Commercial Fishing in Australia's Marine Reserves

COMMERCIAL FISHING IN AUSTRALIA’S MARINE R ESERVES:

RESPONSE TO THE COMMONWEALTH MARINE RESERVES REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF MANAG EMENT PLANS FOR AUSTRALIA’S MARINE RESERVES

Version 1.0, October 2016 Report prepared by Daniel Beaver and Joel Turner

This report is an independent research paper commissioned by the Save Our Marine Life Alliance.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 1 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

ABOUT THE AUTHOR CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION GEOGRAPHY The Centre for Conservation Geography is a research group established in June 2011 to provide expert technical support and advice to government and non-government decision-makers and stakeholders. The centre applies world's best practice in decision support to biodiversity conservation planning. Based in Australia, our goal is to build a multi-disciplinary team capable of providing support to conservation decisions being made across the world's ecoregions. The Centre for Conservation Geography currently has projects in Australia and in the Southern Ocean. Our areas of expertise are in marine and terrestrial protected area planning, including protected area performance assessment, cost-efficient conservation priority setting and planning for multiple objectives (e.g. carbon sequestration and biodiversity protection). http://www.conservationgeography.org/

BRIEF BIOGRAPHY: DANIEL BEAVER Daniel is the director of the Centre for Conservation Geography, a visiting scholar at San Francisco State University’s Marine & Coastal Conservation and Spatial Planning Lab, and an adjunct research fellow at the Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science at the University of Queensland. He has over 15 years of experience in the theory and practice of systematic conservation planning both on land and in the ocean, and has been engaged in planning for marine protected areas and marine sanctuaries in Australia since 2004.

BRIEF BIOGRAPHY: JOEL TURNER Joel completed a Bachelor of Science (environmental) with honours in 2006 and a Masters in Conservation Biology in 2013 and has been engaged in research with the Centre for Conservation Geography since 2008. In that time his major areas of research have been the review and analysis of Australia’s National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas (NRSMPA) and the classification of benthic marine environments in the Southern Ocean.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Marine & Coastal Conservation and Spatial Planning Lab, San Francisco State University, and the Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, provided invaluable assistance and support in completing this research.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 2 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

About the Author...... CONTENTS...... 2 Centre for Conservation Geography ...... 2 Brief Biography: Daniel Beaver...... 2 Brief Biography: Joel Turner...... 2 Acknowledgements...... 2 Executive Summary...... 4 Introduction...... 6 Coral Sea Marine Reserve ...... 10 Pelagic Longline...... 11 Mid-Water Trawl ...... 15 Demersal Trawl...... 16 Demersal Longline ...... 17 Purse Seine...... 18 Fish Trap ...... 19 South-west Region ...... 20 Demersal Trawl...... 21 Demersal Gillnet and Longline...... 23 Pelagic Longline...... 27 North-West Region ...... 30 Demersal Trawl...... 31 Pelagic Gillnet...... 32 Pelagic Longline...... 33 Fish Trap ...... 34 Temperate East Region...... 36 Pelagic Longline...... 37 Mid-water Trawl...... 39 Demersal Trawl...... 40 Demersal Longline ...... 41 Purse Seine...... 42 Fish Trap ...... 43 Danish Seine...... 44 North Region ...... 45 Demersal Trawl...... 46 Pelagic and Demersal Gillnet ...... 51 Footnotes ...... 53 Appendix 1: Data Used ...... 57

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 3 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

The Review into the CommonwealthEXECUTIVE Marine Reserve SUMMARY Network (CMRN) reinforces the value of a network of marine reserves across Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and confirms the science case for protection. However, it also makes recommendations for the development of management plans that contradict scientific knowledge and government policy. Given that the Minister for Environment recently reaffirmed in a media statement that “the new management plans will reflect sound science, protection of the environment and support sustainable industries”, confirming that “Australia is a world leader in the creation of marine parks” and that “we now have the opportunity to be a world leader in their management and will endeavour to finalise management plans by mid-2017”, such contradictions need to be resolved. Specifically, it is evident that the outcomes of the science analysis conducted by the Expert Science Panel (ESP) and the recommendations of the Bioregional Advisory Panel (BAP) are at odds. Frequently the findings of the ESP are contradicted by the BAP, thus compromising the Australian Government’s desire for a world class, scientifically sound CMRN. Of particular concern are the recommendations around commercial fishing within the marine reserves. The BAP’s recommendations appear to ignore the ESP’s endorsement of earlier Government fishing gear risk assessments, which found that a number of commercial fishing practises are incompatible with the conservation values of the reserves. Commercial fishing practices recommended by the BAP to be permitted within the CMRN include pelagic longline, demersal longline, mid-water trawl, demersal trawl, pelagic gillnet, demersal gillnet, purse seine, Danish seine and fish trapping. This inclusion within the CMRN is recommended by the BAP despite the Australian Government’s Independent Fishing Gear Risk Assessment (FGRA) determining, and the ESP confirming, that they pose unacceptable risks to conservation values. Specifically, in each of the five separate national marine regions - the Coral Sea, South-west, North-west, Temperate East and North - the BAP proposes allowing these fisheries practices to either continue or expand. In the Coral Sea Commonwealth Marine Reserve (CMR), six types of fishing have been proposed by the BAP that the FGRA assessed and ESP upheld as posing unacceptable risks to the conservation values of the Coral Sea. The BAP has proposed: a near doubling of the area over which pelagic longlining can occur, including in the Queensland trough and one of the world’s only known black marlin spawning  aggregations; the opening of the vulnerable Fraser Seamount and an unnamed seamount to the south- east of Kenn Reef to demersal longlining. The ESP emphasised that demersal longlining  should not be allowed to operate on Coral Sea seamounts; a more than seven-fold increase in the area open to demersal trawling (with a max economic of $39 per licence holder per annum). The ESP upheld the FGRA finding that  demersal trawling be banned entirely in the Coral Sea; an increase of mid-water trawling and purse seining access from 29% to 56% even  though no active fishery in the Coral Sea currently uses either of these methods; and a reduction in the area open to fish trapping of more than 90%. Within the South-west Commonwealth Marine Reserve Network (CMRN), the BAP has suggested opening up the region to three fishing practices assessed by the FGRA as posing unacceptable risks to the region’s conservation values. The BAP has proposed: allowing pelagic longlining within 100% of partially protected zones;

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 4 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves  ______allowing demersal gillnetting and longlining in extensive parts of the region, particularly  on the high conservation value shelf and upper slope ecosystems; and introducing demersal trawling within the Bremer and Western Eyre Marine Reserves. In the North-west CMRN the BAP has suggested opening up the region to seven fishing practices assessed by the FGRA and upheld by the ESP as posing unacceptable risks to the region’s conservation values. The BAP has proposed: introducing demersal trawling to the globally unique set of shelf edge atolls of the Rowley Shoals ecosystem, which host some of the world’s healthiest coral reefs, and are identified by the Australian Government as a key ecological feature for Australian  marine life; allowing pelagic longlining within 99% of the partially protected zones. The only fishery  to use pelagic longlining has been inactive in the North-west region since 2005; and allowing fish trapping within almost 90% of the network. Within the Temperate East CMRN, the BAP has suggested opening up the region to seven fishing practices FGRA and upheld by the ESP as posing unacceptable risks to the region’s conservation value s. The BAP has proposed: removing protection for the seamount that Middleton Reef, one of Australia’s longest protected remote coral reef habitats, is perched on to allow for pelagic longlining and  mid-water trawling; allowing demersal setlining (grouped with demersal longlining for risk assessment) within Multiple Use Zone A of the Solitary Islands Marine Reserve placing at risk the Pimpernel Rock aggregation of the critically endangered (IUCN red list) Grey Nurse  Shark; allowing mid-water trawling within 98% of the partially protected zones, despite very little activity in the East Coast Deepwater Trawl Fishery and against strong community  support for protection from mid-water trawling;  allowing demersal trawling within special use zones; allowing purse seining within the partially protected zones and Danish seining in special purpose zones despite no active fishery using these fishing methods within the  Temperate East CMRN; and reducing the area open to fish trapping by more than 90%. Within the North CMRN, the BAP has suggested opening up the region to fishing practices assessed by the FGRA as posing unacceptable risks to the conservation values of the North. The BAP has proposed: introducing demersal trawling within the Oceanic Shoals, Gulf of Carpentaria and Wessel CMRs, with an expansion of trawling from 0 – 18% in the North CMRN and from 0-61%  in the Gulf of Carpentaria CMR. a more than doubling of pelagic and demersal gillnetting access to marine reserves. The BAP recommends significant increases in access for commercial fishing activities found to be incompatible with marine reserves - areas specifically managed for biodiversity conservation. Such access is incompatible with science and the Government’s own policy and represents an unacceptable erosion of the CMRN.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 5 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

INTRODUCTION On 5 September 2016, the Hon. Josh Frydenberg, Minister for the Environment1 and Energy, announced the completion of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review. In his press release, the Minister reaffirmed the Australian Government’s desire to be a world leader in the1 protection of marine life by using sound science and supporting a sustainable blue economy.“The new management plans will reflect sound science, protection of the environment and support sustainable industries.” 1 “Australia is a world leader in the creation of marine parks – we now have the opportunity to be a world leader in their management and will endeavour to finalise management plans by mid-2017.” 1

In 2010 the Australian Government commissioned a series of reports on which commercial fisheries could operate in the partially protected zones of Australia’s marine reserv2, 3es, 4 without posing an unacceptable risk to the conservation values of those marine reserves. Collectively these reports composed the Government’s Fishing Gear Risk Assessments (FGRA).

As part of the5 Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review the Expert Science Panel (ESP) reviewed the FGRA.“TheThe ESP ESP has uphelddetermined the findings that the of process the FGRA used stating: for the FGRAs was robust and made use of the best information available at the time. This echoes the reviews that were undertaken for the FGRAs, which, while pointing out some inconsistencies, information gaps and areas for improvement, considered that the work done was extensive and detailed and underpinned by a reasonable methodological approach” 5

6 Table 1 outlines the findings of the FGRA which were upheld by the ESP, on commercial fishing activities that are incompatible with the partially protected zones of Commonwealth Marine Reserves. In the figures of this report the term destructive fishing refers to fishing gear types that were assessed by either the FGRA or the ESP as incompatible with the conservation values of the marine reserves.

