SCS Global Services
AUSTRALIA BLUE GRENADIER FISHERY MSC FULL-ASSESSMENT PUBLIC CERTIFICATION REPORT
Prepared for: Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing Pty. Ltd. and Sanford Ltd.
ABARES (2012): Line Drawing – Rosalind Poole
DATE OF FIELD AUDIT 20-21/01/2014 Public Certification Report: August 2015
Prepared by: Dr. Sabine Daume, SCS Global Services, Team Leader and Principle 2 Kevin McLoughlin, Principle 1 and 2 Sascha Brand-Gardner, Principle 3
Natural Resources Division Sustainable Seafood Certification Program SCS Global Services [email protected]
SCSglobalservices.com
Table of Contents
Glossary ...... 4 1. Executive Summary ...... 6 2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 7 3. Description of the Fishery ...... 8 3.1 Unit(s) of Certification (UoC) and scope of certification sought ...... 8 3.1.1 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 9 3.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) ...... 9 3.2 Overview of the Fishery ...... 9 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 14 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 18 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 29 3.5.12 Details of any planned Education and Training for Interest Groups...... 37 3.5.13 Date of Next Review and Audit of the Management Plan...... 37 4. Evaluation Procedure ...... 38 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 38 4.2 Previous Assessments ...... 38 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 38 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 40 4.4.1 Site Visited and People Interviewed ...... 40 4.4.2 Consultations ...... 40 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 40 5 Traceability ...... 44 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 44 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 44 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 45 6 Evaluation Results ...... 46 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 46 6.2 Summary of Scores ...... 46 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 47 6.3.1 Recommendations ...... 47 6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 47 References ...... 48 Appendices ...... 52 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 52 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 52
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 2 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services
Appendix 1.2 Conditions ...... 142 Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports ...... 147 Appendix 3. Stakeholder Submissions ...... 179 3.1 Written Submissions made by Stakeholders during Consultation Opportunities and Explicit Responses from the Assessment Team to Stakeholder Submissions ...... 179 3.2 Submissions made by Stakeholders about the Public Comment Draft Report in Full, Together with the Explicit Responses of the Assessment Team ...... 181 Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency ...... 191 Appendix 5. Client Agreement ...... 191
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 3 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services
Glossary AAT Administrative Appeals Tribunal ABARES Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority AFZ Australian Fishing Zone ASI Accreditation Services International
B and B0 Biomass and un-fished biomass BG Blue Grenadier
BLIM Limit Biomass
BMEY Maximum Economic Yield Biomass
BMSY Maximum Sustainable Yield Biomass
BTARG Target Biomass CB Certifying Body CCAMLR Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources CEO Chief Executive Officer CHSP Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy CITES Convention on International Trade In Endangered Species CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort
CPUETARG Target Catch Per Unit Effort CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization CTS Commonwealth Trawl Sector DAFF Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry DAT Default Assessment Tree DotE Department of the Environment EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EPBC Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Protection Act ERA Ecological Risk Assessment ERM Ecological Risk Management ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected species ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development FAA Fisheries Administration Act FAM Fisheries Assessment Methodology v2.1 FAO Food and Agriculture Organization [of the United Nations] FMA Fisheries Management Act FRDC Fisheries Research and Development Corporation
FTARG Target Fishing Mortality HSF Harvest Strategy Framework HSP Harvest Strategy Policy ISMP Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program ITQ Individual transferable quota IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 4 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services
IUU Illegal, Unregulated and Unreported Km Kilometres LRP Limit Reference Point MAC Management Advisory Committee MEY Maximum Economic Yield MPA Marine Protected Area MR Macquarie Ridge MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NGO Non-Government Organisation Nm Nautical Miles PI Performance Indicator PSA Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis R Recruitment RAG Resource Assessment Group RBC Recommended Biological Catch SAFE Susceptibility Assessment of Fishing Effects SB Spawning Biomass SCS Scientific Certification Systems, SCS Global Services SEF South East Fishery SEMAC South East Management Advisory Committee SESSF Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery SESSFRAG Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Resource Assessment Group SETFIA South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association SFR Statutory Fishing Right SG Scoring Guidepost SlopeRAG Slope Resource Assessment Group SS Stock Synthesis SSB Spawning Stock Biomass t Metric tonne TAB Technical Advisory Board [of the MSC] TAC Total Allowable Catch TAFE Technical and Further Education TRP Target Reference Point UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UoC Unit of Certification WTO Wildlife Trade Operation WWF World Wide Fund for Nature
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 5 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services
1. Executive Summary
SCS is an independent third-party conformity assessment body (CAB) that has undertaken the MSC assessment of the Australia blue grenadier fishery in accordance with the MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fishing. The assessment complies with the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 (January 2013) and the guidance to the Certification Requirements v1.3 (January 2013).
The team selected to undertake the assessment includes three team members.
These are: . Dr. Sabine Daume, SCS Team Leader and Principle 2 Expert . Mr. Kevin McLoughlin, Principle 1 and Principle 2 Expert . Ms. Sascha Brand-Gardner, Principle 3 Expert
The team met with fishery representatives and scientists in Hobart, Australia on January 20th-22nd, 2014. Documents were presented by fishery representatives and fisheries scientists. Client representatives were thorough in their approach and provided the assessment team with supporting documents. Additional information was requested following the onsite visit and discussed in conference call and by emails until the client draft report was sent to the client in December 2014. In this report, we provide the rationales for all scores proposed. Detailed rationales are presented for all Performance Indicators (PIs) under Principle 1 (Stock status and Harvest strategy), Principle 2 (Ecosystem Impact) and Principles 3 (Governance, Policy and Management system) of the MSC Standard. Under Principle 2, separate scores for the two gear types (midwater and demersal trawl) were assigned for retained and bycatch species (PIs 2.1.1- 2.2.3). However, the two gear types were not scored separately for ETP, habitat and ecosystem because the information available was not gear type specific. The score assigned is based on the worst case scenario.
We give details on why PI 2.4.3 for information on habitat impacts and PI 3.2.3 on compliance and enforcement do not achieve a score of 80. Average scores for all Principles are over 80 (for more details see Table 6.1) and therefore certification is recommended for this fishery.
Please note that the scores presented below are in draft and may change due to comments and supporting evidence received by the client, peer reviewer or the public. No score is final until the final certification report that contains the certification decision is issued.
Actions are required by the client to close the conditions set out in this report for PI 2.4.3 and PI 3.2.3, both of which scored below 80. The client has proposed an action plan for meeting the conditions (for more details see Tables 6.3 with proposed timelines as well as the client action plan under Appendix 1.2).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 6 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services
2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers
Assessment Team:
The assessment team included one team leader (Dr. Sabine Daume) and two independent fisheries experts (Mr. McLoughlin and Ms. Brand-Gardner). As outlined below, the assessment team meets the requirements of the MSC Certification Requirements v 1.3 (2013).
Dr. Sabine Daume – SCS Global Services (SCS), MSC team leader
Dr. Daume is the Regional Director for the SCS Sustainable Seafood Program in Australasia, which covers MSC, ASC and Fisheries Improvement programs. Since joining SCS in 2009, Dr. Daume has led numerous MSC evaluation audits on behalf of SCS, including several large and controversial assessments, and several in Australia. Dr Daume is a marine biologist with special expertise in the biology and ecology of exploited marine resources with a particular emphasis on invertebrates. Dr. Daume has over 13 years’ experience working closely with the fishing and aquaculture industry in Australia. She holds a PhD in marine biology from La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia and an MSc in Marine Biology and Marine Chemistry from Kiel University in Germany. Prior to joining SCS, Dr. Daume worked as a Senior Research Scientist at the Research Division of the Department of Fisheries in Western Australia. She has extensive experience working with diverse groups, often in remote marine temperate and tropical environments. She has worked with industry personnel at all levels (divers, technicians, managers, executive officers) as well as policy makers and managers in government departments. Dr. Daume led the WA rock lobster in 2011 and Heard Island and McDonald Islands (HIMI) icefish re-assessment in 2010 as well as the South Australian Lakes and Coorong annual surveillance and re-assessment in 2013. She also led the HIMI toothfish assessment in 2010 and Macquarie Island toothfish assessment in 2011, as well as numerous audits in USA, Canada, Mexico and Japan. Dr. Daume has been trained by the MSC to use the Risk Based Framework (RBF) of the MSC Certification Requirements (v1.3 Jan 2013). She is a certified lead auditor under the ISO 9001:2008 standard.
Mr. Kevin McLoughlin - Fishery Consultant
Mr. McLoughlin is a fisheries consultant based in Australia who worked for more than 20 years (until 2008) with the Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences (BRS) as a Senior Fisheries Scientist engaged in a wide range of international and domestic fisheries issues, with close links to government policy. He represented BRS on many committees and groups, such as fishery assessment groups, providing advice on a wide range of fisheries and species (including shark, various finfish, scallop, prawn and tuna). Work in these assessment groups involved assessment of target species, development of bycatch action plans and ecological risk assessments. Mr. McLoughlin led the Demersal Fisheries Section within BRS for a number of years, undertaking and supervising research on Australia’s demersal fish stocks. Mr. McLoughlin represented Australia on scientific issues at the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and was Chair of the IOTC Working Party on Bycatch from its inception, assisting to establish this group to investigate the ecological aspects of the Indian Ocean tuna fisheries. In 2006, he led Australia’s delegation to 2006 scientific meetings of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 7 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services
Relevant MSC experience includes being a member of a team that conducted a pre-assessment for Australia’s Commonwealth government-managed fisheries that included this fishery. He was a peer reviewer for the New Zealand albacore troll fishery and for the North and South Pacific American Albacore Fishing Association fisheries. Mr. McLoughlin has undertaken training courses on MSC Fishery Assessment. Kevin also works outside of MSC on a range of fisheries sustainability issues.
Ms. Sascha Brand-Gardner - Department of Fisheries Western Australia – Fisheries Manager
Ms. Brand-Gardner is a fishery manager at the Department of Fisheries in Western Australia. She has over 10 years of experience in fisheries policy, project management and liaison with the fishing industry. Prior to this, Ms. Brand-Gardner worked on several marine research projects related to protected species, fishery and fishery habitats. Sascha has been part of the Western Rock Lobster Fishery management team, which was the first fishery in the world to gain MSC certification, and completed the MSC fishery assessment training in Perth. Ms. Brand-Gardner also has extensive management experience in multi species fisheries including the marine aquarium, coral and specimen shell managed fisheries. She is currently working on the environmental impacts of aquaculture and developing an environmental monitoring program to encourage sustainable development of aquaculture in Western Australia.
3. Description of the Fishery
3.1 Unit(s) of Certification (UoC) and scope of certification sought
The fishery is within scope of the MSC certification requirements. The winter spawning blue grenadier fishery is currently a small fishery with one licence, operated by the client, Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing, who plan to use the vessels Meridian-1, Rehua or a similar vessel, and one licence operated by Sanford, who plan to use the vessel, the San Enterprise, or a similar vessel. The unit of certification is limited to freezer factory vessels, using either midwater or demersal trawl gear, fresh vessels are not included. There are additional three to four boats that also fish Blue Grenadier and operate midwater and demersal trawl nets (Table 1 below). All licence holders are potentially eligible to share the certificate providing they successfully negotiate commercial terms with the current clients.
Table 1: Units of Certification
2 Units of Certification Species Blue Grenadier (Macruronus novaezelandie) Geographical Area Southern Ocean, around Tasmania within the EEZ of Australia Methods of capture 1. Demersal Trawl and 2. Midwater Trawl Management System Input controls: limited entry, gear restrictions, move on requirement for sensitive species, spatial closures. Output controls: TAC Client Group Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing P/L and Sanford Ltd.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 8 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services
3.1.1 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries
N.A. This fishery is not enhanced.
3.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF)
N.A. This fishery is not based on an introduced species.
3.2 Overview of the Fishery
Blue Grenadier are caught in trawl sectors of Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF), managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA). The SESSF is a multi-sector, multi-gear and multispecies fishery, targeting a variety of fish and shark stocks and is the largest Commonwealth-managed fishery in terms of volume. The SESSF was established in 2003 through the amalgamation of four fisheries. The management area covers almost half the area of the Australian Fishing Zone (Figure 1). Across the SESSF, 28 species (including Blue Grenadier) are subject to annual quotas as the major management tool, though there are also a range of input controls on the fishery. Quota species comprise around 80% of the SESSF commercial landed catch. Total allowable catches, implemented as Individual Transferable Quotas, have been in place for Blue Grenadier since the early 1990s.
In the SESSF, Statutory Fishing Rights (SFRs) allow the holder to take a particular quantity of fish (quota SFR) or use a boat in the fishery (boat SFR). SFRs can be permanently transferred or leased to another person or company. Fishing permits allow a fisher to use a nominated boat in a specific area of the fishery using a method specified on the fishing permit. To fish, a concession holder must have their fishing concession and quota SFRs nominated to a boat specific to the sector in which they intend to fish. Quota SFRs must be nominated to the same boat used to take the quota species. To nominate quota SFRs, boat SFR or permit to a boat, all concessions must be held in the same name or by the same entity. These requirements are detailed in the SESSF Management Plan 2003 (as amended in 2009).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 9 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services
Figure 1. Australia’s Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF). Source: Australian Fisheries Management Authority.
Current management arrangements are structured around four primary sectors: the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS, formerly and technically incorrectly still known as the South East Trawl Fishery); the East Coast Deepwater Trawl Sector; the Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector; and the Gillnet, Hook and Trap Sector. Blue Grenadier are taken predominantly in the CTS, in two defined sub- fisheries: the spawning and non-spawning fisheries. Spawning Blue Grenadier aggregate off Western Tasmania from June to early September (Tilzey et al. 2006). The UoC catches are taken within CTS operating on these spawning aggregations. Figure 2 shows the relative fishing intensity for all species taken by the CTS in the 2012-13 fishing season (fishing seasons are from 1 May to 30 April each year).
Reported CTS Blue Grenadier landings in the 2012–13 season were 3952t out of the TAC of 5208t (Woodhams et al. 2013). Catches from the winter spawning fishery are shown in Tables 3 and 4. An average annual catch of Blue Grenadier of approximately 970t was taken by demersal trawling over the years 2009 to 2013, whereas approximately 2100 t per year was taken by midwater trawling over the same period.
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 10 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services
Figure 2. Relative fishing intensity in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector for the 2012-13 fishing season (Source: Woodhams et al., 2013).
In 1998, the annual catch of the winter spawning fishery exceeded 5000t for the first time. The entry in 1997 of large, chartered, freezer trawlers that are allowed to target the winter spawning fishery only boosted catches. Three freezer trawlers fished in 1999 and two in 2000 and subsequent years. One or two freezer vessels have fished the spawning aggregation annually since then. Catch rates in the winter spawning fishery have been variable. Table 2 presents historical CTS catches and total allowable catches for Blue Grenadier.
Blue Grenadier comprise close to 98% of catches by freezer trawlers operating on the winter spawning fishery (Tables 4 and 5). All catch is retained by these vessels and processed on-board. At- sea processing on factory ships participating in this fishery includes the sorting, heading and gutting, filleting, freezing and packaging of Blue Grenadier. Skinless fillets of Blue Grenadier (and potentially other species taken) are the prime product. Other retained species are generally processed in the fish meal plant.
The Blue Grenadier spawning biomass is estimated to have declined continuously from 1979, increased sharply in 2000, and peaked in 2001 when strong 1994 and 1995 year-classes matured. There were no strong year classes between 1996 and 2002, and the spawning biomass declined from 2001 as the abundance of the two strong cohorts diminished (Larcombe and Begg, 2008).
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 11 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services
Table 2. Landed and discarded catches for the winter spawning and non-spawning sub-fisheries by calendar year (scaled up to the landings data) and total allowable catches (Adapted from Tuck, 2013). 1 a voluntary industry reduction to 4200t was implemented in 2005. 2 This was a 16 month TAC. 3 The TACs cover the fishing year 1 May to 30 April. In the table below, 2008 refers to 2008/09. 4 This is an estimate of retained catch based on the 2012/2013 TAC and relative split of catch between spawning and non-spawning fisheries of 2012. Year Landings Discards TAC Spawning Non-spawning Non-spawning 1979 245 245 1980 410 410 1981 225 225 1982 390 390 1983 450 450 1984 675 675 1985 600 600 1986 317 1807 1987 1006 2183 1988 410 2228 1989 46 2745 1990 733 2508 1991 819 3764 1992 710 2549 1993 994 2368 1994 1211 1940 10000 1995 1205 1570 80 10000 1996 1496 1544 975 10000 1997 2947 1569 3716 10000 1998 3746 1986 1329 10000 1999 6775 2549 123 10000 2000 6608 2047 69 10000 2001 8004 1120 10 10000 2002 7843 1318 2 10000 2003 7745 726 3 9000 2004 5064 1327 15 7000 2005 3024 1259 310 50001 2006 2193 1420 104 3730 2007 1891 1280 5 41132 2008 2692 1239 19 43683 2009 2295 964 15 47003 2010 3119 1066 10 47003 2011 3342 859 126 47003 2012 3447 557 192 52083 2013 44844 7244 52083
AFMA has established a system of management and scientific committees to provide advice to the AFMA Fisheries Commission who decide on the management of its fisheries. These committees are expertise based and draw representation from industry, fisheries management, the scientific community and the environment/conservation sector. The Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Resource Assessment Group (SESSFRAG) is the key research and scientific committee for the SESSF. SESSFRAG provides advice to the Commission and AFMA on issues affecting Resource Assessment Groups (RAGs) at the sector level. The status of fish stocks, sub stocks, species (target and non-target), the impact of fishing on the marine environment and the type of information needed for stock assessments. The SlopeRAG is one such sector level RAG and is responsible for the
Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 12 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services
monitoring, assessment and reporting for upper continental slope and deepwater species including Blue Grenadier.
The Australian Government introduced a Harvest Strategy Policy (HSP) in 2007. The objective of the policy is the maintenance of sustainable and profitable fisheries through the implementation of harvest strategies that maintain key commercial stocks at ecologically and economically sustainable levels. Table 3 gives an overview of the aims of the policy in terms of desirable stock size and levels of fishing mortality. A tiered harvest strategy framework (HSF) has been applied in the SESSF since 2005 (Woodhams et al. 2013). The framework has evolved since its introduction, particularly after the release of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy (DAFF 2007). The current SESSF HSF applies to all sectors and all species under quota. The HSF has three tiers, (Tiers 1, 3 and 4; Tier 2 were phased out) which have been developed to accommodate different levels of data quality or knowledge about stocks (AFMA 2009). Tier 1 assessments are quantitative, model-based stock assessments that are conducted for stocks with the highest quality of data or information. The Tier 3 assessment methodology primarily involves catch-curve analyses of age (or size) composition data, together with information on size-at-maturity and selectivity, to provide estimates of fishing mortality rates. Tier 4 involves an assessment of trends in catch rates, and is undertaken for stocks for which only catch-and-effort data are available. Blue Grenadier is currently evaluated as a Tier 1 species.
Table 3. Mortality rate and biomass reference points (Source: Larcombe and Begg 2008)
FISHING MORTALITY F < FTARG FTARG < F < FLIM F > FLIM RATE (F)
B >= BTARG Not overfished; Not overfished; Not overfished; overfishing is not overfishing is not overfishing is occurring— occurring—can increase occurring, but reduce possible fish-down, but fishing mortality fishing mortality need to reduce fishing
mortality
BTARG > B > BLIM Not overfished, but Not overfished, but Not overfished, but rebuild stock to BTARG; rebuild stock; overfishing rebuild stock; overfishing overfishing is not is not occurring, but is occurring—reduce
occurring reduce fishing mortality fishing mortality BIOMASS(B) B < BLIM Overfished—adopt and Overfished—adopt and Overfished—overfishing follow rebuilding plan; follow rebuilding plan; is occurring; high risk overfishing is not overfishing is not area— reduce fishing occurring occurring, but reduce mortality, adopt and fishing mortality follow rebuilding plan
Target and limit reference points for each tier are the same and are consistent with those prescribed in the HSP. All tier levels generate a recommended biological catch (RBC) through associated harvest control rules (AFMA 2009), intended to move stock biomass towards the target reference point. These RBCs are translated into TACs through a set of predetermined rules, which include deductions for discarding, recreational catches and state catches. The level of precaution applied in RBCs is intended to increase from Tier 1 to Tier 4, reflecting the increasing level of uncertainty in assessments and as such Tier 3 and Tier 4 assessments are discounted before being issued as a total allowable catch (TAC). Advice on the RBC is passed from the SlopeRAG to SEMAC. The AFMA Commission then consider three pieces of advice; AFMA’s, the RAGs and the SEMACs when setting TACs. The SESSF Resource Assessment Group (SESSFRAG) has also produced guidelines on the implementation of the various post-assessment modifiers known as meta-rules (recent catch-rate Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 13 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services
modifiers, minimum and maximum change rules, and discount factors). Multiyear TACs have been adopted for some stocks because of the substantial management time and research resources required to set annual TACs. Breakout rules have been adopted which specify circumstances for re- evaluating the stock during the period of the multiyear TAC and there can be management intervention if trends in stock status are different from those expected.
A multiyear TAC of 4700t for Blue grenadier was implemented for the seasons 2009–10 to 2011–12. In 2011, SlopeRAG agreed that the stock still met the criteria for a multiyear TAC, and a new two- year TAC of 5208t commenced in the 2012–13 season. Breakout rules for the multiyear TAC are based on four criteria, including whether CPUE fell outside the 95 per cent confidence interval predicted by the assessment. In 2012, SlopeRAG determined that the fishery had not breached the breakout rules and recommended that the multiyear TAC be retained for the 2013–14 season.
Information about each fishing operation and about catches taken in the SESSF must be accurately and fully recorded and submitted to AFMA in the logbooks and Catch Disposal Records. The logbook provides for the recording of information on the location, time, gear and method of fishing as well as the estimated resultant catch for each fishing operation. Catch disposal records provide for reporting of accurate and verified catch landings.
Scientific monitoring of trawl fishing in southeast Australia has occurred since the end of 1992. The Integrated Scientific Monitoring Programme (ISMP) has been implemented in the SESSF since 2000. A main objective of the ISMP is to provide information that can be used to evaluate the performance of the fishery, and assist assessments of stock status either directly through the stock assessment process or as fishery indicators. Data collected includes information on the quantity, size and age composition of the retained and discarded catch of quota and non-quota species caught in the SESSF (Knuckey and Gason, 2001). A secondary aim is to provide information on fishing vessel interactions with wildlife, especially endangered, threatened and protected species (ETPs), which are protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background
Target Species and Life History
Blue Grenadier occur from New South Wales, around southern Australia to Western Australia, including around the coast of Tasmania (Tuck 2013). Blue Grenadier is not a low trophic level species. The prey of Blue Grenadier includes fish, squid and crustaceans. Separate stocks are fished by the Great Australian Bight Trawl Sector and CTS in depths of 450-800 m. There is some evidence that Blue Grenadier from the western Tasmanian and eastern Bass Strait regions of the CTS are unlikely to be part of one highly mixed south eastern Australian stock (Hamer et al. 2009), however they are treated as a single stock across this range in the assessment. The implications of these findings for the assessment have not yet been fully examined but the large majority of the catch is taken from western Tasmania and western Bass Strait.
Blue Grenadier mature at approximately 4 years for males and 5 years for females (length at 50% maturity for females is 57cm and 64cm respectively) and live up to 25 years (Tuck 2013). Maximum size is approximately 110cm total length and 6kg weight. There is evidence that availability to the gear on the spawning ground differs by gender, with a higher proportion of small males being caught Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 14 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services
than females (Tuck 2013), probably due to the arrival of males on the spawning ground at a smaller size (and younger age) than females. Spawning occurs predominantly off western Tasmania in winter, with most spawning occurring north of Macquarie Harbour. Russell and Smith (2006) indicate that the peak spawning period (based upon mean gonosomatic indices calculated by month) was estimated to be between June and August, though some spawning occurs in May and in September. There is some evidence that a high proportion of fish remain spawning in September. Large fish arrive earlier in the spawning season than small fish. The continental shelf in the spawning grounds abuts several canyons running down the slope (Tilzey et al. 2006). The upper reaches of these canyons are spawning sites favored by blue grenadier. Adults and spawners typically exhibit diurnal migration, rising into the water column at night and staying close to the bottom, mainly in depths between 300m and 600m, during the day. Thus, both bottom and mid-water trawls have been used.
Harvest Strategy
The SESSF HSF sets out management actions necessary to achieve defined biological and economic objectives, and describes the indicators used for monitoring the condition of stocks, the types of assessments conducted and the rules applied to determine TACs (AFMA 2009). Each Tier has its own harvest control rule (HCR) that is used to determine the RBC. The RBCs provide the best scientific advice on what the total fishing mortality (landings from all sectors plus discards) should be for each species/stock. For all Tier levels, once the RBC is determined from the results of the assessment and the application of the relevant HCR, a recommended TAC is calculated based on established rules.
Blue Grenadier have a well-established quantitative stock assessment, hence it is evaluated as a Tier 1 species and the harvest control rule is based on the following reference points (AFMA 2009):
The limit biomass BLIM – represents the spawning biomass level below which the risk to the stock is unacceptably high and the stock is defined as “overfished”. The default BLIM proxy is B20 = 20% of the unfished spawning biomass.
The BMSY – represents the spawning biomass level which would result in a maximum sustainable yield (MSY), which is the point at which additional fishing effort is most likely to
decrease the total catch and any profit. The default BMSY proxy is B40 = 40% of the unfished spawning biomass.
The target biomass BTARG – represents the spawning biomass level, which would result in a maximum economic yield (MEY), which is the point at which the sustainable catch or effort
level for the fishery maximises profits. BTARG is equal to BMEY, for which the default proxy is approximated by 1.2*BMSY. If the default BMSY proxy is used, this results in B48 = 48% of the unfished spawning biomass.
The recommended maximum fishing mortality rate for Tiers 3 and 4 is FMSY (the default proxy for which is F40). This represents the fishing mortality rate that would cause the spawning biomass to decline to its maximum sustainable biomass BMSY (the default proxy for which is B40). The breakpoint, or HCR inflection point, in the overfishing line in Figure 3 occurs at a biomass corresponding to BMSY.
