bow of the vessel. During the release of the net most vessels travel around 6 knots, and this can take approximately 3-5 minutes to complete a full circle prior to the final check for protected animals and hauling.

No speed boats are used to keep the sardines from dispersing as sardines sit tightly balled up in the middle of the water column and are not generally moving at a fast pace, until scared. This is why the operations are done in darkness until the net set is made. Before, during and immediately after all of these operations handheld spotlights are used in conjunction with audible searches to look for dolphins. Once the set is complete and the lights turn on and pursing up the cables begins, another search is completed to ensure no encircled dolphins. It is at this point (when no net has been retrieved) skippers can abort a net set if any protected species are in the net, leading to extremely high success rates as no animals come into contact with the net this early. Assuming all is well, the net is then hauled until the fish are in an enclosed area and a fish pump is used to brail the fish on board and through a de-waterer.

As shown in Edwards (2007), studies of fishery effects on eastern tropical Pacific dolphin’s physiology, behaviour, and population dynamics indicate that adult dolphins chased, encircled, and released during tuna purse-seine sets experience acute, intense stress during the event but most appear to recover from this experience, though some may develop long-term sequelae such as vascular and muscle lesions, reproductive failure, or reduced survival. In addition, the same dolphins suffer higher foetal mortalities than other populations, although it is not clear if this is natural or an effect of the chase and encirclement in the fishery (Wade, 2007). Although potential effects of the encirclement during the SASF operations on dolphins were not studied, it is clear that there is a significant difference between fishing strategies of the tuna fishery from eastern Pacific and the SASF. The SASF operations would produce significantly less stress to dolphins. Stress- related unobserved mortality (i.e. post release mortality or foetal mortality in pregnant females) or reproductive failure from direct effects of the SASF is highly less likely than in the eastern tropical Pacific fishery. Nevertheless, there might be some stress- associated effects, and it is possible that some individual common dolphins are more sensitive to stress than others (e.g. Bearzi et al, 2003). In addition, there are indications that common dolphins are not as resilient to stress as other dolphin species (Kemper, 2018, pers. comm). Hamer et al (2008) describes stress in encircled dolphins when no action to release them were taken, before the implementation of the CoP. Some encircled dolphins that subsequently died showed signs of stress (erratic swimming), then, they would become motionless at the surface followed by passive sinking, whereby they become floating belly-up and sink beneath the surface. After the CoP

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 46

implementation, dolphins are released alive in most cases and they do not show signs of distress (Ward et al, 2018, L. Mackuch, pers.comm. May, 2018). Another type of unobserved mortality that was identified in other fisheries, especially in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery, is calves mortality after calf-mother separation. To assess the potential for calf-mother separation in SASF, we need to understand the conditions necessary for such separation. Archer et al (2004) estimated a calf deficit in the dolphin groups killed in the eastern tropical Pacific fishery, i.e. 75% to 95% of the lactating mothers were killed without a calf. This suggests that calves were separated from their mothers and they would not be able to survive on their own, thus mortalities due to the fishery were higher than the reported mortalities. Moreover, separations could occur not only when the mother was killed but also if the mother was encircled without the calf and then released, the chances to reunite with the calf would be low. Neonate dolphins have limited swimming and diving capacity. To compensate for this limitation, mothers must carry their young. Echelon swimming in cetacean mother–infant dyads is a type of ‘infant carrying’ that improves calf swim performance, but it comes with at a cost for the mothers (Noren, 2008). Echelon swimming in cetaceans is described as calf swims in very close proximity of its mother's mid‐lateral flank. Noren (2008) found the echelon swimming mothers of bottlenose dolphin were significantly slower (average 2.11m/s, maximum 4.32 m/s) compared to periods of solitary swimming (average 3.88m/s, max 6.32). A neonate 0-1 month old is also capable to swim independently with speeds of 0.58-4.20 m/s and this performance is increased when it swims in echelon with the mother (Noren, 2008), although high speeds can be sustained only for a few seconds (Rohr et al, 2002). For adult Stenella sp. in the eastern tropical Pacific, for example, throughout the duration of a chase by tuna vessel speedboats, on the order of several to many minutes, the dolphins are likely capable of maintaining velocities of about 3 m/second but neonates are likely able to sustain speeds of only about 1.7 m/second for that duration of time and requires to expend 4.6 times more power than an adult to maintain the speed (Edwards, 2002). At 3m/s, the neonate would be able to swim only for a few seconds. Edwards (2002) found that the risk of the calf to be left behind is directly related to how young the calf is and how long the chase is. Noren & Edwards (2007) reviewed published data on physiological and behavioural development in delphinids from birth to three years postpartum to assess age-specific potential of mother-calf separation and subsequent mortality of calves in relation to the eastern Pacific tuna fishery. They concluded that 0-12 months old dolphins were at the highest risk to die after being separated from mothers. During a chase from the eastern Pacific tuna fishers, mothers would rather keep up to the speed of the group than to wait for their calves. The authors concluded that this, coupled with the developmental state of calves, provides a plausible mechanism for set‐related mother–calf separations and subsequent mortality of calves (Noren & Edwards, 2007). To compare the above situation with the fishing strategy in the SASF, vessels speeds of 6 knots are equivalent to dolphin swimming speeds of approx. 3m/s. The research literature indicates that at this speed adult dolphins usually can sustain swimming for long times but young calf would only be capable to swim with the mothers in echelon position for a few seconds (e.g. Edwards, 2005). However, in this fishery, chasing of dolphins on purpose does not occur at any times. The search that occurs before setting and during the setting ensures that no dolphins are chased. Dolphin encirclement occurs, despite the pre-setting search, when dolphins move in the setting area after the set is started (M. Turner, pers. comm. May 2018). This suggests that dolphins are not trying to escape the net but they purposefully enter the net probably because the sardines would be easier to catch when they are encircled. The mothers that swim with calves, would not be in a flight or fight mode (they are not trying to escape) and are not chased, thus they don’t need to swim at speeds higher than normal. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that calf-mother separation is highly unlikely. Dr. Kemper from the South Australian Museum, who has been receiving dolphin bodies for post- mortem analyses after mortality events, suggested that lactating mothers could be identified if killed without a calf, in the fishery, and this would be evidence that calf-mother separation occurs. From a

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 47

preliminary analysis of the carcasses received by the museum since 2006, out of 14 sexually mature females, six were lactating, while only one dolphin was a neonate and three were calves. This suggests that two lactating mothers might have been killed without their calf, which would have subsequently died (Kemper, 2018). In addition, according to the same data, the rest of the sexually mature females were pregnant. While it is unclear whether the pregnant and lactating females were killed in recent years, the SA Museum data suggests that unobserved mortality has occurred in the past in the SASF. However, there are no published papers on post-mortem analyses of dolphins killed in the fishery. As SARDI research demonstrates that dolphin mortality has considerably decreased, it is likely that even if the reported observed mortality is doubled by the unobserved mortality, this would still be significantly below the estimated PBRs. To be noted that in the last 5 years, 7 mortalities were reported in logbooks and three observed mortalities (two in 2 in 2014-15, one in 2016-17, zero in the rest of the years) (SASIA, 2018). Another situation that could produce unobserved mortality is collision with the fishing boat during the net setting operation or during travel. The SASF vessels usually travel at 6 knots when setting. The consequences of boat strikes on marine megafauna depend on more complex variables besides the speed of the boat, such as the size and shape of the boat, and the size and weight of the animal (Vanderlaan and Taggart, 2007). However, the speed and weight of the boat are more influential than the speed and the weight of the animal and Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) hold that the speed of the boat is a good predictor of the severity of the injury (Figure 10). According to these authors, for a speed of 6 knots, the probability of a lethal strike for a whale would be about 10%. Considering that dolphins are small cetaceans this probability would be smaller. Dolphin collisions are known to occur rather with whale- watching boats, although dolphins are more likely to entangle in fishing gear (Waerebeek et al., 2007). Dolphins are known to be able to swim at higher speeds than 3m/s (8m/s for D. delphis, Rohr et al, 2002) and it is highly likely that they can avoid collision with vessels that travel at 6 knots. There have been no known collision incidents in the SASF (S. Shanks, pers. comm. May, 2018).

Figure 10. Probability of a lethal strike for a ship striking a whale at various ship speeds. Calculated using equations from Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007) (from IFAW, 2010).

Considering the available information, at the current level of interactions and mortalities (observed and potentially unobserved), there it is highly likely that direct effects from the fishery will not hinder recovery of common dolphin populations, if the population would become depleted.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 48

In addition, recognising that population sub-structuring adds uncertainty about the possible effects of the fishery at sub-population level, and the effects of post-encirclement stress are not known, there is no evidence of population decrease since the start of the SASF in 1991 (e.g. Goldsworthy et al, 2011). In contrast, the empirical evidence from the number of dolphins that interact with the fishery would suggest the species is highly abundant in the SASF fishing areas. Indirect effects on common dolphin populations from SASF interaction For ETP species, MSC standard requires that in addition to assessing the direct effects from the fishery, indirect effects be considered as well. Impacts from the sardine fishery may also be indirect due to prey depletion through overfishing (Bilgmann et al., 2008). These indirect effects have been explored in an ecosystem modelling study (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). Common dolphin’s diet profile showed that Australian sardine had a significant percentage contribution (20.8%), but lower than anchovy (43.3%); the rest of the diet consisting in mackerel (11.4%), trevally (6.4) and other species. However, this diet profile may not be representative for all common dolphins in the area (S. Goldsworthy, pers. comm. May 2018). In contrast, Dr. Kemper, who studied diet composition on dolphins collected from the fishery and from other sources (unpublished), suggested that common dolphins might be highly dependent on sardines (C. Kemper, pers.comm. June 2018). In addition there are some indications that sardines low availability for mothers’ feeding may affect young dolphins immune system, although no direct evidence exists. These might have been only coincidental events, but in the years following the highest, unprecedented catch of sardines from Spencer Gulf in 2005, an unusual outbreak of parasite infestation in calves was identified (Tomo et al, 2010). Overall, the Ecosim model showed increase in apex predators population, including dolphins, for the modelled period (1991-2008) and negligible impact on these predators from the expansion of the SASF. Although projections up to the year 2040 have shown that common dolphin population is sensitive to Australian sardines abundance, with some reduction in dolphin population if the sardine population will be reduced by 25%, 50% and 75% compared to 2008 sardine abundance level. Goldsworthy et al (2011) concluded that the current fishery management strategy was sufficiently conservative to ensure it does not impact competing predators.

3.4.3.1.2 Pinnipeds

The introductory paragraphs and Figures are adapted from Mackay (2017). The second most frequent interactions since 2007/2008 (8% of total) occur with three recorded species of seals: Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea), long-nosed fur seal (Arctocephalus forsteri) and Australian fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus), although most pinnipeds are reported as unidentified. The number of interactions reported between pinnipeds and purse seine operations has decreased from a maximum of 24 in 2007/08 to one in 2014/15. The highest number of individual seals reported to interact with the fishery was 75 in 2008/09 (Figure 11). Since 2007/2008, 60% of pinniped interactions have been reported in the ‘other’ category, with comments specifying seals were swimming in and out of the net. No mortalities were reported since 2007/2008 fishing season. No interactions with pinnipeds were reported in WIFs during 2015/16, however independent observers recorded 19 interactions with seals swimming freely in and out of the net, or swimming outside the net during fishing operations. Observer data from 2015/16 identified 16 of the individuals were Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea). Fishers not reporting this type of interaction may be due to the fact that according to the definition of an interaction, they are not required to report it. A “wildlife interaction” in the WIF is defined as “any physical contact a fisher, boat or fishing gear has with wildlife and protected species. This includes any collision or capture (hooked, netted or entangled) of individuals of a species.” Since 2007/2008, out of 141 pinnipeds interacting with the SASF, the majority (95%) have been reported as unidentified seal species, with species level reports of four Australian sea lions, two long-nosed fur seals and one Australian fur seal.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 49

Figure 11. Interaction rates and nature of interactions for individual pinnipeds reported on WIFs in the SASF between 2007/08 and 2015/16.

Figure 12. Interaction rates and fate of individual pinnipeds reported on WIFs in the SASF between 2007/08 and 2015/16.

Australian sea lions are endemic to Australia and restricted to South and Western Australia. The species is listed as marine and vulnerable under the EPBC Act although there are no set limits. It is also listed as “endangered” on the IUCN Red List (Goldsworthy, 2015). Australian sea lion pup abundance in South Australia (SA), which account for 83% of the species, declined by 24% since surveys undertaken 7-11 years earlier (between 2004 and 2008). For the entire GAB region (SA and south coast Western Australia), based on the change in Australian sea lion pup abundance between two comparable surveys, the decline in pup numbers was estimated to be -2.8% (sd = 3.2) per year, or -4.1% (sd = 4.8) per breeding season. Following IUCN Red list assessment methods, the estimated change in pup abundance over three generations based on the observed change in pup abundance across the GAB region was -76.4%, meeting the ‘Endangered’ IUCN Criterion A assessment criteria (>50 and <80% decline over three generations). Assessment at the colony level identified that almost 40% of sites assessed in the GAB region meet the ‘Critically endangered’ criteria (>80% decline over three generations) (Goldsworthy et al, 2017).

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 50

The Australian sea lions exhibit high site fidelity and little or no movement of females between colonies has been observed, even between those separated by short distances (Campbell et al. 2008). Also, it has been suggested that each breeding colony on the west coast of Australia could be considered a distinct management unit due to the low gene flow between even quite closely located colonies. Site fidelity has implications to the risk of local extinction, especially at sites with low population numbers. Due to the species long breeding cycle (17.6 months), the time required to increase population size is longer than for other pinniped species with shorter breeding cycles. In addition, there is evidence of a reduction in the numbers of breeding sites along the greater Perth metropolitan coastline area, and along Victorian and Tasmanian coastline (Campbell et al. 2008). Historically, the main anthropogenic threat to the Australian sea lion was hunting and overharvest through sealing activities (AFMA 2010). Although this activity was stopped in the 1920s, the sea lion population has not recovered to pre-exploitation levels (AFMA 2010). The current major identified threatening process limiting recovery of Australian sea lion populations is incidental bycatch mortality, especially in demersal gillnet fisheries. Management for recovery of the species requires the ability to detect changes in the status of populations over time. A population monitoring strategy was developed which identified key and/or representative breeding sites within regions across the range of the species to target trends in pup production. However, a critical issue is the limited baseline information on the status of Australian sea lion populations across their range. In the past, estimates of the size of Australian sea lion populations have typically been based on the best available survey data for individual breeding sites, often spanning 1-2 decades. An assessment of the size of the Australian sea lion populations in SA in the late-2000s mainly used data obtained between 2004 and 2008, although data for some breeding sites were from as early as 1990 (Shaughnessy et al. 2011). That study estimated Australian sea lion pup abundance in SA to be 3,119 while the latest survey estimated approx. 2,801 pups, and a total abundance 10,728 for the entire GAB region (SA and WA, Goldsworthy et al, 2017). Mackay et al (2017) calculated PBRs at the individual colony/sub-population level which ranged from 0 to 44 individuals per year. From observer reports, there is evidence that individuals of this species swim around purse seines during fishing operations (swim in and out of net, Mackay, 2017), although no mortalities have been reported at least for the last 10 years. The Australian sea lions are normally demersal feeders (T. Ward, pers. comm. May 2018), thus sardines would not be a significant part of their diet. Long-nosed fur seals are native to southern Australia and New Zealand and listed as ‘marine’ under the EPBC Act with no set limits. This species was IUCN assessed as “least concern” (Chilvers & Goldsworthy, 2015). The long-nosed fur seal breeds in southern Australia from New South Wales to WA; it also breeds in New Zealand and its subantarctic islands. Most of the Australian population is in SA, between Kangaroo Island and the southern tip of Eyre Peninsula (Shaughnessy et al. 2014). Gillanders et al. (2015) estimated annual changes in pup production between 1993 and 2013. Pup production across the three main colonies was estimated to be 5,592 in the 1993/94 year and based on an average annual increase of about 3.8%, 11,634 in 2012/13 (Gillanders et al., 2015). At the latest survey, 24,063 pups and a total abundance of 114,540 were estimated for the GAB region (Goldsworthy et al, 2017). Mackay et al (2016) calculated a PBR for Long nosed-fur seals for the area outside gulfs area where the SASF operates. The estimated PBR ranges between 2,499 to 4,498. Two long-nosed fur seals have been reported by the SASF fishers in the WIFs in the last 10 years, although some of the seals reported as unidentified (141) could have been from this species. No mortalities have been reported for at least 10 years. The Australian fur seals are endemic to south-eastern Australian waters and are found from the coasts of Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria and across to South Australia with the centre of their distribution in Bass Strait. Australian fur seal is a subspecies of Australo-African fur seal, the other

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 51

sub-species being the Cape fur seal. The ranges of both subspecies are expanding, with the new colonies established in the last decade (Goldsworthy, 2015). Australian fur-seal is listed as ‘marine’ under the EPBC Act with no set limits, and it was IUCN assessed as ‘least concern’. Hunted to the brink of extinction last century, population recovery has been slow, and seals are now wholly protected. Most of the recovery of the population has occurred since the 1970s, and between the 1980s and early 2000s pup production doubled to ca. 20,000. Three national surveys of pup production for the species have been done at approximately five-yearly intervals since 2002/03. One undertaken in 2002/03 estimated a pup production of 19,820, another undertaken in 2007/08 estimated a pup production of 21,881, and the most recent survey undertaken in 2013/14 estimated a pup production of 15,063 (Goldsworthy, 2015). The rate of increase in pup production between 1986 and 2002/03 was estimated to be 5% per year, slowing to 0.3% per year between 2002/03 and 2007/08 seasons. It is not clear if the apparent 6% per year decline between the 2007/08 and 2013/14 estimates is due to a poor pupping season in 2013/14 or represents a real decline in population over that period, as there is no colony that is monitored on an annual basis. Based on the 2007/08 surveys, two colonies adjacent to the Victorian coast, Seal Rocks (5,660 pups) and Lady Julia Percy Island (5,574 pups), account for over half (51%) the total pup production. Based on these surveys the total Australian Fur Seal population was estimated to be 120,000 individuals (Goldsworthy, 2015). At the latest pinniped survey in the GAB region, there were 3,291 pups and a total abundance 14,811 for the GAB region (Goldsworthy et al, 2017). Mackay et al (2016) estimated a PBR from 2,623 to 4,721 individuals. One Australian fur seal was reported in the WIFs by the SASF fishers in the last 10 years, although some of the seals reported as unidentified (141) might have been Australian fur seal. No mortalities have been reported since 2007/2008 (Mackay, 2017). Indirect effects of the SASF on pinnipeds were explored within the ecosystem modelling study (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). This study has shown that the SASF expansion supported recovery of the pinniped species over the modelled period (1991-2009). Their diet profiles include very low proportions of sardines (0% for Australian fur seal, 2.1% for long-nosed fur seal and 0.1% for Australian sea lion) (Goldsworthy et al., 2011), thus the fishery does not directly compete with these species. Goldsworthy et al (2011) study supports a high degree of certainty that at the current level of operation of the SASF, there are no significant detrimental indirect effects from the fishery on pinniped populations. However, future decreases (2008-2040 scenarios) in sardine biomass could lead to decrease in growth rates for long-nosed fur seal and Australian sea lion, while the Australian fur seal populations could increase (Goldsworthy et al, 2011).

3.4.3.1.3 Sharks

Two ETP species of mackerel sharks (Family Lamnidae) occur in EGAB area, the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus). These species are considered apex predators and are often associated with seal colonies on islands (Gillanders et al., 2013). White sharks move into Spencer Gulf in spring and summer to hunt snapper and other large prey (Bruce et al., 2006). The white shark is an EPBC listed species as vulnerable and migratory. The listing of the white shark as vulnerable was based on a number of factors, including evidence of a declining population, its life history characteristics (long-lived and low levels of reproduction), limited local distribution and abundance and at the time of listing, and still being under pressure from the Australian commercial fishing industry (PIRSA, 2013). White sharks sometimes bite into the net from the outside while brailing or pumping fish on board (after the net is closed) and are not caught in the net (Mackay, 2017). The recovery plan for white shark sets out management actions to stop the decline and support recovery of the species (http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/ce979f1b-dcaf-4f16-9e13- 010d1f62a4a3/files/white-shark.pdf). Commercial fisheries are required to quantify mortality as bycatch, including post-release mortality and minimize interactions as to not hinder recovery. No specific limits are set. Also, the shortfin mako is an EPBC listed species as a highly migratory and threatened species. There are no set limits for mako sharks either. Both species are pelagic and occur in EGAB areas during summer Roger et al., unpublished data, in Gillanders et al., 2013).

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 52

The 2013 ESD workshop participants assessed the impact of the SASF on great white shark and mako shark as negligible. A total of 14 interactions with 14 individual white sharks were reported since 2007/08 with no mortality. Comments indicate that most interactions happened when a shark was incidentally encircled in the net during fishing operations and subsequently released. Indirect effects of the SASF on sharks were considered within the ecosystem modelling study for the effect of sardine fishing (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). The apex predators, including pelagic sharks did not significantly affected by the SASF activity and expansion during 1991-2008, and projection scenarios have shown increase in pelagic sharks with reductions in sardine biomass. 3.4.3.1.4 Seabirds Continental shelf, inshore coastal waters and embayments of the Great Australian Bight (GAB) form important foraging habitats for a diverse array of seabirds with breeding colonies on inshore and offshore islands. Seventeen seabird species have been recorded to breed in the area of the GAB. These species include representatives from penguins (Spheniscidae), terns (Sternidae), storm petrels (Hydrobatidae), diving petrel (Pelecanoididae), gannets (Sulidae), shags and cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae) and the marine raptors (Accipitridae) (Goldsworthy et al, 2017). SASF does not normally interact with birds. There has been one report of a single interaction that resulted in the mortality of two shearwaters (species unknown) in 2008/09. No further interactions with seabirds have been reported since this time. Indirect effects on seabirds were considered within the ecosystem modelling study (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). Ecosim model has shown that the expansion of the sardine fishery between 1991 and 2008 did not significantly affect the abundance of bird species. Nevertheless, projection scenarios up to 2040 have shown that some birds populations were negatively impacted by reductions in sardine biomass. Crested tern (Thalasseus bergii) demonstrated the greatest sensitivity to reductions in sardine biomass both in direction (negative) and magnitude, followed by Australasian gannets. The latter species only breeds at one site in the EGAB region, in its south-east, on a disused light-house platform off Cape Jaffa, distant from the centre of the sardine fishery. In contrast, there are many breeding colonies of crested terns situated adjacent to the sardine fishery in southern Spencer Gulf and Investigator Strait. Demographic studies of the species indicate that birds were smaller and had lower survival rates in years following the two mass mortality events of sardines, in 1995 and 1998 (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). Page et al. (2011, in Goldsworthy et al, 2011) also found that the morphology of crested terns was negatively related to sardine spawning biomass in the previous year (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). Nevertheless, current harvest strategy is precautionary and even though Australian sardine does not fit the definition of ‘key’ low trophic species, the target and limit reference points are set according to the key low trophic species best practices (i.e. Smith et al, 2011). Indirect effects of the SASF are thought to not create significant detrimental impacts on seabirds.

3.4.3.2 Management (PI.2.3.2) According to the MSC definitions, a “comprehensive strategy” (applicable only for ETP component) is a complete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analyses, and management measures and responses. Overall, there is a comprehensive strategy to manage dolphins (which applies also to other protected large-bodied animals) as presented in this section. This is in addition to general management measures that include fishing gear restrictions, limited entry, netting closures, marine parks closures, quota monitoring and VMS monitoring, which are likely to benefit populations of ETP species (directly and indirectly). PIRSA is using an EBFM approach to the management of the SASF. Goal 3 of the SASF Management Plan requires: “protect and conserve aquatic resources, habitats and ecosystems”. One of the long-term objectives in achieving this goal is “minimize fishery impacts on TEPS”, where ‘TEPS’ (Threatened, Endangered and Protected Species) is equivalent with ‘ETPs’. This long-term objective is consistent with achieving the outcome expressed at PI 2.3.1. Measures to achieve this objective include:

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 53

i) Developing PIs and guidelines for setting the annual level of observer coverage ii) Maintaining a representative independent monitoring program to collect information and monitor TEPS interactions iii) Investigating, developing and improving arrangements, where possible, to reduce TEPS interactions to zero or as close as possible iv) Monitoring TEPS interactions through wildlife interaction and identification logbooks v) Maintaining TEPS working group vi) Ensuring fisheries information is available in a timely and publicly accessible manner. In practice, these measures are translated in the application of a code of practice (CoP) that includes: crew induction and training, minimizing interactions with ETPs by applying the prescribed procedures, monitoring and reporting of the ETP interactions, and continuous process of reviewing and improving of the CoP (SASIA, 2015). An identification guide for protected species is available for all PIRSA managed fisheries and it can be found as annex to the Operational Interactions with TEPS reports (e.g. Mackay, 2017). As over 90% of the interactions are with common dolphins, an Industry Code of Practice (CoP) was introduced in 2005 primarily for the management of the SASF impacts on this species, although the same practices apply for all large ETP species such as seals and sharks (SASIA, 2015). The CoP is a voluntary initiative of the SASIA and it is 100% supported by the licence holders (SASIA, 2015). To be noted that the application of the CoP is a licence condition and compulsory for the fishery operators and enforced by PIRSA’s overt and covert compliance monitoring. Code of Practice Procedures (adapted from SASIA, 2015) If wildlife (e.g. dolphins or seals) is sighted, skippers communicate to other vessels in real time, so other vessels avoid those areas. Skippers also coordinate the setting of nets to reduce fishing effort. Where a skipper has the opportunity to encircle enough for more than one vessel the skipper contacts other vessels in the area and offers them the opportunity to access the excess fish. This procedure reduces the number of shots made by the fleet minimising the risk of encircling dolphins or other mammals. To assist in efficient at-sea communication SASIA maintains an up-to-date skipper/vessel contact list that is displayed in the wheelhouse of all vessels. The code of practice requires fishers to make all reasonable efforts to detect dolphins’ presence before fishing commences. Each vessel must designate positions for crew members to visually assess the presence/absence prior to setting the net. Specific locations may include the bow, amidships and stern, or an elevated position. Prior to setting the net, crew members communicate the results of their visual (and audible, M. Turner, pers. comm. May 2018) assessment to the skipper and the skipper responds as per a specific flowchart each vessel is provided with. On an ‘all-clear’ report, the skipper may instruct the crew to set the net. If the presence of dolphins/other wildlife is reported, the setting procedure is suspended until the area is free. (Note: following a mortality event in 2016 the WIWG concluded that a generic flowchart was not appropriate for all vessels and it can result in unsuccessful pre-setting search. This was replaced by vessel-specific flowcharts (T. Ward, pers. comm. May 2018). As soon as the net has been set (Figure 13), i.e. the net is closed and the vessel lights are turned on, all crew members scan the area inside the net to determine if any protected species are present. If yes, this is reported immediately to the skipper. The release procedure is then enacted as soon as practicable and the release of the wildlife becomes the priority for the fishing operation. To release the animals, the skipper lets the front of the net go to create a safe escape route. To ensure the opening in the net is sufficient, the skipper may ‘drop- rings’, haul additional net and utilise thrusters or skiffs to stabilise the shape of the net to help ensure that the release is executed effectively. Once the purse seine net has been set successfully (with no encircled protected animals), all excess net is retrieved and fish pumped/brailed aboard as quickly as practicable in order to reduce potential entanglements with wildlife that may be present outside the net (SASIA, 2015). The low mesh size of the net also reduces the possibility of dolphin or other large animal to become entangled.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 54

a) b)

Figure 13. Schematic diagram of a purse-seine net, a) depicting the dolphin gate and the net folds beneath the vessel that form during pursing (Source: Hamer et al, 2008); b) a purse seine net without a dolphin gate, as it is currently used in the SASF (Source: SASIA, 2015)

Monitoring The level of interaction with dolphins and other ETPs is monitored and validated through: • Commercial logbooks completed by fishers • Wildlife interaction logbooks completed by fishers • An industry-led real-time monitoring program • Regular meetings of the Wildlife Interaction Working Group • A targeted independent scientific observer program • An annual independent scientific report on the effectiveness of the Code of Practice The average observer coverage for the 2012-13 to 2017-18 period has been 11.5% of net-sets (range 9.8-12.9%, SASIA, 2018). Data on interactions with dolphins and other wildlife were reported to PIRSA through the generic Wildlife Interaction Forms (WIF) since 2007 (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017). This form is now replaced by the SASF consolidated WIFs, aligned with the information reported by observers to be easier to compare (A. Mackay, pers. comm. June 2018) Testing that the comprehensive strategy works SARDI reviews the effectiveness of the CoP in mitigating operational interactions of the SASF with common dolphin and if the CoP is implemented successfully, and produces annual reports. The reports are based on observer data, fishery logbook catch and effort data, and wildlife interaction data collected during each fishing year. These reports are internally peer reviewed. Occasionally this information is published as externally peer-reviewed journal articles (Hamer et al, 2008, Ward et al, 2018a). The objectives of SARDI assessments of the CoP are: • to examine patterns of observer coverage, • compare observed and reported rates of dolphin encirclement and mortality, • assess the effectiveness of the CoP in mitigating interactions with dolphins. The latest report also presents fishing patterns (i.e. catch per unit effort; CPUE) with and without an observer present (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017). The success rate of avoidance procedures used before and after the application of the CoP is presented in Table 8.

Table 8. Success (%) of avoidance procedures identified in the CoP in preventing the encirclement of dolphins in the SASF during 2004–05 to 2014–15

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 55

Year Number of Number of Search Search and searches delays success delay % success % 2004–05 0 0 2005–06 89 6 89.9 100.0 2006–07 82 7 85.4 71.4 2007–08 189 34 90.5 70.6 2008–09 233 31 92.7 87.1 2009–10 265 34 92.5 79.4 2010–11 91 2 89.0 50.0 2011–12 73 1 87.7 100.0 2012–13 84 4 90.5 50.0 2013–14 81 15 93.8 66.7 2014–15 93 13 92.5 84.6 Source Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017

During the 2016-17 fishing season, dolphins were encircled during seven observed sets where they had not been seen prior to setting the net. Therefore, searching prior to the commencement of fishing was successful in detecting that dolphins were not present in the vicinity of the fishing operations in 93% of observed net-sets where a search was undertaken. It is clear that searching prior to setting of the net is essential to minimise the potential for dolphins to become encircled during fishing operations (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017). When dolphins are encircled, the CoP is followed, and the time before the dolphins are released is as short as possible. In 2016-17, the release action taken in six (75%) of the eight observed shots where an encirclement had occurred, was to immediately let the front of the net go. For one encirclement event, the release method was to open the net at the end of the set, and in two separate encirclement events, both involving two entangled individuals, the dolphins had to be cut free of the net. On average, the release procedure commenced within 20 minutes (range 5-50 minutes) of the dolphins being first observed in the net. In 2016-17, the release procedure used in 80% of the 51 unobserved encirclement events reported in logbooks was ‘opening the net’. Details on the time taken to initiate a release was provided for 19 encirclement events and averaged 13 minutes (1-35 minutes). The additional data provided by industry with encirclement events in 2016-17 offers a means of assessing the application of the CoP for these events when an observer is not present. SARDI recommended that fishers continue to record such information and are provided a standardised form to facilitate this (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017). Mackay & Goldsworthy also note that it is apparent from the observer data that it is possible to retain relatively large catches of sardine even if the front of the net has been let go to release encircled dolphins. Observed encirclement rates of dolphins have reduced from 37 encirclements per 100 net-sets in 2004- 05, before the introduction of the CoP, to 7 encirclements per 100 net-sets in 2016-17 (Mackay &Goldsworthy, 2017). Observed mortality rates of dolphins have reduced from 39 dolphins per 100 net-sets in 2004-05 to less than 7 dolphins per year since 2009/2010 and much less in recent years (Mackay and Goldsworthy 2016, 2017, SASIA, 2018). Testing clearly shows that the comprehensive strategy works and will work. Some uncertainty, however, remains, because mortality rates cannot be accurately estimated from independent observer data and there are concerns that unobserved mortality might occur. Nevertheless, it is believed that unobserved mortality would not increase total mortality to levels that would affect populations long- term viability.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 56

Testing successful implementation There have been some concerns regarding the implementation of the CoP. Since 2004-05, the total number of dolphin encirclement events and mortalities estimated from observer data has been higher than the total number of encirclement events and mortalities reported in fishery logbooks. However, the discrepancy has reduced over time. In 2004-05, logbooks reported approximately 5% of the total number of encirclement events estimated from observer data, while in 2015-16 and 2016-17, the estimated and reported numbers of encirclement events were similar (70 reported, 66 estimated for 2015-16 and 59 reported and 67 estimated for 2016-17) (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2016 and 2017). At the current level of observer coverage is not possible to produce robust estimates of either the total number of dolphins encircled, or total number of mortalities within a fishing season based on observer data. The mean number of dolphins observed per encirclement in 2016-17 was 4, but varied between encirclement events (range 1-12). Applying the mean number of dolphins observed per encirclement event and multiplying that against the estimated number of encirclement events (66 using the ratio approach), gives a total estimate of 264 dolphins encircled in 2016-17. This compares to a total of 192 dolphins reported for both observed and unobserved net-sets. However, using the mean number of dolphins observed per encirclement means that events with a large number of dolphins encircled would affect the calculated mean more than those with smaller numbers of dolphins. During the 2016-17 fishing season, two observed encirclement events involved a single dolphin, one involved two dolphins, one involved three, one with five, one with twelve dolphins, and two involved four dolphins. Estimates of the total number of dolphins encircled using the mean and ratio method are sensitive to the range of total numbers of individuals observed during different encirclement events (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017). The observed mortality rate in 2016-17 was 0.03 dolphin mortalities per encirclement event. It is unknown whether extrapolated mortality rates (GLM or ratio approach) reflect mortality rates in unobserved net-sets. The probability of a mortality occurring is affected by a number of factors including the nature of the interaction, such as if an individual is swimming freely or entangled in the net, the speed and success that the individual is released from the net, and whether the individual is released with or without injury. Applying a simple ratio method assumes that the probability of mortality is equal for every dolphin that becomes encircled, whether it is swimming freely in the net, or entangled and released. It also assumes that the estimates of total encirclement events are robust, which, as discussed above, are unlikely (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017). To be noted that for a management purpose, an accurate estimation of mortality or the ability to identify downward trends compared to 2006 levels from observer reports is not necessary. In contrast, a substantial increase in mortality and encirclement events, thus evidence that the CoP fails to work, will be identified with the current observer coverage, and this is what PIRSA aims to achieve with the observer program (see Box 4 for an explanation of the power analysis). Another issue identified in the annual reports on the CoP effectiveness is the possibility that the presence of an observer influences fishing behaviour. One of the performance indicator used to test this is CPUE per set, which has been lower in observed compared to unobserved shots. According to Mackay & Goldsworthy (2017), there were many confounding variables that could have influenced the CPUE; thus, the interpretation of these differences is subjective. It was suggested that the CPUE might have been lower if fishers acted more cautiously and avoided areas or circumstances where dolphin interactions are more likely, at the cost of lower CPUE (Miller, 2016, Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017). If these were true, there would be an evident underrepresentation of observed sets in areas with high effort and high dolphin abundance. This can be analysed by inspecting maps of fishing effort, observed fishing effort and dolphin interactions (Figure 14). As figure 14 shows, the observed effort over the period of the CoP implementation was concentrated in the areas with highest fishing effort and highest dolphin interactions in southern Spencer Gulf. This spatial distribution if not always representative, especially at the beginning of the CoP implementation, as Mackay & Goldsworthy (2017) note, would lead at worst to ‘false positives’ when estimating rates of encirclement and mortality. This distribution of observed effort can be considered precautionary.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 57

Figure 14. a Map showing location of the South Australian Sardine Fishery and the two zones that have been established to manage catches (Gulfs Zone and Outside Zone). b Observed effort and interactions between 2004– 05 and 2014–15. c Un-observed effort and reported interactions between 2004–05 and 2014–15. Source: Ward et al, 2018

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 58

Also, fishers may have been more inclined to use release procedures, where there is a higher chance of losing catch, when an observer was on-board (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017). This is probably less likely, according to the site visit interviews, the release of dolphins by opening the front of the net usually does not result in significant loss of catch (L. Mackuch, pers. comm. May 2018). In addition, PIRSA’s compliance officers check regularly on how the CoP is applied with respect to dolphin release procedures (PIRSA, 2016). Actions include: fisheries patrol vessels (FPV) conducting monitoring of sardine vessels during fishing operations to ensure compliance with the COP. The FPV was deployed for 9 days in the 2017 season; and Compliance inspections of catch unloads at the wharf and at sea to identify whether any unreported ETP related offences had been committed. FPV deployment days may be increased if there is a likely increase in risk level, also assessed against the inspection and condolence events listed.

An alternative explanation would be the temporal distribution of the observer coverage was not representative. If a relative higher coverage has been achieved in months with naturally lower CPUE, the overall annual CPUE from observed effort would be lower than the annual CPUE from unobserved effort (Ward et al, 2018a). Figure 15 shows that over the studied (2004-2015), there was a higher coverage in September and October, probably due to observers’ availability, when the CPUE is normally low (Ward et al, 2018a). Recent observer coverage takes account of the spatial and temporal distribution of the catch, with the highest observer coverage in April, when the CPUE and the number of dolphins encircled are the highest as shown in Figure 15, a) and c) (SASIA, 2018). With a better temporal representativeness of observer coverage, further analyses of the effectiveness of the CoP will be able to clarify the reason for CPUE differences (Ward et al, 2018a).

In addition, the overall lower CPUE recorded when an observer was present was in part due to a significantly higher proportion of net-sets having zero catch recorded when an observer was present. The percentage of zero catch net-sets in 2016/17 was 22% with an observer present and 15% without an observer present although only in four out of 23 instances of observed zero-catch sets were due to the presence of ETPs. The majority observed zero-catch records were due to fish not schooling or fish being missed (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017).

It is also important to note that 2016-17 CPUE differences between observed and unobserved sets were statistically significant only for one boat. An examination of monthly patterns of CPUE for individual vessels in 2016-17 showed that the relationship between CPUE and the presence of an observer was not consistent across the fishing season. For individual vessels, observed net-sets had lower CPUE in some months while in other months it was similar to or higher to unobserved net-sets. All but one vessel had higher CPUEnet-set in the presence of an observer in at least one month. Paired t-tests of CPUEnet-set with and without an observer present were conducted by financial year for each vessel fishing in that year (Table 9).

Considering the above, while it is possible, there is no conclusive evidence that fishers behave differently when an observer is on board.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 59

Figure 15. a Mean monthly sardine catch, total net-sets and observed net-sets in the SASF during 2004–05 to 2014–15. b Mean observer coverage (%), monthly sardine CPUEnet-sets (as recorded in fishery logbooks with and without an observer present). c Mean number of dolphin encirclements and mortalities by month (from logbook data recorded without an observer present and by observers). Bars are mean ± SE. Source: Ward et al, 2018b.

Table 9. The total number of vessels operating per financial year, and the number of vessels for that year which had significantly lower CPUEnet-set when an observer was present. Significance tested by Welch two- sampled t-test.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 60

Number of individual vessels with significantly lower Total number of vessels CPUE with an Financial year operating observer present

2007-08 13 1

2008-09 12 3

2009-10 13 5

2010-11 12 3

2011-12 13 0

2012-13 12 3

2013-14 10 2

2014-15 10 5

2015-16 11 1 2016-17 11 1 Source Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017

The evidence, however, shows that dolphin interaction rates and dolphin mortalities have reduced considerably after the implementation of the CoP (Hamer et al, 2008, Ward et al, 2018a). There have been no reported mortalities in the current fishing season so far (2017-18 season, SASIA, 2018) and one mortality in the previous fishing season (SASIA, 2017) suggesting that the strategy is achieving its objective. As discussed in Ward et al (2018a), the level of observer coverage undertaken in the SASF has been altered over time to reflect variations in the observed interaction rates and discrepancies with data reported in logbooks. This was used as a tool to promote adherence to the CoP, noting that the observer program is contracted by PIRSA but paid for by the fishery. Other tools to ensure compliance with the CoP have included: induction of new fishers into the CoP by the Executive Officer of SASIA; feedback and education provided to industry by PIRSA’s fisheries officers about their legislated responsibilities regarding interactions with cetaceans; and PIRSA’s overt and covert surveillance of fishing operations conducted from a fisheries compliance vessel (Ward et al, 2018a, Shanks, 2018, pers.com). In addition, the DEE’s Assistant Secretary, Wildlife Trade and Biosecurity Branch, considered that there was sufficient evidence of compliance with the condition imposed as part of the 2009 accreditation of the fishery under the EPBC Act, which required PIRSA to adopt appropriate mitigation measures for interactions with dolphins and to continue to monitor the level of such interactions. Also, the evidence of effective reinforcement of the CoP and compliance by the SASF fishers was sufficient as to re- accredit the fishery in 2016, subject to a new condition, which requires PIRSA to: - ensure all Fishery participants adopt the most effective measures to mitigate interactions with dolphins; - ensure observer coverage captures seasonal and spatial variation in fishing activity across the fleet; and - investigate and resolve uncertainties around the difference in sardine CPUE when observers are present and when observers are not present, to improve reliability of observer data (DEE, 2016c). The SASF adopted the measures that were proven the most successful to decrease mortality of dolphins over a decade of CoP implementation. Improvement in the seasonal representativeness of the observer coverage and fishery dependent data collecting to match data collected by observers give confidence that the remaining uncertainties around the CPUE differences will be solved. There is evidence that the comprehensive strategy is implemented successfully. Responses (modifications of the comprehensive strategy based on data collected)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 61

The CoP has been modified and improved continuously since it has been introduced in the SASF. An example that the strategy is responsive to the data collected is the increase of the observer coverage between 2007 to 2010 as response to an increased observed interaction rates and discrepancies with the data reported in logbooks. After observed interactions were reduced, the target coverage decreased to 10%. This strategy of decreasing observer coverage once the risk to dolphins decreased was criticised in a collective ENGOs letter submitted to the DEE in 2016 (Wilkins, 2016). The authors of the letter claim that a reduction in interactions/mortalities should be followed by an increase in observer coverage to accurately estimate the risk of rare events. While this claim is correct from a statistical point of view, the level of observer coverage set by PIRSA has the aim to identify significant increases in dolphin interaction levels and decreases in the effectiveness of the COP and not to accurately estimate mortalities. Another response to the application and evaluation of the CoP is identifying the most successful method to decrease dolphin mortalities. Prior to the implementation of the CoP in 2005–06, fishers often did not take any action to search for and avoid encirclement of dolphins. Encircled dolphins were released alive only 16% of times (Ward et al, 2018a). From the implementation of the CoP and up to 2007–08 several release procedures were used with varying success (43–100%). During this period, the front of the net was often opened and/or the shot aborted only after several other unsuccessful release procedures and this may have reduced the effectiveness of this release procedure. In recent years, the use of corkline weights and the dolphin gate have been removed as release options in the CoP (see Figure 13a –with dolphin gate and 13b without). Opening the front of the net or aborting the shot has emerged as the most reliable release procedure. Since 2008–09, the success rate of the release procedure of opening the front of the net and/or aborting the shot has ranged from 86% to 100% (Ward et al, 2018a). The decline in the number of mortalities observed since the implementation of the CoP is a result of both the reduction in encirclement rates due to avoidance procedures, and the increase in the percentage of encircled dolphins successfully released alive. The latter increased from 78% of individuals in 2004– 05 to 100% in 2013–14. After 2013-14 very few mortalities occurred due to entanglement from outside the net. Such entanglements are unusual because the sardine net is very selective, with minimum mesh size of 14mm and maximum 22mm (SASIA, 2017, M. Turner, pers. comm. May 2018). The pattern of release success recorded in logbooks was similar to that recorded by observers. In 2014–15, 91.3% of encircled dolphins were released successfully when an observer was not present. To be noted that entanglement in the net never used to be a major source of mortality and mesh size did not contribute to the reductions in mortalities. 3.4.3.3 Information (PI 2.3.3) The level of interaction with dolphins and other ETPs is monitored through:

• A targeted independent scientific observer program • Commercial logbooks completed by fishers • Wildlife interaction logbooks completed by fishers • An industry-led real-time monitoring program • Regular meetings of the Wildlife Interaction WG • An annual independent scientific report on the effectiveness of the Code of Practice which is internally (SARDI) peer-reviewed • Peer-reviewed (externally) journal papers on the implementation and the effectiveness of the CoP The initial observer programs run by SARDI were used to develop and test the CoP as well as to calculate the power to identify change at different levels of observer coverage. SARDI carried out two observer programs: one before and one after the introduction of the CoP, during November 2004–June

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 62

2005 and November 2005–June 2006, respectively. The two programs were conducted in the same months to reduce seasonal effects on sampling outcomes. Logbook data for these periods were collated and summarised. The date, location (latitude and longitude), total number of individual encirclements and mortalities and the number of encirclement and mortality events were recorded for each observed net-set. These data were used to determine temporal and spatial trends, plus the rates of operational interactions. In spite of low light conditions, encircled dolphins were typically detected early on during the fishing event. The behaviour of encircled dolphins was also observed to determine if behavioural cues indicating imminent death due to capture myopathy could be identified. The methodology used to compare the two programs (before and after CoP), including the power analysis, is presented is Box 4. Following the initial observer program and the development of the CoP, an independent onboard observer program has operated in the fishery since July 2006. The objective of the observer program has been to measure the effectiveness of the CoP, rather than determine accurate measures of dolphin mortality. Observers collect information on dolphin interaction and mortality rates, as well as data relating to the application of the CoP, such as whether a search has been made prior to the net being set and the release method used if an encirclement has occurred. Observer coverage was initially set at 10% in 2006/07; however, due to an increase in observed encirclement and mortality rates in 2006-07 compared to the 2005-06 fishing season the observer coverage increased to 30% from 2007/08 to 2009/10. This level of coverage was subsequently reduced to 10% after refinements to the CoP. The current level of observer coverage is based on a power analysis undertaken by Hamer et al. (2008) to identify major declines in the application or effectiveness of the CoP, but not for obtaining precise estimates of total number of dolphins interacting with the SASF (see Box 4). Observers monitor each fishing activity from a high unobstructed vantage point, and search for dolphins in the illuminated area surrounding the vessel, immediately prior to the net being set. Once the net is set the observer then searches for dolphins within the net for the duration of the fishing operation. Observers record the date, time and location of each net-set, the vessel name and, since 2007, the corresponding Catch and Effort logbook number for each observed net-set. The time of each stage of the fishing operation is also recorded at ‘start net-set’, ‘begin pursing’, ‘begin hauling’, ‘end hauling’, ‘begin pumping’ and ‘finish net-set’. Specific data recorded by observers allow an assessment of the application of the CoP, and include if search procedures are followed, if delays in setting or relocation occur, if dolphins are observed prior to setting the net, and steps undertaken if an encirclement occurs. Information recorded if a dolphin encirclement event occurs includes the number of individuals involved, the stage of fishing that dolphin(s) are first observed, how individual dolphins are caught (e.g. free in net, or entangled), the release method used, the success of release and any mortalities that may occur and the unique WIF identifier. The CoP initially included several release procedures which have been refined over time. The current release procedure in the CoP is to immediately open the front of the net to ensure a large escape opening, and if this is not successful to abort the fishing operation by releasing the end of the net.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 63

Box 4. The methodology used by Hamer et al (2008) to compare the results observer program data before and after the introduction of the CoP, including the power analysis to identify change.

The spatial and temporal distributions of fishing effort (the number of net-sets) were calculated from data obtained from each observer program and from concurrent logbook data. Regression analysis was used to determine the degree to which encirclement and mortality rates were correlated with the spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort. For spatial data, the regression was based on the level of fishing effort and number of encirclements in each ten-by-ten kilometre grid square. The effectiveness of the CoP was determined by comparing the mean encirclement and mortality rate before and after its introduction. To test the significance of change after implementing the CoP, a 1-tailed t-test was applied, because a reduction in encirclement and mortality rates were expected. Power analysis was used to estimate the number of observations (ie. the number of net-sets monitored by observers) required to detect future changes in the encirclement and mortality rates, based on data obtained during the second observer program (post-CoP). The power to detect rate increases or decreases depended on the sample variance, sample size, the magnitude of the change that occurred and the degree of statistical significance of the change. Standard levels of significance (α = 0.05) and power at 80% were used for these calculations. Assumed levels of change in encirclements and mortalities were calculated using power analysis and plotted as: (i) decreases of 10–90% (in increments of 10%); and (ii) increases of 100–700% (in increments of 100%) (see figure below). A 1-tailed t-test was applied in the power analysis because it was used to detect increases and decreases separately, relative to post-CoP encirclement and mortality rates.

Figure. Results of analysis for the number of net-sets required to detect a prescribed level of change in encirclements and mortalities (a), plus the corresponding level significance and power (b).

