Default Word Template

Draft National Plan of Action for minimising the incidental catch of seabirds in Australian capture fisheries Submission No.: 08

Submission by: BirdLife Australia and Humane Society International

Submission:

Comments on ‘Draft National Plan of Action for Minimising the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Australian Capture Fisheries’ General Comments BirdLife Australia and Humane Society International (BA & HSI) support the initiative behind the Draft National Plan of Action – Seabird Bycatch (NPOA) and its guiding principles. The NPOA subscribes to an evidence based multi-stakeholder approach in alignment with international agreements and best practice mitigation measures that can provide a sound basis to reducing seabird bycatch in Australian fisheries. Where the NPOA can become a more effective instrument in our opinion is in providing clear and mandatory actions to ensure the reduction of seabird bycatch in Australian fisheries. No SMART (Specific, Measurable, Accepted, Realistic, Time Bound) goals are provided that stakeholders in the reduction of seabird bycatch in Australian fisheries could be working towards. Governance and funding structures outlined are weak and unclear and not conducive to the implementation of the NPOA or the inclusion of all stakeholder groups. Much more information from State fisheries is required. Assessing the efficacy of mitigation measures also requires a much greater focus on data collection and analysis. This includes assessment of observer coverage and adequacy across all fisheries. While the NPOA is still in the consultation and drafting phase we hope that the comments will help in making it a powerful instrument for minimising seabird bycatch in Australian fisheries. Specific Comments Introduction Page 1, Paragraph 4 This summary of bycatch issues in Australian waters falls well short of current knowledge. Inexplicably, it appears to ignore a comprehensive assessment of seabird bycatch in net fisheries completed with the express purpose to inform the NPOA (Baker & Finley 2013). It also does not highlight the risks to seabirds that are evident from both the location and techniques of some fisheries in Commonwealth and state and territory waters especially south of 30° latitude as highlighted for instance in Baker & Finley (2010). Scope The scope of the NPOA is ambitious: The inclusion of recreational fisheries will require 1) considerable research into its impact on seabirds and 2) development of feasible, effective and efficient mitigation measures. Traditionally, there has been a focus on pelagic procellariforms. With the inclusion of

1 recreational fisheries often closer to shore whole-fish-carrying species such as terns may require more attention. The reference to the TAP-Seabirds as used here is misguided. The TAP does not deal with terrestrial or other threats that are not within the scope of the NPOA. Instead, it prescribes for one gear type (longline) the tools used by the NPOA for other fisheries may look like (but please see also our submission on improving the TAPseabirds). Rationale Given reference in the NPOA to species not traditionally considered seabirds e.g. herons and wood duck it may be best to be more specific about the taxa covered by this NPOA. This could be an appendix that ensures the definition of seabirds aligns with the international understanding. Similarly, while discarded gear may impact seabirds and other marine life, it is not traditionally considered a bycatch issue and its management may be better addressed in a marine debris framework than in this NPOA. It has now been known for a decade that trawl fishery impacts are more significant to some Albatross species than longline fisheries (Baker et al 2007) and the scale has been clear for almost as long (Phillips et al. 2010). This should be recognised and cited here. BA & HSI agree that better data on seabird bycatch would provide benefits for the design of mitigation measures. However, we also emphasize that the precautionary principle should be applied. This is especially true where the data we have on interactions or seabird distribution and international experiences with similar capture techniques suggest a high risk for seabirds. The revision of the ‘Code of practice for recreational fishing’ should be formally referenced here to avoid confusion. An online search produced a document that referenced seabirds and bycatch once only (Smith et al. 2016). If this is the document in question clearly further detail needs to be added. Objectives The voluntary approach suggested at the beginning of this section is in contrast to suggestions below of the NPOA using a mix of mandatory and voluntary measures. BA & HSI recommend being consistent and suggesting a mix of mandatory and voluntary measures at the beginning of this section as well. In our opinion, a merely voluntary approach will not succeed in reducing seabird bycatch significantly. Furthermore, mandatory mitigation measures should be implemented immediately for any fisheries where the precautionary principle suggests seabirds are at high risk. The assertion that implementation of mitigation measures is hindered by the lack of a comprehensive assessment of Australian fisheries fails to recognise the report of Baker and Finley (2013). This report highlights a number of trawl and other net fisheries that clearly have significant seabird bycatch problems. For many of these feasible, effective and efficient mitigation measures are known. The time to take action and prescribe mitigation measures that comply with best-practice is now, and delaying this while more assessment work is undertaken is inappropriate and will lead to further avoidable seabird deaths. In this context Objective 2 could be phrased much clearer and stronger e.g. Implement international best practice for all fisheries within the four years of the evaluation period and by 2018 for high risk fisheries. An Objective specifically on Monitoring and Evaluating progress in bycatch mitigation would help strengthen this important component of the NPOA. Framework for achieving the objectives Objective 1