1 http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/frydenberg/mediaAssessment of risks that commercial-releases/mr20160905a.html fishing methods may pose to conservation2 values identified in the Areas for Further Assessment of the North and North-west Marine Regions,Mary Lack Shellack Pty Ltd, 2010.

Prepared for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, ACT, Australia. Assessment of risks that commercial fishing methods may pose to conservation3 values of the South-west Marine Region, Commonwealth of Australia, 2010. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, ACT,Assessment Australia. of risks that commercial fishing methods may pose to conservation4 values identified in the Areas for Further Assessment of the East Marine Region, Morison, A.K., and McLoughlin, K., 2010. Report to Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 5 Beeton, R. J. S., Buxton, C. D., Cochrane, P., Dittmann, S. and Pepperell, J. G. (2015). Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review: Report of the Expert Scientific Panel. Department of the Environment, Canberra. 6 Also noting the three specific exceptions made by the ESP.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 6 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves

______7 This report examines proposals by the Bioregional Advisory Panel’s (BAP) to expand these high-risk commercial fishing activities within the marine reserves that the Australian Government proclaimed in 2013. The report then provides alternative recommendations to the management planning process that would allow the Australian Government to meet its stated objectives of reflecting sound science, protecting the environment, 1support, 8, 9 ing sustainable industries and being a world leader in the management of marine parks.

The Commonwealth5 Marine Reserves Review produced two7 reports: the Expert Science Panel (ESP) report and the Bioregional Advisory Panel (BAP) report. In regards to commercial fishing, the ESP was asked to consider what uses should be allowed in Australia’s marine reserves while9 the BAP was asked to advise on areas of contention and how they might be addressed. In its recommendations, the BAP appears to ignore the findings of the FGRA and upheld by the ESP on commercial fisheries which are incompatible with the conservation values of the reserves. The BAP appears to ignore these findings, proposing destructive commercial fishing activities across over 90% of the partially protected zones it puts forward (Figure 1). Accepting these recommendations would place the Government outside of the realms of sound science and world’s best practice. This report has made use of the best publicly available information provided by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARES) on the value of fisheries, and on the possible gross value of production (GVP) impacts of the Commonwealth Marine Reserves. The analysis is limited by the lack of publicly available information on license holder fishing locations within each fishery. The geographic information systems (GIS) datasets used in this report are outlined in Appendix 1: Data Used.

7 Buxton, C. D. and Cochrane, P. (2015). Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review: Report of the Bioregional AdvisoryThe Panel.Coalition’s Departmentpolicy for of a the more Environment, competitive Canberra.and sustainable 341pp. fisheries sector, 8 Coalition, 2013. August 2013 Reference, 9 Commonwealth of Australia, 2014,

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 7 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 1: BAP PROPOSALS FOR COMMERCIAL FISHING ACTIVITIES ASSESSED BY EITHER THE ESP AND/OR THE FGRA AS POSING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO AUSTRALIA’S MARINE RESERVES.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 8 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF THE FGRA FOR COMMERCIAL FISHING GEAR TYPES THAT

POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO THE CONSERVATION VALUES OF COMMONWEALTH MARINE 10 RESERVES. WITH THREE SPECIFIC EXCEPTIONS THE ESP UPHELD THE RESULTS OF THE FGRA. Marine Reserve Networks Fishing gear types assessed as incompatible by the FGRA and upheld by the ESP10

Coral Sea and Temperate East

Demersal/bottom Trawl Pelagic Longline Mid-water Trawl Demersal Longline Purse Seine Fish Traps Danish Seine Mesh nets (gill nets) South-west Beam Trawl 10 Demersal/bottom trawl Demersal longline Pelagic longline North-west Gillnet

Demersal/bottom trawl Pelagic longline Demersal longline Demersal gillnet Pelagic gillnet North Fish trap 10 Demersal/bottom trawl 10 Semi demersal trawl Set mesh nets Demersal longline Pelagic gillnet

10 In upholding the results of the FGRA the ESP documented three specific exceptions. Trawling by the Northern Prawn Trawl Fishery in the Gulf of Carpentaria Marine Reserve, trawling by the Northern Territory Demersal Fishery in the Oceanic Shoals and Arafura Reserves, and trawling by the West Australian South-west Trawl and South Coast Trawl in the Geographe Bay and Bremer Marine Reserves.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 9 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

The BAP proposesCORAL allowing six fisheries SEAthatMARINEthe FGRA found RESERVE, and the ESP upholds as posing unacceptable risks to the conservation values of Australia’s Coral Sea (Table 2). The BAP proposes that these damaging commercial fishing activities be allowed to occur across more than 95% of the Coral Sea’s partially protected zones (Figure 2). 11 The BAP proposes only one zone type that complies with the recommendations of the FGRA, and upheld by the ESP, for partially protected zones in the Coral Sea Marine Reserve. Contrary to the Coral Sea Marine Reserve proclaimed in 2013, the BAP proposes almost doubling the area of the Coral Sea open to pelagic longlining, purse seining and mid-water trawling. Further, the BAP proposes a more than sevenfold increase in the area open to bottom trawling and opens up high conservation value seamounts to demersal longlining.

TABLE 2: FISHING GEAR TYPES ASSESSED BY THE ESP AND THE FGRA AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONSERVATION VALUES OF THE CORAL SEA MARINE RESERVE BUT PROPOSED BY THE BAP Fishing Gear Types Coral Sea Marine ESP/FGRA BAP Proposals Reserve 2013 Recommendations (km2) (km2) (km2)

Pelagic Longline

Mid-water Trawl 284,039 0 551,896

Demersal Trawl 284,039 0 551,896

Demersal Longline 4,300 0 30,656

Purse Seine 0 0 2,407

Fish Trap 284,039 0 551,896

381,110 0 33,063 2 Total area of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve: 989,842 km 2 Total area of partially protected zones proposed by the BAP: 579,373 km

11 The zone is called Habitat Protection Zone (Reefs)

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 10 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 2: BAP PROPOSALS FOR COMMERCIAL FISHING ACTIVITIES ASSESSED BY THE ESP AND UPHELD BY THE FGRA AS POSING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO THE MARINE LIFE OF THE CORAL SEA MARINE RESERVE.

PELAGIC LONGLINE The BAP proposes almost doubling the area of the Coral Sea open to longlining to over half of the Coral Sea (from 29% to 56%) (Figure 3).

The FGRA 4has identified this commercial fishing practice as incompatible with the values of the Coral Sea, and the ESP has upheld this finding. In its review of the Coral Sea’s pelagic fish the ESP does note that a particular fishing business utilising pelagic longlining on the Australian east coast has gained MSC certification and notes that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) believes that no communities or habitats are at risk from pelagic longlining in the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery. However, the ESP also noted that assessing the potential impacts of fishing inside reserves is fundamentally different to assessing those impacts outside of reserves. In regards to this difference“In thepractice, ESP states: this means that, in assessing activities and their potential impacts within reserves, greater weight is placed on their impacts on the reserve’s conservation value than might otherwise be the case outside the reserve—that is, the ‘environmental bar’ is higher inside reserves.”

In regards“fewer to pelagic protected ecosystems areas exist the in ESPthe pointspelagic out ocean that: than any other ecosystem on Earth”

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 11 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______Specifically,“Because in relationship they are relatively to the Coral un-impacted Sea the ESP by human states that:activity, the reefs, pelagic and demersal biodiversity of the Coral Sea form an important baseline reference area”

The ESP notes that protection of pelagic marine life should focus on large areas that include important breeding or feeding grounds for pelagic species. Further, the ESP uses the concurrent spawning aggregations of lanternfish and tuna in the Coral Sea as its specific example of an area like this that should be protected. The BAP ignores this recommendation and proposes opening up this exact area to pelagic longlining which specifically targets the spawning tuna aggregations the ESP identifies as a key conservation value of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve that should be protected.

In addition to hosting these spawning aggregations of lanternfish and12 tuna,, 13 this area is home to one of the world’s only known black marlin-spawning aggregations. The proposed expansion of pelagic longlining undermines both the protection of marine life and the recreational fishing values of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve. This proposed undermining of the integrity of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve is also in conflict with the public statements of the local commercial fishing industryO , which has expressed a desire to see longlining removed from the Coral14 Sea north of 22 S, provided that adequate structural adjustment funding is provided. The Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery (ETBF) is the pelagic longline fishery that is active in the Coral Sea Marine Reserve. The ETBF is the fishery for which the BAP provides the greatest changes, with two thirds (66%)15 of all the predicted benefits for fisheries from the BAP flowing to this particular fishery. ABARES predicts that the maximum economic benefit to the fishery from these changes is $2.4 million per15 annum, 16, 17 , or $26,376 per annum to each of the 92 longlining statutory fishing rights in the ETBF. ABARES annual status reports show that over the last five years the ETBF has adjusted to annual fluctuations in catch in the fishery of over $4 million. The low level of benefit to the fishery of opening up these areas is emphasised by mapping of fishery effort in the ETBF

12 Domeier ML, Speare P (2012) Dispersal of Adult Black Marlin (Istiompax indica) from a Great Barrier Reef Spawning Aggregation. PLoS ONE 7(2): e31629. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031629 13 http://www.billfish.org/research/uncovering-population-structure-black-marlin/ 14 De Brett Seafood Pty Ltd, 4 Seas Pty Ltd, Whan and Boxsell Pty Ltd and Great Barrier Reef Tuna Pty Ltd, 2012. Submission to the Draft Commonwealth Marine Reserve Proposal for the Coral Sea. 15 Larcombe, J & Marton, N 2016, Potential displacement of commercial fisheries by a Commonwealth marine reserve zoning scheme: Report on Panel-recommended network. ABARES technical report to client prepared for the Department of the Environment, Canberra,Fishery September. status CC reports BY 3.0.2015, 16 Patterson, H, Georgeson, L, Stobutzki, I & Curtotti, R (ed) 2015, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra. CC BY 3.0 17 O ABARES does not specify what proportion of this impact is within the Coral Sea Zone (west of 152 E, formerly called Area E) of the fishery where operators must also hold a Coral Sea boat statutory fishing right (SFR) (see http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ETBF-management- arrangements-booklet-2015.pdf). In the annual status report ABARES also does not document how many Coral Sea boat SFR exist. Therefore there may be a disproportionate impact on particular operators based on the current spatial management arrangements in the fishery.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 12 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______which shows that these areas are amongst the lowest areas of effort in the fishery (for example see Figure 4 of fishery effort in 2014).