If B HCR inflection point occurs at a proxy of F35. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 15 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The target fishing mortality rate FTARG represents the fishing mortality rate that would result in a spawning biomass of BTARG (equal to BMEY). The default value for FTARG is F48, the value of F corresponding to a BTARG of B48. Figure 3. Schematic representation of a harvest control rule, showing key reference points (Source: Larcombe and Begg 2008). Status Blue Grenadier have been assessed using an age-structured integrated analysis model since 1998 and has been a Tier 1 species since the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework was introduced in 2005. Recent assessments have been implemented in the generalized stock assessment software package, Stock Synthesis (SS; version 3.24f) (Methot 2011). The assessment model uses estimates of spawning biomass from the results of two egg surveys (in 1994 and 1995) and annual acoustic surveys of the winter spawning aggregation off the west coast of Tasmania that have been made each year since 2003. Catch-per-unit-effort (CPUE) for the spawning sub-fishery is not considered to be a useful index of abundance because the freezer vessels target concentrations of fish and the size of catches is limited to suit vessel processing capacity. The assessment is, however, fitted to the CPUE from the other vessels in the fishery that fish in other locations and other times of the year. The assessment has been regularly updated with new and amended versions of the model including incorporating cohort varying growth after this was first recognised for the strong 2003 and 2004 cohorts. The assessment of Blue Grenadier takes advantage of the ability of SS to account for multiple fleet allocations to represent the different dynamics of the spawning and non-spawning fisheries. Recruitment is governed by a stochastic Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment relationship, parameterized in terms of the steepness of the stock-recruitment In the 2011 assessment of Blue Grenadier, the base case estimated female spawning stock biomass (SB) in 2011 to be 87 per cent of the unfished level (0.87SB0) (Tuck 2012). The most recent Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 16 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services assessment was undertaken in 2013 incorporating data to the 2012 calendar year. The trajectories of spawning biomass and spawning biomass relative to the un-exploited level (and in relation to target and limit reference points) are shown in Figure 4 (Figure 6.9 from Tuck 2013). This shows the increases and decreases in spawning biomass as the strong cohorts move into and out of the spawning population. Results conclude that for the base case model the female spawning biomass in 2012 was around 77% of the unexploited spawning stock biomass (SB0) and in 2014 will be approximately 94%SB0 (Tuck 2013). The marked increase in biomass is due to the estimation of a large cohort in 2010 entering the fishery. While a promising sign for the fishery, Tuck (2013) suggests that the existence and magnitude of this recruitment should be treated with some caution until it can be verified by the addition of further data from future years. For the base case model, the 2014 RBC under the SESSF harvest control rule was estimated at 8138t (more than 150% of the current TAC of 5208t). The estimated long-term RBC is 4155t. A risk assessment was conducted whereby the forecast catches from the base case model (with the 2010 recruitment estimated) were placed into the model with no 2010 recruitment estimation (and vice versa)(Tuck 2013). Results indicated that the Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) trajectory would not move below the target reference point even if the larger forecast catches from the base case model were applied to the model with no 2010 recruitment estimation. Overall, the 2013 assessment indicates that Blue Grenadier are not overfished and not subject to overfishing. Reported landings in 2012-13 were 3952t out of the TAC of 5208t. More than 80% of this catch was taken by the spawning fishery. There was a substantial increase in estimates of discards in 2011 to around 20% of the total catch, but there is uncertainty around this estimate (Woodhams et al. 2013). This high level of discards is attributed to large numbers of small fish following recruitment spikes in 2010. Following the substantial (but uncertain) increase in estimated blue grenadier discards in 2011, discard estimates declined to about 7 per cent in 2012 (Georgeson et al. 2014). Figure 4. The base case model time-series of spawning biomass and relative spawning biomass (Tuck 2013). Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 17 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background Context The Commonwealth Trawl Sector fishery operates within the Australian Fishing Zone extending southward from Barrenjoey Point (north of Sydney) around the New South Wales, Victorian and Tasmanian coastlines to Cape Jervis in South Australia from State waters (generally 3 nautical miles from shore) to the limit of the Australian EEZ. Some vessels (not those within this UoC) are endorsed for fishing within Victorian State waters. Fishing generally occurs at a depth range of 20 to 1300 m (Figure 1). This vast area is host to a large variety and diversity of marine species suited to different ecological conditions. The warm tropical water of the East Australian Current heads down the eastern coast of Australia to Tasmania, meeting and mixing with the cooler, nutrient rich waters of the Southern Ocean. Tasmania’s west coast marine waters are influenced by the Leeuwin current, which flows southward along the Western Australian coastline. This unique mixing of marine waters with differing temperatures and nutrients, alongside the Tasmanian coastline, provides marine species with a variety of environments to inhabit and create a variety of unique ecosystems. An independent assessment of all export and all Australian Government managed fisheries is required under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The assessments are conducted against the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries1, which outlines specific principles and objectives designed to ensure a strategic and transparent way of evaluating the ecological sustainability of fishery management arrangements. The SESSF was first assessed in 2002 and its management plan was accredited pursuant to section 33 of the Act in 2003. The SESSF was also assessed in accordance with the wildlife trade provisions of part 13A of the EPBC Act, and to determine whether the SESSF should be accredited for the purposes of the protected species provisions of Part 13 of the EPBC Act. The most recent accreditation of the SESSF was in February 2013. The SESSF has also been approved as a wildlife trade operation until February 2016. Ecological Risk Assessment AFMA implements an ecological risk management framework for all Australian Commonwealth managed fisheries. These ecological risk assessment methods were developed in Australia and have formed the basis for the risk-based framework now used by the MSC. The Australian approach involves a hierarchical assessment of potential impacts from fishing comprising five components: target species; byproduct and discard species; endangered, threatened, and protected (ETP) species; habitats; and communities. The hierarchy begins with a qualitative Scale, Intensity, Consequence Analysis (SICA) as Level 1. Those species which are flagged as having higher than acceptable risks pass on to semi-quantitative Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) as Level 2, and those which are classified as being at high risk in Level 2 may be subject to a Level 2 Residual Risk Assessment. Assessment beyond Level 2 consists of a quantitative Sustainability Assessment of Fishing Effects (SAFE); this may be implemented as a Level 2.5 assessment (an earlier version of the SAFE) or a Level 1 http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/97ff9461-5ccf-49cb-9368-8bde5f243c0b/files/guidelines.pdf Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 18 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services 3 assessment (the current SAFE). The SAFE methodology estimates fishing impact and compares the impact to sustainability reference points based on basic life-history parameters. The SESSF CTS has been assessed under these methods and results have been incorporated into management strategies such as Bycatch and Discarding Workplans, and in the implementation of various plans of action and recovery plans for ETP species. Further information on the outcomes of AFMA’s ERA for the SESSF is given in the relevant sections below. Ecosystem Model CSIRO has developed a world-leading marine ecosystem modelling framework (Atlantis) to support management, seeking to balance sensible development and resource use with the conservation of biodiversity and functioning marine ecosystems. Atlantis includes the biophysical system, the human users of the system (industry), the three major components of an adaptive management strategy (monitoring, assessment and management decision processes) and socioeconomic drivers of human use and behaviour. A version of the model, Atlantis SE, has been developed to provide strategic advice to AFMA on management of the SESSF. A major project completed in 2007 used Atlantis to assess ecological and socio-economic outcomes of alternative management strategies for the SESSF. The modelling exercise tested management approaches for their effects on: a) fishing practices and fleet behaviour (such as changes in targeting practices) b) fleet size, structure and gear use c) harvest volumes and catch rates for commercial stocks d) habitats e) the composition and structure of the food web f) profitability and trading of quotas g) public perceptions of the fishery h) recovery of ecological systems. Marine Reserves and Parks In 2007, a network of 13 marine protected areas was declared in the South-east marine region. The South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network stretches from the south coast of New South Wales, around Tasmania and Victoria and west to Kangaroo Island off the South Australian Coast. The reserves cover an area of 388 464km2 with a depth range of 40 m - 4600m. The purpose of these reserves is for the conservation of the biodiversity while allowing fishing and sustainable use of natural resources in some areas provided conservation values can be preserved. The reserves include a vast range of ecosystems, habitats and biological communities representative of the South- east Marine Region. The zoning within the South-east network does not permit bottom trawl fishing of any type but some reserves have multiple use zoning (multiple use, shown in light blue in Figure 5) that do allow mid-water trawling. The reserves were selected based on Bioregional Marine Planning, mapping work conducted by Williams et al. (2006) and the ERA work conducted by AFMA. There is a good understanding of the main habitat types in the area of the fishery and information is available to broadly understand the Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 19 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services main impacts of the gear. However, there is limited new information available on the marine habitat structure on a scale relevant to the UoC of this fishery. Figure 5: The Commonwealth Trawl Sector fishing area with marine reserves closed to fishing Habitat Midwater vs Demersal Trawl. Midwater trawl weights may contact the ocean floor occasionally and pelagic habitats will experience some short-term disruption. In a recent study, Tingley (2014) estimated that the frequency with which benthic material is brought up when using midwater trawl gear in New Zealand is relatively low, with six of 238 (3%) midwater tows with a recorded presence of benthic material. Over the same time period, the rate for demersal trawl tows with benthic material was 37%. His study also indicated that any observer data using indication of benthos caught in the net or torn gear is likely to be an underestimate. Some disruption of the water column and its inhabitants will also occur as the net is towed. However, Table 6 (below) shows a wide variety of by-catch species taken in midwater gear, which may be evidence for the gear being used close to or on the seabed and therefore more closely resembling the impact to true demersal gear. Demersal trawl methods could have longer term and more severe effects on habitat structure, depending on the spatial and temporal extent as well of the sensitivity of the habitat. For example, some habitat-creating organisms require significant recovery periods after trawling (e.g. > 8 years for Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 20 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services some sponges, >10 years for corals and often much longer than 10 years (Kaiser et al. 2006; Althaus et al. 2009, Williams et al. 2010; Clark et al. 2012). Extensive habitat mapping has been undertaken in the area where the fishery operates (Williams et al. 2006). The output of this FRDC funded project was a credible, map-linked database that covers the entire offshore region of the SESSF fishery (from 3nm offshore to 1300m depth) with information at scales relevant to fishing operations and spatial planning for conservation and fisheries management needs. The database combines industry data with other relevant information including processed logbook data (resolved to a 1 sq km grid), scientific data on habitats and a habitat classification scheme. Habitat information was provided at multiple spatial scales. The starting units were 516 ‘fishing grounds’, these are classified as four simple categories of terrain (heavy reef, clear sediments and two intermediate classes of mixed reef and sediment), and as features (7 types matching those used for marine protected area development, e.g. canyon, terrace, scarp). Williams et al. (2006) estimated that 26,469 sq km, or about 19% of the SESSF fishery region as defined here (3 nm to 1,300 m depth contour), was trawled during 2001. Therefore overall, more than 80% of the SESSF fishery region was not bottom trawled in 2001 (“untrawlable”), representing considerable potential for developing conservation and fishery managed areas. Based on interviews with fishers CSIRO (Williams et al. 2006 p109) estimated that 53% of the region is untrawlable, with far more untrawlable ground in subregions to the west of Tasmania (76% untrawlable ground; range for individual subregions 52-86%), compared to subregions east of, and including, south Tasmania (15% untrawlable ground; range 0-48%). Approximately 37% of the trawlable area was trawled in 2001. The ERA work identified the high-risk habitats for the trawl sector of the fishery, none were found on the inner shelf (0–100 m), 18 were on the outer shelf (100–200 m), 12 were on the upper slope (200–700 m) and 16 were on the mid-slope (700–1500 m) (Wayte et al. 2007). The high-risk habitats on the outer shelf included soft-sediment seabed types interspersed with harder bottom, supporting large sponges, mixed epifauna, and the bryozoan communities at the shelf break. On the upper slope, the high-risk habitats included several hard-bottom types, dominated by large sponges not seen on the mid-slope, and several soft-bottom habitats based on bryozoan communities, which are restricted to a narrow zone near the shelf break. The high-risk mid-slope habitats include several categories of hard bottom (but still accessible to trawl gear) with delicate epifauna and several types of soft-bottom habitat that support large, erect or delicate epifauna. There is good understanding of the main habitat types in the area of the fishery and information is available to broadly understand the main impacts of the gear. However there is limited new information available on the marine habitat structure on a scale relevant to the fishery. Demersal trawl fishing is generally not expected to cause serious or irreversible harm to any habitats although concerns remain about the impacts on the upper slope areas (200 to 700m deep) where much of the fishing is concentrated. Current closed areas are comprehensive, adequate and representative such that serious or irreversible harm is not expected on a broad regional scale. Closed areas are the main method used to protect habitats. These extensive spatial closures are based on Bioregional Marine Planning, mapping work (Williams et al. 2006) and ERA work (Wayte et Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 21 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services al. 2007). There is also a strategic intent not to allow expansion of the trawl footprint through gear restrictions. Retained and Bycatch Species The catch of the client freezer trawl vessels comprises close to 98% Blue Grenadier. Except for occasions where the client does not hold quota for a quota-managed species or where gear problems may require discarding, all catch is retained by these vessels and processed on board. A summary of logbook data on landings from freezer trawlers supplied to the assessment team by AFMA is presented in Tables 5 and 6, below. Table 5 contains catch information from benthic trawl gear from 2009 to 2013, whereas Table 6 contains catch information from midwater trawl gear for the same period. These data indicate an average annual total catch of approximately 970 t over the 2009 to 2013 period from benthic trawling and an average of approximately 2100 t from midwater trawling. None of the species are taken in sufficient quantity to be classified as a “main” retained species following MSC guidance on weight (Guidance to CR V. 1.3, GCB 3.5.2). The highest catches for species other than Blue Grenadier over this period were Silver Warehou (Seriolella punctata), which averaged approximately 2.3% of the demersal trawl catch and 0.9% of the midwater trawl catch. Catches of all other species were less than 1% of the total for both fishing gears. Small catches of a number of other species managed under quota by AFMA are taken. Under the SESSF harvest strategy some level of assessment is undertaken for quota species using the tiered assessment approach. However, five deepwater shark species are assessed as high risk (see Ecological Risk Assessment, below) and as vulnerable species are considered main retained species for the purpose of this assessment (MSC CR v. 1.3, GCB 3.5.2). Several other species, reported as minor retained catches in Tables 5 and 6, are also assessed as high risk species (Zhou et al. 2012) (see Ecological Risk Assessment, below). Demersal Trawl Minor catches of SESSF quota species are taken in addition to Blue Grenadier and Silver Warehou. These include Blue Warehou (Seriolella brama)2, Blue-eye Trevalla (Hyperoglyphe antarctica), Gemfish (Rexea solandri), Mirror Dory (Zenopsis nebulosus), Pink Ling (Genypterus blacodes) and School Shark (Galeorhinus galeus). Of the non-quota species, Frostfish (Lepidopus caudatus) are the only species with an average annual catch exceeding 1 t over the 5-year period 2009-2013. There are minor catches of deepwater shark or dogfish listed in catch data provided by AFMA, predominantly Greeneye Spurdog with a catch of 253 kg in 2013 (Table 5). Green eye Spurdogs are managed under a zero retention management arrangement due to their similarity to two other EPBC Act listed Upper-slope Dogfish species. This indicates some inconsistency in applying the required measures for zero retention of this species according to the 2013 SESSF Management Arrangements. The assessment team therefore raised a condition under Principle 3 to demonstrate consistent compliance and enforcement and recommends that AFMA and the client compare logbook and observer data for shots where there has been retention of Greeneye Spurdog and investigate the 2 Blue Warehou has recently been listed on the EPBC Act (Feb. 2015) and the team may decide to reconsider this species under ETP at a later stage. The Trawl Sector ERA did consider the species at medium risk (Wayte et al. 2007). Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 22 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services application of the zero retention requirement for this species to ensure future compliance (see condition 2 in Section 6.3.1). As nearly all the catch is processed onboard, there are very few bycatch species in the fishery. The only discarded species reported in logbook data supplied by AFMA for the period 2009-2013 are Silver Warehou (11,386 kg in 2011), Porbeagle Shark2 (50 kg in 2011), Swordfish (70 kg in 2013), Southern Bluefin Tuna3 (390 kg in 2011) and Brier Shark2 (4 kg in 2012) (AFMA 2014b). There were also reported discards of 1500 kg of Blue Grenadier discarded in 2011. Because none of these species are 5% or more of total catch by weight, they are not considered main bycatch species following the MSC guidance GCB 3.8.2 (MSC CR v. 1.3, 2013). Porbeagle Shark was listed on Appendix II of CITES in 2013 but not in Appendix I, and therefore is considered as bycatch in this assessment rather than an ETP species. Porbeagle Shark are potentially vulnerable but the only report of its catch over the 5-year period of the data is 50 kg in 2011 (probably an individual specimen). Porbeagle Sharks are protected under the EPBC Act and must be released if they arrive on the vessel alive. However the EPBC Act provides an exception to these prohibitions where species are caught as bycatch in accordance with management arrangements accredited under Part 13 of the Act” which applies to the SESSF. Porbeagle Shark and Blue Warehou were both assessed as medium risk in the ERA for the CTS. The team considered them not a “main bycatch” for this assessment. Corals, sponges or any other benthic species are not reported as discard species for the fishery over the past 5 years in logbook data (AFMA 2014b) nor in observer reports viewed by the assessment team (AFMA 2013b, AFMA 2013c, AFMA 2013f). Midwater Trawl Retained and bycatch species are an even lower component of the total catch with midwater trawl gear and only minor catches of SESSF quota species are taken in addition to Blue Grenadier and Silver Warehou. Retained species include Blue Warehou, Gemfish, Mirror Dory, Pink Ling, School Shark and Silver Trevally (Pseudocaranx georgianus). As with benthic trawl, frostfish are the only non-quota species with an average annual catch exceeding 1 t over the 5-year period 2009-2013. There are minor catches of deepwater shark or dogfish listed in catch data provided by AFMA, predominantly Greeneye Spurdog with a catch of 122 kg in 2013 (Table 6). Table 4: Current status of the five SESSF quota-managed species with highest freezer trawl catches over the period 2009 to 2013 is shown below (Source: Woodhams et al. 2013). 2012 Status Species Fishing mortality Biomass Blue Warehou Uncertain Overfished Pink Ling Uncertain Not overfished School Shark Subject to overfishing Overfished Silver Trevally Not subject to overfishing Not overfished Silver Warehou Not subject to overfishing Not overfished Note: Persistent differences in biological characteristics and catch rate trends resulted in pink ling being treated as separate stocks east and west of longitude 147°E in more recent assessment. The client fishery operates in the region of the western stock which was found to be not overfished and not subject to overfishing. The eastern stock was found to be not overfished but uncertain if there was overfishing. Because both stocks continue to be managed under a single TAC, ABARES continue to classify both stocks as uncertain if subject to overfishing (Georgeson et al. 2014). Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 23 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services 2 The EPBC Act requires that live Porbeagle Sharks are returned to the water and was possibly a live discard. 3 Cannot be retained under a Trawl Vessel SFR The only discarded species reported for midwater trawl are Silver Warehou (440kg in 2012), Brier Shark (4 kg in 2012) and Giant Squid (200 kg in 2010). Because none of these species are particularly vulnerable and are less than 5% of the total catch by weight, they are not considered main bycatch species following the MSC guidance GCB 3.8.2 (MSC CR v. 1.3 , 2013). There were also reported discards of 78,733kg of Blue Grenadier discarded in 2011. Ecological Risk Assessment As indicated above, a tiered assessment structure is used to assess the status of quota species in the SESSF. In addition, the SESSF has undergone ecological risk assessments for several gear types—otter trawl, auto-longline, Danish-seine and gillnet—that are used across the SESSF sectors. The ecological risk assessment (ERA) is followed by an ecological risk management (ERM) framework developed by AFMA. The methodology applied is a set of screening or prioritization steps that work towards a full quantitative ecological risk assessment (Hobday et al. 2007, Smith et al. 2007). Each step of the methodology, or Level, potentially screens out issues that are of low concern. The scoping stage screens out activities that do not occur in the fishery. Level 1 screens out activities that are judged to have low impact, and potentially screens out whole ecological components as well. Level 2 is a screening or prioritization process for individual species at risk from direct impacts of fishing. The Level 2 methods combine information on productivity and exposure to fishing to assess potential risk. Due to the precautionary approach to uncertainty, there will be more false positives than false negatives at Level 2, and the list of high risk species should not be interpreted as all being at high risk from fishing. Level 2 is a screening process to identify species that require further investigation by using Level 3 methods, a modeling process, which does assess absolute levels of risk. For otter trawl, 600 species were assessed at the Level 2 (Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis; PSA) stage (AFMA 2010b). Of these 600, 159 species were classified as high risk; the majority of the high-risk species were chondrichthyans or teleosts. The Level 3 (Susceptibility Assessment of Fishing Effects; SAFE; Zhou et al. 2007) assessment was then applied, which reduced the number of high-risk species to 23. During the residual risk process, new information was identified that allowed the total number of high-risk species to be reduced to 10. These species include several low-productivity, deepwater sharks, several seabirds and the Australian fur seal (see section on ETP for more details). No teleost species were considered to be high risk following residual risk assessment. Five deepwater shark species were identified as high risk following residual risk assessment: Leafscale Gulper Shark (Centrophorus squamosus), Platypus Shark (Deania quadrispinosa), Harrisson's Dogfish (Centrophorus harrissoni), Greeneye Spurdog (Squalus chloroculus) and Southern Dogfish (Centrophorus zeehani). Of these five species, Platypus Shark, are managed under quota as part of a basket quota set for several other deepwater shark species. Since retention is allowed for these species under the EPBC Act they will be considered as main retained species for the purpose of this assessment. Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish are designated as conservation dependent under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act of 1999. A condition relating to management of Harrisson’s Dogfish, Southern Dogfish, Endeavour Dogfish and Greeneye Spurdog was attached to the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts’ accreditation of the Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 24 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services SESSF as a Wildlife Trade Operation in February 2010. More recent WTO declarations do not include a condition for Greeneye Spurdog. The known distribution of Harrisson’s Dogfish indicates it is unlikely to overlap with the client fishery (AFMA 2012a). A range of measures have been introduced across the SESSF to limit interaction with these shark species. The Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy (AFMA 2012a) has the objective to promote the recovery of Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish, and to help to mitigate the impact of fishing on Endeavour Dogfish and Greeneye Spurdog. The strategy relies primarily on a network of spatial closures complemented by a range of non-spatial operational measures such a zero retention limit for Harrisson’s Dogfish, Southern Dogfish, Endeavour Dogfish and Greeneye Spurdog. The Level 3 SAFE analysis was updated in 2012 (Zhou et al. 2012) using additional data and some improvements to the methodology. This updated analysis found that in the trawl sector, twenty-one species are at medium risk (mean fishing mortality over the period 2007 to 2010 is greater than mean maximum sustainable fishing mortality). If uncertainty in both estimated fishing mortality rate and the reference point are included, then 34 species are at risk of potential overfishing (Zhou et al. 2012). In addition to the dogfish commented on above, high risk species from the updated analysis reported in Tables 5 and 6 as retained, include White-finned Swell shark (Cephaloscyllium albipinnum), Spikey Oreo (Neocyttus rhomboidalis) and Cardinal fishes (Epigonus spp.). Bight Ghost shark (Hydrolagus lemures) are also identified as high risk and small catches of unidentified Ghost sharks are reported as retained. The current Bycatch and Discarding Workplan for the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (AFMA 2014a) has adopted action items in response to the updated risk assessment. Table 5. Demersal trawl catches (kg) by freezer boats between 2009 and 2013 (Latitude between -42.5 and - 40.84, Longitude between 110 and 145; Month between 6 and 9); logbook data provided by AFMA September 2014) Benthic trawl (kg) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total % Alfonsino 41 78 119 0.002 Barracouta 104 155 259 0.005 Bellowfish 0.000 Blue Grenadier 699750 211150 2484376 14000 1460371 4869647 97.12 Blue Warehou 25 4615 4640 0.093 Blue-eye Trevalla 85 20 12 643 760 0.015 Brier Shark 40 40 0.001 Cardinalfishes 4 4 0.000 Common Jack Mackerel 376 1 377 0.008 Cuttlefish (mixed) 1 1 0.000 Deepwater dogfishes 0.000 unspecified Dogfishes 21 21 0.000 Draughtboard Shark 59 59 0.001 Fish (mixed) 97 97 0.002 Frostfish 1200 622 922 3 2730 5477 0.109 Gemfish 74 111 30 412 627 0.013 Ghostsharks 8 79 51 138 0.003 Giant Squid 0.000 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 25 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Gould's Squid 104 33 1 3 340 481 0.010 Greeneye Spurdog 59 253 312 0.006 Grunter bream (mixed) 903 903 0.018 Gummy Shark 29 29 0.001 Jackass Morwong 0.000 John Dory 0.000 King Dory 25 286 54 4 18 387 0.008 Mirror Dory 392 313 87 3 5 800 0.016 New Zealand Dory 9 9 0.000 Oarfish 665 665 0.013 Orange Roughy 0.000 Oreodories (mixed) 40 4 44 0.001 Piked Spurdog 70 75 145 0.003 Pink Ling 570 610 201 15 5339 6735 0.134 Ray's Bream 10 35 45 0.001 Red Gurnard 0.000 Redbait (mixed) 20 20 0.000 Reef Ocean Perch 13 55 60 128 0.003 Ribaldo 8 10 4 22 0.000 Rubyfish (mixed) 0.000 Rudderfish 0.000 Sawsharks 1 18 19 0.000 School Shark 810 546 107 2937 4400 0.088 Sea Perch 0.000 Sharks (mixed) 2 2 0.000 Silver Dory 6 86 4 96 0.002 Silver Trevally 25 25 0.000 Silver Warehou 17481 5524 51079 5 41608 115697 2.307 Southern Ribbonfish 10 10 0.000 Spikey Oreodory 10 10 0.000 Squids 0.000 Stargazers 38 36 74 0.001 Tiger Flathead 17 17 0.000 Whiptails 5 48 591 644 0.013 White Warehou 3 2 5 0.000 Whitefin Swellshark 6 32 38 0.001 Grand Total 721,490 219,957 2,537,424 14,034 1,521,123 5,014,028 100 Table 6. Midwater trawl catches (kg) by freezer boats between 2009 and 2013 (Latitude between -42.5 and - 40.84, Longitude between 110 and 145; Month between 6 and 9); logbook data provided by AFMA September 2014) Midwater trawl (kg) 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total % Alfonsino 19 6 1 12 1 39 0.000 Barracouta 273 7 25 28 333 0.003 Bellowfish 18 18 0.000 Blue Grenadier 1689965 2801710 677670 3563133 1766485 10498963 98.87 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 26 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Blue Warehou 50 2 166 5 223 0.002 Blue-eye Trevalla 7 12 30 49 0.000 Brier Shark 0.000 Cardinalfishes 2 2 0.000 Common Jack Mackerel 8 456 101 369 102 1036 0.010 Cuttlefish (mixed) 0.000 Deepwater dogfishes 15 15 0.000 (unspecified) Dogfishes 0.000 Draughtboard Shark 0.000 Fish (mixed) 11 11 0.000 Frostfish 803 5361 280 481 4687 11612 0.109 Gemfish 25 710 25 52 85 897 0.008 Ghostsharks 6 35 41 0.000 Giant Squid 200 200 0.002 Gould's Squid 1 75 6 167 144 393 0.004 Greeneye Spurdog 122 122 0.001 Grunter bream (mixed) 6 252 258 0.002 Gummy Shark 0.000 Jackass Morwong 11 11 0.000 John Dory 50 50 0.000 King Dory 10 896 197 11 1114 0.010 Mirror Dory 81 1932 73 30 152 2268 0.021 New Zealand Dory 0.000 Oarfish 50 50 0.000 Orange Roughy 1 1 0.000 Oreodories (mixed) 7 7 0.000 Piked Spurdog 4 18 22 0.000 Pink Ling 191 1339 9 374 243 2156 0.020 Ray's Bream 48 979 1 81 24 1133 0.011 Red Gurnard 2 2 0.000 Redbait (mixed) 8 80 14 102 0.001 Reef Ocean Perch 45 45 0.000 Ribaldo 867 22 889 0.008 Rubyfish (mixed) 3 3 0.000 Rudderfish 30 35 65 0.001 Sawsharks 0.000 School Shark 5 335 26 212 199 777 0.007 Sea Perch 2 2 0.000 Sharks (mixed) 0.000 Silver Dory 52 8 60 0.001 Silver Trevally 5200 4 5204 0.049 Silver Warehou 8884 56767 117 20922 3698 90388 0.851 Southern Ribbonfish 6 14 13 33 0.000 Spikey Oreodory 1 1 0.000 Squids 100 168 268 0.003 Stargazers 20 20 0.000 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 27 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Tiger Flathead 17 17 0.000 Whiptails 171 171 0.002 White Warehou 3 2 5 0.000 Whitefin Swellshark 40 40 0.000 Grand Total 1,700,188 2,877,400 678,412 3,586,317 1,776,799 1,0619,116 100 Endangered, Threatened or Protected (ETP) Species ETP species are those that are recognized by national legislation and/or binding international agreements to which the jurisdictions controlling the fishery under assessment are party (CR v 1.3, 2013). This includes species listed on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and/ or recognized by national legislation (EPBC Act). Seabird bycatch is regulated domestically under a threat abatement plan. Porbeagle Shark was listed on Appendix II of CITES in 2013 but not on Appendix I, allowing for increased regulation in the international trade of this species. Porbeagle Shark was not considered under ETP species for this assessment, since retention of this species is allowed (EPBC Act). A catch of only 50 kg was reported from the fishery for the period 2009 – 2013 (AFMA 2014b). Similarly retention of several other EPBC-listed shark species is allowed under the EPBC act and therefore they have been considered under retained species for the purpose of this assessment. The fishery does interact with some ETP species, in particular with seals, and to a lesser extent with some seabirds, particularly albatross (Table 7). Table 7: Reported ETP interactions in the winter Blue Grenadier midwater and demersal trawl fishery AFMA (2014b). Information based on logbook data. ETP 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Dead/ Alive Dead/ Alive Dead/ Alive Dead/ Alive Dead/ Alive Injured Injured Injured Injured Injured Marine Fish & Mammals ETP Sharks ------Seals (Aus. & NZ 6 5 18 1 12 - 19 3 2 6 Fur Seals) Seabirds Albatross 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - 1 - (Black browned Shy Albatross) Fairy Prion ------1 - - - The management measures to reduce the incidental catch of non-target species include 1) marine reserves with limited fishing activity and protected area system covering some areas in the ecosystem with no fishing permitted, 2) catch limits on target species, 3) prohibition on release of bycatch and wastes 4) gear restrictions to protect habitat from impact, 5) mandatory seal exclusion devices 6) a mandatory physical mitigation device, streamer (tori) lines to mitigate bird interactions, along with a range of voluntary measures by industry, like the Rehua Seabird management plan (SETFI 2011, AFMA 2010, AFMA 2014). These measures go hand in hand with requirements including 100% observer coverage on the freezer trawlers, mandatory reporting of all interactions with any Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 28 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services ETPs, shot by shot reporting of all target species and bycatch, and ongoing consideration of bycatch by the RAG (AFMA 2009, AFMA 2014). 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background 3.5.1 Area of Operation of the Fishery and under which Jurisdiction it Falls Blue Grenadier are targeted by the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (CTS) of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF). The CTS covers the area of the Australian Fishing Zone (AFZ) extending southward from Barrenjoey Point (north of Sydney) around the New South Wales, Victorian and Tasmanian coastlines to Cape Jervis in South Australia. Specifically, for this unit of certification, fishing occurs in Commonwealth waters along the west coast of Tasmania from Sandy Cape south to Strachan. Fishing operations occur during the winter months when spawning aggregations of Blue Grenadier can be captured using midwater and demersal trawl gear. Demersal trawl fishing typically occurs in 400 to 600 metres water depth over muddy bottom. The SESSF is a single jurisdiction Commonwealth managed fishery that is managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), in accordance with the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (FMA). AFMA is a commission responsible for day to day management of Commonwealth fisheries. 3.5.2 Particulars of the Recognized Groups with Interests in the Fishery The main groups that have an interest in the Blue Grenadier component of the CTS are commercial fishers. Blue Grenadier is considered to be a commercial species and as such, there is no known usage of this species by recreational or indigenous fishers in this area. There are 57 transferable statutory fishing rights and fishing permits in the CTS, owned by 41 operators and currently supporting 40 active vessels. The South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association (SETFIA) is an incorporated tax exempt entity that has been in existence for over 25 years, has 40 members currently and represents 80% of the quota holders in the fishery, although membership is open to anyone with an interest in the Industry. SETFIA actively engages in communications between fishers and AFMA, as well as liaising with non- Government organisations (NGOs) and executes a documented strategy through projects. SETFIA’s current project portfolio includes continued development of fishermen via on-line learning which aims to better record and avoid ETPs as well as better record catches and several ETP reduction/avoidance projects. 3.5.3 Details of consultations leading to the formulation of the management plan The SESSF was established in 2003 through the amalgamation of four fisheries – the South East Trawl, Great Australian Bight Trawl, Southern Shark Non-trawl and South East Non-trawl fisheries – under a common set of management objectives. The Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Plan 2003 was established under section 17 of the FMA and came into operation on 1 January 2005. Section 17 of the FMA outlines the statutory process and consultation requirements Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 29 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services that must be followed before a management plan can be determined. Among other things, Section 17 requires AFMA to: (2) Before determining a plan of management for a fishery, AFMA must prepare a draft of the plan and, by public notice: (a) state that it intends to determine a plan of management in respect of the fishery; and (b) invite interested persons to make representations in connection with the draft plan by a date specified in the notice, not being less than one month after the date of publication of the notice in the Gazette; and specify: (i) an address from which copies of the draft plan may be obtained; and (ii) an address to which representations may be forwarded. (2A) In addition to issuing a public notice under subsection (2) and before determining a plan of management for a fishery, AFMA must notify the persons and organisations listed in the register established under section 17A, at their addresses as shown on the register, of the terms of the public notice. (3) A person may, not later than the date specified in the notice, make representations to AFMA in connection with the draft plan. (4) In this section, a reference to public notice is a reference to notice published: (a) in the Gazette; and (b) in each State and Territory, in a newspaper circulating throughout that State or Territory; and (c) in such other newspaper or publication (if any) that appears to AFMA to be appropriate in the circumstances. Section 17 A of the FMA states (in part)- 17A Register of persons concerned about plans of management (1) AFMA must maintain a register containing a list of the names and postal addresses of persons and organisations who are to be notified of, or of determinations affecting the preparation of, draft plans of management. AFMA must give public notice inviting persons to have their names and postal addresses entered on the Register and it must be kept up to date. 3.5.4 Arrangements for On-Going Consultations with Interest Groups The consultation arrangements for this fishery consist of several different forums (both statutory and informal) depending on the issue. In addition to the above statutory consultation for management plans, the SESSF Management Plan 2003 prescribes the consultation that must be conducted in determining a TAC for quota and non-quota species. AFMA must consult with the relevant Management Advisory Committee (MAC) which is the major source of advice to AFMA, reflecting the experience and expertise of the range of stakeholders with interest in the fishery covered by the MAC. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 30 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The South East MAC (SEMAC) is the relevant MAC for the SESSF and membership consists of a commercial industry member, fishery managers, scientists and a conservation member. Australian State and the Recreational sectors are each represented by an invited participant. The environment/conservation member aims to provid a communication conduit between the MAC and NGOs. The MAC provides a forum where higher level strategic issues relating to the fishery are discussed, the outcomes of which determine the recommendations that the MAC will make to the AFMA Commission. Fisheries Management Paper 1 – Management Advisory Committees (June 2009) outlines the function, roles and responsibilities of MACs. AFMA must also take into account advice from the relevant Resource Assessment Group (RAG). The main function of the RAG is to review scientific data and information and provide advice to AFMA on the status of fish stocks, sub-stocks, species and the impact of fishing on the marine environment as well as developing the strategic research plan. The Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Resource Assessment Group (SESSFRAG) meets twice a year and is the overarching RAG for the SESSF. The group provides advice to SEMAC on the status of fish stocks, sub stocks, species (target and non-target), the impact of fishing on the marine environment and the type of information needed for stock assessments. SESSFRAG provides oversight and recommendations to four RAGs with responsibilities for sub-sectors of the fishery. One of these, the SlopeRAG, is responsible for the stock assessment of Blue Grenadier. Membership of the SlopeRAG consists of scientists, two industry representatives, an AFMA member, an economic and recreational member and an independent Chair. This ensures that the interests of a range of stakeholder groups are represented. There is also provision for a conservation member although there is currently no NGO representative on the SlopeRAG. Based on scientific and industry advice the SlopeRAG will propose a TAC which is then considered by SEMAC and AFMA management. Ultimately, the TAC is set by the AFMA Commission following consideration of the advice and any other comments or representations received during the process. Fisheries Administration Paper 12 sets out the roles and responsibilities of RAGs and outlines their relationship with the AFMA Commission, AFMA Management and MACs. AFMA formally consults with key stakeholder groups and the broader community through public comment opportunities which are advertised on AFMA’s website. For example, AFMA position papers regarding significant management issues such as the recommended TAC is open to all interested parties for comment. AFMA conducts species workshops, pre-season briefings and management meetings that are attended by a range of representative groups. Other informal consultation consists of port visits and publication of the AFMA Update which is a monthly newsletter to keep stakeholders informed of what is happening at AFMA. SETFIA plays an integral role in ongoing consultation with interest groups and is keen to promote a culture of environmental stewardship. SETFIA’s formal communication plan to ensure all stakeholders are informed consists of: Monthly external newsletters (open to any interested person that subscribes to the mailing list – approximately 7,000); Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 31 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Regular internal newsletter to members (providing updates on any issues that affect the Industry); and, Short interval communications (eg. An SMS sent to skippers to remind them that a new Regulation takes effect on a particular day). Many of SETFIA’s projects are run by project steering committees. In some cases eNGOs sit on these committees. In addition AFMA holds an annual eNGO briefing day attended by industry groups including SETFIA, AFMA and key eNGOs. 3.5.5 Details of Non-Fishery Users or Activities, which could Affect the Fishery and Arrangements for Liaison and Coordination Due to the relatively remote location of the fishing grounds off the west coast of Tasmania, no other non-fishery users have been identified. There are however several Commonwealth Marine Reserves adjacent to the fishing grounds which may significantly affect the fishery if the boundaries were to change in the future. Extensive consultation with a diversity of marine users and other stakeholders was completed prior to implementation of the South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2013-23 which outlines the strategies that will be implemented to meet its objectives. This includes establishing, in consultation with stakeholders, efficient, effective and transparent processes for assessment, decision making and authorization of activities within the network. The use of demersal trawl gear is not permitted within the South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network. If transiting a reserve, all fishing gear must be kept stowed and secured at all times and vessels must be travelling at a minimum speed of 5 knots. AFMA provides satellite VMS data to Parks Australia under contract. Any incidences where vessels are travelling at less than 5 knots within a marine reserve in which zoning does not allow their fishing method are investigated. 