2 This section of the Draft NPOA heavily emphasizes the data limitations. It is important to ensure that the wording does not create the wrong impression that data are insufficient to prescribe and adopt international best practice feasible, efficient and effective mitigation measures immediately in the most high-risk fisheries. A confidential Government report on Australian net fisheries akin to that on longline fisheries (Baker & Finley 2010) already exists and has the potential to expedite meeting objective 1 and 2. The ABARES review mentioned here may provide similar information. Unfortunately, a full citation for this review is not provided and a web search failed to locate the documents. Was this document made available to the NPOA working group? Without access to this document it is difficult for us and others to comment on this aspect of the NPOA. However, the dynamic nature of fisheries as well as seabird movements also merits continued monitoring to recognise any emerging threats to seabirds. Here the NPOA should mention well designed Electronic Monitoring specifically in addition to logbook and observer programs. BA & HSI consider the use of wildlife rescue data to assess seabird bycatch of limited value as it is biased e.g. towards coastal areas and usually lacks specifics re the cause of the injury. They certainly are unable to replace data from observer programs etc. Objective 2 Please also refer to the updated work by Løkkeborg, S 2008 here. BA & HSI endorse and welcome the objective that ‘Feasible, effective and efficient seabird bycatch mitigation measures should be implemented in all capture fisheries where there is a risk of incidental catch of seabirds.’ We are particularly concerned that mitigation measures are not prescribed for SESSF trawl fisheries; the SESSF Shark Gillnet Sector and the Western Australia (WA) South Coast Purse Seine Managed Fishery, when there is clear evidence that these fisheries experience unacceptable levels of seabird mortality at certain times (Baker and Finley 2013). BA & HSI also support a carefully designed mixture of mandatory and voluntary mitigation measures. Appendix D may provide an opportunity to indicate which measures or combination of measures are highly recommended and therefore mandatory vs those of lesser proven efficiency. Specifically, we welcome the focus on the management of offal discharge, which is now clearly recognised as the most effective way to minimise seabird interactions in trawl and other gear types. Further work on temporal and spatial restrictions of fishing activities in important feeding areas of seabirds (e.g. in Key Biodiversity Areas) is required. The proposed community education efforts may prove a promising avenue for recreational fisheries management. However, its efficiency needs to be evaluated carefully. BA has a long- term award winning community engagement project for Beach-nesting Birds including terns and we are happy to share our experiences and knowledge in supporting such efforts. The success of ACAP advice in long line fisheries should be an incentive to incorporate such advice into the South East and the Great Australian Bight trawl fisheries. BA & HSI would welcome if the NPOA included a recommendation to implement this advice. Objective 3 The ultimate goal of the NPOA is to eliminate seabird bycatch altogether. Research into improving current mitigation techniques is essential to reach this goal. Australia can benefit here from – and contribute to - international efforts. To that end findings need to be made public for independent assessment and international adoption. This has not always occurred in the past. The NPOA can create a climate of stakeholder trust and collaboration that is conducive to such research. Objective 4

3 BA & HSI consider awareness of the seabird bycatch issue a critical component to the successful implementation of mitigation measures. However, it is important to ensure that these efforts are designed for target audiences in a position to reduce bycatch at sea. The measure of success of awareness raising is number of seabirds saved. The example of marine debris management presented here will miss the mark when it comes to reducing seabird bycatch, despite a great public profile of the issue. Objective 5 Australia holds a leadership role in the protection of marine species. It is therefore important that Australia follows advice and is seen to do so by bodies it is involved in such as ACAP. International conservation bodies such as BirdLife International and HSI can also assist with international conservation efforts. Implementation The governance structure outlined here would benefit from clarification especially with regards to the composition, powers, budget, contacts and frequency of meetings of the AFMF seabird bycatch subcommittee. BA & HSI welcome the suggestion of regular workshops to exchange skills success stories and opportunities for improvement and recommend that these should occur annually rather than biennially. We also welcome the recognition of the value of NGO contributions to the NPOA and offer our support and expertise to assist with its implementation. The resourcing section of the NPOA provides an opportunity to present some minimum funding required to implement the NPOA to allow stakeholders to agree to and plan for their voluntary contributions. Evaluation and Review This section may be benefit from the definition of clear goals and milestones around seabird bycatch reductions to assist with both the ongoing evaluation and the four-year review. It may be worthwhile to state here that the review is to be done externally and be made public. Appendices A and B Comment on these is difficult without access to the full reference. It is important to insure the comparability of the data collected in Australian waters with those overseas while also meeting specific local requirements. Appendix C Again, comment is difficult without the full reference available to us for this report by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. However, some suggestions on bird handling are concerning. E.g. immobilising beak and feet is quite unspecific and could lead to the death of birds e.g. of the bill is held close while the bird is regurgitating in distress. Careful education will have to go along with the code of practice if fishermen are to implement some of its recommendations such as not using feeding aggregations of seabirds to locate fish. Appendix D In its current form this appendix is of limited use as a decision making tool for which measure to implement. Inexplicably it falls behind ACAP’s best practice. While the source of this information is not cited -as it should be- in the legend to the Appendix D it appears to be taken straight from ACAP’s best practice mitigation advice. Unlike the