Effort within the ETBF has recently become16 more stable after falling for a number of years in response to negative economic returns16 . Catch has stabilised at a latency level of around 40% of the quota remaining uncaught. This is another indicator that ETBF could easily adjust to any potential impacts of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve by increasing effort elsewhere in the fishery if it is economic to do so. The high latency suggests that external economic factors are having a much greater impact on the fishery than the Coral Sea Marine Reserve could. Australian tax payers have already invested significant resources into helping the fishery deal with its economic problems. The ETBF was provided with $34.3 million of tax payers money to

48reduce the number of operators and increase the economic return of the remaining businesses. This was of great benefit to the ETBF succeeding in changing the net economic47 returns of the fishery from an average loss16 of $5.1 million per annum between 1994 and 2006 to a profit of $3.0 million in 2011/2012. This indicates that the gain in profit to the ETBF18 of the BAP’s proposed changes is probably low, perhaps around $0.3 million per annum. Providing greater, rather than less, protection from longlining would make the management of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve more compatible with that of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park where longlining is banned. Considering the global significance of the conservation values impacted and the low level of economic benefit estimated the Centre for Conservation Geographer recommends against acRecommendationscepting the proposalsfor from management the BAP to plansexpand: pelagic longlining in the Coral Sea.

1. Reject the BAP’s proposal to almost double the area of the Coral Sea that is open to

pelagic longlining. O 2. At a minimum, maintain the restriction on longlining west of 152 E (Area E of the

ETBF) as proclaimed by the Abbott Government in 2013. O 3. Accept the BAP’s proposal to protect all the reefs east of 152 E from longlining either through Marine National Park Zones of Habitat Protection Zones (Reefs). 4. Consider extending the proposed Marine National Park Zones or Habitat Protection Zones (Reefs) to protect all of the Coral Sea’s seamounts from pelagic longlining.

5. Consider extending theO area in the Coral Sea Marine Reserve that is protected from longlining down to 22 S as requested by key operators in the ETBF, and ensure that adequate structural adjustment is provided.

18 The actual profit or loss can’t easily be estimated on the basis of the publicly available information. This figure is provided for context, to provide a ballpark figure if the costs and species caught are relatively uniform across the fishery. If this area contains higher value species caught and/or costs are lower then the profit may be somewhat higher and vice versa.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 13 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 3: BAP PROPOSALS FOR PELAGIC LONGLINING, MID-WATER TRAWLING AND PURSE SEINING WITHIN THE CORAL SEA MARINE RESERVE.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 14 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 4: FISHING INTENSITY IN THE EASTERN TUNA AND BILLFISH16 FISHERY IN THE 2014/2015 FISHING SEASON. REPRODUCED FROM PATTERSON ET AL. (2015).

MID-WATER TRAWL The BAP advises increasing the area of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve that is open to mid-water trawling4 from 29% to 56% (Figure 3). No fishery currently uses mid-water trawl in the Coral Sea. The opening up of over half of the reserve to mid-water trawling is especially confusing given the following factors: 4 a. The FGRA in a finding upheld by the ESP identified this fishing practice as an inappropriate risk to the Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

b. The BAP only mentions this practice once, making reference 7to the strong community support for the previous (2012) ban on mid-water 15trawling. Recommendationsc. There is no ecofornomic management benefit to anyplans: active fishery.

1. Reject the BAP’s proposal to expand mid-water trawling within the Coral Sea Marine Reserve. 2. Remove mid-water trawling from the Coral Sea Marine Reserve completely as per the 2012 management plan.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 15 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______DEMERSAL TRAWL The BAP proposes a more than sevenfold increase in the area open to demersal (bottom) trawling within the Coral Sea Marine Reserve. This increase is designed to benefit prawn trawlers, and ABARES estimates that it has a maximum economic benefit of15 $16,200, 19 , or $39 per licence holder per annum in Queensland’s East Coast Otter Trawl Fishery.

ABARES estimates that banning demersal trawling 4from the Coral Sea entirely — as recommended by the FGRA and upheld by the ESP — will displace $0.4 million per annum worth of fishing activity (0.5% of21 the, 19 fishery), or have a maximum impact of $902 per annum per licence holder in the fishery. Considering this low level of impact, it is unlikely that even removing the fishery entirely from the Coral Sea Marine Reserve would have any significant economic impact on Queensland’s East CoastRecommendations Otter Trawl Fishery.for management plans:

1. Reject the BAP’s proposal to introduce a sevenfold increase in demersal trawling within the Coral Sea Marine Reserve. 2. Consider removing demersal trawling from the Coral Sea Marine Reserve as recommended by the FGRA and upheld by the ESP.

FIGURE 5: BAP PROPOSALS FOR BOTTOM TRAWLING WITHIN THE CORAL SEA MARINE RESERVE.

19 https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/monitoring-our-fisheries/data-reports/sustainability- reporting/queensland-fisheries-summary/east-coast-otter-trawl-fishery

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 16 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

DEMERSAL LONGLINE The BAP recommends opening up the Coral Sea Marine Reserve to demersal longlining.

The ESP upheld the findings of the FGRA, which found that demersal longlining5, 4 was incompatible with the conservation values of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve. The ESP particularly 5emphasised that demersal longlining should not be allowed to operate on seamounts. In direct contravention of this advice, the BAP advises opening up two of the Coral Sea Marine Reserves’ vulnerable seamounts to demersal longlining. The two seamounts are Fraser

Seamount20 in the very south of the reserve and an unnamed seamount to the south-east of Kenn Reefs. For the unnamed seamount to the south-east of Kenn Reefs, the opening up to demersal longlining requires the loss of the original Marine National Park Zone protection. No new seamount is fully included within Marine National Park Zones to compensate for this loss of protection.

The line and trap section of the Coral Sea Fishery is the only fishery that4 could benefit from opening up vulnerable Coral Sea seamounts to demersal longlining. The most recent ABARES report does not provide an estimate of the specific benefit of these changes to this fishery. However, previous estimates by ABARES show that the maximum possible benefit is $0.1 million per annum, or $14,550 per annum21, 16 to each of the eight permit holdersRecommendations in the line andfor trap management section of the plans: Coral Sea Fishery.

1. Reject the BAP’s proposal to introduce demersal longlining over two vulnerable seamounts within the Coral Sea Marine Reserve. 2. Either reject the loss of Marine National Park Zone protection for seamounts within the Coral Sea Marine Reserve or compensate for the loss of protection for the unnamed seamount to the south-east of Kenn Reefs by fully including at least one additional seamount within Marine National Park Zones, for example Wreck Reefs or Frederick Reefs.

Geomorphic20 Features of the Continental Margin of Australia Harris, P, Heap, A, Passlow, V, Sbaffi, L, Fellows, M, Porter-Smith, R, Buchanan, C, & J Daniell. 2005. Interim estimates of potential catch and gross. Geoscience value of production Australia, Record impacts 2003/30, of the proposed 142pp. marine21 reserve in the Coral Sea ABARES 2012, , ABARES report to client prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, February.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 17 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 6: BAP PROPOSALS FOR DEMERSAL LONGLINING WITHIN THE CORAL SEA MARINE RESERVE.

PURSE SEINE The BAP proposes almost doubling the area of the Coral Sea open to purse seining to over half of the Coral Sea, from 29% to 56% (Figure 3).

The FGRA4 identified purse seining as incompatible with the values of the Coral Sea Marine Reserve, and the ESP upheld this finding. The rationale for the BAP’s proposal for a large expansion in the area where purse seining is permitted is difficult to understand4, 15 . Doing so will provide no economic benefit to any existing fishery in the Coral Sea. 4 The Eastern Skipjack Tuna Fishery is the only fishery that could potentially operate purse seines in the Coral Sea. However16 , the fishery has not operated in over five years (the last fishing season was 2008/2009). So why is the BAP advising the Government to endanger the conservation values of the Coral SeaRecommendations by allowing futurefor purse management seining by a plans: fishery that is not currently operating?

1. Reject the BAP’s proposal to almost double the area of the Coral Sea that is open to pelagic longlining. 2. Consider the recommendations of the FGRA and upheld by the ESP to stop purse seining from becoming an activity that future fisheries pursue within the Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 18 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FISH TRAP The BAP advises reducing the area open to trap fishing by more than 90% (Figure 7). The FGRA found, and the ESP upheld the finding,5, 4that fish traps posed an unacceptable risk to the conservation values of the Coral Sea. It seems unlikely that there will be any significant economic impact from these proposals given that the maximum total economic impact on the Coral Sea Fishery15 across the line, trap, trawl, beche-de-mer and aquarium sections is $174,400 per21 annum, and the impact on the trawl sectionRecommendations alone was previouslyfor management $152,600 per plans: annum.

1. Accept the BAP’s proposal to reduce the area of the Coral Sea open to trap fishing. 2. Consider the recommendations of the FGRA, and upheld by the ESP to remove trap fishing for demersal fish from the Coral Sea Marine Reserve.

FIGURE 7: BAP PROPOSALS FOR FISH TRAPPING WITHIN THE CORAL SEA MARINE RESERVE.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 19 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

SOUTH-WEST REGION The BAP3 proposes opening up the South-west Marine Reserve Network to fisheries assessed by FGRA, and confirmed by the ESP as posing unacceptable risks to the conservation values of Australia’s South-west (Table 3). The BAP proposes that these damaging commercial fishing activities be allowed to occur across all of the South-west Marine Reserve Network’s partially protected zones (Figure3 8). The BAP proposes no zone types that comply with the recommendations of the FGRA , and upheld by the ESP, for partially protected zones in the South-west Marine Reserve Network. The BAP proposes opening up the network to trawling for the first time at the Bremer and Western Eyre Marine Reserves, and proposes small but significant increases in gillnetting at the expense of important shelf Marine National Park Zones in the South-west Corner and Twilight Marine Reserves. These proposals run counter to the South-west Marine Reserve Network proclaimed in 2013.