At the standard levels of power 80% and significance α= 0.05, it would not be possible to detect declines in the encirclement or mortality rates beyond those recorded in the second observer program, due to the low levels of interactions recorded following the introduction of the CoP. Conversely, a tripling (200% increase) in the encirclement rate could be detected from as few as 21 observed net-sets, but 310 net-sets would be needed to detect a doubling (100% increase) in the encirclement rate. Similarly, a fivefold (400%) increase in the mortality rate could be detected if 57 net-sets were observed and a quadrupling (300% increase) could be detected if 198 net-sets were observed.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 64

Fishery dependent data on interactions with dolphins and other wildlife were also recorded in commercial logbooks and via PIRSA Wildlife Interaction Forms (WIFs) since 2007 (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017). Fishers are required to complete fishery logbooks that document the date, location and timing of each net-set, the weight of each set catch, and details of interactions with ETPs. Since 2007, fishers have also been required to complete Wildlife Interaction Forms, which are validated, stored and collated by SARDI Aquatic Sciences (e.g. Mackay, 2017). Since 2017, a new dedicated WIF form for the SASF was introduced, the SASF Consolidated WIF, which is more detailed and corresponds to data collected by observers (A. Mackay, pers. comm. June 2018). In 2011, SASIA initiated a data collection and monitoring program to collect and collate real-time ETP interaction information, in order to improve the transparency of industry reporting. If dolphin or other ETP mortality occurs, the license holder was required to immediately notify PIRSA via FISHWATCH phone line or via mobile phone reporting application. Required information for the phone report includes: ETP species, number of dead individuals, what port will the carcass be landed at, licence holder or registered master’s name. In a recent update of the CoP (not yet in place), the new notification protocol calls for a teleconference involving the fishery, SARDI, PIRSA, a DEWNR representative, at minimum (SASIA, 2017). The real time monitoring is in addition to information collected through logbooks and the observer program and it is being used to reduce any discrepancies between data sets by providing ongoing and timely feedback of the Industry’s performance while highlighting areas for improvement. SASIA has established an ETPs working group that holds quarterly meetings to monitors and report to PIRSA on the level of interactions and differences between the estimated interaction rates from observer reports and reported by fishers, and to review international standards for mitigation of interactions with marine mammals. Annual reports of TEPS interactions reported in WIF are published by SARDI and are available on PIRSA’s website (http://pir.sa.gov.au/research). SARDI also reviews the effectiveness of the CoP in mitigating operational interactions of the SASF with common dolphin and if the CoP is implemented successfully and produces annual reports and occasional peer-reviewed journal articles. Information adequacy The MSC requires, when scoring the information PIs, that information adequacy to support the management measures is considered. It is required that the assessment team exercise their expert judgement to decide if the sources of information provided by the client are supported by credible independent sources. The assessment team will need to be satisfied that information is objective, has been generated through acceptable scientific methods, and can be independently verified (MSC, 2014, GSA3.3). A “comprehensive external validation” can be based on the continuity of data collection, precision and accuracy of information, and any bias, etc, that is capable of supporting the measures in place given the level of precaution that is implicit in the measures and the ability of the measures for detecting any changes (MSC, 2014, GSA3.3). The observer program implemented in the SASF is one of the few long-running independent data collection of the accidental interactions of a purse-seine fishery with cetaceans. Data from the observer program and from fishery logbooks have been studied and statistically analysed by SARDI since the inception of the observer program with the results reported annually in public reports and occasionally in peer-reviewed literature (i.e. Hamer et al, 2008, Ward et al, 2018a). The MSC guidance emphasizes the importance of using low bias information sources and observer data and peer-reviewed literature are considered as such. In the case of the SASF, observer data are available only for a part of the interactions with ETP species. When higher bias information is used such as fishery logbook records, this can be valuable information when it can be verified by triangulation. The same information can be triangulated with information from interviews with industry representatives (SASIA), managers (PIRSA), scientists (SARDI), and

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 65

other stakeholders such as ENGO and university representatives. Another source of verification can be published scientific literature that refers directly or indirectly to the subject of interest (MSC, 2014, GSA3.3). As presented in the sections above, all these types sources have been considered for this assessment. When logbook data are congruent with the estimates from the observer program, then the information is verifiable. As presented in sections above, according to Mackay and Goldsworthy (2017) and Ward et al (2018a) data on interactions and mortality rates from observer program and from fisheries logbooks are similar and ongoing monitoring will ensure most uncertainty will be resolved. All other sources of information converge on the fact that the common dolphin stock, the species that interacts most often with the fishery, is not in a state where recovery is necessary (Hammond et al, 2008, Moller et al, 2012, Bilgmann et al 2014b). There are some concerns about potential stress-related consequences post encirclement on individual dolphins and on populations. As discussed earlier in this report, based on evidence from primary literature, such consequences are highly unlikely to create significant detrimental impact on dolphin population/sub-populations. Even though the information is not adequate to estimated dolphin mortality with a high degree of certainty, the information is adequate to assess that the SASF activity is not a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, including the common dolphin. Also, the information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy. As presented above, there is evidence that the code of practice is working and achieving its objective. Habitat

3.4.4.1 Outcome (PI 2.4.1) The MSC CR v2.0 requires an understanding of the main habitat types associated with the fishing grounds, and an understanding of the overlap of SASF effort with these main habitat types. There is also a focus on Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs), which were originally introduced by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) for the management of deep-sea fisheries in the high seas. Under the MSC FCR, the definition of VMEs is the responsibility of the management authority. To date, PIRSA has not specifically identified any VMEs in South Australia that are relevant to the SASF (or to any other fishery). The MSC standard requires that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats (main) to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. For the habitat component, this is the reduction in habitat structure, biological diversity, abundance and function such that the habitat would be unable to recover to at least 80% of its unimpacted structure, biological diversity and function within 5-20 years, if fishing were to cease entirely (MSC, 2014). Purse seining for sardines occurs primarily in pelagic waters, and appears to have very little effect on the bottom habitat (http://www.afma.gov.au/portfolio-item/purse-seine/). Although the purse seine gear used in the SASF can contact the sea floor in some areas, it is not dragged and the relatively light construction of the gear suggests that there is no significant impact occurring to the benthos. In South Australia, fishing operations avoid rough benthos and are conducted on generally smooth sandy bottom (PIRSA 2013a). Also, it is undesirable for the net to touch benthos as it can cause damage to the net and ‘roll up’ the net, where the bridles and net twist around the purse wire (PIRSA, 2013a). The frequency of benthic interaction with the gear is monitored by recording any benthic and habitat- forming species in the net, although most of the times fishing occurs over bare sand/mud and even if the net touches the sand there are no indicator species in the catch (T. Ward, pers. comm. May 2018, M. Turner, pers. comm. May 2018). Areas where interactions with benthic habitat potentially occur are generally known and are areas shallower than 25 m. Only a few smaller vessels with lighter gear operate in such areas. The light composition of the nets makes any structure a threat of net tear, and fishing occurs only on bare sandy/muddy substrate (M. Turner, pers. comm. June 2018). Bigger vessels have bigger nets that end with a “skirt”. This design change allows the net to glide/hop over the bottom during pursing should an interaction with the benthos occur. Also, bigger vessels have better control of the depth the net is deployed, by changing the speed of the vessel while setting (L. Mackuch, pers.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 66

comm. May 2018, M. Turner, pers. comm. May 2018). Smaller vessels without skirts run significantly lighter gear such as leadlines and sometimes modified nets with shallower drops, thus allowing them to hold their nets off the bottom (M. Turner, pers. comm. June 2018) Comprehensive habitat mapping is available only for the inshore areas of the Spencer Gulf and some coastal areas outside the gulf, but not for areas where most sardine fishing occurs. For this assessment, benthic habitats were assessed by region: southern Spencer Gulf, Gulf St Vincent and west coast of Eyre Peninsula on the EGAB shelf. Habitat types were characterised by a. Substratum – sediment type, b. Geomorphology – seafloor topography and c. Biota – characteristic floral and/or faunal group(s) (MSC, 2014, SA3.13.2).

Main Habitats Spencer Gulf habitat types are well known, mainly from the research work done for Spencer Gulf prawn trawl fishery. The sediment type over SASF operations take place are: 1. Open soft-sediments (sand/mud, habitat type number 4 in Figure 16): Soft sediments occur below the euphotic zone with seawater salinities near normal marine water values. Moderate phytoplankton growth in the SE gulf supports prolific benthic suspension feeders. This type of habitat is the commonly encountered habitat (high effort area, see Figure 20), although, given the depth, the fishery does not physically interact with this habitat type. Two recent gulf-wide bycatch surveys have shown that variations in benthic communities from soft- sediment habitat were not significant over time and were related to physical and environmental factors rather than fisheries activities (Currie et al., 2009, Brunell et al., 2013). 2. Rhodolith Pavements: These are coralline algae that thrive in the euphotic zone where seagrasses are excluded by either high tidal currents (northern gulf) or high nutrients, promoting phytoplankton growth that limits light at the seafloor (SW gulf). Although rhodolith habitats are protected elsewhere (e.g. New Zealand, SWG, 2011) due to their high productivity and species richness, Svane et al (2009) did not find the same characteristics for Spencer Gulf’s rhodolith habitat. The distribution of rhodoliths in Spencer Gulf seems to be patchy and this type of substrate does not support a high diversity of macro-fauna or -flora which, according to Svane et al. (2009. Considering the dynamic life-history of these biogenic structures and tidal movement and wind-driven waves that seem to control the rhodolith distribution in bays and gulfs (SWG, 2011), change in the distribution of this type of habitat over time are expected but cannot be attributed to a certain cause. It is likely that SASF interacts with this habitat type, although interactions are limited to small area. As, according to Svane et al (2009), this is not a highly productive habitat, it occurs in an area with high natural disturbance, and it does not support a rich epifauna, the impact of the SASF would not be able to be differentiated from natural disturbance and highly likely to be negligible.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 67

Figure 16. Main benthic habitats in Spencer Gulf. (Source: O’Connell et al., 2015)

The EGAB shelf is extremely wide and lies mostly between 50 and 110 m water depth, with an outer shelf zone up to 50 km wide (Rollet et al, 2001). The bathymetric data show that the near-shore section of the continental shelf is sharply inclined throughout much of the eastern GAB, with the seafloor dropping to a depth of 40m within a few kilometers of the coast. The sediment type over SASF operations take place is: 1. sand/ gravel intraclast mollusk (IM in Figure 17). This habitat type occurs in area with significant fishing effort from the SASF, although less than the fishing effort in Spencer Gulf. For the scope of this assessment this habitat is assessed as main habitat. Ward et al (2006a) found that this type of sediment might support filter feeder communities, although the richness of these communities was inversely correlated with the grain size. Due to higher depths, the fishery is highly unlikely to physically interact with habitat type. Also, the EGAB shelf is characterized by high natural disturbance. Ward et al (2006a) found a considerable overlap in faunal composition between different facies (Figure 17). Physical interaction of the SASF with this habitat is highly unlikely because the depth is above 25 m.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 68

Figure 17. Location of study area in Ward et al, 2006, sedimentary facies of the Great Australian Bight. Closed circles indicate the locations of sites sampled with the epibenthic sled. Alphabetic codes denoting nine sedimentary facies are as follows: B, Bryozoan; BB, Branching Bryozoan; BI, Bryozoan Intraclast; I, Intraclast; IBE, Intraclast Bryozoan East; IBW, Intraclast Bryozoan West; IM, Intraclast Mollusc; MI, Mollusc Intraclast; Q, Quartzose Skeletal (Source: Ward et al, 2006). Note: sardine fishing occurs over IM facies.

Minor Habitats

Gulf St. Vincent habitats are less known, although the SASF fishing effort in this area has been very low in recent years. Since 2013 SASF did not fish inside Gulf St Vincent. Since 2015, there has been some fishing effort distributed mainly in the Investigator Strait (see Figure 20) in areas with depths higher than 25 m. Investigator Strait is a channel between York Peninsula which separates the two SA gulfs, and Kangaroo Island exposed to very high natural disturbance (SAWater, 2008). Due to higher depths, the fishery is unlikely to physically interact with this habitat, although the effect of any interactions would not be distinguishable from natural disturbance effects.

3.4.4.2 Management (PI 2.4.2) The SASF EBFM Management Plan includes a specific long-term objective that “fishery impacts on benthic habitat and associated species communities are sustainable” (PIRSA, 2014). Measures in place specifically to avoid habitat impact are: • avoiding sensitive areas such as coral reefs or other biogenic structures, • using light gear and modified net design (with skirt), • adjusting the speed of the vessel while setting, in order to control the depth reached by the bottom of the net. • General management measures like limited effort, closed areas (national parks), and promoting activities that reduce the impact of fishing (e.g. fishing only on sandy bottoms) also contribute to limiting benthic interactions. South Australia has 19 marine parks located across State waters from the Western Australian to the Victorian border (Figure 18). The boundaries for the marine parks network cover a total area of 27,526 km2, approximately 46% of South Australia's waters, and include the established Great Australian Bight (GAB) Marine Park. The most sensitive habitats are protected within these protected areas. Marine

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 69

parks in South Australia have been zoned for multiple uses, providing for varying levels of conservation, recreational and commercial use. Purse seine fishing is prohibited in the restricted access zones and in the sanctuary zones (shown on the map in Figure 18, in green and pink respectively). VMS data provide evidence that the SASF vessels do not fish in protected areas. In addition, there are several netting closures areas where large nets cannot operate (Figure 18). Some smaller vessels have a special exemption to operate in netting closures. There are only 2-3 vessels that operate these areas for a limited number of shots and quota (M. Turner, pers. comm. June 2018). In Spencer Gulf, the only fishery that significantly interacts with benthic habitats is Spencer Gulf prawn trawl fishery (SGPF). There are no cumulative habitat impacts from SASF and SGPF because the fishing effort does not overlap in areas where SASF nets are likely to touch the seafloor. At a visual inspection of Figure 19 and Figure 20, the overlap between the Spencer Gulf prawn fishery and the SASF is likely to be minimal and there is no overlap with areas with high-intensity trawling. Cumulative impacts from other fisheries that operate in the area are less likely to be significant, although they are not known and there is no strategy to manage all fisheries impacts. In EGAB and St Vincent regions, cumulative impacts from other fisheries are not known and there is no strategy to manage all fisheries impacts.

Figure 18. Marine parks and netting closures in South Australia (green areas are sanctuary zones, pink areas are restricted zones and hatched areas are netting closures). (Source: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/marineparks)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 70

Figure 19. Annual heat maps of trawl effort in the SGPF illustrated by kernel densities of midpoints recorded in logbooks from 2007 to 2016. (Source: Noell, 2017)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 71

Figure 20. Spatial trends in sardine catch from 2008-2016. (Source: Ward et al, 2017a)

3.4.4.3 Information (PI 2.4.3) Benthic habitats can be identified based on surrogate data (sediment, geomorphology, biota, MSC, 2014, 3.13.2), and are broadly understood Benthic habitats in Spencer Gulf are well known and understood from, from Spencer Gulf Prawn Trawl fishery biodiversity surveys, which included habitat-forming species (Currie et al. 2009, Mayfield et al., 2014, Burnell et al., 2015), sedimentology studies (O’Connell 2014; O’Connell et al., 2015), bathymetry and oceanography (Richardson et al. 2005). Also, sedimentology studies are available for the Great Australian Bight Area (Rollet et al, 2001) and studies of epifaunal assemblages (Ward et al., 2006). Most of fishing operations take place in the Southern Spencer Gulf on mixed skeletal sands (bivalve and bryozoan gravels), (Figure 16, O’Connell, 2014) and western side of the Eyre Peninsula with coarse sand (intraclast mollusk, Figure 17, Ward et al., 2006), possibly supporting some filter feeder communities. Out of filter feeder organisms, sponges are vulnerable to breaking when in contact with fishing gear. Some sponges are adapted to fragmentation, with the pieces subsequently growing into numerous individuals, resulting in a clumping phenomenon that can occur naturally after storms (Battershill & Bergquist 1990). Dixon et al, 2014 suggested that damage from trawling may have a similar effect in Spencer Gulf, resulting in aggregations of sponge species (Dixon et al., 2014). A similar effect may be possible from contact with the purse seine net, although this habitat types occur at depths over 25m, where physical contact with the seafloor is unlikely (M. Turner, pers. comm, May 2018, T.Ward, pers. comm, May, 2018). In addition, the purse seine net is not dragged on the bottom and any damage will be at very small scale. As fishing occurs in areas where natural disturbance is high, the effects of purse seine net touching the sea floor are highly likely negligible.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 72

Ecosystem

3.4.5.1 Outcome (PI 2.5.1)

In addition to the potential impacts to species and habitats described in the preceding sections, purse seine fisheries pose the risk of altering the structure and function of the ecosystem from which the extraction of target species is made. Impacts can arise from the reduction of the target species stock followed by consequence on their predators. Impacts from discarding are negligible because there are no discards in the SASF fishery. Infrequently there are situations when a set needs to be aborted due to small size sardines caught. In such situation, the catch is released before any physical contact with fishing gear occurs and mortalities are highly unlikely (M. Turner, pers. comm. May 2018, L. Mackuch, pers. comm. May 2018). The SASF fishing operations take place in three interlinked ecosystems: Spencer Gulf, St. Vincent Gulf and the outside gulfs waters of the eastern Great Australian Bight (EGAB). Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent represent the only semi-protected, ‘seasonally subtropical systems’ at temperate latitudes (35° S). Because South Australia is exposed to arid climate and experiences only marginal and highly transient river flows the annual mean of the evaporation is higher than the fresh-water inflows, making Spencer Gulf and Gulf St. Vincent inverse estuaries (where salinity increases with increasing distance from the estuary mouth, Wolanski, 2013). The shelf waters of the EGAB and the interface with southern Spencer Gulf and Gulf St. Vincent waters form a complex oceanographic system. Thermal and salinity fronts form at the gulf mouth and limit exchange between the cool, low salinity Southern Ocean water masses and the warmer, higher salinity gulf waters (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). In addition, shelf waters of this region are characterised by coastal upwellings bringing deep, cooler and nutrient-rich waters to the surface. These processes are coupled with the South Australian and Flinders Currents at the continental shelf margins and intrusion of the tropical Leeuwin Current water mass in early winter. This complex interaction of oceanographic processes supports a regionally productive marine ecosystem inhabited by a diverse suite of marine predators that have high global conservation significance and substantial economic value to local communities (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). This complex system will be assessed as one ecosystem here because the fishery is centred on southern Spencer Gulf, Investigator Strait and the western Eyre Peninsula (Ward et al. 2017a), at the confluence of the EGAB waters and gulf waters. The EGAB region supports significant levels of planktonic production during upwelling seasons and features suitable environmental conditions for spawning, survival and growth of a diverse small pelagic fish assemblage comprising ten key species belonging to six families (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). Small pelagic fish species found in South Australia include the Australian sardine (Sardinops sagax), Australian anchovy (Engraulis australis), round herring or maray (Etrumeus teres), sandy sprat (Hyperlophus vittatus), blue sprat (Spratelloides spp.), mackerels (Trachurus declivis and T. novaezelandiae), blue or slimy mackerel (Scomber australasicus), redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus) and saury (Scomberesox saurus) (Goldsworthy et al. 2011). These rich pelagic resources also support the greatest density and biomass of apex predators to be found in Australian coastal waters. These include marine mammals such as pygmy blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda), and >80% of Australia’s populations of New Zealand fur seals (Arctocephalus forsteri) and Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea), as well as a recently established breeding population of the Australian fur seal (A. pusillus doriferus). All seal species were subjected to early colonial sealing, with recovery of fur seal populations commencing in the 1970s and 1980s and continuing. Other key apex predators include seabirds, such as short-tailed shearwaters (Puffinus tenuirostris) (~1.3 million pairs breed in the EGAB), little penguins (Eudyptula minor) and crested terns (Sterna bergii); pelagic sharks including bronze and dusky whalers (Carcharhinus brachyurus, C. obscurus), great white (Carcharodon carcharias) and shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus); and predatory fishes such as southern bluefin tuna (SBT, Thunnus maccoyii) (Goldsworthy et al. 2011).

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 73

The variable nature of upwelling and seasonal production in the EGAB presents significant challenges for apex predators, these appearing to have adopted a range of foraging strategies in response to the variable states of the ecosystem. Species such as pygmy blue whales, short-tailed shearwaters and southern bluefin tuna make migrations into the region during the upwelling season. Resident species such as New Zealand fur seals form large breeding colonies in close proximity to areas of enhanced seasonal productivity, foraging over shelf waters during the productive upwelling season, then shifting their foraging effort to oceanic waters of the subtropical front during downwelling season (Goldsworthy et al. 2011). The EGAB supports some of Australia’s most valuable fisheries, including four main Commonwealth and five main South Australian (State) managed fisheries. By weight, the SASF is Australia’s largest fishery. It was established in 1991 to provide feed for the SBT mariculture industry in Port Lincoln and expanded considerably during its early history. There is growing concern about the global impacts of increased fishing effort on ecosystem structure and function especially from fisheries that target low trophic level species (Goldsworthy et al, 2013). Small pelagic fish have an important role in the transfer of production from plankton to higher trophic level species (marine mammals, seabirds and large predatory fish). A series of studies identified potential impacts on high trophic level species from the reduction of low trophic species by fisheries (Cury et al., 2000, 2011; Jennings et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2011). Although some studies have successfully demonstrated the relationships between variations in low trophic level species densities and the impacts on higher trophic levels, especially seabirds (Cury et al., 2011; Frederiksen et al., 2005; Jahncke et al., 2004; Myers et al., 2007), the relationships between predators and prey are poorly understood (Goldsworthy et al, 2013). Smith et al (2011) demonstrated that fishing low trophic species at conventional maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels can have large impacts on other parts of the ecosystem, particularly when they constitute a high proportion of the biomass in the ecosystem or are highly connected in the food web. Halving exploitation rates would result in much lower impacts on marine ecosystems while still achieving 80% of MSY. Goldsworthy et al. (2011) conducted an extensive study of the trophodynamics of the eastern Great Australian Bight, including southern parts of Spencer Gulf and Gulf St. Vincent, to determine the ecological effects of harvesting sardines from the fishery. The authors determined that neither current levels of fishing effort nor the rapid growth of the fishery is impacting negatively on the ecosystem structure and function. No predatory species were found to feed exclusively or even predominately on sardine; therefore, there are no obligate sardine predators (they are all opportunistic). Sardine availability is not negatively impacting on the foraging behaviour or reproductive success of any predatory species. As discussed under Principle 1, trophodynamic analysis shows that sardines are not a key low trophic species in the ecosystem affected by the SASF. Nevertheless, sardines are an important component in the diet of some predators, especially crested tern. Demographic studies of the crested tern (Thalasseus bergii) indicate that birds were smaller and had lower survival rates in years following the two mass mortality events of sardines, in 1995 and 1998 (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). Page et al. (2011, in Goldsworthy et al, 2011) also found that the morphology of crested terns was negatively related to sardine spawning biomass in the previous year (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). Ecosim forecasting scenarios have shown that reductions by 25%, 50% and 75% of the 2008 sardine biomass would lead to reductions in crested tern populations, although the current level of exploitation is precautionary enough to ensure sardine stock is maintained above the point that would lead to localized depletions (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). In addition, the ecosystem modelling study for Spencer Gulf demonstrated that current catch of sardines could not be explained without including a net immigration rate as other production in the model in order to balance catch with available biomass (Gillanders et al, 2015). Thus, a localized depletion in Spencer Gulf, where most of the SASF fishing activity take place, would be unlikely. A separate, fishery-specific study of four Commonwealth pelagic species aimed to determine sustainable harvest levels in an ecological context (Smith et al 2015). This study confirmed the results

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 74

of Goldsworthy et al (2011) and suggested that compared to several northern hemisphere systems (Smith et al 2011), Australian key predators are not highly reliant on small pelagic fish species. This directly confirmed that the conservative exploitation rates maintained (10-20% of spawning biomass) within the harvest strategy are highly unlikely to impact the ecosystem in a serious or irreversible manner. The Commonwealth Government recently reviewed the fishery for EPBC export exemption (DEE 2016) stating “Due to the low impact harvesting method used in the fishery (purse seining), impacts to the physical ecosystem such as the ancient coastline, are negligible. Fishing activity is closely linked to the remaining relevant key ecological features of regional upwellings and small pelagic fish aggregations, however, impacts on the food web are unlikely given that take of the target species is limited to ecologically sustainable levels, as prescribed in the fishery’s management plan. Incidental impacts of the fishery bycatch species are minimised through specific industry practices to avoid these species, such as through the Code of Practice for mitigating of interactions of the SA Sardine Fishery with wildlife (SASIA 2015).” 3.4.5.2 Management (PI 2.5.2) PIRSA is using an EBFM approach to the management of the SASF. Goal 3 of the SASF Management Plan requires: “protect and conserve aquatic resources, habitats and ecosystems”. The management of the SASF’s impacts on the ecosystem is achieved through the application of a precautionary harvest strategy for key low trophic, even though it has been demonstrated that sardines are not a key species in the ecosystem. Spawning biomass of sardine in SA has been estimated using the daily egg production method (DEPM) since 1995 when the spawning biomass was estimated to be ~165,000t . However, it declined by over 70% to ~37,000 t in 1996 following an unprecedented mass mortality event, recovered to ~146,000 t in 1998 and then declined by over 70% again to ~36,000 t in early 1999 following a second mass mortality event (Ward et al. 2001a,b). Between 1994 and 2001, fishery catches remained between 2,500 and 6,500t each year, then steadily increased to ~39,000 t in 2005. Since then, the harvest strategy has been to maintain a baseline total allowable catch (TAC) of 30,000 t, while estimates of the spawning biomass using the DEPM remain between 150,000 and 300,000 t, corresponding to an exploitation rate of between 20% and 10%, respectively (PIRSA, 2014a). The precautionary, tiered and spatial management approach of the harvest strategy takes into consideration the risk of localised depletion and the TACC is modified accordingly. 3.4.5.3 Information (PI 2.5.3) There is on-going global and Australian interest in the impact of small pelagic fisheries on the ecosystem. Internationally, the LENFEST Forage Fish Task Force has been established, comprising 13 International scientific experts, including Dr Keith Sainsbury from Australia (Pikitch et al, 2012). The primary purpose of the Task Force was to provide practical, science-based advice for the management of species known as forage fish, because of their crucial role in marine ecosystems (Pikitch et al, 2012). Australian research on small pelagic fish acknowledges the work of LENFEST, and recently an FRDC project was finalised that aimed to ensure appropriate coordination of small pelagics research in Australia (Buxton 2017). This coordinated approach provides additional confidence that the SASF will continue to be managed in a manner that does not pose risk to its underlying ecosystem. Regional and local research, specifically aiming to study the effects of the SASF on target species and the associated predators includes two ecosystem-modelling studies, one for the EGAB region (Goldsworthy et al, 2011) and one for Spencer Gulf (Gillanders et al, 2015). Alternative studies in the region include an MSC study on impacts of fishing small pelagic species on the southeastern Australian coast (Johnson, 2011) and fishery-specific study of four Commonwealth pelagic species aimed to determine sustainable harvest levels in an ecological context (Smith et al 2015). The MSC study compared the application of Ecopath with Ecosim software that is freely available and Atlantis software that was developed specifically for Australian marine ecosystems by CSIRO. Modelling the effects of small pelagics biomass variations on various groups of the trophic web, neither

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 75

Ecosim nor Atlantis exhibited large-scale system changes as a result of the loss of small pelagic fish, but the number of responding groups and the size of the responses were greater in Ecosim. Ecosim produced a slightly larger response to the loss of small pelagic fishes than to the loss of mackerel, whereas Atlantis-SE showed less of a response. Ecosim showed impacts both up and down the food web with the loss of small pelagics, as all sizes of zooplankton increase in size. The impacts up the food chain in Ecosim extended to predators and competitors of the small pelagics. In comparison, Atlantis- SE did not produce any changes in the standing stock of the major prey groups of small pelagics. There is also a more variable, but less substantial, response from the higher trophic groups in Atlantis. These differences suggest a larger ecosystem dependence on small pelagic fishes as a link between higher and lower trophic levels in the Ecosim model than in the Atlantis model. This may be caused by diets being more constrained by the presence/absence of small pelagics in Ecosim. In Atlantis alternative prey items (e.g. other forms of small fish) readily take the place of small pelagic fishes in the diets of most of their predators and few predators are as highly dependent upon the presence of small pelagic fishes as they appear to be in Ecosim (Johnson, 2011). Although it is not clear which of the two models is more representative of the reality, the Ecosim results are more conservative while Atlantis model allows for a more flexible and compensatory system. These results suggest that a higher degree of switching behaviour leads to a more resilient ecosystem (Johnson, 2011). These conclusions from the MSC low trophic level species project add confidence that the EGAB and Spencer Gulf studies, using Ecosim, yielded conservative results and still indicate that the SASF had negligible impacts on ecosystem structure and function and the impacts will continue to be negligible at the current level of exploitation and is using a more precautionary harvest strategy then required by the MSC standard (i.e. considers sardines “key” low trophic level species when the evidence suggests it is not).

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background 3.5.1 Legal and customary framework As a matter of Australian domestic law, the Offshore Constitutional Settlement (CoA, 1996) provides for the Australian states and the Northern Territory to manage fisheries out to 3 nautical miles from the coast, and for the Australian Government to manage fisheries from three to 200 nautical miles. The OCSs are applied in order to ensure clarity around the management of stocks which straddle these boundaries . 1996 Offshore Constitutional Settlement arrangements for scalefish species between South Australia and the Commonwealth. The Offshore Constitutional Settlement agreement between South Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia sets out that sardines off South Australia are managed by South Australia. Any fishery allocations discussed refers to South Australian fishing sectors only. Australian Sardines are managed separately in Eastern Australia with an established OCS between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales. Under this arrangement, all purse-seine catches outside 3 nm offshore from NSW are managed by the Commonwealth. Sardines are caught in large quantities in both jurisdictions and are managed using a Recommended Biological Catch (RBC) by the Commonwealth. State catches are taken off the total RBC for Commonwealth fishing businesses. A recent assessment of sardines by the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) Resource Assessment Group (RAG) found that the combined total RBC in eastern Australian waters should not exceed 4,500t. Any management and monitoring of sardines along eastern Australia would ideally be collaborative between NSW and the Commonwealth. Australia is a signatory to a number of international agreements and conventions (which it applied within its EEZ), such as: • United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (regulation of ocean space); • Convention on Biological Diversity and Agenda 21 (sustainable development and ecosystem- based fisheries management); • Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES; protection of threatened, endangered and protected species);

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 76

• Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (standards of behaviour for responsible practices regarding sustainable development); • United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement; and • State Member of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (marine protected areas). The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 19999 is the Australian Government’s (hereafter referred to as the ‘Commonwealth Government’) central piece of environmental legislation. The EPBC Act is administered by the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy (DEE) and provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places, defined in the EPBC Act as matters of national environmental significance. The DEE is responsible for acting on international obligations on a national level, by enacting policy and/or legislation to implement strategies to address those obligations. The DE, through the Commonwealth Minister, has a legislative responsibility to ensure that all managed fisheries undergo strategic environmental impact assessment before new management arrangements are brought into effect; and all fisheries in Australia from which product is exported undergo assessment to determine the extent to which management arrangements will ensure the fishery is managed in an ecologically sustainable way in the long term. SA fisheries legislation and policy conforms to overarching Commonwealth Government fisheries and environmental law, including the EPBC Act. SA’s commercial fisheries have been assessed using the Australian National Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) Framework for Fisheries10, in particular, the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries (the Guidelines; DEE 2007). The (South Australian) Fisheries Management Act 2007 embraces Commonwealth management principles as laid down in Commonwealth Legislation (The Fisheries Management Act (Commonwealth) 1991) and the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999). Each fishery is managed by: • Licence conditions • Management plans • Fisheries regulations • Ministerial Determinations. These are implemented through a number of subordinate regulations dealing with management policies that need to be in place for particular fisheries such as licence terms and conditions11, fees12 establishing reserves with restrictions on fishing and other activities13, VMS14, limits and sanctions15. There are a number of management controls that ensure sustainable fishing activities16. These include: • recreational size, bag, and possession limits • commercial catch limits (quota and trip limits) • fishing closures to protect juvenile or breeding fish • gear limits and restrictions • restrictions on fishing operations (e.g. number of fishers, limited licences, engine size etc.)

9 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/epabca1999588/ 10 http://www.fisheries-esd.com 11 Fisheries Management (General) Regulations, 2017, replacing the Fisheries Management (General) Regulations, 2007. 12 Fisheries Management (Fees) Regulations (2017) 13 Fisheries (Aquatic Reserves) Regulations 2016 14 Fisheries (Vessel Monitoring Scheme) Regulations 2017 15 Op cit (5) 16 http://pir.sa.gov.au/fishing/commercial_fishing/fisheries_management

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 77

• vessel monitoring systems • aquatic reserves to protect important habitats and fish nursery areas. There are well-established mechanisms for administrative and legal appeals of decisions taken in respect of fisheries, which are prescribed in Part 9 of the FMA. Decisions made by the Minister can be subject to a review process and appeals procedure. Appeal rights also exist under sections 112 and 113 of the Fisheries Management Act to the District Court and the Environment, Resources and Development Court, respectively. There have been no challenges to the decisions made under the FMA. As from 14 December 2017, the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT)17 has a review jurisdiction under FMA (SA). This enables reviews of certain decisions made by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries made under the FMA. Licence holders have the right under section 111 of the Fisheries Management Act, 2007 to seek to review and licence variation or imposition of a licence condition or refusal to renew or consent to a licence transfer. The Fisheries Management Act 2007 identifies three distinct fishing sectors: Aboriginal traditional, recreational, and commercial. Section 5 of the Fisheries Management Act 2007 states that Native Title rights and interests are not affected by the operation of the Act except to the extent authorised under the Native Title Act 1993 (Commonwealth). The FMA provides for the development of Aboriginal Traditional Management Plans in conjunction with any existing and/or new Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUA). These plans provide information on permitted fishing activities, gear etc. The Commonwealth Government has a commitment to negotiate indigenous land use agreements under the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993. The SA Fisheries Management Act 2007 acknowledges land use agreement made by the Commonwealth and provides for (Part 6, Section 60) the Minister and a native title group party to such an agreement to develop management arrangements for aboriginal traditional fishing where an indigenous land use agreement (ILUA) exists with any Native Title group. All Laws and Regulations are subject to Parliamentary scrutiny of regulations. Fishery Specific Management Plans are also submitted before Parliament. The Fisheries Act 1982, the predecessor to the 2007 Act, containing many of the components within the 2007 Act, is proven to have been effective and tested. Legal challenges to the 1982 Act were upheld, and Co-management processes have been in South Australian fisheries to avoid such challenges in future. There were no challenges made to the 2007 Act, nor subsequent Regulatory changes.

3.5.2 Roles and Responsibilities and Consultation

Roles and responsibilities

The South Australian Government, Department of Primary Industries and Regions, South Australia (PIRSA)18 has management jurisdiction of all fisheries out to three nautical miles and within all State internal waters. PIRSA holds primary responsibility for fisheries management including: • Government policy development and preparing strategic plans • Legislative development and enactment • Licensing functions • Development of the management plan, including establishing sustainability benchmarks, in consultation with the Association and other stakeholders • Addressing fisheries access and allocation issues • Participating in development of harvest strategies

17 https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch09s01s04s01.php 18 http://www.pirsa.gov.au/fisheries

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 78

• Formalising and implementing all harvest strategy decisions made by the association management committees or management advisory committees • Conducting ecological risk assessment and establishing ecosystem benchmarks • The cost recovery process, including determining service levels required and licence fee setting. • Promoting co-management of fisheries, research, education and training • Advising the Minister on license fees, the Fisheries Research and Development Fund, the allocation of access to aquatic resources in particular fisheries,

Each fishery has an appointed public servant to act as fishery manager, who takes responsibility for a number of fisheries. Fisheries compliance activities are undertaken by ‘Fisheries Services’, a Department of PIRSA. The Fisheries Council of SA, with its role and responsibility defined in the FMA, previously undertook an independent oversight role, but this organization was disbanded on 1 July 2015. For the SASF, the Management and Research Advisory Committee (MRAC) meetings are now run by SASIA. The Director of Fisheries may also establish Working Groups or Sub Committees to investigate specific issues on its behalf. These also previously fell under the ambit of the Fishery Council of SA. Such subcommittees draw on a wide range of expertise, but not necessarily from the stakeholder organizations. The Wildlife Interaction Working Group (WIWG) is the only working group for the SASF. The WIWG addresses issues with dolphin interactions and includes participants from industry, science, policy, environment and conservation. Currently, a member from the Conservation Council of South Australia sits as anon both the MRAC and WIWG. Other members include the President, Vice President and Executive Officer of the SASIA, along with three elected members, PIRSA, SARDI and the Natural Resources Eyre Peninsula Department for Environment and Water (DEWNR). While the MRAC and the WIWG meetings are managed by industry, it must be noted that they are advisory committees only, and the Minister (through PIRSA) maintains the authority in all decision- making. There is a contract between PIRSA and Seatec, an independent company responsible for gathering observer data. The Company works from a pool of 5 observers, deploying across the fleet to ensure 10% coverage. A service level agreement exists between PIRSA and Seatec, and observer deployment costs are fully cost recovered. No formal training exists for observers. The observer manager accompanies new observers out on at least the first trip to ensure new observers understand how to complete the observer wildlife interaction logbook. This involves monitoring and recording interactions correctly (Steve Shanks, PIRSA, pers comm, June 2018). It is also noteworthy that the observers are not compliance officers, but are questioned as part of Compliance Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for TEPs Mortality Investigations (PIRSA (current), in the event of mortality. The South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) is the research organization responsible for the research and monitoring programs for ten South Australian fisheries19. SARDI provides PIRSA Fisheries with a biannual stock assessment report for the SASF and also provides a DEPM report each time a survey is conducted (usually biannual). SARDI also provides annual reports on TEPs interactions, and analyses of observer data in relation to the CoP. SARDI also undertakes extensive research into the impacts of fisheries on the ecosystem and other fishery-specific research as required. The South Australian Sardine Industry Association Inc (SASIA)20 is the industry body tasked with implementing parts of the fisheries management framework (e.g. running MRAC and WIWG meetings). It is a voluntary independent seafood sector entity that represents SASF licence holders. It is a non-profit primary resources development organisation that was incorporated in South Australia in

19 http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/research/about_sardi 20 http://sasardines.com.au

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 79

1992. It has a strong membership base, with all 14 licences represented by 11 members (i.e. there are 11 individuals that own the 14 licences). The rules of SASIA are set out in the Constitution (SASIA, 2011). An Executive Officer is employed by SASIA to carry out management and administration functions. The Executive Officer represents SASIA in discussion on management activities with PIRSA and SARDI. In January 2017, an Independent Chairperson was engaged to chair both the MRAC and WIWG meetings. The industry is responsible for establishing the agenda, managing the meetings and recording minutes (although minutes are reviewed by PIRSA, Steve Shanks pers. comm.). The MRAC and WIWG meets every three to four months during the fishing season to consider quarterly data summaries and identify potential refinements to the Code of Practice. While the SASIA Constitution formalizes decision-making processes, these only relate to decisions made at internal industry meetings. There are currently no formal arrangements governing membership or voting rights within the MRAC or the WIWG. For both these groups, issues are generally resolved unanimously (Marcus Tanner pers. comm). Recently, a member of the CCSA was given a place at WIWG meetings (Marcus Tanner pers. comm). Until this appointment, the involvement of ENGOs has been limited to direct engagement with PIRSA. Meeting outcomes are generated through consensus. Areas of dispute, if unresolved would be referred to the Minister, and actions instigated under the auspices of a PIRSA direction, i.e. a gazette order. The Association has developed a number of documents to ensure the effective and professional running of the Association, its committees and fishing activities, some of which are agreements between the Association and its members. These include:

• Code of Practice for Mitigation of Interactions of the South Australian Sardine Fishery with Threatened, Endangered and Protected Species, which is updated regularly • Onboard management guidelines • A waste water management plan

Research services for the management of DEPM surveys are provided by SARDI. The costs are recovered from the fishery through licence fees. Consultation

PIRSA Fisheries has well-established consultative arrangements (Neville 2015) in place in partnership with SASIA. Both PIRSA and SASIA recognize the importance of broader stakeholder involvement, and as described above this does include the conservation sector. These broadly take on board the recommendations made by Hollamby, 2010: • Active participation with the Association and with the government, but also more generally in the consideration of future management initiatives among stakeholders • Active participation on any relevant Association sub-committees (involving stakeholder representatives) • Greater involvement in management planning, including representation on Management Committees and associated Research and action working groups • Proactive input into environmental management issues including: o participation in the ecological risk assessment process o evaluation of ecosystem benchmarks o development of strategies to manage impacts on endangered threatened and protected species (ETPS) o assisting in a shared approach to habitat protection (e.g. threats to the Spencer Gulf ecosystem more generally) • Participation in conflict resolution (informally through improved communication among stakeholders).

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 80

PIRSA is working with all fishery associations to identify areas where participation in these areas can be best accommodated, and it is evident that the existing process under assessment is facilitating active engagement in these areas (Shanks, PIRSA Fishery Manager, pers com, 24 May 2018). Both CCSA and Cetacean Ecology Behaviour and Evolution Lab (CEBEL, Flinders University) were invited to attend the SASF ESD workshop but did not participate (PIRSA, 2013). CCSA did, however, participate in the ESD for the Spencer Gulf Prawn Trawl Fishery. It is noted that the fishery ESD is to be reviewed, where upon CCSA and CEBEL will again be invited as a participant in the ESD process (Shanks, PIRSA Fishery Manager, pers comm, 24 May 2018). All decisions on changes to legislation are subject to public announcements and a 3-month consultative process. Consultation on fishery specific management plans requires a 2-month consultation process (Section 44, Fisheries Act 2007). Advertisements are placed in appropriate newspapers asking for written submissions within a two-month period. Public meetings are also held during the two to three- month periods respectively, in towns where there may be a direct interest. Lower level decisions such as gazettes involve consultation with affected parties, notably the fishers. PIRSA explain the rationale for decisions taken and how they will be applied. Notice of a pending gazette is placed on the PIRSA website, or circulated to industry associations, with a request to respond to the Program Leader Commercial Fishing. Examples can be found at http://governmentgazette.sa.gov.au/sites/default/files/public/documents/gazette/. These consultation procedures are accompanied with detailed explanation of the rationale. Fisher organisations, as well as other stakeholders, especially the NGOs, make various direct representations and submissions both to PIRSA and also to the DEE (Wilkins 2014, Wilkins 2016). Evidence shows that PIRSA duly responded with an explanation of the rationale for making its decisions and demonstrates how it has considered the information provided, including when appropriate how information provided through consultation has been used (CCSA - PIRSA, Source: Keith Rowling PIRSA, to Craig Wilkins, CCSA Email 21 April 2015). DEE also responded directly (DEE, 2016d) to submissions made by CCSA (CCSA, 2014 and CCSA, 2016) on the decision taken to extend the export approval for the SA Sardine Fishery. Hall (DEWNR) and Brook (CCSA), both members of the WIWG, made comment that the participatory process and interaction with SASIA was pragmatic and constructive, and the WIGG working group had facilitated the active engagement of both organisations in the development and improvement in the TEPS Code of Practice.

3.5.3 Long-term Objectives

Clear long-term objectives are explicit in Australia’s Commonwealth environmental and fisheries laws and are consistent with the precautionary approach. Commonwealth Fisheries Management Act, 199121 requires that all State Governments conform to the following objectives: (a) ensuring, through proper conservation and management measures, that the living resources of the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) are not endangered by over-exploitation; and (b) achieving the optimum utilisation of the living resources of the AFZ; and (c) ensuring that conservation and management measures in the AFZ and the high seas implement Australia’s obligations under international agreements that deal with fish stocks. The following principles are principles of ecologically sustainable development as defined in the Act:

21 Fisheries Management Act (Commonwealth), Available at https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00258/Html/Text#_Toc390691611

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 81

(a) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equity considerations; (b) if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation; (c) the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations; (d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making; and (e) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted. The National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (DEE 1992) requires that fisheries management agencies throughout Australia to adopt a fisheries ecosystem management framework which will provide a more holistic and sustainable approach to management of aquatic resources. Governments will seek to enhance the decision-making capacity of management authorities, resource users and individuals, in particular through enabling them to make decisions that are based on knowledge of the likely consequences for the resource and the environment. Elements of a fisheries ecosystem management approach include: data collection and research on fish stocks and environmental factors to enhance management on an ecosystem basis; steps to address cross-sectoral issues between coastal management, total catchment management and fisheries management; awareness and education campaigns, for both users and the general public; and development of strategic management plans, framed within the principles of ESD, in conjunction with rationalisation of fishing capacity and overexploited fisheries. The principal objectives of the strategy are: • to ensure that fisheries management agencies work within a framework of resource stewardship • to develop national guidelines for the state of the aquatic environment reporting • to disseminate information on the principles of ESD to fishers and the wider community State Governments are then required to review, and where necessary amend, fisheries legislation to ensure it provides the basis for managing the fishery resource in ways which are consistent with the principles of ESD; conduct a review of fishing fleet capacity by fisheries management authorities; examine mechanisms for addressing the prioritisation of scientific and economic research activities to help research agencies coordinate their programs and direct their scarce resources to areas of greatest importance; cooperatively work to resolve management boundaries between the Commonwealth and the States/Territories, and between adjoining States and Territories, on a biological/ecological basis; seek to involve representatives from the fisheries industry in discussions on prioritisation of research and resolution of management boundaries; seek to formalise international commitments covering fishing on the high seas, driftnetting, reductions in land-based sources of marine pollution, shipping standards and implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, 199222 requires that where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, public and private decisions should be guided by: careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment; and an assessment of the risk- weighted consequences of various options. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act)23 is the Australian Government’s central piece of environmental legislation and provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places — defined in the EPBC Act as matters of national environmental significance. Its

22 Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/esd/publications/intergovernmental-agreement 23 Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/esd/publications/national-e-strategy. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 82

objectives are: • to provide for the protection of the environment, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance; and • to promote ecologically sustainable development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources; • to apply the precautionary principle in decision making • to promote the conservation of biodiversity; • to provide for the protection and conservation of heritage; and • to promote a co-operative approach to the protection and management of the environment involving governments, the community, landholders and Indigenous peoples; and • to assist in the co-operative implementation of Australia’s international environmental responsibilities; and • to recognise the role of Indigenous people in the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of Australia’s biodiversity; and • to promote the use of Indigenous people’s knowledge of biodiversity with the involvement of, and in co-operation with, the owners of the knowledge.

Clear long-term objectives are defined in the Fisheries Management Act 2007, which provides a broad statutory framework to ensure the ecologically sustainable management of South Australia’s fisheries resources24. The five objectives of the Act are: 1. Proper conservation and management measures are to be implemented to protect the aquatic resources of the State from over-exploitation and ensure that those resources are not endangered; 2. Access to the aquatic resources of the State is to be allocated between users of the resources in a manner that achieves optimum utilisation and equitable distribution of those resources to the benefit of the community; 3. Aquatic habitats are to be protected and conserved, and aquatic ecosystems and genetic diversity are to be maintained and enhanced; 4. Recreational fishing and commercial fishing activities are to be fostered for the benefit of the whole community; and 5. The participation of users of the aquatic resources of the State, and of the community more generally, in the management of fisheries is to be encouraged. To satisfy the Commonwealth Government requirements for a demonstrably ecologically sustainable fishery, the fishery (or fisheries if a species is caught in more than one fishery), must operate under a management regime that meets Principles 1 and 2 of the Commonwealth Guidelines. The management regime must take into account arrangements in other jurisdictions, and adhere to arrangements established under Australian laws and international agreements. PIRSA has implemented Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) principles into its management planning and include: • Ecosystem structure and biodiversity (on a meso-scale basis); • Captured fish species; • Protected species (direct impact – capture or interaction); • Benthic habitats; and • External impacts. The SASF has been assessed pursuant to the EBFM framework, and strategies, partial strategies and measures have been implemented in the SASF based on the risk assessment outcomes (PIRSA, 2013).

24 Prior to this the primary legislative control was the Fisheries Act 1982.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 83

These are contained within State Fisheries Plans and policies including the Management Plan (PIRSA, 2014).

3.5.4 Fishery specific objectives

The Management Plan for the South Australian Commercial Marine Scalefish Fishery, Part B – management arrangements for the taking of sardines (PIRSA, 2014) reflects the objectives of the Act. The Management Plan aims to achieve outcomes that are consistent with broader Government objectives for the management of the marine environment. These include: Goal 1 – Ensure the sardine resource is protected from over-exploitation The intent of goal 1 is to ensure that sardine stocks are harvested sustainably and that adequate data exist to determine this. The main management strategies for ensuring sustainability of the commercial fishery are the TACC (including spatial component), and regulations restricting the number of licence holders in the fishery and the gear that can be used. The operational objective of the Management Plan in relation to the sustainability of the target species is: • That South Australian sardine stocks are maintained at a sustainable stock status.

Goal 2 –Optimum utilisation and equitable distribution of the resource This goal relates to the economic and social benefits derived from the SASF and aims to optimise the use of the fishery in an equitable way, within its sustainability constraints. The key objective of this Management Plan in relation to these benefits is: • An economically efficient fleet without compromising sustainability objectives. • To provide access to the resource as per the PIRSA Allocation Policy: Allocation of Access to Fisheries Resources Between Fishing Sectors (PIRSA, 2011).