4 information here, ACAP’s advice isn’t limited as it contains clear advice on best practice and prioritisations. Almost all measures have the same recommendation level. This Appendix may also serve to distinguish measures or combinations of measures as mandatory or voluntary. Appendix E The qualifier ‘relevant’ needs to be removed from 1.1 as all fisheries should be assessed regularly, to do otherwise would be to prejudge the assessment. The Timeframe for 1.6 must be a typo and should be replaced with the correct value. Actions for Objective 2 are extremely limited and unspecific although it is critical to the success of the NPOA. Fisheries specific actions at least for known high risk fisheries should be listed here. References and Literature to consider in re-write Several key references are missing in the NPOA. The list below includes these references as well as references cited in our submission. Baker, G.B., Double, M.C., Gales, R., Tuck, G.N., Abbott, C.L., Ryan, P.G., Petersen, S.L., Robertson, C.J.R. and Alderman, R. 2007. A global assessment of the impact of fisheries- related mortality on shy and white-capped albatrosses: conservation implications. Biological Conservation 137, 319—333. Baker, G.B and Finley, L.A. 2013. National assessment of the incidental catch of seabirds in trawl, gillnet and purse-seine fisheries. FRDC Project No: 2011/058. Published by: Latitude 42 Environmental Consultants, Kettering, Tasmania. Baker, G.B., Sullivan, B., Copley, P. Frere, E. and Haward, M. 2016 Has the IPOA-Seabirds been effective in the conservation of threatened seabirds? A review of National Plans of Action. Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels. Seventh Meeting of the Seabird Bycatch Working Group La Serena, Chile, 2 - 4 May 2016 Baker, G.B. and Wise, B.S. 2005. The Impact of Pelagic Longline Fishing on the Flesh-footed Shearwater Puffinus carneipes in Eastern Australia. Biological Conservation. 126: 306-316. FAO 2009. FAO Technical guidelines for responsible fisheries. Fishing operations 2. Best practices to reduce incidental catch of seabirds in capture fisheries. FAO, Rome. Klaer, N., Polacheck, T. 1997. By-catch of albatrosses and other seabirds by Japanese longline fishing vessels in the Australian Fishing Zone from April 1992 to March 1995. Emu 97, 150–167. Phillips, R.A., Gales, R., Baker, G.B., Double, M.C., Favero, M., Quintana, F., Tasker, M.L., Weimerskirch, H., Uhart, M. and Wolfaardt, A. 2016. The conservation status and priorities for albatrosses and large petrels. Biological Conservation. 201: 169- 183. Phillips, K, Giannini, F, Lawrence, E & Bensley, N. 2010. Cumulative assessment of the catch of non-target species in Commonwealth fisheries: a scoping study, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra Smith A, Welch DJ, Donnelly R, Kelley R. 2016. A review of the national recreational fishing code of practice. Reef Ecologic Pty Ltd https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Adam_Smith25/publication/30 3001067_A_review_of_the_national_recreational_fishing_code_of_p ractice/links/574e314708ae8bc5d15bfcb6/A-review-of-the-nationalrecreational- fishing-code-of-practice.pdf

5 Tuck, G.N. 2011. Are bycatch rates sufficient as the principal fishery performance measure and method of assessment for seabirds? Aquatic Conservation. 21:412-422. Tuck, G. N., Polacheck, T., Croxall, J. P., Weimerskirch, H. 2001. Modelling the impact of fishery by-catches on albatross populations. Journal of Applied Ecology. 38:1182-1196 Tuck, G.N. and Wilcox, C. 2010. Assessing the potential impacts of fishing on the Lord Howe Island population of flesh-footed shearwaters. AFMA and CSIRO