TABLE 3: FISHING GEAR TYPES ASSESSED BY THE ESP AND/OR THE FGRA AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONSERVATION VALUES OF THE SOUTH-WEST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK BUT PROPOSED BY THE BAP. Fishing Gear Types South-west ESP/FGRA BAP Proposals Marine Reserve Recommendations (km2) 2013 (km2) (km2)

Demersal Trawl

Demersal Gillnet 0 2,241/0 351

Demersal Longline 71,262 0/0 73,608

Pelagic Longline 71,262 0/0 73,608

328,957 0/0 323,888 2 Total area of the South-west Marine Reserve Network: 508,605 km

Total area of2 partially protected zones within the South-west Marine Reserve Network: 323,888 km

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 20 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 8: BAP PROPOSALS FOR COMMERCIAL FISHING ACTIVITIES ASSESSED BY THE ESP OR THE FGRA AS POSING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO THE MARINE LIFE OF THE SOUTH-WEST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

DEMERSAL TRAWL The BAP proposes to open up the South-west Marine Reserve Network to trawling by creating trawling zones within the Bremer and Western Eyre Marine Reserves. The FGRA found and the ESP upheld that trawling posed an unacceptable risk to the conservation values of the Western Eyre Marine Reserve. The BAP states that opening this reserve up to trawling is necessary to alleviate “operational difficulties” for the Australian Bight Trawl Fishery.

However, ABARES estimates that the proposed opening up of the Western Eyre Marine Reserve15 to trawling would have no economic benefit to the Great Australian Bight Trawl Fishery. The FGRA also found that demersal trawling posed an unacceptable risk to the conservation values of the Bremer Marine Reserve. By contrast, the ESP concluded that the WA South Coast Trawl Fishery did not pose an unacceptable risk to the conservation values of the Bremer Marine Reserve, and should be allowed to operate within the partially protected zones of the Bremer Marine Reserve. In response, the BAP has proposed that it is necessary to remove a third of the critical Marine National Park Zone protection over the inner shelf to reduce the economic impact of the reserve on the WA South Coast Trawl Fishery. The evidence does not support this.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 21 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______ABARES estimates that the proposed removal of Marine National Park Zone would carry a maximum benefit to the WA15 ,South22 Coast Trawl Fishery of $4,700 per annum or $1,175 per licence holder per annum. Furthermore, ABARES estimates that the maximum cumulative economic impact of all Commonwealth Marine Reserves on the WA South Coast Trawl Fishery is $20,800 per annum, or $5,200 per licence holder. These amounts fail to justify the loss of critical Marine National Park Zone protection on the inner shelf in one of Western Australia’s highest conservation value coastal environments. This area adjacent to Fitzgerald River National Park is home to one of Australia’s three largest calving grounds23 for Southern Right Whales and critical breeding colonies for endangered (IUCN red list) Australian Sea Lions. When the Abbott Government proclaimed the Bremer Marine Reserve in 2013, its inshore extent was minimised. This was probably to ensure low economic impact on the South Coast Trawl Fishery. The ESP concluded that the impacts of the WA South Coast Trawl Fishery are localised and minor. This contradicts the local community’s experience in Bremer Bay. The local community is very concerned about trawling being allowed into the Bremer Marine Reserve. The local community sees scallop trawling24 as an activity that is completely out of step with the protection of their local marine life. Furthermore, the local community is currently investing in tourism development to take advantage of these assets and the aggregation of sperm whales, orcas, sunfish and other marine life that occurs annually offshore in the Bremer Canyon. The inner shelf Marine National Park Zone is an additional asset for this growing local tourism industry. At a minimum depth of 15 metres, this Marine National Park Zone is capable of providing new high-quality dive sites for the Bremer Bay dive tourism industry. Trawling poses a risk to these tourism values, for example through the impact of dead bycatch on visitor experience. It would be a poor decision to compromise the major conservation, social and tourism values of the inner shelf Bremer Marine National Park Zone to provide a benefit of $1,175 per annum to four fishing businesses. Recommendations for management plans:

1. Reject the BAP proposal to introduce a trawling zone to the Western Eyre Marine Reserves. 2. Reject the BAP proposal to replace a third of the inner shelf Bremer Marine National Park Zone with a trawling zone.

Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Weste22 rn Australia 2013/14: The State of the Fisheries. Fletcher, W.J. and Santoro, K. (eds). (2014). Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. 23 http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/14549/0 24 For example see http://www.pressreader.com/australia/albany- advertiser/20160623/281672549239994

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 22 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 9: BAP PROPOSALS FOR DEMERSAL TRAWLING WITHIN THE SOUTH-WEST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

DEMERSAL GILLNET AND LONGLINE The BAP proposes that demersal gillnets and longlines be allowed into extensive parts of the South-west Marine Reserve Network, particularly on the high conservation value shelf and upper slope ecosystems5, 3 (Figure 10). This contradicts the findings of the FGRA which were upheld by the ESP. Two commercial fisheries stand to benefit from these proposals. The Shark Gillnet and Shark Hook Sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) and the Temperate Demersal Gillnet and Demersal Longline Fishery (WA Temperate Gillnet). The BAP proposes that SESSF be allowed to operate in the Great Australian Bight, Western Eyre and Kangaroo Island Marine Reserves. However, the recent closure of fisheries to protect Australian Sea Lion colonies from gillnets means that removing gillnetting from the South-west Marine Reserve Network and establishing permanent protection for some of these colonies would now have minimal impact on the Shark Gillnet and Shark Hook Sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery. As can be seen in Figure 11, gillnet effort in this fishery has now almost entirely shifted out of the South-west Marine Region, with even low-intensity fishing no longer occurring. Likewise, effort in the demersal longline section of the fishery is below low, with the exception of the Kangaroo Island Marine Reserves (Figure 12).

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 23 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______It does not make sense to compromise the conservation values of the Great Australian Bight,

Western Eyre and Kangaroo Island Marine25 Reserves to maintain access for a fishery that is no longer operating at any significant level. The BAP proposes expanding the areas open to gillnetting and demersal longlining in the South- west Corner, Bremer, Eastern Recherche and Twilight Marine Reserves mostly through the loss of Marine National Park Zones, but also through the replacement of Multiple Use Zones with Special Purpose Zones in the South-west Corner and Bremer Marine Reserves. These proposals include a reduction in shelf Marine National Park Zones greater than the entire NSW state waters marine sanctuary network. ABARES estimates that these proposals would provide a maximum26 economic benefit to the WA Temperate15, 22 Gillnet Fishery of $68,100 per annum, or $884 per licence holder in the fishery.

Currently over 70% of the 27licences and almost 40% of the allowable effort in the WA Temperate Gillnet Fishery go unused. This indicates that external economic factors are having a much greater impact on the fishery than the potential impact of the South-west Marine Reserve Network. Additionally, it makes little sense for Australian Sea Lion colonies in South Australia to be protected from gillnetting while those in Western Australia are not protected. The FGRA recommends, and the ESP upheld, the removal of gillnetting from all Commonwealth Marine Reserves in the South-west Marine Region. This would significantly benefit marine life, particularly endemic and threatened Australian Sea Lions. Local communities would also strongly support this move and Commonwealth structural adjustment funding is available to affected fishers, which may not be the case if the necessary changesRecommendations to protect marinefor management life are impleme plans:nted under fisheries management regulations.

1. Reject the BAP’s proposal to expand demersal gillnetting and longlining within the South-west Marine Reserve Network.

2. Consider removing gillnetting and demersal longlining from the South-west5, 3 Marine Reserve Network as recommended by the FGRA and upheld by the ESP.

25 With the exception of demersal longlining within the Kangaroo Island Marine Reserves. 26 $3,095 per active vessel in the fishery. Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western27 Australia 2012/13:The State of the Fisheries. Fletcher, W.J. and Santoro, K. (eds). (2013). Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 24 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 10: BAP PROPOSALS FOR DEMERSAL GILLNETTING AND LONGLINING WITHIN THE SOUTH- WEST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 25 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 11: GILLNET FISHING INTENSITY IN THE SHARK GILLNET AND SHARK HOOK SECTOR OF THE

SOUTHERN AND EASTERN SCALEFISH AND SHARK16 FISHERY IN THE 2014/2015 FISHING SEASON. REPRODUCED FROM PATTERSON ET AL. (2015).

FIGURE 12: DEMERSAL LONGLINE FISHING INTENSITY IN THE SHARK GILLNET AND SHARK HOOK

SECTOR OF THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN SCALEFISH AND SHARK16 FISHERY IN THE 2014/2015 FISHING SEASON. REPRODUCED FROM PATTERSON ET AL. (2015).

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 26 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

PELAGIC LONGLINE The BAP proposes to allow pelagic longlining within 100% of the partially protected zones of the South-west Marine Reserve Network (Figure 13). This contradicts the findings of the FGRA, upheld by the ESP, that pelagic longlining posed5, 3 an unacceptable risk to the conservation values of the South-west Marine Reserve Network. The only fishery to benefit from this proposal is the Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery. This fishery has over 95% latency in both active vessels and the proportion of its total allowable catch taken.

This indicates that external economic factors are having a much greater impact on the28 fishery than the impact the South-west Marine Reserve Network could have on the fishery. There is no reason why the fishery could not continue operating outside the marine reserves at the same residual level of the last 10 years. Furthermore, over the last 10 years the fishery has had only low or greater effort off the WA west coast (Figure 14). This means that the proposals to allow pelagic longlining within the South-west Corner, Bremer, Eastern Recherche, Twilight, Great Australian Bight, Western Eyre and Kangaroo Island Marine Reserves compromise the conservation values of the South-west MarineRecommendations Reserve Networkfor ,managementwith no economic plans: benefit to any fishery currently active in this area.

1. Consider removing pelagic longlining from the South5, 3-west Marine Reserve Network as recommended by the FGRA and upheld by the ESP.

Fishery status reports 2013–14, 28 Georgeson, L, Stobutzki, I & Curtotti, R (eds) 2014, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 27 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 13: BAP PROPOSALS FOR PELAGIC LONGLINING WITHIN THE SOUTH-WEST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 28 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 14: FISHING EFFORT29 IN THE WESTERN TUNA AND BILLFISH FISHERY. REPRODUCED FROM WOODHAMS ET AL (2012) MAPS OF ANNUAL FISHING EFFORT SINCE 201301 SO SHOW NO AREAS OF EVEN LOW EFFORT OUTSIDE THE AREAS OF THE WA WEST COAST ABOVE.