Goal 3 – Minimise impacts on the ecosystem This goal relates to the management of the fishery using an ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) approach. The objectives in relation to EBFM are: • Fishery impacts on by-catch and by-product species are sustainable. • Fishery impacts on TEPs are sustainable. • Fishery impacts on benthic habitat and associated species communities are sustainable

Goal 4 – Cost effective and consultative co-management of the fishery This goal relates to co-management of the fishery, planning of management activities and the recovery of the costs of management of the fishery. The objectives of this management policy in relation to co-management, planning and cost recovery are: Industry participation in management through co-operative arrangements. • Management arrangements support cohesion between the fishing industry and wider community. • Maximising stewardship of fisheries resources. • Costs of management of the fishery are funded by relevant stakeholders.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 84

The overall objectives of this goal are to ensure that stakeholders and government fisheries administration have involvement and share responsibility through consultative and, where possible, collaborative co-management in the decision-making processes for developing and implementing management arrangements, and to ensure that management arrangements are complied with. The cost- effectiveness of these arrangements also needs to be considered in the development process as the management costs are recovered from fishers in accordance with the government’s cost-recovery policy for fisheries. A suite of biological and economic Performance Indicators are included in the plan and are used to assess the performance of the fishery against the fishery-specific objectives of the Management Plan. These include: • Biological measures for target stock status and byproduct species (anchovy) • Economic measures of fishery performance • Implementation of observer program, CoP, and monitoring and assessment of TEP interaction rates • Monitoring of stakeholder participation levels • Compliance

3.5.5 Decision making processes There are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. The Minister, with the assistance of PIRSA, makes strategic policy decisions and is ultimately responsible for the formulation of the Management Plans. These decisions conform to the principles of the Act, and endorse the Precautionary and the ecosystem based approach to fisheries management. The Management Plan (PIRSA, 2014) was developed in consultation with SASIA and other stakeholders. Decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. These are consistent with the outcomes of the Management Plan. In formulating decisions PIRSA Fisheries takes responsibility for the following: • Full independent audit process of all delegated functions • Enforcement and compliance functions • Conducting ecological risk assessment • Leading development of the Management Plan and monitoring the attainment of the outcomes and activities in consultation with SASIA, its sub-committees and other stakeholders • Setting the TACC • Cost recovery. The decision making process for the fishery is consistent with those for the broader management system and responds to the defined harvest and bycatch management strategies, which respond to research, outcome evaluations and monitoring programmes. Specific and relevant issues may be evaluated through a number of mechanisms that take account of the wider implications of decisions, including the establishment of the ETP working group; workshops (e.g. ecological risk assessments (PIRSA, 2013); and the MRAC (e.g. harvest strategy development, ecological and compliance risk assessments). The control rules incorporate a precautionary approach to the decision-making process by requiring a review when the target reference level is not met. This ensures that any warning signs are recognised and investigated/addressed in their early stages. The frequency of evaluation (both annually and in- season) and review means that management action to investigate and, where required, alleviate adverse impacts on stocks is always taken before the performance indicators reach the limit reference level.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 85

The application of the research, monitoring and evaluation within the Sardine management plan provides a good tool to assess the relative risks to bycatch, ETP species and ecosystems, initiating when appropriate, actions to deal with at-risk species. Examples of precautionary actions include operating at a lower Target and Limit Reference point to take account of Low Trophic nature of the stock and the impact on marine ecosystems. The response to observed dolphin mortalities in 2004 provides a good example of the responsiveness of the management system. Initially, the SA Government immediately closed the fishery for a two- month period while a Code of Practice and Observer Program were implemented. Implementation of the CoP and observer program was conducted with the explicit intention of being able to sanction offenders against the CoP. Regular monitoring and assessment have occurred over time that has resulted in an improved CoP and reduced interaction levels. The CoP continues to be assessed and improved on an on-going basis, with quarterly meetings of the working group. More recently, real time (i.e. daily) reporting of ETP interactions has been implemented. The consultation process ensures that the management system or fishery acts proactively to avoid legal disputes. The partnership approach between government and industry actively works towards avoiding disputes. In addition, licence conditions provide for a system of dispute resolution in the event that the prescribed licence holder is not satisfied with the conditions (Section 111-113 of the Fisheries Management Act). All letters to Licence holders contain the following statement: Licence holders have the right under Section 111 of the Fisheries Management Act, 2007, to seek review of a variation or the imposition of a licensing condition or refusal to issue, renew or consent to the transfer of a licence. Appeal rights also exist under Sections 112 and 113 of the FMA, 2007, to the District Court and the Environment Resources and Development Court respectively. No major legal challenges to judicial decisions have taken place in the SASF.

3.5.6 Compliance PIRSA Fisheries Services is responsible for Fisheries Monitoring, Control and Surveillance. SASIA’s members’ undertake day-to-day real time management actions (e.g. Quota management integrity and ETP reporting) but also serve to support compliance and verification processes on a voluntary basis. Compliance resourcing PIRSA Fisheries Compliance Operations undertakes the function of enforcing fisheries management arrangements and operates a range of strategies, including effective targeted monitoring and surveillance; up to 40 appropriately assigned staff, with Compliance operations operating from Port Lincoln, Ceduna and Whyalla in West Region; a Fisheries Patrol Vessel (FPV), the Southern Ranger, and up to 20 smaller support craft operating throughout the region; and a system of suitable deterrents in the form of fines, administrative penalties, accumulative penalty points and targeted educative campaigns. Southern Ranger operated for 9 days in the 2017 season. Fisheries Compliance Operations also provides licensing facilities from its regional offices, as well as online renewal and payment. Regional operational areas are supported by the Operation’s Adelaide- based Compliance and Strategic Operations (Prosecutions and Investigations). Key State compliance objectives include: • Maintain ecologically sustainable stock levels • Ensure optimum utilisation and equitable distribution • Minimise impacts on the ecosystem • Enable effective management with greater industry involvement. The level of effort required to deliver the compliance program in accordance with the dedicated fishery specific plan is reviewed annually taking into account: The previous effort required to deliver established programs developed over the last 10 years; the identified risks to the fishery and any associated changes, shits or changes to the fishery management system; changes to fishing and

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 86

offloading practices; additional pressures or influences on fishers or the fishery; intelligence; trends and change behaviours that required monitoring and/or investigation, and cost effectiveness and identified efficiencies. Fisheries Officers undertake regular land and sea patrols using a compliance delivery model supported by a risk assessment process and associated operational planning framework. Throughout the region, employ radar, night vision and specially equipped four-wheel-drive vehicles, and small vessels for covert deployments. They also make use of sophisticated surveillance, mapping and GPS equipment to assist in evidence gathering. This includes high-powered telescopes and photographic mapping technology. Historically, large patrol vessels have assisted FOs at various times of the year for offshore patrols. Fisheries Compliance Operations are also supported by a number of electronic systems, which continue to be refined. These key systems include IBase And Analyst Notebooks (Intelligence System), FACT (Fisheries and Aquaculture Information Collection Tool), Timewise (Effort Reporting Tool), Evidence.com (Video Evidence Reporting Tool), PIMS (Primary Industries Information Management System for Quota and License information), eCatch, eBrief (prosecution system), Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and Commercial Fishing Application. The Risk Assessment provides the basis for a fishery-specific Compliance Plan (PIRSA, 2017) that provides the most effective and efficient method for a planned and measurable approach to compliance delivery. The Division updates the Plan on a quarterly basis, maintains a risk specific scorecard and reviews the compliance risk assessments each year. The risk assessment process can also be triggered by the introduction of new supporting legislation in a fishery/resource or the identification of any new major issues that would require Operations managers to assess their compliance program. The coordination of compliance outputs is guided by an industry specific compliance plan (PIRSA, 2018), which is developed in consultation with the Sardine Industry. The Plan comprises three core outputs: Education and awareness; effective deterrence; and appropriate enforcement. The Fisheries Compliance Operations Program (PIRSA, 2018) identifies the keys risks at that time were: 1. Quota Management System Integrity. 2. Threatened Endangered Protected Species Interactions. 3. By-Catch 4. Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated Take.

The risk assessment process involves the participation of managers, field-based Fishery Officers (FO), researchers, SASIA and representatives from other interested stakeholder groups, including Marine Parks. There are two tiers in the risk assessment process — the first tier is the formal transparent process involving industry and other stakeholders, and the second tier is internal, fishery managers and compliance personnel. The second process feeds into the fishery’s Plan, which provides the formal framework for the delivery of specific compliance services that remove or mitigate the identified risks. The compliance risk assessment process identifies modes of offending, compliance counter measures and risks and relies on a weight-of-evidence approach, considering information available from specialist units, trends and issues identified by local staff and Departmental priorities set by the Management Plan. The Compliance Plan provides a formal and transparent process for staff to carry out defined compliance activities in order to monitor, inspect and regulate the compliance risks to each specific high-risk activity in a fishery, and in turn confirms they are at an acceptable and manageable level. This is supported by measurable reporting methods defined under the Compliance Plan to demonstrate compliance activities being undertaken are having a direct and significant impact on reducing identified risks.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 87

Available compliance resources are allocated based on the risk assessment outcomes and the contacts and compliance statistics that are captured, reported on and reviewed at the end of each year. The allocated resources and compliance strategies (i.e. monitoring, surveillance and education activities) are outlined in the Compliance Plan, which specifies planned hours and staff allocated to key compliance tasks and duties. This planning and delivery process allows for more-targeted, effective and relevant compliance service in terms of both cost and activities. There is also flexibility within the region to allocate additional resources to respond to changes, such as the need for a planned tactical operation in response to fresh intelligence. Redirecting existing resources or seeking additional resources from other areas or units may achieve this. Similarly, changing priorities and resourcing on a local level can involve reducing planned delivery of compliance services to ensure resources are directed to where they are most needed. In the year ending June 2017, PIRSA expended an additional 94 days of effort above the cost recovered program to the implementation of the Plan. Operational planning Compliance staff utilise a number of formal monitoring and surveillance activities and control mechanisms. Fisheries legislation forms the one component of the control system for commercial fisheries in SA, and these are applied through Licence conditions. The SASF is subject to controls under: • Fisheries Management Act, 2007 • Fisheries Management Act, 1991 (Commonwealth) • Fisheries Management (Marine Scalefish Fisheries) Regulations, 2017 • Fisheries Management (General) Regulations, 2017 • Fisheries Management (Vessel Monitoring Scheme) Regulations 2017 • Criminal Assets Confiscation Act, 2005 • Summary Offences Act, 1953 • The EPBC Act (export exemptions); • The sardine Management Plan; and • Licensing Conditions. Table 8 of the Management Plan (2014) (see below) defined the key management control tools in place.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 88

In addition, the Management Plan identified the following monitoring tools.

PIRSA monitors the catch of quota in the fishery through CDR forms, which require recordings of all landings of sardines. These forms are used to verify the volumes of sardines landed, with licence holders required to complete and forward the CDR form to PIRSA. In addition to completing the CDR form, each licence holder is required to complete a daily logbook (periodic return), with one record per net set. Regulation 7(b) and Schedule 7 of the Fisheries Management (General) Regulations prohibit the use of fish nets in the waters of or near Coffin Bay and Port Lincoln. These netting closures were introduced in May 1995 under the Fisheries (General) Regulations 1984 and included prohibiting fish nets (including sardine nets) in these areas to help protect and manage a variety of MSF species. In September and December 1995, PIRSA issued ministerial exemptions to the sardine fishers to enable

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 89

them to fish in the Coffin Bay and Port Lincoln netting closures, in line with their previous access. Since 1995, ministerial exemptions have been issued from time to time to allow some operators to target sardines in these closure areas, inline with their access prior to 1995.” The fishery maintains an onboard observer programme, run by Seatec. Observer coverage rates are set at 10%. Seatec undertake bycatch sampling, but most explicitly monitor ETP interactions and mortality events. PIRSA Fisheries Compliance Operations also operates a Standard Operating Procedure (SOPs) for TEPs Mortality Investigations (PIRSA (current)). Sanctions There is an explicit and statutory sanction framework that is applied to persons convicted of contravening legislation relevant to the SASF. Sanctions applicable to the FMA are set out in the Fisheries Management (General) Regulations 2017. The fine schedule ranges from AUD 315 to AUD 500,000, with provision for 4 years imprisonment for trafficking and unlawful sales, and the application of up to 200 demerit points (Fisheries Management (Demerit Points) Regulations 2017), leading to the confiscation of a fishing licence. Breaches in fishery rules may occur for a variety of reasons, and FOs undertake every opportunity to provide education, awareness and advice to fishers; however, all offences detected in the fishery are considered to be of significant concern and are addressed by FOs via the prosecution process comprising Caution, Written Notice, Expiation notice (‘on the spot fine’) and Prosecution (offences of serious nature (prescribed in the FMA) that immediately proceed to formal, legal prosecution). More serious offences against the legislation will require the Division to seek to prosecute. The Division’s Prosecution Steering Committee (PSC) reviews recommendations made by the Compliance Operations in respect to alleged offending against the FMA (or Pearling Act) and considers whether such decisions are in the ‘public interest’. This process ensures fairness, consistency and equity in the prosecution decision-making process. All fisheries offences in SA are recorded in a dedicated Divisions prosecutions unit. Interactions with ETPs can also prompt sanctions. When a dolphin mortality is observed, it must be immediately reported to Compliance officers who then examine the circumstances of the net set to determine whether a prosecution should be laid. To date, no prosecutions have been made. 3.5.7 Performance Review Section 49 of the Fisheries Management Act (2007) allows that a review of the Management Plan may be called at any time. An internal (PIRSA) review of the Management Plan must occur as soon as possible after the fifth anniversary of its implementation to determine whether amendments are required. A comprehensive internal (PIRSA) review of the 2007 Fisheries Management Regulations was undertaken by PIRSA in 2011 and 2012 (PIRSA, 2014). The following changes relevant to the sardine fishery were implemented through changes in 2017: • Allowing the permanent transfer of quota; • Specific reference to permissible bycatch species’ • The ministerial exemption for boats fishing in Port Lincoln and Coffin Bay be moved from ministerial exemption to regulation; • The exemption for boats under 7.5 m not to have a vessel monitoring system unit onboard be moved from ministerial exemption to regulation; • A standard number of registered masters be permitted, in relation to quota-managed fisheries; • Changing the number of agents allowed; • Allow for the move to electronic logbooks; • Review the required information for prior reporting and simplify/amend where possible and/or necessary; • Discussion about increasing over catch provisions; and

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 90

• Standardising the process for calculating unload weights All changes to the Regulations were subject to wider consultation (3.1.2). The Management Plan is scheduled to a PIRSA Review in 2018/2019. There has been no external review25 of the Management Plan or the harvest strategy. The Code of Practice in mitigating operational interactions of the South Australian Sardine Fishery with the common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), is reviewed on a quarterly basis by the WIWG, or immediately after any event. The overall application of the CoP and its effectiveness are evaluated annually (e.g. Ward et al 2015 and Mackay and Goldsworthy 2017). These reviews were undertaken by SARDI and are all internal to PIRSA. All SARDI reports are subject to an internal review process by in-house scientists. SARDI has a sound record of publishing the outcomes of sardine research in peer-reviewed journals (including Ward et al 2018a), Code of practice for reducing accidental mortality of dolphins in purse-seine fisheries, Marine Policy, 2018. The Sardine Stock Assessment Report has not been subject to External Peer Review. However, SARDI participated in a stock assessment benchmarking exercise (Ward et al, 2015) funded by FRDC where a number of key recommendations were made and incorporated into the SARDI stock assessment. The Compliance system is internally reviewed on an annual basis (PIRSA 2017, PIRSA 2018). PIRSA Compliance also participates in the Professional Standards Councils Fisheries Compliance Programme (PSCFCP, undated), which lays down a structure to ensure commitment to compliance with relevant laws, including legislative requirements, industry codes, organisational standards as well as standards of good corporate governance, ethics and community expectations. This follows the Australian Standard on Compliance Programs AS 3806-2006. Elements of the observer programme have been reviewed by SARDI, and where appropriate changed, i.e. representative nature of the sampling, whether observer coverage linked to the number of sets (as opposed to nights) and any spatial or temporal limitations on data collected. The Executive Director of PIRSA (Fisheries and Aquaculture) sets the level of observer coverage in the fishery each year. When setting the level of observer coverage the operational structure of the observer program is reviewed. However, no specific evaluation has been made of the training observers have had and the application of the data collection protocols used. It is notable for example that observers do not have any formal system of certification in place, nor is there evidence of any formal curriculum. The SA co-management system was also subject to both internal (Hollamby 2010) and external review (Neville, 2015). The review found that the majority of SA fisheries were in the Consultative phase of the co-management continuum and that only the Spencer Gulf and West Coast Prawn Fisherman’s Association was considered in the Collaborative Phase (has elements of both the Collaborative and Delegated phase of co-management for some functions involving fisheries management). The fishery is regularly assessed by Department of Environment and Energy (DEE, 2016) as an Ecologically Sustainably Managed Fishery under part 13 and 13(A) of the EPBC Act 1999. The last review was completed in 2016 (DEE 2016a), providing for a five-year extension of the SASF accreditation scheme.

25 At SG80 and 100, “external review” means external to the fisheries management system, but not necessarily international. Depending on the scale and intensity of the fishery, it could be by: Another department within an agency; Another agency or organisation within the country; A government audit that is external to the fisheries management agency; A peer organisation nationally or internationally, andExternal expert reviewers.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 91

4 Evaluation Procedure 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment There is no harmonisation requirement for the target species. The scoring for governance (3.1) is consistent with the Spencer Gulf Prawn Trawl Fishery, with both SASF and SGPF under State management of South Australia. There are some slightly lower scores in the Lakes and Coorong Pipi fishery under 3.1.1, but this issues address the LCF as a single jurisdiction fishery. Both Spencer Gulf and South Australian Governenance ussues are scored at SG 100 for all 3.1 PIs, whereas the LCF scores 3.1.1 at 95, citing the Lakes and Coorong Consultative Committee (LCCC) as a non binding instrument. 3.1.2 at 85, citing consultation weaknesses in the LCF. These lower scoring issues are specific to this fishery and are not experienced in the other fisheries considered. It is noteworthy that For the Governance and Policy component (PIs 3.1.1-3.1.3), MSC accepts that it may be impractical to attempt full harmonisation, due to the large number of fisheries that may be managed under the relevant policy framework, and the differences in application between them.

4.2 Previous assessments The SASF has not been previously assessed.

4.3 Assessment Methodologies The Assessment applies MSC FCR 2.1.

The Default Assessment Reporting Template applied in V 2.0

The Default Assessment Tree was applied without adjustments

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

Site Visits and persons met

Date Meeting 22 June, 2018 SARDI Tim Ward, Simon Goldsworthy, Alice Adelaide Mackay 22 June, 2018 CCSA James Brook Adelaide 23 June, 2018 PIRSA Compliance Andrew Carr, Yolande Markey Port Lincoln Operations 23 June, 2018 SASF MRAC Greg Eden (Independent Chair) Port Lincoln Phil Turner (Sarin Group (M491, M262, M433, M429)), Justin Nelligan (Blaslov Fishing (M324)), Andrew Carr (PIRSA Fisheries) Daryl Evans (Marnikol Fisheries (M354)), Steve Shanks (PIRSA (Sardine Fishery Manager)) Marcus Turner (SASIA Executive Officer), Assoc. Prof. Tim Ward (SARDI), Shelley Paull (DEWNR), Yolande Markey (PIRSA Fisheries), Sarah Sparks (PIRSA Fisheries), Adam Kemp (Seatec), Lukina Lukin (Dinko Tuna (M172)) James Brook (CCSA)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 92

Observers: Matt Watson (MSC) Emily McGregor (MSC).

23 June, 2018 Seatec Adam Kemp Port Lincoln 23 June, 2018 Engineer and First L. Mackuch Port Lincoln Mate 24 June, 2018 PIRSA Fishery Sean Sloan Adelaide management Peter Dietman Steve Shanks 24 June, 2018 CEBEL, Flinders Luciana Möller Adelaide University

Additional Consultations by telephone Date 29 May, 2018 Peter White White Fisheries and processor, Port Lincoln 30 May, 2018 Tim Hall WIWG/ DEWNR 11 June 2018 Tony Smith Fishery Consultant 13 June, 2018 Catherine Kemper South Australia Museum

Evaluation Techniques MRAG Americas published an announcement of the assessment on the MRAG Americas website and sent a direct email to all stakeholders on the stakeholder list. MSC posted the announcement on its South Australia sardine track-a-fishery page, as well as sent it by email in their Fishery Announcements newsletter to all registered recipients, and the team leader, Richard Banks, further distributed the information about the site visit and fishery assessment to several local stakeholders. At this time, MRAG Americas also announced the assessment site visit dates and location, as well as the assessment team. This was done according to the process requirements as laid out in MSC’s Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0. Together, these media presented the announcement to a wide audience representing industry, agencies, and other stakeholders.

The assessment team and the clients set up meetings with fishery management and science personnel, and industry and harvest-sector representatives relevant to the fishery assessment.

A number of additional stakeholders were identified during the site visit (below). These stakeholders were contacted by email on 30 May, and provided with materials supporting the assessment. No submissions were forthcoming.

Organisation Name WWF Jo-Anne McCrae AMCS Toni Mahto MISSA Info IFAW J Sharrad HIS Alexia Wellbelove AAD Mike Dubble Independent consultant and formerly CCSA advisor Kathryn Warhurst

In the CR v2.0 default assessment tree used for this assessment, the MSC has 28 ‘performance indicators’, six in Principle 1, 15 in Principle 2, and seven in Principle 3. The performance indicators

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 93

are grouped in each principle by ‘component.’ Principle 1 has two components, Principle 2 has five, and Principle 3 has two. Each performance indicator consists of one or more ‘scoring issues;’ a scoring issue is a specific topic for evaluation. ‘Scoring Guideposts’ define the requirements for meeting each scoring issue at the 60 (conditional pass), 80 (full pass), and 100 (state of the art) levels.

Note that some scoring issue may not have a scoring guidepost at each of the 60, 80, and 100 levels; in the case of the example above, scoring issue (b) does not have a scoring issue at the SG60 level. The scoring issues and scoring guideposts are cumulative; this means that a performance indicator is scored first at the SG60 levels. If not all of the SG scoring issues meet the 60 requirements, the fishery fails and no further scoring occurs. If all of the SG60 scoring issues are met, the fishery meets the 60 level, and the scoring moves to SG80 scoring issues. If no scoring issues meet the requirements at the SG80 level, the fishery receives a score of 60. As the fishery meets increasing numbers of SG80 scoring issues, the score increases above 60 in proportion to the number of scoring issues met; performance indicator scoring occurs at 5-point intervals. If the fishery meets half the scoring issues at the 80 level, the performance indicator would score 70; if it meets a quarter, then it would score 65; and it would score 75 by meeting three-quarters of the scoring issues. If the fishery meets all of the SG80 scoring issues, the scoring moves to the SG100 level. Scoring at the SG100 level follows the same pattern as for SG80.

Principle scores result from averaging the scores within each component, and then from averaging the component scores within each Principle. If a Principle averages less than 80, the fishery fails.

Scoring for this fishery followed a consensus process in which the assessment team discussed the information available for evaluating performance indicators to develop a broad opinion of performance of the fishery against each performance indicator. Review of sections 3.2-3.5 by all team members assured that the assessment team was aware of the issues for each performance indicator. Subsequently, the assessment team member responsible for each principle, filled in the scoring table and provided a provisional score. The assessment team members reviewed the rationales and scores, and recommended modifications as necessary, including possible changes in scores.

Performance Indicator scores were entered into MSC’s Fishery Assessment Scoring Worksheet (see Table 10 below) to arrive at Principle-level scores.

Table 9: Scoring elements [Add or delete rows as needed]

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 94

Component Scoring elements Main/Not main Data-deficient or not Target species Sardine (Sardinops sagax) Main -target Sardines (P1) Primary species Anchovy (Engraulis Minor not deficient australis) (P2) Secondary species Maray (Etrumeus Minor not deficient jacksoniensis) (P2) Secondary species Blue mackerel (Scomber Minor not deficient australasicus) (P2) Secondary species Silver whiting (Sillago Minor not deficient spp.) (P2) Secondary species Barracouta (Thyrsites atun) Minor not deficient (P2) Secondary species Dumpling squid Minor not deficient (Euprymna tasmanica) (P2) ETP Common dolphin N/A not deficient (Delphinus delphis) (P2) ETP Australian sea lion N/A not deficient (Neophoca cinerea) ETP Long-nosed fur seal (P2) N/A not deficient ETP (Arctocephalus pusillus N/A not deficient doriferus) (P2) ETP Australian fur seal N/A not deficient (Arctocephalus forsteri) (P2) Habitat Sandy/muddy habitats (P2) Main not deficient

Rhodolith pavement Main not deficient (Spencer Gulf)(P2) Coarse sand shelf habitat Main not deficient (EGAB) (P2) Channel, sand, no biota, minor not deficient Inverstigator Strait habitats Ecosystem overall ecosystem N/A not deficient

5 Traceability 5.1 Eligibility Date Sardines and identified IPI species caught from the certified fishery by vessels in the client group are eligible to enter the chain of custody. The target eligibility date is the publication date of the public comment draft report. The actual eligibility date will be confirmed in the Public Certification Report.

5.2 Traceability within the Fishery All licence holders and members of the SASIA are members of the client group, and eligible to use the MSC logo (Table 2). Fishing does not occur beyond the SASF fishing area. Restricted area fishing and monitoring through VMS provide assurance that the vessels do not fish out of area. There are no other fisheries that overlap and sardines in the fishing area. The sardine catch is pumped from the purse seine net and into a fish wells, whilst at sea. There is no grading or sorting of the target species, as other species are very minor (See IPI), or less than 2%. All

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 95

discharges are in Port Lincoln into bins or hoppers, or directly into fish feed vessel’s bins, operating in support of the tuna cages in Port Lincoln. All bins have a predetermined and validated size, with 26 bins registered with PIRSA Compliance Operations. Most bins weigh 30 mt. This system provides integrity to accurate recording of the Catch. Fishers complete logbooks and area also to complete a Catch Disposal Record. The information available specifically contains reference to the vessel, species caught (estimated catch (kg), round weight, time and date of haul, and location). Receiving processors, which are the vessel owning companies, also complete a Sardine Fishery Transit Form (PFTF). Logbook data is less accurate as is estimated. CDRS and PFTFS provide accurate records of weights. Each document is signed off by the ship’s master and processor accordingly. Most fishing vessels are owned by the tuna fishing companies. An estimated 99% of the product is transferred as fish feed into the tuna cages based in Port Lincoln. Fish is stored on board at minus 1 degrees. If offloaded into Port Lincoln, feed fish is frozen into blocks and palletized and for later use. However, the usual process is to transfer to the cages directly and store as 1100 kg containers and keep chilled until fed to the tuna. Fish sold for human consumption currently represents a very small proportion of the catch (<1%), or around 1,000 mt per annum. Human consumption fish are caught later in the night/early morning to reduce storage time between freezing. Fish to be frozen or filleted in Port Lincoln for human consumption is stored in a separate tank from any fish caught for Tuna feed. This tank contains a brine solution, which is kept at 0-1 degrees, with a higher water to fish ratio (12t (water) to 7 t fish)). Unloaded product is pumped into sterilized insulated bins and transported by trucks to the processors storage freezers. Product that is to be sent fresh is pumped out of each net set directly into insulated bins containing ice slurry on board the vessel. There is no risk of contamination with other fish feed product, or small pelagic species as Port Lincoln is shared with any other sardine fishery. For fish sold for human consumption, ownership transfers, when reaching the secondary processor, wholesaler or restaurant. In any of the cases the secondary processors, wholesalers, retailers and restaurants must have CoC to use the MSC logo. For fish sold as fish feed, ownership may be the same, but in some cases vessels, were vessels aren’t owned by tuna companies, these vessels will sell to the tuna farms, where again, ownership, may change. The risk of a compromised CoC is low cold storage facilities as feed fish suppliers and sardine processors do not source from other fisheries. At this stage, no processor source from other fisheries, however some ‘processors’ do import fish to supplement their fish feed requirements in some years. In this case, entirely separate cold storage units are used for any externally sourced product. The product is delivered in a number of ways: • Filleting operations are owned by the vertically integrated companies. Product destined for human consumption is filleted by processors and sold as pre-packed fresh and frozen sardine in polystyrene boneless butterfly and barrel fillets, natural, battered and crumbed ready for the frying pan. All are sold in plastic vacuum packed 1kg treys • IQF Whole Sardines for human consumption are also produced for bulk orders, particularly fish markets. These fish are treated in the same manner, however, are packed in larger foam eskies (5/10kg) due to the size of the orders. • Receivers of the product destined for human consumption are primarily wholesalers, but also include restaurants, supermarkets and food servicing outlets. Change of ownership occurs upon sale to wholesalers, retailers and restaurants. All wholesalers, retailers and restaurants must have CoC to use the MSC logo. • Feed Fish companies are vertically integrated. Product from fishing vessels is delivered by truck

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 96

to cold storage facilities or fish feed vessel’s bins for direct feeding of bluefin tuna cages. The vessels, feed vessels and tuna cages are usually owned by the parent companies on pallets containing product from individual vessels. The companies maintain detailed records of product received from each fishing vessel. Pallets contain product by species from a vessel trip (lot) and lots or segments of lots travel together. Lots of certified product would stay segregated from uncertified product through cold storage and transport. CoC starts after the first point of sale from any members of the client group, or at offload at the wharf and then, to cold store distributors or secondary processing or sale to the general public, whichever comes first. That is, each buyer and each repacker, each secondary processor, and each seller of sardines to the public must have CoC. All purse seine companies from Port Lincoln are members of SASIA, and will be eligible to be covered by the MSC fisheries certificate, with SASIA as the Certificate holder. Under these requirements, no risk accrues from other fishers participating in the certification. Table 10 Traceability Factors within the Fishery: Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls) Potential for non-certified gear/s to be used The use of purse seine net is restricted as part of the within the fishery license condition. Gear configurations are checked annually by fisheries compliance operations and monitored on a regular basis.

All vessels are subject to partial observer coverage

Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish All vessels are monitored by VMS by Fisheries outside the UoC or in different Compliance operations and the SASIA. Vessels cannot geographical areas (on the same trips or fish outside the allowed zones. different trips)

Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or All vessels fishing in the SASF are inside the UoC client group fishing the same stock

Risks of mixing between certified and non- There are no risks of mixing product at sea, or on certified catch during storage, transport, or discharge. handling activities (including transport at A small quantity of feed fish may be sourced by sea and on land, points of landing, and processors for supply to the fish farms from outside the sales at auction) region. This is stored in a separate a cold store. The product is not used for human consumption. Risks of mixing between certified and non- See above certified catch during processing activities (at-sea and/or before subsequent Chain of Custody)

Risks of mixing between certified and non- No product from other fisheries is transhipped with UoC certified catch during transhipment sardines

Any other risks of substitution between fish The main risk, if feed fish is to claiming sustainability is if from the UoC (certified catch) and fish non MSC Certified fish is used as a substitute for MSC from outside this unit (non-certified catch) sustainably caught fish. before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 97

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody The product will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody and if it is eligible to be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel.

Fishing vessel /Processors Australian Fishing Enterprises (Sam Sarin) Challenge Fisheries/ Australian Southern Exporters (Anne Tapley) Blaslov Fishing (Justin & Nancy Nelligan) S & Z Lukin (Stan Lukin) White Fisheries (Peter White) Markane Fisheries (Sean Kalling, Christian Huntington, James Orloff) Marinkol Fisheries (Mario Valcic) Dinko Tuna (Lukina Lukin) CoC certificate holder South Australia Sardine Association (agent acts on behalf of) Fishery/ supplier agent As above (Agent name and contacts) buys from (if relevant) Customer/s agent sells to Tony’s Tuna Sarin Marine Farm SAMS Sea Farm Safcol Proseafoods Foodland Sydney Fish Market Sea Merchant Seafoods

Valente Seafood Fresh Fish Place Seakol Stehr Group

Ownership changes when transferred from processor to Customer.

All product is offloaded and stored in Port Lincoln.

Subsequent CoC is required at Customer level. This may include tuna farms if tuna farms are sourcing from both MSC supplies and product from other fisheries.

5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody

Proposed variation This variation request is referred to allow entering IPI stocks in the MSC chain of custody, in accordance to FCR 7.4.14.2. The species proposed to include as IPI stocks are: maray (Etrumeus jacksoniensis), anchovy (Engraulis australis), blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus), sandy sprat (Hyperlophus vittatus), Degen’s leatherjacket (Thamnaconus degeni), rough bullseye (Pempheris klunzingeri), soldierfish (Family Holocentridae), silver biddy (Gerres subfasciatus), blue sprat (Spratelloides robustus) and redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus).

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 98

Rationale/Justification The assessment team identified that several minor species including maray, anchovy, blue mackerel, sandy sprat, Degen’s leatherjacket, rough bullseye, soldierfish, and silver biddy were harvested incidentally with the target species Australian sardine (Sardinops sagax) during purse seine fishing. The process for handling the catch results in these few species of similar size and body shape mixing in with sardine, and it is impractical to separate them from the final catch for this high-volume fishery. Unpublished, fishery-independent data from catch samples taken from 2009 to 2015, provided by the scientific agency South Australian Research and Developed Institute (SARDI), indicate that maray, anchovy and blue mackerel comprise around 1.0%, 0.6% and 0.2% of the catch, respectively. Sandy sprat, Degen’s leatherjacket, rough bullseye, soldierfish, and silver biddy were caught rarely, with only 1 or 2 individuals of each species caught during the seven sampled years. Two other species, blue sprat and redbait, are permitted species for the fishery but were not retained in samples. In accordance with FCR 7.4.14.2, MRAG Americas is requesting to allow these fish to be considered as coming from IPI stocks to enter into chains of custody, with an exemption to the additional assessment requirements for IPI stocks given under PA4.2. As required by MSC in the case the variation request is referred to IPI stocks, a detailed and substantiated rationale is provided in Section 6. This variation request does not alter the conformity of the applicant or certificate holder in relation to the relevant MSC standard. The fishery remains consistent with the standard.

Stakeholder consultation The request was circulated to key stakeholders in the week commencing 14 May and discussed with all key stakeholders at the site visit in Port Lincoln, Australia, 23 May 2018.

Inseparable or practically inseparable (IPI) catches The South Australian Sardine Fishery (SASF) operates primarily in coastal waters at the entrance to Spencer Gulf, South Australia (Ward et al 2017). Sardine is the dominant small pelagic species in the region. The vast majority of the fishery’s catch is fed to blue-fin tuna in nearby aquaculture pens. While vessels vary in capacity, an average haul is around 50 t for most vessels. Once the net has been pursed, the catch is suctioned from the net and water is separated from the catch via a grid. Prior to reaching the grid, a sample of 80-100 sardines (around half a bag) is collected randomly from the catch and frozen for sorting. A total of 29,024 fish were counted from catch samples collected by fishery-independent observers from 575 hauls between 2009 and 2015 (Table 1, 7.4.13.1c). Bycatch was only observed in 13% of all hauls, with sardine comprising 98.13% of the total catch. Maray, anchovy and blue mackerel comprised 1.0%, 0.6% and 0.2% of total abundance. Because maray, anchovy, blue mackerel and sardine are similar body shape and size, it is reasonable to assume that abundance data are reflective of total weight. Five other species encountered (sandy sprat, Degen’s leatherjacket, rough bullseye, soldierfish, silver biddy) were caught rarely (i.e. 1 or 2 individuals only over 6 years). Blue sprat (Spratelloides robustus) and redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus) are also included in the IPI variation request because they are listed as permitted species for the fishery, although they were not observed in samples during this period.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics from catch samples collected by observers showing the abundance of various species caught between 2009 and 2015.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 99

hauls blue sandy Leather soldier silver fish hauls with sardine maray anchovy mackerel sprat jacket bullseye fish biddy Year sampled sampled bycatch (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) 2009 5830 140 27 94.73% 3.19% 1.60% 0.36% 0.02% 0.03% 0.03% 0.02% 0.02% 2010 9889 183 19 98.98% 0.34% 0.54% 0.13% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2011 2456 48 7 99.55% 0.00% 0.37% 0.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2012 3028 51 2 98.55% 1.35% 0.07% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2013 1612 41 4 99.69% 0.00% 0.25% 0.06% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2014 1928 43 2 99.84% 0.00% 0.10% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2015 4281 69 15 98.29% 0.61% 0.37% 0.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 29024 575 76 98.13% 0.99% 0.62% 0.24% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00%

For the vast majority of vessels, the catch is suctioned from the net at a rate of 1 to 2 ton per minute, so it is impractical to separate non-target species from the catch (7.4.13.1b). The three most abundant bycatch species (maray, anchovy and blue mackerel) are also difficult to distinguish from the predominate sardine catch as they have similar body shapes and sizes (Figure 1, 7.4.13.1a). 1A)

1B)

1C)

1D)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 100

Figure 1. A) Australian sardine, Sardinops sagax26, B) maray, Etrumeus jacksoniensis27, C) blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus)28, and D) Australian anchovy (Engraulis australis)29. The total combined catch from the IPI stocks does not exceed 2% (1.87%, Table 1, 7.4.13.1c, 7.4.14.2ai). None of the IPI species are ETP species (7.4.13.1d). None of the IPI species are certified in other fisheries (7.4.13.1e). The sardine fishery does not have a significant impact on the state of the IPI stocks (7.4.14.2ai). Maray are broadly distributed throughout Australian waters from Bundaberg in Queensland through all southern Australian waters to Carnavon in Western Australia. Their primary habitat is deeper offshore waters where they form dense shoals and they are only occasionally found in coastal or estuarine waters2 (i.e. where the sardine fishery operates). As such, the probability of the sardine fishery encountering maray is relatively rare and this is confirmed by the catch data in Table 1. Further, like most clupeids maray are highly productive and recruitment success is likely to be strongly influenced by the environment. There are no commercial fisheries for maray in Australia. On this basis, it is considered that the fishery does not have a significant impact on the maray stock. Blue mackerel is a highly productive species that is distributed throughout all Australian waters with the exception of north-west Western Australia3. Ward et al (2009) estimated that the spawning stock of blue mackerel in South Australia was 56,228 tonnes. Ward et al (2016) state “Recent catches are less than one per cent of the estimated spawning biomass from 2005, and well below the sustainable exploitation rate of 23 per cent suggested for this stock”. On this basis, it is considered that the fishery does not have a significant impact on the blue mackerel stock. Australian anchovy are a highly productive clupeid species that tend to be concentrated in the northern parts of Spencer Gulf, away from the primary sardine fishing grounds (Ward et al 2017). While Australian anchovy are a quota species of the sardine fishery, no catches have been reported by fishers as they do not fish in the northern parts of Spencer Gulf and only a few individuals are caught in sardine hauls. On this basis, it is considered that the fishery does not have a significant impact on the anchovy stock. Sandy sprat, Degen’s leatherjacket, rough bullseye, soldierfish and silver biddy were only caught rarely, with either 1 or 2 individuals sampled over 7 years. Blue sprat and redbait are permitted species for the fishery, however, none were captured during the sampling period. On this basis, it is considered that the fishery does not have a significant impact on these stocks. Therefore, in accordance to FCR 7.4.13.1(a,b,c,d,e), maray (Etrumeus jacksoniensis), anchovy (Engraulis australis), blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus), sandy sprat (Hyperlophus vittatus), Degen’s leatherjacket (Thamnaconus degeni), rough bullseye (Pempheris klunzingeri), soldierfish (Family Holocentridae), silver biddy (Gerres subfasciatus), blue sprat (Spratelloides robustus) and redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus) are considered as IPI stocks.

Request to allow an exemption to detailed requirements for IPI stocks As described above, there are several small bodied species that are only occasionally caught by the SASF and combined they comprise <2.0% of the total abundance observed from 575 hauls conducted over a seven-year period. Because maray, blue mackerel, anchovy and sardines have similar body shapes and school in the same size classes, the assumption that abundance is representative of total weight of the catch is robust. Sardine comprise 98.13% of the total abundance of the catch and the remaining species are all considered as minor species. Given that these IPI species are lightly fished or not fished at all, and they are caught in such low proportions by the fishery, it is considered highly unlikely that the sardine fishery is having a significant impact on these stocks.

26 Dianne J. Bray, in Fishes of Australia, accessed 24 May 2018, http://fishesofaustralia.net.au/home/species/2067 27 Dianne J. Bray, in Fishes of Australia, accessed 24 May 2018, http://fishesofaustralia.net.au/home/species/2052 28 Dianne J. Bray, in Fishes of Australia, accessed 24 May 2018, http://fishesofaustralia.net.au/home/species/2542 29 Dianne J. Bray, in Fishes of Australia, accessed 24 May 2018, http://fishesofaustralia.net.au/home/species/2071

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 101

Based on the above MRAG Americas considers that IPI stocks, in addition to 7.4.13.1, also fulfil requirement 7.4.14.2 (i) and (ii). Thus, a request has been addressed to MSC in order to allow those IPI stocks to enter chain of custody with an exemption to the additional assessment requirements for IPI stocks given in PA4.2. MSC has approved this request and these species are considered as IPI accordingly.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 102

6 Evaluation Results 6.1 Principle Level Scores Table 10: Final Principle Scores

Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 98.3 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 95.7 Principle 3 – Management System 97.5

6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores Principle Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score Outcome 0.333 1.1.1 Stock status 1.0 100 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 100 Harvest control rules & 1.2.2 0.25 100 One tools Management 0.667 Information & 1.2.3 0.25 100 monitoring Assessment of stock 1.2.4 0.25 90 status 2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 100 Primary 0.2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.333 100 species 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 100 2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 100 Secondary 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.333 100 species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 100 2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 95 Two ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.333 95 2.3.3 Information strategy 0.333 80 2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 100 Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.333 95 2.4.3 Information 0.333 95 2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 100 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.333 100 2.5.3 Information 0.333 100 Legal &/or customary 3.1.1 0.333 100 framework Governance Consultation, roles & 0.5 3.1.2 0.333 100 and policy responsibilities 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.333 100 Fishery specific 3.2.1 0.25 100 Three objectives Decision making Fishery 3.2.2 0.25 100 processes specific 0.5 Compliance & management 3.2.3 0.25 100 enforcement system Monitoring & 3.2.4 management 0.25 80 performance evaluation

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 103

6.3 Summary of Conditions There are no specified Conditions

6.4 Recommendations Recommendation 1: The SASF collects sufficient and adequate quantitative information to: • quantify with a high degree of certainty (90% probability) the magnitude of UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of common dolphin population; • support a comprehensive strategy and to assess with a high degree of certainty that the strategy is achieving its objective to minimise direct and indirect impacts on common dolphin.

Recommendation 2: that the SASF observer program be subject to external review and that that the review focusses on the following areas:

• as how representative the sampling is • whether observer coverage is based on the total effort or number of trips, • any spatial or temporal limitations on data collected, • definition of data collection protocols, • the formal process of training observers in terms of species identification the rigour applied to data collection protocols, and • the priorities for observer time on the vessel

Recommendation 3: Other key parts of the management system are subject to external review, including:

• The Sardine stock assessment • The Harvest Strategy • The Management Plan • The TEPs Code of Practice • The Compliance System

6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement It is the determination of the assessment team that the fishery be certified for another certification cycle commencing on the publication of the Public Certification Report. MRAG America’s decision-making entity confirms this decision.