3.5.6 Details of the Decision-Making Process or Processes Including the Recognised Participants. AFMA decisions are made under the Fisheries Management Act 1991, Fisheries Administration Act 1991, and plans of management for Commonwealth fisheries managed by AFMA. Decisions made by AFMA include the determination of management plans, the granting and transfer of fishing concessions, which include Statutory Fishing Rights, fishing permits, foreign fishing boat licenses and scientific permits and an array of other input and output fishing controls as required to achieve the objectives prescribed in the FMA. Stakeholder consultation is central to AFMA decision making. AFMA’s legislation and policies provide for consultation with the fishing industry, other stakeholders and the general community in developing fisheries management arrangements for Commonwealth fisheries. The consultation process includes the consideration of views from: management advisory committees resource assessment groups commercial fishing industry Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 32 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services State/territory government agencies responsible for fisheries management environmental organisations recreational and indigenous fishing interests others whose interests may be affected by, or whose views may usefully contribute to, effective fisheries management. (Diagram sourced from AFMA Fisheries Administration Paper 12) In the making of plans of management and the allocation of Statutory Fishing Rights, the legislation requires public notice to be given of the availability of a draft plan or intention to grant Statutory Fishing Rights, and inviting public comment. In other cases where major decisions are to be made, those directly affected are informed individually and are invited to comment. Where appropriate and if required, public meetings are held. Notice of those meetings is published in the Commonwealth Gazette, newspapers and AFMA’s newsletter to industry, AFMA Update. The diagram below shows the flow of information and advice that is received by the AFMA Commission as the final decision maker. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 33 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services 3.5.7 Objectives for the Fishery: The overarching objectives specified in Section 3 of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 are: Three Objectives (1) The following objectives must be pursued by the Minister in the administration of this Act and by AFMA in the performance of its functions: (a) implementing efficient and cost-effective fisheries management on behalf of the Commonwealth; and (b) ensuring that the exploitation of fisheries resources and the carrying on of any related activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development (which include the exercise of the precautionary principle), in particular the need to have regard to the impact of fishing activities on non-target species and the long term sustainability of the marine environment; and (c) maximising the net economic returns to the Australian community from the management of Australian fisheries; and (d) ensuring accountability to the fishing industry and to the Australian community in AFMA’s management of fisheries resources; and (e) achieving government targets in relation to the recovery of the costs of AFMA. (2) In addition to the objectives mentioned in subsection (1), or in section78 of this Act, the Minister, AFMA and Joint Authorities are to have regard to the objectives of: (a) ensuring, through proper conservation and management measures, that the living resources of the AFZ are not endangered by over-exploitation; and (b) achieving the optimum utilisation of the living resources of the AFZ; and (c) ensuring that conservation and management measures in the AFZ and the high seas implement Australia’s obligations under international agreements that deal with fish stocks; and (d) to the extent that Australia has obligations: (i) under international law; or (ii) under the Compliance Agreement or any other international agreement; (3) In relation to fishing activities by Australian-flagged boats on the high seas that are additional to the obligations referred to in paragraph (c)—ensuring that Australia implements those first-mentioned obligations; but must ensure, as far as practicable, that measures adopted in pursuit of those objectives must not be inconsistent with the preservation, conservation and protection of all species of whales. Clause 5 of the SESSF Management Plan outlines the fishery specific long term objectives (see justification under Principle 3). The objective of the Harvest Strategy Policy (HSP) is the sustainable and profitable utilisation of Australia’s Commonwealth fisheries in perpetuity through the implementation of harvest strategies Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 34 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services that maintain key commercial stocks at ecologically sustainable levels, and within this context, maximise the economic returns to the Australian community. The specific biological, socio-economic and ecosystem objectives outlined in the SESSF Harvest Strategy include: Biological To ensure that the fishery is maintained at (on average), or returned to, a target biomass point BTARG or equivalent proxy (e.g. FTARG or CPUETARG) equal to the stock size required to produce BMEY or an appropriate proxy. To maintain stocks above the limit biomass level, or an appropriate proxy, at least 90% of the time. To progressively reduce the level of fishing if a stock moves below BMSY and towards BLIM (or an appropriate proxy). To implement rebuilding strategies, no-targeting and bycatch TACs if a stock moves below BLIM (or an appropriate proxy). To ensure the sustainability of fisheries resources, including consideration of the individual fishery circumstances and individual species or stock characteristics, when developing a management approach. Socio-economic To ensure that the fishery is maintained at (on average), or returned to, a target biomass point BTARG equal to the stock size required to produce BMEY or an appropriate proxy. To maximise the profitability of the fishing industry and the net economic returns to the Australian community. To minimise costs to the fishing industry, including consideration of the impacts on the industry of large or small changes in TACs, and ensuring that management strategies are, as far as possible, equitably distributed among industry sectors. Ecosystem To be consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, including the conservation of biological diversity, and the adoption of a precautionary risk approach. 3.5.8 Outline the Fleet Types or Fishing Categories Participating in the Fishery. The only vessels within the fishery that target winter spawning Blue Grenadier includes 2 freezer boats and 3-4 wet (fresh) boats that use mostly demersal otter trawl nets and occasionally mid water trawl nets. 3.5.9 Details of those Individuals or Groups Granted Rights of Access to the Fishery, and Particulars of those Rights. In the Commonwealth South East Trawl Sector there are currently 57 Statutory Fishing Right (SFR) holders that are permitted to take Blue Grenadier. A quota SFR for a quota species such as Blue Grenadier and a Trawl Boat SFR to allow a fisher to use a nominated boat in an area of the fishery Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 35 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services using specified methods is required. SFRs can be permanently transferred or leased to another person or company. Fishing permits are granted for the fishing year and contain conditions the permit holder must comply with. The conditions prescribe those Regulations in the Fisheries Management Regulations 1992 and sections of the SESSF Management Plan that must be complied with as well as certain obligations pertaining to finfish, sharks, quota balancing, observer/monitoring, directions, temporary orders, navigating in closed zones, gear limitations and seabird management plans. 3.5.10 Description of the Measures Agreed Upon for the Regulation of Fishing in Order to Meet the Objectives within a Specified Period. (These may include general and specific measures, precautionary measures, contingency plans, mechanisms for emergency decisions, etc.) The following management measures are currently in place for the SESSF: Limited entry fishery Statutory Fishing Rights (SFR Quota and Boat) can be permanently transferred or leased to another person or company Operators must hold a fishing permit which prescribes the area in which to fish, permitted method (Boat SFR) and if fishing for quota species, relevant quota holdings for that species (Quota SFR) Trip limits Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for each quota species and certain non-quota species Gear restrictions – mesh size specifications, codend requirements, bycatch reduction devices Implementation of a Seabird Management Plan Prohibited species Spatial and temporal closures Navigation regulations that require boat to maintain a speed over 5 knots when navigating in a closure Nominated boat must be fitted with a Vessel Monitoring System Incidental catch limits and size limits Fish Receiver permits are required and permit holders must complete the catch and disposal record Logbooks, catch and disposal forms and transit forms must be completed by operators or nominated authorized agent and submitted to AFMA (by post or electronically) Must have an AFMA observer on board during Blue Grenadier spawning seasons The SESSF harvest strategy framework is another management tool that sets out the management actions necessary to achieve defined biological and economic objectives and the rules applied to determine the recommended total allowable catches. Importantly, the HSP Guidelines also describe the processes for amending harvest strategies under certain circumstances. For example, external drivers may increase the risk to a fishery and fish stocks. In such cases, it may be necessary to amend the harvest strategy or use emergency authorities available to AFMA to implement a rapid response to reduce fishing intensity. 3.5.11 Particulars of Arrangements and Responsibilities for Monitoring, Control and Surveillance and Enforcement. AFMA has a responsibility to enforce the provisions of the FMA through the detection of illegal activities within the AFZ. AFMA’s compliance and enforcement programmes are designed to Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 36 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services maintain the integrity of fisheries management arrangements and protect Australia’s fishing resources. AFMA’s program uses a risk based approach that enables AFMA’s resources to be targeted to the areas where they are most needed and where they will prove most effective. Compliance Risk Management Teams are established to deal with each prioritized task. In addition to the risk model, AFMA maintains a ‘general’ presence at fishing ports and at sea to discourage non- compliance and provide advice or instructions to those wishing to comply. AFMAs compliance programme is comprehensive and includes: CRIMFISH hotline to report illegal or suspicious fishing Intelligence Unit Fisheries Officers (surveillance activities, inspections and education) Vessel Monitoring System Monitoring of Logbooks, Catch Disposal and Fish Receiver Records AFMA Fishery Observers 100% electronic monitoring coverage in some SESSF sectors but not in the CTS AFMA has a dedicated compliance section that prepares and documents an annual compliance and enforcement programme. 3.5.12 Details of any planned Education and Training for Interest Groups. AFMA produces a yearly management arrangements booklet that is distributed to all concession holders prior to the fishing year. It acts as a guide to inform new entrants, existing fishers and any other interested parties. The booklet describes licensing requirements, data collection, processing, quota management, species specific management arrangements, environmental management, compliance and contact details. SETFIA, as the body representing the industry, in collaboration with Federation Training, have conducted two training courses both of which were administered under the Australian Qualifications Framework. This training is continuing with two additional units of competence on line being developed now. Both AFMA and SETFIA publish monthly newsletters that communicate the latest research results as part of educating and being transparent with stakeholders. During port visits AFMA staff play an educative role within the broader community on matters regarding the SESSF. 3.5.13 Date of Next Review and Audit of the Management Plan. The 2003 Management Plan stipulates that the effectiveness of it be assessed every 5 years. The 2008 review did not occur. However, management plan updates to better align it with operational and regulatory needs were made in 2006 and 2011 which effectively constitutes a review. The management plan is currently being reviewed. 3.5.14 Description of Fishery’s Research Plan. There is a 5-year research plan (2011-2015) in place for this fishery that is reviewed by the SESSFRAG annually. The purpose of the research plan is to assist SEMAC to identify and support research that will help achieve the management goals for the SESSF. It also guides research providers on the needs of the fishery so that research proposals can be constructed accordingly. The Research Plan Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 37 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services identifies the research management bodies and outlines their roles and responsibilities, identifies sources of funding for research, outlines the process for commissioning SESSF-related research, describes AFMAs research program and identifies specific research priorities. Research projects currently being conducted that are specifically related to Blue Grenadier stocks, fishing practices or the use of the vessel includes: Acoustic surveys of spawning aggregations of Blue Grenadier to provide data that can be used by CSIRO to estimate the peak biomass of Blue Grenadier. This information feeds into stock assessment work. Climate change research - investigating the correlation between water temperature and biomass. Seal Exclusion Device trials (under research permit). AFMA sets some of the quota for research purposes. CSIRO are using the client’s vessel to tow plankton nets in search of lantern fish (under scientific permit). 4. Evaluation Procedure 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment There is no overlap with any other certified Blue Grenadier trawl fishery that would require harmonization. 4.2 Previous Assessments There has been no previous full assessment of the client operation against the MSC standard. A pre-assessment was conducted in 2010 by Intertek Moody Marine as part of a nationwide Commonwealth Fisheries assessment. The fishery was recommended for full assessment at that time. 4.3 Assessment Methodologies All aspects of the assessment process were carried out under the auspices of SCS Global Services, an accredited MSC certification body, and in direct accordance with MSC requirements using the MSC Certification Requirements (CR v. 1.3, January 2013). For this report the MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v. 1.3 was used. The Default Assessment Tree (CR v. 1.3) was not altered. The risk based framework was not used for the assessment of this fishery. In order to ensure a thorough and robust assessment process, and a process in which all interested stakeholders could and would participate, SCS provided opportunities for input at all stages of the assessment process, whether required or not by MSC procedures. The general steps followed were: Announcement of Assessment and Team Selection (September-October 2013) Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 38 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services At this first step of the assessment process, SCS sought input from interested parties. SCS sent out an advisory, through direct email and posting on select web sites, requesting comment on the nominations of persons capable of providing the expertise needed in the assessment. One stakeholder submission was received regarding the initial nomination (see Appendix 3). An additional team member was proposed on the 3rd October 2013. The team was confirmed with an announcement that was posted on the MSC website on the 15th October 2013. Setting Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts (October-November 2013) The SCS assessment team met by conference call and determined that the default criteria of the CR v1.3 was adequate for the assessment and posted notice of its use to the MSC website (29th October 2013) to allow stakeholders to provide comments. No comments were received regarding the use of the default assessment tree and the assessment tree was confirmed. Input on Fishery Performance (November-December 2013) SCS requested that the applicants compile and submit written information to the assessment team illustrating the fishery’s compliance with the required performance indicators (PI). At the same time, SCS requested that stakeholders submit their views on the fishery management system’s functions and performance. Meetings with Industry, Managers, and Stakeholders (20-22 January 2014) SCS planned for an onsite meeting and conducted meetings with industry, fishery managers, and fishery scientists in Hobart, Tasmania. Stakeholders were invited to meet with the assessment team. Additional documentation was requested from the client and the management agency after the meeting. Scoring Fishery (January, May and November 2014) The assessment team met on the 22nd of January 2014 and attempted to determine some preliminary scores using the required MSC methodology and the default assessment tree and without any direct input from the client group or stakeholders. Drafting Report (April-December 2014) The assessment team in collaboration with the SCS lead assessor, Dr. Daume, drafted the report in accordance with MSC required process. Selection of Peer Reviewers (January 2015) SCS, as required, released an announcement (6th January 2015) of potential peer reviewers soliciting comment from stakeholders on the merit of the selected reviewers. No negative stakeholder comments were received and two peer reviewers were confirmed on the 27th January 2015. The peer review was conducted during February/March 2015. Release of Public Comment Draft Report (May 2015) SCS releases this draft report for public comment, soliciting stakeholder response through posting on MSC website and direct email to known potential stakeholders. Release of this Final Report with Certification Decision (July 2015) SCS released the final report with the certification decision for a 15 day objection period. Stakeholders were informed through posting on the MSC website and direct email to known stakeholders. Release of the Public Certification Report (August 2015) SCS released the public certification report after the 15 day objection period. No notice of objection was received during the posting period. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 39 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques 4.4.1 Site Visited and People Interviewed The sites and people chosen for visits and interviews were based on the assessment team's need to acquire information about the management operations of the fisheries under evaluation and conducting the RBF for some of the performance indicators. Agencies and their respective personnel responsible for fishery management, fisheries research, fisheries compliance, and habitat protection were identified and contacted with the assistance of the client group and stakeholders. An Audit Plan was provided to the client, fisheries management and scientists before the meeting. Meetings took place on the 20 - 22th January 2014 with Les Scott and Simon Boag the representative for the Fishery, as well as scientists and managers involved in the fishery (see Table 8). Necessary documents were presented by the client to SCS prior to and during the meetings. Follow up emails were sent to request additional information after the meeting. Table 8. Assessment Meeting Attendees and Organisations Name Role Affiliation Sabine Daume Assessment Team Leader SCS Global Services Kevin McLoughlin Principle 1, 2 Team member Consultant Sascha Brand-Gardner Principle 3 Team member Department of Fisheries, WA Mary Lack Principle 3 expert Consultant Les Scott / Simon Boag Client Representative Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing P/L Geoff Tuck / Malcolm Haddon Stock status / Harvest strategy CSIRO Marcus Finn / Ross Bromley Management AFMA Mike Gerner Marcus Finn Ecosystem / ERA AFMA Wesley Toller Witness Auditor ASI 4.4.2 Consultations SCS compiled a list of stakeholders that have previously engaged in MSC assessments in the region and sent out separate emails to inform them about the scheduled onsite meeting. However, despite some initial interest no stakeholders attended the meetings. No submissions were received in writing after the onsite meeting. One submission was received regarding the initial team nomination (see Appendix 3). SCS added another fishery expert to the proposed list of team members. The new expert was then included in the team. 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques Methodology used: Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 40 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The assessment team received a detailed submission of documents related to the fishery and its management system from the client prior to the onsite meeting. Further documents were requested from the client as well as AFMA and received throughout the assessment process. Media used for Public Announcements: At the start of the process a list of stakeholders was created based on individuals and organizations previously engaged in MSC assessments in the region. Several names were added throughout the process while the team became aware of their interest. All public announcements were sent separately by email to the whole list of identified stakeholders. Scoring Process and Decision Rule: The scoring methodology followed the procedure described in Section 27.10 of the MSC Certification Requirement (CR v 1.3), Table C2 as well as MSC Guidance to the CR. The Assessment Team member responsible for a particular Principle led the discussion on that Principle and drafted the scores and rationales to justify the score for that Principle. Other team members also asked questions or responded in turn during the onsite meeting and helped facilitate communication between the team and the client and scientists of the fishery. Draft scores and rationales were discussed during conference calls and by email during the report writing phase. In cases where consensus could not be reached, the scores would be decided by the team leader with consideration of the recommendation of the pertinent Principle expert. This was not the case with any of the performance indicators during this assessment. Table 4.3a Scoring Elements – Demersal Trawl Component Scoring elements Main/ Data- not main deficient or not Principle 1 Outcome Blue Grenadier N/A No (Macruronus novaezelandie) Principle 2 Retained Silver Warehou Not Main No Outcome (Seriolella punctata) Principle 2 Retained Blue Warehou (Seriolella brama), Not Main No Outcome Principle 2 Retained Blue-eye Trevalla (Hyperoglyphe Not Main No Outcome antarctica) Principle 2 Retained Gemfish (Rexea solandri) Not Main No Outcome Principle 2 Retained Mirror Dory (Zenopsis nebulosus) Not Main No Outcome Principle 2 Retained Pink Ling (Genypterus blacodes) Not Main No Outcome Principle 2 Retained School Shark (Galeorhinus galeus) Not Main No Outcome Principle 2 Retained Leafscale Gulper Shark (Centrophorus Main No Outcome squamosus) Principle 2 Retained Platypus Shark (Deania quadrispinosa) Main No Outcome Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 41 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Principle 2 Retained Harrisson's Dogfish (Centrophorus Main No Outcome harrissoni) Principle 2 Retained Southern Dogfish (Centrophorus Main No Outcome zeehani) Principle 2 Retained Greeneye Spurdog (Squalus Main No Outcome chloroculus) and Principle 2 Retained Frostfish (Lepidopus caudatus) Not Main No Outcome Principle 2 Bycatch Outcome Silver Warehou Not Main No Principle 2 Bycatch Outcome Porbeagle Shark Not Main No Principle 2 Bycatch Outcome Swordfish Not Main No Principle 2 Habitat Outcome High and low risk habitat types N/A No Principle 2 Ecosystem Interaction of fishery with ecosystem N/A No Outcome structure and function Table 4.3b Scoring Elements – Midwater Trawl Component Scoring elements Main/ Data- not main deficient or not Principle 1 Outcome Blue Grenadier N/A No (Macruronus novaezelandie) Principle 2 Retained Outcome Silver Warehou Not Main No (Seriolella punctata) Principle 2 Retained Outcome Blue Warehou (Seriolella brama), Not Main No Principle 2 Retained Outcome Blue-eye Trevalla (Hyperoglyphe Not Main No antarctica) Principle 2 Retained Outcome Gemfish (Rexea solandri) Not Main No Principle 2 Retained Outcome Mirror Dory (Zenopsis nebulosus) Not Main No Principle 2 Retained Outcome Pink Ling (Genypterus blacodes) Not Main No Principle 2 Retained Outcome School Shark (Galeorhinus galeus) Not Main No Principle 2 Retained Outcome Frostfish (Lepidopus caudatus) Not Main No Principle 2 Retained Outcome Leafscale Gulper Shark Main No (Centrophorus squamosus) Principle 2 Retained Outcome Platypus Shark (Deania Main No quadrispinosa) Principle 2 Retained Outcome Harrisson's Dogfish (Centrophorus Main No harrissoni) Principle 2 Retained Outcome Southern Dogfish (Centrophorus Main No zeehani) Principle 2 Retained Outcome Greeneye Spurdog (Squalus Main No chloroculus) and Principle 2 Bycatch Outcome Silver Warehou Not Main No Principle 2 Bycatch Outcome Brier Shark Not Main No Principle 2 Bycatch Outcome Giant Squid Not Main No Principle 2 Habitat Outcome High and low risk habitat types N/A No Principle 2 Ecosystem Outcome Interaction of fishery with N/A No ecosystem structure and function Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 42 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 43 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services 5 Traceability 5.1 Eligibility Date The actual eligibility date for the Australia blue grenadier fishery, the date from which product from a certified fishery is eligible to bear the label if the fishery is certified, will be the 1st June 2015 and is the start of the fishing season. 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery A Description of the Tracking, Tracing and Segregation Systems within the Fishery. The Sealord Group (“Sealord”) sells Blue Grenadier caught in Australian waters under contract using vessels leased to Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing Company Pty. Ltd. Sealord assigns a unique item code to the product that includes a product description. Similarly, Sanford Ltd. brings stock onto their system under a unique stock number. This stock number allows the product caught in Australian waters to be distinguished from product caught in NZ management area. Therefore product from both companies can be tracked and traced as well as segregated by their unique item code (Sealord) or stock number (Sanford). An Evaluation of the Possibility of Vessels Fishing Outside the Unit of Certification. Most vessels outside the UoC fishing blue grenadier are fresh vessels. These vessels land semi- processed fresh fish into Australian markets. This product is then filleted on land and sold domestically in fresh form. Product can be distinguished by the company’s product/item codes. An Evaluation of the Opportunity for Substitution of Certified Fish with Non-certified Fish prior to and at the Point of Landing. There is a very low risk of substitution of certified fish with non-certified fish. Product landed by vessels operated by Sealord or Sanford will be certified. The NZ blue grenadier/ hoki fishery is already MSC certified. Sealord and Sanford operate advanced logistics and stock control systems described in (a) and product can be distinguished by the company’s product/item codes. A Description of the At-Sea Processing of Catch. On a typical freezer vessel fish enters the vessel factory from the deck into pounds where it is chilled. Fish will then be transferred to the factory section of the vessel passing through a header, filleting machine and (for some products) a skinning machine. Fillets are then trimmed by hand depending on product specifications before being loaded into inner cartons within freezer trays and plate frozen. When frozen to the required temperate these inner cartons are broken out of the freezer tray. Three inner cartons are then loaded into an outer carton that is labelled and stowed in the hold. The labelling machine interfaces with software that produces catch and production data. The process is controlled by strong QC and HACCP systems that occur in real time onboard as well as on shore after the fish is landed. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 44 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Details of the Use of Trans-Shipping in the Fishery. There is no trans-shipment occurring in the Australia blue grenadier fishery. Details on the Number and/or Location of Points of Landing. Product is mostly landed in Nelson and Timaru, New Zealand with the possibility of landing in Devonport and Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. An Evaluation of the Robustness of the Management Systems Related to Traceability. Both companies (Sealord and Sanford operate under a robust management systems that ensures that product can be traced through a unique product/item code. The whole process is quality controlled and occurs in real time onboard as well as on shore after the fish is landed. Robustness has been fully demonstrated as the NZ hoki fishery, in which both of these companies are active, has been MSC Certified since 2001 and must have demonstrated traceability to win and retain this certificate. 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody Conclusion and Determination of Whether the Product will be Eligible to Enter Further Certified Chains of Custody All fish landed by any of the license holders listed below under b. or sold directly to distributors, are eligible to seek and secure MSC chain of custody certification in order to sell product derived from the fishery with the MSC claim. Chain of custody starts at the first point of sale unless there is some value added processing occurring in designated processing facilities in which case chain of custody starts at the point of landing. A List of Parties, or Category of Parties, Eligible to Use the Fishery Certification Both Sanford and Sealord freezer trawler vessels: Sealord Meridian-1, Rehua and the Sanford vessel San Enterprise are eligible to seek and secure MSC chain of custody certification in order to sell product derived from the fishery with the MSC claim. The unit of certification is limited to freezer vessels, fresh vessels are not included. Eligible points of landing are Nelson and Timaru, New Zealand as well as Devonport and Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. The Point of Change of Ownership, from which Chain of Custody (CoC) Certification is Required. Ownership may change at the point of landing. Chain of custody starts at the port of landing. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 45 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services 6 Evaluation Results 6.1 Principle Level Scores The table below provides the Principle level scores for each of the three MSC Principles. Table 6.1: Final Principle Scores (scores apply to both midwater and demersal trawl gear) Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 95.0 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 85.0 Principle 3 – Management System 96.3 6.2 Summary of Scores Table 6.2: Summary of Scores (Note that although PIs 2.1.1- 2.2.3 were scored for the two gear types, midwater and demersal trawl, the resultant scores were the same and so are not separated in the table below) Principle Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Weight in Score Contribution (L3) Principle to Principle Score One Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 0.5 0.25 100 25.00 Outcome 1.1.2 Reference points 0.5 0.25 90 25.00 Management 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding N/A 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 0.125 100 12.50 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 0.125 100 12.50 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 0.125 90 11.25 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 0.125 90 11.25 Two Retained species 2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 2.1.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 90 6.33 2.1.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 80 6.00 2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 Bycatch species 2.2.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 100 6.67 2.2.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 85 6.00 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 85 5.67 2.3.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 95 6.33 2.3.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 80 6.00 2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 Habitats 2.4.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 90 6.00 2.4.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 75 5.00 2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 0.0667 80 5.33 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 0.333 0.0667 90 6.00 2.5.3 Information 0.333 0.0667 85 5.67 Three 3.1.1 Legal & customary Governance and framework 0.25 0.125 100 12.50 policy Governance and 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & 0.25 0.125 100 12.50 policy responsibilities 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.25 0.125 100 12.50 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable 0.25 0.125 90 11.25 fishing 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.2 0.1 100 10.00 Fishery specific 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.2 0.1 100 10.00 management 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.2 0.1 75 10.00 system 3.2.4 Research plan 0.2 0.1 100 10.00 3.2.5 Management performance 0.2 0.1 100 10.00 evaluation Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 46 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services 6.3 Summary of Conditions Table 6.3: Summary of Conditions Condition Condition Performance Related to number Indicator previously raised condition? (Y/N/N/A) By the second annual surveillance audit, the client shall provide documented evidence that, at a scale relative to 1 2.4.3 N the fishery, there is on-going monitoring that would be able to detect any increase in risk to habitat. By the second annual audit, the management agency of the client fishery should demonstrate that sanctions are consistently applied. This shall include specific 2 3.2.3 N requirements for other non-target species like Greeneye Spurdog. 6.3.1 Recommendations Recommendation 1 (PI 1.2.4): There is uncertainty regarding the stock structure of Blue Grenadier and this has not been examined in the stock assessment. The audit team recommends to include this uncertainty in future assessment or an analysis/justification of why this recommendation is not necessary should be undertaken and conveyed to SCS Global Services. 6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement The assessment team recommended that the fishery be awarded MSC-endorsed certification. On the basis of a careful review of this certification audit report, the SCS Certification Board has determined that the Australia blue grenadier fishery as defined by the unit of certification in Table 1, meets the MSC Principles and Criteria of a sustainable fishery. This is based on the fact that no Performance Indicator falls below the required SG60 and also that the average score for each Principle is above 80. It is the determination of the SCS Certification Board that the fishery be certified based on MSC Certification Requirements v1.3. This decision is now available for stakeholders engaged in the assessment process to submit a supported objection if there is dissatisfaction with this certification decision. The objection period is 15 United Kingdom working days from the publication of this report. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 47 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services References Alderman, R.L. (2012). The Shy Albatross (Thalassarche cauta): Population Trends, Environmental and Anthropogenic Drivers, and the Future for Management and Conservation. PhD Thesis University of Tasmania. 149pp. Althaus, F., Williams, A., Schlacher, T.A., Kloser, R.J., Green, M.A., Barker, B.A., Bax, N.J., Brodie, P. and Schlacher-Hoenlinger, M.A. (2009). Impacts of bottom trawling on deep-coral ecosystems of seamounts are long-lasting. Marine Ecology Progress Series 397: 279–294. AFMA (1997). Allocation of fishing concessions where management arrangements change. Fisheries Management Paper 8. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. AFMA (2009). Harvest strategy framework for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, version 1.2, September 2009. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. AFMA (2010a). Ecological Risk Management – Report for the Otter Trawl Fishery in the Commonwealth trawl Sector. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. AFMA (2010b). Residual Risk Assessment of the Level 2 Ecological Risk Assessment Species Results – Report for the Otter Trawl Fishery. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. AFMA (2010c). Cost Recovery Impact Statement. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. AFMA (2010d) Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery – Five year Research Plan 2011- 2015. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. AFMA (2012a). Upper-Slope Dogfish Management Strategy, AFMA-managed Fisheries, October2012. Australian Fisheries Management Authority. AFMA (2012b). SlopeRAG Blue Grenadier species summary. Australian Fisheries Management Authority. AFMA (2013a). Commonwealth Trawl Sector (Otter Board Trawl and Danish Seine) Bycatch and Discarding Workplan (2011-2013). Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. AFMA (2013b). AFMA Observer cruise report for the vessel REHUA, 19th June 2013 to 16th July 2013. AFMA (2013c). AFMA Observer cruise report for the vessel REHUA, 18th July 2013 to 25th July 2013. AFMA (2013d). National Compliance and Enforcement Policy 2013. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. AFMA (2013e). Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Arrangements Booklet 2013, Australian Fisheries Management Authority. Canberra, Australia. AFMA (2013f). AFMA Observer cruise report for the vessel San Enterprise, 29th June 2013 to 09th August 2013. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 48 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services AFMA (2014a). Commonwealth Trawl Sector (Otter Board Trawl and Danish Seine) Bycatch and Discarding Workplan (2014-2016). Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. AFMA (2014b). Reported retained, bycatch species and ETP interactions in the winter Blue Grenadier midwater and demersal trawl fishery. Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. ANAO (2013). Administration of the Domestic Fishing Compliance Program. Australian National Audit Office, Canberra. Bergh, M., Knuckey, I., Gaylard, J., Martens, K., and Koopman, M. (2009). A revised sampling regime for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery- Final Report. AFMA Project F2008/0627. OLRAC and Fishwell Consulting, 235pp. Bulman, C.M., Condie, S.A., Neira F.J., Goldsworthy S.G. and Fulton E.A. (2010). The trophodynamics of small pelagic fishes in the southern Australian ecosystem and the implications for ecosystem modelling of southern temperate fisheries. FRDC 2008/023. Canberra September 2010. Clark, M.R., Schlacher, T.A., Rowden, A.A., Stocks, K.I. and Consalvey, M. (2012). Science priorities for seamounts: research links to conservation and management. PLoS One 7(1): e29232. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0029232. CSIRO (2009). Evaluation of new harvest strategies for SESSF species. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra. DAFF (2007). Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy: policy and guidelines. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra. DAFF (2013). Report on the review of the Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy Policy and Guidelines. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra. DSEWPC (2011) Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. National recovery plan for threatened albatrosses and giant petrels 2011-2016. Commonwealth of Australia, Hobart. Fulton, E.A., Smith, A.D.M. and Smith, D.C. (2007). Alternative Management Strategies for Southeast Australian Commonwealth Fisheries: Stage 2: Quantitative Management Strategy Evaluation. Australian Fisheries Management Authority Report. Canberra. 378pp. Georgeson, L., Stobutzki, I. and Curtotti, R. (eds) (2014). Fishery status reports 2013–14, Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra. Haddon, M. (ed.) (2012). Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status: Harvest Strategy Testing, Evaluation, and Development. General Discussion and Summary. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research. 42 p. Hamer, P., Kemp. J., Robertson, S. and Hindell, J. (2009). Use of otolith chemistry and shape to assess stock structure of blue grenadier (Macruronus novaezelandiae) in the Commonwealth Trawl and Great Australian Bight fisheries. Final Report for FRDC Project 2007/030. Fisheries Research Branch, DPI Queenscliff and Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 49 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Hobday, A. J., Smith, A., Webb, H., Daley, R., Wayte, S., Bulman, C. Dowdney, J., Williams, A., Sporcic, M., Dambacher, J., Fuller, M. and Walker, T. (2007). Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing: Methodology. Report R04/1072 for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra Kaiser, M.J., Clarke, K.R., Hinz, H., Austen, M.C.V., Somerfield, P.J. and Karakassis, I. (2006). Global analysis of response and recovery of benthic biota to fishing. Marine Ecology Progress Series 311: 1– 14. Klaer, N. and S. Wayte (2011). Demersal MSE for trawl fish in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery and other like-species. Report prepared for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry as part of the Reducing Uncertainty in Stock Status project. CSIRO, Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart. 68p. Knuckey, I.A. and Gason, A. (2001). Development of a “design model” for an adaptive ISMP sampling regime. ARF Project R99/1502. Final report to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. 66pp. (Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute: Queenscliff). Larcombe, J. and Begg, G. (eds) (2008). Fishery status reports 2007: status of fish stocks managed by the Australian Government, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra. Methot, R.D. (2011). User manual for Stock Synthesis Model Version 3.2. NOAA Fisheries Service, Seattle. 165 pp. Russell, S. and Smith, D.C. (2006). Spawning and Reproductive Biology of Blue Grenadier in South- Eastern Australia and the Winter Spawning Aggregation off Western Tasmania. FRDC 2000/201. Smith, A.D.M., Hobday, A. J., Webb, H., Daley, R., Wayte, S., Bulman, C., Dowdney, J., Williams, A., Sporcic, M., Dambacher, J., Fuller, M., Furlani, D., Griffiths, S., Kenyon R. and Walker, T. (2007). Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing: Final Report R04/1072 for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. SETFIA (2011). South Eastern Trawl Fishery - Rehua Seabird management plan. October 2011, 2pp. Tingley, G. (2014). An assessment of the potential for near-seabed midwater trawling to contact the seabed and to impact benthic habitat and vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs). Ministry for Primary Industries, SPRFMO number SC-02-10 MPI Technical Paper No: 2014/30, September 2014, pp.11. Tilzey, R., Goldsworthy, S., Cawthron, M., Calvert, N., Hamer, D., Russell, S., Shaughnessy, P., Wise, B., and Stewardson, C. (2006). Assessment of seal-fishery interactions in the winter blue grenadier fishery off west Tasmania and the development of fishing practices and Seal Exclusion Devices to mitigate seal by catch by factory trawlers. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation final report, Project No. 2001/008. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra, 69p. Tuck, G. (2012). Stock assessment of Blue Grenadier (Macruronus novaezelandiae) based on data up to 2010. Addendum with Model BC2, in GN Tuck (ed.), Stock assessment for the Southern and Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 50 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery 2011, part 1, AFMA and CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart. Tuck, G. (2013). Stock assessment of blue grenadier Macruronus novaezelandiae based on data up to 2012. Slope/Deep Resource Assessment Group 6/8 November 2013, Hobart, Tasmania. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research. Upston, J. and Klaer, N. (2012). Integrated Scientific Monitoring Program for the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery – discard estimation 2011. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Australian Fisheries Management Authority. Wayte, S.E. (ed.) (2009). Evaluation of new harvest strategies for SESSF species. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart and Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra.137 p Wayte, S., Dowdney, J., Williams, A., Bulman, C., Sporcic, M., Fuller, M., Smith, A. (2007). Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing: Report for the otter trawl sub-fishery of the Commonwealth trawl sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery. Report for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra. Weier, A., and Loke, P. (2007). Precaution and the Precautionary Principle: two Australian case studies, Productivity Commission Staff Working Paper, Melbourne. Williams, A., Bax, N., Barker, B. (2006). Integrating fishing industry knowledge of fishing grounds with scientific data on seabed habitats for informed spatial management and ESD evaluation in the SESSF. FRDC report project 2000/153. CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Hobart, Tasmania. Williams, A., Schlacher, T.A., Rowden, A.A., Althaus, F., Clark, M.R., Bowden, D.A., Stewart, R., Bax, N.J., Consalvey, M. and Kloser, R.J. (2010). Seamount megabenthic assemblages fail to recover from trawling impacts. Marine Ecology 2010: 1-17. Woodhams, J., Vieira, S. and Stobutzki, I. (eds) (2013). Fishery status reports 2012. Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences, Canberra. Zhou, S., Smith, T., and Fuller, M. (2007). Rapid quantitative risk assessment for fish species in major Commonwealth fisheries. Report to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. Zhou, S., Fuller, M., and Daley, R. (2012). Sustainability assessment of fish species potentially impacted in the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery: 2007-2010. Report to the Australia Fisheries Management Authority, Canberra, Australia. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 51 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Appendices Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a It is likely that the It is highly likely that There is a high degree of stock is above the the stock is above the certainty that the stock is point where point where above the point where recruitment would be recruitment would be recruitment would be Guidepost impaired. impaired. impaired. Met? Y Y Y Blue Grenadier has a well-developed assessment model using an age-structured integrated analysis. The assessment has been regularly updated with new and amended versions of the model including incorporating cohort varying growth after this was first recognised for the strong 2003 and 2004 cohorts. Recent assessments have been implemented in the generalized stock assessment software package, Stock Synthesis, version 3.24f. The most recent assessment was undertaken in 2013 incorporating data to the 2012 calendar year (Tuck 2013). The previous assessment took place in 2011. The trajectories of spawning biomass and spawning biomass relative to the un- exploited level (and in relation to target and limit reference points) are shown in Figure 4 (Figure 6.9 from Tuck 2013). This shows the increases and decreases in spawning biomass as the strong cohorts move into and out of the spawning population. Results conclude that for the base case model the female spawning biomass in 2012 was around 77% of the unexploited spawning stock biomass (SB0) and in 2014 will be approximately 94%SB0 (Tuck 2013). The marked increase in biomass is due to the estimation of a large cohort in 2010 entering the fishery. The 2013 assessment indicates that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired (see Figure 4). Estimated spawning biomass has been consistently above the target and limit reference point over the history of the fishery. SG80 and SG100 requirements are Justification met. b The stock is at or There is a high degree of fluctuating around its certainty that the stock has target reference point. been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference Guidepost point, over recent years. Met? Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 52 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing The 2013 assessment provides estimates of the trajectories of spawning biomass and spawning biomass relative to the un-exploited level (and in relation to target and limit reference points) (see Figure 4; Figure 6.9 from Tuck 2013). This shows the increases and decreases in spawning biomass as the strong cohorts move into and out of the spawning population. Results conclude that for the base case model the female spawning biomass in 2012 was around 77% of the unexploited spawning stock biomass (SB0) and in 2014 will be approximately 94%SB0 (Tuck 2013). The 2013 assessment indicates that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired (see Figure 4) (Tuck 2013). Estimated spawning biomass has been consistently above the target reference point over the history of the fishery. SG80 and SG100 requirements are Justification met. Tuck 2013 References Stock Status relative to Reference Points Current stock status relative to Type of reference point Value of reference point reference point Target Spawning biomass 48% of SB0 77% of SB0 in 2012 (increasing reference point (female spawners as to 94% of SB0 in 2014) percentage of SB0) Limit reference Spawning biomass 20% of SB0 77% of SB0 in 2012 (increasing point (female spawners as to 94% of SB0 in 2014) percentage of SB0) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 53 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generic limit and Reference points are target reference appropriate for the points are based on stock and can be justifiable and estimated. reasonable practice appropriate for the Guidepost species category. Met? Y Y The SESSF HSF sets out management actions necessary to achieve defined biological and economic objectives, and describes target and limit reference points used for monitoring the condition of stocks (AFMA 2009). The reference points used are widely accepted as appropriate and the assessment estimates the status of the stock in relation to these reference points, hence SG60 and SG80 Justification requirements are met. b The limit reference The limit reference point is set point is set above the above the level at which there level at which there is is an appreciable risk of an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive impairing reproductive capacity following capacity. consideration of precautionary Guidepost issues. Met? Y Y The limit reference point is consistent with those for fisheries for species similar to Blue Grenadier. The limit and target reference points are based on justifiable and reasonable practice appropriate for the species category. The limit reference point is consistent with the Australia’s HSP in which 20% of unfished levels is the default biomass at which stocks are considered to be at an unacceptable risk (DAFF 2007). Stocks are required to be maintained above this level with a 90% probability. The HSF has been tested using Management Strategy Justification Evaluation (Wayte 2009). SG80 and SG100 requirements are met. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 54 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock c The target reference The target reference point is point is such that the such that the stock is stock is maintained at a maintained at a level level consistent with consistent with BMSY or some BMSY or some measure measure or surrogate with or surrogate with similar intent or outcome, or a similar intent or higher level, and takes into outcome. account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high Guidepost degree of certainty. Met? Y N Australia’s HSP adopts a position that fisheries are more efficient, profitable, stable and sustainable when stocks are larger than BMSY. In the HSP and the SESSF HSF the default BMSY proxy is B40 = 40% of the unfished spawning biomass. The target biomass BTARG adopted for Blue Grenadier represents the spawning biomass level which would result in a maximum economic yield (MEY), The default proxy is approximated by 1.2*BMSY, resulting in a more precautionary target of B48 = 48% of the unfished spawning biomass (AFMA 2009). While the setting of TACs is precautionary it does not explicitly take into account the ecological role of the Justification stock. SG80 requirements are met but SG100 are not. d For key low trophic level stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the Guidepost stock. Met? Not relevant Blue Grenadier is not a low trophic level species. Justification References AFMA 2009; DAFF 2007; Wayte 2009 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 55 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.3 Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified PI 1.1.3 timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted, depleted rebuilding strategies are demonstrated to strategies, which have be rebuilding stocks a reasonable continuously and there is expectation of strong evidence that rebuilding success, are in place. will be complete within the Guidepost specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Not relevant. As indicated above, the Blue Grenadier stock is not depleted. Justification b A rebuilding A rebuilding timeframe The shortest practicable timeframe is specified is specified for the rebuilding timeframe is for the depleted stock depleted stock that is specified which does not that is the shorter of the shorter of 20 years exceed one generation time for 30 years or 3 times its or 2 times its the depleted stock. generation time. For generation time. For cases where 3 cases where 2 generations is less generations is less than than 5 years, the 5 years, the rebuilding rebuilding timeframe timeframe is up to 5 Guidepost is up to 5 years. years. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Not relevant. The stock does not require rebuilding. Justification Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 56 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified PI 1.1.3 timeframe c Monitoring is in place There is evidence that to determine whether they are rebuilding the rebuilding stocks, or it is highly strategies are effective likely based on in rebuilding the stock simulation modelling within a specified or previous timeframe. performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a Guidepost specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Not relevant Justification References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: NA CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 57 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is expected to achieve responsive to the state responsive to the state of the stock management of the stock and the stock and is designed to objectives reflected in elements of the achieve stock management the target and limit harvest strategy work objectives reflected in the reference points. together towards target and limit reference achieving management points. objectives reflected in the target and limit Guidepost reference points. Met? Y Y Y A harvest strategy is the combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management actions. Australia’s HSP and the SESSF HSF contain all of these elements (DAFF 2007, AFMA 2009). The HSF is designed to meet stock management objectives and its elements work together to achieve this. The strategy is responsive to the state of the stock, with catch limits based on a range of data sources used in the stock assessment and application of defined rules. The HSF adopts increased levels of precaution that correspond to increasing levels of uncertainty about stock status, in order to reduce the level of risk associated with uncertainty. The harvest strategy is therefore responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives, as reflected by the target and limit reference points. The SESSF harvest strategy meets the requirements of the SG60, SG80 and SG100 Justification levels. b The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy The performance of the likely to work based may not have been harvest strategy has been fully on prior experience or fully tested but evaluated and evidence exists plausible argument. evidence exists that it to show that it is achieving its is achieving its objectives including being objectives. clearly able to maintain stocks Guidepost at target levels. Met? Y Y Y The SESSF HSF has been evaluated using Management Strategy Evaluation (Wayte, 2009, Klaer and Wayte 2011). It has been reviewed and revised since its inception in 2005 to improve its performance. The 2013 assessment indicates that the biomass of Blue Grenadier has been maintained well above target levels (Tuck 2013). The assessment explores uncertainty in a range of its inputs and the likelihood that the stock is maintained above target levels given this uncertainty. Justification The requirements of the SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels are met. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 58 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place c Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is Guidepost working. Met? Y Fishery-dependent and independent data are available to monitor trends in abundance as well as the age-structure of the population and the removals from the population. These data are included in the integrated stock assessment, which estimates stock status relative to limit and target reference points. Thus, sufficient monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Multiyear TACs have been adopted for some species because of the substantial management time and research resources required to set annual TACs. Breakout rules have been adopted which specify circumstances for re-evaluating the stock during the period of the multiyear TAC and there can be management intervention if trends in stock status are different from those expected. A two-year TAC for Blue Grenadier commenced in the 2012–13 season. Breakout rules for the multiyear TAC are based on four criteria, including whether CPUE fell outside the 95 per cent confidence interval predicted by the assessment. In years when a stock assessment is not undertaken the state of the stock in relation to the breakout rules is monitored by the Resource Assessment Group. Justification d The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Guidepost Met? Y The SESSF HSF has been reviewed and revised since its inception in 2005 to improve its performance, for example, the HSF was reviewed to check that it complied with the requirements of Australia’s HSP which was introduced in 2007. In addition, Australia’s HSP was reviewed in 2013 to examine its effectiveness (this was a commitment of the original policy) (DAFF 2013). A number of scientific reports have been prepared examining various aspects of the SESSF HSF. Justification e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is place. taking place. not taking place. Guidepost Met? Y Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 59 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place There is 100% observer coverage of the fishery and no indication of shark finning suggesting a high degree of certainty that it is not taking place. Justification AFMA 2009; Klaer and Wayte 2011; Haddon 2012; DAFF 2007; DAFF 2013; Wayte References 2009; Tuck 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generally understood Well defined harvest harvest rules are in control rules are in place that are place that are consistent with the consistent with the harvest strategy and harvest strategy and which act to reduce ensure that the the exploitation rate exploitation rate is as limit reference reduced as limit points are reference points are Guidepost approached. approached. Met? Y Y There are well defined harvest control rules in place for the Australian fishery for Blue Grenadier that are consistent with the harvest strategy and the HSP (DAFF 2007, AFMA 2009). The control rules are designed to reduce the exploitation rate as a LRP is approached (fishing mortality is to be reduced when the fishing mortality is greater than the target fishing mortality; see Figure 3). The HSF also requires that stock rebuilding strategies are developed if stocks do fall below BLIM. This therefore meets the requirements of the first elements of both the SG60 and SG80 levels. Justification b The selection of the The design of the harvest harvest control rules control rules takes into account takes into account the a wide range of uncertainties. Guidepost main uncertainties. Met? Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 60 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place The harvest strategy standard provides a formal and well specified process for setting harvest regulations and is designed so that a range of uncertainties can be accounted for. Uncertainties have been examined through MSE (Wayte 2009). The stock assessment also examines a wide range of uncertainties in developing recommended biological catches. Thus, the design of the harvest control rules takes a wide range of uncertainty into account. There is some evidence that Blue Grenadier from the western Tasmanian and eastern Bass Strait regions of the CTS are unlikely to be part of one highly mixed south eastern Australian stock (Hamer et al. 2009), however they are treated as a single stock across this range in the assessment. The implications of these findings for the assessment have not yet been fully examined and require future investigation. However, the large majority of the catch (including the UoC catch) is taken from western Tasmania and western Bass Strait. Justification c There is some Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that the evidence that tools indicates that the tools tools in use are effective in used to implement in use are appropriate achieving the exploitation harvest control rules and effective in levels required under the are appropriate and achieving the harvest control rules. effective in controlling exploitation levels exploitation. required under the Guidepost harvest control rules. Met? Y Y Y Catches from the fishery are reliably recorded and have never exceeded the TAC (see Table 2). The tools used to implement the harvest control rules (including mandatory logbooks and reporting of landings, and 100% observer coverage for freezer vessels) provide clear evidence of effectiveness in controlling the exploitation level from this fishery to required levels. Justification AFMA 2009; DAFF 2007; Larcombe and Begg 2008; Haddon 2012; Tuck 2013; References Hamer et al. 2009; Wayte 2009 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 61 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of information related to information related to information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity, productivity and fleet productivity, fleet fleet composition, stock composition is composition and other abundance, fishery removals available to support data is available to and other information such as the harvest strategy. support the harvest environmental information), strategy. including some that may not be directly related to the current Guidepost harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y N The information provided to the assessment team in the form of published papers, including reports from AFMA, ABARES and CSIRO, as well as the results of discussions with assessment experts, indicate that there is sufficient information available that is relevant to the Australian harvest strategy. There is detailed information to undertake regular stock assessment and uncertainties are explored in the assessment process (Tuck 2013, Upston and Klaer 2012). The information would be considered comprehensive except for the uncertainty in stock structure where there is some evidence that Blue Grenadier from the western Tasmanian and eastern Bass Strait regions are unlikely to be part of one highly mixed south eastern Australian stock (Hamer et al. 2009) but they are treated as a single stock across the CTS in the assessment. Justification SG60 and SG80 guideposts are strongly met but not SG100. b Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by the fishery removals are fishery removals are harvest control rule is monitored and at least regularly monitored at monitored with high frequency one indicator is a level of accuracy and and a high degree of certainty, available and coverage consistent and there is a good monitored with with the harvest understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to control rule, and one uncertainties in the support the harvest or more indicators are information [data] and the control rule. available and robustness of assessment and monitored with management to this sufficient frequency to uncertainty. support the harvest Guidepost control rule. Met? Y Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 62 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy All the information required by the SESSF Harvest Control Rules is collected regularly and is monitored through the RAG and MAC processes established by AFMA. It was readily apparent to the assessment team that those involved in the scientific aspects of the assessment process have a good understanding of the inherent uncertainties in the data that are collected and used. There is excellent information available on all fishery removals from the stock. The information collected includes shot-by-shot records in logbooks, 100% observer coverage for UoC vessels and inspection of all landings. There is no discarding from the freezer vessels targeting the spawning aggregation. Levels of discarding from the non-spawning are estimated on the basis of ISMP data. The level of discarding from 2007 has been low with diminishing numbers of the previous strong year classes (AFMA 2012b). In 2012, industry targeting non-spawning fish reported large numbers of small Blue Grenadier that were being discarded from some shots. Evidence of a new year class entering the fishery was also apparent in the length composition data from port and onboard sampling. The ISMP-based estimate was high, however, the estimate was not used in the 2012 assessment because it had a very wide confidence interval (CV = 162%) and was not considered to provide a robust estimate of the 2012 discard levels. A multiyear TAC has been adopted for Blue Grenadier because of the substantial management time and research resources required to set annual TACs. Breakout rules have been adopted which specify circumstances for re-evaluating the stock during the period of the multiyear TAC and there can be management intervention if trends in stock status are different from those expected. These breakout rules are monitored through SlopeRAG. Breakout rules for the multiyear TAC are based on four criteria, including whether CPUE fell outside the 95 per cent confidence interval predicted by the assessment. In 2012, SlopeRAG determined that the fishery had not breached the breakout rules and recommended that the multiyear TAC be retained for the 2013–14 season (AFMA 2012b). Justification SG60, 80 and 100 guideposts are met. c There is good information on all other fishery removals Guidepost from the stock. Met? Y (including discarding) Catches by gear other than mid-water and bottom trawl are negligible. SlopeRAG provides estimates of approximately 10 t taken annually by Commonwealth fishers using non-trawl gear and less than 1 t taken annually in State waters (AFMA 2012b). Justificatio n References Tuck 2013; Hamer et al. 2009; AFMA 2012b; Upston and Klaer 2012 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 63 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The assessment is The assessment is appropriate appropriate for the for the stock and for the stock and for the harvest control rule and takes harvest control rule. into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature Guidepost of the fishery. Met? Y Y The Blue Grenadier assessment estimates stock status using an age-structured integrated analysis implemented in the generalized stock assessment software package, Stock Synthesis (SS). The assessment provides estimates of current biomass and current biomass relative to unfished levels and relative to target and limit reference levels. Projections of this assessment are used examine consistency of future catches which with the HSF. The assessment incorporates information and assumption on biological aspects of the species such as the proportion of females spawning each year, length at 50% maturity for females and length-weight relationships (Tuck 2013). Natural mortality for females was estimated and male natural mortality is assumed to be 20% greater than this value based upon assumptions made for hoki in New Zealand (Tuck 2013). A steepness value of h=0.75 is assumed. The assessment takes advantage of the ability of SS to account for multiple fleet allocations to represent the different dynamics of the spawning and non-spawning fisheries. The form of the assessment is the same as used for other similar stocks (albeit with different data inputs). This clearly meets the requirements for the first element of the SG80 and SG100 levels. Justification b The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference Guidepost points. Met? Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 64 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status The assessment provides estimates of current biomass and current biomass relative to unfished levels and relative to target and limit reference levels. Projections of this assessment are used examine consistency of future catches which with the HSF (Tuck 2013). Justification c The assessment The assessment takes The assessment takes into identifies major uncertainty into account uncertainty and is sources of uncertainty. account. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a Guidepost probabilistic way. Met? Y Y Y The major sources of uncertainty have been identified and are discussed at Resource Assessment Group meetings. The assessment explores the uncertainties and undertakes sensitivity analysis and explores alternate models (Tuck 2013). Stock status is evaluated relative to reference points and confidence intervals are derived. Stochastic projections evaluate stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic. All SG60, SG80 and SG100 scoring elements are met. Justification d The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have Guidepost been rigorously explored. Met? N The assessment method, Stock Synthesis, has been applied extensively in fisheries around the world. The model has been developed over more than 10 years and provides a robust assessment of the stock. Alternative hypotheses have been explored and sensitivity analyses have been conducted. However, the assessment acknowledges the lack of fit to the catch rate series of the non-spawning fishery and the need to explore whether this is a data issue or a model structure issue (Tuck 2013). Also, the uncertainty over stock structure has not been explored in the assessment. It is therefore not considered sufficient to meet the requirements Justification of the SG100 level. e The assessment of The assessment has been stock status is subject internally and externally peer to peer review. reviewed. Guidepost Met? Y N Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 65 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status The assessment is regularly reviewed by SlopeRAG and SESSFRAG and by internal CSIRO processes. Annual status reports review the assessment and report on current status of the stock (Woodhams et al. 2013) This review process meets the requirements of the third element of the SG 80 level but is considered by the assessment team to be predominantly an internal process only. Earlier versions of the model were peer reviewed but recent versions have not. It is therefore not Justification considered sufficient to meet the requirements of the SG100 level. References Tuck 2013; Woodhams et al. 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 Recommendation: There is uncertainty regarding the stock structure of Blue Grenadier and this has not been examined in the stock assessment. The audit team recommends that either include this 1 uncertainty in future assessment, or an analysis of why this is not necessary, should be undertaken. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 66 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 Demersal trawl PI 2.1.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species Demersal trawl and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main retained species Main retained species There is a high degree of are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that retained species biologically based within biologically are within biologically based limits (if not, go to based limits (if not, go limits and fluctuating around scoring issue c below). to scoring issue c their target reference points. Guidepost below). Met? Y Y N The fishery is managed with a general strategy of all catch being retained. To be considered as a “main” retained species under MSC, species need to comprise >5% of the total catch by weight or to have value to the fisher or particular vulnerability. No retained species represented 5% of the catch over the period 2009 to 2013 for demersal trawling (Table 5), hence there are no “main” retained species under this criterion. However, five deepwater shark species are assessed at high risk through the SESSF ecological risk assessment process. Only one of these species, Greeneye Spurdog, is reported as caught in Table 5 and is considered as a main retained species for the purpose of this assessment due to its vulnerability (MSC CR v. 1.3, GCB 3.5.2) (AFMA 2010b). Some level of assessment is undertaken for all SESSF quota species under a tiered assessment approach (AFMA 2009). Although they are not “main” retained species under the 5% rule, SESSF quota-managed species taken in small quantities by demersal and midwater trawling are considered here. The retained species with the highest catch is Silver Warehou. Silver Warehou are assessed as not overfished and not subject to overfishing (Woodhams et al. 2013). Similarly, Silver Trevally and Mirror Dory are not overfished or subject to overfishing. Pink ling are not overfished but their overfishing status is uncertain. There are several other species for which status is assessed as uncertain. Hence, there are a number of quota-managed species potentially meeting scoring issue (a) at the SG100. However, there are several species for which status is uncertain, the stocks are below limit reference points or there is some level of overfishing and SG100 is not met for all retained species. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 67 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species Demersal trawl and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species The status of the majority of non-quota species is not well known. The SESSF has undergone ecological risk assessments for several gear types—otter trawl, auto- longline, Danish-seine and gillnet—that are used across the SESSF sectors (Wayte et al. 2009, Smith et al. 2007). The risk assessment is followed by an ecological risk management framework developed by AFMA (AFMA 2010a). For otter trawl, 600 species were assessed at the Level 2 (Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis; PSA) stage. Of these 600, 159 species were classified as high risk; the majority of the high-risk species were chondrichthyans or teleosts. A Level 3 (Susceptibility Assessment of Fishing Effects; SAFE) assessment was then applied, which reduced the number of high-risk species to 23 (Zhou et al. 2007). During the residual risk process, new information was identified that allowed the total number of high-risk Justification species to be reduced to 10 (AFMA 2010b). These species include several low- productivity, deepwater sharks, several seabirds and the Australian fur seal. No teleost species were considered to be high risk following residual risk assessment. Minor catches of deepwater sharks are retained by the client fishery. Because some deepwater shark species are depleted and assessed at high risk, commentary on these is at scoring issue 2.1.1c, below. Overall, the SG80 level is met. b Target reference points are defined for retained species. Guidepost Met? N Under the SESSF harvest strategy target reference points are defined for quota- managed species (AFMA 2009). Explicit target reference points are, however, not set for many other retained species. Therefore SG100 is not met. Justification c If main retained If main retained species are outside species are outside the the limits there are limits there is a partial measures in place that strategy of are expected to demonstrably effective ensure that the fishery management measures does not hinder in place such that the recovery and fishery does not hinder rebuilding of the recovery and Guidepost depleted species. rebuilding. Met? Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 68 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species Demersal trawl and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Five deepwater shark species are assessed at high risk following AFMA’s residual risk assessment (AFMA 2010b) and are therefore considered main retained species for the purpose of this assessment, though only one of these species is reported as taken by the fishery (Table 5). For retained species which are depleted, the harvest strategy requires that measures are put in place to rebuild stocks. These measures may involve reduction in quotas or closures. There is a high level of monitoring and research to support recovery and rebuilding. The five deepwater shark species identified as high risk were: Leafscale Gulper Shark (Centrophorus squamosus), Platypus Shark (Deania quadrispinosa), Harrisson's Dogfish (Centrophorus harrissoni), Greeneye Spurdog (Squalus chloroculus) and Southern Dogfish (Centrophorus zeehani). Platypus Shark are managed under quota as part of a basket quota set for several other deepwater shark species. Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish are designated as conservation dependent under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act of 1999. Minor catches of deepwater sharks are retained by the client fishery. A range of measures have been introduced across the SESSF to limit interaction with these shark species. The Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy (AFMA 2012a) has the objective to promote the recovery of Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish, and to help to mitigate the impact of Justification fishing on Endeavour Dogfish and Greeneye Spurdog. The strategy relies primarily on a network of spatial closures complemented by a range of non-spatial operational measures such a zero retention limit for Harrisson’s Dogfish, Southern Dogfish, Endeavour Dogfish and Greeneye Spurdog (AFMA 2012a, AFMA 2013e). The partial strategy of management measures introduced for deepwater shark species is based on extensive research and meets the SG80 level for the client fishery. Note, however that there are low levels of catch of Greeneye Spurdog reported in Table 5 of this report. Greeneye Spurdog are widely distributed and the client fishery operates in only a small area of the total distribution. A condition relating to management of Greeneye Spurdog was attached to the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts’ accreditation of the SESSF as a Wildlife Trade Operation in February 2010. However, more recent WTO declarations don’t include a condition for this species. The distribution and the low level of catch suggest the fishery is unlikely to hinder recovery or rebuilding of the stock. A condition in relation to retention of Greeneye Spurdog has been raised under PI 3.2.3. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 69 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species Demersal trawl and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species d If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or Guidepost hindering recovery. Met? Y There are no main retained species for the fishery in terms of weight (<5%) but five deepwater shark species taken across the SESSF are assessed at high risk and are therefore considered main retained species for the purpose of this assessment (MSC CR v. 1.3, GCB 3.5.2). As indicated above, AFMA’s Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy (AFMA 2012a) seeks to promote the recovery of Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish, and to help to mitigate the impact of fishing on Endeavour Dogfish and Greeneye Spurdog, meeting the SG60 level. In addition, an updated risk analysis (Zhou et al. 2012) identifies several species at risk which have been taken in small quantities by the fishery. There has been consideration given to this updated risk analysis in the current Bycatch and Discarding Workplan for the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (AFMA 2014a). Justification Woodhams et al. 2013; Wayte 2007; Smith et al. 2007; AFMA 2010a; AFMA 2010b; References AFMA 2012a; AFMA 2013e; Zhou et al. 2012) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the Demersal trawl fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 70 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the Demersal trawl fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing retained species. that are expected to necessary, that is maintain the main expected to maintain retained species at the main retained levels which are highly species at levels which likely to be within are highly likely to be biologically based within biologically limits, or to ensure the based limits, or to fishery does not ensure the fishery does hinder their recovery not hinder their and rebuilding. recovery and Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Based on the MSC definition for main retained species, five deepwater shark species taken across the SESSF are considered as main retained species due to their vulnerability (MSC CR v. 1.3, GCB 3.5.2). There is a robust harvest strategy in place for SESSF quota species. Non-quota species have been assessed through AFMA’s ecological risk assessment program (Wayte et al. 2007). No teleost species were assessed through this process to be high risk species. AFMA has a formal Bycatch and Discarding Plan in place for non-retained species (AFMA 2013a, AFMA 2014a). There is also a strategy in place to manage impacts on deepwater dogfish (AFMA 2012a). In addition, there is 100% observer coverage of the client fishery. Justification SG60, SG80 and SG100 criteria are met. b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy work, based on confidence that the will work, based on plausible argument partial strategy will information directly about the (e.g., general work, based on some fishery and/or species experience, theory or information directly involved. comparison with about the fishery similar and/or species Guidepost fisheries/species). involved. Met? Y Y N There is detailed information on quota species and on some of the non-quota species, including management strategy evaluation. However, although there has been ecological risk assessment for the fishery there is not ongoing testing for all retained species and SG100 is not met. Justification Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 71 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the Demersal trawl fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the partial strategy is being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented Guidepost successfully. Met? Y N There are no main retained species for the fishery in terms of catch weight but five deepwater shark species taken across the SESSF are assessed at high risk and are therefore considered main retained species for the purpose of this assessment. Of these species, only Greeneye Spurdog is reported as being taken by the fishery. AFMA have implemented the Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy for these species (AFMA 2012a). The Strategy includes an annual review of available data and the management strategy itself will be reviewed at the end of its fifth year. There is high quality, comprehensive data collection for all species through various means, including catch and effort logbooks, catch disposal records, 100% observer coverage. Species composition of total catch is well recorded (2013b, 2013c). Available data provide the basis for assessment of the implementation of catch management strategies (2014b). There is some evidence, based on this information, that the strategy for managing retained species is being implemented successfully, meeting the SG80 level. However, uncertainty such as the retained catch of Greeneye Spurdog prevent SG100 being met. Justification d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Guidepost Met? Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 72 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the Demersal trawl fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species For quota species, regular updates of stock assessments underlying harvest strategies occur to include new information and quotas are reviewed regularly. AFMA’s Bycatch and Discarding Plans are regularly monitored and updated (AFMA 2014a). The 2014 Commonwealth Trawl Sector Plan indicates that elements will be reviewed as described below: every 6 months to ensure actions are progressing well and determine if any additional actions can be taken; as part of the annual review of the ERM Strategy ensure actions are progressing well; ensure that objectives of the ERM strategy are being met; determine if any additional actions can be taken; and final review at 24 months as part of the annual ERM strategy review to ensure that action items have been completed; report against performance indicators; and determine actions for subsequent Workplans. With these tools and processes, there is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective and meets SG100. Justification e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is place. taking place. not taking place. Guidepost Met? Y Y Y Table 5 indicates that some shark species are retained (AFMA 2014b). The species retained are not typically suitable for finning. In addition, there is 100% observer coverage, providing evidence that there is a high degree of certainty that finning is not taking place. Justification AFMA 2009; AFMA 2010a; AFMA 2010b; AFMA 2012a; AFMA 2013b; AFMA 2013c; References AFMA 2014a; AFMA 2014b; Wayte et al. 2007 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 73 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained Demersal trawl species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable information is and some quantitative information is available on the available on the information are catch of all retained species amount of main available on the and the consequences for the retained species taken amount of main status of affected populations. by the fishery. retained species taken Guidepost by the fishery. Met? Y Y N There are no main retained species for the fishery in terms of catch weight (<5%) but five deepwater shark species are assessed at high risk and are therefore considered main retained species for the purpose of this assessment (MSC CR v. 1.3, GCB 3.5.2), though GreeneyeSpurdog is the only one of these species reported as taken by the fishery. There is high quality, comprehensive data collection for all species through various means, including catch and effort logbooks, catch disposal records, 100% observer coverage (AFMA 2013e). There are reporting mechanisms and frameworks in place within the range of AFMA’s policies and measures which support ongoing review of the ERM strategy. Individual fishery Harvest Strategies and Bycatch and Discarding Work Plans contain annual and longer term review timeframes (AFMA 2009, AFMA 2014a). AFMA indicate that a full review of the risk assessments undertaken for each Commonwealth managed fishery will be completed periodically. The SESSF risk assessments have not been revised for over 5 years. SG100 would be met if risk assessments were more current. Justification b Information is Information is Information is sufficient to adequate to sufficient to estimate quantitatively estimate qualitatively assess outcome status with outcome status with a high outcome status with respect to biologically degree of certainty. respect to biologically based limits. Guidepost based limits. Met? Y Y N Five species of deepwater shark are assessed through ecological risk assessment for the SESSF as at high risk and therefore considered as main retained species (AFMA 2010a). Although there has been considerable effort in undertaking ecological risk assessments for the fishery, there are not quantitative estimates of status with a high degree of certainty for many of the retained species. The SG80 Justification level is met. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 74 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained Demersal trawl species c Information is Information is Information is adequate to adequate to support adequate to support a support a strategy to manage measures to manage partial strategy to retained species, and evaluate main retained species. manage main retained with a high degree of certainty species. whether the strategy is Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N Five deepwater shark species taken across the SESSF are considered as main retained species due to their vulnerability. There is monitoring of catches from the fishery. Observer coverage provides independent monitoring of fishery operations and catch characteristics (AFMA 2013b, AFMA 2013c). Available information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage retained, hence SG80 is met. Justification d Sufficient data Monitoring of retained species continue to be is conducted in sufficient detail collected to detect any to assess ongoing mortalities increase in risk level to all retained species. (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the Guidepost strategy) Met? Y N Five deepwater shark species taken across the SESSF are considered as main retained species due to their vulnerability. There is sufficient monitoring with 100% observer coverage to assess ongoing mortality of the majority of retained species and SG80 is met. An updated risk analysis identified several high risk species which have been taken in small quantities by the fishery. An action item in the latest Bycatch and Discarding Workplan (AFMA 2014a) to address the catch of high risk species is to “Assess trends in catch of high risk bycatch species”. The action item proposes ongoing analysis of logbook and observer data in relation to these species, with a final report to be produced by June 2016. The assessment team propose a Justification recommendation in relation to this issue. AFMA 2009; AFMA 2010a; AFMA 2013b; AFMA 2013c; AFMA 2013e; AFMA 2014a References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 75 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained Demersal trawl species Recommendation: The client shall provide the final report showing the analysis of logbook and observer data to the CAB for review at the first annual surveillance audit. Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 PI 2.2.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species Demersal trawl groups Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main bycatch species Main bycatch species There is a high degree of are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that bycatch species biologically based within biologically are within biologically based limits (if not, go to based limits (if not, go limits. scoring issue b below). to scoring issue b Guidepost below). Met? Y Y N There are very few bycatch species, most species caught in bottom trawl are retained. The only reported discarded species are Silver Warehou, Porbeagle Shark, Swordfish and Southern Bluefin Tuna. Besides Silver Warehou these are only occasionally caught. Because none of these species comprise 5% or more of total catch by weight none are considered main bycatch species following the MSC guidance GCB 3.8.2 (MSC CR v. 1.3 , 2013). Porbeagle Shark was listed on Appendix II of CITES in 2013 but not in Appendix I, and therefore considered as bycatch in this assessment. Porbeagle Shark are potentially vulnerable but only 50 kg are reported as caught during a 5 year period. In addition, the Commonwealth Trawl Sector ERA rated the species at a medium risk. Corals, sponges or any other benthic species did not appear as discard species for Justification this fishery over the past 5 years in logbook data (AFMA 2014b). b If main bycatch If main bycatch species species are outside are outside biologically biologically based based limits there is a limits there are partial strategy of mitigation measures in demonstrably effective place that are mitigation measures in expected to ensure place such that the that the fishery does fishery does not hinder not hinder recovery recovery and Guidepost and rebuilding. rebuilding. Met? Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 76 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.2.