Fishery status reports 2011, 29 Woodhams, J, Vieira, S & Stobutzki, I (eds) 2012, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra. 30 ABARES annual fishery status reports.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 29 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

The BAP proposes openingNORTH up the North-westWEST Marine ReserveREGION Network to fisheries found by the FGRA, and upheld by the ESP, as posing unacceptable risks to the conservation values of Australia’s North-west (Table 4). The BAP proposes that these damaging commercial fishing activities be allowed to occur across 99% of the North-west Marine Reserve Network’s partially protected zones (Figure 15). 31 The BAP only proposes one zone type that complies with the recommendations of the FGRA, and upheld by the ESP, for partially protected zones in the North-west Marine Reserve Network. The BAP proposes opening up the network to trawling for the first time at the globally significant Rowley Shoals and proposes small decreases in the area open to pelagic gillnetting and fish trapping. This proposal runs counter to the North-west Marine Reserve Network proclaimed in 2013. The BAP has not documented its proposals for pelagic gillnets however, the ABARES economic assessment of the BAP proposals shows displacement of all gillnets across all zones in all WA fisheries in the North-west Marine Reserve Network.

TABLE 4: FISHING GEAR TYPES ASSESSED BY THE ESP AND THE FGRA AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONSERVATION VALUES OF THE NORTH-WEST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK BUT PROPOSED BY THE BAP. Fishing Gear Types North-west ESP/FGRA BAP Proposals Marine Reserve Recommendations (km2) Network 2013 (km2) (km2)

Demersal Trawl

Pelagic Gillnet 0 0 1,146 32 Pelagic Longline 228,625 0 0

Fish Trap 228,625 0 225,909

210,943 0 199,278 2 Total area of the North-west Marine Reserve Network: 335,437 km

Total area of2 partially protected zones within the North-west Marine Reserve Network: 228,377 km

31 The Recreational Use Zones (IUCN IV) at Ningaloo, and Ashmore Reef. 32 There is no documentation on pelagic gillnetting in the BAP report; however, the ABARES economic assessment shows displacement of all gillnets across all zones in all WA fisheries in the North-west Marine Reserve Network.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 30 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 15: BAP PROPOSALS FOR COMMERCIAL FISHING ACTIVITIES ASSESSED BY THE ESP AND THE FGRA AS POSING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO THE MARINE LIFE OF THE NORTH-WEST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

DEMERSAL TRAWL The BAP proposes opening up the Rowley2 Shoals ecosystem for trawling. This proposal contradicts the findings of the FGRA, and upheld by the ESP, that demersal trawl is incompatible with the conservation values of the North-west Marine Reserve Network.

The Rowley Shoals are a globally unique set of shelf edge atolls to the south-west of Broome.33 Described as the most perfect example of shelf atolls in Australian waters, Rowley Shoals hosts some of the world’s healthiest coral reefs.

33 Fairbridge, R.W., 1950. Recent Journaland Pleist of ocenethe Royal coral Society reefs of WesternAustralia, Australia,Journal of Geology 58: 330–401 in Collins, L., 2011. Geological setting, marine geomorphology, sediments and oceanic shoals growth history of the Kimberley Region, 94: 89-105.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 31 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

With its diverse and intact shark fauna, the reefs are a scientific34, 35 reference site that provides a baseline for measuring the health of coral reefs elsewhere. The shoals also offer some of the world’s best diving, and they are a key piece of regional economic infrastructure for tourism.

Despite the fact that Rowley Shoals is an iconic34 area for marine life, a key Australian tourism asset and contains recreational fishing values, the BAP proposes compromising these values for a maximum economic benefit to the North15, 16 -west Slope Trawl Fishery of an estimated $36,900 perRecommendations annum, or $5,271for per managementlicence holder. plans:

1. Reject the BAP’s proposal to introduce trawling around the globally significant Rowley Shoals.

FIGURE 16: BIOREGIONAL ADVISORY PANEL PROPOSALS FOR BOTTOM TRAWLING WITHIN THE NORTH-WEST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

PELAGIC GILLNET The BAP report does not state whether it proposes to allow pelagic longlining7 within any of the partially protected zones of the North-west Marine Reserve Network. However, the ABARES

Rowley Shoals Marine Park Management Plan 2007-2017, 34 Government of Western Australia, 2007. Department of Environment and Conservation,The North -Perth,west Marine Western Bioregional Australia. Plan: Bioregional Profile, 35 Commonwealth of Australia, 2008. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Kingston, Tasmania, Australia.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 32 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______assessment15 shows displacement of all gillnetting across all North-west zones across all WA fisheries. 2 The FGRA found, and the ESP upheld, that pelagic gillnetting is incompatible with the conservation values of the North-west Marine Reserve Network.

The Northern36, 27 Shark Fisheries is the only fishery in the North-west Marine Region to use pelagic gillnetting. These fisheries have been closed for more than27five years following the loss of their export licences due to concerns over ecological damage. As such, permanently protecting the marine life of the North-west Marine Reserve Network from this damaging commercial fishing practice will have no economic impact on any active fishery.Recommendations for management plans:

1. Accept the BAP proposal to not allow pelagic gillnetting in the North-west Marine5, 2 Reserve Network as recommended by both the FGRA and upheld by the ESP.

PELAGIC LONGLINE The BAP proposes allowing pelagic longlining in 99% of the partially protected zones of the North-west Marine Reserve Network. This contradicts the findings of the FGRA, confirmed by the ESP, which found pelagic longlining posed5, 2 an unacceptable risk to the conservation values of the North-west Marine Reserve Network. The only fishery to use pelagic longlining in the North-west Marine Region is the Western Tuna and Billfish Fishery. The fishery has over 95% latency in both active vessels and in its proportion of total allowable catch taken.

This indicates that external economic factors are having27 a much greater impact on the fishery than the potential impact of existing marine reserves. There is no reason why the fishery could not continue operating outside the reserves at the same residual level of the last 10 years Furthermore, the fishery has not displayed even a low level of effort anywhere in the North- west region since 2005, with fishing effort concentrated further south off the WA west coast between Perth and Geraldton (Figure 14). This means there is scant economic benefit to any active fishery from these proposals to compromise the conservation values of all the partially protected zones of the North-west MarineRecommendatio Reserve Network.ns for management plans:

1. Consider removing pelagic longlining from the North5, 2-west Marine Reserve Network as recommended by the FGRA and upheld by the ESP.

Assessment of risks that commercial fishing methods may pose to conservation36 values identified in the Areas for Further Assessment of the North and North-west Marine Regions,Mary Lack Shellack Pty Ltd, 2010.

Prepared for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 33 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 17: BAP PROPOSALS FOR PELAGIC LONGLINING WITHIN THE NORTH-WEST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

FISH TRAP The BAP proposes37 allowing fish trapping within almost 90% of the North-west Marine Reserve Network. This contradicts the findings of the FGRA, and upheld by the ESP, that fish trapping poses an unacceptable5, 2 risk to the conservation values of the North-west Marine Reserve Network. Two fisheries utilise this fishing technique in the North-west Marine Reserve Network: the Northern Demersal Scalefish Fishery and the Pilbara Trap Managed Fishery.

ABARES estimates that the current proposals by the BAP would have a maximum15 economic impact on the Northern Demersal Scalefish Fishery of $2,40015 per annum. The equivalent figure for the Pilbara Trap Managed Fishery is $5,400.

This appears to contravene the Government’s8 policy of protecting marine life in a way that minimises impact on commercial fishers. It is neither sound science nor world-leading management to compromise the protection of marine life by reducing the impact on these commercial fisheries to virtually nothing, when they pose an unacceptably high risk to the marine life of the region.

37 The BAP proposes two partially protected zone types in the North-west Reserve Network, which don’t allow fish trapping: the Recreational Use Zone and the Habitat Protection Zone.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 34 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______Recommendations for management plans:

1. Consider removing fish trapping from the North-west5, 2 Marine Reserve Network as recommended by the FGRA and upheld by the ESP.

FIGURE 18: BAP PROPOSALS FOR FISH TRAPPING WITHIN THE NORTH-WEST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 35 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

TEMPERATE EAST REGION The BAP proposes opening4 up the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network to fisheries assessed by the FGRA, and upheld by the ESP, as posing unacceptable risks to the conservation values of Australia’s Temperate East (Table 5). The BAP proposes that these damaging commercial fishing activities be allowed to occur across 98% of the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network’s partially protected zones (Figure 19). 38 The BAP proposes two zone types that comply with the recommendations of the FGRA, and

5upheld, 4 by the ESP for partially protected zones in the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network.

Contrary to the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network proclaimed in 2013, the BAP proposes opening up the Middleton Reef seamount to pelagic longlining, mid-water trawling, and purse seining as well as establishing a new Marine National Park Zone in the Norfolk Island Marine Reserve and increasing the limitations on where fish trapping and demersal longlining is permitted to operate. TABLE 5: FISHING GEAR TYPES ASSESSED BY THE ESP AND THE FGRA AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONSERVATION VALUES OF THE TEMPERATE EAST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK BUT PROPOSED BY THE BAP. Fishing Gear Types Temperate East ESP and FGRA BAP Proposals Marine Reserve Recommendations (km2) Network 2013 (km2) (km2)

Pelagic Longline

Mid-water Trawl 316,781 0 309,384

Demersal Trawl 316,781 0 309,384

Demersal Longline 2,361 0 2,361

Purse Seine 2,398 0 37

Fish Trap 316,781 0 309,384

Danish Seine 183,005 0 3,991

2,361 0 2,361 2 Total area of the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network: 383,352 km

Total area of2 partially protected zones within the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network: 315,692 km

38 The Recreational Use Zone (IUCN IV) at Elizabeth Reef and the Habitat Protection Zone (Lord Howe) at Lord Howe Island.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 36 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 19: BAP PROPOSALS FOR COMMERCIAL FISHING ACTIVITIES ASSESSED BY THE ESP AND THE FGRA AS POSING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO THE MARINE LIFE OF THE TEMPERATE EAST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

PELAGIC LONGLINE4 The BAP contradicts the recommendations of the FGRA, and upheld by the ESP, by proposing to allow pelagic longline across 98% of the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network’s partially protected zones (Figure 20). Two fisheries in the Temperate East are assessed under the gear type pelagic longline: the Commonwealth Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery and the NSW Ocean Trap and Line Fishery (drift line). The review also proposes removing the Marine National Park Zone protection for part of the underlying seamount ecosystem of Middleton Reef to enable pelagic longliners to fish the vulnerable seamount ecosystem. Middleton Reef was first protected in Marine National Park Zones in 1987 and is one of Australia’s longest protected remote coral reef habitats. ABARES estimates that this proposed undermining of the protection of the Middleton Reef ecosystem would provide a maximum economic benefit to fishers of $31,000 per annum, or