6.6 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment There were no changes to the fishery between the preassessment report and the full assessment period.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 104

References

Alheit, J. (1993). Use of the daily egg production method for estimating biomass of clupeoid fishes: A review and evaluation. Bulletin of Marine Science. 53(2): 750-767. Anonymous. (2014). Report of the Expert Panel on a Declared Commercial Fishing Activity: Final (Small Pelagic Fishery) Declaration 2012 [online]. Department of Environment, Canberra. Available from https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/3b225612-5eb4-4c01-9e71- de05bc3c2cdf/files/expert-panel-report-small-pelagic-fishery-ch4.pdf Archer, F., Gerrodette, T., Chivers, S., & Jackson, A. (2004). Annual estimates of the unobserved kill of pantropical spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) calves in the tuna purse-seine fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific. Fishery Bulletin, 102(2), 233-244. Archer, F., Gerrodette, T., Dizon, A., Abella, K., & Southern, S. (2001). Unobserved kill of nursing dolphin calves in a tuna purse-seine fishery. Marine Mammal Science , 17 , 540-554. Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) (2010). Australian Sea Lion Management Strategy. Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF). [Online]. Canberra: AFMA. Available from: http://www.afma.gov.au/wp- content/uploads/2010/07/sea_lion_management_strategy_2010.pdf. Australian High Court, decision related to the application of State fisheries law to native title holders fishing for abalone in their local area in South Australia. Available at 1 http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2013/hca47-2013-11-06.pdf. Bearzi, G. , Reeves, R. R., Notarbartolo‐Di‐Sciara, G. , Politi, E. , Cañadas, A. , Frantzis, A. and Mussi, B. (2003), Ecology, status and conservation of short‐beaked common dolphins Delphinus delphis in the Mediterranean Sea. Mammal Review, 33: 224-252. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00032.x Bilgmann K, Möller LM, Harcourt RG, Gales R, Beheregaray LB (2008) Common dolphins subject to fisheries impacts in Southern Australia are genetically differentiated: implications for conservation. Anim Conserv 11: 518−528 Bilgmann, K., Parra, G.J., Zanardo, N., Beheregaray, L.B.and Möller, L.M (2014a). Multiple management units of short-beaked common dolphins subject to fisheries bycatch off southern and southeastern Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 500: 265-279 Bilgmann, K, Parra, G.J. and Möller, L.M. (2014b). Inshore cetacean survey between Ceduna and Coffin Bay, eastern Great Australian Bight. Report as part of the Great Australian Bight Research Program. Blackburn, M. (1950). Studies on the age, growth, and life history of the Sardine Sardinops neopilchardus (Steindachner), in Southern and Western Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 1: 221-258. Boyd, I.L., Wanless, S., Camphuysen, C.J., (2006). Top predators in marine ecosystems: their role in monitoring and management. In: Conservation Biology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Burnell, O.B., Barrett, S.L., Hooper, G.E., Beckmann, C.L., Sorokin, S.J. and Noell, C.J. (2015). Spatial and temporal reassessment of by-catch in the Spencer Gulf Prawn Fishery. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2015/000000-1. SARDI Research Report Series Currie, D.R., Dixon, C.D., Roberts, S.D., Hooper, G.E., Sorokin, S.J. and Ward, T.M. 2009. Fishery- independent by-catch survey to inform risk assessment of the Spencer Gulf Prawn Trawl Fishery. Report to PIRSA Fisheries. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/231782/No_390_Fishery-independent_by- catch_survey_to_inform_risk_assessment_of_the_Spencer_Gulf_Prawn_Trawl_Fishery.pdf

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 105

Butler, J.L., Granado, M.L., Barnes, J.T., Yaremenko, M. and Macewicz, B.J (1996). Age composition, growth, and maturation of the Pacific Sardine Sardinops sagax during 1994. Cal COFI. Report 37: 152-159. Campbell, R.A., Gales, N.J., Lento, G.M. and Baker, C.S (2008). Islands in the sea: extreme female natal site fidelity in the Australian sea lion, Neophoca cinerea. Biology Letters 4: 139-142. Chilvers, B.L. & Goldsworthy, S.D. 2015. Arctocephalus forsteri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T41664A45230026. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 2.RLTS.T41664A45230026.en. Coll M, Santojanni A, Palomera I, Arneri E (2009) Food-web changes in the Adriatic Sea over the last three decades. Marine Ecology Progress Series 318:17-37 Commonwealth of Australia. Fisheries Management Act (Commonwealth), Available at https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00258/Html/Text#_Toc390691611. Commonwealth of Australia (1996). Offshore Constitutional Settlement Arrangements between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of South Australia with Respect to Fisheries in Water relevant to South Australia Commonwealth of Australia. The Native Title Act, 1993 Conservation Council for South Australia, Email from James Brook to Owen Burrell, PIRSA on prawn bycatch, 27 June, 2014 and response 4 September, 2014. Cury, P., Bakun, A., Crawford, R.J.M., Jarre, A., Quinones, R.A., Shannon, L.J., Verheye, H.M., 2000. Small pelagics in upwelling systems: patterns of interaction and structural changes in “wasp-waist” ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57, 603–618. Cury,M, I.L. Boyd, S. Bonhommeau, T.Anker,Nilssen, R.J.M. Crawford, R.W.Furness, J.A. Mills, E.J . Murphy, H.Österblom, M. Paleczny, J.F. Piatt, J.P.Roux, L. Shannon, W.J. Sydeman Global seabird response to forage fish depletion—one-third for the birds Science, 334 (2011), pp. 1703-1706 Department of Agriculture, The National Policy on Fisheries By-Catch Available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/environment/bycatch/nat_by_policy_1999. Department of the Environment, The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, 1992. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/esd/publications/intergovernmental-agreement. Department of the Environment (2018). Delphinus delphis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Fri, 8 Jun 2018 12:14:13 +1000. Department of the Environment (2007), Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/guidelines-ecologically-sustainable- management-fisheries. Department of the Environment. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act). Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/esd/publications/national-esd- strategy. Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc. Department of the Environment The National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, 1992 Available at http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/esd/publications/national-esd-strategy. DEE (2014). Letter to the SA Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/72da29f4-befd-40a5-baa5-f21abe509e04/files/sa- sardine-fishery-letter-2016.pdf DEE (2016a) Assessment of the South Australian Sardine Fishery. https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/72da29f4-befd-40a5-baa5-f21abe509e04/files/sa- sardine-fishery-assessment-report-2016.pdf

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 106

DEE (2016b) Revocation of Accreditation of a Plan, Regime or Policy for the purposes of Part 13 Accreditation of a Plan, Regime or Policy for the purposes of Part 13, South Australian Sardine Fishery http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/72da29f4-befd-40a5-baa5- f21abe509e04/files/accreditation-plan-mgt-part-13.pdf (August, 2016) DEE (2016c) Letter from the Delegate of the Minister for the Environment and Energy in relation to the reassessment of the South Australian (SA) Sardine Fishery under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/72da29f4-befd-40a5-baa5-f21abe509e04/files/sa- sardine-fishery-letter-2016.pdf DEE (2016d) Statement of Reasons for an Accreditation Decision in Relation to the South Australian Sardine Fishery under Part 13 Of The Environment Protection And Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) DEH (2009) Assessment of the South Australian Sardine Fishery, Department of the Environment and Heritage Canberra, Australia. Dimmlich, WF, Breed, WG, Geddes, M and Ward, TM (2004) ‘Relative importance of gulf and shelf waters for spawning and recruitment of Australian anchovy, Engraulis australis, in South Australia’, Fisheries Oceanography, 13 (5), pp.310-323. Dimmlich, W.F. and Ward T.M. (2006). Ontogenetic shifts in the distribution and reproductive patterns of Australian anchovy (Engraulis australis) by otolith microstructure analysis. Marine and Freshwater Research. 57: 373-381. Dimmlich, WF, Ward, TM and Breed, WG (2009) ‘Spawning dynamics and biomass estimates of an anchovy Engraulis australis population in contrasting gulf and shelf environments’, Journal of Fish Biology, 75, pp.1560-1576. Dixon C.D., Sorokin, S. and Currie E. (2014b). The deeper benthic communities of Spencer Gulf and the impacts of trawling. Natural History of Spencer Gulf, Edited by Shepherd S, et al, 01/2014: chapter 11: pages 153-170; Royal Society of South Australia Inc., ISBN: 978 0 9596627 6 4. Edwards, E. F. (2002). Energetics consequences of chase by tuna purse-seiners for spotted dolphins (Stenella attenuata ) in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Administrative Report LJ-02-29, NMFS, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, La Jolla, CA. Edwards, E. F. (2006). Duration of unassisted swimming activity for spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata ) calves: Implications for mother-calf separation during tuna purse-seine sets. Fishery Bulletin , 104, 125-135. Edwards, E. F. (2007) Fishery effects on dolphins targeted by tuna purseseiners in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. International Journal of Comparative Psychology 20:217-27. Fletcher, W. and Tregonning, R. (1992) Distribution and timing of spawning by the Australian pilchard (Sardinops sagax neopilchardus) off Albany, Western Australia Australian journal of marine and freshwater research, 43: 1437-1449 Fletcher, W.J., Tregonning, R.J. and Sant, G.J. (1994) Interseasonal variation in the transport of pilchard eggs and larvae off southern Western Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 111: 209-224. Fletcher, W.J. (1995). Application of the otolith weight-age relationship for the pilchard, Sardinops sagax neopilchardus. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science. 52: 657-664. Fletcher, W.J. and Blight, S.J. (1996). Validity of using translucent zones of otoliths to age the pilchard Sardinops sagax neopilchardus from Albany, Western Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research. 47: 617-624.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 107

Fletcher, WJ., N.C.H. Lo, E.A. Hayes, R.J. Tregonning, and S.J. Blight. (1996). Use of the daily egg production method to estimate the stock size of western Australian sardines (Sardinops sagax). Marine and Freshwater Research 47:819–825. Francis, R.I.C.C. 2011. Data weighting in statistical fisheries stock assessment models. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:1124–1138. Francis, R.I.C.C. 2017. Revisiting data weighting in fisheries stock assessment models. Fisheries Research 192:5–15. Frederiksen, M., Wright, P.J., Harris, M.P., Mavor, R.A.M.H., Wanless, S., 2005. Regional patterns of kittiwake Rissa tridactyla breeding success are related to variability in sandeel recruitment. Marine Ecology Progress Series 300, 201–211. Galindo-Cortes, G., De Anda-Montanez. J.A., Arreguin-Sanchez, F., Salas, S. and Balart, E.F. (2010) How do environmental factors affect the stock-recruitment relationship? The case of the Pacific Sardine (Sardinops sagax) of the northern Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Research. 102 (1-2): 173-183. Gaughan, D.J., Mitchell, R.W. and Blight, S.J. (2000). Impact of mortality due to herpesvirus on pilchard Sardinops sagax along the south coast of Western Australia in 1998- 1999. Marine and Freshwater Research. 51: 1-29. Gaughan, D.J., Leary, T.I., Mitchell, R.W. and Wright, I.W. (2004). A sudden collapse in distribution of Pacific Sardine (Sardinops sagax) of south-western Australia enables an objective re-assessment of biomass estimates. Fishery Bulletin. 102 (4): 617-633. Gillanders BM, Z Doubleday, P Cassey, S Clarke, SD Connell, M Deveney, S Dittmann, S Divecha, M Doubell, S Goldsworthy, B Hayden, C Huveneers, C James, S Leterme, X Li, M Loo, J Luick, W Meyer, J Middleton, D Miller, L Moller, T Prowse, P Rogers, BD Russell, P van Ruth, JE Tanner, T Ward, SH Woodcock, M Young (2013) Spencer Gulf Ecosystem & Development Initiative. Report on Scenario development, Stakeholder workshops, Existing knowledge & Information gaps. Report for Spencer Gulf Ecosystem and Development Initiative. The University of Adelaide, Adelaide. 94 pages. Gillanders, BM, Goldsworthy, S, Prowse, TAA, Doubell, M, Middleton, J, Rogers, P, Tanner, JA, Clisby, NA, James, C, Luick, J, van Ruth, P, Bradshaw, CJA, Ward, TM (2015) Spencer Gulf research initiative: Development of an ecosystem model for fisheries and aquaculture. University of Adelaide and SARDI Aquatic Sciences, Adelaide. CC BY 3. Giri K and Hall K (2015) South Australian Recreational Fishing Survey. Fisheries Victoria Internal Report Series No. 62. Goldsworthy, S.D., Page, B., Rogers, P. and Ward, T. (2010) Establishing ecosystem-based management for the South Australian Sardine Fishery: developing ecological performance indicators and reference points to assess the need for ecological allocations South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. Goldsworthy, S.D., Page, B, Rogers, RP & Ward,T. (2011) Established ecosystem –based management for the South Australian Sardine Fishery: developing ecological performance indicators and reference points to assess the need for ecological allocations. Final Report to the FRDC SARDI (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000863-1. SARDI Report Series No. 529 173 pp. Goldsworthy, S. D., Page, B., Rogers, P. J., Bulman, C., Wiebkin, A., McLeay, L. J., . . . Ward, T. M. (2013). Trophodynamics of the eastern Great Australian Bight ecosystem: Ecological change associated with the growth of Australia's largest fishery. Ecological Modelling, 255, 38-57. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.01.006 Goldsworthy, S.D. 2015. Neophoca cinerea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T14549A45228341. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T14549A45228341.en.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 108

Goldsworthy S.D, Mackay A.I, Bilgmann K, MÖller L.M, Parra G.J, Gill P, Bailleul F, Shaughnessy P, Reinhold S-L and Rogers P.J (2017). Status, distribution and abundance of iconic species and apex predators in the Great Australian Bight. Final Report GABRP Project 4.1. Great Australian Bight Research Program, GABRP Research Report Series Number 15, 227pp. Gomon, M.F., Glover, J.C.M. and Kuiter. R.H. (1994). The Fishes of Australia’s South Coast. State Print: Adelaide. 992 pp. Government of South Australia, Fisheries Management Regulations (2017). Available at Available at https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/Fisheries%20Management%20(General)%20Regulations% 202017.aspx Government of South Australia, Fisheries Management (Demerit Points) Regulations 2017. Available at https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/Fisheries%20Management%20(Demerit%20Points)%20Re gulations%202017.aspx The Government of South Australia, Fisheries Management (Fees) Regulations (2017). Available at https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/Fisheries%20Management%20(Fees)%20Regulations%202 017.aspx Government of South Australia, Management Plan for the South Australian Commercial Marine Scalefish Fishery: Part B Management arrangements for the taking of sardines, 2014 Government of South Australia, Fisheries Management (Marine Scalefish Fisheries) Regulations 2017, Available at https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/Fisheries%20Management%20(Marine%20Scalefish%20Fi sheries)%20Regulations%202017.aspx Government of South Australia, Fisheries (Vessel Monitoring Scheme) Regulations 2017. Available at https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/Fisheries%20Management%20(Vessel%20Monitoring%20 Scheme)%20Regulations%202017.aspx Grant, W.S., Clarke, A.M. and Bowen, B.W (1998). Why restrict fragment length polymorphism analysis of mitochondrial DNA failed to resolve (Sardinops) biogeography: insights from mitochondrial DNA cytochrome b sequences. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences. 55: 2539-2547. Guisande C, Cabanas JM, Vergara AR and Riveiro I (2001). Effect of climate on recruitment success of Atlantic Iberian sardine Sardina pilchardus. Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 223, pp. 243-250. Hamer, D.J., A. Ivey, and T.M. Ward (2009). Operational interactions of the South Australian Sardine Fishery with the Common Dolphin: November 2004 to March 2009. SARDI Aquatic Sciences Publication No. F2007/001098-2. SARDI Research Report Series No. 354. Hamer, DJ, Ward, TM & McGarvey, R (2008) Measurement, management and mitigation of operational interactions between the South Australian Sardine Fishery and Short-beaked Common Dolphins (Delphinus delphis), Biological Conservation, 141: 2865–2878. Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2008. Delphinus delphis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T6336A12649851. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T6336A12649851.en. Hobday, A.J., Griffiths, S. and Ward T.M. (2009). Pelagic Fishes and Sharks. In A Marine Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Report Card for Australia 2009 Eds. E.S. Poloczanska, A.J. Hobday and A.J. Richardson), NCCARF Publication 05/09, ISBN 978-1-921609-03-9. Hollamby, K (2010). Co Management Service Project SGWCPFA. Hunter, J.R. and Lo, N.C.H. (1997). The daily egg production method of biomass estimation: Some problems and potential improvements. Ozeanografika 2 : 41-69.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 109

Izzo, C, Gillanders, BM and Ward, TM 2012, Movement patterns and stock structure of Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax) off South Australia and the east coast: implications for future stock assessment and management, final report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences) publication F2011/000487-1, SARDI research report series 611, SARDI, Adelaide. Izzo, C., Ward, TM, Ivey, AR, Suthers, IM, Stewart, J, Sexton, SC and Gillanders, BM (2017). Integrated approach to determining stock structure: implications for fisheries management of sardine, Sardinops sagax, in Australian waters. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. DOI 10.1007/s11160-017-9468-z Jennings, G., McGlashan, D.J., Furness, R.W., 2012. Responses to changes in sprat abundance of common tern breeding numbers at 12 colonies in the Firth of Forth, east Scotland. ICES Journal of Marine Science 69, 572–577. Jones, J.B., Hyatt, A.D., Hine, P.M., Whittington, D.A., Griffin, D.A., and Bax, N.J. (1997). Special Topic Review: Australasian Pilchard Mortalities. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 3: 383-392. Johnson P, Bulman C, Fulton B and Smith T (2010) MSC Low Trophic Level Project: South Eastern Australia Case Study. Marine Stewardship Council Science Series 1: 111 –170. Lasker, R. (1985). An egg production method for estimating spawning biomass of pelagic fish: application to northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax. NOAA. Tech. Rep. NMFS, 36: 1-99. Lo, N.C.H., Green Ruiz, Y.A., Cervantes, M.J., Moser, H.G., Lynn, R.J. (1996). Egg production and spawning biomass of Pacific Sardine (Sardinops sagax) in 1994, determined by the daily egg production method. CalCOFI Report 37: 160-174. Lo, N.C.H., Macewicz, B.J. and Griffith, D.A. (2005). Spawning biomass of Pacific Sardine (Sardinops sagax), from 1994-2004 off California. Reports of California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations 46: 93-112. Mackay, A.I. and Goldsworthy, S.D (2016). Mitigating operational interactions with short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis): application of the South Australian Sardine Fishery Industry Code of Practice 2015-16. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000726-7. SARDI Research Report Series No. 934. 38pp. Mackay, A., Goldsworthy, S. and Harrison, P. (2016). Critical knowledge gaps: estimating potential maximum cumulative anthropogenic mortality limits of key marine mammal species to inform management. FRDC Final Report - 2015-035. Mackay, A.I. (2017). Operational interactions with Threatened, Endangered or Protected Species in South Australian Managed Fisheries Data Summary: 2007/08 –2015/16. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2009/000544-7. SARDI Research Report Series No. 945. 74pp. Myers, R.A., Baum, J., Sheperd, T., Powers, S.P., Peterson, C.H., 2007. Cascading Effects of the Loss of Apex Predatory Sharks from a Coastal Ocean. Science 315, 1846–1850. Mayfield, S., Ferguson, G.J., Chick R.C., Dixon, C.D. and Noell, C. (2014) A reporting framework for ecosystem based assessment for Australian prawn trawl fisheries: A Spencer Gulf prawn trawl fishery case study. Final report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. Prepared by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Science), Adelaide. FRDC Project No 2011/063. http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/237571/Ecosystem_Trawl_Fisheries_Report_- _FINAL.pdf.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 110

Mason, S., Salgado Kent, C., Donnelly, D., Weir, J., & Bilgmann, K. (2016). Atypical residency of short-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) to a shallow, urbanized embayment in south- eastern Australia. Royal Society Open Science, 3(9), 160478. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160478 McGarvey, R. and Kinloch, M.A. (2001). An analysis of the sensitivity of stock biomass estimates derived from the daily egg production method (DEPM) to uncertainty in egg mortality rates. Fisheries Research. 49: 303-307 McLeay, L.J., B. Page, S.D. Goldsworthy, T.M. Ward, D.C. PatonSize matters: variation in the diet of chick and adult crested terns Marine Biology, 156 (2009), pp. 1765-1780 Methot, R.D., and I.G. Taylor. 2011. Adjusting for bias due to variability of estimated recruitments in fishery assessment models. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 68:1744–1760. Methot, R.D. and C.R. Wetzel. (2013). Stock Synthesis: a biological and statistical framework for fish stock assessment and fishery management. Fisheries Research 142: 86–90. Middleton, J.F. and Cirano, M. (2002). A northern boundary current along Australia’s southern shelves: The Flinders Current. Journal of Geophysical Research C: Oceans. 107: 3129-3143. Miguel A, Santos P, Borges MF, Groom S (2001). Sardine and horse mackerel recruitment and upwelling off Portugal. ICES Journal of Marine Science, Volume 58, Issue 3, Pages 589–596. Möller, L., Parra, G.J. and Bilgmann, K. (2012). Population size, structure and habitat preferences of common dolphins in South Australia: enhancing the assessment, reduction and mitigation of fisheries operational interactions. Final report to the Australian Marine Mammal Centre MSC (2014). MSC fisheries certification requirements and guidance, v.2.0, 1st October 2014. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 528 pp Neira, F.J., Miskiewicz, A.G. and Trnski, T. (1998). Larvae of temperate Australian fishes: Laboratory guide for larval fish identification. University of Western Australia Press: Western Australia. 474 pp. Neville, P., (2015) Audit of Co-management Status of South Australian Commercial Fisheries. PIRSA Noren, S. R. (2008), Infant carrying behaviour in dolphins: costly parental care in an aquatic environment. Functional Ecology, 22: 284-288. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01354.x Noell, C.J. (2017). Determining the trawl footprint of the Spencer gulf Prawn Fishery. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2016/000565-1. SARDI Research Report Series No. 939. 21pp. O'Connell, L. G. (2014) Sedimentology and Oceaonographic Controls on Temperate, Shallowwater Carbonate Deposition: Spencer Gulf, South Australia. PhD thesis, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. O’Connell, L. G., James, N.P., Doubell, M., Middleton, J.F., Luick. J., Currie, D. R. and Bone, Y. (2015). Oceanographic controls on shallow-water temperate carbonate sedimentation: Spencer Gulf, South Australia. Accepted article for the publication in Sedimentology “, doi: 10.1111/sed.12226. Parker, K. (1980). A direct method for estimating northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax, spawning biomass. Fisheries Bulletin. (US). 541-544. Parrish, R.H., Serra, R. and Grant, W.S. (1989). The monotypic Sardine Sardina and Sardinops: their taxonomy, distribution, stock structure, and zoography. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences. 46: 2019-2036. PIRSA (2012), Enforcement and Prosecution Policy. PIRSA (2013a). ESD risk assessment of South Australia’s Sardine Fishery. Accessed at: (http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/68608772-df30-455e-9aa9- 379ed843eb33/files/sa-sardine-fishery-draft-esd.pdf)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 111

PIRSA (2013b). Policy for the Co-management of Fisheries in South Australia. Available at http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/262538/Co-management_policy.pdf PIRSA (2014a). Management plan for the South Australian Commercial Marine Scalefish Fishery, Part B– management arrangements for the taking of sardines. The South Australian Fisheries Management Series. Paper number 68. PIRSA (2014b) Ecological Assessment of the South Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax) Fishery, Reassessment Report, Prepared for the Department of the Environment for the purposes of Part 13 and 13(A) of the Environment Protection And Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, August 2014 PIRSA (2017a) Sardine Fishery Operator User Guide. http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/287538/Sardine_Fishery_Operator_User_Guide_2017 _-_Lasted_Updated_January_2017.pdf PIRSA (2017b) Sardine Fishery Compliance Update PIRSA (2018) Fisheries Compliance Operations Program: Sardine Fishery, Year ending June 2018 PIRSA (2018) Sardine Fishery Compliance Report, May 2018 PIRSA (current) Standard Operating Procedure for TEPs mortality investigations Professional Standards Councils ((Undated) Fisheries Compliance Programme, Available at https://www.psc.gov.au/sites/default/files/A%20framework%20for%20compliance.pdf Pikitch, E., Boersma, P.D., Boyd, I.L., Conover, D.O., Cury, P., Essington, T., Heppell, S.S., Houde, E.D., Mangel, M., Pauly, D., Plagányi, É., Sainsbury, K., and Steneck, R.S. 2012. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Lenfest Ocean Program. Washington, DC. 108 pp. Punt, A. E. 2013. Independent Review of the IATTC’s ETPO Dolphin Population Assessment. IATTC SAC-04-INF C. Rogers, P.J. and Ward, T.M. (2007). Application of a ``case building approach'' to investigate the age distributions and growth dynamics of Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax) off South Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 58: 461- 474. Rollet, N., Australian Geological Survey, O., & Geoscience, A. (2001). Seabed Character Mapping in the Great Australian Bight: Geoscience Australia. Richardson, L., E. Mathews and A. Heap (2005) Geomorphology and Sedimentology of the South Western Planning Area of Australia: review and synthesis of relevant literature in support of Regional Marine Planning. Geoscience Australia, Record 2005/17. 124 pp SCS (2016). South Australia Lakes and Coorong Pipi Fishery. Available at https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/south-australia-lakes-and-coorong-pipi/@@assessments SASIA (2011) Constitution SASIA (2015) Code of practice for mitigation of interactions of the South Australian Sardine Fishery with threatened, endangered, and protected species, South Australian Sardine Industry Association, Port Lincoln, www.sasardines.com.au/links-resources.html. SASIA (2017). South Australian Sardine Fishery Minutes of Research & Management / Wildlife Working Group meeting held on Tuesday, 10 Nov, 2017, Port Lincoln. SASIA (2018). South Australian Sardine Fishery Minutes of Research & Management / Wildlife Working Group meeting held on Tuesday, 23 May, 2018, Port Lincoln SAWater (2008). Proposed Adelaide desalination plant. EIS Chapter 7- Environment. https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/20305/Desal_Environmental_Impact_Statement_C hapter_7.pdf

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 112

SCS Global Services, 2017. The northeastern tropical pacific purse seine yellowfin and skipjack tuna fishery public certification report. https://cert.msc.org/FileLoader/FileLinkDownload.asmx/GetFile?encryptedKey=/ZM7gp3UrvTHr2p EDK4RRK/o0tiDDH8cYdDtnFUIZpuOzMxfpx8xvEMmPAwhymUe - https://cert.msc.org/FileLoader/FileLinkDownload.asmx/GetFile?encryptedKey=/ZM7gp3UrvTHr2p EDK4RRK/o0tiDDH8 Shaughnessy, P. D., Goldsworthy, S. D., Hamer, D. J., Page, B. and McIntosh, R. R. (2011). Australian sea lions Neophoca cinerea at colonies in South Australia: distribution and abundance, 2004 to 2008. Endangered Species Research, 13: 87-98. Shepherd, S., & Edgar, G. (2013). Ecology of Australian Temperate Reefs: The Unique South: CSIRO PUBLISHING. Smith, A.D., Brown, C.J., Bulman, C.M., Fulton, E.A., Johnson, P., Kaplan, I.C., Lozano-Montes, H., Mackinson, S., Marzloff, M., Shannon, L.J., Shin, Y.J. and Tam, J. (2011). Impacts of fishing low- trophic level species on marine ecosystems. Science. 334(6052):39. Smith, ADM., Ward, TM., Hurtado, F., Klaer, N., Fulton, E., and Punt, AE (2015), Review and update of harvest strategy settings for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery - Single species and ecosystem considerations. Hobart. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 2013/028. Stratoudakis, Y., Bernal, M., Ganias, K, and Uriate, A. (2006). The daily egg production method: recent advances, current applications and future challenges. Fish and Fisheries, 7: 35-57. Svane, I., Hammett, Z. and Lauer, P. (2009). Impacts of trawling on benthic macro-fauna and flora of the Spencer Gulf prawn fishing grounds. Fisheries Research. 90: 158-169. (SWG) Scientific Working Group, 2011. The vulnerability of coastal and marine habitats in South Australia. Marine Parks, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources South Australia. Vanderlaan, A. S. M., & Taggart, C. T. (2007). vessel collisions with whales: The probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science, 23(1), 144-156. doi:10.1111/j.1748- 7692.2006.00098.x Wade PR, Watters GM, Gerrodette T, Reilly SB (2007) Depletion of spotted and spinner dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific: modeling hypotheses for their lack of recovery. Marine Ecology Progress Series 343:1-14 Waerebeek, K, Baker, AN; Felix, F; Gedamke, J; Iniguez, M; et al. Vessel collisions with small cetaceans worldwide and with large whales in the Southern Hemisphere, an initial assessment . Latin American journal of aquatic mammals Vol. 6, Iss. 1, (0, 2007): 43-69. Ward T.M., Hoedt F., McLeay L.J., Dimmlich W.F., Jackson M., Rogers P.J., and Jones K. (2001a). Have recent mass mortalities of the pilchard Sardinops sagax facilitated an expansion in the distribution and abundance of the anchovy Engraulis australis in South Australia? Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 220: 241- 251. Ward, T.M., Hoedt, F., McLeay, L.J., Dimmlich, W.F., Jackson, G., Rogers, P.J. and Jones, K. (2001b). Have recent mass mortalities of the Sardine Sardinops sagax facilitated an expansion in the distribution and abundance of the anchovy Engraulis australis in South Australia? Marine Ecology Progress Series. 220: 241-251. Ward, T.M. and Staunton-Smith, J. (2002). Comparison of the spawning patterns and fisheries biology of the Sardine, Sardinops sagax, in temperate South Australia and sub-tropical southern Queensland. Fisheries Research 56: 37-49. Ward, T.M., Rogers, P.J., Stephenson, P., Schmarr, D.K., Strong, N. and McLeay, L.J. (2005). Implementation of an Age Structured Stock Assessment Model for Sardine (Sardinops sagax) in South Australia. Final report to FRDC. Report 2000/125. 130 pp.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 113

Ward, T.M. McLeay, L.J. Dimmlich, W. Rogers, P., McClatchie, S. Matthews, R., Kampf, J. and Van Ruth, P. (2006a). Pelagic ecology of a northern boundary current system: effects of upwelling on the production and distribution of Sardine (Sardinops sagax), anchovy (Engraulis australis) and Southern Bluefin Tuna (T hunnus maccoyii) in the Great Australian Bight. Fisheries Oceanography. 15 (3): 191- 207 Ward, T. M., Sorokin, S. J., Currie, D. R., Rogers, P. J., & McLeay, L. J. (2006b). Epifaunal assemblages of the eastern great australian bight: Effectiveness of a benthic protection zone in representing regional biodiversity. Continental Shelf Research, 26(1), 25-40. doi:10.1016/j.csr.2005.09.006 Ward, TM, Paul Burch, Lachlan J. McLeay & Alex R. Ivey (2010). Use of the Daily Egg Production Method for Stock Assessment of Sardine, Sardinops sagax; Lessons Learned over a Decade of Application off Southern Australia. Reviews in Fisheries Science. Volume 19, Issue 1, 2011. Ward, T. M., P. Burch, and A. R. Ivey. 2012. South Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax) Fishery: Stock Assessment Report 2012. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. Ward, T.M., Ivey, A.R. and Burch, P. (2013). Effectiveness of an Industry Code of Practice in mitigating the operational interactions of the South Australian Sardine Fishery with the short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis). South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000726-4. SARDI Research Report Series No. 743. 32pp. Ward T. M., Whitten, A.R. and Ivey, A.R. (2015a). South Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax) Fishery: Stock Assessment Report 2015. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000765-5. SARDI Research Report Series No. 877. 103pp. Ward, T. M., Ivey, A. and Carroll, J. (2015b). Effectiveness of an industry Code of Practice in mitigating the operational interactions of the South Australian Sardine Fishery with the short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis). Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture (PDF 1.9 MB). South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000726-6. SARDI Research Report Series No. 876. 35pp. Ward, T.M, Angélico, M.M. Cubillos, L.A. van Damme, C.J.G. Ganias, K. Ibaibarriaga, L. and Lo, N.C.H. (2015c). Benchmarking Australia's small pelagic fisheries against world's best practice, FRDC Project No 2013/063 Ward, T.M., Ivey, A.R. and Carroll, J.D. (2016). Spawning biomass of Sardine, Sardinops sagax, in waters off South Australia in 2016. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000566-7. SARDI Research Report Series No. 931. 31pp. Ward, T., Moore, A., Andrews, J., Norriss, J. and Stewart, J. (2016b). Australian Sardine, Sardinops sagax. In Carolyn Stewardson, James Andrews, Crispian Ashby, Malcolm Haddon, Klaas Hartmann, Patrick Hone, Peter Horvat, Stephen Mayfield, Anthony Roelofs, Keith Sainsbury, Thor Saunders, John Stewart, Ilona Stobutzki and Brent Wise (eds) 2016, Status of Australian fish stocks reports 2016, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Ward T.M., Smart J. and Ivey, A.R. (2017a). Stock Assessment of Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax) off South Australia 2017. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000765-6. SARDI Research Report Series No. 971. 107pp. Ward, T.M., Ivey, A.R. and Smart, J.J. (2017b). Spawning biomass of Sardine, Sardinops sagax, in waters off South Australia in 2017.Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 114

Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000566-8. SARDI Research Report Series No. 965. 27pp. Ward, T.M. Ivey, A. Carroll, J. (2018a) Code of practice for reducing accidental mortality of dolphins in purse-seine fisheries, Marine Policy (87), 2018, 203-211 Ward,T.M, Carroll J, Grammer GL, James C, McGarvey R, Smart J, and Ivey AR (2018b). Improving the precision of estimates of egg production and spawning biomass obtained using the Daily Egg Production Method. Final report to FRDC. Project No. 2014/026. Whittington, RJ, Crockford, M, Jordan, D and Jones, B (2008), Herpesvirus that caused epizootic mortality in 1995 and 1998 in pilchard, Sardinops sagax neopilchardus (Steindachner), in Australia is now endemic, Journal of Fish Diseases, 31: 97–105. Wilkins, C, (November, 2014). Environmental Assessment of the South Australian Sardine Fishery under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Letter to the Director, Sustainable Fisheries Section Department of the Environment, submitted on behalf of the Conservation Council for South Australia, Australian Marine Conservation Society and Humane Society International. Wilkins, C, (May, 2016). Environmental Assessment of the South Australian Sardine Fishery under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Letter to the Director, Sustainable Fisheries Section Department of the Environment, submitted on behalf of the Conservation Council for South Australia, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Humane Society International and the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Wolanski, E. (2013). Estuaries of Australia in 2050 and beyond: Springer Netherlands.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 115

Appendices

Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales

Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 – Stock status The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment Guide It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of post above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is recruitment would be above the PRI. impaired (PRI).

Met? Y Y Y Justifi South Australian sardines are not considered as a key LTL stock and are therefore cation assessed under the default assessment tree for P1.1.1. GSA2.2.3 of CR 2.0 (MSC 2014) notes that for some fisheries the establishment of Limit (LRP) and Target Reference Points (TRP) do not necessarily correlate with the conceptual levels of the Point of Recruitment Impairment (PRI) and Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY), respectively. This is the case for the SASF with both the LRP and TRP established at levels that are far more conservative than empirical evidence would suggest for PRI and MSY. A stock assessment conducted by the Commonwealth of Australia (Smith et al 2015) on the “eastern” and “western” stocks of sardine in South-East Australia (the “western stock” is the stock that the SASF harvests) estimated an Equilibrium BMSY of B33 for both stocks. On this basis, Smith et al (2015) recommended that for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery (i.e. the eastern stock), the default Commonwealth LRP and TRP of B20 and B50, respectively, should be maintained. In South Australia, an age-structured stock synthesis model has been developed, however, estimates of BMSY are not presented in the stock assessment report (Ward et al 2017a). The stock assessment report does provide estimates of unexploited biomass (Bzero), from which relative biomass can be determined. The latest model suggests that Bzero was approximately 200,000 t. While spawning biomass estimates are a direct output of the South Australian model, they are not the preferred method for measuring spawning biomass against the Reference Points for the fishery (i.e. assessing stock status). Rather, spawning biomass estimates are obtained from fishery-independent surveys that utilize the Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM). DEPM estimates are considered more accurate even though they are very imprecise. Model estimates are also imprecise, primarily because DEPM estimates of spawning biomass are the key fitting criterion for the model. As a result, model estimates of spawning biomass are biased in comparison to DEPM estimates, and importantly this bias results in overestimation as spawning biomass approaches PRI. Hence, the agency chooses DEPM estimates to measure against the Reference Points. The LRP for the SASF is set at a total spawning biomass of 75,000 t (PIRSA 2014), which approximates 37% of Bzero. Notably, the fishery has twice recovered from

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 116

levels well below the LRP; in 1999 DEPM estimates of spawning biomass approximated 21,000 t. The LRP was set conservatively to ensure that the stock remained at highly productive levels, well above the point where the fishery had previously recovered from. Given this conservatism, we have chosen to assess the fishery against the MSC’s default value for PRI for a non-LTL stock: B20. This also equates to the suggested LRP for the Commonwealth sardine stock (Smith et al 2015). Given that Bzero was estimated to be 200,000 t, we estimate B20 to be approximately 40,000 t. Ward et al (2017b) report DEPM estimates of spawning biomass from surveys conducted between 1995 and 2017. Surveys were conducted annually up to 2007 and have been generally biannual thereafter. The 2017 estimate was the highest recorded for the fishery, with a mean estimate of 305,086 t, and lower and upper 95% confidence intervals of 176,973 t and 521,285 t, respectively. Note that the lower confidence level estimate of biomass has exceeded B20 (40,000 t) in all years following the recovery of the fishery (i.e. from 2002). Despite the large variance in DEPM estimates, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above B20. Therefore, the SASF meets SG60, SG80 and SG100 for this SI. b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree of post fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock has consistent with MSY. been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y Y

Justifi As explained in 1.1.1a above, the TRP (150,000 t; B75) for the SASF has been set at cation a conservative level well above the estimated MSY (B33, Smith et al., 2015). This was set so high to ensure that the stock remains highly productive. To add some conservatism to the estimates of BMSY from Smith et al (2015), we assess the fishery against MSC’s default value for MSY for a non-LTL stock: B40. Based on the latest South Australian stock assessment model (Ward et al. 2017a), this equates to a biomass of approximately 80,000 t. Since 2002, mean spawning biomass levels have ranged from approximately 150,000 – 300,000 t (Ward et al. 2017b), well above B40 levels. On this basis, the SASF meets the SG80 level for this SI. While DEPM estimates are considered accurate, they are also imprecise due to the nature of the variables measured. As a result, lower 95% confidence levels are well below the mean estimates in all years post recovery of the fishery (i.e. from 2002). Nevertheless, lower 95% confidence levels of spawning biomass from DEPM surveys have exceeded B40 in all years post-recovery. As such, there is a high degree of confidence that the stock has been fluctuating at or around MSY over recent years. On this basis, the SASF also meets the SG100 level for this SI. PIRSA (2014a). Management plan for the South Australian Commercial Marine Scalefish Fishery, Part B– management arrangements for the taking of sardines. The South Australian Fisheries Management Series. Paper number 68. References Smith, ADM., Ward, TM., Hurtado, F., Klaer, N., Fulton, E., and Punt, AE (2015), Review and update of harvest strategy settings for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery - Single species and ecosystem considerations. Hobart. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 2013/028.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 117

Ward T.M., Smart J. and Ivey, A.R. (2017a). Stock Assessment of Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax) off South Australia 2017. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000765-6. SARDI Research Report Series No. 971. 107pp. Ward, T.M., Ivey, A.R. and Smart, J.J. (2017b). Spawning biomass of Sardine, Sardinops sagax, in waters off South Australia in 2017.Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000566-8. SARDI Research Report Series No. 965. 27pp. Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point Reference Deafult MSC PRI 40,000 t spawning Mean SB 2017 = 305,086 t point used in biomass (SB) as Lower 95% CI SB 2017 = scoring stock estimated from DEPM, 176,973 t relative to which approximates B20 PRI (SIa) Reference Default MSC BMSY 80,000 t spawning Mean SB 2017 = 305,086 t point used in biomass (SB) as Lower 95% CI SB 2017 = scoring stock estimated from DEPM, 176,973 t relative to which approximates B40 MSY (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 118

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1A - key LTL [NOTE: only use this table for stocks identified as key LTL]

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 119

The stock is at a level which has a low probability of serious ecosystem PI 1.1.1 A impacts Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Stock status relative to ecosystem impairment Guide It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of post above the point where stock is above the point certainty that the stock is serious ecosystem impacts where serious ecosystem above the point where could occur. impacts could occur. serious ecosystem impacts could occur. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi [Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring cation issue] b Stock status in relation to ecosystem needs Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree of post fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock has consistent with ecosystem been fluctuating around a needs. level consistent with ecosystem needs or has been above this level over recent years. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi [Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring cation issue]

[List any references here] References

Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point

Reference [e.g. B35%] [Include value [Include current stock status in point used in specifying units. the same units as the reference scoring stock e.g. 50,000t total stock point e.g. 90,000/B35%=1.8] relative to ecosystem biomass] impairment (SIa)

Reference [e.g. B75%] [Include value [Include current stock status in point used in specifying units. the same units as the reference scoring stock e.g. 100,000t total point e.g. 90,000/B75%=0.9] relative to ecosystem stock biomass] needs (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 120

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.2 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Rebuilding timeframes Guide A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable post specified for the stock that rebuilding timeframe is is the shorter of 20 specified which does not years or 2 times its exceed one generation generation time. For time for the stock. cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi [Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring cation issue]

b Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence post determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation stocks, or it is highly stock within the specified modelling, exploitation likely based on simulation timeframe. rates or previous modelling, exploitation

performance that they will rates or previous be able to rebuild the stock performance that they will within the specified be able to rebuild the timeframe. stock within the specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi [Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this scoring cation issue]

[List any references here] References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 121

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the elements the stock and is designed reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. of the harvest strategy to achieve stock work together towards management objectives achieving stock reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The harvest strategy contains a mixture of input and output controls, monitoring cation tools, and HCRs that are specifically designed to maintain the fishery at levels of very high biomass. The harvest strategy includes: licence limitation (14 existing licence holders); an independent and pre-determined total allowable commercial catch (TACC) underpinned by conservative HCRs; spatial management of the catch; gear restrictions; closed areas; a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS); a well-managed compliance program; an observer program; fishery-independent biomass surveys and; a stock assessment model. The input and output controls combined with VMS and compliance program aim to ensure that the ITQ’s and combined TAC is harvested in a manner that is appropriate for the stock and is complied with. The fishery-independent surveys provide accurate albeit imprecise estimates of spawning biomass upon which to assess stock status. The estimates are derived from the DEPM approach which is considered best practice in many clupeid fisheries (Ward et al. 2015c). The stock assessment model and other independent scientific research provide a sound basis for the establishment of Reference Points for the fishery that are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated with known uncertainty. The RPs and HCRs are based on levels of spawning biomass and exploitation rates that are more conservative than what would maintain MSY (Smith et al. 2015). Finally, the total volume and spatial distribution of the catch is also constrained by HCRs that reduce next year’s TAC and constrain its spatial allocation if the mean size of the catch falls below target size criteria. In summary, the tiered approach to the HCRs, the regular monitoring of spawning biomass and compliance that ensures harvest within appropriate limits provide useful mechanisms that are responsive to the state of the stock. Based on several sources of independent research, the HCRs are designed to achieve stock management objectives that are over and above those required for the stock in this ecosystem. On this basis, the SASF meets the SG60, SG80 and SG100 scoring guideposts for this SI. b Harvest strategy evaluation Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the post likely to work based on not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been prior experience or but evidence exists that it fully evaluated and plausible argument. is achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 122

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Met? Y Y Y Justifi There has been extensive evaluation of the harvest strategy over the history of the cation fishery, particularly since the second mortality event two decades ago. There are several sources of independent evidence to demonstrate that the harvest strategy has been able to maintain exploitation at sustainable levels. Firstly, estimates of spawning biomass from fishery-independent DEPM surveys (Ward et al 2017b) have been conducted since 1995, prior to the first mortality event while the fishery was in its relative infancy and catch was still very low. The estimates of spawning biomass track the history of the fishery through the two mass mortality events and their subsequent rapid recoveries, demonstrating that the stock can recover from biomass levels well below the current LRP. Note that the HCRs ensure that no fishing occurs if the spawning biomass falls below the LRP (B37). The estimates of spawning biomass from the DEPM surveys demonstrate that the stock has been consistently maintained at highly productive levels from 2002, with a high degree of certainty despite the imprecision of the estimates. Secondly, the stock assessment model (Ward et al 2017a) provides a good fit to the data despite the inability to sample catch-at-age data that are representative of the age structure of the population. By changing the weighting of the fits to catch-at-age data versus DEPM spawning biomass estimates, the most recent model provides useful outputs to estimate Reference Points relative to unfished levels, but the bias created by the catch-at-age issues means that model estimates of biomass are not as reliable as the DEPM spawning biomass estimates for assessing stock status. Nevertheless, the model provides a useful analysis that utilizes all the available information for the fishery and again demonstrates that the harvest strategy is achieving its objectives. Thirdly, a one-off stock assessment model with MSE undertaken across several Australian pelagic species including sardines from South Australia, demonstrated that the HCRs for the SASF (i.e. spawning biomass RPs and exploitation rates) are likely conservative and are well within sustainable limits (Smith et al 2015). Notably, the outputs of the SARDI model also include an assessment of annual exploitation rates and this demonstrates that since the HCRs have been established, exploitation rates have been maintained below levels identified as sustainable by Smith et al (2015). Finally, another research program specifically designed to assess the impact of the rapid growth in SASF catches on the broader Great Australian Bight ecosystem also demonstrated that historic catches from 1991 to 2008 were ecologically sustainable (Goldsworthy et al 2013). In summary, while the fishery has not been overfished, the two mass mortality events in the 1990s where 70% of the stock was killed on each occasion by disease provides a robust test of the harvest strategy. That the stock assessment model was unable to track the recovery of the stock likely suggests that the capacity for stock recovery is greater than can be empirically evaluated (i.e. strong compensatory density dependence). Added to this the current LRP is set conservatively at a level well above that recommended by Smith et al (2015) and three times the level from which the biomass recovered from the second mortality event. Finally, these historic catches were harvested at exploitation rates that did not significantly affect the trophodynamics of the ecosystem. On this basis, the fishery is scored SG100 for this SI. Harvest strategy monitoring

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 123

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place c Guide Monitoring is in place that post is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justifi The monitoring program includes: monitoring of the spawning biomass through cation fishery independent surveys; monitoring of the biomass through stock assessment modelling; annual or biannual determination of the TACC depending on HCRs; monitoring of the catch and effort against ITQs and TACC; monitoring of the size- and spatial distribution of the catch, and; annual reporting of stock assessments and or DEPM spawning biomass estimates, including assessment against the HCRs. This monitoring is sufficient to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. d Harvest strategy review Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Y Justifi A range of measures are assessed biannually in the stock assessment report to cation determine the performance of the fishery and the effectiveness of the harvest strategy. All South Australian Management Plans, including that for the SASF (PIRSA 2014), are reviewed every five years and updated at a minimum of every ten years. The 2014 SASF Management Plan (PIRSA 2014) is being reviewed currently. The review considers all elements of the harvest strategy, with a focus on the effectiveness of the HCRs. e Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? (Y/N/Not relevant) (Y/N/Not relevant) (Y/N/Not relevant) Justifi Not relevant. cation f Review of alternative measures Guide There has been a review There is a regular review There is a biennial post of the potential of the potential review of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? (Y/N/Not relevant) (Y/N/Not relevant) (Y/N/Not relevant) Justifi There is no unwanted catch of the target stock, therefore this SI is not relevant. cation References Goldsworthy S. D., Page B., Rogers P. J., Bulman C., Wiebkin A., McLeay L. J., Einoder L., et al. Trophodynamics of the eastern Great Australian Bight ecosystem:

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 124

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place ecological change associated with the growth of Australia's largest fishery, Ecological Modelling , 2013, vol. 255 (pg. 38-57) PIRSA (2014a). Management plan for the South Australian Commercial Marine Scalefish Fishery, Part B– management arrangements for the taking of sardines. The South Australian Fisheries Management Series. Paper number 68. Smith, ADM., Ward, TM., Hurtado, F., Klaer, N., Fulton, E., and Punt, AE (2015), Review and update of harvest strategy settings for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery - Single species and ecosystem considerations. Hobart. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 2013/028. Ward, T.M, Angélico, M.M., Cubillos, L.A., van Damme, C.J.G., Ganias, K., Ibaibarriaga, L. and Lo, N.C.H. (2015c) Benchmarking Australia's small pelagic fisheries against world's best practice. Final report to FRDC Ward T.M., Smart J. and Ivey, A.R. (2017a). Stock Assessment of Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax) off South Australia 2017. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000765-6. SARDI Research Report Series No. 971. 107pp. Ward, T.M., Ivey, A.R. and Smart, J.J. (2017b). Spawning biomass of Sardine, Sardinops sagax, in waters off South Australia in 2017.Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000566-8. SARDI Research Report Series No. 965. 27pp. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 125

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a HCRs design and application Guide Generally understood Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to post HCRs are in place or place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating available that are expected exploitation rate is at or above a target level to reduce the exploitation reduced as the PRI is consistent with MSY, or rate as the point of approached, are expected another more appropriate recruitment impairment to keep the stock level taking into account (PRI) is approached. fluctuating around a target the ecological role of the level consistent with (or stock, most of the time. above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There are several key components to the HCRs; DEPM estimates of spawning cation biomass that are assessed against the spawning biomass RPs; the maximum exploitation rate which is used to calculate a TACC for a given spawning biomass level; the changes in exploitation rate that increase with increasing biomass and increased monitoring (and therefore certainty in the estimates), and; a spatial component to the catch distribution based on mean size of sardines in the catch. At biomass levels below the LRP no fishing can occur. Above the LRP and below the TRP exploitation rates increase from 10 to 20% depending on the magnitude of the spawning biomass estimate and the frequency of monitoring (i.e. surveys and stock assessment reporting annual or biannual). Above the TRP exploitation rates range from 20 to 25% and only vary with the frequency of monitoring. Smith et al (2015) suggested that annual exploitation rates of 33% are sustainable for sardines harvested by the SASF. The TACC is capped at 47,500 t based on a maximum exploitation rate of 25% and a spawning biomass estimate greater than 190,000 t. The total volume and spatial allocation of catch is also influenced by the mean size of sardines caught in the previous year. If the mean size falls below target size criteria, additional restrictions are imposed on the volume of catch and where the catch can be harvested from. Also, the fishery has recovered quickly on two occasions from biomass levels well below the current LRP. There is clear evidence that stocks have been maintained at levels above MSY essentially since the stock fully recovered from the second mortality event. It is highly likely that this has been the direct result of the conservative nature of the HCRs that are based on: conservatively set LRP and TRP; exploitation rates that are well below suggested levels, and; spatial decision rules that restrict fishing if the mean size of the catch falls below target levels. On this basis, this SI meets the SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of post robust to the main a wide range of uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 126

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? Y Y Justifi Ward et al (2017a & b) provide thorough documentation and discussion of the cation assumptions of the DEPM survey methodology and the associated empirical methods for estimating spawning biomass. Estimates are considered accurate but imprecise. Biomass estimates are generally presented as mean with 95% confidence limits. Recently, a report was published that explicitly examines approaches to reduce the imprecision in DEPM estimates of egg production and spawning biomass (Ward et al. 2018b). RPs have been developed very conservatively with an understanding that, although not a key LTL by MSC definition, sardines play an important role in the GAB ecosystem and the biomass needs to be maintained at high levels. By maintaining RPs well above the levels of theoretical PRI and MSY, the RPs implicitly take uncertainty into account. Smith et al (2015) determined that an annual exploitation rate of 33% was required to maintain stocks at B50 with a high degree of certainty. Exploitation rates expressed in the HCRs are well below these levels, and the SARDI stock assessment model indicates that since the HCRs have been established, annual exploitation has remained below 30%. There is evidence that the HCRs and RPs are robust to the main uncertainties. The RPs and exploitation rate are highly conservative relative to levels that would maintain MSY (Smith et al 2015). Also, stock assessment modelling has demonstrated that the explicit consideration of uncertainties in the HCRs has resulted in maintenance of the biomass at or above target levels since the fishery recovered from the second disease event (i.e. from 2002). Finally, assessment against historic trends in spawning biomass estimates from DEPM surveys also demonstrates that the stock has recovered from levels well below the current LRP and that current HCRs have maintained the spawning biomass at or above target levels. On this basis, the SASF satisfies the requirements for SG80 and SG100. c HCRs evaluation Guide There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows post that tools used or available indicates that the tools in that the tools in use are to implement HCRs are use are appropriate and effective in achieving the appropriate and effective effective in achieving the exploitation levels in controlling exploitation. exploitation levels required under the HCRs.

required under the HCRs. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There primary tool for managing exploitation levels is the establishment of a TACC. cation The TACC is linked explicitly to levels of biomass observed from DEPM surveys. The levels of exploitation that result in the TACC being established are set at precautionary levels relative to those suggested from published stock assessment modelling (Smith et al 2015). Also, the fishery recovered rapidly on two occasions following disease events that wiped out 70% of the population from levels of biomass well below the current LRP. The TACC is monitored through a commercial logbook and CDR logbook program. Rigorous compliance monitoring of catches is undertaken, including the compulsory use of VMS.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 127

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place The HCRs include a component that limits exploitation if the mean target size of sardines is not met. Data are gathered by independent observers and mean size of the catch is determined independently by SARDI scientists. There is substantial evidence that the tools in use are effective at limiting exploitation. This includes long-term independent estimates of biomass from DEPM surveys, stock assessment model outputs, and two independent ecosystem models. All of these measures demonstrate that the fishery has been maintained at very high biomass levels since 2002, and that harvest has been conducted in an ecologically sustainable manner. This evidence is sufficient to meet the SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels. Smith, ADM., Ward, TM., Hurtado, F., Klaer, N., Fulton, E., and Punt, AE (2015), Review and update of harvest strategy settings for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery - Single species and ecosystem considerations. Hobart. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 2013/028. Ward T.M., Smart J. and Ivey, A.R. (2017a). Stock Assessment of Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax) off South Australia 2017. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI References Publication No. F2007/000765-6. SARDI Research Report Series No. 971. 107pp. Ward, T.M., Ivey, A.R. and Smart, J.J. (2017b). Spawning biomass of Sardine, Sardinops sagax, in waters off South Australia in 2017.Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000566-8. SARDI Research Report Series No. 965. 27pp. Ward,T.M, Carroll J, Grammer GL, James C, McGarvey R, Smart J, and Ivey AR (2018b). Improving the precision of estimates of egg production and spawning biomass obtained using the Daily Egg Production Method. Final report to FRDC. Project No. 2014/026. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 128

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information Guide Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of post information related to information related to information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available to composition and other composition, stock support the harvest data is available to support abundance, UoA removals strategy. the harvest strategy. and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? (Y/N) Y (Y/N) Y (Y/N) Y Justifi There is a comprehensive range of information gathered for the fishery, including cation some data that is not directly relevant to the harvest strategy: • There has been considerable work done on stock structure. The SASF harvests from the Southern Australian sardine stock, one of four separate Australian stocks of sardine (Izzo et al 2017). • Basic biology is well understood including distribution and abundance, food and feeding, reproduction, and life history parameters (Ward et al 2017a). • Biomass estimates are determined using the DEPM method from data obtained during fishery-independent surveys (Ward et al 2017b). • Catch and effort is recorded in commercial logbooks and are validated through Catch and Disposal Records (CDRs) for TACC determination. • There are no significant catches of sardines from other sectors. • The composition of the fleet is well understood. • All vessels are required to use VMS. • Data on the mean size of sardines in the catch is collected by observers for independent analysis by SARDI. Size data are also collected by industry to aim to minimize the catch of sardines below target size. • There is an excellent understanding of the environment in which sardines inhabit, measured and modelled through the Southern Australian Integrated Marine Observing System (SAIMOS). These data have been gathered over the full history of the fishery, in a coordinated and planned manner. Ongoing research on the fishery has been conducted in a strategic manner and has been published in SARDI stock assessment reports and DEPM spawning biomass reports since the early 2000’s. Also, a number of peer- reviewed journal articles have been published on a range of topics including the mortality events of the late 1990’s, DEPM estimates of spawning biomass, and general biology and ecology. This information is sufficient to meet the SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels. Monitoring