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species Demersal trawl groups See scoring issue a) Justification c If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or Guidepost hindering recovery. Met? Y See scoring issue a) Justification AFMA 2013e, AFMA 2014a,b References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery Demersal trawl does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 77 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery Demersal trawl does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing and minimizing that are expected to necessary, that is bycatch. maintain the main expected to maintain bycatch species at the main bycatch levels which are highly species at levels which likely to be within are highly likely to be biologically based within biologically limits, or to ensure the based limits, or to fishery does not ensure the fishery does hinder their recovery not hinder their and rebuilding. recovery and Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Nearly all the catch is retained and processed. There are very few bycatch species and none are classified as main species; this can be interpreted as a strategy to minimize bycatch. AFMA has a formal Bycatch and Discarding Plan in place for non-retained species. In addition, there is 100% observer coverage of the client Justification fishery. The SG100 level is met. b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy work, based on confidence that the will work, based on plausible argument partial strategy will information directly about the (e.g. general work, based on some fishery and/or species experience, theory or information directly involved. comparison with about the fishery similar and/or species Guidepost fisheries/species). involved. Met? Y Y Y There are very few bycatch species and a formal Bycatch and Discarding Plan in place. The 100% observer cover supports high confidence that all species caught are in fact retained and the strategy to minimize bycatch is working. Justification c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the partial strategy is being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented Guidepost successfully. Met? Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 78 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery Demersal trawl does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations 100% observer coverage of all trips and both gear types and no records of any breaches to this strategy. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully and adhered to. This meets the requirement for the third element of the SG 100 level. Justification d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Guidepost Met? Y Based on 100% observer coverage of all trips and both gear types and no records of any breaches to this strategy, there is clear evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Justification AFMA 2013e; AFMA 2014a,b References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk Demersal trawl posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable information is and some quantitative information is available on the available on the information are catch of all bycatch species and amount of main available on the the consequences for the bycatch species taken amount of main status of affected populations. by the fishery. bycatch species taken Guidepost by the fishery. Met? Y Y N Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 79 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk Demersal trawl posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch The observer data is comprehensive. 100% observer coverage of all trips accurate and verifiable information. Consequences of affected populations have been explored with risk assessments (Wayte et al. 2007). Bycatch and Discarding Work Plans contain annual and longer term review timeframes. AFMA indicate that a full review of the risk assessments undertaken for each Commonwealth managed fishery will be completed periodically. The SESSF risk assessments have not been revised for over 5 years. SG100 would be Justification met if risk assessments were more current. b Information is Information is Information is sufficient to adequate to broadly sufficient to estimate quantitatively estimate understand outcome outcome status with outcome status with respect to status with respect to respect to biologically biologically based limits with a biologically based based limits. high degree of certainty. Guidepost limits Met? Y Y N There are no main bycatch species. Although there has been considerable effort in undertaking ecological risk assessments for the fishery, there are not quantitative estimates of status with a high degree of certainty for many of the retained species. The SG80 level is met. Justification c Information is Information is Information is adequate to adequate to support adequate to support a support a strategy to manage measures to manage partial strategy to retained species, and evaluate bycatch. manage main bycatch with a high degree of certainty species. whether the strategy is Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N There is monitoring of catches from the fishery. Observer coverage provides independent monitoring of fishery operations and catch characteristics. Available information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage retained, hence SG80 is met. Justification Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 80 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk Demersal trawl posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch d Sufficient data Monitoring of bycatch data is continue to be conducted in sufficient detail collected to detect any to assess ongoing mortalities increase in risk to main to all bycatch species. bycatch species (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the Guidepost strategy). Met? Y Y There are no main bycatch species. With 100% observer coverage monitoring is sufficient to assess ongoing mortality of bycatch species and SG100 is met. Justification References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 81 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Midwater trawl PI 2.1.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species Midwater trawl and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main retained species Main retained species There is a high degree of are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that retained species biologically based within biologically are within biologically based limits (if not, go to based limits (if not, go limits and fluctuating around scoring issue c below). to scoring issue c their target reference points. Guidepost below). Met? Y Y N The fishery is managed with a general strategy of all catch being retained. To be considered as a “main” retained species under MSC, species need to comprise >5% of the total catch by weight or to have value to the fisher or particular vulnerability. No retained species represented 5% of the catch over the period 2009 to 2013 for midwater trawling (Table 6), hence there are no “main” retained species under this criterion. However, five deepwater shark species are assessed at high risk through the SESSF ecological risk assessment process. Only one of these species, Greeneye Spurdog, is reported as caught in Table 6 and is considered as a main retained species for the purpose of this assessment due to its vulnerability (MSC CR v. 1.3, GCB 3.5.2) (AFMA 2010b). Some level of assessment is undertaken for all SESSF quota species under a tiered assessment approach (AFMA 2009). Although they are not “main” retained species under the 5% rule, SESSF quota-managed species taken in small quantities by demersal and midwater trawling are considered here. The retained species with the highest catch is Silver Warehou. Silver Warehou are assessed as not overfished and not subject to overfishing (Woodhams et al. 2013). Similarly, Silver Trevally and Mirror Dory are not overfished or subject to overfishing. Pink ling are not overfished but their overfishing status is uncertain. There are several other species for which status is assessed as uncertain. Hence, there are a number of quota-managed species potentially meeting scoring issue (a) at the SG100. However, there are several species for which status is uncertain, the stocks are below limit reference points or there is some level of overfishing and SG100 is not met for all retained species. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 82 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species Midwater trawl and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species The status of the majority of non-quota species is not well known. The SESSF has undergone ecological risk assessments for several gear types—otter trawl, auto- longline, Danish-seine and gillnet—that are used across the SESSF sectors (Wayte et al. 2009, Smith et al. 2007). The risk assessment is followed by an ecological risk management framework developed by AFMA (AFMA 2010a). For otter trawl, 600 species were assessed at the Level 2 (Productivity and Susceptibility Analysis; PSA) stage. Of these 600, 159 species were classified as high risk; the majority of the high-risk species were chondrichthyans or teleosts. A Level 3 (Susceptibility Assessment of Fishing Effects; SAFE) assessment was then applied, which reduced the number of high-risk species to 23 (Zhou et al. 2007). During the residual risk process, new information was identified that allowed the total number of high-risk Justification species to be reduced to 10 (AFMA 2010b). These species include several low- productivity, deepwater sharks, several seabirds and the Australian fur seal. No teleost species were considered to be high risk following residual risk assessment. Minor catches of deepwater sharks are retained by the client fishery. Because some deepwater shark species are depleted and assessed at high risk, commentary on these is at scoring issue 2.1.1c, below. Overall, the SG80 level is met. b Target reference points are defined for retained species. Guidepost Met? N Under the SESSF harvest strategy target reference points are defined for quota- managed species (AFMA 2009). Explicit target reference points are, however, not set for many other retained species. Therefore SG100 is not met. Justification c If main retained If main retained species are outside species are outside the the limits there are limits there is a partial measures in place that strategy of are expected to demonstrably effective ensure that the fishery management measures does not hinder in place such that the recovery and fishery does not hinder rebuilding of the recovery and Guidepost depleted species. rebuilding. Met? Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 83 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species Midwater trawl and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Five deepwater shark species are assessed at high risk following AFMA’s residual risk assessment (AFMA 2010b) and are therefore considered main retained species for the purpose of this assessment, though only one of these species is reported as taken by the fishery (Table 6). For retained species which are depleted, the harvest strategy requires that measures are put in place to rebuild stocks. These measures may involve reduction in quotas or closures. There is a high level of monitoring and research to support recovery and rebuilding. The five deepwater shark species identified as high risk were: Leafscale Gulper Shark (Centrophorus squamosus), Platypus Shark (Deania quadrispinosa), Harrisson's Dogfish (Centrophorus harrissoni), Greeneye Spurdog (Squalus chloroculus) and Southern Dogfish (Centrophorus zeehani). Platypus Shark are managed under quota as part of a basket quota set for several other deepwater shark species. Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish are designated as conservation dependent under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act of 1999. Minor catches of deepwater sharks are retained by the client fishery. A range of measures have been introduced across the SESSF to limit interaction with these shark species. The Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy (AFMA 2012a) has the objective to promote the recovery of Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish, and to help to mitigate the impact of Justification fishing on Endeavour Dogfish and Greeneye Spurdog. The strategy relies primarily on a network of spatial closures complemented by a range of non-spatial operational measures such a zero retention limit for Harrisson’s Dogfish, Southern Dogfish, Endeavour Dogfish and Greeneye Spurdog (AFMA 2012a, AFMA 2013e). The partial strategy of management measures introduced for deepwater shark species is based on extensive research and meets the SG80 level for the client fishery. Note, however that there are low levels of catch of Greeneye Spurdog reported in Table 6 of this report. Greeneye Spurdog are widely distributed and the client fishery operates in only a small area of the total distribution. A condition relating to management of Greeneye Spurdog was attached to the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts’ accreditation of the SESSF as a Wildlife Trade Operation in February 2010. However, more recent WTO declarations don’t include a condition for this species. The distribution and the low level of catch suggest the fishery is unlikely to hinder recovery or rebuilding of the stock. A condition in relation to retention of Greeneye Spurdog has been raised under PI 3.2.3. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 84 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species Midwater trawl and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species d If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or Guidepost hindering recovery. Met? Y There are no main retained species for the fishery in terms of weight (<5%) but five deepwater shark species taken across the SESSF are assessed at high risk and are therefore considered main retained species for the purpose of this assessment (MSC CR v. 1.3, GCB 3.5.2). As indicated above, AFMA’s Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy (AFMA 2012a) seeks to promote the recovery of Harrisson’s Dogfish and Southern Dogfish, and to help to mitigate the impact of fishing on Endeavour Dogfish and Greeneye Spurdog, meeting the SG60 level. In addition, an updated risk analysis (Zhou et al. 2012) identifies several species at risk which have been taken in small quantities by the fishery. There has been consideration given to this updated risk analysis in the current Bycatch and Discarding Workplan for the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (AFMA 2014a). Justification Woodhams et al. 2013; Wayte 2007; Smith et al. 2007; AFMA 2010a; AFMA 2010b; References AFMA 2012a; AFMA 2013e; Zhou et al. 2012) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the Midwater trawl fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 85 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the Midwater trawl fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing retained species. that are expected to necessary, that is maintain the main expected to maintain retained species at the main retained levels which are highly species at levels which likely to be within are highly likely to be biologically based within biologically limits, or to ensure the based limits, or to fishery does not ensure the fishery does hinder their recovery not hinder their and rebuilding. recovery and Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Based on the MSC definition for main retained species, five deepwater shark species taken across the SESSF are considered as main retained species due to their vulnerability (MSC CR v. 1.3, GCB 3.5.2). There is a robust harvest strategy in place for SESSF quota species. Non-quota species have been assessed through AFMA’s ecological risk assessment program (Wayte et al. 2007). No teleost species were assessed through this process to be high risk species. AFMA has a formal Bycatch and Discarding Plan in place for non-retained species (AFMA 2013a, AFMA 2014a). There is also a strategy in place to manage impacts on deepwater dogfish (AFMA 2012a). In addition, there is 100% observer coverage of the client fishery. Justification SG60, SG80 and SG100 criteria are met. b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy work, based on confidence that the will work, based on plausible argument partial strategy will information directly about the (e.g., general work, based on some fishery and/or species experience, theory or information directly involved. comparison with about the fishery similar and/or species Guidepost fisheries/species). involved. Met? Y Y N There is detailed information on quota species and on some of the non-quota species, including management strategy evaluation. However, although there has been ecological risk assessment for the fishery there is not ongoing testing for all retained species and SG100 is not met. Justification Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 86 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the Midwater trawl fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the partial strategy is being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented Guidepost successfully. Met? Y N There are no main retained species for the fishery in terms of catch weight but five deepwater shark species taken across the SESSF are assessed at high risk and are therefore considered main retained species for the purpose of this assessment. Of these species, only Greeneye Spurdog is reported as being taken by the fishery. AFMA have implemented the Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy for these species (AFMA 2012a). The Strategy includes an annual review of available data and the management strategy itself will be reviewed at the end of its fifth year. There is high quality, comprehensive data collection for all species through various means, including catch and effort logbooks, catch disposal records, 100% observer coverage. Species composition of total catch is well recorded (2013b, 2013c). Available data provide the basis for assessment of the implementation of catch management strategies (2014b). There is some evidence, based on this information, that the strategy for managing retained species is being implemented successfully, meeting the SG80 level. However, uncertainty such as the retained catch of Greeneye Spurdog prevent SG100 being met. Justification d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Guidepost Met? Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 87 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the Midwater trawl fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species For quota species, regular updates of stock assessments underlying harvest strategies occur to include new information and quotas are reviewed regularly. AFMA’s Bycatch and Discarding Plans are regularly monitored and updated (AFMA 2014a). The 2014 Commonwealth Trawl Sector Plan indicates that elements will be reviewed as described below: every 6 months to ensure actions are progressing well and determine if any additional actions can be taken; as part of the annual review of the ERM Strategy ensure actions are progressing well; ensure that objectives of the ERM strategy are being met; determine if any additional actions can be taken; and final review at 24 months as part of the annual ERM strategy review to ensure that action items have been completed; report against performance indicators; and determine actions for subsequent Workplans. With these tools and processes, there is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective and meets SG100. Justification e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of finning is not taking shark finning is not certainty that shark finning is place. taking place. not taking place. Guidepost Met? Y Y Y Table 6 indicates that some shark species are retained (AFMA 2014b). The species retained are not typically suitable for finning. In addition, there is 100% observer coverage, providing evidence that there is a high degree of certainty that finning is not taking place. Justification AFMA 2009; AFMA 2010a; AFMA 2010b; AFMA 2012a; AFMA 2013b; AFMA 2013c; References AFMA 2014a; AFMA 2014b; Wayte et al. 2007 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 88 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained Midwater trawl species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable information is and some quantitative information is available on the available on the information are catch of all retained species amount of main available on the and the consequences for the retained species taken amount of main status of affected populations. by the fishery. retained species taken Guidepost by the fishery. Met? Y Y N There are no main retained species for the fishery in terms of catch weight (<5%) but five deepwater shark species are assessed at high risk and are therefore considered main retained species for the purpose of this assessment (MSC CR v. 1.3, GCB 3.5.2), though GreeneyeSpurdog is the only one of these species reported as taken by the fishery. There is high quality, comprehensive data collection for all species through various means, including catch and effort logbooks, catch disposal records, 100% observer coverage (AFMA 2013e). There are reporting mechanisms and frameworks in place within the range of AFMA’s policies and measures which support ongoing review of the ERM strategy. Individual fishery Harvest Strategies and Bycatch and Discarding Work Plans contain annual and longer term review timeframes (AFMA 2009, AFMA 2014a). AFMA indicate that a full review of the risk assessments undertaken for each Commonwealth managed fishery will be completed periodically. The SESSF risk assessments have not been revised for over 5 years. SG100 would be met if risk assessments were more current. Justification b Information is Information is Information is sufficient to adequate to sufficient to estimate quantitatively estimate qualitatively assess outcome status with outcome status with a high outcome status with respect to biologically degree of certainty. respect to biologically based limits. Guidepost based limits. Met? Y Y N Five species of deepwater shark are assessed through ecological risk assessment for the SESSF as at high risk and therefore considered as main retained species (AFMA 2010a). Although there has been considerable effort in undertaking ecological risk assessments for the fishery, there are not quantitative estimates of status with a high degree of certainty for many of the retained species. The SG80 Justification level is met. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 89 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained Midwater trawl species c Information is Information is Information is adequate to adequate to support adequate to support a support a strategy to manage measures to manage partial strategy to retained species, and evaluate main retained species. manage main retained with a high degree of certainty species. whether the strategy is Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N Five deepwater shark species taken across the SESSF are considered as main retained species due to their vulnerability. There is monitoring of catches from the fishery. Observer coverage provides independent monitoring of fishery operations and catch characteristics (AFMA 2013b, AFMA 2013c). Available information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage retained, hence SG80 is met. Justification d Sufficient data Monitoring of retained species continue to be is conducted in sufficient detail collected to detect any to assess ongoing mortalities increase in risk level to all retained species. (e.g. due to changes in the outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the Guidepost strategy) Met? Y N Five deepwater shark species taken across the SESSF are considered as main retained species due to their vulnerability. There is sufficient monitoring with 100% observer coverage to assess ongoing mortality of the majority of retained species and SG80 is met. An updated risk analysis identified several high risk species which have been taken in small quantities by the fishery. An action item in the latest Bycatch and Discarding Workplan (AFMA 2014a) to address the catch of high risk species is to “Assess trends in catch of high risk bycatch species”. The action item proposes ongoing analysis of logbook and observer data in relation to these species, with a final report to be produced by June 2016. The assessment team propose a Justification recommendation in relation to this issue. AFMA 2009; AFMA 2010a; AFMA 2013b; AFMA 2013c; AFMA 2013e; AFMA 2014a References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 90 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained Midwater trawl species Recommendation: as above for demersal trawl Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 PI 2.2.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species Midwater trawl groups Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main bycatch species Main bycatch species There is a high degree of are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that bycatch species biologically based within biologically are within biologically based limits (if not, go to based limits (if not, go limits. scoring issue b below). to scoring issue b Guidepost below). Met? Y Y N There are very few bycatch species, most species caught in bottom trawl are retained. The only reported discarded species are Silver Warehou, Brier Shark and Giant squid. Besides Silver Warehou these are only occasionally caught. Because none of these species comprise 5% or more of total catch by weight none are considered main bycatch species following the MSC guidance GCB 3.8.2 (MSC CR v. 1.3 , 2013). Brier shark are managed under a basket quota in place for several shark species in the SESSF. Only 4 kg are reported as caught during a 5 year period. Corals, sponges or any other benthic species did not appear as discard species for Justification this fishery over the past 5 years in logbook data (AFMA 2014b). b If main bycatch If main bycatch species species are outside are outside biologically biologically based based limits there is a limits there are partial strategy of mitigation measures in demonstrably effective place that are mitigation measures in expected to ensure place such that the that the fishery does fishery does not hinder not hinder recovery recovery and Guidepost and rebuilding. rebuilding. Met? Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 91 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.2.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species Midwater trawl groups See scoring issue a) Justification c If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or Guidepost hindering recovery. Met? Y See scoring issue a) Justification AFMA 2013e, AFMA 2014a,b References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery Midwater trawl does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 92 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery Midwater trawl does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing and minimizing that are expected to necessary, that is bycatch. maintain the main expected to maintain bycatch species at the main bycatch levels which are highly species at levels which likely to be within are highly likely to be biologically based within biologically limits, or to ensure the based limits, or to fishery does not ensure the fishery does hinder their recovery not hinder their and rebuilding. recovery and Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Nearly all the catch is retained and processed. There are very few bycatch species and none are classified as main species; this can be interpreted as a strategy to minimize bycatch. AFMA has a formal Bycatch and Discarding Plan in place for non-retained species. In addition, there is 100% observer coverage of the client Justification fishery. The SG100 level is met. b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy work, based on confidence that the will work, based on plausible argument partial strategy will information directly about the (e.g. general work, based on some fishery and/or species experience, theory or information directly involved. comparison with about the fishery similar and/or species Guidepost fisheries/species). involved. Met? Y Y Y There are very few bycatch species and a formal Bycatch and Discarding Plan in place. The 100% observer cover supports high confidence that all species caught are in fact retained and the strategy to minimize bycatch is working. Justification c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the partial strategy is being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented Guidepost successfully. Met? Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 93 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery Midwater trawl does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations 100% observer coverage of all trips and both gear types and no records of any breaches to this strategy. There is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully and adhered to. This meets the requirement for the third element of the SG 100 level. Justification d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective. Guidepost Met? Y Based on 100% observer coverage of all trips and both gear types and no records of any breaches to this strategy, there is clear evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Justification AFMA 2013e; AFMA 2014a,b References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk Midwater trawl posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable information is and some quantitative information is available on the available on the information are catch of all bycatch species and amount of main available on the the consequences for the bycatch species taken amount of main status of affected populations. by the fishery. bycatch species taken Guidepost by the fishery. Met? Y Y N Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 94 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk Midwater trawl posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch The observer data is comprehensive. 100% observer coverage of all trips accurate and verifiable information. Consequences of affected populations have been explored with risk assessments (Wayte et al. 2007). Bycatch and Discarding Work Plans contain annual and longer term review timeframes. AFMA indicate that a full review of the risk assessments undertaken for each Commonwealth managed fishery will be completed periodically. The SESSF risk assessments have not been revised for over 5 years. SG100 would be Justification met if risk assessments were more current. b Information is Information is Information is sufficient to adequate to broadly sufficient to estimate quantitatively estimate understand outcome outcome status with outcome status with respect to status with respect to respect to biologically biologically based limits with a biologically based based limits. high degree of certainty. Guidepost limits Met? Y Y N There are no main bycatch species. Although there has been considerable effort in undertaking ecological risk assessments for the fishery, there are not quantitative estimates of status with a high degree of certainty for many of the retained species. The SG80 level is met. Justification c Information is Information is Information is adequate to adequate to support adequate to support a support a strategy to manage measures to manage partial strategy to retained species, and evaluate bycatch. manage main bycatch with a high degree of certainty species. whether the strategy is Guidepost achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N There is monitoring of catches from the fishery. Observer coverage provides independent monitoring of fishery operations and catch characteristics. Available information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage retained, hence SG80 is met. Justification Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 95 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk Midwater trawl posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch d Sufficient data Monitoring of bycatch data is continue to be conducted in sufficient detail collected to detect any to assess ongoing mortalities increase in risk to main to all bycatch species. bycatch species (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the Guidepost strategy). Met? Y Y There are no main bycatch species. With 100% observer coverage monitoring is sufficient to assess ongoing mortality of bycatch species and SG100 is met. Justification References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 96 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 The two UoCs have not been scored separately for ETP species because the information available is not separated by gear types. The score assigned is based on the worst case scenario. The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Known effects of the The effects of the There is a high degree of fishery are likely to be fishery are known and certainty that the effects of the within limits of are highly likely to be fishery are within limits of national and within limits of national and international international national and requirements for protection of requirements for international ETP species. protection of ETP requirements for species. protection of ETP Guidepost species. Met? Y Y Y The ETP species that interact with this fishery include seabirds and fur seals and potentially other marine mammals. Fishing operations are fully compliant with the ‘Recovery Plan for Threatened Albatrosses and Giant Petrels 2011-2016 (DSEWPC 2011)’ and ‘Sub-Antarctic Fur Seal and Southern Elephant Seal Recovery Plan 2004-2009’ (AFMA 2010). 100% observer coverage of all trips ensures this compliance and satisfies national and international requirements, meeting this scoring issue for both the midwater and bottom trawl sector at the 60, 80 and 100 level. Justification b Known direct effects Direct effects are There is a high degree of are unlikely to create highly unlikely to confidence that there are no unacceptable impacts create unacceptable significant detrimental direct to ETP species. impacts to ETP species. effects of the fishery on ETP Guidepost species. Met? Y Y N Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 97 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Observers have reported minimal interactions with any ETP species and the effects of the fishery do not have unacceptable impacts. Both the midwater and bottom trawl meet all the elements of SG80. Ecological risk assessments for the SESSF Trawl Fisheries were conducted in 2007 and considered interactions with ETP species (Wayte et al. 2007). Six ETP species were considered being at high risk, these were 4 marine birds, and 1 marine mammal (fur seal) and 1 teleost, the spiny pipehorse. Williams et al. (2010) provides good information on bycatch and fishery interactions with ETP species in the early years of the trawl fishery. 100% observer coverage data and logbook data combined has identified injuries/ mortality of these interactions for Australian fur seals and albatross but numbers are small particularly in recent years (Table 7). No other high risk species were identified interacting with the fishery. However no recent update of the ERA has been undertaken to provide a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on Justification ETP species and the SG 100 is not met. c Indirect effects have There is a high degree of been considered and confidence that there are no are thought to be significant detrimental indirect unlikely to create effects of the fishery on ETP Guidepost unacceptable impacts. species. Met? Y N Indirect effects have been considered as part of the ERA (Wayte et al. 2007), and might be possible but are highly unlikely for marine mammals. There are no specific studies investigating indirect effects therefore the SG100 is not met. Justification References Wayte et al. 2007; Williams et al. 2001, AFMA 2014, DSEWPC 2011 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 98 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. a There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a comprehensive place that minimise place for managing the strategy in place for managing mortality of ETP fishery’s impact on ETP the fishery’s impact on ETP species, and are species, including species, including measures to expected to be highly measures to minimise minimise mortality, which is likely to achieve mortality, which is designed to achieve above national and designed to be highly national and international international likely to achieve requirements for the requirements for the national and protection of ETP species. protection of ETP international species. requirements for the protection of ETP Guidepost species. Met? Y Y Y The fishery has extensive strategies in place to reduce the capture of seabirds, including controls on fishing practices, seasonal restrictions on gear use, temporal restrictions on gear use, and warp scarer lines (or Tori Lines), along with development of management measures. There are also mitigation measures for marine mammals (fur seals) in place and industry initiatives to improve on these Justification even further (SETFIA 2011). b The measures are There is an objective The strategy is mainly based on considered likely to basis for confidence information directly about the work, based on that the strategy will fishery and/or species plausible argument work, based on involved, and a quantitative (e.g., general information directly analysis supports high experience, theory or about the fishery confidence that the strategy comparison with and/or the species will work. similar involved. Guidepost fisheries/species). Met? Y Y Y These measures have been implemented across many other trawl fisheries managed by AFMA. Tori Lines were deployed on all shots on all vessels and prove very effective in some cases (AFMA 2013f). Seal exclusion devices have been extensively trialled supporting high confidence with even quantitative analysis that Justification the strategy will work therefore meeting the SG 100. c There is evidence that There is clear evidence that the the strategy is being strategy is being implemented implemented successfully. Guidepost successfully. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 99 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2 Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species; Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and Minimise mortality of ETP species. Met? Y Y 100% observer coverage of all trips ensures successful implementation of all mitigation strategies. AFMA’s compliance and enforcement programmes are in place to maintain the integrity of fisheries management arrangements (AFMA 2013). There is for example 100% compliance with implementation of an approved seabird management plan and resulting seabird mitigation. ANAO (2013) provides information on enforcement actions implemented by AFMA, further demonstrating that AFMA’s monitoring, control and surveillance system has the ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and Justification rules. d There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Guidepost Met? N From the data provided by AFMA on wildlife interactions of the vessels included in the unit of certification, it appears that there is a reduction in seal mortalities particularly from 2012-2013 when the new seal exclusion devices were in place AFMA (2014b). However albatross interactions have not decreased and remained at one bird mortality per vessel during a season. Therefore this element is not met. Justification References SETFIA 2011; AFMA 2013f; AFMA 2013; AFMA 2014b; ANAO 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 100 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. a Information is Sufficient information Information is sufficient to sufficient to is available to allow quantitatively estimate qualitatively estimate fishery related outcome status of ETP species the fishery related mortality and the with a high degree of certainty. mortality of ETP impact of fishing to be species. quantitatively estimated for ETP Guidepost species. Met? Y Y N Based on the 100% observer coverage and the methods of monitoring ETP species interactions, there is abundant, high quality information on the interactions of both fishing methods with ETP species (AFMA 2014b). It is also sufficient to quantitatively estimate all fishery-related mortality but not determine their outcome status based on the information; thereby meeting the element at the SG80. For both methods, information is available to quantitatively assess the magnitude of impacts, mortalities and injuries. Thus gear configuration, environmental conditions, timing, location and other factors that affect ETP interactions and outcomes of those interactions are known. There is also reasonable monitoring of the populations of ETP species for which interactions are likely to occur (Tuck et al. 2012; Alderman 2012). However the outcome status of Justification these ETP species has not been assessed with a high degree of certainty. b Information is Information is Accurate and verifiable adequate to broadly sufficient to determine information is available on the understand the impact whether the fishery magnitude of all impacts, of the fishery on ETP may be a threat to mortalities and injuries and the species. protection and consequences for the status of recovery of the ETP ETP species. Guidepost species. Met? Y Y N The quantitative information of ETP interactions provided by AFMA (2015) is adequate to determine that the fishery does not hinder recovery of the ETP species meeting this element at the SG 80. However details on mortalities and injuries and therefore the consequences on the status of ETP species cannot be Justification determined. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 101 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3 Information for the development of the management strategy; Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. c Information is Information is Information is adequate to adequate to support sufficient to measure support a comprehensive measures to manage trends and support a strategy to manage impacts, the impacts on ETP full strategy to manage minimize mortality and injury species. impacts on ETP of ETP species, and evaluate species. with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving Guidepost its objectives. Met? Y Y N This information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts and evaluate whether the strategy minimizes mortality and injury of ETP species meeting this element at the SG 80 but until a full assessment of the potential consequences of these on the status ETP populations, particularly any endangered seabirds like albatross, the fishery does not meet the requirements of Justification this element at the SG100. References Tuck et al. 2012; Alderman 2012. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 The two UoCs have not been scored separately because the information available is not specific for gear types. The score assigned is based on the worst case scenario. The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered PI 2.4.1 on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely The fishery is highly There is evidence that the to reduce habitat unlikely to reduce fishery is highly unlikely to structure and function habitat structure and reduce habitat structure and to a point where there function to a point function to a point where there would be serious or where there would be would be serious or irreversible irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. Guidepost harm. Met? Y Y N Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 102 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, considered PI 2.4.1 on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Midwater trawl weights or chains may contact the bottom occasionally and pelagic habitats will experience some short-term disruption when the net is set. In addition some disruption of the water column and its inhabitants will also occur as the net is towed. However none of these are expected to cause any lasting disruption or irreversible harm. Knowledge of the gear types seems to provide evidence that the fishery is highly unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm and therefore meets the element at the SG 100. Demersal trawl method could have longer term and more severe effects on habitat structure, depending on the spatial and temporal extent as well of the sensitivity of the habitat. For example some habitat-creating organisms require significant recovery periods after trawling (e.g. > 8 years for some sponges, >10 years for corals (Kaiser et al. 2006; Althaus et al. 2009, Williams et al. 2010; Clark et al. 2012). All vessels in the fishery carry a vessel satellite monitoring system that reports all fishing locations in addition to comprehensive observer coverage. The fishery operates in a region that has an extensive reserve system that was designed based on a Bioregional Marine Planning, mapping work conducted by Williams et al. (2006) and the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) work conducted by Wayte et al. (2007). Williams et al. (2006) estimated that 26,469 sq km, or about 19% of the SEF fishery region as defined here (3 n.m. to 1,300 m depth contour), was trawled during 2001 and all grounds deeper than 700m are closed to trawling. However there is limited new information available on a scale relevant to the fishery but it is considered highly unlikely that fishing of both gear types would reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm and therefore meets the element at the SG 80 level. Justification Althaus et al. 2009, Clark et al. 2012; Kaiser et al. 2006; Wayte et al. 2007; Williams References et al. 2006; Williams et al. 2010; OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 103 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, strategy in place, if managing the impact of the that are expected to necessary, that is fishery on habitat types. achieve the Habitat expected to achieve Outcome 80 level of the Habitat Outcome performance. 80 level of Guidepost performance or above. Met? Y Y Y Closed areas are the main method used to protect habitats. There is an extensive and well-designed reserve system that meets international standards for comprehensiveness, adequacy, and representativeness. Therefore there is a strategy in place for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types and meeting the first element at the SG 100. Justification b The measures are There is some Testing supports high considered likely to objective basis for confidence that the strategy work, based on confidence that the will work, based on plausible argument partial strategy will information directly about the (e.g. general work, based on fishery and/or habitats experience, theory or information directly involved. comparison with about the fishery similar and/or habitats Guidepost fisheries/habitats). involved. Met? Y Y N The reserve system is anticipated to provide reliable protection for habitats and the biodiversity since they were selected based on Bioregional Marine Planning, mapping work conducted by Williams et al. (2006) and the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) work conducted by Wayte et al. (2007). However there is limited new information available on a scale relevant to the fishery and testing has not been undertaken and therefore meeting this element at the 80 level. Justification c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the partial strategy is being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented Guidepost successfully. Met? Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 104 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Each vessel in the fishery has 100% observer coverage and is fitted with a Vessel Monitoring System, so any breach of these reserves will therefore be detected; there have been no breaches. As a result, there is clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully thereby meeting element at SG100. Justification d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective. Guidepost Met? N There is a high likelihood but no evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective, therefore not meeting this element fully. Justification References Williams et al. 2006; Wayte et al. 2007 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and PI 2.4.3 the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There is basic The nature, The distribution of habitat understanding of the distribution and types is known over their types and distribution vulnerability of all main range, with particular attention of main habitats in the habitat types in the to the occurrence of vulnerable area of the fishery. fishery are known at a habitat types. level of detail relevant to the scale and Guidepost intensity of the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Extensive habitat mapping has been undertaken (Williams et al. 2006). The output of this FRDC funded project was a map-linked database that covers the entire offshore SEF region of the SESSF fishery (3nm to 1300m depth) with information at scales relevant to fishing operations and spatial planning for conservation and Justification fisheries management needs meeting this element at the SG100. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 105 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the fishery and PI 2.4.3 the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types b Information is Sufficient data are The physical impacts of the adequate to broadly available to allow the gear on the habitat types have understand the nature nature of the impacts been quantified fully. of the main impacts of of the fishery on gear use on the main habitat types to be habitats, including identified and there is spatial overlap of reliable information on habitat with fishing the spatial extent of gear. interaction, and the timing and location of Guidepost use of the fishing gear. Met? Y Y N The information is available to broadly understand the main impacts of the gear and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear based on ongoing observer and VMS coverage. However the physical impacts of the gear on the habitat types have not been quantified meeting this element at the SG 80 level. Justification c Sufficient data Changes in habitat continue to be distributions over time are collected to detect any measured. increase in risk to habitat (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the Guidepost measures). Met? N N Habitat types were considered as part of the ERA conducted in 2007 (Wayte et al. 2007) and identified high risk habitats on the outer shelf and upper and middle slope. However, community components were not determined for the fishery. The ERA examined demersal trawl only, but midwater trawl was not covered. There has also been no update since 2007. Therefore, this element is not met at the 80 Justification level. References Williams et al. 2006; Wayte et al. 2007 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2 Condition 2.4.3: By the second annual surveillance audit, the client shall provide documented evidence that, at a scale relative to the fishery, there is on-going monitoring that would be able to detect any increase in risk to habitat. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 106 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 The two UoCs have not been scored separately for ecosystem because the information available is not specific for gear types. The score assigned is based on the worst case scenario. The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely The fishery is highly There is evidence that the to disrupt the key unlikely to disrupt the fishery is highly unlikely to elements underlying key elements disrupt the key elements ecosystem structure underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point structure and function and function to a point where where there would be to a point where there there would be a serious or a serious or would be a serious or irreversible harm. Guidepost irreversible harm. irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 107 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function The South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network covers an area of approximately 388 464 km2 with a depth range of 40 m - 4600 m, areas off the continental shelf and over deeper waters. A variety of marine reserves are established that exclude bottom trawling. In addition all fishing grounds deeper than 700 m are closed to fishing (see Figure 5 in the background section of this report above). These were selected based on Bioregional Marine Planning, mapping work conducted by Williams et al. (2006) and the Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) work identified vulnerable benthic habitats (Wayte et al. 2007). The key prey, predator and competitor species have been well studied and their diets and roles in the ecosystem have been discussed (Bulman et al. 2010). There is also good knowledge of key species of the ecosystem outside just the Target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats. Ecosystem modelling work that the covers the wider ecosystem suggest that these systems are largely bottom-up forced but that the more heavily fished Eastern Bass Strait has more top-down controlling elements (Bulman et al. 2010). Results indicated that in contrast to many other marine ecosystems around the world, abundance of the small pelagic fishes is not as high as that of other regions of the world largely due to the less productive waters surrounding the Australian continent. Results suggest that mesopelagics play a key role in the food web of the system (Fulton et al. 2007, Bulman et al. 2010). Simulated removals of mesopelagic fishes and squid, had cascading consequences up and down the foodweb (Griffths et al., 2009). Myctophids or mesopelagic fishes, play an important role in the diets of many fishes including those of commercial importance such as ling and blue grenadier. Fishery is managed in accordance with precautionary ecosystem-based management of fisheries. In addition, the fishery has been operating for over 14 years, with no major ongoing impacts documented on the system. Based on this management system and the operating evidence, it is highly unlikely that the fishery will cause serious or irreversible harm to the ecosystem. Therefore, the fishery meets the 60 and 80 scoring guidepost. However, the assessment team felt that in the absence of directed investigations that are required for a score of 100, a higher score was not warranted. Justification AFMA 2010; Bulman et al. 2010; Fulton et al. 2007; Griffiths et al., 2009; Wayte et References al. 2007; Williams et al. 2006 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 108 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that consists place, if necessary. strategy in place, if of a plan, in place. necessary. Guidepost Met? Y Y N There is a strategy which contains various measures to address most of the major impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem. The stock assessment and harvest strategy of the target species is designed to meet stock management objectives and uses the precautionary approach. Fishing operations comply with international standards and the Recovery Plans for threatened Albatrosses and Giant Petrels and fur seal species (AFMA 2010). Extensive closures to trawl fishing below 700m and through the Marine Protected Area Network in the South East ensure a high level of representative habitat is protected. The strategy could be improved if more information was available on the impacts of both fishing methods on habitats at a fine spatial scale and if the trawl strategy was strengthened with limits on ETP interactions and the catch of coral, sponges and algae. These have not been compiled into an overarching plan and the fishery does not meet this element at the SG100. Justification b The measures take The partial strategy The strategy, which consists of into account potential takes into account a plan, contains measures to impacts of the fishery available information address all main impacts of the on key elements of and is expected to fishery on the ecosystem, and the ecosystem. restrain impacts of the at least some of these fishery on the measures are in place. The plan ecosystem so as to and measures are based on achieve the Ecosystem well-understood functional Outcome 80 level of relationships between the performance. fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem. This plan provides for development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious Guidepost or irreversible harm. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 109 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Met? Y Y N MPAs are purported to be comprehensive, adequate and representative of the biodiversity within each bioregion at a broad geographical extent and was based on information of both extensive mapping work conducted by Williams et al. (2006) and ERA work by AFMA (2007 and 2010). However these partial strategies have not been compiled into an overarching plan and the fishery does not meet this element at the SG100. Justification c The measures are The partial strategy is The measures are considered considered likely to considered likely to likely to work based on prior work, based on work, based on experience, plausible argument plausible argument plausible argument or information directly from (e.g., general (e.g., general the fishery/ecosystems experience, theory or experience, theory or involved. comparison with comparison with similar similar Guidepost fisheries/ecosystems). fisheries/ecosystems). Met? Y Y Y Based on the fact that the fishery has not exceeded its catch limits, verified by 100% observer coverage at sea and unloading observer records, there is good evidence that the strategy is being successfully implemented and the strategy is likely to achieve its objective meeting this element at the SG 100 level Justification d There is some evidence There is evidence that the that the measures measures are being comprising the partial implemented successfully. strategy are being implemented Guidepost successfully. Met? Y Y Through the 100% observer coverage records, there is good evidence that the strategy is being successfully implemented meeting this element at the SG 100. Justification References Williams et al. 2006; AFMA 2007 and 2010 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 110 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information is Information is adequate to identify adequate to broadly the key elements of understand the key the ecosystem (e.g., elements of the trophic structure and ecosystem. function, community composition, productivity pattern Guidepost and biodiversity). Met? Y Y The key species have been well studied and their roles in the ecosystem have been identified and discussed in relation to the fishery. There is also good knowledge of key species of the ecosystem outside just the Target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species and Habitats. Through the stock assessment work on target species, risk assessments on bycatch, byproduct and ETP species (eg. Wayte et al 2007, AFMA 2010), there is generally good information on the key elements of the ecosystem Justification and the impacts of the fishery meeting this element at the SG 80 level. b Main impacts of the Main impacts of the Main interactions between the fishery on these key fishery on these key fishery and these ecosystem ecosystem elements ecosystem elements elements can be inferred from can be inferred from can be inferred from existing information, and have existing information, existing information been investigated. and have not been and some have been Guidepost investigated in detail. investigated in detail. Met? Y Y N As a result of these studies, the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem elements are identified but have not been fully investigated meeting this element at the SG 80 level. For example key trophic interactions have not been fully studied. Justification c The main functions of The impacts of the fishery on the Components (i.e., target, Bycatch, Retained and target, Bycatch, ETP species are identified and Retained and ETP the main functions of these species and Habitats) Components in the ecosystem in the ecosystem are are understood. Guidepost known. Met? Y N Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 111 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem As a result of these studies, the impacts of the fishery on Target, Retained, Bycatch, and ETP species are identified and the main functions of these components are understood, however more recent work would be required particularly updating the ERA to meet this element at the SG 100. Justification d Sufficient information Sufficient information is is available on the available on the impacts of the impacts of the fishery fishery on the Components and on these Components elements to allow the main to allow some of the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be Guidepost inferred. Met? Y N The information on the impact of the fishery (i.e. biomass of blue grenadier, and bycatch species taken) is of high quality and able to support the understanding of the consequences of the take and interactions. The ERA and the residual risk assessment identified species at high risk. Information from studies has been considered and incorporated into the Atlantis model for the SE of Australia to infer the main consequences from the ecosystem (Fulton et al., 2007). However the studies did not cover all potential elements of the ecosystem that are important to determine the ecosystem resilience and productivity and more recent work is required on the trophic interactions of the wider ecosystem as well as consequences of habitat at spatial scales similar to that of the fishery for the Justification demersal trawl sector to meet this element at the SG 100. e Sufficient data Information is sufficient to continue to be support the development of collected to detect any strategies to manage increase in risk level ecosystem impacts. (e.g., due to changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the Guidepost measures). Met? Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 112 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem Data continue to be collected in an ongoing way that would allow managers to assess any changes in risk if there was adequate knowledge to place those impacts in context. The last element is met SG 100 because strategies to manage ecosystem impacts have been developed that are supported by sufficient Justification information. References Fulton et al., 2007 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 113 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and PI 3.1.1 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective national national legal system national legal system legal system and binding and a framework for and organised and procedures governing cooperation with effective cooperation cooperation with other parties with other parties, other parties, where which delivers management where necessary, to necessary, to deliver deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC management Principles 1 and 2. outcomes consistent outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Guidepost and 2 Met? Y Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 114 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and PI 3.1.1 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. The Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery (SESSF) operates within the Australian Fishing Zone and is managed by AFMA under the National Fisheries legislation. The key pieces of legislation are the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 and the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (FMA). The legislation sets out AFMA’s responsibilities in relation to the pursuit of ecologically sustainable development which delivers management outcomes consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. The SESSF is also governed by the South Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Plan 2003, a statutory instrument established under the FMA. The explicit objectives of the Plan state that the exploitation of the resources of the fishery and related activities are to be conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. As with all Commonwealth managed fisheries, the SESSF is subject to assessment against the Guidelines for the Ecologically Sustainable Management of Fisheries under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The most recent EPBC Act assessment (February 2013) found that the management measures in place, and the legislation enforcing those measures throughout the fishery are likely to be effective and the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities declared the fishery to be an approved wildlife trade operation, subject to conditions, for three years. National policies such as the Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy and Fisheries Bycatch Policy govern the actions of AFMA which also ensure that the management outcomes are consistent with Principles 1 and 2. The South-east Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network Management Plan 2013 – 2023 was approved and established under the EBPC Act. Parts of the Network are adjacent to the fishing grounds and SESSF operators must cooperate and comply with the activities outlined in this Plan or any other determination made Justification by the Director of National Parks. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 115 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and PI 3.1.1 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. b The management The management The management system system incorporates system incorporates or incorporates or is subject by or is subject by law to is subject by law to a law to a transparent a mechanism for the transparent mechanism for the resolution resolution of legal mechanism for the of legal disputes that is disputes arising within resolution of legal appropriate to the context of the system. disputes which is the fishery and has been tested considered to be and proven to be effective. effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the Guidepost fishery. Met? Y Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 116 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and PI 3.1.1 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. The Fisheries Management Act 1991 contains provisions regarding the appeal rights of persons. Section 165 relates to the reconsideration of a decision by AFMA and rights to review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. For example, those considered ineligible for the grant of SFRs or permit have the right to have the decision reviewed by AFMA in the first instance or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if not satisfied with the outcome of AFMA’s review. The decision as to the quantity of SFRs to be granted to eligible persons is reviewable by an independent panel established for that purpose known as the Statutory Fishing Rights Allocation Review Panel. Section 161 prescribes appeals to the Federal Court of Australia on questions of law. Whether AFMA is re-allocating Fishing Permits or SFRs, moving from input controls to ITQs or from one type of input control to another type, AFMA is likely to be challenged in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and/or the Federal Court. The mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes has been tested. For example, in 1992, quota allocations in the South East Fishery were found to be “irrational” and “capricious” and were “over turned”. As well, South East Fishery allocations were recently challenged (in the AAT, Federal Court and Full Federal Court) on the basis that AFMA did not take its economic efficiency objective into consideration when allocating quota to individual operators; and while a recent AAT decision has ruled in AFMA’s favour on this issue, the decision is under appeal (AFMA 1997). AFMA’s decision to apply the precautionary principles have been upheld in a number of legal challenges, following referral to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Weier and Loke 2007). AFMA advises fishers in writing of their appeal rights and the processes involved as a matter of course when, for example, alterations are made to their fishing concession conditions. In addition to these processes, the consultation and advisory processes established by AFMA provide mechanisms for the discussion and resolution of different perspectives on fisheries management issues by stakeholders. The legal system includes transparent mechanisms for the resolution of disputes. Justification These mechanisms have been tested and proven to be effective. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 117 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and PI 3.1.1 2; and Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. d The management The management The management system has a system has a system has a mechanism to formally commit mechanism to mechanism to observe to the legal rights created generally respect the the legal rights created explicitly or established by legal rights created explicitly or established custom of people dependent explicitly or by custom of people on fishing for food and established by custom dependent on fishing livelihood in a manner of people dependent for food or livelihood in consistent with the objectives on fishing for food or a manner consistent of MSC Principles 1 and 2. livelihood in a manner with the objectives of consistent with the MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Guidepost Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y Commonwealth legislation (the Native Title Act 1993) formally commits to the rights of indigenous people who can demonstrate their customary rights to fish in a particular area. This legislation provides a mechanism for the making of binding decisions about native title rights to areas of land and water and thereby ensures access to fish resources for people who depend on fishing for their food. AFMA’s jurisdiction typically begins three nautical miles offshore, thus, there is usually no overlap between Commonwealth commercial fishing and customary fishing activity. However, for some fisheries, consideration of customary fishing is largely made through interaction between AFMA’s management and the Native Title Act 1993. Where AFMA modifies an act, a direction or other legislative instrument in a way that may affect native title, that change triggers the ‘future act’ provision of the Native Title Act 1993. In situations where a future act provision could possibly be triggered, AFMA provides the opportunity for relevant Justification native title bodies to be consulted and provide comment. References AFMA 1997; Weier and Loke 2007 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 118 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals individuals involved in individuals involved in involved in the management the management the management process have been identified. process have been process have been Functions, roles and identified. Functions, identified. Functions, responsibilities are explicitly roles and roles and defined and well understood responsibilities are responsibilities are for all areas of responsibility generally understood. explicitly defined and and interaction. well understood for key areas of responsibility and Guidepost interaction. Met? Y Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 119 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties The key organisations and bodies involved in the management process are AFMA, SEMAC and the Slope RAG (through the SESSRAG). SETFIA is the Industry Association which actively engages with Industry members and other interested parties. The functions of AFMA are set out in section 7 of the Fisheries Administration Act 1991. The South East MAC is the relevant MAC for the SESSF and membership consists of commercial industry members, a recreational fishing member, fishery managers, scientists and a conservation member. The environment/conservation member provides a communication conduit between the MAC and NGOs. In some instances, members from State Governments are appointed and other participants are invited. The MAC provides a forum where higher level strategic issues relating to the fishery are discussed, the outcomes of which determine the recommendations that the MAC will make to the AFMA Commission. Fisheries Management Paper 1 – Management Advisory Committees (June 2009) clearly outlines the function, roles and responsibilities of MACs. AFMA must also take into account advice from the relevant Resource Assessment Group (RAG). The main function of the RAG is to peer review scientific data and information and provide advice to AFMA on the status of fish stocks, substocks, species and the impact of fishing on the marine environment as well as developing the strategic research plan. The Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Resource Assessment Group (SESSFRAG) meets twice a year and is made up of four smaller RAGs that report to it. The Slope RAG is responsible for the stock assessment of Blue Grenadier. Membership of the Slope RAG consists of scientists, two Industry representatives, an AFMA member, an economic and recreational member and an independent Chair. This ensures that the interests of a range of stakeholder groups are represented. There is also provision for a conservation member although there is currently no NGO representative on the Slope RAG. Based on scientific and industry advice the Slope RAG will propose a TAC which is then considered by SEMAC and AFMA management. Ultimately, the TAC is set by the AFMA Commission following consideration of the advice and any other comments or representations received during the process. Fisheries Administration Paper 12 sets out the roles and responsibilities of RAGs and outlines their relationship with the AFMA Commission, AFMA Management and MACs. The organisations and individuals involved in the management processes are clearly identified and their functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly Justification defined and well understood for all areas. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 120 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties b The management The management The management system system includes system includes includes consultation processes consultation processes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept that obtain relevant that regularly seek and relevant information, including information from the accept relevant local knowledge. The main affected parties, information, including management system including local local knowledge. The demonstrates consideration of knowledge, to inform management system the information and explains the management demonstrates how it is used or not used. system. consideration of the Guidepost information obtained. Met? Y Y Y The management system includes both statutory and non-statutory consultation processes that provides regular and extensive opportunities for all stakeholder groups to provide information relevant to the fishery. For example, Section 17 of the FMA outlines the consultation that must take place before a management plan can be determined. Clauses 12 and 16 of the SESSF Management Plan 2003 prescribes the consultation that must be conducted in determining a TAC for quota and non-quota species respectively. AFMA formally consults with key stakeholder groups and the broader community through public comment opportunities which are advertised on AFMA’s website. For example, AFMA position papers regarding significant management issues such as the recommended TAC is placed on the website and open to all interested parties for comment. This paper is formally sent to all operators in the Fishery, industry representatives and members of the relevant RAG and MAC. All stakeholder submissions received are included in the papers forwarded to the MAC and AFMA Commission, the outcomes and comments made by members are recorded. MAC minutes and the Chair’s summary are public documents that are uploaded to AFMA’s website. The Chair’s summary from the January 2014 SEMAC meeting discusses the consideration of public and Industry submissions for the Blue-eye Trevalla quota. After consideration of these submissions, the SEMAC agreed with Industry advice and supported a ‘step down’ to the proposed recommended biological catch to mediate the effect of the change on Industry. This example demonstrates how Justification information is considered within the management system. c The consultation The consultation process process provides provides opportunity and opportunity for all encouragement for all interested and affected interested and affected parties parties to be involved. to be involved, and facilitates Guidepost their effective engagement. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 121 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Met? Y Y AFMA has adopted a partnership approach which actively involves a range of interested parties, including fisheries managers, scientists, industry and other stakeholders, in the process of developing and implementing fishery management arrangements. This is based on close consultation, raising awareness of fisheries resource management issues and providing opportunities for direct input and ownership in the fisheries decision making process. AFMA conducts species workshops, open forums (for NGOs usually twice per year), pre-season briefings and management meetings that are attended by a range of representative groups. Other informal consultation consists of port visits and publication of the AFMA Update which is a monthly newsletter to keep stakeholders informed of what is happening at AFMA. Section 17 of the FMA provides for a consultation register for all affected parties. The diverse membership of the relevant MAC and RAG ensures that all stakeholder groups are represented. MAC membership is reviewed to ensure it reflects the wider community interests and where appropriate, a broader range of interest groups (such as charter boat operators) are included in this consultative process. In addition to the formal consultative mechanisms provided by the MAC and RAG there is ongoing informal correspondence between industry members and Justification scientists and managers throughout the year. References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 122 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Long-term objectives Clear long-term Clear long-term objectives that to guide decision- objectives that guide guide decision-making, making, consistent decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles with the MSC consistent with MSC and Criteria and the Principles and Criteria Principles and Criteria precautionary approach, are and the precautionary and the precautionary explicit within and required by approach, are implicit approach are explicit management policy. within management within management Guidepost policy policy. Met? Y Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 123 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Part 3 of the Fisheries Management Act 1991 states: (1) The following objectives must be pursued by the Minister in the administration of this Act and by AFMA in the performance of its functions: (a) implementing efficient and cost-effective fisheries management on behalf of the Commonwealth; and (b) ensuring that the exploitation of fisheries resources and the carrying on of any related activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development (which include the exercise of the precautionary principle), in particular the need to have regard to the impact of fishing activities on non-target species and the long term sustainability of the marine environment; and (c) maximising the net economic returns to the Australian community from the management of Australian fisheries; and (d) ensuring accountability to the fishing industry and to the Australian community in AFMA’s management of fisheries resources; and (e) achieving government targets in relation to the recovery of the costs of AFMA. (2) In addition to the objectives mentioned in subsection (1), or in section 78 of this Act, the Minister, AFMA and Joint Authorities are to have regard to the objectives of: (a) ensuring, through proper conservation and management measures, that the living resources of the AFZ are not endangered by over-exploitation; and (b) achieving the optimum utilisation of the living resources of the AFZ; and (c) ensuring that conservation and management measures in the AFZ and the high seas implement Australia’s obligations under international agreements that deal with fish stocks; and (d) to the extent that Australia has obligations: (i) under international law; or (ii) under the Compliance Agreement or any other international agreement; in relation to fishing activities by Australian-flagged boats on the high seas that are additional to the obligations referred to in paragraph (c)—ensuring that Australia implements those first-mentioned obligations; but must ensure, as far as practicable, that measures adopted in pursuit of those objectives must not be inconsistent with the preservation, conservation and protection of all species of whales. These long term objectives are clear, with explicit reference to the precautionary principle, and are required by management policy. The fishery meets the Justification requirements of SG100. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 124 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.4 The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing PI 3.1.4 and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The management The management The management system system provides for system provides for provides for incentives that are incentives that are incentives that are consistent with achieving the consistent with consistent with outcomes expressed by MSC achieving the achieving the Principles 1 and 2, and outcomes expressed outcomes expressed by explicitly considers incentives by MSC Principles 1 MSC Principles 1 and 2, in a regular review of and 2. and seeks to ensure management policy or that perverse procedures to ensure they do incentives do not arise. not contribute to unsustainable Guidepost fishing practices. Met Y Y Partial The SESSF is a limited entry fishery with total allowable catch (TAC) limits set for each quota species which is the total catch by all fishing concession holders that may be taken during that fishing year. Operators must hold a relevant fishing concession which provides access to an area in which to fish, method which may be used and quota holdings for each quota species. AFMA sets and allocates the TACs as statutory fishing rights (SFRs) in the form of individual transferable quotas (ITQs). The TACs and number of SFRs are set to maximize economic efficiency making the fishery more viable and stable. This, together with the security of access provided by the SFR, encourages a sense of stewardship towards the resource and a commitment to long term sustainability to protect their investment. The annual TAC and allocation of ITQs provide positive incentives for sustainable fishing of target stock. Broader ecosystem impacts are managed through conditions on SFRs which if not complied with, may result in the SFR being suspended. As outlined in AFMA’s Cost Recovery Impact Statement (AFMA 2010c), Industry Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 125 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing PI 3.1.4 and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing contributes 100% of the costs associated with data collection and management (e.g. logbooks, observers and compliance data collection), licensing, registration and revenue collection. Levies are adjusted annually depending on costs and thus provides an economic incentive to comply with all management arrangements. The SESSF Management Plan requires that “AFMA and SEMAC must, at least every 5 years, assess the effectiveness of the Management Plan including the measures taken to achieve the objectives of the Plan, by reference to performance criteria mentioned in subsection 1.” Each year, the SEMAC must assess the extent to which the performance criteria has been met in that year. These regular performance reviews discourage unsustainable fishing practices. The “Bycatch and Discard Work plan” is integrated into the management arrangements of the SESSF. These work plans are reviewed every 12 months and formally renewed every two years. This work plan is currently being reviewed at a Commonwealth level with a particular focus on discards. Despite the fact that the client has a “no discard policy” for their fishing operations, this is a voluntary measure. Other operators in the fishery must report discards on the logbooks to ensure it feeds into the stock assessment process, however discards are not deducted from the quota. The current “Bycatch and Discard Work Plan” review is seeking to ensure perverse incentives such as high- Justification grading through being allowed to discard is reduced. As a result, the fishery is considered to meet the requirement of SG80 but does not fully meet the requirement of SG100. The score against this indicator could be increased following the review of the Bycatch and Discard Work Plan. A prohibition on discarding would ensure the fishery does not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices. The management arrangements are reviewed periodically under the provisions of Part 13A of the EPBC Act. ABARE also reports on harvest strategy performance and economic status annually in the Fishery Status Reports (see Woodhams et. al., 2013). These annual reviews of ecological sustainability and economic efficiency constitute an explicit review of incentives in the management policy. AFMA 2010c; AFMA Commonwealth Trawl Sector 2011-2013; Woodhams et al. References 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 126 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by PI 3.2.1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable broadly consistent objectives, which are short and long-term objectives, with achieving the consistent with which are demonstrably outcomes expressed achieving the consistent with achieving the by MSC’s Principles 1 outcomes expressed by outcomes expressed by MSC’s and 2, are implicit MSC’s Principles 1 and Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s 2, are explicit within within the fishery’s management system the fishery’s management system. Guidepost management system. Met? Y Y Y The SESSF Management Plan specifies the objectives for the fishery as: (a) to implement efficient and cost-effective fisheries management of the fishery on behalf of the Commonwealth; (b) to ensure that the exploitation of the resources of the fishery and the carrying on of any related activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development and the exercise of the precautionary principle and, in particular, the need to have regard to the impact of fishing activities on non-target species and the long-term sustainability of the marine environment; (c) to maximise economic efficiency in the exploitation of scalefish and shark resources within the fishery; (d) to ensure AFMA’s accountability to the fishing industry and to the Australian community in the management of the resources of the fishery; (e) to reach Government targets for the recovery of the costs of AFMA in relation to the fishery; (f) to ensure, through proper conservation and management, that the living resources of the fishery are not endangered by over-exploitation; (g) to ensure the best use of the living resources of the fishery; (h) to ensure that conservation and management measures in the fishery implement Australia’s obligations under international agreements that deal with fish stocks, and other relevant international agreements; (i) to ensure, as far as practicable, that measures adopted in pursuit of these objectives are not inconsistent with the preservation, conservation and protection of all whale species. The SESSF harvest strategy has explicit objectives that are well defined, Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 127 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by PI 3.2.1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 measurable and consistent with the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. The objectives of the harvest strategy are: Biological To ensure that the fishery is maintained at (on average), or returned to, a target biomass point BTARG or equivalent proxy (e.g. FTARG or CPUETARG) equal to the stock size required to produce BMEY or an appropriate proxy. To maintain stocks above the limit biomass level, or an appropriate proxy, at least 90% of the time. To progressively reduce the level of fishing if a stock moves below BMSY and towards BLIM (or an appropriate proxy). To implement rebuilding strategies, no-targeting and bycatch TACs if a stock moves below BLIM (or an appropriate proxy). To ensure the sustainability of fisheries resources, including consideration of the individual fishery circumstances and individual species or stock characteristics, when developing a management approach. Socio-economic To ensure that the fishery is maintained at (on average), or returned to, a target biomass point BTARG equal to the stock size required to produce BMEY or an appropriate proxy. To maximise the profitability of the fishing industry and the net economic returns to the Australian community. To minimise costs to the fishing industry, including consideration of the impacts on the industry of large or small changes in TACs, and ensuring that management strategies are, as far as possible, equitably distributed among industry sectors. Ecosystem To be consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development, including the conservation of biological diversity, and the adoption of a precautionary risk approach. While some of the above objectives are quite broad, others are operationally defined (quantifiable reference points) in such a way that the performance against the objective can be measured. The harvest strategy clearly sets out the management actions, indicators used for monitoring, reference points and the decision rules applied for determining the recommended total allowable catches. The fishery meets the requirement of SG100. Justification Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 128 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by PI 3.2.1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Management Plan 2003 References AFMA Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery Harvest Strategy. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are some There are established decision-making decision-making processes in place that processes that result in result in measures and measures and strategies to achieve strategies to achieve the fishery-specific the fishery-specific Guidepost objectives. objectives. Met? Y Y As noted in 3.2.1 above, the fishery has a harvest strategy in place that clearly sets out the reference points and decision rules to achieve the fishery specific objectives. The TAC setting process is explicit in the harvest strategy. Stock assessment reports that provide recommended biological catch amounts for each quota species are produced by the RAG during October and November each year. In mid-December, AFMA produces a position paper with recommended TACs for quota species for the upcoming fishing season, based on stock assessments and RAG advice. The paper is distributed to interested parties and undergoes a public comment period. In early February, a SEMAC meeting is held for setting TACs and the final recommended TACs are made. The outcomes of SEMAC, together with the AFMA position paper and any public comments received, are then sent to the AFMA Commission which finalises the TACs for the upcoming fishing season in mid- Justification February. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 129 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. b Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes processes respond to processes respond to respond to all issues identified serious issues serious and other in relevant research, identified in relevant important issues monitoring, evaluation and research, monitoring, identified in relevant consultation, in a transparent, evaluation and research, monitoring, timely and adaptive manner consultation, in a evaluation and and take account of the wider transparent, timely consultation, in a implications of decisions. and adaptive manner transparent, timely and and take some adaptive manner and account of the wider take account of the implications of wider implications of Guidepost decisions. decisions. Met? Y Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 130 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. In determining the TACs, the AFMA Commission may provide AFMA with direction in instances where there is concern that current management strategies for depleted or at risk stocks may not meet the objectives of the harvest strategy in a timely manner. The status of stocks and how they are tracking against the harvest strategy is reported to the RAG, MAC and AFMA Commission as part of the yearly TAC setting process. The overarching Commonwealth Harvest Strategy Policy recognizes that harvest strategies may need to be amended “mid-cycle” under certain circumstances such as when there is new information that substantially changes the status of the fishery, when drivers external to management of the fishery increase the risk to fish stocks or it is clear the strategy is not working effectively and the objectives are not being met. The RAG or working group must demonstrate the scientific basis for the proposed changes and refer it to the SEMAC for consideration. The amended harvest strategy would be presented to the AFMA Commission for final sign off and uploaded onto the AFMA website. Review of the harvest strategy demonstrates that the process is responsive. The harvest strategy defines overfishing and the limit reference points which, if they are exceeded, a rebuilding strategy will be implemented. The rebuilding strategies objective is to ensure that the stocks are above the limit biomass level at least 90% of the time. These strategies have been implemented for some species in the fishery including Blue Warehou, School Shark and Eastern Gemfish. Fisheries Administration Paper 12 outlines the key principles that are to be observed in relation to the respective committees/groups within AFMAs decision- making framework. One of the principles is that “advice will be evidence based and use the best available scientific information.” Another principle is that “AFMA seeks, through its scientific processes and committees/groups, to obtain the best quality information and advice” and that the “scientific advisory and reporting processes will be a transparent and open process.” Fisheries Management paper 1 states that the role of the research member of the MAC is to provide advice using the latest scientific developments of relevance to the fishery. All of the agendas, minutes and Chairs summary from the RAG and MAC meeting are placed on AFMA’s website in a timely manner to ensure the issues identified Justification are transparent. c Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available Guidepost information. Met? Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 131 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. AFMAs role is clearly defined in legislation and its actions must always accord with its statutory objectives to which it must necessarily attach primacy. One of the statutory objectives explicitly states that the precautionary principle must be exercised. AFMA is committed to consulting with relevant stakeholders to ensure that it is fully informed, that all options are considered and that the best possible advice provided. MACs, Resource Assessment Groups (RAGs) and industry representative bodies provide the primary means of obtaining this advice. It is therefore important that MACs, RAGs and industry representative bodies frame their advice to AFMA in terms of AFMAs legislative objectives. For example, SEMAC’s most recent TAC recommendation for Blue Grenadier noted that industry preferred a lower first year TAC to lead into a 3 Year MYTAC because it would provide a platform for stability in the economic return from the fishery. The members agreed that this was a risk adverse approach given the strength of the 2010 recruitment had yet to be reflected in commercial data even though the stock was assessed to be in good shape irrespective of the 2010 recruitment event. SEMAC’s recommendation for Blue Grenadier was more conservative than SlopeRAG’s advice and AFMA Management’s position for the first year TAC. Justification d Some information on Information on fishery Formal reporting to all fishery performance performance and interested stakeholders and management management action is provides comprehensive action is generally available on request, information on fishery available on request to and explanations are performance and management stakeholders. provided for any actions and describes how the actions or lack of management system action associated with responded to findings and findings and relevant relevant recommendations recommendations emerging from research, emerging from monitoring, evaluation and research, monitoring, review activity. evaluation and review Guidepost activity. Met? Y Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 132 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. AFMA Management provides formal reports on the implementation of the SESSF Harvest Strategy Framework in the AFMA annual reports and Wildlife Trade Operation (WTO) strategic assessments. These reports are publically available on the AFMA and DotE websites respectively. The AFMA Annual Report outlines the performance of the SESSF against the objectives, performance indicators and measures and includes details on species or stocks that have been assessed as overfished, the number of ETP species being caught, the actions taken to reduce ETP interactions and a report against the performance criteria outlined in the SESSF Management Plan. The WTO strategic assessment reports are produced every three years, a key objective of which is to detail AFMA’s progress in implementing the WTO conditions and recommendations for the SESSF. Details in this report include implementation of harvest strategies and control rules, the TAC setting process and changes to the management arrangements, research projects and monitoring programs. Several other reports such as recommendations for TAC quota species are produced annually and placed on AFMA’s website to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to consider the TACs before they are set. These reports describe the application of the harvest strategy framework, stock assessment methods and TAC setting process. Justification e Although the The management The management system or management system or fishery is fishery acts proactively to authority or fishery attempting to comply avoid legal disputes or rapidly may be subject to in a timely fashion with implements judicial decisions continuing court judicial decisions arising from legal challenges. challenges, it is not arising from any legal indicating a disrespect challenges. or defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability Guidepost for the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Both AFMA and the Industry (through SETFIA) act proactively to avoid disputes through the inclusion of stakeholders in consultation on key management matters and through educative roles and initiatives such as port visits, species workshops and monthly newsletters such as the AFMA Update and SETFIA newsletter. Justification There have been no legal challenges specifically relating to Blue Grenadier. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 133 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. For AFMA’s latest annual report see http://www.afma.gov.au/wp- content/uploads/2012/09/AFMA-Annual-Report-1213.pdf For WTO report see DotE website at References http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/fisheries/commonwealth- scalefish OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Monitoring, control A monitoring, control A comprehensive monitoring, and surveillance and surveillance control and surveillance system mechanisms exist, are system has been has been implemented in the implemented in the implemented in the fishery under assessment and fishery under fishery under has demonstrated a consistent assessment and there assessment and has ability to enforce relevant is a reasonable demonstrated an management measures, expectation that they ability to enforce strategies and/or rules. are effective. relevant management measures, strategies Guidepost and/or rules. Met? Y Y N Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 134 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with AFMA’s compliance program is risk based and includes: CRIMFISH hotline to report illegal or suspicious fishing Intelligence Unit Fisheries Officers (surveillance activities, inspections and education) Vessel Monitoring System Monitoring of Logbooks, Catch Disposal and Fish Receiver Records AFMA Fishery Observers 100% electronic monitoring coverage in some locations The approved management policy for the freezer/processing sector in the South East Trawl Fishery requires 100% observer coverage. The high level of observer coverage provides a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management measures and this is verified through observer reports. There is 100% compliance with implementation of an approved seabird management plan and resulting seabird mitigation. ANAO (2013) provides information on enforcement actions implemented by AFMA, further demonstrating that AFMA’s monitoring, control and surveillance system has the ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules, meeting SG80 requirements. Justification b Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non- non-compliance exist non-compliance exist, compliance exist, are and there is some are consistently consistently applied and evidence that they are applied and thought to demonstrably provide effective applied. provide effective deterrence. Guidepost deterrence. Met? Y N N Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 135 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with The FMA provides for penalties and ‘administrative’ sanctions in the event that fishers do not comply with the management measures for the fishery. Financial penalties such as infringement notices through to prosecutions can be applied. Non-financial penalties such as cancellation or suspension of a fishing license can be imposed. Immediate suspension of a license if quota has not been reconciled within 28 days is one example of a sanction. Administrative sanctions include warnings and cautions when breaches are of a minor nature (AFMA 2013). Other sanctions include amendments to fishing license conditions, directions by fisheries officers (such as for a vessel to immediately return to port) and license suspension. Seizure of catch for breach of a gear condition is another example. AFMA considers administrative sanctions to be more immediate and that they provide a greater deterrent for fishers due to their financial impact (ANAO 2013). However, Tables 5 and 6 of this report demonstrate some retention of Greeneye Spurdog when there is a requirement of zero retention of this species, indicating inconsistency in application of sanctions; therefore, the SG 80 is not met. Justification c Fishers are generally Some evidence exists There is a high degree of thought to comply to demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers comply with the management comply with the with the management system system for the fishery management system under assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, providing information of including, when including, when importance to the effective required, providing required, providing management of the fishery. information of information of importance to the importance to the effective management effective management Guidepost of the fishery. of the fishery. Met? Y Y Y The 100% observer coverage on the client’s vessel to observe fishing operations, collect catch data, test conversion factors and document other observations provides a high degree of confidence that the client complies with the management system. The collection of accurate and comprehensive fisheries data is important for the stock assessment and TAC setting process and this information is submitted in both logbook and catch and disposal records. The accuracy of the data can be verified against the observer reports and through comparison of the estimated weights on the fishers Part B of the CDR with Part C which has been Justification received from the fish receiver. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 136 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s management PI 3.2.3 measures are enforced and complied with d There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance. Guidepost Met? Y There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. Justification AFMA 2013e; ANAO 2013 References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition 2: By the second annual audit the management agency of the client fishery shall demonstrate that sanctions are consistently applied. This shall include specific requirements for other non-target species like Greeneye Spurdog. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 137 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Research is A research plan A comprehensive research plan undertaken, as provides the provides the management required, to achieve management system system with a coherent and the objectives with a strategic strategic approach to research consistent with MSC’s approach to research across P1, P2 and P3, and Principles 1 and 2. and reliable and timely reliable and timely information information sufficient sufficient to achieve the to achieve the objectives consistent with objectives consistent MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. with MSC’s Principles 1 Guidepost and 2. Met? Y Y Y There is a comprehensive five year research plan in place for the SESSF which provides a strategic framework for the SESSF by identifying key research needs in the fishery (AFMA 2010). The five year research plan is one of the performance criteria prescribed in the Management Plan by which the performance of the fisheries may be assessed. AFMA has four research programmes which are directed to meeting AFMA’s legislative objectives and achieve the outcome of ecologically sustainable and economically efficient fisheries. These are fishery stocks and biology (stock monitoring for stock assessments), ecosystem based fisheries management (minimize impacts on fisheries ecosystems), evaluation (to ensure best practice management) and development. This combination of research covers all of the MSC principles and would provide sufficient information to achieve the objectives consistent with principles 1 and 2. The RAG is provided with the research information in a timely manner annually in order to conduct the stock assessment and provide TAC advice for each fishing season. Justification b Research results are Research results are Research plan and results are available to interested disseminated to all disseminated to all interested parties. interested parties in a parties in a timely fashion and timely fashion. are widely and publicly Guidepost available. Met? Y Y Y Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 138 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services PI 3.2.4 The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of management The research plan and all fishery-related research projects funded by AFMA can be found on AFMA’s website where they are uploaded on a timely basis. Further, any additional research results are provided to the RAG and reported in minutes. AFMA holds open forums for NGOs and other interested parties to discuss research twice per year. Media releases, SETFIA newsletters and the AFMA website all disseminate research information as soon as possible. Justification AFMA 2010d References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.5 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.5 management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery has in The fishery has in place The fishery has in place place mechanisms to mechanisms to mechanisms to evaluate all evaluate some parts of evaluate key parts of parts of the management the management the management system. Guidepost system. system Met? Y Y Y The SESSF Harvest Strategy framework underwent a management strategy evaluation (MSE) by CSIRO in 2006-2007. The project identified problems with its initial implementation, developed improvements to the TAC setting procedures and then tested these using the MSE approach. A final report on the outcomes of the MSE was produced with some key outcomes (CSIRO 2009). The MSE testing framework developed in the project is available for further testing of any proposed revisions to elements of the harvest strategy framework. The effectiveness of the compliance activities including port and at sea inspections, VMS and closed areas are evaluated against the objectives of the respective programs on an ongoing basis. These activities are subject to annual risk assessments undertaken by AFMA and appropriate changes made where required. Justification Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 139 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.5 management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system b The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management system management system is management system is subject is subject to subject to regular to regular internal and external occasional internal internal and occasional review. Guidepost review. external review. Met? Y Y Y The current management plan stipulates that AFMA and SEMAC members (some of which are external) must, at least every five years, assess the effectiveness of the management plan. The management plan was implemented in 2003 and while the 2008 review was not completed for operational reasons, there have been management plan updates made a number of times to better align the management plan with the operational and regulatory needs of the fishery. These amendments effectively constitute a review. The assessors have been advised that the management plan is being reviewed currently. The management plan also requires that, each year, SEMAC must conduct an assessment of the performance of the Fishery against the performance criteria contained in the Plan. This assessment is reported on in AFMA’s Annual Report and is publically available on the AFMA website. The performance of the Fishery is also reviewed through annual reports by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences on the status of AFMA managed fish stocks. The SESSF Harvest Strategy refers to reviews and acknowledges that the harvest strategy may need to be amended between reviews under certain circumstances. SEMAC annually reviews the status and progress of SESSF related research. There is currently a significant research project underway to review the data monitoring and assessment needs for the SESSF. As noted above in P 3.2.2, DotE is an external reviewer of the management system through the WTO strategic assessment. A formal external review of the level of coverage within the Observer Program for the SESSF was completed in 2009 (Bergh, et al. 2009). Periodic audits by the Australian National Audit Office such as that done for the Domestic compliance programme further confirms that there is a wide range of review and monitoring mechanisms in place for this fishery and cover all parts of the management system. Justification CSIRO 2009; Bergh, et al. 2009 References Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 140 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.5 management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 141 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Appendix 1.2 Conditions Table A1.3: Condition 1 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by Performance the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on Indicator habitat types Score 75 Habitat types were considered as part of the ERA conducted in 2007 (Wayte et al. 2007) and identified high risk habitats on the outer shelf and upper and Rationale middle slope. However community components were not determined for the fishery. The ERA examined demersal trawl only, but midwater trawl was not covered. There has also been no update since 2007. Therefore this element is not met at the 80 level. Condition By the second annual surveillance audit, the client shall provide documented evidence that, at a scale relative to the fishery, there is on-going monitoring that would be able to detect any increase in risk to habitat. By the first annual surveillance audit provide a copy of the FRDC report (2014/204). Milestones By the second annual surveillance audit, the client shall provide documented evidence that, at a scale relative to the fishery, monitoring is continuing to detect any increase in risk to habitat. Results of FRDC2014/204 project “Implications of current spatial management measures on AFMA ERAs for habitats” which includes all Commonwealth trawl fisheries and has both Petuna Sealord and Sanford on the steering committee of this project will rank the risk from trawling that various habitat assemblages Client action plan face (Figure 1). The project is due to be completed by June 2016. After completion of the project the attached decision tree will be executed (Figure 2). Consultation on Consulted with CSIRO about the milestones and details of the FRDC project. condition Consulted with AFMA on plans for updated ERA. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 142 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Figure 1. Assemblages in the Commonwealth Trawl Sector that will be considered by FRDC project 2014/204. Two habitat assemblages (6 and 8) off western Tasmanian are relevant for the fishery UoC under assessment. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 143 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Fig. 2: Decision tree for condition 1 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 144 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Condition 2: Performance 3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement Indicator Score 75 The FMA provides for penalties and ‘administrative’ sanctions in the event that fishers do not comply with the management measures for the fishery. Financial penalties such as infringement notices through to prosecutions can be applied. Non-financial penalties such as cancellation or suspension of a fishing license can be imposed. Immediate suspension of a license if quota has not been reconciled within 28 days is one example of a sanction. Administrative sanctions include warnings and cautions when breaches are of a minor nature (AFMA 2013). Other sanctions include amendments to fishing Rationale license conditions, directions by fisheries officers (such as for a vessel to immediately return to port) and license suspension. Seizure of catch for breach of a gear condition is another example. AFMA considers administrative sanctions to be more immediate and that they provide a greater deterrent for fishers due to their financial impact (ANAO 2013). However, Tables 5 and 6 of this report demonstrate some retention of greeneye dogfish when there is a requirement of zero retention of this species, indicating some level of inconsistency in application of sanctions and therefore the SG 80 is not met. By the second annual audit the management agency of the client fishery shall Condition demonstrate that sanctions are consistently applied. This shall include specific requirements for other non-target species like Greeneye dogfish. By the first annual surveillance audit provide details of the pre-sailing briefing developed by SETFIA to the CAB together with plans of implementation Milestones By the second annual audit the management agency of the client fishery shall demonstrate that sanctions are consistently applied. This shall include specific requirements for other non-target species like Greeneye dogfish. 1) A specific pre-sailing briefing will be developed and conducted by SETFIA for the senior freezer boat crew covering all management arrangements in the fishery including the 0 retention rule. The briefing will also include identification guides for gulper species. 2) AFMA will provide the outcome of a bi-annual compliance risk Client action plan review. This review will consider the Inherent risk – the risk in the absence of a compliance program, the residual risk – the risk remaining when the program is in place as well as the consequence and likelihood of non-compliance. Depending on the outcome of the review, AFMA will adjust their compliance program accordingly. 3) On an annual basis AFMA will provide a report of all non-compliance, including the once in this fishery as well as sanctions that have been Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 145 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services applied. 4) In order to investigate the retention of Greeneye dogfish, AFMA in collaboration with the client will compare logbook and observer data for shots where retention was reported and investigate the application of the zero retention requirements for this species. . Consultation on Consulted with AFMA on compliance reporting and compliance risk review. condition Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 146 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports Peer Reviewers Overall Opinion Overall Opinion of the Report Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has the assessment team Yes Yes arrived at an appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? (Yes/No) Peer Reviewer Justification See comments The Assessment Team (AT) has provided appropriate evidence to support the scoring given. Where some criticism has been made or a change has been proposed to the scoring, given the generally high scores achieved by this fishery, the overall outcome is unlikely to change. Certification Body Response No response required Do you think the condition(s) Yes With more evidence for some PIs - Yes raised are appropriately If any PI is rescored <80 - No written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? (Yes/No) Peer Reviewer Justification See comments The wording and intent of the single condition are clear and the timeframe for completion is generous. Certification Body Response No response required Client Action Plan Comments Client Action Plan Comments (if included) Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Do you think the client action Yes Yes plan is sufficient to close the conditions raised? (Y/N) Peer Reviewer Justification See comments The planned activities will be review and then, if required, analyse fisheries data to evaluate current risk to habitat components. Certification Body Response No response required Peer Reviewers General Comments Peer Reviewer General Comments (optional) Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 The common names of fish are usually written in lower case and are not given initial capitals. The acronym TEP is not in the glossary, but should Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 147 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services possibly be replaced by ETP in any case. Certifying Body Response The assessment team followed SCS program internal report and referencing style guide, and only proper nouns are capitalized. The acronym TEP has been changed to ETP and consistently been used throughout the report. Peer Reviewers Comments Related to Scores and Rationales Principle 1 Performance Indicator 1.1.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Scoring Issue a: Stock Status. The AT has provided appropriate evidence to support the scoring Relevant information was used given. and the rationale supports scoring at the SG 100 level. The Assessment Team (Team) used information obtained from a stock assessment conducted in 2013 (Tuck 2013). The terms Likely (P >= 70%), Highly Likely (P >= 80%), and High Degree of Certainty (P >=95%) were interpreted by the Team in a manner consistent with CR Ver. 1.3 Annex CB; CB2.2.1.1, CB2.2.1.2, and CB2.2.1.3, respectively. The best estimate of female spawning biomass in 2012 was approximately 77% of the unexploited spawning stock biomass (SB0) and was projected to be approximately Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 148 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services 94% SB0 in 2014. The lower bound of the 95% CI for the spawning biomass estimate is, and has been, above both the limit and target reference points. This is consistent with using the term “Highly Degree of Certainty (i.e. P >= 95%) with respect to fishing not impairing recruitment, and thus merits scoring at the SG100 level. Scoring Issue b: Stock Status in Relation to Target Reference Point. Relevant information was used and the rationale supports scoring at the SG100 level assigned by the Team. The Assessment Team (Team) used information obtained from a stock assessment conducted in 2013 (Tuck 2013). Estimated spawning biomass has been consistently above the target reference point (B48%) over the history of the fishery. It was estimated to be at 77% of SB0 in 2012, and projected to be at 94% of SB0 in 2014. Thus, scoring at the SG100 level is merited. Certification Body Response No response required Performance Indicator 1.1.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 149 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Scoring Issue a: Appropriateness The AT has provided appropriate of reference points evidence to support the scoring given. Relevant information was used and the rationale supports the scoring. The limit and target reference points are based on justifiable and reasonable practice (proxies). They are appropriately defined and are estimated in the stock assessment. Scoring Issue b: Level of limit reference point. Relevant information was used and the rationale supports the scoring. The limit reference point is appropriate for Blue Grenadier, and is consistent with Australia’s HSP in which 20% of the unfished level is the default biomass at which stocks are considered to be at an unacceptable risk. Performance has been tested by a Management Strategy Evaluation. Scoring Issue c: Level of Target Reference Point Relevant information was used, and the rationale supports the scoring. The Team concluded that scoring is warranted at the SG80, but not the SG100 level. While the setting of TACs is precautionary (B48% in lieu of B40%) it does not explicitly take into account the ecological role of the stock. Certification Body Response No response required Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 150 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Performance Indicator 1.1.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information NA Yes available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or NA Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Blue Grenadier is not The AT has provided overfished. appropriate evidence to support the scoring given. Certification Body Response No response required Performance Indicator 1.2.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes No information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes No rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Scoring Issue a: Harvest Elements a-d are fully justified strategy design. and supported. Relevant information was used The high degree of certainty and the rationale supports the about lack of shark finning scoring. relies solely on the 100% observer coverage. Some Australia’s HSP and the SESSF evidence that the observers HSF provide for monitoring, are tasked to observe and stock assessment, harvest record shark finning would control rules and management provide the evidence to actions. The harvest strategy is support the high degree of responsive to the state of the certainty for SG100 of PI 1.2.1 stock and is designed to achieve e that is currently lacking. stock management objectives, Without such evidence the as reflected by the target and score should be reduced to 95. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 151 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services limit reference points. Scoring Issue b: Harvest strategy evaluation. Relevant information was used and the rationale supports the scoring. The SESSF HSF has been evaluated using Management Strategy Evaluation. The 2013 assessment indicates that the biomass of Blue Grenadier has been maintained well above target levels, demonstrating the harvest strategy has been achieving its objectives. Scoring Issue c: Harvest strategy monitoring. Relevant information was used and the rationale supports the scoring. There is 100% observer coverage of the freezer vessels. Recurring assessments that incorporate fishery-dependent and independent data are used to monitor the stock. In years when a stock assessment is not undertaken, the state of the stock in relation to pre- established breakout rules is monitored by the Resource Assessment Group. Scoring Issue d: Harvest strategy review. Relevant information was used and the rationale supports the scoring. The SESSF HSF has been reviewed and revised since its inception in 2005, and Australia’s HSP was reviewed in 2013 to examine its effectiveness. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 152 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Certification Body Response Peer Reviewer 2 response: The AT conclude that there is sufficient evidence for the score to remain at 100 for PI 1.2.1e based on the following: AFMA’s 2013 SESSF Management Arrangements Booklet (referred to as AFMA 2013e in the report) describes the role of the observer in section 4.2.2 as “The role of an observer is to collect independent, accurate and reliable data on Commonwealth fishing operations, catches and interactions with the environment by the boat and its fishing gear.” AFMA (2013e) then indicates that this is achieved through several means, including “observe compliance of the boat with its fishing concession.” In addition, Section 5 of AFMA 2013e states that one of the conditions applying to the processing and landing of fish as detailed on relevant boat SFRs or permits is that “Shark finning is NOT permitted. Fins specified above must be landed attached to the carcass.” Performance Indicator 1.2.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or No Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Scoring Issue a: Harvest control The AT has provided rules design and application. appropriate evidence to support the scoring given. Relevant information was used and the rationale supports the scoring. Well defined harvest control rules are in place, designed to reduce the exploitation rate as the LRP is approached. The HSF also requires that stock rebuilding strategies are developed if stocks fall below the LRP. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 153 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Scoring Issue b: Harvest control rules account for uncertainty. Relevant information was used and the rationale supports the scoring. The SG 80 scoring guideline is met, as the harvest control rule takes into account the main uncertainties. Uncertainties have been examined both through MSE, and sensitivity analyses conducted within the stock assessment. The Team has pointed out that stock structure is uncertain with respect to Blue Grenadier from the western Tasmanian and eastern Bass Strait regions of the CTS. Fish from this area may not be part of one highly mixed south eastern Australian stock, though they are treated as a single stock across this range in the assessment. Thus, additional evidence is needed to show how scoring at the SG100 level is merited. Scoring Issue c: Harvest control rules evaluation. Relevant information was used and the rationale supports the scoring. Data obtained from mandatory logbooks, reporting of landings, and 100% at-sea observer coverage for freezer vessels demonstrate effective control of fishery exploitation rates. Scoring at the SG100 level is merited. Certification Body Response Peer Reviewer 1 response: As the reviewer has indicated, the AT has acknowledged the Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 154 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services uncertainty in relation to stock structure. The SG100 requirement for PI 1.2.2b is that “The design of the harvest control rules takes into account a wide range of uncertainties.” The AT has concluded that a wide range of uncertainties has been taken into account in the harvest strategy and that the uncertainty in stock structure is not the most influential component in relation to this scoring issue. The uncertainty re the stock structure has been addressed against other scoring issues, resulting in a reduced score for those issues. Under PI 1.2.3a, SG100 is not met because the uncertainty in stock structure indicates that the required information is not comprehensive. Under PI 1.2.4d, the AT decided that SG 100 is not met because the uncertainty over stock structure has not been explored in the assessment. Performance Indicator 1.2.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Scoring Issue a. Range of The AT has provided information. appropriate evidence to support the scoring given. Relevant information was used and the rationale supports the scoring. The Team scored this issue at the SG80 level; this is appropriate considering that there is detailed information incorporated into regular stock assessments and uncertainties are explored in the assessment process. Scoring at the SG100 level was not merited, due to uncertainty regarding stock structure. The Team notes that there is some evidence that Blue Grenadier from the western Tasmanian and eastern Bass Strait regions are unlikely to be part of one highly mixed south eastern Australian stock, but they are Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 155 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services treated as a single stock across the CTS in the assessment. Scoring Issue b. Monitoring. Relevant information was used and the rationale supports the scoring. The Team scored this issue at the SG100 level. Multiple indicators are monitored routinely, with a high degree of certainty. Excellent information is available on all fishery removals from the stock. Data sources include logbooks, 100% observer coverage for freezer vessels, and inspection of all landings. TACs are set on a multi-year basis; however, interim monitoring is conducted with respect to assessment predictions, and breakout rules govern the response. Scoring Issue c. Comprehensiveness of Information. Relevant information was used and the rationale supports the scoring. Catches by gear other than mid- water and bottom trawl are negligible. Certification Body Response No response required Performance Indicator 1.2.4 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes No information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes No rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 156 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Scoring Issue a: The AT note that there is Appropriateness of assessment uncertainty about the stock to stock under consideration. structure but that most of the catch comes from one area. It is Relevant information was used not clearly stated whether the and the rationale supports the uncertainty associated with the scoring. stock structure has been evaluated in the modeling (e.g. The Blue Grenadier assessment in assessing the blue grenadier estimates stock status using an as two stocks). If this modeling age-structured integrated has been done, then it needs to analysis implemented in the be clearly articulated and generalized stock assessment supported by appropriate software package, Stock references. Synthesis (SS). The assessment If no modeling of possible is appropriate for the stock and different stock structures has for the harvest control rule and been conducted, then it is takes into account the major arguable that the PI 1.2.4a SG features relevant to the biology 100 is not fully met as not all of of the species and the nature of the major features of the the fishery. biology of the species have been taken into account. In which Scoring Issue b: Assessment case the PI should be rescored. approach. It is noted that it would also be appropriate for there to be a Relevant information was used recommendation to test and the rationale supports the different assumptions of stock scoring. structure though the population modeling and MSE. The assessment estimates stock status relative to unfished levels and both target and limit reference points. Scoring Issue c: Uncertainty in the assessment. Relevant information was used and the rationale supports the scoring. Scoring at the SG100 level is merited. The assessment takes into account uncertainty and evaluates stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 157 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Scoring Issue d: Evaluation of the assessment. Relevant information was used and the rationale supports the scoring. The Team noted that scoring at the SG100 level was not merited. Issues included: 1) unexplained poor model fits to the catch rate time series of the non-spawning fishery, and 2) uncertainty over stock structure. Scoring Issue e: Peer Review of the assessment. Relevant information was used and the rationale supports the scoring. The Team scored this SI at the SG80 level. Internal reviews of the assessment are conducted, but a recent peer review has not been conducted. Certification Body Response Peer Reviewer 2 response: The AT has acknowledged the uncertainty regarding the stock structure of Blue grenadier. Under PI 1.2.3a, SG100 is not met because the uncertainty in stock structure indicates that the required information is not comprehensive. Under PI 1.2.4d, the AT determined that SG 100 is not met because the uncertainty over stock structure has not been explored in the assessment. The AT concludes that a further reduction against another scoring guideline is not warranted however a recommendation has been added in the report for this PI. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 158 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Principle 2 Performance Indicator 2.1.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes No rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA With evidence - N/A improve the fishery’s If Rescored <80 - No performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Scoring Issues a, b, c, and d: For 2.1.1a text in the justification states ” However, there are Relevant information was used several species for which status and the rationale supports the is uncertain, the stocks are scoring. below limit reference points or there is some level of Overall, the Team assigned a overfishing”. score of 80 for this PI. There are no “main” retained species If some stocks are below limit under the >5% of total catch reference points then neither criterion; however, five 2.1.1a SG 80 nor 2.1.1a SG 60 deepwater shark species are are met, thus the scores of ‘Y’ for assessed at high risk. The both these are incorrect in the partial strategy is based on a scoring table. network of spatial closures and a zero retention limit for For 2.1.1c there are clearly some species. measures in place that would be expected to ensure that the Explicit target reference points fishery does not hinder recovery are not set for many other and thus meets the SG 60. For retained species. the SG 80, there is clearly a partial strategy but the text in the scoring table does not provide any evidence that the measures are demonstratively effective. There is an identified issue of lack of effectiveness associated with the issue of retention of greeneye dogfish. Therefore, the AT should either provide evidence that the measures are demonstrable effective in not hindering recovery or rebuilding, or this PI needs to rescored at <80 and an appropriate condition raised. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 159 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Certification Body Response Peer Reviewer 2 response: Re 2.1.1a, the AT acknowledges that there may be some confusion with the inclusion of comment that some stocks are below the limit reference point. However, this comment refers to species that are not “main” retained and do not meet SG100. Given that they are not “main” retained they meet SG80 by default. Re 2.1.1c, concerns over deepwater sharks given their susceptibility are understandable; however there are several factors to consider in the scoring for 2.1.1c. First, it should be noted that this fishery operates within a very small area of the total SESSF management area. Most concern is with Harrisson’s dogfish and Southern dogfish and the major focus of the Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy is for these species (AFMA 2012a). The known distribution of Harrisson’s Dogfish indicates it is unlikely to overlap with the client fishery. Further, a review of available information on the distribution of gulper sharks (Williams et al. 2012) provides no indication that Southern dogfish are distributed in the region of the client fishery. There is also no indication from Tables 5 and 6 of the report that these 2 species are caught by the fishery. Overall, there are demonstrably effective management measures in place for Harrisson’s dogfish and Southern dogfish such that the client fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. The Platypus shark is found around southern Australia from southern Queensland) to Perth, including Tasmania and are currently included as a quota species under a basket quota for several deepwater shark species. The stock levels of these species are assessed using Tier 4 methodology consistent with the Harvest Strategy framework in place for the fishery. Woodhams et al. (2013) classify these species as not subject to overfishing on the basis of the large area closed to fishing (an area from which historical catch was taken) and the low catches taken in recent years and uncertain with regard to the level of biomass. The management actions outlined in the Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy will also provide some protection for other dogfish species including Endeavour dogfish and Greeneye spurdog (AFMA 2012a). Estimates of depletion levels of more than 90% for these two species are based on surveys of the southern NSW upper-slope between the late 1970s and the late 1990s (Graham et al. 2001). Endeavour dogfish are not located in the area of the client fishery (Graham and Daley 2011). Greeneye spurdog are also widely distributed and the client fishery operates in only a small area of the total distribution. A condition relating to management of Greeneye spurdog was attached to the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts’ accreditation of the SESSF as a Wildlife Trade Operation in February 2010. However, as indicated in the report, more recent WTO declarations do not include a condition for Greeneye Spurdog. There are low levels of catch of this species reported and Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 160 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services presented in Tables 5 and 6 of the report. The distribution and the low level of catch suggest the fishery is unlikely to hinder recovery or rebuilding of the stock which would indicate that the SG 80 for this indicator is met because it is about the outcome of specific retained species and not about the requirements per se. Nevertheless, there is a requirement that there be no retention of Greeneye spurdog. The Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy includes a requirement for an annual review of available data and the management strategy itself will be reviewed at the end of its fifth year. The AT agree with the peer reviewer that a condition is needed but determined it is better placed under the management PI 3.2.3 which deals with compliance and enforcement (see belwo). Graham KJ, Andrew NL and Hodgson KE (2001) Changes in relative abundance of sharks and rays on Australian South East Fishery trawl grounds after twenty years of fishing. Marine and Freshwater Research 52:549–561. Graham, KJ and Daley RK (2011). Distribution, population structure and reproduction of gulper sharks (Centrophorus spp., Centrophoridae in south-eastern Australian waters. Marine and Freshwater Research. 62:583–595. Williams A, Daley R, Green M, Barker B and Knuckey I. (2012) Mapping the distribution and movement of gulper sharks, and developing a non-extractive monitoring technique, to mitigate the risk to the species within a multi-sector fishery region off southern and eastern Australia. FRDC Final Report Project 2009/024. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Australia. pp 320. Performance Indicator 2.1.