$335 per annum to each of the 92 active longlining statutory15, 16 fishing rights in the Commonwealth’s Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 37 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

The Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery is a fishery in decline, with the number39 of active vessels declining over the last decade from around 150 in 2002 to 41 in 2013. This is an average annual rate of decline of39 around nine vessels per year due to the frequently negative16 economic returns of the fishery. Effort within the ETBF has recently become more stable.16 Catch has stabilised at a latency level of around 40% of the quota remaining uncaught. This indicates that ETBF could easily adjust to any potential impacts of the Temperate East Marine Reserves by increasing effort elsewhere in the fishery if it is economic to do so. The high latency suggests that external economic factors are having a much greater impact on the fishery than the Temperate East Marine Reserves could. Australian tax payers have already invested significant resources into helping the fishery deal with its economic problems. The ETBF was provided with $34.3 million of tax payers money to

In the future, an economically sustainable39 fishery will be reliant on fewer operators catching high-value species closer to port. In this context, closing the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network to pelagic longlining and providing structural adjustment funding to affected commercial fishers is more likely to have a positive than a negative economic impact on the fishery. The decision to allow the NSW Ocean Trap and Line Fishery in all of the partially protected zones on the Temperate East continental shelf and slope reduces the estimated maxim15, 41um economicRecommendations impact on thisfor fisherymanagement to $27,800 plans: per annum, or $83 per fishing business.

1. Reject the BAP’s proposal to remove Marine National Park protection for the

Middleton seamount. 4 2. Consider the recommendations of the FGRA, and upheld by the ESP, to remove pelagic longlining (and driftline) from the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network, particularly in the offshore parts of the network where the economics of the fishery are marginal.

Fishery status reports 2013–14, 39 Georgeson, L, Stobutzki, I & Curtotti, R (eds) 2014, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra. 40 The actual profit or loss can’t easily be estimated on the basis of the publicly available information. This figure is provided for context, to provide a ballpark figure if the costs and species caught are relatively uniform across the fishery. If this area contains higher value species caught and/or costs are lower then the profit may be somewhat higher and vice versa. Due to the distance from port costs in this area are likely to be relatively high, particularly when fuel Independentprices are higher. review of NSW commercial fisheries policy, management41 and administration, Stevens, R., Cartwright, I., and Neville, P., 2012. commissioned by the NSW Department of Primary Industries

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 38 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 20: BAP PROPOSALS FOR PELAGIC LONGLINING, MID-WATER TRAWLING AND PURSE SEINING WITHIN THE TEMPERATE EAST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

MID-WATER TRAWL The BAP proposes allowing mid-water trawling within 98% of the partially protected zones of the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network (Figure 20). The only fishery currently using mid- water trawl within the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network is the East Coast Deepwater

Trawl Fishery. This fishery has had16low and sporadic effort since the 1990’s, with many recent years containing no fishing effort. Proposals to allow this gear type within the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network are especially confusing given the following factors: 4 a. The FGRA rated, and the ESP upheld, mid-water trawling as posing an unacceptable risk to the conservation values of the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network. b. The BAP only mentions mid-water trawling once by highlighting the strong community support for a ban on it. c. Effort in the East Coast Deepwater Trawl Fishery is so low that in many years there is Recommendationsno fishing activityfor managementacross the whole plans: fishery.

1. Reject the BAP’s proposal to allow mid-water trawling within the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 39 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

DEMERSAL TRAWL The BAP proposes that demersal trawl be allowed within the Special Purpose Zones of the

Temperate4 East Marine Reserve Network (Figure 21). This contradicts the recommendation of the FGRA, upheld by the ESP, which assessed demersal trawling as posing an unacceptably high risk to the conservation values of the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network. Allowing the SESSF Commonwealth Trawl and NSW Ocean Trawl to operate within the Solitary Islands, Jervis and Hunter Special Purpose Zones reduces the maximum estimated displacement of these fisheries to $5,200 per annum and $176,100 per annum respectively. This appears to contravene the Government’s8 policy of protecting marine life in a way that minimises impact on commercial fishers. It is neither sound science or world-leading management to compromise the protection of marine life by reducing the impact on these commercial fisheries to virtually nothing, when they pose an unacceptably high risk to the marine life of the region.

Removing trawling from these Special Purpose Zones would increase the potential negative42 impact on these fisheries to around $0.5 million and $0.3 million per annum respectively (or

$8,982 per licence holder in the SESSF Commonwealth Trawl15 Fishery, 16, 43 and $328 per vessel per annum for the 537 vessels in the NSW Ocean Trawl Fishery).

These are minimal impact42 s equating to 1% of the fishery or less, to which licence holders should beRecommendations able to adjust easily.for management plans:

1. Consider removing demersal trawling within the Temperate East5, 4Marine Reserve Network as recommended by the FGRA, and upheld by the ESP.

Interim estimates of potential catch and gross value of production impacts of proposed marine42 reserves in the Temperate East Marine Region ABARES 2012, , ABARES report to client prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, February. 43 Dominion Consulting Pty Ltd, 2004. An assessment of economic and social issues in the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery Management Strategy, Report to NSW Fisheries,

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 40 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 21: BAP PROPOSALS FOR DEMERSAL TRAWLING WITHIN THE TEMPERATE EAST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

DEMERSAL LONGLINE The BAP advises removing demersal longlining from the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network. The BAP proposes that demersal setlining (grouped with demersal longlining for risk assessment) continue to be allowed only within Multiple Use Zone A of the Solitary Islands Marine Reserve (Figure 22). 4 This contradicts the advice of the FGRA, and upheld by the ESP, that demersal setlining poses an unacceptably high risk to the conservation values of the Temperate East Marine Reserves.

ABARES estimates that the total economic benefit41 of this proposal would be less than $2,05044 per annum, or $6 per annum per fishing business in the NSW Ocean Trap and Line Fishery. There is no economic justification for compromising the conservation values of the Solitary Islands Marine Reserve to allow demersal setlining, particularly as this part of the Solitary

Islands Marine45 Park is home to the Pimpernel Rock aggregation of the critically endangered (IUCN red list ) Grey Nurse Shark.

Interim estimates of potential catch and gross value of production impacts of proposed marine44 reserves in the Temperate East Marine Region ABARES 2012, , ABARES report to client prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, February. 45 http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/44070/0

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 41 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______Recommendations for management plans:

1. Accept the BAP’s proposal to not allow demersal longlining within the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network. 2. Reject the BAP’s proposal to allow demersal setlining within the Solitary Islands Marine Reserve

FIGURE 22: BIOREGIONAL ADVISORY PANEL PROPOSALS FOR DEMERSAL LONGLINING WITHIN THE TEMPERATE EAST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

PURSE SEINE The BAP advises allowing purse seining within 98% of the partially protected zones of the

Temperate East Marine Reserve Network (Figure 20). However4 , no fishery currently uses purse seines in the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network. Proposals to allow this gear type within the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network are especially confusing given the following factors: 4 a. The FGRA rates, and the ESP upheld, purse seining as posing an inappropriate risk to the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network. b. The BAP does not mention purse seining in its review of the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network. c. There is no economic benefit to any active fishery.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 42 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves Recommendations for management plans: ______

1. Reject the BAP’s proposal to allow purse seining in the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network.

FISH TRAP The BAP4 advises reducing the area open to trap fishing by more than 90% (Figure 23). The FGRA rated, and the ESP upheld, fish traps as posing an unacceptable risk to the conservation values of the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network. These reductions in the area available for trap fishing have an impact on two fisheries: the NSW

Ocean Trap and Line Fishery and the Commonwealth SESSF Gillnet,15 Hook and Trap Fishery. Neither fishery is significantly impacted by the BAP proposals. Recommendations for management plans:

1. Accept the BAP’s proposal to reduce the area of the Temperate East Marine

Reserves Network open to trap fishing. 4 2. Consider the recommendations of the FGRA, upheld by the ESP, to remove trap fishing for demersal fish from the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network.

FIGURE 23: BAP PROPOSALS FOR FISH TRAPPING WITHIN THE TEMPERATE EAST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 43 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

DANISH SEINE The BAP advises opening up the Special Purpose Zones of the Temperate East Marine Reserve

Network to Danish seining (Figure 24). However,4 no fishery currently uses Danish seines in the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network. Proposals to allow this gear type within the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network are especially confusing given the following factors: 4 a. The FGRA rates, and the ESP upheld, Danish seining as posing an inappropriate risk to the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network. b. The BAP does not mention problems associated with restriction of Danish seining in its review of the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network. Recommenc. Theredations is no economicfor management benefit to anyplans: active fishery.

1. Reject the BAP’s proposal to allow Danish seining within the Temperate East Marine Reserve Network.

FIGURE 24: BAP PROPOSALS FOR DANISH SEINING WITHIN THE TEMPERATE EAST MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 44 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

2 The BAP proposes opening up theNO NorthRTH Marine REGIONReserve Network to fisheries that the FGRA rates, and the ESP upholds, as posing unacceptable risks to the conservation values of Australia’s North (Table 6). The BAP proposes that these damaging commercial fishing activities be allowed to occur across

19% of the North Marine46 Reserve Network’s partially protected zones (Figure 25). The BAP proposes one zone type that complies with the recommendations of the5, 4FGRA, upheld by the ESP, for partially protected zones in the North Marine Reserve Network. Contrary to the North Marine Reserve Network proclaimed in 2013, the BAP proposes introducing trawling zones to the North Marine Reserve Network, opening up 61% of the Gulf of Carpentaria Marine Reserve to prawn trawling, and proposing fish trawling zones in the Oceanic Shoals and Wessel Marine Reserves. The BAP also proposes more than doubling the area open to gillnetting within the North Marine Reserve Network.