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 129

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy b Guide Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required post removals are monitored removals are regularly by the harvest control rule and at least one indicator monitored at a level of is monitored with high is available and monitored accuracy and coverage frequency and a high with sufficient frequency consistent with the harvest degree of certainty, and to support the harvest control rule, and one or there is a good control rule. more indicators are understanding of inherent available and monitored uncertainties in the with sufficient frequency information [data] and the to support the harvest robustness of assessment control rule. and management to this uncertainty. Met? (Y/N) Y (Y/N) Y (Y/N) Y Justifi The information required for the HCRs includes: cation • Modelled estimates of relative biomass to determine unfished biomass (Bzero), from which an assessment of the appropriateness of RPs can be determined • Spawning biomass estimates from DEPM to assess stock status against the LRP and TRP • Exploitation rates • Mean size of sardines in the catch • Spatially-explicit volumes of sardine catch to monitor TACC The latest SARDI stock assessment model (Ward et al. 2017a) provides estimates of biomass relative to unfished levels. This provides a basis for determining the appropriateness of Reference Points for the fishery. The model is updated biannually and has been run and improved for over a decade. The limitations of the model are well understood and discussed in depth in the stock assessment report (e.g. Ward et al. 2017a). The LRP and TRP have been set at highly conservative levels relative to those suggested for the same stock in an independent study (Smith et al. 2015). Spawning biomass estimates from DEPM are considered accurate although imprecise. Surveys are conducted at least every two years, and results are published in a timely manner post survey and data processing (e.g. Ward et al. 2017b). The uncertainties of DEPM estimates are well understood, and a project specifically aimed at improving the precision of these estimates was recently completed (Ward et al. 2018b). The uncertainty in DEPM estimates has been implicitly incorporated into the HCRs by choosing highly conservative RPs. Exploitation rates are explicitly incorporated into the HCRs by multiplying the exploitation rate by DEPM spawning biomass estimates within ranges to determine a set TACC (PIRSA 2014a). The exploitation rates increase with increasing certainty i.e. higher biomass levels allow higher exploitation rates, more frequent surveys or stock assessment reporting allows higher exploitation rates. The maximum exploitation rate that can be applied is 25% of the spawning biomass when the biomass exceeds the TRP and DEPM surveys and stock assessment reporting occurs annually. Currently (and in all recent years), the DEPM surveys and stock assessment have each been conducted in alternate years, and thus maximum exploitation rate has been 20%, with a TACC capped at 38,000 t for DEPM biomass estimates >190,000 t. Smith et al. (2015) suggested that exploitation rates of 33% would achieve MSY for the fishery. On this basis, the exploitation rates in the current HCRs are precautionary and take into account inherent uncertainties.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 130

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy The mean size of sardines is gathered from each net set when an observer is present. Observers gather a random sample of 100 fish and send them to SARDI for analysis. As sardines travel in schools of very similar body lengths, the sample size of 100 is considered to be representative of the catch (Ward et al 2017a). If the mean size of sardines falls below the target size, additional restrictions on the volume of catch and the location it is harvested from are implemented in the next year’s TACC decision. Data on mean size are also collected by industry, but these are not used to assess against the HCR. Here, mean size is being used as a proxy for the possibility of overfishing and is considered to enhance conservatism in the HCRs. A maximum volume of sardine catch is allowed to be harvested from the waters of Spencer Gulf each year. The volumes vary depending on the mean size of fish caught the previous year. VMS data are collected to validate the areas that fish are harvested. CDRs are used to accurately determine the level of catch against the TACC. These measures are robust to the needs of management. On this basis, it is considered that the SASF meets the SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels. c Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good information post on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? (Y/N) Y Justifi The SASF is Australia’s largest fishery, with catches of around 35,000 t annually. cation The catch is harvested exclusively by the commercial sector. The most recent South Australian recreational fishing survey (Giri and Hall 2015) did not identify any catch of sardines by recreational fishers. The Management Plan (PIRSA 2014) allocates 100% of the resource to the commercial sector (0% recreational, 0% indigenous) based on an understanding of historic catches. Giri K and Hall K (2015) South Australian Recreational Fishing Survey. Fisheries Victoria Internal Report Series No. 62. Izzo, C., Ward, TM, Ivey, AR, Suthers, IM, Stewart, J, Sexton, SC and Gillanders, BM (2017). Integrated approach to determining stock structure: implications for fisheries management of sardine, Sardinops sagax, in Australian waters. Rev Fish Biol Fisheries. DOI 10.1007/s11160-017-9468-z PIRSA (2014a). Management plan for the South Australian Commercial Marine Scalefish Fishery, Part B– management arrangements for the taking of sardines. The South Australian Fisheries Management Series. Paper number 68. Smith, ADM., Ward, TM., Hurtado, F., Klaer, N., Fulton, E., and Punt, AE (2015), Review References and update of harvest strategy settings for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery - Single species and ecosystem considerations. Hobart. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 2013/028. Ward T.M., Smart J. and Ivey, A.R. (2017a). Stock Assessment of Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax) off South Australia 2017. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000765-6. SARDI Research Report Series No. 971. 107pp. Ward, T.M., Ivey, A.R. and Smart, J.J. (2017b). Spawning biomass of Sardine, Sardinops sagax, in waters off South Australia in 2017.Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000566-8. SARDI Research Report Series No. 965. 27pp.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 131

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 132

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guide The assessment is The assessment takes into post appropriate for the stock account the major features and for the harvest control relevant to the biology of rule. the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? (Y/N) Y (Y/N) Y Justifi There are two approaches that are run in parallel to assess stock status of the fishery. cation Firstly, estimates of total spawning biomass for the fishery are obtained from fishery- independent DEPM surveys. Secondly, an age-structured stock assessment model has been developed that incorporates all of the available data for the species and the stock. The model uses the DEPM biomass estimates as fitting criteria and thus the two are not independent measures. DEPM estimates are considered as more accurate than model outputs and are thus used to assess stock status against the RPs. Outputs from the stock assessment model include an estimate of Bzero which aids validation of the RPs and thus the assessment of stock status. Despite their inherent imprecision, DEPM surveys are a widely preferred methodology for determining biomass estimates for clupeid species globally (Ward et al 2015c, Ward et al 2018b). In South Australian, DEPM estimates have several advantages over other potential methodologies such as acoustic surveys (Ward et al 2017a). The stock assessment model has been under ongoing development for over a decade. The current model takes into account the biology of the stock and the nature of the UoA. The primary limitation of the modelling approach is an inability to gather size and age data from the fishery that is representative of the stock (Ward et al 2017a). However, the latest model weights the model fitting process to DEPM estimates and fits well to the available data (Ward et al 2017a). In addition, Smith et al. (2015) published the results of a model developed primarily to assess the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery, with an assessment of the SASF sardine stock included opportunistically. The results of the model confirmed that the current HCRs developed for the SASF are appropriate for the stock and are highly conservative. Based on the use of both DEPM and model outputs, it is considered that the assessment is appropriate for the stock and for the HCR, thus meeting the SG80 guidepost. Also, both components of the assessment take into account the major features of the species and the fishery. On this basis it is considered that the SASF also meets the SG100 scoring guidepost. b Assessment approach Guide The assessment estimates The assessment estimates post stock status relative to stock status relative to generic reference points reference points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock category. and can be estimated. Met? (Y/N) Y (Y/N) Y Justifi The RPs for the stock are deliberately set at conservative levels compared to those cation suggested by Smith et al (2015) to 1) ensure the stock is maintained at highly

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 133

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status productive levels, 2) account for some of the imprecision in biomass estimates from DEPM surveys, and 3) account for some of the uncertainty in the stock assessment model.. While DEPM estimates are considered imprecise, they are also considered accurate. Because they are used as fitting criteria in the model, the outputs of spawning biomass from the model are not independent. Due to the nature of the model, spawning biomass estimates derived from the model tend to “smooth out” the trends in biomass relative to those obtained from DEPM. Therefore, as biomass levels approach PRI, using biomass measures from DEPM are more appropriately conservative than model outputs. The dual approach of establishment of reference points that are conservative for the stock and use of biomass estimates that are accurate but imprecise provide an appropriate approach for the species and the UoA, thus SG60 and SG80 are met. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guide The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into post major sources of uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is uncertainty. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? (Y/N) Y (Y/N) Y (Y/N) N Justifi Both the stock assessment reports (e.g. Ward et al 2017a) and the DEPM reports (e.g. cation Ward et al 2017b) identify the major sources of uncertainty and thus SG60 is met. Both model outputs and DEPM estimates of spawning biomass are presented as mean values with 95% confidence limits. The reason that DEPM estimates have such broad confidence limits is due to the multiplicative effects of uncertainty around various parameters underpinning the DEPM approach. Both methods explicitly take uncertainty into account in a transparent manner that is regularly reported. On this basis, the SG80 scoring guidepost is met. Smith et al (2015) undertook a MSE approach to population modelling for the SASF and SPF species. The authors state “For Tier 1, the analyses focus on achieving the reference points recommended by the ecosystem modelling, that it is to achieve a median depletion of 0.5 or B50, while maintaining less than a 10% chance of falling below the suggested limit reference point of B20”. This was based on surveys undertaken every 5 years. From this, Smith et al (2015) suggested a maximum annual exploitation rate of 33%. The modelling also suggested an equilibrium BMSY of 33% of unfished levels. In comparison to these estimates, the HCRs for the SASF are highly conservative. However, despite their conservative nature, the LRP and TRP are established against mean estimates of spawning biomass, and thus uncertainty is not built explicitly into the reference points in a probabilistic way. Therefore, SG100 is not met. d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has been post tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 134

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Met? (Y/N) Y Justifi As previously stated, the assessment has two components. cation DEPM was first developed for Northern Anchovy (Parker 1980, Lasker 1985) and has been used in South Australia for sardine since 1995 (Ward et al 2017b). Improvements in the use and application of DEPM egg production and biomass estimates have been ongoing, with an International Workshop held in Adelaide in July 2014 (Ward et al 2015c) and a specific project recently completed to improve precision of the method in South Australia (Ward et al 2018b). Alternative approaches have been assessed, but the uncertainties associated with methods such as acoustic surveys are considered to be problematic in Australia (Ward et al 2017a). Unsurprisingly, trends in biomass from the stock assessment model generally reflect those from DEPM surveys, primarily because DEPM surveys are the main data used to fit to the model. Nevertheless, trends in biomass from DEPM surveys and model outputs also correlate with ecosystem modelling specifically conducted for sardines in the GAB ecosystem (Goldsworthy et al 2013). In their independent study, Goldsworthy et al (2013) determined that the increase in catch from the SASF since the early 2000s was ecologically sustainable. Further, the authors identified increasing trends in biomass of the species likely reflective of increasing productivity within the system over this period. The study of Smith et al (2015) included a MSE assessment that determined optimum exploitation rates for the fishery. In this context, the SARDI stock assessment model (Ward et al 2017a) suggests that the history of exploitation rates from the SASF to date has been well within sustainable limits. Whilst it is noted that the SA sardine stock assessment model has not been independently reviewed, it is nevertheless considered that the DEPM and stock assessment are robust, and alternative approaches have been rigorously explored, including a MSE conducted by Smith et al (2015). Therefore, SG100 is met. e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been post status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? (Y/N) Y (Y/N) N Justifi A DEPM biomass report (e.g. Ward et al 2017b) is documented after each survey cation which generally occurs every two years. Each report is internally reviewed by 2 other SARDI scientists and is also reviewed by the PIRSA policy manager for the fishery. In July 2014, an international workshop on the DEPM method was held in Adelaide to assess the South Australian approach against other international fisheries that apply the same method. The subsequent report (Ward et al 2015c) published by the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC), and the recommendations provided within, can be considered as external review. The stock assessment model for the SASF has been documented in the biannual stock assessment reports for the fishery for over a decade (e.g. Ward et al 2017a). These reports also undergo internal reviews from SARDI and PIRSA. However, neither the model or the stock assessment report has been externally reviewed during this period. It is noted that the recommendations from the DEPM workshop (Ward et al 2015c) included “examining the benefits and limitations of using a population model and/or DEPM estimates of spawning biomass to set TACs for sardines”. However, to date, there has been no projects activated to address this recommendation.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 135

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status While both components of the assessment have been internally peer reviewed (SG80 is met), the stock assessment modelling has not been externally peer reviewed and therefore the fishery does not meet SG100 for this SI. Ward, T.M, Angélico, M.M., Cubillos, L.A., van Damme, C.J.G., Ganias, K., Ibaibarriaga, L. and Lo, N.C.H. (2015c) Benchmarking Australia's small pelagic fisheries against world's best practice. Final report to FRDC. Ward T.M., Smart J. and Ivey, A.R. (2017a). Stock Assessment of Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax) off South Australia 2017. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000765-6. SARDI Research Report Series No. 971. 107pp. References Ward, T.M., Ivey, A.R. and Smart, J.J. (2017b). Spawning biomass of Sardine, Sardinops sagax, in waters off South Australia in 2017.Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2007/000566-8. SARDI Research Report Series No. 965. 27pp. Ward,T.M, Carroll J, Grammer GL, James C, McGarvey R, Smart J, and Ivey AR (2018b). Improving the precision of estimates of egg production and spawning biomass obtained using the Daily Egg Production Method. Final report to FRDC. Project No. 2014/026. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 136

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main primary species stock status Guide Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of post likely to be above the PRI highly likely to be above certainty that main the PRI primary species are above the PRI and are fluctuating OR around a level consistent OR with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has If the species is below the measures in place that are PRI, there is either expected to ensure that the evidence of recovery or a UoA does not hinder demonstrably effective recovery and rebuilding. strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Primary species are defined as species that are not identified as the specific target species in cation the UoA, and where each primary species is subject to fishery specific management, with established reference points (SA3.1.3, MSC, 2014, p.132). The ‘main’ designation is given where either i) “the catch of a species by the UoA comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA”, or ii) “The species is classified as ‘Less resilient’ and the catch of the species by the UoA comprises 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA” (SA3.4.2, MSC, 2014, pp. 138-139).

The only primary species is Australian anchovy and according to species composition data held and provided to the assessment team by SARDI, anchovies represented in the last five years less than 1% of the catch and classify as ‘minor’. There are no main primary species in the SASF catch, thus there is no impact on main primary species. According to the MSC guidance, “if a team determines that the UoA has no impact on a particular component, it shall receive a score of 100 under the Outcome PI” (MSC, 2014, SA3.2, p.135). SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. b Minor primary species stock status Guide Minor primary species are post highly likely to be above the PRI

OR

If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 137

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Met? Y Justifi Australian Anchovy (Engraulis australis) cation The SASF targets Australian sardine (Sardinops sagax) although the take of Australian anchovy (Engraulis australis) is also permitted. For a substantial catch of this species, anchovy schools need to be targeted, which is not the case (Turner, 2018, pers. comm). Data from catch samples collected by fishery-independent observers from 435 sets between 2011 and 2015 indicate that anchovies represented on average 0.3% of total abundance. The percentage contribution of anchovies to total catch abundance varied between 0.1% to 0.5% per year (Table 7, SARDI, 2018, unpublished data). Because fish school in similar size classes, the percentage contribution by weight will be similar to the percentage contribution by abundance (T. Ward, pers. comm. May 2018). When sardine biomass is high, the Australian Anchovy occurs mainly in the northern gulfs, but when sardine biomass is low anchovies have the capacity to increase in abundance and expand their distribution into shelf waters (PIRSA, 2014a). A sizeable stock of Australian Anchovy occurs in South Australian waters (Dimmlich et al. 2004, Dimmlich et al. 2009). In 2000, daily egg production method (DEPM) surveys conducted for sardines were extended into the northern part of the Gulf St Vincent and Spencer Gulf so a spawning biomass estimate of anchovy could be completed (Dimmlich et al. 2009). The SpB for Australian Anchovy in South Australian waters in 2000 was over 126,000 t (Dimmlich et al. 2009). This information was used to set a precautionary TACC for Australian Anchovy of 1000t (PIRSA, 2013a). Currently, the TACC for anchovies is still 1000t (SASIA, 2017), although the anchovies catch is usually much lower (SARDI, 2018, unpublished data). The evidence shows that Australian anchovy stock is highly productive and highly likely to be above PRI. The TACC for anchovies is precautionary enough to determine that the SASF will not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the anchovy stock in case it falls below PRI. The SG100 requirement is met. Dimmlich, WF, Breed, WG, Geddes, M and Ward, TM (2004) ‘Relative importance of gulf and shelf waters for spawning and recruitment of Australian anchovy, Engraulis australis, in South Australia’, Fisheries Oceanography, 13 (5), pp.310-323. Dimmlich, WF, Ward, TM and Breed, WG (2009) ‘Spawning dynamics and biomass estimates of an anchovy Engraulis australis population in contrasting gulf and shelf environments’, Journal of Fish Biology, 75, pp.1560-1576. MSC (2014). MSC fisheries certification requirements and guidance, v.2.0, 1st October 2014. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 528 pp References PIRSA (2014a). Management plan for the South Australian Commercial Marine Scalefish Fishery, Part B– management arrangements for the taking of sardines. The South Australian Fisheries Management Series. Paper number 68. PIRSA (2013a). ESD risk assessment of South Australia’s Sardine Fishery. Accessed at: (http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/68608772-df30-455e-9aa9- 379ed843eb33/files/sa-sardine-fishery-draft-esd.pdf) SASIA (2017). South Australian Sardine Fishery Minutes of Research & Management / Wildlife Working Group meeting held on Tuesday, Nov 2017, Port Lincoln. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 138

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 139

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place post place for the UoA, if in place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing necessary, that are necessary, that is expected main and minor primary expected to maintain or to to maintain or to not species. not hinder rebuilding of hinder rebuilding of the the main primary species main primary species at/to at/to levels which are levels which are highly likely to above the point likely to be above the where recruitment would point where recruitment be impaired. would be impaired. Met? Y Y Y Justifi PIRSA is using an EBFM approach to the management of the SASF. Goal 3 of the cation SASF Management Plan requires: “protect and conserve aquatic resources, habitats and ecosystems”. One of the objectives in achieving this goal is “fishery impacts on by-catch and by-product species are sustainable”, where by-catch refers to non- target and unwanted catch and by-product refers to retained non-target catch. In the SASF all non-target catch is retained. As there are no main primary species, a strategy for main primary is not necessary and SG60 and SG80 are achieved. There is a strategy in place to manage Australian anchovy. The SASF Management Plan includes the objective to “limit and monitor Australian Anchovy catches” using catch levels relative to TACC as performance indicator to assess the risk to the stock. The operational strategy to achieve the objective consists in: i) Setting a TACC for anchovy annually within sustainable limits, ii) Maintaining entry and gear restrictions, iii) Monitoring catch levels of harvested anchovy during season, iv) Adopting a precautionary principle to make decisions when robust information is lacking (PIRSA, 2014a). TACC was precautionary set at 1000t based on a daily egg production stock assessment from 2000 (i.e. Dimmlich et al. 2009). In recent years, because the species is not targeted, anchovy bycatch represented under 1% of total catch (Table 7) and that is well under the TACC of 1000t. The management plan makes the following provisions: “Should expansion of anchovy fishing operations occur in the future, there is the potential to develop a Harvest Strategy for the anchovy fishery that is conceptually similar to the Sardine Harvest Strategy, with appropriate levels of research” (PIRSA, 2014a) In addition, other general operational measures such as effort limits, and closed areas (under State and Commonwealth legislation) are beneficial for anchovy stock as well. In addition, before a licence is permitted to take anchovy using a sardine net, the Licence must have a minimum holding of 10,000 Kgs of sardine quota available (PIRSA, 2017a). The measures will ensure anchovy catch will remain low compared to to sardines. The requirements at SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. b Management strategy evaluation Guid The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high epost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 140

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. comparison with similar directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species fisheries/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? Y Y Y Justif Testing, in the MSC definition includes empirical testing (for example practical icatio experience of performance or evidence of past performance). In 2000, an estimation n of spawning biomass has shown that anchovy stock was in a highly productive state while the catch of anchovy by the SASF is very low. There is no other anchovy targeted fishery in the region, thus it is expected the stock is still in a highly productive state. Catch data from observer program constitute evidence that the catch of anchovies has been maintained at very low levels in recent years. Goldsworthy et al (2011) and Gillanders et al (2015) have found that anchovies are positively affected by reductions in sardine stock. Overall, these facts represent empirical testing that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and species involved. The requirements at SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. c Management strategy implementation Guid There is some evidence There is clear evidence epost that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justif There is clear evidence that the strategy is implemented successfully. The SASF icatio Management Plan includes an explicit objective of effective compliance with the n management measures. Measures to ensure compliance include: reporting of quota use throughout the season, compliance monitoring by PIRSA’s fishery officers and compliance risk assessment undertaken annually. Also, marine scalefish fishery licence holders with sardine net entitlements are required to have an operational vessel monitoring system (VMS) fitted to their boat. This allows compliance with spatial management measures to be assessed. There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance (see Principle 3, Compliance section in this report). Ecosystem modeling studies on EGAB and Spencer Gulf (Goldsworthy et al, 2011 and Gillanders et al, 2015), both show that anchovies abundance is positively related to the decrease in sardine abundance, which gives confidence that maintaining the high percentage contribution to the catch for sardines (>98%) and low contribution for anchovies (<1%), the strategy is achieving its overall objective in maintaining anchovies below the set TACC. SG80 and SG100 are met. d Shark finning Guid It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of epost finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 141

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Justif No shark species are primary species. icatio n e Review of alternative measures Guid There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial review epost potential effectiveness and of the potential of the potential practicality of alternative effectiveness and effectiveness and measures to minimise practicality of alternative practicality of alternative UoA-related mortality of measures to minimise measures to minimise unwanted catch of main UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of primary species. unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all primary species and they primary species, and they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justif If there is no unwanted catch of primary species or no primary species at all, this icatio scoring issue is not scored (MSC, 2014). There are no discards in the fishery, thus n there is no unwanted catch of primary species. Dimmlich, WF, Ward, TM and Breed, WG (2009) ‘Spawning dynamics and biomass estimates of an anchovy Engraulis australis population in contrasting gulf and shelf environments’, Journal of Fish Biology, 75, pp.1560-1576. Goldsworthy, S.D., Page, B, Rogers, RP & Ward, T. (2011) Established ecosystem –based management for the South Australian Sardine Fishery: developing ecological performance indicators and reference points to assess the need for ecological allocations. Final Report to the FRDC SARDI (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000863-1. SARDI Report Series No. 529 173 pp. Gillanders, BM, Goldsworthy, S, Prowse, TAA, Doubell, M, Middleton, J, Rogers, P, References Tanner, JA, Clisby, NA, James, C, Luick, J, van Ruth, P, Bradshaw, CJA, Ward, TM (2015) Spencer Gulf research initiative: Development of an ecosystem model for fisheries and aquaculture. University of Adelaide and SARDI Aquatic Sciences, Adelaide. CC BY 3. PIRSA (2014a). Management plan for the South Australian Commercial Marine Scalefish Fishery, Part B– management arrangements for the taking of sardines. The South Australian Fisheries Management Series. Paper number 68. PIRSA (2017a) Sardine Fishery Operator User Guide. http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/287538/Sardine_Fishery_Operator_User_Gu ide_2017_-_Lasted_Updated_January_2017.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 142

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information post adequate to estimate the information is available is available and is impact of the UoA on the and is adequate to assess adequate to assess with a main primary species with the impact of the UoA on high degree of certainty respect to status. the main primary species the impact of the UoA on with respect to status. main primary species with respect to status. OR OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.1.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes assess productivity and for main primary species. susceptibility attributes for main primary species. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Quantitative information is available and adequate to assess with high degree of cation certainty that no species caught meets the definition for “main”. Catch and effort data is collected by the fishery and by independent observers. PIRSA monitors the catch in the fishery through catch disposal record (CDR) forms where the skippers that record all catch of sardines, anchovies and other scale fish before landing and send to PIRSA (PIRSA, 2017a). These forms are used to verify the volumes of sardines and anchovies landed. In addition to completing the CDR form, each licence holder is required to complete a daily logbook (periodic return), with one record per net set, these being sent to SARDI on a monthly basis. SG 60, SG80 and 100 are met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? Y Justifi The SASF Management Plan requires to “limit and monitor anchovy catches”. cation Information on anchovy catch comes from fishery independent and fishery dependent data • Fishery independent data Fishery independent data is collected through DEPM surveys and the Independent Observer Program. The DEPM survey is the main data source for sardine stock assessment and has been used to estimate the SpB of sardines in South Australia since 1995. This survey was extended to collect data on anchovy stock in 2000 (Dimmlich et al. 2009).

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 143

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species The observer program was implemented in 2004 to monitor ETP species interactions. Since implementation, observer coverage was set at 10% of fishing operations except for 2007/2008 to 2009/2010 fishing seasons when target coverage was set at 30% (Mackay, 2017). The observers sample the catch from each observed set using the ‘grab’ sampling method. Observer sampling data is reported to SARDI together with identification information used by SARDI to link each sample to the data recorded in logbooks for each net-set. Logbook and observer catch composition data are stored in an Oracle database maintained by SARDI. The database stores data on numbers of non-target species in catch samples, including for anchovy (Ward, 2018, pers. comm). Australian anchovy was also assessed as being at negligible risk from the SASF, in an ecological risk assessment in 2013. (PIRSA, 2013a). • Fishery dependent data Daily and monthly catch and effort data are provided by licence holders through compulsory logbook returns to SARDI at the end of each month. SARDI maintains a comprehensive catch and effort database for the fishery using data collected from these returns. Data provided in the logbook returns include: licence information, date(s), shot no., zone, start/end time (duration), GPS location, water temperature, estimated catch retained, estimated catch lost (usually in aborted shots), water temperature (PIRSA, 2013a). • Research SARDI Aquatic Sciences has assessed the status of the stock of Australian Sardine of South Australia since 1998 and has provided scientific advice to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture to assist with the management of the fishery. The research was extended to produce one study on Australian Anchovy stock status (Dimmlich et al. 2009). The information is adequate to estimate the status of, and the impact of the SASF on Australian anchovy stock.SG c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main primary to manage main Primary manage all primary species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The only primary species is Australian anchovy. There is no evidence that this species cation is targeted. Catch and effort information is available from CDR record and observer reports. Anchovy catch is below 1% of total catch by the fishery (Table 7). SASF make provisions for a harvest strategy for anchovy to be developed if there is evidence for an increase in the exploitation of this species. The information on catch and effort is adequate to support a strategy to manage anchovies and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective (i.e. to maintain anchovy catch below the set TACC, PIRSA, 2014a). SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 144

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Dimmlich, WF, Ward, TM and Breed, WG (2009) ‘Spawning dynamics and biomass estimates of an anchovy Engraulis australis population in contrasting gulf and shelf environments’, Journal of Fish Biology, 75, pp.1560-1576. Mackay, A.I. (2017). Operational interactions with Threatened, Endangered or Protected Species in South Australian Managed Fisheries Data Summary: 2007/08 –2015/16. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2009/000544-7. SARDI Research References Report Series No. 945. 74pp. PIRSA (2017a) Sardine Fishery Operator User Guide. http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/287538/Sardine_Fishery_Operator_User_Gu ide_2017_-_Lasted_Updated_January_2017.pdf PIRSA (2013a). ESD risk assessment of South Australia’s Sardine Fishery. Accessed at: (http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/68608772-df30-455e-9aa9- 379ed843eb33/files/sa-sardine-fishery-draft-esd.pdf) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 145

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main secondary species stock status Guide Main Secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree of post are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits within biologically based limits. OR OR If below biologically based limits, there are If below biologically measures in place based limits, there is either expected to ensure that the evidence of recovery or a UoA does not hinder demonstrably effective recovery and rebuilding. partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Due to the specificity of the fishing method, the target species comprise more than 98% of cation the landed catch. This is consistent with an international review that found purse seine fishing for small pelagic fishes generally has very low non-target catch and negligible discard rates (DEE, 2016a). There are no ‘main’ secondary species. According to the MSC guidance, “if a team determines that the UoA has no impact on a particular component, it shall receive a score of 100 under the Outcome PI (MSC, 2014). SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. b Minor secondary species stock status Guide Minor secondary species post are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

OR

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 146

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? Y The purse seine fishing method targets schools of pelagic fish, which are highly homogenous thus, the catch includes very few non-target species compared to other fishing methods (PIRSA, 2013a). Fishers licensed in the South Australian Sardine Fishery (SASF) are authorised to harvest Australian Sardine (Sardinops sagax), Australian Anchovy (Engraulis australis), maray (Etrumeus jacksoniensis), blue mackerel (Scomber australasicus), sandy sprat (Hyperlophus vittatus), blue sprat (Spratelloides robustus) and redbait (Emmelichthys nitidus) (Fisheries Management General Regulations, 2017, as amended 15 January, 2018). Some of these species feature in the samples collected by observers in the last five years (Table 7). Other species were also identified as potentially interacting with the SASF at the ESD risk assessment in 2013. The non-ETP species were: blue shark (Prionace glauca), bronze whaler (Carcharhinus brachyurus), snapper (Pagrus auratus), barracuda (Sphyraena spp.), toadfish (Batrachoididae) and cuttlefish (Sepia spp.). None of these species were caught in the last five years. Sharks with larger bodies are released alive (are not pumped on board of the vessel) (T. Ward, pers. comm. May 2018). Data from catch samples collected by observers from 435 sets in five years (see Table 7) indicate that all secondary species represented on average, 0.6% of total abundance. All non- target species are ‘minor’. All these species were subject of EDS risk assessment and all were considered to be at negligible or low risk from the SA sardine fishery (PIRSA, 2013a). Biologically based limits cannot be determined because these minor secondary species have very low/negligible contribution to the SASF catch. All the identified minor secondary species are short lived, highly productive species. SASF does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of these species if their stocks would fall below their biologically based limits. SG 100 is met. DEE (2016a) Assessment of the South Australian Sardine Fishery. https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/72da29f4-befd-40a5-baa5- f21abe509e04/files/sa-sardine-fishery-assessment-report-2016.pdf MSC (2014). MSC fisheries certification requirements and guidance, v.2.0, 1st October References 2014. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 528 pp PIRSA (2013a). ESD risk assessment of South Australia’s Sardine Fishery. Accessed at: (http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/68608772-df30-455e-9aa9- 379ed843eb33/files/sa-sardine-fishery-draft-esd.pdf) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 147

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in post place, if necessary, which in place, if necessary, for place for the UoA for are expected to maintain the UoA that is expected managing main and minor or not hinder rebuilding of to maintain or not hinder secondary species. main secondary species rebuilding of main at/to levels which are secondary species at/to highly likely to be within levels which are highly biologically based limits likely to be within or to ensure that the UoA biologically based limits does not hinder their or to ensure that the UoA recovery. does not hinder their recovery. Met? Y Y Y Justifi PIRSA is using an EBFM approach to the management of the SASF. Goal 3 of the cation SASF Management Plan requires: “protect and conserve aquatic resources, habitats and ecosystems”. One of the objectives in achieving this goal is “fishery impacts on by-catch and by-product species are sustainable” (PIRSA 2014a), where by-catch refers to non-target and unwanted catch and by-product refers to retained non-target catch. This objective is consistent with achieving the Outcome at PI 2.2.1. Due to the specificity of the fishing method, the target species comprises more than 98% of the landed catch. In consequence, all non-target species catch is below 2% and each species percentage contribution is below 1% (Table 7). A strategy for ‘main’ secondary species is not necessary. The general operational measures: gear restrictions, limited entry, netting closures, marine parks closures, quota monitoring and VMS monitoring (PIRSA, 2014a), are likely to minimize catch and benefit populations of non-target species. These measures constitute a partial strategy for secondary species (see MSC, 2014, Table SA8). At SG80, a partial strategy for minor secondary species is not required. SG80 is met. For minor secondary species, SG100 for the Outcome PI corresponds to SG80 for ‘main’ (i.e. ‘highly likely’). Similarly, the requirement at SG100 for Management PI for ‘minor’ would correspond to SG80 for ‘main’. In consequence, a partial strategy for ‘minor’ secondary species, when there are no ‘main’ species, is sufficient to meet the requirement for SG100 for this scoring issue. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or species UoAs/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? Y Y Y

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 148

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Justifi Testing, in the MSC definition, include empirical testing (for example practical cation experience of performance or evidence of past performance (MSC, 2014, GSA2.4.1). Consistent very low level of catch (Table 7), according to sampling data from observer program and from fishery logbooks represents evidence that the risk to these species is negligible. Secondary minor species are in general other small pelagic fish. Simulation testing (Goldsworthy et al, 2011, Gillander et al, 2015) has found that small pelagic fish species are positively affected by reductions in sardine stock, thus maintaining a catch composition with sardines over 98% will maintain the risk to secondary species at negligible levels. Testing (empirical and simulation) supports high confidence that the strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and species involved. The requirements at SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi There is clear evidence that the strategy is implemented successfully. The SASFA cation Management Plan include an explicit objective of effective compliance with the management plan. Measures to ensure compliance include: reporting of quota use throughout the season, reporting catch and effort data (logbook returns) monthly, compliance risk assessment undertaken annually (PIRSA, 2014a). Also, marine scalefish fishery licence holders with sardine net entitlements are required to have an operational vessel monitoring system (VMS) fitted to their boat (PIRSA, 2014a). These allow compliance with spatial management measures to be assessed. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance, thus there is some evidence that strategy is implemented successfully. SG80 is met. Evidence that the partial strategy is achieving its objective of maintaining secondary species catch at negligible levels can be drawn from consistent very low percentage contributions of these minor secondary species over the years (Table 7). SG 100 is met. d Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? Y Y Y Justifi From observer catch data (SARDI, 2018, unpublished data) there is no evidence that cation sharks are part of the SASF catch. It is possible that low numbers of sharks are encircled but not brailed on the boat. These are released from the net (T. Ward, pers. comm. May, 2018). Some shark species will be assessed under ETP section of this report. Australian legislation prohibits shark finning (Fisheries Management General Regulations, 2017) and there is no incentive for SASF fishers to practice shark

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 149

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. finning. There is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justifi There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial review cation potential effectiveness and of the potential of the potential practicality of alternative effectiveness and effectiveness and measures to minimise UoA- practicality of alternative practicality of alternative related mortality of measures to minimise measures to minimise unwanted catch of main secondary species. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all secondary species and secondary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Guide Unwanted catch is already minimized (there are no discards), as such, a review of post alternative measures is not relevant. This issue is not scored

Goldsworthy, S.D., Page, B, Rogers, RP & Ward, T. (2011) Established ecosystem –based management for the South Australian Sardine Fishery: developing ecological performance indicators and reference points to assess the need for ecological allocations. Final Report to the FRDC SARDI (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000863-1. SARDI Report Series No. 529 173 pp. Gillanders, BM, Goldsworthy, S, Prowse, TAA, Doubell, M, Middleton, J, Rogers, P, Tanner, JA, Clisby, NA, James, C, Luick, J, van Ruth, P, Bradshaw, CJA, Ward, TM (2015) Spencer Gulf research initiative: Development of an ecosystem model for fisheries and aquaculture. University of Adelaide and SARDI Aquatic Sciences, Adelaide. CC BY 3. References Government of South Australia, Fisheries Management Regulations (2017). Available at Available at https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/Fisheries%20Management%20(General)%20Reg ulations%202017.aspx MSC (2014). MSC fisheries certification requirements and guidance, v.2.0, 1st October 2014. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 528 pp PIRSA (2014a). Management plan for the South Australian Commercial Marine Scalefish Fishery, Part B– management arrangements for the taking of sardines. The South Australian Fisheries Management Series. Paper number 68. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 150

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information post adequate to estimate the information is available is available and adequate impact of the UoA on the and adequate to assess to assess with a high main secondary species the impact of the UoA on degree of certainty the with respect to status. main secondary species impact of the UoA on with respect to status. OR main secondary species OR with respect to status. If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate information is adequate to productivity and assess productivity and susceptibility attributes susceptibility attributes for main secondary for main secondary species. species. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Quantitative catch and effort data is available (CDR and observers’ reports, SARDI, cation unpublished) to assess with a high degree of certainty that the SASF does not impact ‘main’ secondary species with respect to status because the cumulative non-target species catch is below 2%. Quantitative information is available and adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty that SASF has no impact on ‘main’ secondary species. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.

Met? Y Justifi Information on catch composition comes mainly from a fishery independent source- the cation observer program. The observer program was implemented in November 2004 to monitor ETP interactions and especially dolphin interactions. Initially run by SARDI Aquatic Sciences, the program was taken over by Protec Marine Pty Ltd in 2006 (PIRSA, 2014a), now Seatec Contractors and Consultants. Since implementation, observer coverage was set at 10% of fishing operations with the exception of 2007/2008 to 2009/2010 fishing seasons when target coverage was set at 30% (Mackay, 2017). Catch composition information is obtained from samples provided to SARDI by observers contracted by PIRSA. Collection data provided by observers (e.g. logsheet number) are used to link each sample to the data recorded in logbooks for each net-set. Logbook and observer catch composition data are stored in an Oracle database maintained by SARDI. The database includes data on numbers of bycatch species in catch samples. As the occurrence of species other than sardine in catch samples is infrequent, historically, quantifying bycatch hasn’t been a priority, although since 2009, bycatch information has been consistently collected (T. Ward,

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 151

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. pers. comm. May 2018). Although samples collected by observers may not have the power to identify extremely rare species, it is widely agreed that sardines contribute over 98% of the catch (observer data, SARDI, 2018, unpublished, T. Ward (SARDI), pers. comm. May 2018, L. Mackuch (engineer and first mate), pers. comm. May 2018). Qualitative information on minor secondary species is also available from the SASF ESD risk assessment. All species potentially caught by the SASF were subject of a qualitative risk assessment in 2013 at the ESD risk assessment workshop conducted by PIRSA and key stakeholders. (PIRSA, 2013a). In addition, information on the productivity, abundance, mortality of the minor secondary species was reviewed and used in modelling ecological change associated with the growth of the SASF (i.e. Goldsworthy et al, 2013 and Gillanders et al, 2015) (PIRSA, 2013a).

The information available for minor secondary species is adequate to show that all species are ‘minor’ and that all species are at negligible risk from the fishery. The SG 100 is met c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main secondary to manage main secondary manage all secondary species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y Y Justifi As there are no ‘main’ secondary species, SG60 and SG80 are met by default. cation Information is adequate to support a partial strategy for minor secondary species, i.e. to minimize their catch. Species specific information is collected for minor secondary species by independent observers (sampled fish are identified at SARDI, SARDI, 2018, unpublished data) and in fishery logbooks, which are sent monthly to SARDI (logbook returns). Information is adequate to support the partial strategy and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the partial strategy is achieving its objective. As stated before, the requirement at SG100 for Management PI for ‘minor’ would correspond to SG80 for ‘main’. Similarly, adequate information to support a partial strategy for ‘minor’ secondary species, when there are no ‘main’ species, is sufficient to meet the requirement for SG100 for this scoring issue. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. Goldsworthy, S. D., Page, B., Rogers, P. J., Bulman, C., Wiebkin, A., McLeay, L. J., . . . Ward, T. M. (2013). Trophodynamics of the eastern Great Australian Bight ecosystem: Ecological change associated with the growth of Australia's largest fishery. Ecological Modelling, 255, 38-57. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2013.01.006

Gillanders, BM, Goldsworthy, S, Prowse, TAA, Doubell, M, Middleton, J, Rogers, P, References Tanner, JA, Clisby, NA, James, C, Luick, J, van Ruth, P, Bradshaw, CJA, Ward, TM (2015) Spencer Gulf research initiative: Development of an ecosystem model for fisheries and aquaculture. University of Adelaide and SARDI Aquatic Sciences, Adelaide. CC BY 3. Government of South Australia, Fisheries Management Regulations (2017). Available at Available at https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/Fisheries%20Management%20(General) %20Regulations%202017.aspx

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 152

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Mackay, A.I. (2017). Operational interactions with Threatened, Endangered or Protected Species in South Australian Managed Fisheries Data Summary: 2007/08 –2015/16. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2009/000544-7. SARDI Research Report Series No. 945. 74pp. PIRSA (2013a). ESD risk assessment of South Australia’s Sardine Fishery. Accessed at: (http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/68608772-df30-455e-9aa9- 379ed843eb33/files/sa-sardine-fishery-draft-esd.pdf) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 153

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guide Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or post international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, the effects of the UoA on the combined effects of there is a high degree of the population/stock are the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the known and likely to be population/stock are combined effects of the within these limits. known and highly likely to MSC UoAs are within be within these limits. these limits. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi There are no national and/or international set limits for ETP species that interact with cation the SASF. b Direct effects Guide Known direct effects of Known direct effects of There is a high degree of post the UoA are likely to not the UoA are highly likely confidence that there are hinder recovery of ETP to not hinder recovery of no significant detrimental species. ETP species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justifi Over 90% of ETP common dolphin (Delphinus delphis). Other ETP interactions involved cation pinnipeds, sharks and birds. Cetaceans Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) All cetaceans are protected under the EPBC act but there are no set limits. The SASF interacts with one species of cetacean, the common dolphin (common dolphin hereafter). Interactions take place mostly in southern Spencer Gulf, but some interactions occur in Gulf St Vincent and outside gulf waters, on the eastern Great Australian Bight. The IUCN Red List status for the common dolphin is ‘least concern’ (Hammond et al, 2008). Globally, common dolphins are broadly distributed (DEE, 2018). Population sub-structuring has been reported between locations along the south coast of Australia and from samples collected off New South Wales and the southeast of Tasmania (Bilgmann et al. 2008, 2014a, Möller et al. 2012). There is evidence that at least some common dolphins have high site fidelity (e.g. Mason et al, 2016) During the 2015/16 financial year, common dolphin was the only ETP species that interacted with the SASF. Out of 195 individuals (68 interactions) reported in WIFs to have been encircled in the purse seine net, two were reported dead and all the others released in a good health state Mackay, 2017). For the 2016-17 and 2017-18, 201 and 272 animals were reported as encircled (reported in WIF to PIRSA). Out of these, only one mortality has occurred in 2016-17 and none in 2017- 18 (SASIA, 2018). Fishery-independent data on the occurrence and nature of operational interactions between the SASF and common dolphins have been collected since 2004 and an industry code of practice has been introduced since 2015 (Mackay and Goldsworthy, 2017). SARDI observer program reported an 87% reduction in dolphin encirclement rates and a 97%

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 154

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species reduction in mortality rates after the CoP had been developed (Mackay and Goldsworthy, 2017). Observed encirclement rates of dolphins have reduced from 37 encirclements per 100 net-sets in 2004-05, before the introduction of the CoP, to 8 encirclements per 100 net-sets in 2015- 16 (Mackay, 2017). The mortality rate estimated from observer data declined from 39 (95% CI = 22–55) dolphins per hundred net-sets in 2004–05 to 1 (0−2) in 2005–06, then increased to 9 (2−16) in 2006–07 and declined to 6 (3−9) in 2007–08. Less than three mortalities were predicted per hundred net-sets since 2007–08 (Ward et al, 2018a). No mortalities were observed in 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2017-18, and mortality rates could not be estimated from observed data (Ward et al, 2018a, SASIA, 2018). Since 2004-05, the total number of dolphin encirclement events and mortalities estimated from observer data has been usually higher than the total number of encirclement events and mortalities reported in fishery logbooks (in the years when mortality was observed); however, the discrepancy has reduced over time. In 2004-05, logbooks reported approximately 5% of the total number of encirclement events estimated from observer data, while since 2013-14 the estimated and reported numbers of encirclement events were similar (Ward et al. 2015b, Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017, Ward et al, 2018a). At the current level of observer coverage, mortality estimates from observer data cannot be meaningfully compared to mortality levels reported in fishery’s logbooks (Hamer et al, 2008, Ward et al, 2018a). This is due to the fact that mortality events became rare and there is not sufficient power to identify decreasing trends from 2006 levels (see Box4 in the main text) Considering recent interaction and mortality levels (2009-2012), the experts participating in the SASF ESD risk assessment workshop concluded that fishery’s impact on dolphins is negligible (PIRSA, 2013a). Conservative PBRs for common dolphins in the SASF fishing area are available from by Moller et al (2012), 61 for summer and 92 for winter. Mackay et al (2016) also estimated a PBR for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery zones, zone 2 overlapping to the outside gulfs zone of the SASF. The estimated PBR for this zone was 261. The PBR level is, conceptually, the maximum number of anthropogenic mortalities a marine mammal population can sustain while still allowing that “stock” to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (OSP). The PBRs in Australia do not represent legislated limits for ETP species. The annual number of interactions (encircled dolphins) is comparable with the estimated PBRs, although dolphin mortality is significantly lower (0-4 in the last 5 years). Unobserved mortality There are known situation purse seine fishing can have serious effects on dolphin populations. The best-known example is the tuna fishery in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, where groups of dolphins associated with tunas are chased, encircled and released in a technique known as “dolphin fishing”, which produces large catches of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) with limited by-catch of small non-target tunas, and previously caused large numbers of dolphin mortalities (see Box1). In eastern tropical Pacific, even though observed mortalities have reduced significantly, dolphin populations affected did not recover as expected and unobserved mortalities (‘cryptic’ mortalities) related to stress or to calf-mother separation are among the hypothesised causes (e.g. Wade et al, 2007). In addition, there may be encirclement related stress causing change in tissue chemistry of dolphins (Wade et al 2007). Although this has not been proven to have population level effects, it potentially does when it affects the ability for females to conceive or leads to increased foetal mortality (Moller et al, 2012) The probability for such cryptic mortalities to occur as result of dolphin encirclement in the SASF has been considered comparing fishing practices in the SASF and in the eastern tropical Pacific tuna fishery (see the main text). It was concluded that stress to dolphins during encirclements or calf-mother separations are highly likely to be much lower than in the Pacific

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 155

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species tuna fishery. Although there are indications that calf-mother separations might have occurred in the past (Kemper, 2018), the low level of mortality in recent years (i.e. no mortality in the latest financial year and one mortality in the previous year) are evidence that even if the unobserved mortality would double the reported mortality level, this will still be very low and highly unlikely to significantly increase the risk to common dolphin population. Nevertheless, there is still uncertainty about the level of stress the encircled dolphins suffer. Some evidence suggest that this species might be more sensitive to stress than other dolphin species (e.g. C. Kemper, 2018, pers. comm, Bearzi et al, 2003, https://www.dolphins- world.com/common-dolphin/). It can be concluded that known direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species. SG60 and SG 80 are met. Due to a limited understanding of the common dolphin population and the post-encirclement stress effects, it cannot be concluded with a high degree of certainty that the fishery does not create significant detrimental impact to common dolphin. SG100 is not met. Pinnipeds The second most frequent interactions since 2007/08 (8% of total) occur with three species of seals: Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea), long-nosed fur seal (Arctocephalus forsteri) and Australian fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus). The number of interactions reported between pinnipeds and purse seine operations has decreased from a maximum of 24 in 2007/08 to one in 2014/15. The highest number of individual seals reported to interact with the fishery was 75 in 2008/09. Since 2007/08, 60% of pinniped interactions have been reported in the ‘other’ category, with comments specifying seals were swimming in and out of the net. No mortalities were reported since 2007/2008 fishing season. No interactions with pinnipeds were reported in WIFs during 2015/16, however independent observers recorded 19 interactions with seals swimming freely in and out of the net, or swimming outside the net during fishing operations. Observer data from 2015/16 identified 16 of the individuals were Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea). Fishers not reporting this type of interaction may be due to the fact that according to the definition of an interaction, they are not required to report it. A “wildlife interaction” in the WIF is defined as “any physical contact a fisher, boat or fishing gear has with wildlife and protected species. This includes any collision or capture (hooked, netted or entangled) of individuals of a species.” Since 2007/2008, out of 141 pinnipeds interacting with the SASF, the majority (95%) have been reported as unidentified seal species, with species level reports of four Australian sea lions, two long-nosed fur seals and one Australian fur seal (Mackay, 2017). Australian sea-lions (Neophoca cinerea), are endemic to Australia and restricted to South and Western Australia. The species is listed as marine and vulnerable under the EPBC Act although there are no set limits. It is also listed as “endangered” on the IUCN Red List. Australian sea lion pup abundance in South Australia (SA), which account for 83% of the species, declined by 24% since surveys undertaken 7-11 years earlier (between 2004 and 2008). For the entire GAB region (SA and south coast Western Australia), based on the change in Australian sea lion pup abundance between two comparable surveys, the decline in pup numbers was estimated to be 2.8% (sd = 3.2) per year, or 4.1% (sd = 4.8) per breeding season (Goldsworthy et al, 2017). An assessment of the size of the Australian sea lion populations in SA in the late-2000s mainly used data obtained between 2004 and 2008, although data for some breeding sites were from as early as 1990 (Shaughnessy et al. 2011). That study estimated Australian sea lion pup abundance in SA to be 3,119 while the latest survey estimated approx. 2,801 pups, and a total abundance 10,728 for the entire GAB region (SA and WA, Goldsworthy et al, 2017). Mackay et al (2017) calculated PBR at the individual colony/sub-population level. PBR ranged from 0 to 44 individuals per year and per colony.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 156

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species From observer reports, sea lions sometimes swim in and out of net, although no mortalities have been reported at least for the last 10 years (Mackay, 2017 There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the SASF on Australian sea lion. The requirements at SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met Long-nosed fur seals (Arctocephalus forsteri) are native to southern Australia and New Zealand and listed as ‘marine’ under the EPBC act with no set limits. This species was IUCN assessed as “least concern” (Chilvers & Goldsworthy, 2015). The long-nosed fur seal breeds in southern Australia from New South Wales to WA; it also breeds in New Zealand and its subantarctic islands. Most of the Australian population is in SA, between Kangaroo Island and the southern tip of Eyre Peninsula (Shaughnessy et al. 2014). Pup production across the three main colonies was estimated to be 5,592 in the 1993/94 year and based on an average annual increase of about 3.8%, 11,634 in 2012/13 (Gillanders et al., 2015). At the latest survey 24,063 pups and total abundance 114,540 were estimated for the GAB region (Goldsworthy et al, 2017). Mackay et al (2016) calculated a PBR for Long nosed-fur seals for the area where the SASF operates. The estimated PBR ranges between 2,499 to 4498. Two long-nosed fur seals have been reported by the SASF fishers in the WIFs in the last 10 years, although some of the seals reported as unidentified (141) could have been from this species. No mortalities have been reported for at least 10 years. There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on long-nosed fur seals. SG 60, SG80 and SG100 are met. The Australian fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus), are endemic to southeastern Australian waters and are found from the coasts of Tasmania, New South Wales, Victoria and across to South Australia with the centre of their distribution in Bass Strait. Australian fur seal is a subspecies of Australo-African fur seal, the other sub-species being the Cape fur seal. The ranges of both subspecies are expanding, with the new colonies established in the last decade (Goldsworthy, 2015). Australian fur-seal is listed as ‘marine’ under the EPBC Act with no set limits, and it was IUCN assessed as ‘least concern’. At the latest pinniped survey in the GAB region, 3,291 pups and a total abundance 14,811 for the GAB region (Goldsworthy et al, 2017). Mackay et al (2016) estimated a PBR from 2,623 to 4,721 individuals for the GAB area. One Australian fur seal was reported in the WIFs by the SASF fishers in the last 10 years, although some of the seals reported as unidentified (141) might have been Australian fur seal. No mortalities have been reported since 2007/2008 (Mackay, 2017). There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. SG 60, SG80 and SG100 are met Sharks Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and Shortfin Mako Shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) Two ETP species of mackerel sharks (Family Lamnidae) occur in EGAB area, the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) and shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus). These species are considered apex predators and are often associated with seal colonies regions (Gillanders et al., 2013). White sharks move into Spencer Gulf in spring and summer to hunt snapper and other large prey (Bruce et al., 2006). The white shark is an EPBC listed species as vulnerable and migratory. The listing of the white shark as vulnerable was based on a number of factors, including evidence of a declining population, its life history characteristics (long-lived and low levels of reproduction), limited local distribution and abundance and at the time of listing, and still being under pressure from the Australian commercial fishing industry (PIRSA, 2013a).