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes No information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes No rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Scoring Issues a, b, c, d, and e: For 2.1.2d the text clearly describes a substantive Relevant information was used monitoring programme but this Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 161 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services and the rationale supports the is not evidence that the strategy scoring. is achieving its overall objective. The AT need to provide Non-quota species have been evidence that one or more of assessed through AFMA’s the five main retained species ecological risk assessment (all sharks) are showing some program. AFMA has a formal measure of improved stock Bycatch and Discarding Plan in status over time. If this cannot place. Also, a strategy to be demonstrated, this PI manage impacts on deepwater element is not met and the PI dogfish has been implemented. should be rescored. In addition, there is 100% observer coverage of the client For 2.1.2e (as for PI 1.2.1e) fishery. some evidence that the observers are tasked with There is clear evidence the recording and reporting strategy for managing retained information about shark finning species is being implemented is needed as evidence here. successfully, and some evidence it is achieving its objectives. However, ongoing testing for all retained species is not conducted. Certification Body Response Peer Reviewer 2 response: The AT conclude that in relation to 2.1.2d there is sufficient information to meet the SG100 requirement that “There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective.” This conclusion is based on the 100% observer coverage for the fishery, the Upper Slope Dogfish Management Strategy and its built-in review process, as well as the information above for 2.1.1c. The comment re 2.1.2e is addressed at 1.2.1e, above. Performance Indicator 2.1.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Scoring Issues a, b, c, and d: The AT has provided appropriate evidence to Relevant information was used support the scoring given. and the rationale supports the Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 162 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services scoring. There are no main retained species for the fishery in terms of catch weight (<5%) but five deepwater shark species are assessed at high risk and are therefore considered main retained species for the purpose of this assessment. There is high quality, comprehensive data collection for all species through various means, including catch and effort logbooks, catch disposal records, 100% observer coverage The SESSF risk assessments have not been revised for over 5 years, precluding the scoring of SI(a) at the SG100 level. Quantitative estimates of status with a high degree of certainty are not available for many of the retained species; thus the SG100 level is not met for SI(b). Available information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage retained species, hence SG80 is met for SI(c). Ongoing mortality of retained species is monitored with 100% observer coverage. Thus SG100 is met for SI(d). Certification Body Response No response required Performance Indicator 2.2.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information Yes Yes available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 163 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification No main bycatch species by The AT has provided weight (>5%) appropriate evidence to support the scoring given. Certification Body Response No response required Performance Indicator 2.2.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information Yes Yes available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification 100% observer coverage The AT has provided appropriate evidence to support the scoring given. Certification Body Response No response required Performance Indicator 2.2.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information Yes Yes (but no score is given) available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes No rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA For 2.2.3c the met response for improve the fishery’s SG 100 is (Y/N) and appears to performance to the SG80 level? be interpreted as N but there is (yes/no/NA) no specific text referring to the SG100. Some additional text to explain the scoring is needed. No overall performance indicator score is given. It appears that the score should be 85. Peer Reviewer Justification 100% observer coverage Certification Body Response Peer Reviewer 2 response: amendments to the report have been made to reflect comments. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 164 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Performance Indicator 2.3.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes No rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Ecological Risk Assessments For 2.3.1b, SG 100 is flagged as and 100% observer coverage. not met. However, there is no text to justify this. The text indicates that interactions with ETP species are well documented and understood, and that number of injuries and mortalities are small, which tends to suggest that this SG100 element should be met. It would be appropriate for the AT to revisit this and either clarify why the SG100 is not met or to rescore. Certification Body Response Additional explanation has been included in the rational why this element is not met at the SG 100 level. Performance Indicator 2.3.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes No rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Strategies in place and 100% The text to justify the 2.3.2c observer coverage. Albatross SG100 score is weak. The mortalities have not decreased presence of 100% observer below 1 bird per vessel, coverage will encourage full precluding a score of 100. compliance with the measures and will enable appropriate monitoring data to be collected. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 165 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Evidence to substantiate the SG 100 being met requires analysis and reporting of the observer data to show that the measures are actually being implemented. Either this evidence should be reference of this element should be rescored. Certification Body Response The rational under for 2.3.2c has been amended and additional evidence about implementation of measures have been included. Performance Indicator 2.3.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes No information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes No rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification 100% observer coverage. Full For PI element 2.3.3a the AT assessment of ETP species is has provided appropriate lacking, precluding a score of evidence to support the scoring 100. given. For PI element 2.3.3.c the question is not about whether a full assessment has been done but on whether there is adequate information. For example, some detail about the population biology of the ETP species may be needed but is seldom available. While the score is probably correct, some additional explanation here would be appropriate. PI element 2.3.3b has not been scored. The CR v1.3 clearly states that this section must be scored unless 2.3.3a is data deficient and has been assessed using the RBF. This is not the case, so this element should be scored. As it is likely that all elements will be met, this may Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 166 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services lead to score change for the PI. Certification Body Response PI 2.3.3b has now been scored and a rational provided in the scoring table. Performance Indicator 2.4.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Demersal trawl expected to Note that the interpretation of have greater impacts to the amount of bottom contact by bottom habitat. midwater gear is speculative. There should be data available that can define more precisely what this is. If these data have not been analysed and reported this would be the basis of a recommendation. Certification Body Response The Condition for PI 2.4.3 which relates to information about gear impact on the habitat addresses the peer reviewer 2 comment. The client action plan details how it will be done. A recommendation is not mandatory and therefore would not necessarily add to the condition already placed on the fishery. Performance Indicator 2.4.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information Yes Yes available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Strategy in place but not The AT has provided tested. appropriate evidence to support the scoring given. Certification Body Response No response required Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 167 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Performance Indicator 2.4.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised Yes Yes (but the wording could be improve the fishery’s improved, see below). performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Mapping exists to characterize Suggested wording for the the distribution of habitat Condition: By the second types; however, monitoring annual surveillance audit, the needed to detect potential client shall provide change in risk to bottom documented evidence that, at a habitat. scale relative to the fishery, there is on-going monitoring that would be able to detect any increase in risk to habitat. Certification Body Response The team has taken the suggested wording for the Condition and the text has been amended. Performance Indicator 2.5.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Ecosystem modelling and The AT has provided empirical evidence support appropriate evidence to scoring at the SG80 level. The support the scoring given. lack of directed investigations precluded a score of 100. Certification Body Response No response required Performance Indicator 2.5.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 168 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Has all the relevant information Yes Yes available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Strategy, but no formal plan in The AT has provided place. appropriate evidence to support the scoring given. Certification Body Response No response required Performance Indicator 2.5.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Impacts identified but not The AT has provided fully investigated. appropriate evidence to support the scoring given. Certification Body Response No response required Principle 3 Performance Indicator 3.1.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 169 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Peer Reviewer Justification An effective national legal The AT has provided system delivers management appropriate evidence to outcomes consistent with MSC support the scoring given. Principles 1 and 2. Management has been tested and proven to be effective. Legislation provides for binding decisions about native title rights. Certification Body Response No response required Performance Indicator 3.1.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information Yes Yes available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes (but score given as 95- rationale used to score this 100), see below) indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The consultation process is All SG 100 elements are effective. Roles are clear. indicated as being met and are supported by text that justifies this but the score is given as 95-100. As presented the score should be 100. The position needs to be reviewed and clarified. Certification Body Response Peer Reviewer 2 response: Agreed. Score has been changed to 100. Performance Indicator 3.1.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Long term objectives are given The AT has provided Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 170 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services in the SESSF Management Plan. appropriate evidence to support the scoring given. Certification Body Response No response required Performance Indicator 3.1.4 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The management system The AT has provided provides positive incentives for appropriate evidence to sustainable fishing. Discarding support the scoring given. concerns precluded a score of 100. Certification Body Response No response required Performance Indicator 3.2.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information Yes Yes available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The SESSF harvest strategy has The AT has provided explicit short term objectives appropriate evidence to that are well defined, support the scoring given. measurable and consistent with the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Certification Body Response No response required Performance Indicator 3.2.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 171 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The decision making processes The AT has provided are effective. Measures and appropriate evidence to strategies have been support the scoring given. demonstrated to achieve objectives. Disputes are proactively avoided through SETFIA. There have been no legal challenges specifically relating to Blue Grenadier. Certification Body Response No response required Performance Indicator 3.2.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information Yes Yes available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification Evidence of some retention (in The AT has provided 2013) of greeneye dogfish (a appropriate evidence to zero retention species) support the scoring given. precluded a score of 100. Certification Body Response No response required Performance Indicator 3.2.4 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes Yes rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 172 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification A comprehensive five year The AT has provided research plan is in place for the appropriate evidence to SESSF which provides a strategic support the scoring given. framework by identifying key research needs in the fishery. Certification Body Response No response required Performance Indicator 3.2.5 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant Yes Yes information available been used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or Yes No rationale used to score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised NA N/A improve the fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The AT have awarded the highest CR Ver 1.3 Annex CB guidance score possible here. However, the (GCB4.11.1) indicates that evidence presented for review review of the management and performance evaluation system by another agency principally focuses on the TAC within the country can be management through the MSE. considered an External While this may be the most Review. Thus, it appears that critical part of management, the Department of the evidence for the regular internal Environment (DotE) qualifies. and external review and performance evaluation is not presented. There is only one reference, to a HS evaluation in 2009. Elements of management such as the observer programme, port inspection, at-sea inspections, aerial surveillance, VMS and closed area effectiveness monitoring get no mention. It is also noted that the 2003 Management Plan 5 year review did not take place in 2008 (page 37) and there is current review in Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 173 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services progress. This hardly fits with a SG1 100 pass. To achieve a 100 score for this PI considerably more evidence to demonstrate the comprehensiveness of the review and evaluation processes and reports are needed that cover the regularity, and internal and external components. Certification Body Response Peer Reviewer 2 response: The AT notes that review and evaluation processes are a strength of AFMA as a management agency. The report has been amended to include several other examples of review and evaluation processes that are routinely conducted and reported on by AFMA. This further evidence meets SG 100. As the report states, several management plan amendments were completed which effectively constitutes a review. AFMA has advised that the Management Plan review was completed in 2014. Any Other Comments (optional) Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 1) The AT note (page 23) that porbeagle shark are CITES appendix II listed but not appendix I and go on to state that porbeagle are therefore considered as by-catch rather than ETP. However, in a footnote on page 23, the AT also note that “Porbeagle Sharks are protected under the EPBC Act and must be released if they arrive on the vessel alive.” As the designation of ETP is against both national and international legislation, if porbeagle are protected under the quoted national legislation then they should considered and dealt with as an ETP species (PI 2.3) in this assessment. Further, on page 24 two other sharks are described as “designated as conservation dependent under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act of 1999”. These too have been dealt with as by- catch when, if protected, should have been assessed under the ETP PIs. 2) A number of sets of data and analysis presented in this report are rather old and should be updated I order to give the current picture. While this may not be an issue for some data sets and reports, for others it is relevant. For example, Table 4 gives fishing mortality and stock status for the quota species with the highest catches dated at 2012. In 2013 a new pink ling assessment was conducted based, for the first time, on two separate stocks (east and west) that give updated stock status Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 174 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services information relevant to this certification (http://fish.gov.au/reports/finfish/Pages/pink_ling.aspx). This represents a significant change that is not recognised in this report. The AT should review critical elements and ensure that, where relevant, the most up-to- date information is provide and used in the assessment. 3) There was a substantial increase in discards in 2011 to about 20% of the total catch. 4) There is a section in the text on marine reserves and parks (p19) that includes the area of the reserves. It would be useful to be provided with a figure of the proportion of the fishery area that is protected from bottom fishing. 5) Habitat (p20): Referencing Tingley (2014) in relation to the benthic impact of midwater trawl gear in this fishery is inappropriate and should be removed. This study considered the use of midwater trawl gear to target a bentho- pelagic species (alfonsino) where there was no intent to fish the gear on the seabed. In equivalent fisheries to the blue grenadier fishery (hoki, southern blue whiting) in New Zealand, midwater gear is often intended to be fished on the seabed and thus has a very similar impact to true demersal gear. The ground type for the blue grenadier fishery would probably enable midwater gear to be intentionally fished on the bottom. Table 6 shows a wide variety of by-catch species taken in midwater gear, which may be evidence for the gear being used close to or on the seabed. Some more analysis of these data (e.g. catch by gear height off the seabed) could clarify if this was the case. What is required here is evidence that the midwater gear is not fished on the seabed. This could be derived from observer data or from a frequency plot of gear depth related to seabed depth (i.e. gear height off the seabed) during fishing. Without such evidence, this gear type should be treated as though it was being used for bottom fishing. 6) The recover time for corals can be extremely long, often tens to hundreds of years. The figure of >10 years given (p20), while factually correct (i.e. 200 years is more than 10 years), clearly understates the current knowledge of recovery times for corals. 7) The data for the area of the trawl footprint (p21) dates from 2001. This is not current and only represents a single year. This should be updated for this assessment to a time period that is relevant to the current fishery and covers Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 175 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services more than one year to give an understanding of how this area changes over time and how the cumulative area changes. For example, a period of the last five years would be suitable. If such data are not available then this should be the basis for a condition or a recommendation. 8) Important statements are made in relation to habitat vulnerability (p21) where it is stated that “Fishers estimated that 48% of the region is untrawlable, with far more untrawlable ground in subregions to the west of Tasmania (76% untrawlable ground; range for individual subregions 52-86%), compared to subregions east of, and including, south Tasmania (15% untrawlable ground; range 0-48%).” No references or source for these statements are provided. A reference should be provided for these statements or they should be removed. It would be informative to provide a plot of these untrawlable areas overlain with the trawl footprint and reserve areas to demonstrate where habitat will have been impacted and where it is protected. 9) On page 21 there is the following statement: “Demersal trawl fishing is generally not expected to cause serious or irreversible harm to any habitats”. This statement is subjective, unsubstantiated and, more importantly, it is not true, especially when taken with the previous sentence “there is limited new information available on the marine habitat structure on a scale relevant to the fishery.” The statement about demersal trawling either needs substantiation, making more specific to certain habitat types or should be removed. 10) Greeneye spurdog is referred to on page 24. It is not clear if this is the same species as the greeneye dogfish referred to elsewhere in the report. 11) The statement on page 24 that “The known distribution of Harrisson’s Dogfish indicates it is unlikely to overlap with the client fishery.” needs a reference. 12) The title of Table 7 does not make clear what the data are or how they were obtained. This should be clarified. 13) There a lack of clarity of the number and type of vessels in the UoC. Section 3.5.8 describes fleet characteristics in the fishery and includes a single freezer vessel and 3-4 wet boats. Section 53 b states only freezer vessels are eligible and lists three vessels from two companies. Section 3.1 includes two licence holders, an additional three to four boats and freezer vessels only . The composition of the UoC should be clarified. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 176 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services 14) Section 3.5.13 refers to the Management Plan and its review. Given the failure to review in 2008, the ‘current’ review becomes more important. It is stated that the management plan is currently being reviewed. Given how long these assessments take, has this review been completed (and what did it find) or when is it expected to be completed? 15) Those cases where consensus on scoring could not be reached (p42) should be identified in the report to ensure that appropriate scrutiny of these PIs is enabled. 16) Table 4.3 (page 42) gives the breakdown of species into main and minor retained and bycatch. Given that the risk assessment process identified five shark species as ‘high risk’, if not designated ETP status, these should at least have been designated as ‘Main’ species and should appear in this table, irrespective of the size of the catch of these species. Certification Body Response Peer Reviewer 2 response: 1) The porbeagle shark is not listed as a threatened species under EPBC. It is listed as a migratory species. On the EPBC website it states: “Targeted commercial fishing for longfin and shortfin mako and the porbeagle shark is prohibited in Commonwealth waters. The EPBC Act provides an exception to these prohibitions where species are caught as bycatch in accordance with management arrangements accredited under Part 13 of the Act” which applies to the SESSF. Since retention of this species is allowed it has been considered under retained species Similarly retention of the other 2 species is allowed even they are listed on EPBC act. The most appropriate place to consider these species is therefore under retained species. All species listed as high risk species based on the ERA have been considered as main retained species for the purpose of this assessment. 2) The AT agrees that where possible, the most up-to-date information should be provided and used in the assessment. The reference mentioned was not available at the time the report was originally drafted, but has now been amended to reflect this update. 3) Discards from the client fishery are typically low with all catches retained unless there are gear problems that result in the need to discard some or all of the catch. The high discard rates referred to are across the trawl sector and were in a year following a peak in recruitment and high levels of small fish were discarded. Discards are accounted for in the assessment. 4), 8) as indicated on page 19, the marine reserves shown in the figure are all closed to trawling thus the figure itself gives an indication of the extent of the region closed to trawling. There are additional closed areas introduced by AFMA for various reasons such as protecting deepwater shark. Providing an estimate of the proportion closed to trawling is complicated because much of the ocean floor inside and outside of the reserves is not trawlable. Overall, the reserves cover an area of 388 464 km2. Larcombe et al. 2006 provides maps which give an indication of the extent and intensity of fishing by various fishing methods. (Larcombe, J., Charalambou, C., Herrería, E., Casey, AM. and Hobsbawn, P. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 177 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services (2006) Marine Matters National. Atlas of Australian Marine Fishing and Coastal Communities. Bureau of Rural Sciences, Canberra) 5) the AT decieded to leave the reference but added provisos that Table 6 in the report shows a variety of by-catch species that could indicate that midwater gear is used close to the seafloor and therefore more closely resembling the impact to true demersal gear. An updated ERA that includes midwater trawl in conjunction with meeting condition 1 (for 2.4.3) should provide more information in the future. 6) include now the words “often much more than 10 years” 7) the AT agrees with the peer reviewer that the information is old and incomplete. A condition was already assigned to 2.4.3 to ask for more complete and updated information. Under MSC certification requirements, conditions can not specify what type of information may be required but the client action plan indicated more information will be made available through an FRDC project and there is a plan to updated the ERA . 9) this statement has been removed 10) this has been corrected. 11) a reference has been added. 12) Details on the source of information and clarification that the data based on logbook data provided by AFMA (2014b). 13) The unit of certification includes 2 freezer vessels, one from Sealord and one from Sanford. There are 3 freezer vessels that may be used, however only two fish in the fishery at any one time. Section 3.1 and section 3.5.8 has been amended to clarify this. 14) AFMA has advised that the effectiveness of the SESSF Management Plan was assessed by AFMA and SEMAC in 2014. No significant issues or deficiencies were identified through this review process. 15) There were no PIs where consensus could not be reached and this has been clarified in the report 16) This was a mistake in the table only and the five ‘high risk’ shark species have been considered as main retained species for this assessment. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 178 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Appendix 3. Stakeholder Submissions 3.1 Written Submissions made by Stakeholders during Consultation Opportunities and Explicit Responses from the Assessment Team to Stakeholder Submissions Sabine Daume Manager – Sustainable Seafood Scientific Certification Systems, Inc. 2000 Powell St. Suite 600 Emeryville, CA 94608 Email: [email protected] 16 October 2013 Dear Sabine Re: Australia blue grenadier - Announcement of full assessment and Proposed Assessment team WWF appreciates the opportunity to provide comment regarding the proposed assessment team for the Australia blue grenadier fishery for the purposes of the main assessment under the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification methodology and procedures. Assessment team members that are appointed by the Conformity Assessment Body (in this case SCS) to undertake MSC assessments must be independent, experienced qualified expert individuals. WWF considers that all proposed assessment team members for this full assessment process do exhibit the required experience and expertise to carry out this assessment against the MSC standard. However, WWF considers that not all the proposed assessment team members are independent of the fishery or its government management and scientific bodies as well as the broader industry association. WWF believes that one proposed assessment team member, Ian Knucky, while clearly having the required expertise and experience in fisheries needed to undertake the assessment, has significant potential for conflict of interest. There are several conflicts that need to be considered. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 179 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Ian Knucky has been and continues to be employed and consulted directly by many Australian fishing industries, including the South East Trawl Fisherman’s Association that is related to the fishery proposed for assessment, and government management and scientific bodies, to conduct a vast array of duties and activities regarding bycatch and also stock assessment work. These same government management and scientific bodies are directly involved in the fishery under assessment. Given the listed conflicts, as well as potential others, WWF does not consider it appropriate for Ian Knucky to be an assessment team member for this fishery assessment under MSC standards. Therefore WWF strongly recommends that SCS remove Ian Knucky as a proposed assessment team member and replace him with another experienced and qualified expert who is independent of the fishery. Please do not hesitate to contact myself by phone on +61 437 960 812 or by email [email protected] if further information or clarification is required. Yours sincerely Peter Trott Policy Manager – Fisheries Markets WWF AUSTRALIA SCS Response: SCS proposed an alternative team member for the assessment of the Australia blue grenadier fishery and confirmed Kevin McLoughlin as Principle 1 Expert for the assessment after the final consultation period. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 180 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Document Title | CONFIDENTIAL 3.2 Submissions made by Stakeholders about the Public Comment Draft Report in Full, Together with the Explicit Responses of the Assessment Team Specifically what (if any) changes to scoring, rationales, or conditions have been made. Date 11/06/2015 SUBJECT: MSC’s Review and Report on Compliance with the Scheme Requirements Dear Sabine Daume: . Please find below the results of our partial review of compliance with scheme requirements. CAB Scientific Certification Systems (SCS) Lead Auditor Sabine Daume Fishery Name Australia Blue Grenadier Document Reviewed Public Comment Draft Report Ref Type Page Requirement Reference Details PI CAB Team Response 14294 Major 66-85 CR-27.10.7 In Principle 2, the The scoring for 2.1.1, The report has v.1.3 team shall score PIs these PIs is not 2.1.2, been updated to comprised of done by scoring 2.1.3, account for differing scoring element. Further 2.2.1, these elements (species or for PIs 2.1.1-2.1.3, 2.2.2, comments. Brier habitats) that the rationales say 2.2.3, shark are not a comprise part of a that there are five 2.3.1, main species component affected species, but Table 2.3.2, and Table 4.3 by the fishery. 4.3 lists six 2.3.3 has been species. And for revised. PIs 2.2.1-2.2.3, the rationales only speak to porbeagle shark, but Table 4.3 lists brier shark as main as well. The designation of all sharks as "main" is mentioned by the CAB in their response to peer review comments on page 158. 14295 Major 66- CR-27.10.6.1 Rationale shall be 2.1.1: The 2.1.1, 2.1.1: The text 69, v.1.3 presented to rationale does not 2.2.3 has been 78-79 support the team’s speak to how the revised in conclusion "main" (i.e., response to vulnerable) these Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 181 of 193 species meet the comments. SG80 level. Table 4.3 has 2.2.3 scoring been revised. issues b and d: The rationales state that there are no main bycatch species; however, Table 4.3 states that there are two. 14296 Major 66-69 CR-27.8.8 The CAB shall use Table 4.3 states 2.1.1 Greeneye v.1.3 the criteria in Table that the greeneye Spurdog should AC2 to make a spurdog is data not have been decision on whether deficient; reported as data a fishery may or however, the PSA deficient and may not be data- has not been the text has deficient with used to score this been revised. respect to one species. Performance Indicator or more. 14297 Guidance 68 *N/A v.n/a (blank) The condition 2.1.1 The text has mentioned in the been amended rationale is for PI to 3.2.3. 3.2.3 not PI 3.2.4. 14298 Major 66-96 CR-27.4.2 The CAB shall The two gear 2.1.1, Separate scoring v.1.3 confirm the types have not 2.1.2, tables have proposed unit of been scored as 2.1.3, been developed certification for the separate UoCs 2.2.1, for PI 2.1 and assessment to within Principle 2. 2.2.2, 2.2. include: Given their 2.2.3, The target stock(s) different impacts 2.3.1, The two UoCs The fishing method on the 2.3.2, have not been or gear components 2.3.3, scored ice (including within Principle 2, 2.4.1, separately for vessels) pursuing it seems likely 2.4.2, PIs 2.3*, 2.4* that stock that the gears 2.4.3, and 2.5* should be scored 2.5.1, because the separately. 2.5.2, information 2.5.3 available is not specific for gear types. The score is based on the worst case scenario. Additional explanations were added at the start of the scoring tables to explain this. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 182 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services 14299 Major 84 CR-27.10.6.2 The rationale shall The rationale for 2.3.3 The text has v.1.3 make direct scoring issue b been amended reference to every states that it does and a rational is scoring issue and not need to be now included whether or not it is scored since the for this scoring fully met. RBF was used to issue score PI 2.3.1. The RBF was not used to score that PI so a rationale for this scoring issue is needed. This was also raised by the peer reviewer on page 146. 14300 Minor 145- CR-27.14.9.2 27.14.9 Upon The CAB response 2.3.2, This was a copy 149 v.1.3 receipt of the peer to peer reviewer 2.3.3, error and reviewers' written comments are 2.4.1, responses from comments, the not provided for 2.4.2, the team have team shall: all Pis in the 2.4.3, now been 27.14.9.2 report. 2.5.1, added. Incorporate peer 2.5.2, reviewer comments, 2.5.3 team responses to those comments and any appropriate changes into the peer review draft report to create the Public Comment Draft Report. 14301 Guidance 85-86 *N/A v.n/a (blank) The scoring table 2.4.1 This has been shows a "P" for amended. The partially meeting SG 100 is not PI met. 2.4.1 at the SG100 level; The two UoCs however, the have not been rationale states scored that only the separately SG80 level was because the met. It is assumed information that the "P" available is not should actually be specific for gear "N". types. The score assigned is It should be noted based on the that if P2 is worst case scored separately scenario. for the two UOCs Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 183 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services (as per TO 14298) that the partial scoring for this PI would not be as it is presented currently. 15295 Minor 90 CR-27.10.6.1 Rationale shall be PI 3.1.4: It is 3.1.4 The text has v.1.3 presented to unclear why a been amended support the team’s partial score was to clarify the conclusion attributed to this partial score. PI. Additional clarification is required within the rationale as to what is and what is not met at the SG100 level. 15296 Major 107 CR-27.10.6.1 Rationale shall be PI 3.1.3: The 3.1.3 PI 3.1.3 has v.1.3 presented to information been amended support the team’s presented in the to reflect the conclusion rationale speaks high level to the SESSF objectives Management contained Plan objectives. within the These objectives Fisheries are again referred Management Ac to in the rationale 1991 that is for PI 3.2.1. administered by However, it is AFMA. unclear how the PI 3.2.1 has also broader been amended management- to include the wide objectives fishery specific relate to the objectives from scoring of PI3.1.3. the as the management information plan. presented seems specific to the fishery, not the management body (AFMA). Additional information or clarification is required. 15297 Guidance 117 CR-27.10.6.1 Rationale shall be PI 3.2.3. scoring 3.2.3 The word v.1.3 presented to issue a: The use of ‘comprehensive’ support the team’s the word has been conclusion 'comprehensive' deleted. in the first Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 184 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services sentence of the rationale implies that the SG100 level is met. Suggest ammending. 15298 Guidance 126 CR-27.11.1.2 The CAB should Condition 2 set 3.2.3 The final v.1.3 draft conditions to for PI 3.2.3: The sentence of the follow the narrative condition is condition has or metric form of prescriptive been removed the PISGs used in rather than and placed in the final tree. following the the client action narrative or plan as metric form of suggested. the SG. For example, the final sentence of the condition appears to more of a 'how' rather than an outcome. The final sentence should be removed from the condition and placed in the Client Action Plan. 15299 Major 124- CR-27.11.1.4 The CAB shall set Milestones are 2.4.3, Milestones have 126 v.1.3 one or more absent from both 3.2.3 now been auditable and Condition 1 and 2. included for verifiable conditions These need to be both conditions. for continuing included as per certification if the CR 27.11.1.4. fishery achieves a score of less than 80 but more than 60 for any individual PI. (…) 27.11.1.4 The CAB shall draft conditions to specify milestones that spell out: The measurable improvements and outcomes (using quantitative metrics) expected each year. The specific timeframes over which the Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 185 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services milestones and the whole condition must be met. The outcome and score that shall be achieved at any interim milestones. 15303 Minor 42 CR-27.12.1.2 27.12.1 The CAB The response to This section has v.1.3 shall determine if the possibility of been revised the systems of vessels fishing tracking and tracing outside the UoC in the fishery are does not sufficient to make sufficiently sure all fish and fish address the products identified question. and sold as certified by the fishery It is unclear why originate from the the report starts certified fishery. The by describing the CAB shall consider fresh vessels that the following points are not included and their associated in the UoC. risk for the integrity of certified Section 3.1 states, products: 27.12.1.2 "There are The possibility of additional three vessels fishing to four boats that outside of the unit also fish Blue of certification. Grenadier and operate midwater and demersal trawl nets." It is unclear whether these gear types are included in the UoC, whether members of the fishery client group also fish using the fresh boats and trawl nets, and if they fish using these methods at the same time. Section 5.2 of the report states that, "Product landed by vessels operated by Sealord or Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 186 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Sanford will be certified." However, the report does not clarify if these boats fish other species, have different gear types, the risk of substitution with retained bycatch species, or how the certificate would be affected if/when other boats join the certificate. 15305 Minor 43,44 CR-27.12.2.1 27.12.2 If the CAB Section 5.3 states Vessels do not v.1.3 determines the that "Chain of need to seek systems are custody starts at MSC CoC; this sufficient, fish and the first point of was added fish products from sale unless there incorrectly. the fishery may is some value enter into further added processing To avoid certified chains of occurring in confusion it has custody and be designated been stated that eligible to carry the processing chain of custody MSC ecolabel. The facilities in which will start at the CAB shall case chain of port of landing. determine:27.12.2.1 custody starts at The scope of the the point of fishery certificate, landing." Not only including the parties is this statement: and categories of parties eligible to Inconsistent use the certificate (which could lead and the point to confusion as to (s) at which chain of when CoC custody is needed. actually begins a. Chain of custody load by load). certification shall always be required It contradicts that following a change on page 44, of ownership of the where CoC is product to any party stated to being at not covered by the port of landing. fishery certificate. b. Chain of custody It contradicts that certification may be on page 43 required at an whereby the earlier stage than vessels "are change of eligible to seek Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 187 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services ownership if the and secure MSC team determines CoC in order to that the systems sell product within the fishery derived from the are not sufficient to fishery with the make sure all fish MSC claim". Why and fish products do the vessels identified as such by need CoC if CoC the fishery originate begins at from the certified landing/first point fishery. c. If the of sale? point where chain of custody certification is required is covered by the fishery certificate, the team shall determine the parties or category of parties covered by the fishery certificate that require chain of custody certification. 15308 Minor 9 CR-27.12.4 Where there are IPI Section 3.2 states, v.1.3 stocks within the "Blue Grenadier scope of comprise close to certification teams 98% of catches by shall follow Annex freezer trawlers CH. operating on the winter spawning fishery (Tables 4 and 5). All catch is retained by these vessels and processed on- board… Other retained species are generally processed in the fish meal plant. " The traceability section of the report does not mention IPI stocks or retention of other species, or how the traceability and substitution risks Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 188 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services are being monitored and managed by the client group. 15311 Minor 42-43 CR-27.12.1.3 27.12.1 The CAB The report does Risks are v.1.3 shall determine if not include a considered low the systems of section on risk of tracking and tracing substitution up to in the fishery are or at the point of sufficient to make landing. sure all fish and fish products identified Only three boats and sold as certified from two by the fishery companies originate from the (Sealord and certified fishery. The Sanford) are CAB shall consider included in the the following points client group. The and their associated report does not risk for the integrity include a section of certified on risk of products: 27.12.1.3 substitution at The opportunity of the points of substitution of landing thus the certified with non- report lacks certified fish prior to sufficient detail or at landing on the possibility fraudulent claims of substitution at from within and the point of outside the certified landing with fishery. other boats from the company that are not (yet) part of the client group. 15312 Minor 43, 8 The report relies No the on traceability traceability assessments assessment has carried out by not been taken other CABs and from the NZ for other hoki fishery or fisheries. Even another CAB. though the 3 vessels in the UoC It was only are owned by stated that the companies risk of involved in the NZ substitution hoki fishery, this with other does not preclude uncertified a thorough and product is low fresh traceability because the NZ assessment being hoki (Blue Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 189 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services carried out for Grenadier in this particular Australia) is UoC, especially already because the certified. traceability requirements in Product from the CoC CR v1.3 the Australia are different to blue grenadier those used fishery is previously by the identified by NZ hoki fishery. distinctive company`s Furthermore, product/ item some clarification code. on who is in the client group is Table 1 has needed. Table 1 been amended does not to include reference Sanford in client Sanford, but group. Sanford is referred to being in the client group in the traceability section. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 190 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency Using Table C3 in CR v1.3, the overall surveillance frequency score is 1 based on the 2 Conditions being issued relative to 2 different Performance Indicators. Accordingly, a remote surveillance audit frequency will be in place for this fishery starting with an off-site surveillance in the first year after award pf certification and an on-site surveillance audit during the second year when both Conditions are scheduled to be closed out. Table A4: Fishery Surveillance Plan Score from CR Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Table C3 Category Off-site On-site Off-site On-site surveillance 1 Remote surveillance surveillance surveillance audit and re- audit audit audit certification site visit Appendix 5. Client Agreement Petuna Sealord Deepwater Fishing and Sanford (client group) have accepted the report and the Conditions as evident from the letters attached. In order to maintain MSC certification, the client group has agreed to undergo surveillance audits in accordance with the schedule in Appendix 4. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 191 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 192 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services SANFORD LIMITED SUSTAINABLE SEAFOOD 6 August 2015 Dr Sabine Daume SCS Global Services MSC Assessment Team Leader By email only Dear Dr Daume, Sanford Limited has accepted the BLUE GRENADIER FISHERY MSC FULL-ASSESSMENT FINAL REPORT 15 July 2015. We are aware that in order to maintain the MSC certification that we must undergo surveillance audits which will cover two conditions, these being that by the second surveillance audit; 1) The client shall provide documented evidence that, at a scale relative to the fishery, there is on- going monitoring that would be able to detect any increase in risk to habitat. 2) The management agency of the client fishery should demonstrate that sanctions are consistently applied. This shall include specific requirements for other non-target species like Greeneye Spurdog. And the recommendation: . There is uncertainty regarding the stock structure of Blue Grenadier and this has not been examined in the stock assessment. The audit team recommends to include this uncertainty in future assessment or an analysis/justification of why this recommendation is not necessary should be undertaken. Yours sincerely, Greg Johansson Chief Operations Officer Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 193 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services