TABLE 6: FISHING GEAR TYPES ASSESSED BY THE ESP AND/OR THE FGRA AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CONSERVATION VALUES OF THE NORTH MARINE RESERVE NETWORK BUT PROPOSED BY THE BAP. Fishing Gear Types North-west ESP/FGRA BAP Proposals Marine Reserve Recommendations (km2) Network 2013 (km2) (km2)

Demersal Trawl

Pelagic and Demersal 0 55,504/0 21,912 Gillnet 11,560 0/0 26,543

2 Total area of the North Marine Reserve Network: 157,483 km

Total2 area of partially protected zones within the North Marine Reserve Network: 139,622 km

46 The zone type is Habitat Protect Zones (IUCN IV).

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 45 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 25: BAP PROPOSALS FOR COMMERCIAL FISHING ACTIVITIES ASSESSED BY THE ESP OR THE FGRA AS POSING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO THE MARINE LIFE OF THE NORTH MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

DEMERSAL TRAWL The BAP proposes creating trawling zones within the Oceanic Shoals, Gulf of Carpentaria and Wessel Marine Reserves. This represents an expansion of trawling from 0% to 18% of the North Marine Reserve Network, including increased trawling in the Gulf of Carpentaria Marine Reserve from 0% to 61% (Figure 26). Two fisheries stand to benefit from these proposals: the Northern Prawn Trawl Fishery within the Gulf of Carpentaria Marine Reserve and the Northern Territory Demersal Fishery within the Oceanic Shoals and Wessel Marine Reserves. ABARES estimates that the maximum economic benefit to the Northern Prawn Trawl Fishery from opening up the Gulf of Carpentaria Marine15, 16 Reserve to trawling is $0.9 million per annum, or $17,694 per licence holder in the fishery.

The BAP proposals represent a change in estimated15, 16 per licence holder impact from $27,083 per licence holder to $9,388 per licence holder.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 46 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______All of these amounts are negligible for a fishery that has experienced an increase in gross income per licence holder of around $0.5 million per annum. This is a result47 of, 48 more than $50 million taxpayer funding to implement structural adjustment in the fishery. ABARES estimates that the maximum economic benefit of opening up the Oceanic Shoals and

Wessel Marine49 Reserves to the Northern Territory Demersal Fishery is less than $0.2 million per annum. The ESP states that new evidence shows these fisheries have less impact on benthic habitats and elasmobranchs than originally thought. However, the findings of the ESP that demersal trawl is compatible with the conservation values of these two marine reserves are unconvincing. 50 The ESP makes no mention of the recent CSIRO report on bycatch in the Northern Prawn Fishery in 2013 and 2014. This report clearly shows that the Gulf of Carpentaria Marine Reserve is a location where bycatch of a number key species is either likely based on historical data or currently known to occur. 51 These species include52 turtles (including Flatback Turtles,53 vulnerable Olive Ridley Turtles,54 critically endangered Hawksbill Turtles, endangered Green Turtles and vulnerable55 Loggerhead Turtles), Porcupine R56ay, sawfish (including at least critically endangered57 Freshwater Sawfish, endangered Narrow Sawfish and critically endangered Green Sawfish), pipefishes/seahorses and sea snakes. Figure 27 and Figure 28 provide two samples of this data on the bycatch, which the BAP proposes to reintroduce to the Gulf of Carpentaria Marine Reserve. The ESP also states that there is no need for concern as the Northern Prawn Trawl Fishery avoids ecologically important habitats that are protected within fishery spatial closures.

47 Vieira, S, Perks, C, Mazur, K, Curtotti, R and Li, M 2010, Impact of the structural adjustment package on the profitability of Commonwealth fisheries,Administration ABARE researchof the buyback report component 10.01, Canberra, of the Securing February. Our Fishing Future48 structural adjustment package, CommonwealthInterim of Aus tralia,estimates 2009. of potential catch and gross value of production impacts of draft marine reserves49 in the North Marine Region Australian National Audit Office, Canberra, ACT, Australia. ABARES 2011, , ABARES report to client prepared for the Department of 50Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, November. Fry, G.C., Barwick, M, Lawrence, E. and Tonks, M. (2015) Monitoring interactions with bycatch species using crew-member observer data collected in the Northern Prawn Fishery: 2013 – 2014. Final Report to AFMA; R2013/0806. CSIRO, Australia. Pp. 218. 51 IUCN red list: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/11534/0 52 IUCN red list: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/8005/0 53 IUCN red list: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/4615/0 54 IUCN red list: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/3897/0 55 IUCN red list: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/18584848/0 56 IUCN red list: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39389/0 57 IUCN red list: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39393/0

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 47 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______This statement is at odds with the Australian Fisheries Management58 Authority (AFMA) and Commonwealth Scientific Research Organisation (CSIRO) report on the history of fisheries closures in the Northern Prawn Trawl Fishery, which concluded that the primary aim of all current closures was to “enhance the productivity of the NPF” and that closures were yet to be put in place to protect the environment and biodiversity. “may well protectThe AFMA/CSIRO prawns and report enhance goes their on tocatch, anticipate there is new no guarantee closures over that high current biodiversity closures also areas are in areas the offishery high biodiversity;via the creationareas of likelymarine protected reserves. under It state a systems that whileof Marine existing Protected closures Areas”.

Clearly, the fishery has anticipated the need for new areas to be closed to protect marine life, and that this will occur through Commonwealth Marine Reserves. It is disingenuous for the ESP to now claim that all the high conservation value areas were in existing closures.

With regard to the NT Demersal Fishery, the ESP fails to note that the fishery is currently 59 undergoing a rapid expansion of trawling, with catch more than doubling in recent years.

Furthermore, the ESP fails to note that the reporting of bycatch in the fishery is60 unreliable, with discrepancy between observer-recorded and reported bycatch for the fishery. The ESP also states that ecologically important habitats like seagrass, sponges and reefs need to be protected from trawling and that consideration must be given to ensuring that sufficient areas are protected from trawling, particularly where there is an absence of Marine National Park Zones. The proposals of the BAP places key habitats at risk. For example, it proposes to allow 99% of the plateaux and saddle north-west of the Wellesley Island to be trawled despite being identified as a key ecological feature for Australian marine life. By contrast, the 2013 reserves protected more than 98% of this key ecological feature from trawling. The BAP proposes that less than 1% of this key ecological feature for Australian marine life is protected in Marine National Park Zones. Given the high uncertainty around the compatibility of demersal trawling with the conservation values of the Gulf of Carpentaria and Ocean Shoals Marine Reserves and the low economic benefits to the two fisheries concerned, the Centre for Conservation Geography recommends rejectingRecommendationsthese proposalsfor managementto allow trawling. plans:

1. Reject the BAP’s proposal to allow demersal trawling in the Wessel Marine Reserve as recommended by the FGRA, and upheld by the ESP. 2. Reject the BAP’s proposal to allow trawling in the Oceanic Shoals Marine Reserve as recommended by the FGRA.

58 Kenyon R.A., Jarrett A.E., Bishop J.F.B., Taranto T.J., Dichmont C.M., Zhou S. (2005). Documenting the history of and providing protocols and criteria for changing existing and establishing new closures in the NPF: Final Report to AFMA (AFMA Project R02/0881). AFMA Final Research Report. Australian Fisheries Management Authority. PO Box 7051, Canberra Business Centre, ACT, 2610. pp.157. 59 NT Fishery Status Reports: https://dpif.nt.gov.au/publications 60 2016 application for reassessment under the EPBC Act of the Northern Territory Demersal Fishery

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 48 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______3. Reject the BAP’s proposal to allow demersal trawling in the Gulf of Carpentaria Marine Reserve as recommended by the FGRA.

FIGURE 26: BAP PROPOSALS FOR DEMERSAL TRAWLING WITHIN THE NORTH MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 49 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 27: BYCATCH OF UNIDENTIFIED TURTLES IN THE NORTHERN PRAWN TRAWL FISHERY TIGER 50 PRAWN SECTION. REPRODUCED FROM FRY ET AL. (2015).

FIGURE 28: BYCATCH OF NARROW SAWFISH50 IN THE NORTHERN PRAWN TRAWL FISHERY. REPRODUCED FROM FRY ET AL. (2015).

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 50 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

PELAGIC AND DEMERSAL GILLNET The BAP’s proposes more than doubling the area of 2the North Marine Reserve Network that is open to pelagic and demersal gillnetting. The FGRA rated, and the ESP upheld, pelagic and demersal gillnetting as posing an unacceptable risk to the marine life of the North Marine Reserve Network. The only fishery to use demersal gillnets in the North Marine Reserve Network is the Queensland Gulf of Carpentaria Inshore Finfish Fishery. ABARES estimates that opening up the Gulf of Carpentaria and West Cape York Marine Reserves to demersal gillnetting would reduce the maximum economic impact on the Gulf of Carpentaria15, 61 Inshore Finfish Fishery to less than $7,400 per annum, or less than $88 per licence holder.

Closing the Gulf of Carpentaria15 Marine Reserve to gillnetting is predicted to have no economic impact on the fishery. Closing the West Cape York Marine Reserve to gillnetting is predicted to increase the maximum economic impact on the Gulf of Carpentaria Inshore Finfish Fishery to $0.3 million, or $3,707 per licence holder. The only fishery to use pelagic gillnets in the North Marine Reserve Network is the Northern Territory Offshore Net and Line Fishery. ABARES estimates that the proposed expansion of gillnetting to the Arafura and Wessel Marine Reserves would reduce displacement of the NT Offshore Net and Line Fishery by $300 per annum, or $18 per licence holder per annum. ABARES has never provided an estimate for completely removing the NT Offshore Net and Line Fishery from the North Marine Reserve Network. This information would be useful for assessing the economic value of the gillnetting zones in the Arnhem and Joseph Bonaparte Gulf Marine Reserves against the protection of the unique marineRecommendations life of these reservesfor management neither of which plans: currently contain any Marine National Park Zones.

1. Reject the BAP’s proposal to expand gillnetting within the North Marine Reserve Network.

2. Consider removing gillnetting from the North Marine5, 2Reserve Network as recommended by the FGRA, and upheld by the ESP.

61 https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/monitoring-our-fisheries/data-reports/sustainability- reporting/queensland-fisheries-summary/gulf-of-carpentaria-inshore-fin-fish-fishery#30

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 51 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

FIGURE 29: BAP PROPOSALS FOR DEMERSAL AND PELAGIC GILLNETTING WITHIN THE NORTH MARINE RESERVE NETWORK.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 52 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

1. http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/frydenberg/mediaFOOTNOTES - releases/mr20160905a.html Assessment of risks that commercial fishing methods may pose to conservation values identified in the Areas for Further Assessment of the North 2. andMary North Lack- westShellack Marine Pty Regions,Ltd, 2010.