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 157

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species The recovery plan for white shark sets out management actions to stop the decline and support recovery of the species (http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/ce979f1b- dcaf-4f16-9e13-010d1f62a4a3/files/white-shark.pdf). Commercial fisheries are required to quantify mortality as bycatch, including post-release mortality and minimize interactions as to not hinder recovery. No specific limits are set. Also, the shortfin mako is an EPBC listed species as a highly migratory and threatened species. There are no set limits for mako sharks either. Both species are pelagic and occur in EGAB areas during summer (Gillanders et al., 2013). The 2013 ESD workshop participants assessed the impact of the SASF on great white shark and mako shark as negligible. A total of 14 interactions with 14 individual white sharks were reported since 2007/08 with no mortality. Comments indicate that most interactions happened when a shark was incidentally encircled in the net during fishing operations and subsequently released (Mackay, 2017). There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the SASF on the great white sharks and shortfin mako sharks. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. Seabirds Continental shelf, inshore coastal waters and embayments of the Great Australian Bight (GAB) form important foraging habitats for a diverse array of seabirds with breeding colonies on inshore and offshore islands. Seventeen seabird species have been recorded to breed in the area of the GAB. These species include representatives from penguins (Spheniscidae), terns (Sternidae), storm petrels (Hydrobatidae), diving petrel (Pelecanoididae), gannets (Sulidae), shags and cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae) and the marine raptors (Accipitridae) (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). SASF does not normally interact with birds. There has been one report of a single interaction that resulted in the mortality of two shearwaters (species unknown) in 2008/09. No further interactions with seabirds have been reported since this time. There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the SASF on bird species. SG60, SG80, SG100 are met. c Indirect effects Guide Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of post considered and are confidence that there are thought to be highly likely no significant detrimental to not create unacceptable indirect effects of the impacts. fishery on ETP species. Met? Y Y Justifi cation Common dolphin Impacts from the sardine fishery may also be indirect due to prey depletion through overfishing (Bilgmann et al., 2008). These indirect effects have been explored in an EGAB trophodynamic changes modelling study in relation to sardine fishery (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). Common dolphin’s diet profile showed that Australian sardine had a significant percentage contribution (20.8%), but lower than anchovy (43.3%), the rest of the diet consisting in mackerel (11.4%), trevally (6.4) and other species. However, the diet profile used in this study might not be highly accurate for the common dolphin population (S. Goldsworthy, pers. comm. May 2018). In contrast, Dr. Kemper from the South Australian Museum, who collected dolphin bodies from SASF kill, which were used to study diet

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 158

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species composition, suggested that the species might be highly dependent on sardines (C. Kemper, 2018, pers.comm). Kemper and Gibb, 2001, analysing gastrointestinal contents from dolphins entangled in tuna feedlots at Port Lincoln Overall, the Ecosim model showed increase in apex predators population, including dolphins, for the modelled period (1991-2008) and the operation and expansion of the SASF had negligible impact on these predators. Although projections up to year 2040 have shown that common dolphin population is sensitive to Australian sardine abundance, with some reduction in dolphin population if the sardine population is reduced, Goldsworthy et al (2011) concluded that the current management strategy of the SASF is sufficiently conservative to ensure it does not impact apex predators. Most sardines are taken from a relatively limited area of 10,000 km2 in southern Spencer Gulf, where localised depletions could occur. (Goldsworthy et al, 2011), although Gillanders et al (2015) have found sardines migrations from the shelf areas in Spencer must occur (egg count in Spencer Gulf could not explain the catch), thus localised depletions are unlikely. In any case, a local depletion of sardines in Spencer Gulf is not likely to seriously affect common dolphins, considering their large-scale movements and their opportunistic changes in diet (Goldsworthy et al, 2011) Indirect effects have been considered and are thought to be highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts. SG80 is met. Similar results from different ecosystem modelling studies (Goldsworthy et al, 2011, Gillanders et al, 2015, Johnson, 2011, Smith et al, 2015) suggest there is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species. SG 100 is met. Pinnipeds Indirect effects of the SASF on pinnipeds were explored within the EGAB ecosystem modelling study (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). This study has shown that the SASF expansion supported recovery of the pinniped species over the modelled period (1991-2009). Their diet profiles include very low proportions of sardines (0% for Australian fur seal, 2.1% for long- nosed fur seal and 0.1% for Australian sea lion) (Goldsworthy et al., 2011), thus the fishery does not directly compete with these species. Goldsworthy et al (2011) study support a high degree of confidence that at the actual level of operation of the SASF, there are no significant detrimental indirect effects from the fishery on pinniped populations. However, future decreases (2008-2040 scenarios) in sardine biomass could lead to decrease in growth rates for long-nosed fur seal and Australian sea lion, while the Australian fur seal populations could increase (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). SASF is managed at a precautionary level and harvest controls in place are likely to maintain Australian sardines at highly productive levels. SG80 and SG100 are met. Sharks Indirect effects of the SASF on ETP shark species were also considered within the ecosystem modeling study for the effect of sardine fishing (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). The Ecosim models demonstrates that sardine fishery, at the current level of exploitation, has a negligible impact on apex predator populations. The expansion of the sardine fishery supported an increase in pelagic sharks biomass. Also, projections to 2040 show an increase in pelagic shark biomass with the reduction of the sardine stock. There is a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental effects of the SASF on the great white sharks and mako sharks. SG80 and SG100 are met Seabirds Indirect effects on seabirds were considered within the ecosystem modeling study (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). Ecosim model has shown that the expansion of the sardine fishery between 1991 and 2008 did not significantly affect the abundance of bird species. Nevertheless, projection scenarios up to 2040 show that some bird populations were negatively impacted by reductions in sardine biomass. Crested tern (Thalasseus bergii)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 159

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species demonstrated the greatest sensitivity to reductions in sardine biomass both in direction (negative) and magnitude, followed by Australasian gannets. The latter species only breeds at one site in the EGAB region, in its southeast, on a disused lighthouse platform off Cape Jaffa, distant from the centre of the sardine fishery. In contrast, there are many breeding colonies of crested terns situated adjacent to the sardine fishery in southern Spencer Gulf and Investigator Strait. Demographic studies of the species indicate that birds were smaller and had lower survival rates in years following the two mass mortality events of sardines, in 1995 and 1998 (McLeay et al. 2009). Page et al. (in Goldsworthy et al, 2011) found that the morphology of crested terns was negatively related to sardine spawning biomass in the previous year (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). The current level of sardines’ exploitation is around 25% of spawning biomass (PIRSA, 2014a), which is conservative enough to ensure ecosystem impacts are minimised. This is consistent with other findings from studies on low trophic level fishing. Smith et al. (2011) found that broader ecosystem impacts from fishing low trophic level species could be substantially reduced by halving exploitation rates from typical ( 60%) maximum sustainable yield levels to 30% exploitation rates. Also, Cury et al (2011) examined the impacts of low trophic level depletion on global seabird populations, and identified∼ a threshold prey abundance below ∼which breeding success consistently declined. This threshold was approximately one-third of the maximum observed prey abundance, with the authors suggesting that a general rule of “one-third for the birds” could be applied as a guiding principle to EBFM of low-trophic level fisheries, by ensuring that exploitation rates maintain target species above one-third of their maximum observed long- term biomass (Cury et al., 2011). There is a high degree of certainty that, at the current level of exploitation, the SASF does not have significant detrimental effects on the crested tern population. SG 80 and SG 100 are met. Bearzi, G., Reeves, R. R., Notarbartolo‐Di‐Sciara, G. , Politi, E., Cañadas, A. , Frantzis, A. And Mussi, B. (2003), Ecology, status and conservation of short‐beaked common dolphins Delphinus delphis in the Mediterranean Sea. Mammal Review, 33: 224-252. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00032.x Bilgmann K, Möller LM, Harcourt RG, Gales R, Beheregaray LB (2008) Common dolphins subject to fisheries impacts in Southern Australia are genetically differentiated: implications for conservation. Anim Conserv 11: 518−528 Bilgmann, K., Parra, G.J., Zanardo, N., Beheregaray, L.B.and Möller, L.M (2014a). Multiple management units of short-beaked common dolphins subject to fisheries bycatch off southern and southeastern Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 500: 265-279 Chilvers, B.L. & Goldsworthy, S.D. 2015. Arctocephalus forsteri. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T41664A45230026. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- References 2.RLTS.T41664A45230026.en. Cury, M, I.L. Boyd, S. Bonhommeau, T.Anker Nilssen, R.J.M. Crawford, R.W.Furness, J.A. Mills, E.J. Murphy, H.Österblom, M. Paleczn y, J.F. Piatt, J.-P.Roux, L. Shannon, W.J. Sydeman Global seabird response to forage fish depletion—one-third for the birds Science, 334 (2011), pp. 1703-1706 Department of the Environment (2018). Delphinus delphis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Goldsworthy, S.D., Page, B, Rogers, RP & Ward, T. (2011) Established ecosystem –based management for the South Australian Sardine Fishery: developing ecological performance indicators and reference points to assess the need for ecological allocations. Final Report to the FRDC SARDI (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000863-1. SARDI Report Series No. 529 173 pp.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 160

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Goldsworthy S.D, Mackay A.I, Bilgmann K, MÖller L.M, Parra G.J, Gill P, Bailleul F, Shaughnessy P, Reinhold S-L and Rogers P.J (2017). Status, distribution and abundance of iconic species and apex predators in the Great Australian Bight. Final Report GABRP Project 4.1. Great Australian Bight Research Program, GABRP Research Report Series Number 15, 227pp. Gillanders BM, Z Doubleday, P Cassey, S Clarke, SD Connell, M Deveney, S Dittmann, S Divecha, M Doubell, S Goldsworthy, B Hayden, C Huveneers, C James, S Leterme, X Li, M Loo, J Luick, W Meyer, J Middleton, D Miller, L Moller, T Prowse, P Rogers, BD Russell, P van Ruth, JE Tanner, T Ward, SH Woodcock, M Young (2013) Spencer Gulf Ecosystem & Development Initiative. Report on Scenario development, Stakeholder workshops, Existing knowledge & Information gaps. Report for Spencer Gulf Ecosystem and Development Initiative. The University of Adelaide, Adelaide. 94 pages. Johnson P, Bulman C, Fulton B and Smith T (2010) MSC Low Trophic Level Project: South Eastern Australia Case Study. Marine Stewardship Council Science Series 1: 111 –170. Gillanders, BM, Goldsworthy, S, Prowse, TAA, Doubell, M, Middleton, J, Rogers, P, Tanner, JA, Clisby, NA, James, C, Luick, J, van Ruth, P, Bradshaw, CJA, Ward, TM (2015) Spencer Gulf research initiative: Development of an ecosystem model for fisheries and aquaculture. University of Adelaide and SARDI Aquatic Sciences, Adelaide. CC BY 3.Hamer, D.J., Ward, T.M. and McGarvey, R. (2008). Measurement, management and mitigation of operational interactions between the South Australian Sardine Fishery and short-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) Biological Conservation 141, 2865-2878 Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2008. Delphinus delphis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T6336A12649851. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T6336A12649851.en. Mackay, A.I. and Goldsworthy, S.D (2016). Mitigating operational interactions with short- beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis): application of the South Australian Sardine Fishery Industry Code of Practice 2015-16. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000726-7. SARDI Research Report Series No. 934. 38pp. Mackay, A.I. and Goldsworthy, S.D. (2017). Mitigating operational interactions with short- beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis): application of the South Australian Sardine Fishery industry Code of Practice 2016-17. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000726-8. SARDI Research Report Series No. 970. 44pp. Mackay, A.I. (2017). Operational Interactions with Threatened, Endangered or Protected Species in South Australian Managed Fisheries. Data Summary: 2007/08 – 2015/16. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2009/000544-7. SARDI Research Report Series No. 945. 74pp. Mason, S., Salgado Kent, C., Donnelly, D., Weir, J., & Bilgmann, K. (2016). Atypical residency of short-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) to a shallow, urbanized embayment in south-eastern Australia. Royal Society Open Science, 3(9), 160478. http://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160478 McLeay, L.J., B. Page, S.D. Goldsworthy, T.M. Ward, D.C. PatonSize matters: variation in the diet of chick and adult crested terns Marine Biology, 156 (2009), pp. 1765-1780 Möller, L., Parra, G.J. and Bilgmann, K. (2012). Population size, structure and habitat preferences of common dolphins in South Australia: enhancing the assessment, reduction and

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 161

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species mitigation of fisheries operational interactions. Final report to the Australian Marine Mammal Centre PIRSA (2013a). ESD risk assessment of South Australia’s Sardine Fishery. Accessed at: (http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/68608772-df30-455e-9aa9- 379ed843eb33/files/sa-sardine-fishery-draft-esd.pdf) PIRSA (2014a). Management plan for the South Australian Commercial Marine Scalefish Fishery, Part B– management arrangements for the taking of sardines. The South Australian Fisheries Management Series. Paper number 68. SASIA (2018). South Australian Sardine Fishery Minutes of Research & Management / Wildlife Working Group meeting held on Tuesday, 23 May, 2018, Port Lincoln Smith, A.D., Brown, C.J., Bulman, C.M., Fulton, E.A., Johnson, P., Kaplan, I.C., Lozano- Montes, H., Mackinson, S., Marzloff, M., Shannon, L.J., Shin, Y.J. and Tam, J. (2011). Impacts of fishing low-trophic level species on marine ecosystems. Science. 334(6052):39. Smith, A.D., Brown, C.J., Bulman, C.M., Fulton, E.A., Johnson, P., Kaplan, I.C., Lozano- Montes, H., Mackinson, S., Marzloff, M., Shannon, L.J., Shin, Y.J. and Tam, J. (2011). Impacts of fishing low-trophic level species on marine ecosystems. Science. 334(6052):39. Wade PR, Watters GM, Gerrodette T, Reilly SB (2007) Depletion of spotted and spinner dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific: modeling hypotheses for their lack of recovery. Marine Ecology Progress Series 343:1-14 Ward, T. M., Ivey, A. and Carroll, J. (2015b). Effectiveness of an industry Code of Practice in mitigating the operational interactions of the South Australian Sardine Fishery with the short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis). Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture (PDF 1.9 MB). South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000726-6. SARDI Research Report Series No. 876. 35pp. Ward, MT, Ivey, A, Carroll, J (2018a). Code of practice for reducing accidental mortality of dolphins in purse-seine fisheries. Marine Policy 87, pp 203-211.

Scoring Common Australian Long- Australian Great Crested Overall issue dolphin sea lion nosed fur fur seal white tern score seal shark 2.3.1 a N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 95 2.3.1 b 80 100 100 100 100 100 2.3.1.c 100 100 100 100 100 80 PI 2.3.1 90 100 100 100 100 90 95 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 162

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive post place that minimise the for managing the UoA’s strategy in place for UoA-related mortality of impact on ETP species, managing the UoA’s ETP species, and are including measures to impact on ETP species, expected to be highly minimise mortality, which including measures to likely to achieve national is designed to be highly minimise mortality, which and international likely to achieve national is designed to achieve requirements for the and international above national and protection of ETP species. requirements for the international requirements protection of ETP species. for the protection of ETP species. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi There are national and international requirements for protection of ETPs that interact cation with the SASF, but no explicit requirements for rebuilding, as necessary to score scoring issue a, thus issue b will be scored instead. b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive post place that are expected to that is expected to ensure strategy in place for ensure the UoA does not the UoA does not hinder managing ETP species, to hinder the recovery of the recovery of ETP ensure the UoA does not ETP species. species. hinder the recovery of ETP species Met? Y Y Y Justifi PIRSA is using an EBFM approach to the management of the SASF. Goal 3 of the cation SASF Management Plan requires: “protect and conserve aquatic resources, habitats and ecosystems”. One of the long-term objectives in achieving this goal is “minimize fishery impacts on TEPS”, where ‘TEPS’ (Threaten, Endangered and Protected Species) is equivalent to ‘ETPs’. This long-term objective is consistent with achieving the outcome expressed at PI 2.3.1. In practice, the measures to achieve this objective are: implementation of an industry code of practice (CoP), fishery dependent and fishery independent monitoring, scientific evaluation of the CoP effectiveness and revision and adjustment of the CoP based on scientific advice. The CoP includes crew induction and training (by PIRSA and SARDI), prescribed procedures to minimise ETP interactions and reporting of the ETP interactions. There is also an ongoing process of reviewing and improving of the CoP (SASIA, 2015). An identification guide for protected species is available for all PIRSA managed fisheries, Wildlife Interaction Logbook, and it can be found as an annex to the Operational Interactions with TEPS reports (e.g. Mackay, 2017). As over 90% of the interactions are with common dolphins, the CoP was introduced in 2005 primarily for the management of the SASF impacts on this species, although

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 163

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. the same practices apply for all large ETP species such as seals and sharks (SASIA, 2015). The CoP is a voluntary initiative of the SASIA and it is 100% supported by the licence holders (SASIA, 2015). To be noted, however, that the application of the CoP is a licence condition, thus compulsory for the fishery operators, and enforced by PIRSA’s overt and covert compliance monitoring. Code of Practice Procedures (adapted from SASIA, 2015) If wildlife (e.g. dolphins or seals) is sighted, skippers communicate to other vessels in real time, so other vessels avoid those areas. Skippers also coordinate the setting of nets to reduce fishing effort. Where a skipper has the opportunity to encircle enough for more than one vessel the skipper contacts other vessels in the area and offers them the opportunity to access the excess fish. This procedure reduces the number of shots made by the fleet minimising the risk of encircling dolphins or other protected species. To assist in efficient at-sea communication SASIA maintains an up-to-date skipper/vessel contact list that is displayed in the wheelhouse of all vessels. The code of practice requires fishers to make all reasonable efforts to detect dolphins or other ETP species presence before fishing commences. Each vessel must designate positions for crew members to visually assess the presence/absence prior to setting the net. Prior to setting the net, crew members communicate the results of their visual (and audible, Turner, pers. comm. May 2018) assessment to the skipper and the skipper responds as per a specific flowchart each vessel is provided with. On an ‘all- clear’ report, the skipper may instruct the crew to set the net. If the presence of dolphins/other wildlife is reported, the setting procedure is suspended until the area is free. (Note: following a mortality event in 2016 the WIWG concluded that a generic flowchart was not appropriate for all vessels and it can result in unsuccessful pre-setting search. This was replaced by vessel-specific flowcharts (Carr, pers. comm. May 2018). As soon as the net has been set (see Box 2 in the main text), i.e. the net is pursed (rings alongside) and the vessel lights have been turned on, all crew members scan the area inside the net to determine if any protected species are present. If such species are detected within the area inside the net, it is reported immediately to the skipper. The release procedure is then enacted as soon as practical and the release of the encircled wildlife becomes the priority for the fishing operation. To release the animals, the skipper lets the front of the net go to create a safe escape route. Once the purse seine net has been set successfully (with no encircled protected animals), all excess net is retrieved, and fish pumped/brailed aboard as quickly as practicable in order to reduce potential entanglements with wildlife that may be present outside the net (SASIA, 2015). Monitoring and reporting include: • Commercial logbooks completed by fishers • Wildlife interaction logbooks completed by fishers • An industry-led real-time monitoring program • A targeted independent scientific observer program The CoP is reviewed by a Wildlife Interaction Working Group that includes members from the SASF industry, PIRSA, SARDI and the DEWNR and ENGO

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 164

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. representatives (SASIA, 2018). The group meetings take place quarterly or following a real-time report of mortality event to assess the causes and alter the CoP if necessary and possible (Ward, pers. comm. May 2018, Shanks, pers. comm. May 2018). The CoP has been refined over time to reduce the number of interactions with dolphins and improve release procedures if an encirclement occurs (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017). Data on interactions with dolphins and other wildlife have been reported to PIRSA through the generic Wildlife Interaction Forms (WIF) since 2007 (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017), now replaced by the SASF consolidated WIFs, aligned with the information reported by observers for easier comparison (Mackay, 2018, pers. comm). The effectiveness of the CoP and its implementation are evaluated by SARDI in annual public reports and occasionally in journal articles (i.e. Hamer, 2008 and Ward et al, 2018a) According to the MSC definitions, a “comprehensive strategy” is a complete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analyses, and management measures and responses (MSC, 2014). Overall, there is a comprehensive strategy to manage dolphins and this applies to other protected large-bodied animals. This is in addition to general management measures that include fishing gear restrictions, limited entry, netting closures, marine parks closures, quota monitoring and VMS monitoring, which are likely to benefit populations of ETP species (directly and indirectly). There is a comprehensive strategy in place for managing ETP species, to ensure the SASF does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. c Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is an objective basis The post considered likely to work, for confidence that the strategy/comprehensive based on plausible measures/strategy will strategy is mainly based argument (e.g., general work, based on on information directly experience, theory or information directly about about the fishery and/or comparison with similar the fishery and/or the species involved, and a fisheries/species). species involved. quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Y Y Y Justifi SARDI quantitatively analyses the effectiveness and the implementation of the CoP cation and produces annual reports. The reports are based on observer data, fishery logbook catch and effort data, VMS tracks, and reported wildlife interaction data collected during each financial year The objectives of SARDI assessments of the CoP are: • to examine patterns of observer coverage, • compare observed and reported rates of dolphin encirclement and mortality, • assess the efficacy of the CoP in mitigating interactions with dolphins. Observed encirclement rates of dolphins have reduced from 37 encirclements per 100 net-sets in 2004-05, before the introduction of the CoP, to 8 encirclements per 100

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 165

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. net-sets in 2015-16 (Mackay, 2017). Observed mortality rates of dolphins have reduced from 39 dolphins per 100 net-sets in 2004-05 to less than 4 dolphins per year since 2009/2010 (Mackay and Goldsworthy 2016, 2017, SASIA, 2018). The decline in the number of mortalities observed since the implementation of the CoP is a result of both the reduction in encirclement rates due to avoidance procedures, and the increase in the percentage of encircled dolphins successfully released alive. The latter increased from 78% of individuals in 2004–05 to 100% in 2013–14. After 2013-14 very few mortalities occurred due to entanglement from outside the net. Such entanglements are rare because the sardine net is very selective, with minimum mesh size of 14mm and maximum 22mm (SASIA, 2017, M. Turner, pers. comm. May 2018)30. The pattern of release success recorded in logbooks was similar to that recorded by observers. In 2014–15, 91.3% of encircled dolphins were released successfully when an observer was not present (Ward et al, 2018a). The comprehensive strategy is based on information obtained by monitoring and research directly about the fishery and the species involved, and a quantitative analysis (by SARDI) supports high confidence that the strategy will work. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. d Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/strategy that the is being implemented strategy/comprehensive successfully. strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Y N Justifi The DEE considered that the CoP implementation was sufficient to comply with the cation condition prescribed at the 2009 accreditation of the SASF under the EPBC Act, which required PIRSA to adopt appropriate mitigation measures for dolphin interactions and to continue to monitor the level of such interactions (DEE, 2016a). Also, the evidence of effective reinforcement of the CoP and compliance by the SASF fishers was considered adequate as to re-accredit the fishery in 2016 (DEE, 2016a). The DEE re-accredited the SASF under the EPBC Act, Part 13, in 2016 with a new condition requiring PIRSA to: - ensure all Fishery participants adopt the most effective measures to mitigate interactions with dolphins; - ensure observer coverage captures seasonal and spatial variation in fishing activity across the fleet; and

30 To be noted that mesh size did not change and did not contribute to the decrease in mortality of dolphins, rather, entanglements have always been rare (see Hamer et al 2008).

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 166

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. - investigate and resolve uncertainties around difference in sardine CPUE when observers are present and when observers are not present, to improve reliability of observer data. This condition continues to be addressed and mostly met: The uncertainties have been investigated by SARDI and the results made public in annual reports. There have been some concerns that the presence of an observer influences fishers’ behaviour. More exactly, the CPUE has been lower in observed compared to unobserved sets. There were many confounding variables that could have influenced the CPUE, thus the interpretation of these differences is subjective (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017). There is no conclusive evidence that fishers behave differently when an observer is present (see main text for a detailed explanation) As discussed in Ward et al (2018a), the level of observer coverage undertaken in the SASF has been altered over time to reflect variations in the observed interaction rates and discrepancies with data reported in logbooks. As the fishery pays the independent observers contracted by PIRSA, the level of coverage has been used as a compliance tool (i.e. higher observer coverage is required if higher interaction rates and/or discrepancies are identified). Other tools used to promote adherence to the CoP have included: induction of new fishers into the CoP by the Executive Officer of SASIA; feedback and education provided to industry by PIRSA’s fisheries officers about their legislated responsibilities regarding interactions with cetaceans; and PIRSA’s overt and covert surveillance of fishing operations conducted from a fisheries compliance vessel (Ward et al, 2018a, Shanks, 2018, pers.com). Since 2004-05, the total number of dolphin encirclement events and mortalities estimated from observer data has been usually higher than the total number of encirclement events and mortalities reported in fishery logbooks; however, the discrepancy has reduced over time. In 2004-05, logbooks reported approximately 5% of the total number of encirclement events estimated from observer data, while in 2015-16 the estimated and reported numbers of encirclement events were similar (70 reported, 66 estimated) (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017), thus total reported encirclements were higher than the observer estimate. The SASF adopted the measures that were proven to decrease mortality of dolphins over a decade of CoP implementation and continuous improvement. Improvement in the seasonal representativeness of the observer coverage and fishery dependent data collecting (the SASF consolidated WIF) to match data collected by observers give confidence that the remaining uncertainties around the CPUE differences will be solved. Dolphin interaction rates and dolphin mortalities have reduced considerably after the implementation of the CoP (Hamer et al, 2008, Ward et al, 2018a). There have been no mortalities in the current financial year (2017-18 season, SASIA, 2018) and one mortality in the previous financial year (SASIA, 2017) suggesting that the strategy is achieving its objective of minimizing mortalities of dolphins. There is some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. SG80 is met. However, the number of common dolphins that are encircled every year is still high and the post- encirclement effects on individual dolphins and on population/subpopulations are not known. SG100 not met.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 167

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial review post potential effectiveness and of the potential of the potential practicality of alternative effectiveness and effectiveness and measures to minimise practicality of alternative practicality of alternative UoA-related mortality of measures to minimise measures to minimise ETP species. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality ETP species and they are ETP species, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The effectiveness of the CoP is quantitatively analysed by SARDI on an annual basis cation and annual reports are produced and publicly available. The scientific advice and empirical evidence are used to review and adjust the CoP by a Wildlife Interaction Working Group (WIWG). The WIWG includes members from the SASF industry, PIRSA, SARDI, the DEWNR and ENGO representatives (SASIA, 2018). The group meetings take place quarterly or following a real-time report of mortality event to assess the causes and alter the CoP if necessary and possible (Ward, pers. comm. May 2018, Shanks, pers. comm. May 2018). The CoP has been refined over time to reduce the number of interactions with dolphins and improve release procedures if encirclement occurs (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017). For example, release procedures initially included: (i) corkline weights – weights used to sink the corkline to provide an opening for dolphin exit/escape; (ii) dolphin gate – of net unclipped from corkline to provide an opening for dolphins to exit the net; (iii) physical removal – dolphins removed from the net by crew members in a skiff; and (iv) opening the net - net opened to allow dolphins escape or the set aborted. Empirical evidence from practice and statistical evidence from SARDI analyses have identified that the procedure with the highest success was the opening of the net which is now the designated procedure for releasing dolphins. Another example is the optimisation of the searching procedure before setting the net with vessel-specific flowcharts that show the position and responsibility of each crew member during the search (Carr, pers. comm. May 2018).

There is a quarterly review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise the SASF-related mortality of ETP species, and they are implemented as appropriate. SG60, SG 80 and SG 100 are met. DEE (2016a) Assessment of the South Australian Sardine Fishery. https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/72da29f4-befd-40a5-baa5- f21abe509e04/files/sa-sardine-fishery-assessment-report-2016.pdf Hamer, D.J., Ward, T.M. and McGarvey, R. (2008). Measurement, management and mitigation of operational interactions between the South Australian Sardine Fishery and short- References beaked common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) Biological Conservation 141, 2865-2878 Mackay, A.I. and Goldsworthy, S.D (2016). Mitigating operational interactions with short- beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis): application of the South Australian Sardine Fishery Industry Code of Practice 2015-16. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000726-7. SARDI Research Report Series No. 934. 38pp.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 168

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: • meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Mackay, A.I. and Goldsworthy, S.D. (2017). Mitigating operational interactions with short- beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis): application of the South Australian Sardine Fishery industry Code of Practice 2016-17. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000726-8. SARDI Research Report Series No. 970. 44pp. Mackay, A.I. (2017). Operational Interactions with Threatened, Endangered or Protected Species in South Australian Managed Fisheries. Data Summary: 2007/08 – 2015/16. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2009/000544-7. SARDI Research Report Series No. 945. 74pp. MSC (2014). MSC fisheries certification requirements and guidance, v.2.0, 1st October 2014. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 528 pp SASIA (2015) Code of practice for mitigation of interactions of the South Australian Sardine Fishery with threatened, endangered, and protected species, South Australian Sardine Industry Association, Port Lincoln, www.sasardines.com.au/links- resources.html. SASIA (2017). South Australian Sardine Fishery Minutes of Research & Management / Wildlife Working Group meeting held on Tuesday, 10 Nov, 2017, Port Lincoln. SASIA (2018). South Australian Sardine Fishery Minutes of Research & Management / Wildlife Working Group meeting held on Tuesday, 23 May, 2018, Port Lincoln Ward, T.M. Ivey, A. Carroll, J. (2018a) Code of practice for reducing accidental mortality of dolphins in purse-seine fisheries, Marine Policy (87), 2018, 203-211 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Scoring Common issue dolphin 2.3.2 a N/A 2.3.2 b 100 95 2.3.2.c 100 2.3.2.d 80 2.3.2.e 100 PI 2.3.2 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

As common dolphin is the most vulnerable species, and the strategy in place is mainly for dolphins but covers the other ETP species, scoring for this PI was done based on the common dolphin. Explanation for the final score: all scoring issues meet SG80, most meet SG100, few (one) does not meet SG100 (MSC, 2014, 7.10. Scoring a Fishery)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 169

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information post adequate to estimate the information is adequate to is available to assess with UoA related mortality on assess the UoA related a high degree of certainty ETP species. mortality and impact and the magnitude of UoA- to determine whether the related impacts, UoA may be a threat to mortalities and injuries OR protection and recovery of and the consequences for the ETP species. the status of ETP species. If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR

Qualitative information is If RBF is used to score PI adequate to estimate 2.3.1 for the UoA: productivity and susceptibility attributes Some quantitative for ETP species. information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justifi The level of interaction with dolphins and other ETPs is monitored through: cation • A targeted independent scientific observer program • Commercial logbooks completed by fishers • Wildlife interaction logbooks completed by fishers • An industry-led real-time monitoring program • Regular meetings of the wildlife interaction WG • An annual independent scientific report on the effectiveness of the Code of Practice. These reports are internally peer reviewed and also reviewed by the CCSA (Ward, 2018, pers. comm). Occasionally, this information is published as externally peer- reviewed journal articles (Hamer et al, 2008, Ward et al, 2018a). An independent onboard observer program has operated in the fishery since July 2006. The objective of the observer program has been to measure compliance with the CoP, rather than determine accurate measures of dolphin mortality. Observers collect information on dolphin (and other ETPs) interaction and mortality rates, as well as data relating to the application of the CoP, such as whether a search has been made prior to the net being set and the release method used if an encirclement has occurred. Observer coverage was initially set at 10% however, due to an increase in observed encirclement and mortality rates in 2006-07 compared to the 2005-06, the observer coverage increased to 30% from 2007/08 to 2009/10. This level of coverage was subsequently reduced to 10% after refinements to the CoP. The current level of

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 170

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. observer coverage is based on a power analysis undertaken by Hamer et al. (2008) to identify major declines in the application or effectiveness of the CoP, but not for obtaining precise estimates of a total number of dolphins interacting with the SASF (Mackay & Goldsworthy, 2017). Fishers are required to complete fishery logbooks that document the date, location and timing of each net-set, the weight of each set catch, and details of interactions with ETPs. Since 2007, fishers have also been required to complete Wildlife Interaction Forms, which are validated, stored and collated by SARDI Aquatic Sciences (e.g. Mackay, 2017). Since 2017, a new dedicated WIF form for the SASF was introduced, the SASF Consolidated WIF, which is more detailed and corresponds to data collected by observers. In 2011, SASIA initiated a data collection and monitoring program to collect and collate real-time ETP interaction information. If dolphin or other ETP mortality occurs, the license holder was required to immediately notify PIRSA via FISHWATCH phone line or via mobile phone reporting application. Required information for the phone report includes: ETP species, number of dead individuals, what port will the carcass be landed at, licence holder or registered master’s name. In a recent update of the CoP (not yet in place), the new notification protocol calls for a teleconference involving the fishery, SARDI, PIRSA, a DEWNR representative, at minimum (SASIA, 2017). These data are in addition to information collected through logbooks and the observer program and they are being used to reduce any discrepancies between data sets by providing ongoing and timely feedback of the Industry’s performance while highlighting areas for improvement. SASIA has established an ETPs working group that holds quarterly meetings to monitor and report to PIRSA on the level of interactions and differences between the estimated interaction rates from observer reports and reported by fishers, and to review international standards for mitigation of interactions with marine mammals. Annual reports of reported ETP (TEPS) interactions are published by SARDI and are available on PIRSA’s website (http://pir.sa.gov.au/research). SARDI also reviews the effectiveness of the CoP in mitigating operational interactions of the SASF with common dolphin and other ETP species, evaluates if the CoP is implemented successfully, and produces annual reports and occasional peer-reviewed journal articles. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess the UoA related mortality and impact and to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. SG 60 and SG 80 are met. Quantitative information is available to assess the magnitude of SASF-related impacts, mortalities and injuries but not all the consequences for the status of ETP species, especially for common dolphin. The SG100 requirement is not met. b Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to measure trends and support a comprehensive manage the impacts on support a strategy to strategy to manage ETP species. manage impacts on ETP impacts, minimize species. mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 171

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y Y N Justifi When assessing information adequacy, it is required that the assessment team cation exercise its expert judgment to decide if the sources of information provided by the client are supported by credible independent sources (MSC, 2014, GSA3.3). A “comprehensive external validation” can be based on the continuity of data collection, precision and accuracy of information, and any bias, that is capable of supporting the measures in place given the level of precaution that is implicit in the measures and the ability of the measures for detecting any changes (MSC, 2014, GSA3.3). The observer program implemented in the SASF is one of the few long-running independent data collection of the accidental interactions of a purse-seine fishery with cetaceans. Data from the observer program and from fishery logbooks have been studied and statistically analysed by SARDI since the inception of the observer program with the results reported annually in public reports and occasionally in peer- reviewed literature (i.e. Hamer et al, 2008, Ward et al, 2018a). The MSC guidance emphasizes the importance of using low bias information sources and observer data and peer-reviewed literature are considered as such. In the case of the SASF, observer data are available only for a part of the interactions with ETP species. When higher bias information is used, such as fishery logbook records, this can be valuable information when it can be verified by triangulation. Fishery logbook information can be triangulated with information from interviews with industry representatives (SASIA), managers (PIRSA), scientists (SARDI), and other stakeholders such as ENGO and university representatives. Another source of verification can be published scientific literature that refers directly or indirectly to the subject of interest (MSC, 2014, GSA3.3). All these types of sources have been considered for this assessment. When logbook data is congruent with the estimates from the observer program, then the information is verifiable. According to Mackay and Goldsworthy (2017) and Ward et al (2018a) data on interactions and mortality rates from observer program and from fisheries logbooks are now similar. All other sources of information converge on the fact that the common dolphin stock, the species that interacts most often with the fishery, is not in a state where recovery is necessary (Hammond et al, 2008, Moller et al, 2012, Bilgmann et al 2014b). There are some concerns about potential stress-related consequences post encirclement on individual dolphins and on populations. Based on evidence from primary literature and information about the fishery and the species involved, such consequences would be highly unlikely to hinder recovery of common dolphin or other ETP species. Information is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. SG60 and SG80 are met. However, the information is not adequate to evaluate with high degree of certainty that the comprehensive strategy (the CoP)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 172

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. is achieving its overall objective of minimizing all direct and indirect impacts on ETPs (post-encirclement effects on dolphins are not known). SG100 is not met. The MRAC is presently proposing a dolphin population study and /or a cumulative impact on dolphin stocks (MRAC minutes, March 2018). The argument is that this area of research could partly address some of the uncertainties. We have scored 80, and suggest a Recommendation to address these uncertainties. Bilgmann, K, Parra, G.J. and Möller, L.M. (2014b). Inshore cetacean survey between Ceduna and Coffin Bay, eastern Great Australian Bight. Report as part of the Great Australian Bight Research Program. Department of the Environment (2018). Delphinus delphis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Fri, 8 Jun 2018 . Hamer, DJ, Ward, TM & McGarvey, R (2008) Measurement, management and mitigation of operational interactions between the South Australian Sardine Fishery and Short-beaked Common Dolphins (Delphinus delphis), Biological Conservation, 141: 2865–2878. Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2008. Delphinus delphis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T6336A12649851. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T6336A12649851.en. Mackay, A.I. (2017). Operational Interactions with Threatened, Endangered or Protected Species in South Australian Managed Fisheries. Data Summary: 2007/08 – 2015/16. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute References (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2009/000544-7. SARDI Research Report Series No. 945. 74pp. Mackay, A.I. and Goldsworthy, S.D. (2017). Mitigating operational interactions with short- beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis): application of the South Australian Sardine Fishery industry Code of Practice 2016-17. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000726-8. SARDI Research Report Series No. 970. 44pp. Möller, L., Parra, G.J. and Bilgmann, K. (2012). Population size, structure and habitat preferences of common dolphins in South Australia: enhancing the assessment, reduction and mitigation of fisheries operational interactions. Final report to the Australian Marine Mammal Centre MSC (2014). MSC fisheries certification requirements and guidance, v.2.0, 1st October 2014. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 528 pp SASIA, MFAC Minutes, Mrch 2018 Ward, T.M. Ivey, A. Carroll, J. (2018a) Code of practice for reducing accidental mortality of dolphins in purse-seine fisheries, Marine Policy (87), 2018, 203-211

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:

As common dolphin is the most vulnerable species, and the strategy in place is mainly 80 for dolphins but covers the other ETP species, scoring for this PI was done based on the common dolphin.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 173

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Common issue dolphin 2.3.3 a 80 2.3.3 b 80 PI 2.3.3 80 Recommendation 1: The SASF collects sufficient and adequate quantitative information to: • quantify with a high degree of certainty (90% probability) the magnitude of UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries and the

consequences for the status of common dolphin population; • support a comprehensive strategy and to assess with a high degree of certainty that the strategy is achieving its objective to minimise direct and indirect impacts on common dolphin.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 174

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance PI 2.4.1 body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Commonly encountered habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that the post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce UoA is highly unlikely to function of the commonly structure and function of reduce structure and encountered habitats to a the commonly function of the commonly point where there would encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a be serious or irreversible point where there would point where there would harm. be serious or irreversible be serious or irreversible harm. harm. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The MSC FCR v2.0 requires an understanding of the main habitat types associated with the cation fishing grounds, and an understanding of the overlap of SASF effort with these main habitat types. A commonly encountered habitat (main) is a habitat that regularly comes into contact with a gear used by the UoA, considering the spatial (geographical) overlap of fishing effort with the habitat’s range within the management area(s) covered by the governance body(s) relevant to the SASF. Main habitats that overlap with the SASF fishing area were identified using surrogates: sediment, geomorphology and biota, as recommended by the MSC (MSC, 2014, SA3.13.2) Main Habitats Spencer Gulf habitat types are well known, mainly from the research work done for Spencer Gulf prawn trawl fishery. The sediment type over SASF operations take place are: 1. Open soft-sediments (sand/mud, habitat type number 4 in Figure 16, O’Connell, 2014): Soft sediments occur below the euphotic zone with seawater salinities near normal marine water values. Moderate phytoplankton growth in the SE gulf supports prolific benthic suspension feeders. This type of habitat is the commonly encountered (high effort area, see Figure 20) habitat by SASF, although, given the depth, the fishery does not physically interact with this habitat type. Two recent gulf-wide bycatch surveys have shown that variations in benthic communities from soft- sediment habitat were not significant over time and were related to physical and environmental factors rather than fisheries activities (Currie et al., 2009, Brunell et al., 2013). There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met 2. Rhodolith Pavements (habitat type number 3 in Figure 16, O’Connell, 2014): These are coralline algae that thrive in the euphotic zone where seagrasses are excluded by either high tidal currents (northern gulf) or high nutrients, promoting phytoplankton growth that limits light at the seafloor (SW gulf). Although rhodolith habitats are protected elsewhere (e.g. New Zealand, SWG, 2011) due to their high productivity and species richness, Svane et al (2009) did not find the same characteristics for Spencer Gulf’s rhodolith habitat. The distribution of rhodoliths in Spencer Gulf seems to be patchy and this type of substrate does not support a high diversity of macro-fauna or -flora which, according to Svane et al. (2009. Considering the dynamic life-history of these biogenic structures and tidal movement and wind-driven waves that seem to control the rhodolith distribution in bays and gulfs (SWG, 2011), change in the distribution of this type of habitat over

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 175

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance PI 2.4.1 body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. time are expected but cannot be attributed to a certain cause. It is likely that SASF interacts with this habitat type, although interactions are limited to small area. As, according to Svane et al (2009), this is not a highly productive habitat, it occurs in an area with high natural disturbance, and it does not support a rich epifauna, the impact of the SASF would not be able to be differentiated from natural disturbance and highly likely to be negligible. There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. The EGAB shelf is extremely wide and lies mostly between 50 and 110 m water depth, with an outer shelf zone up to 50 km wide (Rollet et al, 2001). The bathymetric data show that the near-shore section of the continental shelf is sharply inclined throughout much of the eastern GAB, with the seafloor dropping to a depth of 40m within a few kilometers of the coast. The sediment type over SASF operations take place is: 1. sand/ gravel intraclast mollusk (IM in Figure 17, Ward, 2006b). This habitat type occurs in area with significant fishing effort from the SASF, although less than the fishing effort in Spencer Gulf. For the scope of this assessment this is assessed as main habitat. Ward et al (2006b) found that this type of sediment might support filter feeder communities, although the richness of these communities was inversely correlated with the grain size. Due to higher depths, the fishery is highly unlikely to physically interact with habitat type. Also, the EGAB shelf is characterized by high natural disturbance. Ward et al (2006b) found a considerable overlap in faunal composition between different facies (Figure 17). Physical interaction of the SASF with this habitat is highly unlikely because the depth is above 25 m. There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

b VME habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that the post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce UoA is highly unlikely to function of the VME structure and function of reduce structure and habitats to a point where the VME habitats to a function of the VME there would be serious or point where there would habitats to a point where irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible there would be serious or

harm. irreversible harm. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi There are no declared VMEs with distribution in the SASF fishing areas cation c Minor habitat status Guide There is evidence that post the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 176

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance PI 2.4.1 body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Justifi Gulf St. Vincent habitats are less known, although the SASF fishing effort in this area has cation been very low in recent years. Since 2013 SASF did not fish inside Gulf St Vincent. Since 2015, there has been some fishing effort distributed mainly in the Investigator Strait (see Figure 20) in areas with depths higher than 25 m. Investigator Strait is a channel between York Peninsula, which separates the two SA gulfs, and Kangaroo Island exposed to very high natural disturbance (SAWater, 2008). Due to higher depths, the fishery is unlikely to physically interact with this habitat, although the effect of any interactions would not be distinguishable from natural disturbance effects. There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG100 is met. Burnell, O.B., Barrett, S.L., Hooper, G.E., Beckmann, C.L., Sorokin, S.J. and Noell, C.J. (2015). Spatial and temporal reassessment of by-catch in the Spencer Gulf Prawn Fishery. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. Currie, D.R., Dixon, C.D., Roberts, S.D., Hooper, G.E., Sorokin, S.J. and Ward, T.M. 2009. Fishery-independent by-catch survey to inform risk assessment of the Spencer Gulf Prawn Trawl Fishery. Report to PIRSA Fisheries. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/231782/No_390_Fishery- independent_bycatch_survey_to_inform_risk_assessment_of_the_Spencer_Gulf_Prawn_Tr awl_Fishery.pdf MSC (2014). MSC fisheries certification requirements and guidance, v.2.0, 1st October 2014. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 528 pp O'Connell, L. G. (2014) Sedimentology and Oceaonographic Controls on Temperate, Shallowwater Carbonate Deposition: Spencer Gulf, South Australia. PhD thesis, Queen's References University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. Rollet, N., Australian Geological Survey, O., & Geoscience, A. (2001). Seabed Character Mapping in the Great Australian Bight: Geoscience Australia. SAWater (2008). Proposed Adelaide desalination plant. EIS Chapter 7- Environment. https://www.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/20305/Desal_Environmental_Impact_Sta tement_Chapter_7.pdf Svane, I., Hammett, Z. and Lauer, P. (2009). Impacts of trawling on benthic macro-fauna and flora of the Spencer Gulf prawn fishing grounds. Fisheries Research. 90: 158-169. (SWG) Scientific Working Group, 2011. The vulnerability of coastal and marine habitats in South Australia. Marine Parks, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources South Australia. Ward, T. M., Sorokin, S. J., Currie, D. R., Rogers, P. J., & McLeay, L. J. (2006b). Epifaunal assemblages of the eastern Great Australian Bight: Effectiveness of a benthic protection zone in representing regional biodiversity. Continental Shelf Research, 26(1), 25-40. doi:10.1016/j.csr.2005.09.006 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 177

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance PI 2.4.1 body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates.

Scoring Spencer Spencer EGAB- Gulf St issue Gulf- open, Gulf – sand/gra Vincent- soft rhodolith vel Investigato sediments pavemen r Strait ts 2.4.1 a 100 100 100 N/A 2.4.1 c N/A N/A N/A 100 PI 2.4.1 100 100 100 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 178

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place post place, if necessary, that are in place, if necessary, that for managing the impact expected to achieve the is expected to achieve the of all MSC UoAs/non- Habitat Outcome 80 level Habitat Outcome 80 level MSC fisheries on habitats. of performance. of performance or above. Met? Y Y N Justifi The SASF EBFM Management Plan includes a specific long-term objective that cation “fishery impacts on benthic habitat and associated species communities are sustainable” (PIRSA, 2014a). Measures in place specifically to avoid habitat impact are: avoiding sensitive areas such as coral reefs or other biogenic structures, using light gear and modified net design (with skirt), adjusting the speed of the vessel while setting, in order to control the depth reached by the bottom of the net. General management measures like limited effort, closed areas (national parks), and promoting activities that reduce the impact of fishing (e.g. fishing only on sandy bottoms) also contribute to limiting benthic interactions. South Australia has 19 marine parks located across State waters from the Western Australian to the Victorian border (Figure 18). The boundaries for the marine parks network cover a total area of 27,526 km2, approximately 46% of South Australia's waters, and include the established Great Australian Bight (GAB) Marine Park. The most sensitive habitats are protected within these protected areas. Marine parks in South Australia have been zoned for multiple uses, providing for varying levels of conservation, recreational and commercial use. Zoning provides the basis for the management of marine parks, in accordance with the objectives of the Marine Parks Act 2007. Purse seine fishing is prohibited in the restricted access zones and in the sanctuary zones (Figure 18). VMS data provide evidence that the SASF vessels do not fish in protected areas. In addition, there are several netting closures areas where large nets cannot operate (18) Some smaller vessels have a special exemption to operate in netting closures. There are only 2-3 vessels that operate these areas for a limited number of shots and quota (Turner, 2018, pers. Comm). There is a strategy for managing the UoA impacts on habitats, although not to manage impacts from all, MSC/non-MSC fisheries. SG60 and SG80 are met but not SG100. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based work, based on experience, theory or on information directly information directly about comparison with similar about the UoA and/or the UoA and/or habitats UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. involved. Met? Y Y N Justifi There is some objective basis for confidence that the strategy for habitats will work. cation Fishers actively avoid fishing over sensitive or rugose structures, to protect benthic habitats but also to protect their gear. Ongoing recording and reporting to SARDI of catch data for benthic species ensure timely identification of an increase in risk to

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 179

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. benthic habitats. SG60 and SG80 are met. Formal testing of the strategy with respect to benthic interactions with the SASF gear has not been undertaken. SG100 is not met. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative post evidence that the evidence that the partial measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi Clear quantitative evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully and cation achieving its objective of not interacting with the seabed can be drawn from compliance with spatial closure, VMS monitoring of tracks and location of sets, limiting fishing only on smooth bottoms, and benthic indicator species present in the catch only in rare occasions. SG80 and SG100 are met. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide There is qualitative There is some There is clear post evidence that the UoA quantitative evidence quantitative evidence complies with its that the UoA complies that the UoA complies management requirements with both its management with both its management to protect VMEs. requirements and with requirements and with protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. fisheries, where relevant. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi There are no declared VMS in the SASF fishing areas cation PIRSA (2014a). Management plan for the South Australian Commercial Marine Scalefish Fishery, Part B– management arrangements for the taking of sardines. The South Australian References Fisheries Management Series. Paper number 68.

OVERALL Scoring Spencer Spencer EGAB- Gulf St PERFORMANCE issue Gulf- open, Gulf – sand/gra Vincent- INDICATOR SCORE: soft rhodolith vel Investigato sediments pavemen r Strait ts 2.4.2 a 80 80 80 80 85 2.4.2 b 80 80 80 80 2.4.2 c 100 100 100 100 2.4.2 d N/A N/A N/A N/A PI 2.4.2 85 85 85 85

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 180

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 181

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guide The types and distribution The nature, distribution The distribution of all post of the main habitats are and vulnerability of the habitats is known over broadly understood. main habitats in the UoA their range, with particular area are known at a level attention to the occurrence of detail relevant to the of vulnerable habitats. OR scale and intensity of the UoA. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR

Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA: types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Y Y N Justifi Benthic habitats are broadly understood. Comprehensive habitat mapping is available only cation for the inshore areas of the Spencer Gulf and some coastal areas outside the gulf, but not for areas where sardine fishing occurs. Benthic habitats in Spencer Gulf are well known and understood from Spencer Gulf Prawn Trawl fishery biodiversity surveys, which included habitat-forming species (Currie et al. 2009, Mayfield et al., 2014, Burnell et al., 2015), sedimentology studies (O’Connell 2014; O’Connell et al., 2015), bathymetry and oceanography (Richardson et al. 2005). Also, sedimentology studies are available for the Great Australian Bight Area (Rollet et al, 2001) and studies of epifaunal assemblages (Ward et al., 2006b). Most of fishing operations take place in the Southern Spencer Gulf on mixed skeletal sands (bivalve and bryozoan gravels, Figure 16, O’Connell, 2014) and western side of the Eyre Peninsula with coarse sand (intraclast mollusk, Figure 17, Ward et al., 2006b), possibly supporting some sparse filter feeding communities. Ward et al, 2006b note that the abundance of benthic organisms and species richness was highly correlated with sediment grain size and depth. Out of filter feeder organisms, sponges are vulnerable to breaking when in contact with fishing gear. Some sponges are adapted to fragmentation, with the pieces subsequently growing into numerous individuals, resulting in a clumping phenomenon that can occur naturally after storms (Dixon et al, 2014). Dixon et al, 2014 suggested that damage from trawling might have a similar effect in Spencer Gulf, resulting in aggregations of sponge species (Dixon et al., 2014). A similar effect may be possible from contact with the purse seine net, although this type of net is not dragged on the bottom and any damage will be small scale. Sponges were not observed in the catch (SARDI, 2018, unpublished data) The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA. Fishing occurs over featureless sandy/muddy bottom. Sensitive habitats are not impacted by the SASF. Bottom habitats are only ‘minor’ and the nature, distribution and vulnerability of the habitats in the SASF area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the fishery’s impacts, which are negligible. SG

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 182

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. 80 is met by default (only ‘minor’ habitats). SG80 is met. The distribution of all habitats is not known over their entire range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitats and SG100 is not met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of post broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats nature of the main the main impacts of the have been quantified fully. impacts of gear use on UoA on the main habitats, the main habitats, and there is reliable including spatial overlap information on the spatial of habitat with fishing extent of interaction and gear. on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. OR OR If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the Some quantitative consequence and spatial information is available attributes of the main and is adequate to estimate habitats. the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Y Y N Justifi Information from the fishery, from other fisheries (i.e. SGTF), from research cation literature combined, allows an identification of the benthic habitat type that overlap with the SASF. Knowledge about the gear used and how this works to not interact with bottom habitat, allow for identification of the main impacts on main habitats. The spatial extent of interactions can be inferred from fishing effort distribution and knowledge of the habitat approximate range and depth. Timing and location of use of the fishing gear are monitored using VMS. Information is adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. However, the physical impacts of the gear on all habitats have not been quantified fully and SG100 is not met. c Monitoring Guide Adequate information Changes in habitat post continues to be collected distributions over time are to detect any increase in measured. risk to the main habitats. Met? Y N Justifi There is ongoing VMS monitoring and data collection on benthic species catch (e.g. cation prawns) and this allows a spatial distribution of the habitat interactions to be mapped and the frequency of such interactions and this is sufficient to detect any increase in risk to benthic habitats. Adequate information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats. SG80 is met. Changes in habitat distribution over time are not measured. SG100 is not met.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 183

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Burnell, O.B., Barrett, S.L., Hooper, G.E., Beckmann, C.L., Sorokin, S.J. and Noell, C.J. (2015). Spatial and temporal reassessment of by-catch in the Spencer Gulf Prawn Fishery. Report to PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2015/000000-1. SARDI Research Report Series Currie, D.R., Dixon, C.D., Roberts, S.D., Hooper, G.E., Sorokin, S.J. and Ward, T.M. 2009. Fishery-independent by-catch survey to inform risk assessment of the Spencer Gulf Prawn Trawl Fishery. Report to PIRSA Fisheries. South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/231782/No_390_Fishery-independent_by- catch_survey_to_inform_risk_assessment_of_the_Spencer_Gulf_Prawn_Trawl_Fishery.pdf Mayfield, S., Ferguson, G.J., Chick R.C., Dixon, C.D. and Noell, C. (2014) A reporting framework for ecosystem based assessment for Australian prawn trawl fisheries: A Spencer Gulf prawn trawl fishery case study. Final report to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. Prepared by the South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic References Science), Adelaide. FRDC Project No 2011/063. http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/237571/Ecosystem_Trawl_Fisheries_Report _-_FINAL.pdf. O’Connell, L. G., James N. P., Doubell M., Middleton J. F., Luick, J., Currie, D. R., Bone, Y. (2015) Delimiting oceanographic influences on temperate carbonate sedimentation in the shallow-marine realm. 15th Bathurst Meeting, University of Edinburg, UK. Rollet, N., Australian Geological Survey, O., & Geoscience, A. (2001). Seabed Character Mapping in the Great Australian Bight: Geoscience Australia. Richardson, L., E. Mathews and A. Heap (2005) Geomorphology and Sedimentology of the South Western Planning Area of Australia: review and synthesis of relevant literature in support of Regional Marine Planning. Geoscience Australia, Record 2005/17. 124 pp Ward, T. M., Sorokin, S. J., Currie, D. R., Rogers, P. J., & McLeay, L. J. (2006b). Epifaunal assemblages of the eastern Great Australian Bight: Effectiveness of a benthic protection zone in representing regional biodiversity. Continental Shelf Research, 26(1), 25-40. doi:10.1016/j.csr.2005.09.006 OVERALL Scoring Spencer Spencer EGAB- Gulf St PERFORMANCE issue Gulf- open, Gulf – sand/gra Vincent- INDICATOR SCORE: soft rhodolith vel Investigato sediments pavemen r Strait ts 80 2.4.3 a 80 80 80 80 2.4.3 b 80 80 80 80 2.4.3 c 80 80 80 80 PI 2.4.3 80 80 80 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 184

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Ecosystem status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that the post disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the key UoA is highly unlikely to underlying ecosystem elements underlying disrupt the key elements structure and function to a ecosystem structure and underlying ecosystem point where there would function to a point where structure and function to a be a serious or irreversible there would be a serious or point where there would harm. irreversible harm. be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Purse seine impacts to ecosystem overall can arise from removal of target species from the cation system and additions to the system (i.e. discards, pollution). There are no discards in the SASF. The reduction of the target species stock however, can be followed by consequence on their predators. The SASF fishing operations take place in three interlinked ecosystems: Spencer Gulf, St. Vincent Gulf and the outside gulfs waters of the eastern Great Australian Bight (EGAB). The shelf waters of the EGAB and the interface with southern Spencer Gulf and Gulf St. Vincent waters form a complex oceanographic system. In addition, shelf waters of this region are characterised by coastal upwellings bringing deep, cooler and nutrient-rich waters to the surface. This complex interaction of oceanographic processes supports a regionally productive marine ecosystem inhabited by a diverse suite of marine predators that have high global conservation significance and substantial economic value to local communities (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). The EGAB region supports significant levels of planktonic production during upwelling seasons and features suitable environmental conditions for spawning, survival and growth of a diverse small pelagic fish assemblage comprising ten key species belonging to six families (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). These rich pelagic resources also support the greatest density and biomass of apex predators, such as mammals, birds and sharks, to be found in Australian coastal waters. Small pelagic fish have an important role in the transfer of production from plankton to higher trophic level species (marine mammals, seabirds and large predatory fish). A series of studies identified potential impacts on high trophic level species from the reduction of low trophic species by fisheries (Cury et al., 2000, 2011; Jennings et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2011). Although some studies have successfully demonstrated the relationships between variations in low trophic level species densities and the impacts on higher trophic levels, especially seabirds (Cury et al., 2011; Frederiksen et al., 2005; Jahncke et al., 2004; Myers et al., 2007), the relationships between predators and prey are poorly understood (Goldsworthy et al, 2013). Goldsworthy et al. (2011) conducted an extensive study of the trophodynamics of the eastern Great Australian Bight, including southern parts of Spencer Gulf and Gulf St. Vincent, to determine the ecological effects of harvesting sardines from the fishery. The authors determined that neither current levels of fishing effort nor the rapid growth of the fishery is impacting negatively on the ecosystem structure and function. No predatory species were found to feed exclusively or even predominately on sardine; therefore, there are no obligate sardine predators (they are all opportunistic). Sardine availability is not negatively impacting on the foraging behaviour or reproductive success of any predatory species. As discussed under Principle 1, trophodynamic analysis show that sardines are not a key low trophic species in the ecosystem affected by the SASF. Ecosim forecasting scenarios have shown that reductions by 25%, 50% and 75% of the 2008 sardine biomass would lead to reductions in crested tern populations, although the

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 185

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. current level of exploitation is precautionary enough to ensure sardine stock is maintained above the point that would lead to localized depletions (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). In addition, the ecosystem modeling study for Spencer Gulf demonstrated that current catch of sardines could not be explained without including a net immigration rate as other production in the model in order to balance catch with available biomass (Gillanders et al, 2015). Thus, a localized depletion in Spencer Gulf, where most of the SASF fishing activity take place, would be unlikely A separate, fishery-specific study of four Commonwealth pelagic species aimed to determine sustainable harvest levels in an ecological context (Smith et al 2015). This study confirmed the results of Goldsworthy et al (2011) and suggested that compared to several northern hemisphere systems (Smith et al 2011), Australian key predators are not highly reliant on small pelagic fish species. This directly confirmed that the conservative exploitation rates maintained (10-20% of spawning biomass) within the harvest strategy are highly unlikely to impact the ecosystem in a serious or irreversible manner. The Commonwealth Government recently reviewed the fishery for EPBC export exemption (DEE 2016c) stating, “Due to the low impact harvesting method used in the fishery (purse seining), impacts to the physical ecosystem such as the ancient coastline, are negligible. Fishing activity is closely linked to the remaining relevant key ecological features of regional upwellings and small pelagic fish aggregations, however, impacts on the food web are unlikely given that take of the target species is limited to ecologically sustainable levels, as prescribed in the fishery’s management plan. Incidental impacts of the fishery bycatch species are minimised through specific industry practices to avoid these species, such as through the Code of Practice for mitigating of interactions of the SA Sardine Fishery with wildlife (SASIA 2015).” There is evidence that the SASF is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. SG60, 80 and 100 are met. Cury, P., Bakun, A., Crawford, R.J.M., Jarre, A., Quinones, R.A., Shannon, L.J., Verheye, H.M., 2000. Small pelagics in upwelling systems: patterns of interaction and structural changes in “wasp-waist” ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57, 603–618. Cury,M, I.L. Boyd, S. Bonhommeau, T.Anker,Nilssen, R.J.M. Crawford, R.W.Furness, J.A. Mills, E.J. Murphy, H.Österblom, M. Paleczny, J.F. Piatt, J.P.Roux, L. Shannon, W.J. Syde man Global seabird response to forage fish depletion—one-third for the birds Science, 334 (2011), pp. 1703-1706 DEE (2016c) Letter from the Delegate of the Minister for the Environment and Energy in relation to the reassessment of the South Australian (SA) Sardine Fishery under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/72da29f4-befd-40a5-baa5- References f21abe509e04/files/sa-sardine-fishery-letter-2016.pdf Gillanders, BM, Goldsworthy, S, Prowse, TAA, Doubell, M, Middleton, J, Rogers, P, Tanner, JA, Clisby, NA, James, C, Luick, J, van Ruth, P, Bradshaw, CJA, Ward, TM (2015) Spencer Gulf research initiative: Development of an ecosystem model for fisheries and aquaculture. University of Adelaide and SARDI Aquatic Sciences, Adelaide. CC BY 3. Goldsworthy, S.D., Page, B, Rogers, RP & Ward, T. (2011) Established ecosystem –based management for the South Australian Sardine Fishery: developing ecological performance indicators and reference points to assess the need for ecological allocations. Final Report to the FRDC SARDI (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000863-1. SARDI Report Series No. 529 173 pp. Smith, A.D., Brown, C.J., Bulman, C.M., Fulton, E.A., Johnson, P., Kaplan, I.C., Lozano-Montes, H., Mackinson, S., Marzloff, M., Shannon, L.J., Shin, Y.J. and Tam,

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 186

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. J. (2011). Impacts of fishing low-trophic level species on marine ecosystems. Science. 334(6052):39. Smith, ADM., Ward, TM., Hurtado, F., Klaer, N., Fulton, E., and Punt, AE (2015), Review and update of harvest strategy settings for the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery - Single species and ecosystem considerations. Hobart. Final Report of FRDC Project No. 2013/028. SASIA (2015) Code of practice for mitigation of interactions of the South Australian Sardine Fishery with threatened, endangered, and protected species, South Australian Sardine Industry Association, Port Lincoln, www.sasardines.com.au/links- resources.html.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 187

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy that post place, if necessary which in place, if necessary, consists of a plan, in place take into account the which takes into account which contains measures potential impacts of the available information and to address all main fishery on key elements of is expected to restrain impacts of the UoA on the the ecosystem. impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem, and at least ecosystem so as to achieve some of these measures the Ecosystem Outcome are in place. 80 level of performance. Met? Y Y Y Justifi PIRSA is using an EBFM approach to the management of the SASF. Goal 3 of the cation SASF Management Plan requires: “protect and conserve aquatic resources, habitats and ecosystems”. The management of the SASF’s impacts on the ecosystem is achieved through the application of a precautionary harvest strategy for key low trophic, even though it has been demonstrated that sardines are not a key species in the ecosystem. Spawning biomass of sardine in SA has been estimated using the daily egg production method (DEPM) since 1995, when the spawning biomass was estimated to be ~165,000 t (Ward et al. 2009b). However, it declined by over 70% to ~37,000 t in 1996 following an unprecedented mass mortality event, recovered to ~146,000 t in 1998 and then declined by over 70% again to ~36,000 t in early 1999 following a second mass mortality event (Ward et al. 2001a,b). Between 1994 and 2001, fishery catches remained between 2,500 and 6,500t each year, then steadily increased to ~39,000 t in 2005. Since then, the harvest strategy has been to maintain a baseline total allowable catch (TAC) of 30,000 t, while estimates of the spawning biomass using the DEPM remain between 150,000 and 300,000 t, corresponding to an exploitation rate of between 20% and 10%, respectively (Ward et al.2009b). The precautionary, tiered and spatial management approach of the harvest strategy takes into consideration the risk of localised depletion and the TACC is modified accordingly. There is a strategy that consists of a plan, in place which contains measures to address all main impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem, and at least some of these measures are in place. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence that confidence that the partial based on plausible the measures/partial strategy/strategy will argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or ecosystem fisheries/ ecosystems). and/or the ecosystem involved involved Met? Y Y Y Justifi Empirical testing based on past and current performance of the fishery, as well as cation simulation testing (ecosystem modeling studies i.e. Goldsworthy et al, 2011, Gillanders et al, 2015) support high confidence that the strategy will work based on

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 188

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. information directly about the fishery and the ecosystem involved. SG60, 80 and 100 are met.

c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi The strategy is implemented successfully and is achieving its results. As presented in cation the previous sections, compliance monitoring run by PIRSA fisheries officers. Ecosystem modeling studies (Goldsworthy et al, 2011, Gillanders et al, 2015) the expansion of the fishery had a negligible impact n the structure and function of the ecosystem and the overall strategy is achieving its objective.

Gillanders, BM, Goldsworthy, S, Prowse, TAA, Doubell, M, Middleton, J, Rogers, P, Tanner, JA, Clisby, NA, James, C, Luick, J, van Ruth, P, Bradshaw, CJA, Ward, TM (2015) Spencer Gulf research initiative: Development of an ecosystem model for fisheries and aquaculture. University of Adelaide and SARDI Aquatic Sciences, Adelaide. CC BY 3. References Goldsworthy, S.D., Page, B, Rogers, RP & Ward, T. (2011) Established ecosystem –based management for the South Australian Sardine Fishery: developing ecological performance indicators and reference points to assess the need for ecological allocations. Final Report to the FRDC SARDI (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000863-1. SARDI Report Series No. 529 173 pp. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 189

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post identify the key elements broadly understand the of the ecosystem. key elements of the ecosystem. Met? Y Y Justifi The SASF fishing operations take place in three interlinked ecosystems: Spencer cation Gulf, St. Vincent Gulf and the shelf waters of the eastern Great Australian Bight (EGAB). Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent represent the only semi-protected, ‘seasonally subtropical systems’ at temperate latitudes (35° S). The Spencer Gulf and Gulf St. Vincent are inverse estuaries (where salinity increases with increasing distance from the estuary mouth, Wolanski, 2013). The shelf waters of the EGAB and the interface with the southern Spencer Gulf and Gulf St. Vincent waters form a complex oceanographic system. Thermal and salinity fronts form at the gulf mouth and limit exchange between the cool, low salinity Southern Ocean water masses and the warmer, higher salinity gulf waters (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). In addition, shelf waters of this region are characterised by coastal upwelling events, bringing deep, cooler and nutrient-rich waters to the surface. These processes are coupled with the South Australian and Flinders Currents at the continental shelf margins and intrusion of the tropical Leeuwin Current water mass in early winter. This complex interaction of oceanographic processes supports a regionally productive marine ecosystem inhabited by a diverse suite of marine predators that have high global conservation significance and substantial economic value to local communities (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). This complex system is assessed here as one ecosystem, because the fishery is centred on southern Spencer Gulf, Investigator Strait and the western Eyre Peninsula (Ward et al. 2017), at the confluence of the EGAB waters and gulf waters. The EGAB region supports significant levels of planktonic production during upwelling seasons, and features suitable environmental conditions for spawning, survival and growth of a diverse small pelagic fish assemblage (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). These rich pelagic resources also support the greatest density and biomass of apex predators to be found in Australian coastal waters. These include marine mammals such as pygmy blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda), and >80% of Australia’s populations of New Zealand fur seals (Arctocephalus forsteri) and Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea), as well as a recently established breeding population of the Australian fur seal (A. pusillus doriferus). All seal species were subjected to early colonial sealing, with the recovery of fur seal populations commencing in the 1970s and 1980s and continuing. Other key apex predators include seabirds, such as short-tailed shearwaters (Puffinus tenuirostris) (~1.3 million pairs breed in the EGAB), little penguins (Eudyptula minor) and crested terns (Sterna bergii); pelagic sharks including bronze and dusky whalers (Carcharhinus brachyurus, C. obscurus), great white (Carcharodon carcharias) and shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus); and predatory fishes such as southern bluefin tuna (SBT, Thunnus maccoyii) (Goldsworthy et al. 2011). The key elements of the ecosystem are: planktonic primary production dependent on the upwelling events, small pelagic fish species with important role in the transfer of production from plankton to higher trophic level species (marine mammals, seabirds and large predatory fish), and apex predators with important roles in the top-down control of lower trophic levels.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 190

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. The information is sufficient to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem; SG 60 and SG80 are met. b Investigation of UoA impacts Guide Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions between post on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem the UoA and these elements can be inferred elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can from existing information, from existing information, be inferred from existing but have not been and some have been information, and have investigated in detail. investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Daily and monthly catch and effort data are provided by licence holders, through compulsory cation logbook returns, to SARDI at the end of each month. SARDI maintains a comprehensive catch and effort database for the fishery using data collected from these returns. Data provided in the logbook returns include: licence information, date(s), shot no., zone, trawl start/end time (duration), GPS location, water temperature, estimated catch (retained), estimated catch (lost), water temperature, by-catch numbers caught and released.

As part of the requirement under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), licensed fishers must report any fishing interactions with threatened, endangered and protected species to PIRSA Fisheries & Aquaculture and the Commonwealth’s Department of Sustainability, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC). Since July 2007, these reports have been made by licence holders filling out a ‘Wildlife interaction identification and logbook’ form, recording the corresponding catch and effort logbook number and returning to SARDI Aquatic Sciences for collation and reporting purposes. Projects specifically aimed to study the effects of the SASF on target species, on other small pelagic fish, and on the associated predators include two ecosystem modelling studies, one for the EGAB region (Goldsworthy et al, 2011) and one for the Spencer Gulf (Gillanders et al, 2015). Alternative studies in the region include an MSC study on impacts of fishing small pelagic species on the southeastern Australian coast (Johnsons, 2011) and fishery-specific study of four Commonwealth pelagic species. Main interactions between the UoA and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information, and have been investigated in detail. SG 60, SG80 and SG100 are met. c Understanding of component functions Guide The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA post components (i.e., P1 target on P1 target species, species, primary, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP ETP species and Habitats species and Habitats) in are identified and the main the ecosystem are known. functions of these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Y Y Justifi The P1 target species is the Australian sardine, one of the low trophic, small pelagic cation species with an important role for the transfer of production from the plankton to the higher trophic levels. Smith et al (2011) demonstrated that fishing low trophic species at conventional maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels can have large impacts on other parts of the ecosystem, particularly when they constitute a high proportion of the biomass in the ecosystem or are highly connected in the food web. He suggested

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 191

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. that halving exploitation rates would result in much lower impacts on marine ecosystems while still achieving 80% of MSY. However, not all low trophic species have key roles in the ecosystem and, as demonstrated under Principle 1 in this report, the Australian sardine is not a ‘key’ species. The MSC standard requires that only key low trophic species be exploited at ½ MSY. Nevertheless, because the relationships between preys and predators are still not well understood (Goldsworthy et al, 2013) the Australian sardine in the SASF is managed as if it were a ‘key’ low trophic species and the harvest strategy is precautionary, and the sardine stock is maintained at a highly productive level. The impact of the SASF on the only one minor primary species, Australian anchovy, was assessed as negligible in the SASF’s ESD risk assessment (PIRSA 2013a). A precautionary TACC for anchovies was set at 1000t but the catch of anchovies is currently much lower. The indirect effect of fishing for sardines is favourable for anchovies by reducing the competition for resources between the two species. Ecosim projections up to 2040 if sardines are reduced by 25%, 50%, and 75%, show an increase in anchovy populations. All secondary species that are caught in the SASF are minor and their cumulative percentage contribution to the catch is less than 2%. The impacts of the SASF on minor secondary species are negligible, as the ESD risk assessment determined and very low levels of catch support this conclusion. The ETP species that interact with the fishery are apex predators, which feed on sardines. Goldsworthy et al, (2011) found that no predatory species feed exclusively or even predominately on sardine; therefore, there are no obligate sardine predators (they are all opportunistic). Sardine availability is not negatively impacting on the foraging behaviour or reproductive success of any predatory species (Goldsworthy et al, 2011). The direct effects of SASF on common dolphin, the species that interacts the most with the fishery, are minimised through the application of a code of practice (CoP) that was proven to be highly effective to reduce mortality. While the number of individuals they interact is still high, the dolphins are unlikely to suffer significant post encirclement detrimental impacts (see the main text of this report). The impact of the purse seine gear on benthic habitats is very negligible, as it was discussed under the Habitat section. In conclusion, the impacts of the SASF on P1 target species, primary, secondary and ETP species and habitats are identified and the main functions of these components in the ecosystem are understood. The SG80 and SG100 are met. d Information relevance Guide Adequate information is Adequate information is post available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the UoA on these the UoA on the components to allow some components and elements of the main consequences to allow the main for the ecosystem to be consequences for the inferred. ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Y Y Justifi The available information is adequate for the impact of the SASF on the components cation and elements of the ecosystem and the consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. Such information includes catch and effort data, independent observers data, catch composition determined by SARDI, studies of ecosystem modelling, and studies on

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 192

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. the effectiveness of the CoP to reduce dolphin interactions and other scientific studies. SG 80 and SG 100 are met.

e Monitoring Guide Adequate data continue to Information is adequate to post be collected to detect any support the development increase in risk level. of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Y Y Justifi Information is adequate to support the development of strategies to manage cation ecosystem impacts. The main strategy to manage ecosystem impacts is that the target species, sardines, is managed as if it were a “key” low trophic species although it has been demonstrated under Principle 1 that Australian sardine in SA waters is not a ‘key’ species. This precautionary strategy is supported by the information that continues to be collected on an ongoing basis. SG80 and SG100 are met. Gillanders, BM, Goldsworthy, S, Prowse, TAA, Doubell, M, Middleton, J, Rogers, P, Tanner, JA, Clisby, NA, James, C, Luick, J, van Ruth, P, Bradshaw, CJA, Ward, TM (2015) Spencer Gulf research initiative: Development of an ecosystem model for fisheries and aquaculture. University of Adelaide and SARDI Aquatic Sciences, Adelaide. CC BY 3. Goldsworthy, S.D., Page, B, Rogers, RP & Ward, T. (2011) Established ecosystem –based management for the South Australian Sardine Fishery: developing ecological performance indicators and reference points to assess the need for ecological allocations. Final Report to the FRDC SARDI (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide. SARDI Publication No. F2010/000863-1. SARDI Report Series No. 529 173 pp. References PIRSA (2013a). ESD risk assessment of South Australia’s Sardine Fishery. Accessed at: (http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/68608772-df30-455e-9aa9- 379ed843eb33/files/sa-sardine-fishery-draft-esd.pdf) Smith, A.D., Brown, C.J., Bulman, C.M., Fulton, E.A., Johnson, P., Kaplan, I.C., Lozano- Montes, H., Mackinson, S., Marzloff, M., Shannon, L.J., Shin, Y.J. and Tam, J. (2011). Impacts of fishing low-trophic level species on marine ecosystems. Science. 334(6052):39. Wolanski, E. (2013). Estuaries of Australia in 2050 and beyond: Springer Netherlands. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 100

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 193

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management Guide There is an effective national There is an effective There is an effective national post legal system and a national legal system and legal system and binding framework for cooperation organised and effective procedures governing with other parties, where cooperation with other cooperation with other necessary, to deliver parties, where necessary, to parties which delivers management outcomes deliver management management outcomes consistent with MSC outcomes consistent with consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Y Y Y Justifi Australia’s national legal system adheres to all the core international agreements cation and conventions. The Offshore Constitutional Settlement provides for the Australian states and to manage fisheries out to 3 nautical miles from the coast. This includes a specific arrangement for agreement between South Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia which sets out that sardines are managed by South Australia. Allocation’s are therefore autonomus to the South Australian fishing sectors only.

SA fisheries legislation and policy follow the general principles of Commonwealth Government fisheries and environmental law, including the EPBC Act, but the South Australian Fisheries Management Act is independent in its own right and determines the application of State fisheries policy. The EPBC Act provides a legal framework to protect and manage nationally and internationally important flora, fauna, ecological communities and heritage places — defined in the EPBC Act as matters of national environmental significance. The Fisheries Management Act, 2007 (FMA) sets out the legal requirements for managing SA fisheries and is consistent with MSC Principles1 and 2. The Minister has the functions and powers assigned to or conferred by or under Part 3 of the FMA. The Minister may delegate powers to the Executive Director of PIRSA, who in turn may delegate to the Director of Fisheries & Aquaculture. The executive structure of the Department brings all key aspects of fisheries management, such as research, policy, compliance & enforcement under a single dedicated department umbrella. Binding procedures are explicit within these Acts.

Section 7.1(e) of the Fisheries Management Act 2007 (the Act), states that “the participation of users of the aquatic resources of the State, and of the community more generally, in the management of fisheries is to be encouraged. PIRSA has extended some actions in certain fisheries to include co-management. In is simplest form fishery associations provide input to Management Research and Advisory Committees (MRACs). Some associations are charged with implementing specific control measures and codes. Therefore, the national legal system and governing binding governance cooperation meets SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100. Resolution of disputes

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 194

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. b Guide The management system The management system The management system post incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for by law to a transparent by law to a transparent the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the disputes arising within the resolution of legal resolution of legal system. disputes which is disputes that is appropriate considered to be effective to the context of the in dealing with most fishery and has been tested issues and that is and proven to be effective. appropriate to the context of the UoA. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There are well established mechanisms for administrative and legal appeals of cation decisions taken in respect of fisheries, which are prescribed in Part 9 of the FMA. Decisions made by the Minister can be subject to a review process and appeals procedure. Appeal rights also exist under sections 112 and 113 of the Fisheries Management Act to the District Court and the Environment, Resources and Development Court Respectively. There have been no challenges to the decisions made under the FMA. In addition to individual rights of appeal, Regulations and Management Plans made under the FMA 2007 are disallowable instruments, meaning that ultimately the South Australian Parliament may prevent them from coming into force even after approval by the Minister. This system has been tested and shown to work. For example, in 2008 the initial regulations establishing the quota management system for Pipis (SCS, 2016) were disallowed in Parliament due to concerns by some members of Parliament about the equity of the system used to allocate quotas. However, after review by a Select Committee of the Legislative Council the regulations were reinstated. As from 14 December 2017, the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (SACAT)31 has a review jurisdiction under FMA (SA). This enables reviews of certain decisions made by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries made under the FMA. Previous challenges were made to the 1982 Act and upheld. All Legislation and actions may also be subject to scrutiny from the Ombudsman. PIRSA is also required to respond to Freedom of Information requests. Licence holders have the right under section 111 of the Fisheries Management Act, 2007 to seek to review and licence variation or imposition of a licence condition or refusal to renew or consent to a licence transfer. The consultative, educative and co-management approach to management adopted by PIRSA, is inclusive of all stakeholders, and provides informal but effective mechanisms to minimise opportunities for disputes. Therefore, the national legal system provides for a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes and meets SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100. c Respect for rights Guide The management system has The management system has The management system has post a mechanism to generally a mechanism to observe the a mechanism to formally respect the legal rights legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights created explicitly or or established by custom of created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing established by custom of

31 https://www.lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch09s01s04s01.php

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 195

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1 • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The Commonwealth Government has a commitment to negotiate indigenous land cation use agreements under the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993. The SA Fisheries Management Act 2007 (FMA 2007) acknowledges land use agreement made by the Commonwealth and provides for (Part 6, Section 60) the Minister and a native title group party to such an agreement to develop management arrangements for aboriginal traditional fishing. The FMA 2007 does not affect native title in any other way. PIRSA also has a customary fishing policy. This applies to those of aboriginal descent, fishing in a traditional manner, for non-commercial needs. This requires fisheries policy and management to provide specific and appropriate consideration of management practices in customary fisheries.

The management system has a mechanism to generally respect, observe and formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. The requirements of SGs 60, 80 and 100 are met. CoA (1996) The Offshore Constitutional Settlement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of South Australia The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999 References Fisheries Management Act, 2007 SCS, Laskes and Curoong PIPI Fishery Assessment, 2016 Native Title Act, 1993 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 196

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Roles and responsibilities Guide Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and post individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process have management process have management process have been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities roles and responsibilities roles and responsibilities are generally understood. are explicitly defined and are explicitly defined and well understood for key well understood for all areas of responsibility and areas of responsibility and interaction. interaction. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There is explicit definition of the role of the Federal (AFMA) and State level of cation fisheries management. Critically, this includes clearly stating where overall responsibility for fisheries is divided between State and Commonwealth according to the Offshore Constitutional Settlement. Within South Australia, the relationships and key powers are explicitly defined in legislation (e.g., Fisheries Act 2007, Fisheries Management (Marine Scalefish Fisheries) Regulations 2006). The executive structure of the department brings all key aspects of fisheries management, research, policy and compliance under a single dedicated department umbrella. This increases clarification of roles and responsibilities. Key Government members include the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, PIRSA Chief Executive and PIRSA Fisheries, and SARDI Aquatic Sciences. The state authority (PIRSA Fisheries) manages the day to day business of fishery management and provides advice to the Minister. The roles of other departments such as Department of the Environment are also explicitly defined and it is understood how these relate to each other. SA fisheries explicitly make provision for delegating management responsibilities to the fisher organisations based on a co-management model. This again allows for explicit management decisions to be made at fishery level. The role of SASIA is underpinned not only by the relationship with PIRSA but also through working relationships with SARDI. The Wildlife Interaction Working Group (WIWG) is a working group for the SASF. The WIWG addresses issues with dolphin interactions, and includes participants from industry, science, policy and the environment. Currently, a member from the Conservation Council of South Australia is on the WIWG. The functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction and meet SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100. b Consultation processes Guide The management system The management system The management system post includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information from seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant the main affected parties, information, including information, including

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 197

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties including local local knowledge. The local knowledge. The knowledge, to inform the management system management system management system. demonstrates demonstrates consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There is a comprehensive consultation processes in place that regularly seeks and cation accepts information. These include an assortment of public consultation processes on changes to Legislation and Fishery specific management plans. This process provides for responses to submissions made, and also includes the requirement for open discussion through public meetings. Gazette announcements relating to the intent to implement fishery specific management actions also provide for public response, facilitated through newspaper announcements and postings on PIRSA’s website (http://pir.sa.gov.au/fishing/community_engagement/). The Draft Management Plan for the South Australian Sardine fishery was posted on https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/68608772-df30-455e-9aa9- 379ed843eb33/files/sa-sardine-fishery-draft-management-plan.pdf. Fisher organisations, as well as other stakeholders, especially the NGOs, make various direct representations and submissions to PIRSA. PIRSA duly responds with an explanation of the rationale for making its decisions and demonstrates how it has considered the information provided, including when appropriate how information provided through consultation has been used (CCSA - PIRSA, Source: Keith Rowling PIRSA, to Craig Wilkins, CCSA Email 21 April 2015). The Fisheries Management Plan, 2014 was circulated for consultation in conformity with the standard procedures, i.e. advertisements are placed in appropriate newspapers asking for written submissions within a two-month period. The draft documents are placed on the PIRSA community engagement website and public meetings are held during the two to three month periods respectively, in towns where there may be a direct interest. DEE has also demonstrated consideration of information received (DEE, 2016bc &d) from eNGOs, resulting in the stipulation of various conditions for a 5 year extension of the SASF export accreditation. The Assessors believe these constitute a management system that expressly seeks to accept submission of relevant information. The process also provides the opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved. Evidence shows that the consultation processes regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used. SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 are met. c Participation Guide The consultation process The consultation process post provides opportunity for provides opportunity and all interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Y Y

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 198

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Justifi PIRSA consults with both a relevant set of government and local government cation stakeholders including the National and State Departments of Environment, the AG’s office and South Australian Native Title Service (PIRSA, November 2013), as well as with the Fisheries associations, Management and Research Advisory Committees, NGOs and the University of Adelaide. Effective engagement is facilitated through public notices, written responses from PIRSA to these organisations, and Public Meetings. SASIA includes an ENGO (CCSA) as participant at meetings of MRAC and the Wildlife Interactions Working Group (WIWG). The Commercial Scalefish Management Plan Management Plan (Part B: Sardines) however, makes reference on a number of occasions, to relevant stakeholders, without expressly specifying whom the relevant stakeholders are. CCSA and CEBEL were invited to attend the SASF ESD, but did not attend (PIRSA, 2013). CCSA has not been excluded from other subsequent risk assessments, demonstrating a clear commitment to include interested and affected parties, and facilitates their effective engagement. The main point of the PI's consultation section GCB4.3.1 is that the management system is open to interested or affected parties and stakeholders and that any information that is viewed as important by those parties can be fed into and be considered by the process in a way that is transparent to the interested or affected parties and stakeholders. The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 are met. http://pir.sa.gov.au/fishing/community_engagement/ PIRSA, Draft Management Plan for the South Australian Sardine Fishery References (https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/68608772-df30-455e-9aa9- 379ed843eb33/files/sa-sardine-fishery-draft-management-plan.pdf). ESD Risk Assessment of the South Australia Sardine Fishery, PIRSA, 2013 Minutes of the of SASIA MRAC and the WIWG OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 199

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives post guide decision-making, that guide decision- that guide decision- consistent with the MSC making, consistent with making, consistent with fisheries standard and the MSC fisheries standard MSC fisheries standard precautionary approach, and the precautionary and the precautionary are implicit within approach are explicit approach, are explicit management policy. within management within and required by policy. management policy. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Clear Long Term Objectives are defined in the Fisheries Management Act, 2007 and contain cation direct reference to sustainable exploitation and conservation, protection of aquatic habitats and aquatic ecosystems. The Management Plan reflects the objectives of the Act. The Management Plan aims to achieve outcomes that are consistent with broader Government objectives for the management of the marine environment. These include: the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development and the Precautionary Approach to Fishe4ries Management which are set out in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, The Australian Government ‘Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries’, which relate to the requirements of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; and the National Policy on Fisheries By-catch. SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 have been met. SA Fisheries Management Act, 2007 PIRSA, 2014a. Management Plan for the South Australian Commercial Marine Scalefish Fishery: Part B Management arrangements for the taking of sardines, The National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, 1992; available at http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/esd/publications/national-esd-strategy The Intergovernmental Agreement on The Environment; available at http://www.environment.gov.au/about-us/esd/publications/intergovernmental- References agreement Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries; available at http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/guidelines-ecologically-sustainable- management-fisheries The Environment Protection And Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; available at http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc The National Policy on Fisheries By-Catch; available at http://www.agriculture.gov.au/fisheries/environment/bycatch/nat_by_policy_1999 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 200

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and post broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving long-term objectives, expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed by which are demonstrably Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, consistent with achieving implicit within the fishery- are explicit within the the outcomes expressed by specific management fishery-specific MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, system. management system. are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Y Y Y Justif Long and short-term specific objectives are documented in the Management Plan for icatio The South Australian Sardine Fishery, 2014-2023, PIRSA. The Plan has a long-term management objective, which is demonstrably consistent with achieving outcomes n expressed by MSC Principles 1 to maintain an ecologically sustainable prawn biomass. The instrument to achieve this is the harvest strategy. Achieving this goal is supported by a series of activities defined and measurable performance indicators, management reference levels and control rules for the target species as well as retained, bycatch and ETP species, habitats and ecosystems. The long-term management objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principle 2, are also defined in the Plan: Fishery impacts on by-catch and by-product species are sustainable; fishery impacts on ETPs are sustainable; and limiting the impacts on the trophic structure. These are supported by defined and measurable performance indicators, management reference levels, and control rules. Well-defined and measurable short and long-term objectives, which are demonstrably consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system achieving SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100. References PIRSA (2014) The South Australian Sardine Fishery Management Plan, 2014-2023 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 201

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Decision-making processes Guide There are some decision- There are established post making processes in place decision-making that result in measures and processes that result in strategies to achieve the measures and strategies to fishery-specific achieve the fishery- objectives. specific objectives. Met? Y Y Justifi There is an established decision making process in place comprising, through the MRAC, in cation season and annual consultation on the harvest strategy and decision-making that may result in measures to meet short-term (operational) objectives (driven by the control rules contained in the current Harvest Strategy); and longer-term consultation and decision-making that may result in new measures and strategies to achieve the long-term fishery-specific management objectives (i.e. changes to the management framework). The TEPS Code of Practice is regularly reviewed by PIRSA management and compliance, SARDI and SASIA under the auspices of the WIWG. If an interaction occurs, the WIWG is convened at which time the incident is assessed and the Code adjusted if required. Therefore, both SG 60 and SG 80 have been met. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guide Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making post processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to all serious issues identified in serious and other issues identified in relevant research, important issues identified relevant research, monitoring, evaluation in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The decision making process for the fishery is consistent with those for the broader cation management system and responds to the defined harvest and bycatch management strategies, which respond to research, outcome evaluations and monitoring programs. Specific and relevant issues may be evaluated through a number of mechanisms that take account of the wider implications of decisions, including establishment of the ETP working group (WIWG); workshops (e.g. ecological risk assessments (PIRSA, 2013); and the MRAC (e.g. harvest strategy development, ecological and compliance risk assessments). Evidence that critical management actions respond to research can be found in the link between the stock assessment research and the annual formulation of the TACCs. Evidence of critical management actions in response to monitoring can be found in the application of the COP, and the resulting actions, especially when dealing with dolphin mitigation policy. Evidence of critical management actions in response to evaluation are found in the general responses to the Management Plan requirements, as well as Compliance monitoring. Therefore, SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 have been met.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 202

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. c Use of precautionary approach Guide Decision-making post processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Y Justifi The control rules incorporate a precautionary approach to the decision-making process by cation requiring a review when the target reference level is not met. This ensures that any warning signs are recognised and investigated / addressed in their early stages. The frequency of evaluation (both annually and in-season) and review means that management action to investigate and, where required, alleviate adverse impacts on stocks is always taken before the performance indicators reach the limit reference level. The application of the research, monitoring and evaluation within the Sardine management plan provides a good tool to assess the relative risks to bycatch, ETP species and ecosystems, initiating when appropriate, actions to deal with at risk species. Examples of precautionary actions a conservative harvest strategy to take account of the LTTL nature of the stock and the implementation of the TEPS Code of Practice, irrespective of the low risks shown to teleost species. Since there is strong evidence of precautionary actions covering both P1 and P2 management issues, the SG 80 has been met. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guide Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all post fishery’s performance and fishery’s performance and interested stakeholders management action is management action is provides comprehensive generally available on available on request, and information on the request to stakeholders. explanations are provided fishery’s performance and for any actions or lack of management actions and action associated with describes how the findings and relevant management system recommendations responded to findings and emerging from research, relevant recommendations monitoring, evaluation emerging from research, and review activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The information obtained for decision making processes in the fishery is managed cation transparently, as are management decisions. Information on the biological performance of the fishery is provided in the SARDI stock assessment reports and spawning biomass reports which are publicly available on the internet. Importantly, information on ETP interactions are reported transparently and annually, as are reports specifically regarding the effectiveness of the Code of Practice in mitigating dolphin interactions. Economic reports provide public information on the economic performance of the fishery and include broader social measures. PIRSA and SARDI provide a comprehensive range of formal and informal reports which confirm fishery performance and how management has responded to findings from recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. These include the SASF Management Plan which provides information on Management performance indicators and Management Reference Levels;); Gazette notices (PIRSA, 2017); and outcomes of management decisions, research and studies including the annual stock status report (Ward et al, 2017), ETP reports

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 203

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. (Mackay, 2017), Mitigating ETP Operations (Mackay and Goldsworthy, 2017), and ecosystem impact assessment reports (Goldsworthy et al, 2013 and Gillanders, et al, 2015). Formal reporting processes are explicit and required under the Management Plan, and these are reviewed annually (PIRSA, June 2017). PIRSA’s comanagement policy (PIRSA, 2013), and the fishery specific Sardine Management Plan (PIRSA, 2014) have been provides for PIRSA to administer fisheries legislation and make decisions on fisheries management through consultative processes with fishers and other key stakeholders. Fisheries management decisions are discussed and debated through SASIA. Under this management plan, the responsibility for reporting on and taking action in regard to issues such as breaching reference points in the Harvest Strategy rules lie with both SASIA and PIRSA. SASIA holds regular meetings with PIRSA Fisheries and Aquaculture and SARDI Aquatic Sciences to discuss research and management issues in the fishery. The Sardine Management Plan monitoring and performance indications provide the basis for incorporating relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, and evaluation and review activity. SASIA has established the Threatened, Endangered and Protected Species Working Group to provide advice on management of the industry’s TEPS code of conduct and the Independent Observer Program. Membership of the working group includes sardine fishery licence holders, PIRSA, SARDI and the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (South Australia). Explanations are provided for actions or lack of actions by the organisations tasked with implementation. Failure to achieve the management reference levels is submitted by PIRSA to the Minister detailing the reasons for non-compliance. It then becomes the responsibility of the SASF Management Committee and PIRSA to rectify failure to achieve specific management outcomes. PIRSA duly responds with the details for management actions and the rationale for making such decisions (CCSA – PIRSA, 2015). PIRSA, on behalf of the SASF, applies for Export accreditation to the Commonwealth DEE (PIRSA, 2014b). DEE has in turn received separate submissions from eNGO interests (Wilkins, 2014 & 2016), raising their concerns. DEE formerly responded providing the rationale for extending the accreditation status for a 5 year period (DEE, 2016d). Therefore, both SG 80 and SG 100 have been met. e Approach to disputes Guide Although the management The management system The management system post authority or fishery may or fishery is attempting to or fishery acts proactively be subject to continuing comply in a timely fashion to avoid legal disputes or court challenges, it is not with judicial decisions rapidly implements indicating a disrespect or arising from any legal judicial decisions arising defiance of the law by challenges. from legal challenges. repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Y Y Y

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 204

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Justif The consultation process ensures that the management system or fishery acts icatio proactively to avoid legal disputes. The co-management system allows for delegation of responsibilities and the partnership approach between government and industry n actively works towards avoiding disputes. In addition, licence conditions provide for a system of dispute resolution in the event that the prescribed licence holder is not satisfied with the conditions (Section 111-113 of the Fisheries Management Act). No legal challenges or judicial decisions have taken place in the SASF but there was a recent Australian High Court decision related to the application of State fisheries law to native title holders fishing for abalone in their local area in South Australia. The decision concluded that the State fisheries legislation did not extinguish native title rights to fish and that the defence under section 211 of the NTA was applicable. This now requires native title issues to be explicitly considered in the formulation of each Management Plan. Evidence from the Sardine MP shows that Native Title issues were explicitly considered. The scoring guidance outcomes SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 are met. PIRSA (2013), ESD Risk Assessment of Spencer Gulf’s Prawn Fishery PIRSA (2014) Sardine Management Plan SASIA (2015). Code of Practice for mitigating the interactions of the South Australian Sardine Fishery with wildlife SARDI reports: (Ward et al, 2017), ETP reports (Mackay, 2017), Mitigating ETP Operations (Mackay and Goldsworthy, 2017) and ecosystem impact assessment reports (Goldsworthy et al, 2013 and Gillanders, et al, 2015). PIRSA. Comanagement Policy, 2013 CCSA - PIRSA, Source: Keith Rowling PIRSA, to Craig Wilkins, CCSA Email 21 April 2015 DEE (2016d) Statement of Reasons for an Accreditation Decision in Relation to the South Australian Sardine Fishery under Part 13 Of The Environment Protection And References Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) Wilkins, C, (November, 2014). Environmental Assessment of the South Australian Sardine Fishery under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Letter to the Director, Sustainable Fisheries Section Department of the Environment, submitted on behalf of the Conservation Council for South Australia, Australian Marine Conservation Society and Humane Society International. Wilkins, C, (May, 2016). Environmental Assessment of the South Australian Sardine Fishery under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Letter to the Director, Sustainable Fisheries Section Department of the Environment, submitted on behalf of the Conservation Council for South Australia, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Humane Society International and the International Fund for Animal Welfare DEE 2016d Australian High Court Judgement. Available at http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2013/hca47- 2013-11-06.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 205

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a MCS implementation Guid Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive epost surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are been implemented in the surveillance system has implemented in the fishery fishery and has been implemented in the and there is a reasonable demonstrated an ability to fishery and has expectation that they are enforce relevant demonstrated a consistent effective. management measures, ability to enforce relevant strategies and/or rules. management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y Y Justif Relevant management measures include a limited entry licensing system, a catch based icatio management system, gear controls, zonal restrictions and closed areas, a TEPS Code of Practice and reporting systems. n The PIRSA’s Operations delivers the Division’s compliance services for commercial fisheries. The Monitoring actions are supported by Fisheries Officers based in Port Lincoln, where vessels depart and offload. Inspectors undertake targeted inspections based on risk assessment and conform to a Sardine Fishery Compliance Operations Program (PIRSA, 2018). All licensed fishing vessels are required to submit complete catch returns as well as ETP logbooks. Other regulations applied comprise gear restrictions, catch limits, and fishing, confined to two specific management zones. The risk assessment is used to support targetted planning of inspection activity. The main risks associated with the SASF are: quota management integrity; threatened, endangered, protected species interactions; bycatch; and illegal, unreported, unregulated take (PIRSA, 2018, PIRSA Compliance update, 2017). Inspector resources are deployed for education awareness, surveillance and enforcement. Surveillance includes a significant amount of time dedicated to checking bin weights for quota integrity, and monitoring, through at sea surveillance, compliance with the TEPS Code of Practice (PIRSA, 2018). Fisheries and Compliance Operations are supported by a number of reporting systems (catch logs and Catch and Disposal Records reports), electronic systems including VMS and data intelligence software. The fishery maintains an onboard observer program, run by Seatec. Observer coverage rates are set at 10%. Seatec undertakes bycatch sampling, but most explicitly monitor ETP interactions and mortality events. Compliance Operations also operates a Standard Operating Procedure for TEPs Mortality Investigations (PIRSA (current)). Monitoring of the effectiveness of the compliance system demonstrates a high degree of effectiveness of the system applied (PIRSA, 2018). The industry has worked with the Operations to: develop the TEPS Code of Practice and to report events in near real-time; and development of the bin/hopper weight measuring system. Therefore, SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 have been met. b Sanctions Guid Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- epost compliance exist and there is compliance exist, are compliance exist, are some evidence that they are consistently applied and consistently applied and applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 206