Prepared for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra,Assessment ACT, Australia. of risks that commercial fishing methods may pose to conservation values of the South-west Marine Region, 3. Commonwealth of Australia, 2010. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, ACT, Australia. Assessment of risks that commercial fishing methods may pose to conservation values identified in the Areas for Further Assessment of 4. theMorison, East Marine A.K., and Region, McLoughlin, K., 2010.

Report to Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 5. Beeton, R. J. S., Buxton, C. D., Cochrane, P., Dittmann, S. and Pepperell, J. G. (2015). Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review: Report of the Expert Scientific Panel. Department of the Environment, Canberra. 6. Also noting the three specific exceptions made by the ESP. 7. Buxton, C. D. and Cochrane, P. (2015). Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review: Report of the BioregionalThe Advisory Coalition’s Panel. policy Department for a more of competitive the Environment, and sustainable Canberra. fisheries 341pp. sector, 8. Coalition, 2013. August 2013 Marine Reserves Review – Terms of Reference, 9. Commonwealth of Australia, 2014, 10. In upholding the results of the FGRA the ESP documented three specific exceptions. Trawling by the Northern Prawn Trawl Fishery in the Gulf of Carpentaria Marine Reserve, trawling by the Northern Territory Demersal Fishery in the Oceanic Shoals and Arafura Reserves, and trawling by the West Australian South-west Trawl and South Coast Trawl in the Geographe Bay and Bremer Marine Reserves. 11. The zone is called Habitat Protection Zone (Reefs) 12. Domeier ML, Speare P (2012) Dispersal of Adult Black Marlin (Istiompax indica) from a Great Barrier Reef Spawning Aggregation. PLoS ONE 7(2): e31629. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031629 13. http://www.billfish.org/research/uncovering-population-structure-black-marlin/

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 53 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______14. De Brett Seafood Pty Ltd, 4 Seas Pty Ltd, Whan and Boxsell Pty Ltd and Great Barrier Reef Tuna Pty Ltd, 2012. Submission to the Draft Commonwealth Marine Reserve Proposal for the Coral Sea. 15. Larcombe, J & Marton, N 2016, Potential displacement of commercial fisheries by a Commonwealth marine reserve zoning scheme: Report on Panel-recommended network. ABARES technical report to client prepared for the Department of the Environment, Canberra, September. CC BY 3.0. Fishery status reports 2015, 16. Patterson, H, Georgeson, L, Stobutzki, I & Curtotti, R (ed) 2015, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra. CC BY 3.0

17. ABARES doesO not specify what proportion of this impact is within the Coral Sea Zone (west of 152 E, formerly called Area E) of the fishery where operators must also hold a Coral Sea boat statutory fishing right (SFR) (see http://www.afma.gov.au/wp- content/uploads/2014/08/ETBF-management-arrangements-booklet-2015.pdf). In the annual status report ABARES also does not document how many Coral Sea boat SFR exist. Therefore there may be a disproportionate impact on particular operators based on the current spatial management arrangements in the fishery. 18. The actual profit or loss can’t easily be estimated on the basis of the publicly available information. This figure is provided for context, to provide a ballpark figure if the costs and species caught are relatively uniform across the fishery. If this area contains higher value species caught and/or costs are lower then the profit may be somewhat higher and vice versa. 19. https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/monitoring-our-fisheries/data- reports/sustainability-reporting/queensland-fisheries-summary/east-coast-otter- trawl-fishery Geomorphic Features of the Continental Margin of Australia 20. Harris, P, Heap, A, Passlow, V, Sbaffi, L, Fellows, M, Porter-Smith, R, Buchanan, C, & J Daniell. 2005. . Geoscience Australia, RecordInterim 2003/30, estimates 142pp. of potential catch and gross value of production impacts of the proposed marine reserve in the Coral Sea 21. ABARES 2012, , ABARES report to client prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, February. Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2013/14: The State of the Fisheries. 22. Fletcher, W.J. and Santoro, K. (eds). (2014). Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. 23. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/14549/0 24. For example see http://www.pressreader.com/australia/albany- advertiser/20160623/281672549239994 25. With the exception of demersal longlining within the Kangaroo Island Marine Reserves. 26. $3,095 per active vessel in the fishery. Status Reports of the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources of Western Australia 2012/13:The State of the Fisheries. 27. Fletcher, W.J. and Santoro, K. (eds). (2013). Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. Fishery status reports 2013–14, 28. Georgeson, L, Stobutzki, I & Curtotti, R (eds) 2014, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 54 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves Fishery status reports 2011, ______29. Woodhams, J, Vieira, S & Stobutzki, I (eds) 2012, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra. 30. ABARES annual fishery status reports. 31. The Recreational Use Zones (IUCN IV) at Ningaloo, and Ashmore Reef. 32. There is no documentation on pelagic gillnetting in the BAP report; however, the ABARES economic assessment shows displacement of all gillnets across all zones in all WA fisheries in the North-west Marine Reserve Network.

33. Fairbridge, R.W., 1950. Recent and Pleistocene coral reefs of Australia, Journal of the RoyalGeology Society 58: 330 of Western–401 in Collins,Australia, L., 2011. Geological setting, marine geomorphology, sediments and oceanic shoals growth history of the Kimberley Region, 94: 89Rowley-105. Shoals Marine Park Management Plan 2007-2017, 34. Government of Western Australia, 2007. Department of EnvironmentThe North and Conservation,-west Marine Bioregional Perth, Western Plan: Australia. Bioregional Profile, 35. Commonwealth of Australia, 2008. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Kingston, Tasmania, Australia. Assessment of risks that commercial fishing methods may pose to conservation values identified in the Areas for Further Assessment of the North 36. andMary North Lack- westShellack Marine Pty Regions,Ltd, 2010.

Prepared for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 37. The BAP proposes two partially protected zone types in the North-west Reserve Network, which don’t allow fish trapping: the Recreational Use Zone and the Habitat Protection Zone. 38. The Recreational Use Zone (IUCN IV) at Elizabeth Reef and the Habitat Protection Zone (Lord Howe) at Lord Howe Island. Fishery status reports 2013–14, 39. Georgeson, L, Stobutzki, I & Curtotti, R (eds) 2014, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra. 40. The actual profit or loss can’t easily be estimated on the basis of the publicly available information. This figure is provided for context, to provide a ballpark figure if the costs and species caught are relatively uniform across the fishery. If this area contains higher value species caught and/or costs are lower then the profit may be somewhat higher and vice versa. Due to the distance from port costs in this area are likely to be relatively high, particularly when fuel prices are higher. Independent review of NSW commercial fisheries policy, management and administration, 41. Stevens, R., Cartwright, I., and Neville, P., 2012. commissioned by the NSW Department of Primary Industries impacts of proposed marine reserves in the Temperate East Marine Region 42. ABARES 2012, , ABARES report to client prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, February. 43. Dominion Consulting Pty Ltd, 2004. An assessment of economic and social issues in the New South Wales Ocean Trawl Fishery Management Strategy, Report to NSW Fisheries,

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 55 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves Interim estimates of potential catch and gross value of production impacts ______of proposed marine reserves in the Temperate East Marine Region 44. ABARES 2012, , ABARES report to client prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, February. 45. http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/44070/0 46. The zone type is Habitat Protect Zones (IUCN IV). 47. Vieira, S, Perks, C, Mazur, K, Curtotti, R and Li, M 2010, Impact of the structural adjustment package on the profitability of Commonwealth fisheries, ABARE research report 10.01, Canberra, February. Administration of the buyback component of the Securing Our Fishing Future structural adjustment package, 48. Commonwealth of Australia, 2009. Australian National Audit Office, Canberra,Interim ACT, Australia. estimates of potential catch and gross value of production impacts of draft marine reserves in the North Marine Region 49. ABARES 2011, , ABARES report to client prepared for the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra, November. 50. Fry, G.C., Barwick, M, Lawrence, E. and Tonks, M. (2015) Monitoring interactions with bycatch species using crew-member observer data collected in the Northern Prawn Fishery: 2013 – 2014. Final Report to AFMA; R2013/0806. CSIRO, Australia. Pp. 218. 51. IUCN red list: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/11534/0 52. IUCN red list: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/8005/0 53. IUCN red list: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/4615/0 54. IUCN red list: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/3897/0 55. IUCN red list: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/18584848/0 56. IUCN red list: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39389/0 57. IUCN red list: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39393/0 58. Kenyon R.A., Jarrett A.E., Bishop J.F.B., Taranto T.J., Dichmont C.M., Zhou S. (2005). Documenting the history of and providing protocols and criteria for changing existing and establishing new closures in the NPF: Final Report to AFMA (AFMA Project R02/0881). AFMA Final Research Report. Australian Fisheries Management Authority. PO Box 7051, Canberra Business Centre, ACT, 2610. pp.157. 59. NT Fishery Status Reports: https://dpif.nt.gov.au/publications 60. 2016 application for reassessment under the EPBC Act of the Northern Territory Demersal Fishery 61. https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/monitoring-our-fisheries/data- reports/sustainability-reporting/queensland-fisheries-summary/gulf-of-carpentaria- inshore-fin-fish-fishery#30

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 56 Commercial fishing in Australia’s Marine Reserves ______

APPENDIX 1: DATA USED Dataset: Source:

Boundaries of BAP proposals Shapefile: Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review – Recommended zoning for Australia's network of Commonwealth marine reserves. Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, 2016 proposals Buxton, C. D. and Cochrane, P. (2015). Commonwealth Marine Reserves Review: Report of the Bioregional Advisory Boundaries of zones Panel. Department of the Environment, Canberra. 341pp. proclaimed in 2013 Shapefile: Australia's network of Commonwealth Marine Reserves. © Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Government Department of the Environment and Energy, 2014. proclaimed in 2013 Downloaded from Australian Government: Department of Environment and Energy website: Assessments DSEWPC (2010). Assessment of risks that commercial fishing methods may pose to conservation values of the South-west Marine Region - Discussion Paper.

Lack, M (2010). Assessment of risks that commercial fishing methods may pose to conservation values identified in the Areas for Further Assessment of the North and North-west Marine Regions.

Morison, A. K. & McLouglin, K. (2010). Assessment of risks that commercial fishing methods may pose to conservation values identified in the Areas for Further Assessment of the East Marine Region.

Centre for Conservation Geography: Version 1.0, October 2016 Page 57