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Met? Y Y Y Justif PIRSA operates an effective compliance system with a sequence of warnings, expedited icatio offences and prosecutions, allied to 4 years imprisonment for serious offences. PIRSA also operates a demerit scheme (GoSA, 2017). Offences are very rare (Andrew Carr and Yolande n Markey, pers comm May, 2018; PIRSA. 2017), as demonstrated by the substantial enforcement activities during the fishing season that now infractions, other than small delays in the submission of CDRs. The combination of substantial enforcement and the lack of offences taking place is evidence that the co-management system, coupled with educational awareness, the demerit scheme and other sanctions, are demonstrably effective in ensuring compliance. Therefore SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 have been met. c Compliance Guid Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of epost thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers management system for comply with the comply with the the fishery under management system management system assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, when required, providing including, when required, including, providing information of importance providing information of information of importance to the effective importance to the effective to the effective management of the management of the management of the fishery. fishery. fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justif The Division measures compliance outcomes by estimating compliance and non- icatio compliance rates. There were no serious offences recorded on the SASF in the last 5 years for any of the main offence categories Quota management integrity, TEPS n interactions and Bycatch reporting (PIRSA, 2017). The annual PIRSA report (PIRSA, 2017) comments that ‘ sardine fishers continued to be proactive in problem-solving and work towards resolving issues in a timely manner’. PIRSA inspectors informed the assessors that the sardine fishers had been especially cooperative in providing support to ensuring quota integrity through bin/hopper weight classifications (Andrew Carr and Yolande Markey, pers comm) The industry provides daily catch data to research and compliance, and collects information on ETP interactions. The industry is also cooperating with the development of e-catch reporting, which is expected to be implemented in 2019. VMS, and evidence from the independent observer program also provide a high degree of confidence in fisher compliance. There is very strong evidence that fishers systematically comply with the regulatory system and continually provide relevant information. Therefore SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 have been met. d Systematic non-compliance Guid There is no evidence of epost systematic non- compliance. Met? Y Justif There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance by the licensees and skippers icatio in the Sardine fishery, nor is there evidence that the existing (negligible) level of non-compliance in the past five years. PIRSA and SASIA worked collectively in n engendering strong cultural support from fisheries to ETP protection (Dietman, pers comm, May, 2018). The ETP CoP program and support for the observer program provides an example of industry compliance. There has been demonstrated

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 207

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. improvement in the application of the CoP over time, with resultant reductions in interaction rates (PIRSA, 2017). PIRSA (2018) Fisheries Compliance Operations Program: Sardine Fishery, Year ending June 2018 PIRSA (2017) Sardine Fishery Compliance Update References PIRSA (2018) Sardine Fishery Compliance Report, May 2018 PIRSA (current) TEPs mortality investigations GoSA, Fisheries Management (General) Regulations, 2017. GoSA, Fisheries Management (Demerit Points) Regulations 2009. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 208

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Evaluation coverage Guide There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in post place to evaluate some place to evaluate key parts place to evaluate all parts parts of the fishery- of the fishery-specific of the fishery-specific specific management management system management system. system. Met? Y Y N Justifi PIRSA undertakes its own internal monitoring reviews on the basis of activities cation defined in the Management Plan. An external assessment relating to the obligations to cover all key elements of the fishery management system, ETP, ecosystem, bycatch, target species. Other evaluations are in place for: • The Code of Practice in mitigating operational interactions of the South Australian Sardine Fishery with the common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), • All SARDI reports • The Sardine Stock Assessment Report • The Compliance system • The SA co-management system Elements of the observer programme. The Executive Director of PIRSA (Fisheries and Aquaculture) sets the level of observer coverage in the fishery each year. When setting the level of observer coverage the operational structure of the observer program is reviewed. However, no specific evaluation has been made of the training observers have had and the application of the data collection protocols used. It is notable for example that observers do not have any formal system of certification in place, nor is there evidence of any formal curriculum applied. Therefore SG 60 and SG 80 have been met. However, not all elements of the observer program are reviewed, MSC noting the need to review observer training processes and the application of data collection protocols. b Internal and/or external review Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific post management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular internal subject to regular internal internal review. and occasional external and external review. review. Met? Y Y N Justifi Section 49 of the Fisheries Management Act (2007) allows that a review of the cation Management Plan may be called at any time. An internal (PIRSA) review of the Management Plan must occur as soon as possible after the fifth anniversary of its implementation to determine whether amendments are required. A comprehensive internal (PIRSA) review of the 2007 Fisheries Management Regulations was undertaken by PIRSA in 2011 and 2012 (PIRSA 2014). The following changes relevant to the sardine fishery were implemented through changes in 2017: • Allowing the permanent transfer of quota; • Specific reference to permissible bycatch species’

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 209

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. • The ministerial exemption for boats fishing in Port Lincoln and Coffin Bay be moved from a ministerial exemption to regulation; • The exemption for boats under 7.5 m not to have a vessel monitoring system unit onboard be moved from a ministerial exemption to regulation; • A standard number of registered masters be permitted, in relation to quota- managed fisheries; • Changing the number of agents allowed; • Allow for the move to electronic logbooks; • Review the required information for prior reporting and simplify/amend where possible and/or necessary; • Discussion about increasing over catch provisions; and • Standardising the process for calculating unload weights All changes to the Regulations were subject to wider consultation (3.1.2). The Management Plan is scheduled to a PIRSA Review in 2018/2019. The Code of Practice in mitigating operational interactions of the South Australian Sardine Fishery is reviewed on a quarterly basis by the WIWG, or immediately after any mortality event. The overall application of the CoP, and its effectiveness, has been reviewed twice in recent years (Ward et al 2015 and Mackay, 2017 and Goldsworthy 2017). These reviews were undertaken by SARDI and are all internal to PIRSA. All SARDI reports are subject to an internal review process by in-house scientists. SARDI has a sound record of publishing the outcomes of sardine research in peer- reviewed journals including Ward et al 2018a), Code of practice for reducing accidental mortality of dolphins in purse-seine fisheries, Marine Policy, 2018. The Sardine Stock Assessment Report has not been subject to External Peer Review. However, SARDI participated in a stock assessment benchmarking exercise (Ward et al, 2015) funded by FRDC where a number of key recommendations were made regarding DEPM biomass estimates and these were incorporated into the SARDI stock assessment. The Compliance system is internally reviewed on an annual basis (PIRSA 2017, PIRSA 2018). PIRSA Compliance also participates in the Professional Standards Councils Fisheries Compliance Programme (PSCFCP (undated)), which lays down a structure to ensure commitment to compliance with relevant laws, including legislative requirements, industry codes, organisational standards as well as standards of good corporate governance, ethics and community expectations. This follows the Australian Standard on Compliance Programs AS 3806-2006. Elements of the observer programme have been reviewed by SARDI, and where appropriate changed, i.e. representative nature of the sampling, whether observer coverage linked to the number of sets (as opposed to nights), and any spatial or temporal limitations on data collected. The Executive Director of PIRSA (Fisheries and Aquaculture) sets the level of observer coverage in the fishery each year. When setting the level of observer coverage the operational structure of the observer program is reviewed. The SA co-management system was also subject to both internal (Hollamby 2010) and external review (Neville, 2015). The review found that the majority of SA fisheries were in the Consultative phase of the co-management continuum, and that only the Spencer Gulf and West Coast Prawn Fisherman’s Association was considered in the

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 210

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Collaborative Phase (has elements of both the Collaborative and Delegated phase of co-management for some functions involving fisheries management). The fishery is regularly assessed by Department of Environment and Energy (DEE, 2016) as an Ecologically Sustainably Managed Fishery under part 13 and 13(A) of the EPBC Act 1999. The last review was completed in 2016 (DEE 2016a), providing for a five-year extension of the SASF accreditation scheme. It is evident that that PIRSA has established a comprehensive regular internal review process. However, not all key parts of the management system have as yet been subject to external review. SG 60 and SG 80 are met. PIRSA, 2014 Dee, 2016a. https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/72da29f4-befd- 40a5-baa5-f21abe509e04/files/sa-sardine-fishery-assessment-report-2016.pdf SARDI reports, Ward et al 2015 and Mackay and Goldsworthy 2017 Ward, 2015 References PIRSA, Compliance Operations, 2017 and 2018 PIRSA Compliance also participates in the Professional Standards Councils Fisheries Compliance Programme (PSCFCP, undated) Hollamby 2010 Neville, 2015 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 Recommendation 2: that the SASF observer program is subject to external review and that that the review focuses on the following areas:

• as for how representative the sampling is • whether observer coverage is based on the total effort or number of trips, • any spatial or temporal limitations on data collected, • definition of data collection protocols, • the formal process of training observers in terms of species identification the rigour applied to data collection protocols, and • the priorities for observer time on the vessel

Recommendation 3: Other key parts of the management system are subject to external review, including:

• The Sardine stock assessment • The Harvest Strategy • The Management Plan • The TEPs Code of Practice • The Compliance System

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 211

Appendix 1.3 Conditions This fishery has no conditions assigned.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 212

Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports

Peer Reviewer A

Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: The conclusion to certify the fishery is justified by the rationales presented in the report.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are NA CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: No conditions were raised during the assessment of this fishery.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient NA CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: No conditions were raised so no client action plan is required.

Performance Indicator Review Please complete the appropriate table(s) in relation to the CAB’s Peer Review Draft Report:

• For reports using one of the default assessment trees (general, salmon or enhanced bivalves), please enter the details on the assessment outcome using Table 1.

• For reports using the Risk-Based Framework please enter the details on the assessment outcome at Table 2.

• For reports assessing enhanced fisheries please enter the further details required at Table 3.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 213

Perform Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response ance available information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Indicato relevant and/or improve the specific scoring issues and any relevant r informati rationale fishery’s documentation where possible. Please attach on been used to score performance to additional pages if necessary. used to this Indicator the SG80 level? score this support the (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator given score? only required where answers given are ‘No’. ? (Yes/No) (Yes/No)

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA

1.1.2 NA NA NA

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA

1.2.2 Yes Yes NA

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA It is noted that the stock assessment for anchovy The CAB agrees that this is a dated stock assessment, from 2000 is somewhat dated, however the fact but due to the factors mentioned by the reviewer, it it is that this species is highly productive and adequate for the purposes of this MSC assessment represents less than <1% of the total catch, it is process.,. highly likely to be above the PRI and therefore a score of 100 is warranted.

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 214

Perform Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response ance available information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Indicato relevant and/or improve the specific scoring issues and any relevant r informati rationale fishery’s documentation where possible. Please attach on been used to score performance to additional pages if necessary. used to this Indicator the SG80 level? score this support the (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator given score? only required where answers given are ‘No’. ? (Yes/No) (Yes/No)

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA Explicit statement of which guideposts are met This has been corrected by adding ‘’ SG60, 80 and 100 should be included. are met”.

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA

2.2.2 Yes Yes (see note NA None of the secondary species are a shark and Please note that there is a statement that sharks may be re SI (d)) therefore the team does not need to score encircled but they are released from the net. No change scoring issue (d). Not relevant. was made.

2.2.3 Yes No NA SG100 for scoring issue (c) requires a strategy. Explanation has been added, by adding ‘Information is It is unclear how this is achieved. Suggest adequate to support the partial strategy and evaluate similar explanation to that provided in 2.2.2 (a) with a high degree of certainty whether the partial i.e. how the requirement at SG100 for strategy is achieving its objective. As stated before, the Information PI for ‘minor’ would correspond to requirement at SG100 for Management PI for ‘minor’ SG80 for ‘main’. In consequence, a partial would correspond to SG80 for ‘main’. Similarly, strategy for ‘minor’ secondary species, when adequate information to support a partial strategy for there are no ‘main’ species, is sufficient to meet ‘minor’ secondary species, when there are no ‘main’ the requirement for SG100 for this scoring species, is sufficient to meet the requirement for SG100 issue. for this scoring issue.’

2.3.1 Yes No NA Final scores given for each component do not The omission has been corrected by adding “SG100 is match the rationale for scoring issue (c), met” however the overall score does not change.

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 215

Perform Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response ance available information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Indicato relevant and/or improve the specific scoring issues and any relevant r informati rationale fishery’s documentation where possible. Please attach on been used to score performance to additional pages if necessary. used to this Indicator the SG80 level? score this support the (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator given score? only required where answers given are ‘No’. ? (Yes/No) (Yes/No)

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA The recommendation is sound.

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Note, overall score table should refer to 2.4.1 (c) This has been corrected by replacing b with c in the not (b) as (b) was not scored. scoring table at this PI

2.4.2 No No NA For SI(a), it should be noted that the Agree, the reason for not meeting SG100 was unclear in implementation of the Commonwealth south- the justification for SI(a). The sentence: ‘There is a west marine park network which abuts SA strategy for managing the UoA impacts on habitats, waters and State marine parks offers further although not to manage all fisheries impacts’ was protection from fisheries impacts. The reason changed to:’ There is a strategy for managing the UoA why SG100 is not met for this SI is unclear. impacts on habitats, although not to manage impacts For SI(b), the assessment team notes that from all, MSC/non-MSC fisheries’ to reflect the “ongoing recording and reporting to SARDI of requirement at SG100. catch data for benthic species ensure timely identification of an increase in risk to benthic For SI(b), the fishery, the science provider and the habitats” as a basis for some confidence that the observers are now aware of the importantce of strategy will work. The background noted that collecting and identifying benthic species and this has “The database includes data on numbers of been done for at least five years. Historically, bycatch bycatch species……..when catches contain large data have not been recorded comprehensively but or rare species these may not be included in presently they are. From the interviews at the site visit, catch samples….. Historically, by-catch data such species (crab, shrimp, etc occur extremly rarely in have not been recorded the catch, and usually the only indication that the gear comprehensively…..quantifying bycatch has not had contact with the benthic habitat is some traces of been a priority.” Are benthic species adequately sand. Benthic species are currently recorded and recorded and monitored to ensure the strategy to monitored. The CAB did not cosider that any changes to minimise impacts on habitats is working? the justification of SI(b) were necessary.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 216

2.4.3 Yes No NA For SI (c), the rationale is vague. Habitats CAB disagree the rationale is vague. Fishing inside Gulf are not well known for Gulf St Vincent. St Vincent did not occur since 2013, with some fishing Is a 2006 habitat map for EGAB adequate for effort occuring within Investigator Strait. Thus these this information PI? habitats are considered ‘minor’ and not ‘commonly encountered’. Changes were made to the rationale to make it clearer as follows: ‘Ongoing monitoring” was change to ‘ongoing VMS monitoring”. ‘Adequate information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats’ has been added to the rationale for SI(c) to reflect the SG80 requirement. Please note that habitat mapping is undertaken by the guvernment department and not by the fisheries and habitat mapping is not something that can be undertaken frequently. The 2006 EGAB sampling is adequate to give an understanding of the habitat over which sardine fishing occurs. Please note the statement ‘The bathymetric data show that the near-shore section of the continental shelf is sharply inclined throughout much of the eastern GAB, with the seafloor dropping to a depth of 40m within a few kilometers of the coast’ in the rationale for 2.4.1a. This is suficient to conclude that no interactions between fishing gear and the seabed occur in EGAB. The information is adequate for the scale and intensity of the fishery.

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA An explicit statement that SG100 is met should Added: SG60, 80 and 100 are met be included.

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA An explicit statement that SG100 is met for each Added: SG60, 80 and 100 are met SI should be included.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 217

Perform Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response ance available information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Indicato relevant and/or improve the specific scoring issues and any relevant r informati rationale fishery’s documentation where possible. Please attach on been used to score performance to additional pages if necessary. used to this Indicator the SG80 level? score this support the (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator given score? only required where answers given are ‘No’. ? (Yes/No) (Yes/No)

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 218

Perform Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response ance available information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Indicato relevant and/or improve the specific scoring issues and any relevant r informati rationale fishery’s documentation where possible. Please attach on been used to score performance to additional pages if necessary. used to this Indicator the SG80 level? score this support the (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator given score? only required where answers given are ‘No’. ? (Yes/No) (Yes/No)

3.1.1 No No NA Teams shall state which jurisdictional category We have added reference to the 1996 Offshore applies to the management system of the UoA Constitutional Settlement arrangements for scalefish (SA4.1.1). This should be stated under this PI. species between South Australia and the The COAG Standing Council for Primary Commonwealth. The Offshore Constitutional Settlement industries has been abolished for some time and agreement between South Australia and the is therefore not relevant here. Commonwealth of Australia sets out that sardines are Of relevance for SI(b), from 14 December 2017, managed by South Australia. Any allocation discussed the South Australian Civil and Administrative in this management plan refers to South Australian Tribunal (SACAT) has a review jurisdiction fishing sectors only. The basis for this is as follows. under FMA (SA). This enables reviews of certain decisions made by the Minister for There is also an agreement between New South Agriculture, Food and Fisheries made under Wales and the Commonwealth government. Under this the FMA. arrangement, all purse-seine catches outside 3 nm For SI(c), it is unclear how the mechanisms offshore from NSW are managed by the align with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The FMA Commonwealth. Sardines are caught in large quantities provides for the development of Aboriginal in both jurisdictions and are managed using a Traditional Management Plans in conjunction Recommended Biological Catch by theCommonwealth. with any existing and/or new Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUA). These plans provide Reference to the COAG standing Committee has been information on permitted fishing activities, gear removed and reference to the SACAT added. etc. MSC does not specifically lay out a process by which Principles 1 and 2 are consistent with Customery Rights. These requirements are alrready explicitly defined under national and federal Acts, which also refer to native title issues.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 219

Perform Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response ance available information condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring to Indicato relevant and/or improve the specific scoring issues and any relevant r informati rationale fishery’s documentation where possible. Please attach on been used to score performance to additional pages if necessary. used to this Indicator the SG80 level? score this support the (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator given score? only required where answers given are ‘No’. ? (Yes/No) (Yes/No)

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA SI (c) should have a ‘Y’ at SG100 to match the Corrected rationale.

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA For scoring issue (b), an example of a timely Added the following ‘Evidence that critical management decision making process would be helpful here. actions respond to research can be found in the link SI (e) requires a Y or N in the “Met” row. between the stock assessment research and the annual formulation of the TACCs. Evidence of critical management actions in response to monitoring can be found in the application of the COP, and the resulting actions, especially when dealing with dolphin mitigation policy. Evidence of critical management actions in response to evaluation are found in the general responses to the Management Plan requirements, as well as Compliance monitoring.

3.2.3 No Yes NA For SI (c), the independent observer program This had been added and VMS also provide a high degree of confidence for compliance and are relevant here.

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA The recommendations are sound. No comment required

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 220

General Comments on the Peer Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) can be added below and on additional pages

This is a well-researched and well referenced assessment report. From a Peer Review point of view, reference to the relevant section in the MSC CR in the evaluation tables is most helpful. Noted

Reference to the SA Lakes and Coorong Pipi MSC certified fishery and harmonisation under the 3.1 PIs should be included as they are regulated by the same State management body. The Lakes and Coorong Pipi fishery has been added to the section on harmonization. However, scoring issues addressed under 3.1.1 for specific to the LCF, and are not experienced in the other fisheries.

The co-management approach and activities by the SASIA (e.g collecting own size info and adjusting fishing patterns accordingly) demonstrates stewardship of the fishery and is refreshing. Noted

There are several references to VDS in the report which I assume should be VMS. Corrected

The glossary needs to be cross checked as some acronyms are missing (e.g.VMS) while others are included but not in the body of the report (e.g. PSA). Corrected

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 221

Peer Reviewer B

Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion The Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: The assessors have responded to The fishery is obviously closely managed. Not withstanding scoring issues, but in our response, we some uncertainties, the stock is in good shape and fishery have not made any changes to the interactions with ETP species and the wider environment are scoring as per the Peer Review Draft acceptable. Some score may require minor adjusting down Report. Whilst some of the comments (from 100 to 95 in some cases) to reflect this but this would not were helpful (P3), comments made on affect the decision to pass the fishery P2 issues by the Peer Reviewer were not consistent with the MSC requirements and guidance or did not demonstrate that the Peer Reviewer had read the full content of the documents (e.g. Target species).

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] If included: Justification:

The assessment does not raise any conditions Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification:

N/a

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 222

Performance Indicator Review

Table 11 For reports using one of the default assessment trees:

Perfor Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response mance available information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Indica relevant rationale used to raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant tor information score this Indicator the fishery’s documentation where possible. Please been used to support the given performance to attach additional pages if necessary. score this score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers (Yes/No) is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.1.1 Yes, I know Yes, but see comment The CAB gave a score of 100 here and No comment required. Note Peer reviewer of no in compared the modelled stock assessment comment in the third column is incomplete so we additional with the MSC default RPs. Given that the don’t know to which comment s/he is referring. information fishery is managed to more conservative RPs the fishery meets MSC requirements.

1.1.2 Not scored

1.2.1 Yes. I know Yes but its unclear The CAB puts forward a compelling case No comment required of no what the target size is. for this indcator, demonstrating how the additional The report mentions elements of the HS interact and relate to information that there is a target each other. size (1.2.3) which IS used in the HS but also says that there are industry data (Table 6) which are not used.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 223

Perfor Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response mance available information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Indica relevant rationale used to raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant tor information score this Indicator the fishery’s documentation where possible. Please been used to support the given performance to attach additional pages if necessary. score this score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers (Yes/No) is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.2.2 Yes. I know Yes The CAB puts forward a compelling case No comment required of no for this indcator, demonstrating how the additional elements of the HS interact and relate to information each other.

1.2.3 Yes. I know Not sure. The levels The CAB puts forward a lot of relevant The objective of the Observer Program is to of no of observer coverage information. However, there needs to be monitor adherence to the COP for ETP additional seem quite low given some more scrutiny of the observer data interactions. Observer data are not used to validate information the high level of collection regime to see if it adequately commercial CPUE. The observer data is only variability in the takes account of the high, and relevant to 1.2.3 with regard to the collection of fishery and the stock acknowledged, variability. There is mention mean size data of the catch. We have referenced assessments. Needs of a recent review (Ward 2018) but this the scientific organisation (SARDI) who have further scrutiby to issue is not explicitly addressed in the stated that the size frequency sampling is justify a score of 100. report but may have been so in the paper representative of the catch despite relatively small (Ward 2018). sample sizes as sardines school in similar size classes. With respect to the Harvest Strategy, we state “Here, mean size is being used as a proxy for the possibility of overfishing and is considered to enhance conservatism in the HCRs”. In this respect, the level of observer coverage is not relevant to 1.2.3 to the extent that it would prevent a score of SG100. No change to the score or rationale has been made.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 224

Perfor Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response mance available information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Indica relevant rationale used to raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant tor information score this Indicator the fishery’s documentation where possible. Please been used to support the given performance to attach additional pages if necessary. score this score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers (Yes/No) is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.2.4 Yes. I know See comment above I agree with the CAB that some proper No comment. Required of no about the adequacy of external review is warranted. I am not additional observer sampling saying the stock assessment is seriously information deficient but focused and requested peer review is highly valuable.

2.1.1 Yes. I know Yes The CAB puts forward a compelling case No comment required of no for this indicator, demonstrating how additional current knowledge provides assurance that information the stock is being kept above PRI

2.1.2 Yes. I know Yes, there are a few The CAB puts forward a compelling case No comment required of no wording questions for this indicator, demonstrating how the additional marked on the report various arrangements work to protect information that require some anchovy attention but they are not significant.

2.1.3 Yes. I know Yes. The CAB puts forward a compelling case No comment required of no for this indcator, demonstrating how there is additional sufficient information available to enable information the manamgement of anchovy

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 225

Perfor Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response mance available information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Indica relevant rationale used to raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant tor information score this Indicator the fishery’s documentation where possible. Please been used to support the given performance to attach additional pages if necessary. score this score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers (Yes/No) is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

2.2.1 Yes. I know Unsure. Needs some Please see comment below about whether No other species are targeted in the UoA fishery. of no clarification over the other small pelagics are targeted. The scoring addresses other secondary species, but additional question of targetting these are not specifically targeted. The situation information and whether other with regard to “Inseperable or Practicably small pelagics are Inceperable (IPI)” species should hopefully be targetted by the same more clear now that the MSC has approved and vessels but at other uploaded the updated variation request which times includes all of the IPI species identified.

2.2.2 Yes. I know As for 2.2.1 As for 2.2.2 No comment required of no additional information

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 226

Perfor Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response mance available information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Indica relevant rationale used to raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant tor information score this Indicator the fishery’s documentation where possible. Please been used to support the given performance to attach additional pages if necessary. score this score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers (Yes/No) is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

2.2.3 Yes. I know As for 2.2.1 but the The score may be justified once The CAB does not agree. The level of observer of no level of observer clarification is available coverage is sufficient to conclude that there are no additional sampling requires ‘main’ secondary species, i.e. all non-target catch information some further represents less than 2% of the catch. This examination as per information was confirmed by the fishery’s 1.2.3 stakeholders at the site visit. It is clear that there are no ‘main’ secondary species. GSA3.6.3.1 (GFCR, MSC 2014, p 443) gives guidence on information sources that can be used. Observer data is considered lower bias, higher verifiability. CAB agrees that the observer coverage may not be adequate to accurately estimate mortality in exceptionally rare secondary species but observer data triangulated with logbook data and interviews with scientists and fishermen is adequate to conclude there are no ‘main’ species.There have been no changes to the scores or ratioales.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 227

Perfor Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response mance available information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Indica relevant rationale used to raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant tor information score this Indicator the fishery’s documentation where possible. Please been used to support the given performance to attach additional pages if necessary. score this score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers (Yes/No) is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

2.3.1 No. I am No, the rationale for SBT is internationally listed by the IUCN as The IUCN classification is only used to designate unclear why not including SBT critically endangered and as endangered in ETP specie for species that are out of scope: Southern needs to be resolved New South Wales. The fish in South Species classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, Bluefin Tuna Australia are from the same stock as that reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the (SBT) is not listed internationally and in NSW. There is IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) considered an a limit on catches so therefore the species or critically endangered (CE). ETP species. should be in scope. Its true that none are caught in the fishery but its unclear why it In addition, SBT is not part of the SASF. is not considered as other species (e.g. some No changes were made in the report. pinnipeds which are listed species but do not consume sardines are)

2.3.2 As for 2.3.1 re As for 2.3.1 re SBT Its unclear how this section can be scored SBT is not an ETP species and not part of the SBT without considering SBT. Its true that SASF. SBT is listed in the EPBC as a considersing SBT is unlikely to alter the ‘conservation dependent’ species and it is score but it should be considered for managed cooperatively in countries member of the completeness. CCSBT, Australia having a share of TAC.

2.3.3 As for 2.3.1 As for 2.3.1 for SBT There is abundant informaiton on SBT and As above for SBT it would be easy to bring this species in.s

2.4.1 Yes. I know Yes No response required of no additional information

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 228

Perfor Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response mance available information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Indica relevant rationale used to raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant tor information score this Indicator the fishery’s documentation where possible. Please been used to support the given performance to attach additional pages if necessary. score this score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers (Yes/No) is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

2.4.2 Yes. I know Yes No response required of no additional information

2.4.3 Yes. I know Yes No response required of no additional information

2.5.1 Yes. I know Yes No response required of no additional information

2.5.2 Yes. I know Yes No response required of no additional information

2.5.3 Yes. I know Yes No response required of no additional information

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 229

Perfor Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response mance available information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Indica relevant rationale used to raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant tor information score this Indicator the fishery’s documentation where possible. Please been used to support the given performance to attach additional pages if necessary. score this score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers (Yes/No) is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

3.1.1 No. Need to Unsure. See note 6 See note 6 below. There may be no national Control of the stock is sunject to the Offshore see what below control over the stock but this may be a Constitutional Settelement, 1996. We have added arrangements decision taken by choice not by ommission. a specific reference to the OCS between the are in place Commonwealth and the State of South Australia. for The scoring remains unchanged. Commonwealt h/State The text has also been amended to reflect that the jurisdicition Fisheries Management Act as a stand-alone document that follows the principles within the Commonwealth Fisheries Act and the EPBC Act.

3.1.2 No. See note 7 Unsure, see note 7 See Note 7. Legal rights may be constrained There is no qualification of whether license in terms of who has rights and what aspects holders have stronger legal rights than other of the fishery may be challengeable. Need stakeholders. All have the ability to challenge to check MSC guidance on this. decisions either through consultation, representation (through Parliament) or submissions (e.g. to the Department of Environment on Export accreditation), or ultimately through judicial review.

3.1.3 Yes. I know Yes No comment required of no additional information

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 230

Perfor Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response mance available information and/or condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to Indica relevant rationale used to raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant tor information score this Indicator the fishery’s documentation where possible. Please been used to support the given performance to attach additional pages if necessary. score this score? (Yes/No) the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers (Yes/No) is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

3.2.1 Yes. I know Probably, ensure that Explicit references to Prawn management reflect of no section on prawns is acknowledgement of the co-management system additional actually relevant within the wider Governance framework, and information acknowledgement by the eNGO of inclusion in the ESD process.

3.2.2 Yes. I know Yes No comment required of no additional information

3.2.3 Yes. I know Unsure, see previous Comments made previously as to whether An extensive amount of work has been undertaken of no comments about the 10% observer coverage is adequate given as to the adequacy of the 10% for scientific additional adequacy of the the high variability found. purposes and this is addressed in 2.3 (ETPs). It is information observer program acknowledged in the report that observers do have a deterrent effect, and is one of a suite of tools applied to cover compliance. These tools are assessed collectively under a risk assessment process which has been carefully explained. No change to the score or rationale has been made.

3.2.4 Yes. I know Yes No comment required of no additional information

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 231

Optional: General Comments on the Peer Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) can be added below and on additional pages

The document needs a thorough review for grammar and spelling and consistency. At times it is difficult to understand what is being said. There are a couple of instances where it is clear that sections have been cut from another report (on prawns) and these need attention but possibly also some checking to ensure that copied sections are, indeed, appropriate.

Some clarification occurs in subsequent sections but it may also be inconsistent. I have tagged a number of grammar issues but it occupied too much time and I did not do all. Some examples of wording that causes me confusion:

1. Labelling high stock abundance as being of high productivity – productivity is highest at MSY (ratio of production to biomass is at its highest)?? Abundance is highest at B0. Arguably the fishery maintains lower productivity than at the MSC default TRP but it maintains a higher biomass. We have modified these references that caused ambiguity to the reviewer because they were inconsequential to the message. We do understand and accept the reviewers point, although it must be noted that the MSC terminology itself specifically refers to maintaining stocks at levels of high productivity. 2. Labelling high TRPs (fishery) and lower TRPs (MSC default) both as ‘conservative’- relative to each other the fishery TRP is more conservative. There is nowhere in the document where the fishery and default TRPs as referred to collectively as conservative. We believe the reviewer is referring to this comment?? “These levels are much higher than the LRP and TRP suggested by Smith et al (2015) for the “west” sardine stock. Notably, the SASF LRP and TRP reflect the default MSC levels for key LTL stocks, and they have been set conservatively in this manner to ensure that the stock remains at highly productive levels”. We believe the reviewer is confused here and these statements are unambiguous. No changes have been made to the document. 3. A range of other small pelagics are labelled as either ‘target species’ or fishers are ‘licenced to take’. If they are target species are they actively targeted in the fishery but not included in the UoA? Can fishermen go out and target these species for other purposes at other times of the year? Can they target these other species on the same fishing trips? ‘Licenced to take’ allows the fishermen to land these species as byproduct (covered in the assessment) but if they are target species then that is different. Some clarification is needed. There are no instances in the report where other species are referred to as target. Each species is correctly classified under P 1, P 2.1 and P 2.2. Hopefully the situation with regard to IPI species is also now more clear with the updated variation request and response published by MSC. 4. There is mention of the existence of a target size which is used to inform the Harvest Strategy. Maybe I missed it but I couldn’t find what it was and how it is used. I did find Table 6 but gather that this is industry collected data and is not used for management purposes (in terms of the HS). This is explained in the HS section and it is used for management. 5. The IPI issue is very confusing. There was a successful application made to MSC to list maray as IPI but in the assessment report it says that all the small pelagics are IPI and also that some other species like bullseyes and leatherjackets are IPI. I accept that these species are uncommon in catches

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 232

(but see comments about targeting of other small pelagics above) and its difficult to separate them but leatherjackets and bullseyes are no indistinguishable. I am not arguing that these infrequently caught species should be separated but it doesn’t seem to be the case that they have IPI status. They have IPI status because it is not practical to separate them not because they are not distinguishable when board onboard and pumped into the wells. The MSC has now published the updated variation request and response pertaining to a number of different small pelagic species incidentally caught with sardine, rather than only the maray. Hopefully this helps to clarify things further. 6. Not being a lawyer I cannot comment with certainty on 3.1.1 but I am not sure if there is a hierarchy in fisheries laws as implied such that the Commonwealth Fisheries Management Act 1991 has overarching authority over the South Australian legislation (the report states that ‘Commonwealth Fisheries Management Act, 199132 requires that all State Governments conform to the following objectives:….’). It would be worthwhile checking this. There is no mention of how the Offshore Constitutional Settlement can set up agreements are made between the Commonwealth and the States/Territories on transboundary stocks. The report only states that the States manage fisheries out to 3 nautical miles, which is not always correct. OCS agreements can enable the State to manage a fishery outside this boundary and vice versa. It may well be the Commonwealth cedes power to the State. The text has been amended to reflect that the Fisheries Management Act as a stand-alone document that follows the principles within the Commonwealth Fisheries Act and the EPBC Act. Further Clarification has been added on the Offshore Constitutional Settlement. 7. In terms of 3.1.2 it would appear, based on the report, that licence holders have stronger legal rights than 3rd party stakeholders but their legal rights are constrained to conditions of operation. Its unclear what would constitute the 100 level and whether a legal right to challenge arrangements which may work against the sustainability of the fishery would be required. See above

32 Fisheries Management Act (Commonwealth), Available at https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2014C00258/Html/Text#_Toc390691611

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 233

Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions and Interviews

Conservation Council, South Australia

Name: James Brook Stakeholder category: ENGO Mode of interview: Face to face meeting, 22 May, 2018 and discussions on 23 May, 2018 and follow up clarification submitted 1 June, 2018 Present: Richard Banks (TL) Mihaela Zaharia (P2), representing MRAG Americas CCSA is the most active ENGO in South Australian fisheries. The Organisation monitors fishery specific activities against environmental outcomes. It also participates in most consultation exercises when it has the opportunity and is a full member of the SASF WIWG. The main area of concern for CCSA is the fisheries interaction with common dolphin. Other species are of interest, but other species don’t exhibit high rates of interaction or mortality with/from the fishery. The history of this fishery, since 1999, demonstrates some high rates of encirclement and mortality for dolphins, caught inside purse seine nets. These incidents have been well documented, which in 2004 led to the temporary closure of the fishery. CCSA’s interest in this fishery extends back to 2005/06 when a high level of dolphin interaction and mortality was first identified. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) were also an interested party, and Kathryn Warhurst worked on the issue for the organisation from 2008, and later also in various roles at CCSA. The first formal opportunity for involvement in the fishery came through the invitation to attend a risk assessment in 2013. CCSA has historically been a strong advocate of 100% observer coverage and in identifying the link between fishing operation and stress to TEPs. The Organisation has submitted a number of responses to PIRSA and DEE, and objected to the extension of the export accreditation in 2016 with the present levels of observer coverage (10%), arguing that there were potentially significant differences in fishing behaviour for those vessels with observers on board and those without. CCSA also drew attention to concerns over sublethal interactions and cryptic mortality as a result. Independent expert advice was provided and submitted to both DEE and PIRSA (Allen, S, University of Western Australia (2016), and Dr. Cara Miller, Univ of the South Pacific). CCSA coordinated joint submissions to the DEE in behalf of IFAW, HS and AMCS in 2014 and 2016. Submissions provided. CCSA was not satisfied with the risk assessment process. CCSA was unable to attend the ESD workshop for the SASF in 2013. CCSA was invited but unable to attend on the scheduled day and were not able to negotiate a change of date. Other key stakeholders were also missing, including two dolphin scientists and a senior manager from the SA Environment Department. However, CCSA has noted that in recent years, there has been a substantial improvement in the manner in which PIRSA conducts its risk assessments since this time, and a genuine effort to ensure that the organisation has input, providing the opportunity for CCSA to do so in MRAC and WIWG meetings. Experience of PIRSA's generic risk assessment processes for other fisheries over the last two years gives confidence that CCSA will have adequate opportunity to participate in future risk assessment and management planning processes.

CCSA did not take the opportunity to comment on the draft management plan in 2013 - from recollection it was a combination of resourcing and overall disenchantment with the processes at the time (specifically the risk assessment).

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 234

CCSA became a member of the SASF WIWG in May 2016. The organisation takes a pragmatic approach to working with the industry, researchers and PIRSA. CCSA has no doubt that a CoP has been developed that is capable of mitigating dolphin interactions.. CCSA has maintained the view that a higher level of observer coverage than the present level is justified. Over the last two years it has been willing to accept the current 10% level of observer coverage in recognition of the progress towards a more (behaviourally) representative observer program and better reporting. CCSA has also strongly argued for strengthening the understanding of fishery interactions with dolphins and the uncertainty associated with unobserved mortalities. However, CCSA is very supportive of the CoP and the workings of the WIWG. It sees its participation in the Group as the most pragmatic way of influencing positive outcomes. A summary of our position Is as follows: 1. CCSA is satisfied that an effective CoP has been developed, and the monitoring program was adequate to verify that 2. CCSA had concerns about how often the CoP is applied when observers are not present 3. CCSA had concerns about the level of reporting of interactions. The SARDI reports backed up this concern 4. This meant that CCSA could not rely on logbook reports to quantify the number of dolphin interactions 5. There was evidence that fishing behaviour changed when observers were on board. The SARDI reports backed up this concern. 6. This meant that CCSA could not even rely on extrapolations from the observer data to quantify the number of dolphin interactions 6. Flinders Uni estimated PBRs as low as 65 7. Based on historical data (even since the CoP was developed, and in years when there were less concerns about observer data), there are times when extrapolated dolphin mortalities were similar to or greater than this PBR estimate 8. CCSA has some residual concerns about the observer program and reporting but for the purpose of this assessment CCSA is less concerned than previously because: (a) Publications and other advice suggesting that the PBR is about 250 (b) There is less evidence of underreporting (c) There is less evidence of modified fishing behaviour when observers are present, and plausible explanations for the remaining discrepancies (d) Issues or uncertainties about the observer program that CCSA had identified have been worked through and measures to address them developed 9 CCSA is still unsure of and remain concerned about the extent of indirect mortalities arising from the fishery. The number of encircled dolphins is likely to exceed the PBR and CCSA doesn’t know about their fate following a successful release 10. CCSA is still unsure of and remains concerned about the cumulative impact on the relevant dolphin populations resulting from other fisheries, but acknowledge that these are not MSC certified fisheries.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 235

Cetacean Ecology Behaviour and Evolution Lab (Flinders University)

Name: A/Prof Luciana Möller Stakeholder category: University Research Centre Meeting with A/Prof Luciana Möller, CEBEL, Flinders University, 24 May 2018, 9:30 AM Attendees: Mihaela Zaharia, P2 Assessor for SASF MSC Certification Assessment Emily McGregor, MSC (Observer)

- Information about the MSC certification process was provided by Emily McGregor - A/Prof Möller expressed concerns about the potential negative impacts of the SASF on common dolphins and populations that interact with the fishery. Main concerns: - There is uncertainty about the mortality rates as the observer coverage of the fishery is low - There is uncertainty if the Code of Practice is applied correctly when no observer is present - There is uncertainty about the effects of encirclement on dolphin reproductive success and survival post-encirclement - There is uncertainty about the impact of the fishery on dolphin sub-populations, and the difficulties with the limited scientific information to calculate reliable limits to ensure sub- populations long-term viability.

A/Prof Möller also recommended that the P2 assessor researches a case of a similar fishery with high impact on dolphin populations in the Eastern Tropical Pacific, with no specific reference, although the assessor believes that A/Prof Möller refers to Wade et al (2007) which was cited in a dolphin population study authored by A/Prof Möller et al. (unpublished). Wade study explored the possible depletion of dolphins due to a purse seine tuna fishery using dolphin sets as a fishing method. Noren, Shawn R.; Edwards, Elizabeth Physiological, MARINE MAMMAL SCIENCE Volume: 23 Issue: 1 Pages: 15-29 Published: Jan 2007 (reference added by A/Prof Möller). Wade PR, Watters GM, Gerrodette T, Reilly SB (2007) Depletion of spotted and spinner dolphins in the eastern tropical Pacific: modelling hypotheses for their lack of recovery. Marine Ecology Progress Series 343:1-14 Möller, L, Parra, G.J., Bilgmann, K. (unpublished report). Population size, structure and habitat preferences of common dolphins in South Australia: enhancing the assessment, reduction and mitigation of fisheries operational interactions.

Seatec Contractors and Consultants, Observer Program

Name: Adam Kemp Stakeholder category: Independent Observer Program Mode of interview: Telephone call, 24 May, 2018. Present: Cameron Dixon (P1) representing MRAG Americas, Adam Kemp representing Seatec. The observer program was implemented in November 2004 to monitor TEPS interactions. Initially run by SARDI Aquatic Sciences, the program was taken over by Protec Marine Pty Ltd in 2006 (PIRSA, 2014) which are now called Seatec Contractors and Consultants. The

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 236

telephone interview was conducted primarily to gain a better understanding of the sampling protocols undertaken by Seatec observers.

In summary, Adam Kemp discussed the following: • Observers are required to obtain a random sample from the catch that is representative of what is caught in the net. • Where the samples are physically collected depends on the boat, but it is always straight from the system as the fish are being pumped out from the net before any sorting of the catch could occur. • They are instructed to collect a single bag sample of approximately 100 fish. • Once the sample has been collected it is labelled and immediately frozen. • Samples are sent to SARDI where they are processed in a laboratory.

Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR), South Australia

Name: Tim Hall Stakeholder category: South Australia Government Mode of interview: Telephone Interview, 30 June 2018 Present: Richard Banks (TL) Mihaela Zaharia (P2), representing MRAG Americas DEWNR is the State Government body that manages South Australia’ environment and natural resources. DEWNR goal is to ensure the preservation of natural systems’ biodiversity, while supporting the economic growth and regional development with sustainable use of natural resources. The Organisation monitors fishery specific activities against SA legislation and conservation plans. It also participates in most consultation exercises when it has opportunity and is a full member of the SASF WIWG. The main area of interest for the DEWNR is monitoring the SASF interactions with the common dolphin and other protected species. The DEWNR acknowledges and commends the improvement achieved by the fishery over time and the attitude of the industry. The history of this fishery, since 1999, demonstrates some high rates of encirclement and mortality for dolphins, caught inside purse seine nets. These incidents have been well documented, which in 2004 led to the temporary closure of the fishery. A summary of the DEWNR’s position is as follows: • The impact on dolphins has greatly reduced to now acceptable levels. • The evidence points that the species is not irreversibly harmed. • The 10% observer coverage is appropriate as long as it is representative for the whole fishery. • The interactions of the fishery with other protected species are very low and not of concern. • Interactions with great white sharks might be underreported, although there is no specific evidence was provided. • At the latest dolphin mortality event, the Department was not involved in the investigation. The WIWG was involved in the meeting and James Brook from the CCSA was informed after the event to discuss the event, and would be expected to participate in discussions along with PIRSA, SARDI and SASIA.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 237

• There have been no other known issues in the last couple of years.

South Australian Museum

Name: Dr. Catherine Kemper Stakeholder category: Conservation Mode of interview: Telephone Interview, 13 June 2018 Present: Mihaela Zaharia (P2), representing MRAG Americas South Australian Museum is involved in research, including marine mammal research. Researchers also undertake post-mortems and detailed sample collection on carcasses collected by Museum staff, the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR), and volunteers, including from SASF interactions. The information collected contributes to long-term studies of many aspects of marine mammal biology. Dr Catherine Kemper is Senior Research Scientist at the South Australian Museum. Her research focus has been on cetaceans and particularly, life history, distribution, toxic contaminants, health, taxonomy, species identification and conservation. Dr Kemper has been involved with the SASF since 2006 when Dr. Derek Hamer arranged that the Museum receives dolphin bodies resulted from mortalities by the fishery. Dr Kemper confirmed that all dolphins received from the fishery were common dolphin and the fact that the Museum has received 48 dolphins since 2006, which helped further their research. Currently, Dr Kemper is involved in a study that aims to compare spatial distribution of common dolphin mortality for all samples they collected over the years (not just from the SASF), with the distribution of the SASF fishing effort, and relate this to how they died. It is possible to identify the cause of death as probable entanglement (with clear signs of strain on internal organs) or possible entanglement (there are signs suggesting entanglement but not conclusive). It is believed that the only net fisheries in the area are SASF and the Commonwealth’s demersal gillnet shark fishery, although some other shore-based netting might operate in some areas. As the common dolphin is a mainly a pelagic predator, it is more likely to interact with the SASF, which is a pelagic fishery. Dr. Kemper also recommended some papers on common dolphin diet studies. She noted that, in general, the data is suggesting that common dolphins are highly dependent on sardines. It is possible they follow the sardine run (this was studied in South Africa and clear evidence show that common dolphins follow sardine movements), although in Australia, this has not been proven in South Australia. In contrast, some evidence suggests that some common dolphins are resident in Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent. There is data available for a study of common dolphin’s diet profile, although funding limitations prevented the researchers to process and publish results. Dr Kemper suggested that by studying diet profile, as well as the physical development and sexual development over the years it might be possible to identify age-related risk of interaction with the fishery and any diet changes in periods of low sardine availability, and any associated physical conditions. There is some evidence that poor physical condition of calves and juveniles coincided with periods of high sardine catch. Although clear evidence of a link between an unusually serious parasite infestation outbreak is not available, it might be possible that poor nutrition have compromised calves condition. It is known that calves and juveniles do not have a strong immune system comparative to the adult common dolphins and poor nutrition might have led to their inability to fight the disease. The event could not be associated with any environmental changes or changes of a different nature.

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 238

Studies on the SASF existent dolphin sample could also determine if there were lactating mothers without a calf, among the dolphins killed due to the fishery and if calf-mother separations occur during the encirclement in the SASF purse seine nets. So far, the Museum has not been solicited for such studies, although these would considerably lower the uncertainties related to the SASF impact on common dolphin. Dr. Kemper confirmed that the South Australian Museum has the expertise to perform studies post-mortem on marine mammals (zoology knowledge as well as the pathology expertise), although population studies would also be necessary for a reliable quantification of sardine fishery’s impact on dolphin population. In the absence of all the required information, the precautionary principle should apply. Dr. Kemper noted that from the experience of others (e.g. Dr. Derek Hamer), common dolphin is highly sensitive to stress compared to other more resilient dolphin species, and sometimes they die even when no contact with the gear occurred. It is known that common dolphins are very hard to keep healthy in captivity and their sensitivity to stress might be the reason.

1. The report shall include: a. All written submissions made by stakeholders during consultation opportunities listed in FCR 7.15.4.1. b. All written and a detailed summary of verbal submissions received during site visits regarding issues of concern material to the outcome of the assessment (Reference FCR 7.15.4.2) c. Explicit responses from the team to stakeholder submissions included in line with above requirements (Reference: FCR 7.15.4.3)

(REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

2. The report shall include all written submissions made by stakeholders about the public comment draft report in full, together with the explicit responses of the team to points raised in comments on the public comment draft report that identify: a. Specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made. b. A substantiated justification for not making changes where stakeholders suggest changes but the team makes no change.

(Reference: FCR 7.15.5-7.15.6)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 239

Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency

1. The report shall include a rationale for any reduction from the default surveillance level following FCR 7.23.4 in Table 4.1. 2. The report shall include a rationale for any deviations from carrying out the surveillance audit before or after the anniversary date of certification in Table 4.2 3. The report shall include a completed fishery surveillance program in Table 4.3.

Table 4.1: Surveillance level rationale Year Surveillance Number of auditors Rationale activity e.g.3 e.g.On-site audit e.g. 1 auditor on-site e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced that with remote support information needed to verify progress towards from 1 auditor conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided remotely in year 3. Considering that milestones indicate that most conditions will be closed out in year 3, the CAB proposes to have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on-site with remote support – this is to ensure that all information is collected and because the information can be provided remotely.

Table 4.2: Timing of surveillance audit Year Anniversary date Proposed date of Rationale of certificate surveillance audit e.g. 1 e.g. May 2014 e.g. July 2014 e.g. Scientific advice to be released in June 2014, proposal to postpone audit to include findings of scientific advice

Table 4.3: Fishery Surveillance Program

Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level e.g. Level 5 e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 240

Appendix 5 Objections Process

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.

(Reference: FCR 7.19.1)

MRAG Americas-SASIA South Australia Sardine Public Comment Draft Report 241